The 2002 INR Memo on Uranium

Via Judicial Watch, the NY Times has received the declassified version of the 2002 INR memo questioning the notion that Niger had sold 500 tons of yellowcake to Iraq.

As Eric Lichtblau explains, there is not a lot of news here; the memo was described thusly in the 2004 SSCI report:

(U) On March 1, 2002, INR published an intelligence assessment, Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely. The INR analyst who drafted the assessment told Committee staff that he had been told that the piece was in response to interest from the Vice President's office in the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. The assessment reiterated INR's view that France controlled the uranium industry and "would take action to block a sale of the kind alleged in a CIA report of questionable credibility from a foreign government service." The assessment added that "some officials may have conspired for individual gain to arrange a uranium sale," but considered President Tandja's government unlikely to risk relations with the U.S. and other key aid donors. In a written response to a question from Committee staff on this matter, the Department of State said the assessment was distributed through the routine distribution process in which intelligence documents are delivered to the White House situation room, but State did not provide the assessment directly to the Vice President in a special delivery.

Ambassador Joe Wilson manages to overcome his publicity shyness long enough to deliver the following quip to the Times:

Mr. Wilson said in an interview that he did not remember ever seeing the memo but that its analysis should raise further questions about why the White House remained convinced for so long that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

"All the people understood that there was documentary evidence" suggesting that the intelligence about the sale was faulty, he said.

"All the people"?  Perhaps the Ambassador could check whether his wife is available to explain the CIA position, which, per the SSCI report, was at odds with that of the INR:

Throughout the time the Niger reports were being disseminated, the CIA Iraq nuclear analyst said he had discussed the issue with his INR colleague and was aware that INR disagreed with the CIA's position. He said they discussed Niger's uranium production rates and whether Niger could have been diverting any yellowcake. He said that he and his INR counterpart essentially "agreed to disagree" about whether Niger could supply uranium to Iraq.

The CIA analyst said he assessed at the time that the intelligence showed both that Iraq may have been trying to procure uranium in Africa and that it was possible Niger could supply it. He said his assessment was bolstered by several other intelligence reports on Iraqi interest in uranium from other countries in Africa.

Oh, well.  This article does remind me of another point I belabored relating to Mr. Wilson and the outing of his wife - the INR had been at loggerheads with the CIA about Saddam's nuclear capabilities in the run-up to the war.  In addition to any normal sense of "we were right, they were wrong" that might have prompted a bit of chest-thumping at the INR in June of 2003, the senior officials at State had other reasons for pique - the INR dissent to the CIA / DIA position was mis-placed in the wrong section of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, and Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations, with George Tenet famously in attendance, did not exactly hold up well to subsequent discoveries.

So might some senior State Dept. folks have been inclined to take a few shots at the CIA as the Niger-uranium story unfolded in June and July of 2003?

Per the SSCI, the CIA initiated the Wilson trip and the INR thought it would be an inconclusive waste of time.  Might folks at State have belittled the Wilson trip to Bob Woodward, Walter Pincus, Nick Kristof, Andrea Mitchell, or other reporters?  Might they have also mentioned that the time-waster was set up by the wife of the guy who brought back the report the CIA was using to promote their position?

I continue to believe it is highly likely.  But someone would have to ask these reporters (and get an answer) for the public to find out.

MORE:  The Financial Times had a boost for the CIA side - per their account, Libya had more uranium than was accounted for in Niger's official records; black market production at closed mines is the theory on offer.  That said, I cannot find the IAEA report to which this June 2004 article refers.

Comments

[Seixon]

Well, what gets me is that the INR, Carl Ford, Richard Armitage, or Colin Powell... didn't report to the President the INR view that the Niger documents were forgeries.

WINPAC was kept out of the loop on the forgeries due to Plame's CPD squad sitting on them and not passing them around the agency...

Seems to me that if Richard Armitage is Woodward's source, this thing gets a bit tangled as either he or Carl Ford (who would have reported to Armitage) should have known about the INR's issue with the forgeries.

