Iraq fall-out grows: Uranium claims pose new threat to Blair

[IndianaGreen]

Iraq fall-out grows

Uranium claims pose new threat to Blair

Leader
Saturday July 12, 2003
The Guardian

The government's insistence in the run-up to the war that Saddam Hussein was "continuing to work on developing nuclear weapons" was a crucial part of its case that Iraq should be disarmed, if necessary, by force. And the most striking evidence was its claim put forward in the September 24 dossier that Iraq was seeking "significant quantities of uranium from Africa". The prime minister told the house then that "if he (Saddam) were able to purchase fissile materiel illegally, it would only be a year or two (before Iraq acquired a 'usable nuclear weapon')". This image of the Iraqi tyrant shopping around for uranium was a compelling one: "Saddam 'could have nuclear bomb in year'", the Times headlined its defence editor's story the next day. The Sun summed it up more bluntly: "He's got'em ... Let's get him." The British assertion then received the ultimate accolade: it was quoted by President Bush in January in his state of the union address.

Nine months later, this claim has now come unstuck to the extent that, far more seriously than the famous "45 minutes" prediction or the much later dodgy dossier, it threatens to become a real smoking gun - not for Saddam Hussein but for Tony Blair. Even before the war began, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that allegations about Iraqi efforts to secure uranium from Niger were based on forged documents. The White House has now admitted that Mr Bush's information (which he sourced directly to the British) was wrong and should not have been used. Secretary of state Colin Powell says that he decided not to repeat the claim because the evidence "didn't hold up". CIA officials are quoted as saying that they expressed their doubts about the uranium claim within the Bush administra tion and had already urged the British government not to use it in the September dossier.

The British response, reiterated yesterday by Downing Street, is to insist that their evidence is based not on the forged documents but on entirely separate material from a foreign intelligence agency. If so, why has Britain been unable to convince Washington that the claim is genuine? Whitehall's answer that it cannot reveal the identity of its source - even to its US intelligence "cousins" - is simply unbelievable. There is also confusion over the date on which Britain allegedly first learned about the forgeries. Whitehall insists this was not until October last year although other accounts suggest that the documents had been circulating since the end of 2001. The government should also be able to indicate the nature, if not the source, of its "separate information", yet even off the record it has put forward conflicting stories.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,996814,00.html

[0007]

1. junior just keeps getting deeper & deeper

....all the world is enjoying watching these two worms struggle.

The White House would like for us peons to believe it is just a little mistake....and we indeed haven't even got to 'The Energy Papers' and Cheney yet, or the '911 Investigations'

Clinton and his little mistake has more of a human face than these ugly ducklings that brought interity and morality back to the White House, LOL!

The flag is at half mass & is flying up side down. God have mercy, I mean God Bless America.

[opihimoimoi]

2. Blatant LIES wull not foster Integrity and Morality , Bush lied about that

too. Boy, are we suckers. now look:

2 wars, many dead, much destroyed, troops still being killed, 15 million out of work, economy in the pits, confidence in the WH at all time low, Nat Debt nearing 7 trillion$, but far worse, Bush has become a JOKE to the point of snickering. The international leaders are laughing at our President, they cannot believe this guy is getting away with the crap he has... oh my