CIA Warned Blair

Spiegel Online (German) is reporting that the CIA had "heavy doubts" about British intelligence reports and questioned some of the statements made. They even explicitely recommended to not include the "Iraq ready to launch WMD within 45 minutes" claim in the Blair speech.

The BBC has a similar article, stating again that the CIA questioned the reports on the purchase of Uranium.

The MPs had asked Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to answer nine questions about the alleged supply of uranium by the African state Niger.

Responding, the Foreign Office said that it saw no need to include a "health warning" about the African element of the dossier - even though the CIA did not find it credible.

Looks like Blair is getting into trouble for his statement that Iraq could start chemical or biological attacks within forty-five minutes. The Spiegel report says the CIA explicitly warned the Brits not to use that figure to support their cause, they cite the Guardian as a source though and that isn''t exactly a paper without a political agenda

sp.

The trouble was his statement about the 45 minutes was proven false by the war. Obviously they couldn''t, since no units had WMDs and the WMDs (if they exist) aren''t in a place that could be easily accessed. If chemical weapons were buried in drums under 8 feet of dirt in one town, there is no way in hell it could have been unearthed, poured into warheads, and distributed to the front in 45 minutes.

Here are the important take-aways from the BBC article:

Britain decided to go ahead and publish the claims because they believed their intelligence to be reliable.

In a statement the Foreign office repeated a past assertion that ""the reference in the dossier was based on intelligence from more than one source.""

Again, unless the British are lying, there is no SOTU flap.

Iraq is believed to have imported 200 tonnes of uranium from Niger in the 1980s.

Interesting. But I guess when Iraq went to Niger in 1999, they were looking to import chickpeas...

"ralcydan" wrote:

Again, unless the British are lying, there is no SOTU flap.

Whoa, that''s more intelligent than the ""stick your fingers in your ears"" style statements of late.

Interesting. But I guess when Iraq went to Niger in 1999, they were looking to import chickpeas...

Wait, I take it back.

Leave it ralcydan to point out a minor (unlinked) report from a third-tier conservative pundit that hasn''t been talked about in any other circle, including FOX News. Again, another unsubstantiated mountain out of an unverified mole hill.

Whoa, that''s more intelligent than the ""stick your fingers in your ears"" style statements of late.

Interesting, since instead of responding to most arguments you use the ""stick out your tongue"" style of late...

And here''s the link you asked for:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20030730.shtml

You seem to be taking issue with my assertion that Iraq went to Niger in 1999. Before you look any dumber, here''s your favorite IAEA Director covering up for your favorite dictator in front of your favorite international organization as reported by your favorite news channel:

Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries, including Niger in February 1999

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/

How''s that foot taste?

Edit - here''s my original source''s credientials:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BIOS/cbjeffrey.html

Partisan, sure. But when you have 16 years experience in journalism, including a stint writing for the Washinton Times and a Pulitzer nomination, you can call other people ""third-tier"". I can only imagine what tier that puts you in...

Again, your suspicions of this man''s trip to Niger is proof of nothing. The fact that Iraq bought uranium in the 80s does not prove the claims of ""recent"" purchases. You have nothing but suspicisions.

You have nothing but suspicisions.

Thanks for the new ""Unintentionally Ironic Rat Boy Signature""

By the way, maybe you missed the point where I said that my ""outrage"" over the IAEA''s sloppy handling of facts was irony. I would like to have questions answered, but haven''t actually made any conclusions that they are hiding something or complicit, unlike someone I know...