Query re: Forged yellowcake documents and Bush's WMD claims

[Jim Lane]

We know that the Niger yellowcake documents were forgeries and that Joe Wilson so reported, well before Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. We also know that, in that speech, Bush referred to alleged Iraqi attempts to buy uranium. What information is there about the relationship between these two facts?

Specifically, Bush attributed the information to British intelligence. I've been told that the British government's "Butler Report" said in 2004 that British intelligence had never seen the forged documents, and based its conclusion on other evidence. Therefore, it's now being argued that the yellowcake forgery didn't play a role in Bush's fabricated pretext for war.

I'd appreciate it if someone knowledgeable about the details would comment on this point. It seems hard to reconcile this argument with George Tenet's statement that the famous "sixteen words" in Bush's speech shouldn't have been allowed to go in. Perhaps the Blair government is doing a little rewriting of history?

[Emit]

1. I posted here, a similar, albeit different, question

yesterday.


See post #59:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1939214#1947536

(There are links and whatnot, explaining my query.)

In a nutsehll, though, I asked whether it appears that the British report was possibly based on the same faulty info (or was even really the same report) that the WH confirmed was bogus - more of a circuitous deceit thing. In all honesty, without confirmation of who the Brits obtained their info from, we will never know.

[JDPriestly]

2. If either the British or the Bush administration

had any other evidence of Saddam's buying or possessing nuclear materials that were not in the control of the UN by 2002, they would be screaming about it to the high heavens. We would have heard about it by now. The British never had any evidence we do not know about -- and we don't know about any evidence supporting their claim that Saddam tried to buy uranium. The Blair government had no evidence of such purchases.

Remember Kelly. We still don't know for sure how he died. The lengths to which our governments went to deceive us and to cover up for their deception are unimaginable.

[Jim Lane]

6. They had *some* other evidence, not real good though

It seems undisputed that an Iraqi official visited Niger in 1999 to talk about trade. I think it's an inference, not supported by any direct evidence, that he might have been interested in uranium, because that's Niger's principal export. According to Talking Points Memo, a UK parliamentary committee investigated and stated that there were two sources for the report, only one of which depended on the forged papers: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_11.php#003169

TPM also says that, although British intelligence hadn't seen the forgeries, they'd seen a summary of the documents provided by Italy. Therefore, the Butler Report's attempt to break the link between the forgery and Bush's speech rests on pretty blatant weasel-wording -- stating something that's technically true (that U.K. intelligence hadn't seen the documents) but omitting another fact without which the first one is materially misleading. (That's the SEC's standard for truth in corporate communications to shareholders.)

All this is separate from the interesting question of who forged the documents. Regardless of who forged them (and who should perhaps end up sharing a cell with Karl Rove), it's probably more important to note that Bush made a major public claim based on documents that had been definitively determined by the U.S. government to be forgeries. It really seems like there was an effort to "launder" the fake information by sending it to the U.K. and then citing it as a British report, knowing that the British hadn't seen the underlying documents and therefore couldn't determine, as Wilson had, that they were forged.

[applegrove]

3. There is something posted in the last few days that explains the forgeries

Not down to the last person - but pretty close to how they ended up in Italy.

Seems the only connection to Bush WH is through a whole list of people. No chance Bush could be directly connected to that. Just a whole bunch of right wing spooks running around the world working up scenarios of their own free will. Sharing only the philosophy. Seems these Megalomaniacs like to spoon feed each other. Neocons published their vision of the world. And all sorts of shady foreign characters started to spoon feed them.

Will not be a smoking gun there.

[Emit]

4. This was a good one

Yglesias: WHO FORGED THE NIGER DOCUMENTS? At the heart of the WMD lies..., by 'Nothing Without Hope'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1939214#1939224

Is it the same you're thinking of?

[applegrove]

5. Nope.

[lawladyprof]

7. Yes, that's the article I was looking for too--eom

N/T