[kim]

Maybe Joe didn't read the quote "Some officials may have conspired for individual gain to arrange a uranium sale", or maybe he didn't want us to read it.
==========================================

[kim]

TENET, not Armitage. And I suspect that instead of State giving the play-by-play, it was Hero George. The trouble is that he was trussed up in the custodial closet of the pressbox.
=====================

[kim]

I still suspect the three billion dollars given by Saddam to Khaddafi was for a bomb. I wonder where that money is? Arafat's was so thoroughly invested that it is well documented.
=============================================

[Jeff]

The SSCI works hard to distort the CIA's position, to be sure with the help of some CIA folks like the nuclear analyst -- whose account, read closely, doesn't actually contradict the INR position. All the CIA's nuclear analyst says is it that it was possible Niger could supply uranium. No kidding. (It's really disheartening that we went to war on the basis of crap like that.) One item of interest that does seem to be newsworthy is that the INR report was distributed not only by Powell's office but also by the DIA.

It's also interesting that the INR analyst who wrote the assessment was told it was in response to interest from Cheney's office, just like Wilson was told. Gee, I wonder how they could have gotten that idea.

[Jeff]

INR thought it would be an inconclusive waste of time.

Not quite right. INR thought the trip would be redundant because the embassy in Niger had good contacts. It's a little but of turf protection -- and as we know the ambassador to Niger came to the same conclusion as Wilson -- and also confidence in their own position. (It's on p. 40 of the SSCI report.) This difference makes it less likely that the INR would be belittling the Wilson trip. In fact, according to your theory of the motivations, if anyone would be doing belittling Wilson's trip, it would be people who shared WINPAC's view noted on pp. 40-41 of the SSCI, that the trip's results would be suspect and not believable.

I don't think the State folks were taking shots at the CIA folks -- or specifcally the CPD folks -- over this. It still may well be the case that Woodward's source was Armitage. But not for the motivations you mention.

[kim]

What's disheartening is that you still don't understand why we went to war. You won't understand the next time we go to war, either.
===========================================

[Seixon]

Jeff, I don't see what your point is in the last part. There is no one disputing that Cheney's office had an interest in clearing up the earlier reporting on uranium and Niger. What matters is what the CIA ended up telling Cheney's office as a result of this interest.

[kim]

Has it occurred to you that neither Wilson, nor the Embassy in Niger had the contacts they thought they had?
===========================================

[kim]

What about Khan's Grand Parade of Africa?
==========================================

[topsecretk9]

---Mr. Wilson said in an interview that he did not remember ever seeing the memo but that its analysis should raise further questions about why the White House remained convinced for so long that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

"All the people understood that there was documentary evidence" suggesting that the intelligence about the sale was faulty, he said.---

Why does Wilson always initiate a denial disclosure every time he is to answer a question?

Well of course he didn't see the memo, it was classified up until NOW, right?

Or is he caveat "remember" as in "I could have I just don't remember"

[topsecretk9]

What about Khan's Grand Parade of Africa?
==========================

The CIA missed that too, no?

[Cecil Turner]

Yet another argument for reading the source document rather than relying on the Times's summary. As Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton points out:

“On the one hand, they seem to confirm the president’s assertion that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium. On the other hand, they suggest that such a deal would have been difficult to consummate.”

You won't find any of that in the Times. In fact, Lichtblau pretends the analysts' doubts are on "sought," and provides a nice little misdirection to imply "Bush Lied":

The analysts' doubts were registered nearly a year before President Bush, in what became known as the infamous "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address, said that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

He then overstates the importance of the African Uranium while simultaneously mischaracterizing it:

The White House later acknowledged that the charge, which played a part in the decision to invade Iraq in the belief that Baghdad was reconstituting its nuclear program, relied on faulty intelligence . . .

Did they now? Are we again (still) conflating "sought" with "got"? And as to the importance, seems to me Tenet said: "the NIE’s Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them."

Lichtblau then goes on to tie it in with Libby's case, pretending Wilson was proved correct (on the "Cheney twisted intelligence" charge). Are Times reporters really that clueless? Or are they "twisting" the story?

[maryrose]

" But someone would have to ask these reporters{ and get an answer}for the public to find out"
This is the crux of the entire investigation. Is this in fact happening or if not; when is it going to happen? This whole case is incomplete without turning over all the rocks and finding out who knew what when. I mean aren't those the main journalistic questions? The why of course is still in the speculation area.

[kim]

Eric is stupid or lying, and you've just documented it, CT.
=======================================

[topsecretk9]

Eric is stupid or lying, and you've just documented it, CT.
=======================================

Or lazy. Looks like cut-n-paste boilerplate to me.

[Rick Ballard]

Tom,

This may be the IAEA watch puppy report to which you refer. It certainly reflects the proud incompetence that I've come to expect from ElBaradei - a good summary of IAEA's inability to perform their assigned task and a good reason to pay absolutely no attention to any claims on the part of the IAEA asserting that any country is "safe".

