The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] Independent: Ministers knew war papers were forged, says diplomat




http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/062603B.shtml
June 26-  Interview: 27-Year CIA Veteran,  Ray McGovern

Brief excerpt:

PITT: Is there anything else you would like to touch upon before we are
finished?

McGOVERN: My primary attention is on the forgery of the Niger documents that
supposedly proved Iraq was developing a nuclear program. It seems to me that
you can have endless arguments about the correct interpretation of this or
that piece of intelligence, or intelligence analysis, but a forgery is a
forgery. It's demonstrable that senior officials of this government,
including the Vice President, knew that it was a forgery in March of last
year. It was used anyway to deceive our Congressmen and Senators into voting
for an unprovoked war. That seems to me to be something that needs to be
borne in mind, that needs to be held up for everyone to see. If an informed
public, and by extension an informed Congress, is the necessary bedrock for
democracy, then we've got a split bedrock that is in bad need of repair.

  I have done a good bit of research here, and one of the conclusions I have
come to is that Vice President Cheney was not only interested in "helping
out" with the analysis, let us say, that CIA was producing on Iraq. He was
interested also in fashioning evidence that he could use as proof that, as
he said, "The Iraqis had reconstituted their nuclear program," which
demonstrably they had not.

  What I'm saying is that this needs to be investigated.

We know that it was Dick Cheney who sent the former US ambassador to Niger
to investigate. We know he was told in early March of last year that the
documents were forgeries. And yet these same documents were used in that
application. That is something that needs to be uncovered. We need to pursue
why the Vice President allowed that to happen. To have global reporters like
Walter Pincus quoting senior administration officials that Vice President
Cheney was not told by CIA about the findings of this former US ambassador
strains credulity well beyond the breaking point. Cheney commissioned this
trip, and when the fellow came back, he said, "Don't tell me, I don't want
to know what happened." That's just ridiculous.

  Cheney knew, and Cheney was way out in front of everybody, starting on the
26th of August, talking about Iraq seeking nuclear weapons. As recently as
the 16th of March, three days before the war, he was again at it. This time
he said Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. It hadn't. It
demonstrably hadn't. There has been nothing like that uncovered in Iraq.

MORE











----- Original Message -----
From: "Hassan Zeini" <hasseini@yahoo.com>
To: "CASI" <casi-discuss@lists.casi.org.uk>; "IAC discussion"
<iac-discussion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 9:34 AM
Subject: [casi] Independent: Ministers knew war papers were forged, says
diplomat



http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=419982

Ministers knew war papers were forged, says diplomat

US official who identified documents incriminating
Iraq as fakes says Britain must have been aware of
findings

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington and Raymond Whitaker
in London
29 June 2003


A high-ranking American official who investigated
claims for the CIA that Iraq was seeking uranium to
restart its nuclear programme last night accused
Britain and the US of deliberately ignoring his
findings to make the case for war against Saddam
Hussein.

The retired US ambassador said it was all but
impossible that British intelligence had not received
his report - drawn up by the CIA - which revealed that
documents, purporting to show a deal between Iraq and
the west African state of Niger, were forgeries. When
he saw similar claims in Britain's dossier on Iraq
last September, he even went as far as telling CIA
officials that they needed to alert their British
counterparts to his investigation.

The allegation will add to the suspicions of opponents
to the war that last week's row between the BBC and
Tony Blair's director of communications Alastair
Campbell was a sideshow to draw attention away from
more serious questions about the justification for the
war.

The comments of the former US diplomat appear to be at
odds with those of the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw.
Appearing before a parliamentary committee last week,
Mr Straw said the British intelligence community had
not known of the forged documents' existence "at the
time when [the September dossier] was put together".

But in his first interview on the issue, the former US
diplomat told The Independent on Sunday: "It is hard
for me to fathom, that as close as we are and [while]
preparing for a war based on [claims about] weapons of
mass destruction, that we did not share intelligence
of this nature."

Asked if he felt his findings had been ignored for
political reasons, he added: "It's an easy conclusion
to draw." Though the official's identity is well-known
in Washington - he was on the National Security
Council under President Clinton - he asked that his
name be withheld at this stage.

During last week's hearings by the Foreign Affairs
Committee, MPs cited repeated reports that the forged
documents - a letter on which the signature of Niger's
president had been faked, and another carrying the
signature of a man who had not held office in the
country since the 1980s - had originally reached the
CIA via British intelligence.

Mr Straw not only denied that the forged documents
came from British sources, but said Britain's
allegations about Iraq's quest for uranium in Africa
came from "quite separate sources". He said he would
give further details of these sources for the uranium
allegation in a closed session on Friday, during which
he was fiercely cross-questioned by Sir John Stanley,
the committee's chief sceptic. After hearing what the
Foreign Secretary had to say, the Tory MP is reported
to have told Mr Straw he did not believe him.

The testimony of the former US diplomat further
undermines the claims of both the British and US
governments that Saddam had developed, or was
developing, weapons of mass destruction.

The Niger connection became one of the most important
and most controversial elements in the build-up to
war, and both Britain and the US used it to claim that
Iraq was "reconstituting" its nuclear programme. It
later emerged that the report was based on forged
letters obtained by Italian intelligence from an
African diplomat. The Italians were said to have
passed the letters to their British counterparts, from
where they reached the CIA.

When the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
finally had the opportunity to inspect the documents,
nearly a year later, they were dismissed as fakes in
less than a day. Neither the US nor Britain ever gave
the IAEA any other information to back up their
allegations on Iraq's uranium-buying activities,
despite the "separate sources" cited by Mr Straw.