[kim]

Right, ts, but at this point to use boilerplate is either stupid or deceitful.
=====================================

[kim]

Actually, it's either stupid or stupid. He either is too stupid to know the facts, or too stupid to know he can't get away with not knowing them anymore. I guess I'll have to retract to 'ignorant or ignorant'. What I think is ignorant is that people pay him for that crap. Are the people paying stupid or lying? Or is ignorance endemic? I hear CJR still defends that ignorant Burkett forgery article. Is there no limit to ignorance?
=====================================

[kim]

OK OK OK. The oceans hem a lot of it in.
===========================================

[Rick Ballard]

Well, it could be stupid and deceitful. It is the NYT, so neither can be excluded. It's definitely decent propaganda so it does comply with NYT standards.

Much better than the little artillery shell/rocket problem.

[kim]

I love it.

America: A vast tract of ignorance concentrated at the edges where the oceans hem it in.
==============================================

[kim]

All the News We Make Fit to Print.

or

All the News We Fix to Print.

and my old favorite

All the News Left to Print.
============================================

[TP]

Kim. How about the old Mad Magazine slogan "All the news that fits"?

[topsecretk9]

Or lazy

I should have said "stupid and lazy"

I think all qualify as stupid, that's for sure.

[clarice]

What more can be said of such journalistic malpractice?

[Jeff]

Cecil - Thanks for the link to the document. It's funny you say that there is

Yet another argument for reading the source document rather than relying on the Times's summary

but then you seem to rely on a claim of Judicial Watch's to the effect that the documents seem to confirm Bush's assertion about Iraq seeking uranium that seems completely unsupported by the source document. Maybe Fitton is referring to something in one of the many other documents they got their hands on, which I hope they'll post.

The White House later acknowledged that the charge, which played a part in the decision to invade Iraq in the belief that Baghdad was reconstituting its nuclear program, relied on faulty intelligence . . .

Did they now?

Yes. Check out Fleischer on 7-7-03, followed up by a statement from the White House reported on by the NYT and the WaPo on July 8.

And as to the importance, seems to me Tenet said: "the NIE’s Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them."

Yeah, which is basically Tenet shifting the blame for the fact that the claim made it into the SOTU back to the White House. And don't forget that the CIA, and Tenet personally, had aggressively intervened with the White House and with Hadley in particular to get the claim taken out of Bush's important Cincinnati speech back in the fall of 2002, and the White House put the claim back into the SOTU. Evidently it mattered to them, however insubstantial it was as a piece of intelligence.

[maryrose]

How about NYT- Stuck On Stupid

[steve]

There is no word "Thusly." The correct word is thus.

[topsecretk9]

Wait a second...

Lichtblau then goes on to tie it in with Libby's case, pretending Wilson was proved correct (on the "Cheney twisted intelligence" charge). Are Times reporters really that clueless? Or are they "twisting" the story?

We're/are Lichblau's arms tied because a true accounting of facts would directly contradict all of the papers previous reporting --ala Kristof -- on the subject?

And so therefore placing old Nick in a precarious position of being "de-bunked" by his own paper?

Consistency over accuracy, avoiding another Judy Miller/WMD reporting type situation?

[sue]

Thusly

[topsecretk9]

missed opportunity... should have started my last comment with

"Wait...just one minute"

[Dennis]

The claim that the uranium transfer would be hard to consummate seems dubious. Niger has a border with Libya. Assuming at the time that Libya and Iraq were on sufficiently good terms, moving the uranium from Niger to Libya and then by sea to Iraq does not seem particularly difficult.

[Bill in AZ]

I think the Uranium was going straight to Libya anyway. Didn't even need to go to Iraq.

[Terrie]

This is off topic but always on our minds.

Byron York at The Corner just posted the following, which you can find at http://tinyurl.com/9hata:

WHAT IS FITZGERALD UP TO?

Amid all the news of Abramoff, Alito, and the NSA-al Qaeda leak, one thing we haven't been hearing much about in the last few weeks is the Patrick Fitzgerald CIA leak investigation. Neither, apparently, have some of those who have been most affected by it. Sources close to Karl Rove say they have not heard from Fitzgerald since December, when there was public speculation that Fitzgerald was going to make a decision on Rove's future fairly soon. So far, however, there's been nothing, and while reporters have been keeping an eye on the courthouse in Washington, there apparently haven't been any Fitzgerald sightings there recently. The sources wish they could say what it all means, but at the moment, they say they just don't know.

[Cecil Turner]

you seem to rely on a claim of Judicial Watch's to the effect that the documents seem to confirm Bush's assertion about Iraq seeking uranium that seems completely unsupported by the source document.

Completely unsupported? The lead-off paragraph (of five) concerns a report of possible negotiations:

34. (S/NF) A CORRUPT FORMER PRESIDENT MAY HAVE NEGOTIATED WITH IRAQ. [Followed by a deleted sentence apparently not declassified because of intelligence sources and most likely a comm intercept]

Yes. Check out Fleischer on 7-7-03, followed up by a statement from the White House reported on by the NYT and the WaPo on July 8.

Is "relied on faulty intelligence" an accurate summary, even of Fleischer's statements? At best it's incomplete, ignoring Fleischer's two supportive assertions in favor of the latter:

• Yes, I see nothing that goes broader that would indicate that there was no basis to the President's broader statement. But specifically on the yellow cake, the yellow cake for Niger, we've acknowledged that that information did turn out to be a forgery.
• We see nothing that would dissuade us from the President's broader statement.
• So, yes, the President' broader statement was based and predicated on the yellow cake from Niger.

Besides, the definitve Administration position was from Tenet, who says we relied on a British government report (and shouldn't have, since we couldn't independently verify it). And since that's self-evident from the "16 words" . . .

Yeah, which is basically Tenet shifting the blame for the fact that the claim made it into the SOTU back to the White House.

Tenet is correct in that the NIE does in fact have 6 key judgments on Iraq's nuclear program, and African Uranium isn't in there. The pretense that Nigerien uranium was a major factor in the go to war decision is revisionist.

[kim]

Joe's revisionsism. And who else, I wonder.
============================================

[Neo]

A quick read of the Butler Report indicates that Africa seems to have at least two countries (actually there are dozens), Niger and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

On page 123 section 499 states "We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded.

Did Joe Wilson go to the DRC ? Thought not.

Did the INR or SSCI say anything about the DRC ?

I seem to continually come upon this state of mind that has given Africa the status of a country and not a continent.

[maryrose]

Joe's revisionism, msm revisionism, CIA revisionism, anything to weakenen the position to invade Iraq. People not elected, trying to set policy and grab unto the spotlight and the fading glory{Wilsons}.
After Corn outed Plame she lost cache, Joe was marginalized and the spotlight faded.

[nittypig]

The best IAEA document on Libyan Yellowcake is:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/proliferation/libya/2004-05-28_npt-safeguards-agreement-implementation_iaea0504_fas_org.pdf

The IAEA report has only 2263 tons of yellowcake in Libya. All imported between 1978 and 1981. The part that the IAEA didn't know about was imported prior to July 1980 (when the Libyan agreement with the IAEA went into effect) and amounts to 587 tons. All came from two producers in one country (presumably Niger) and documents from the producers match the Libyan accounts. In a subsequent report gov/2004/59 (google it) the IAEA veried the number of drums in which the yellowcake was stored and randomly sampled a number of drums to confirm the contents and amount.

So where did the FT come up with 2600 tons, and the 1500 tons in Nigerien records? Libya had, by the IAEA's account, 2263 tons of yellowcake, of which 1676 tons had been declared to the IAEA prior to Dcember 2003.

I think the FT article is wrong.

[nittypig]

The best IAEA document on Libyan Yellowcake is:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/proliferation/libya/2004-05-28_npt-safeguards-agreement-implementation_iaea0504_fas_org.pdf

The IAEA report has only 2263 tons of yellowcake in Libya. All imported between 1978 and 1981. The part that the IAEA didn't know about was imported prior to July 1980 (when the Libyan agreement with the IAEA went into effect) and amounts to 587 tons. All came from two producers in one country (presumably Niger) and documents from the producers match the Libyan accounts. In a subsequent report gov/2004/59 (google it) the IAEA veried the number of drums in which the yellowcake was stored and randomly sampled a number of drums to confirm the contents and amount.

So where did the FT come up with 2600 tons, and the 1500 tons in Nigerien records? Libya had, by the IAEA's account, 2263 tons of yellowcake, of which 1676 tons had been declared to the IAEA prior to Dcember 2003.

I think the FT article is wrong.

[TM]

There is no word "Thusly." The correct word is thus

Yeah, SpellCheck has the same hang up. But what about that musical classic, "Thusly Spake Zarathustra"?

[clarice]

nitty, I think anyone who thinks records of sales from mines in a desperately poor country run by corruptocrats overseen by French officials is the sort of person who bought a salad shooter.