In February 2002, the former diplomat - who had served
as an ambassador in Africa - was approached by the CIA
to carry out a "discreet" task: to investigate if it
was possible that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger.
He said the CIA had been asked to find out in a direct
request from the office of the Vice-President, Dick
Cheney.

During eight days in Niger he discovered it was
impossible for Iraq to have been buying the quantities
of uranium alleged. "My report was very unequivocal,"
he said. He also learnt that the signatures of
officials vital to any transaction were missing from
the documents.

On his return he was debriefed by the CIA. One senior
CIA official has told reporters the agency's findings
were distributed to the Defence Intelligence Agency,
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Justice Department, the
FBI and the office of the Vice President on the same
day in early March.

Six months later the former diplomat read in a
newspaper that Britain had issued a dossier claiming
Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa. He
contacted officials at CIA headquarters and said they
needed to clarify whether the British were referring
to Niger. If so, the record needed to be corrected. He
heard nothing, and in January President Bush said in
his State of the Union speech that the "British
Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa".

The ex-diplomat says he is outraged by the way
evidence gathered by the intelligence community was
selectively used in Washington to support
pre-determined policies and bolster a case for war.

 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hassan Zeini" <hasseini@yahoo.com>
To: "CASI" <casi-discuss@lists.casi.org.uk>; "IAC discussion"
<iac-discussion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 9:34 AM
Subject: [casi] Independent: Ministers knew war papers were forged, says
diplomat



http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=419982

Ministers knew war papers were forged, says diplomat

US official who identified documents incriminating
Iraq as fakes says Britain must have been aware of
findings

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington and Raymond Whitaker
in London
29 June 2003


A high-ranking American official who investigated
claims for the CIA that Iraq was seeking uranium to
restart its nuclear programme last night accused
Britain and the US of deliberately ignoring his
findings to make the case for war against Saddam
Hussein.

The retired US ambassador said it was all but
impossible that British intelligence had not received
his report - drawn up by the CIA - which revealed that
documents, purporting to show a deal between Iraq and
the west African state of Niger, were forgeries. When
he saw similar claims in Britain's dossier on Iraq
last September, he even went as far as telling CIA
officials that they needed to alert their British
counterparts to his investigation.

The allegation will add to the suspicions of opponents
to the war that last week's row between the BBC and
Tony Blair's director of communications Alastair
Campbell was a sideshow to draw attention away from
more serious questions about the justification for the
war.

The comments of the former US diplomat appear to be at
odds with those of the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw.
Appearing before a parliamentary committee last week,
Mr Straw said the British intelligence community had
not known of the forged documents' existence "at the
time when [the September dossier] was put together".

But in his first interview on the issue, the former US
diplomat told The Independent on Sunday: "It is hard
for me to fathom, that as close as we are and [while]
preparing for a war based on [claims about] weapons of
mass destruction, that we did not share intelligence
of this nature."

Asked if he felt his findings had been ignored for
political reasons, he added: "It's an easy conclusion
to draw." Though the official's identity is well-known
in Washington - he was on the National Security
Council under President Clinton - he asked that his
name be withheld at this stage.

During last week's hearings by the Foreign Affairs
Committee, MPs cited repeated reports that the forged
documents - a letter on which the signature of Niger's
president had been faked, and another carrying the
signature of a man who had not held office in the
country since the 1980s - had originally reached the
CIA via British intelligence.

Mr Straw not only denied that the forged documents
came from British sources, but said Britain's
allegations about Iraq's quest for uranium in Africa
came from "quite separate sources". He said he would
give further details of these sources for the uranium
allegation in a closed session on Friday, during which
he was fiercely cross-questioned by Sir John Stanley,
the committee's chief sceptic. After hearing what the
Foreign Secretary had to say, the Tory MP is reported
to have told Mr Straw he did not believe him.

The testimony of the former US diplomat further
undermines the claims of both the British and US
governments that Saddam had developed, or was
developing, weapons of mass destruction.

The Niger connection became one of the most important
and most controversial elements in the build-up to
war, and both Britain and the US used it to claim that
Iraq was "reconstituting" its nuclear programme. It
later emerged that the report was based on forged
letters obtained by Italian intelligence from an
African diplomat. The Italians were said to have
passed the letters to their British counterparts, from
where they reached the CIA.

When the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
finally had the opportunity to inspect the documents,
nearly a year later, they were dismissed as fakes in
less than a day. Neither the US nor Britain ever gave
the IAEA any other information to back up their
allegations on Iraq's uranium-buying activities,
despite the "separate sources" cited by Mr Straw.

In February 2002, the former diplomat - who had served
as an ambassador in Africa - was approached by the CIA
to carry out a "discreet" task: to investigate if it
was possible that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger.
He said the CIA had been asked to find out in a direct
request from the office of the Vice-President, Dick
Cheney.

During eight days in Niger he discovered it was
impossible for Iraq to have been buying the quantities
of uranium alleged. "My report was very unequivocal,"
he said. He also learnt that the signatures of
officials vital to any transaction were missing from
the documents.

On his return he was debriefed by the CIA. One senior
CIA official has told reporters the agency's findings
were distributed to the Defence Intelligence Agency,
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Justice Department, the
FBI and the office of the Vice President on the same
day in early March.

Six months later the former diplomat read in a
newspaper that Britain had issued a dossier claiming
Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa. He
contacted officials at CIA headquarters and said they
needed to clarify whether the British were referring
to Niger. If so, the record needed to be corrected. He
heard nothing, and in January President Bush said in
his State of the Union speech that the "British
Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa".

The ex-diplomat says he is outraged by the way
evidence gathered by the intelligence community was
selectively used in Washington to support
pre-determined policies and bolster a case for war.

 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk


_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]