[nittypig]

Hey, no argument with that. But the FT article asserts that the IAEA found 2600 tons of which 1100 were undeclared. The IAEA report (from June 2004) doesn't say that at all, it says that there were 587 (undisclosed) tons imported prior to July 1980.

So I don't doubt that Libya could well have acquired undisclosed uranium from Niger, and could have done so after 1981. However, Libya has not disclosed any such purchases to the IAEA, and the IAEA is entirely ignorant of any such activity. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but sort of affects how you source your information.

[TM]

As to the question of what might be engaging Special Counsel Fitzgerald, it is possible he has moved on to a new clown show:

CHICAGO, Jan. 17 - For nearly nine months, he eluded an international manhunt by federal agents, sent taunting letters and kept a curious city wondering if it would ever get another look at him.

But on Tuesday, Joseph Lombardo, one of 14 men indicted last spring in what prosecutors described as a historic sweep of Chicago's organized crime leaders, stood in a courtroom here at last, looking slightly puzzled, every bit his 77 years of age, and as though he was struggling to hear much of what the judge had to say.

Still, Mr. Lombardo revealed that the old nickname prosecutors know him by, The Clown, suited him even now.

Asked by the judge, James B. Zagel of Federal District Court, about his medical health, Mr. Lombardo said he had not visited with his doctor "since nine months ago," not coincidentally the same time that the indictments showed up and Mr. Lombardo did not.

...The charges are part of a broad investigation that Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney here, says has lifted the veil of secrecy on organized crime in the city.

I haven't found a story telling us just how involved Fitzgerald is in the day-to-day of this case.

[Kate]

I think Fitzgerald is practicing his speech and developing new baseball analogies for when he announces the indictment of Karl Rove. He wants another media moment. He loved it.

And the case against Rove will be very weak, but our hero Fitz won't care.

[kim]

I'll bet his doctor got tired of the visits. Old doctors never die; they just lose their patience.
==================================================

[maryrose]

Still trying in vain to get Rove. Latest gambit is David Gregory and David Shuster trying to tie Abramoff {who went to the White House for Hanukah celebrations] as somehow a confidante of Rove.

[topsecretk9]

random interesting

1) Rand Beers?

---The memo, dated March 4, 2002, was distributed at senior levels by the office of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and by the Defense Intelligence Agency....

Mr. Wilson said in an interview that he did not remember ever seeing the memo but that its analysis should raise further questions about why the White House remained convinced for so long that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

"All the people understood that there was documentary evidence" suggesting that the intelligence about the sale was faulty, he said.---

Novak's beat
Bush's enemy within
Much of Washington was stunned last month when President Bush's chief counterterrorism expert resigned with a blast of criticism and then joined Democratic Sen. John Kerry's campaign for president.
Jul 10, 2003
by Robert Novak

"...Beers, a registered Democrat, vigorously promoted President Clinton's cautious line on Colombian policy as his assistant secretary of state for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. He owed Clinton for saving his career in 1997, when White House aides wanted to sack him as a National Security Council staffer for failing to give the president FBI reports about illegal campaign contributions from China. Beers holding a highly sensitive post in a Republican administration was an accident bound to happen.

As Beers joined the Kerry campaign by attacking Bush, extreme care would have been expected in making further appointments. That is why the Townsend selection was so stunning to officials who knew her at the Justice Department...

...The line between career and political appointments at Justice has been blurred, but Townsend was viewed by old timers at Justice as part of the Reno inner circle. Her critics partially blame Townsend for changes in operation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that they claim inhibited sharing of information between intelligence and prosecution..."

and finally this little diddy on Walter Pincus

"Pincus was uniquely positioned to delve into the intricacies of the weapons question. At 70, he had been reporting on national security for 25 years at the Post. Along the way he had cultivated sources in Congress, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the scientific community. For decades, he has been close to chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix.

Yet the Post buried Pincus’s March 16 story on page A17. It took help from Bob Woodward to get the story published at all.

“His support gave the editors the guts to run it,” says Pincus. “They think I am a crusader and get on kicks.”

Woodward, working the same sources for his forthcoming book on the war, put his name at the bottom of the March 16 story.

Pincus had been writing about the buildup to theinvasion for months, along with Post writers Dana Priest, Karen DeYoung, Barton Gellman, and others who gathered at “war meetings” every day..."

[clarice]

Good stuff,TS--Yes, Beers, I think.