# Niger, Uranium and Plausible Deniability **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 6, 2003, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570 "2003-07-06T14:08:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570/21 "2003-07-07T04:46:58Z")
from **Eolbo’s** first link: > [@](#): > > The official, Greg Theilmann, said the US State Department and Energy Department had both challenged CIA advice suggesting Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. Of course. Fine. From now on we’ll just have the State Dept. assess weapons capability and the CIA can assume the tea-drinking and hobnobbing with African dignitaries. Surprising that nobody thought of it before. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570/22 "2003-07-07T05:07:38Z")
**Tee, Eolbo, Scylla, Zoe,** Do you think that the American electorate will cares? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570/23 "2003-07-07T05:18:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tee \* > \*\*Of course. Fine. From now on we’ll just have the State Dept. assess weapons capability and the CIA can assume the tea-drinking and hobnobbing with African dignitaries. > > Surprising that nobody thought of it before. \*\* But if everything coming from the CIA is crap, what’s the use of the CIA at all? Not suggesting that that’s actually the case, because even the CIA stuff was full of disclaimers and maybes that the admisistration simply chose to ignore. ---
**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570/24 "2003-07-07T05:23:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > \*\ ***Tee, Eolbo, Scylla, Zoe,** > > Do you think that the American electorate will cares? \*\* I wish people would care but I think in general people prefer a comfortable ignorance over the unsettling reality that we are told any old crap to justify a war. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570/25 "2003-07-07T05:49:18Z")
The American electorate on average doesn’t seem to care, because it is conveniently bundled up in the assertive convolutions of a media machine of impressive proportions (and, more generally, the electorate is also handicapped by the traditionally inadequate US news media). It’s amazing how propaganda morphs into truth after it is broadcast often enough and through the adequate channels. I have to hand it to Bush – his propaganda machine is second to none I know of. I thought the whole thing would begin to crumble after the Centcom farce, which was a low moment in the history of journalism, but it seems that very little can scratch the paint of the la-la land Bush has packed his nation in. Over in the UK, where Blair used similar tactics to those of Bush in order to spread alarmism and develop a sense of urgency regarding Iraq, a row has ensued over BBC reports suggesting that the proceedings may have not been entirely honest or straightforward. It’s worth repeating that much of this is not new material, and many on these boards were decrying a high number of suspicious events even as they were unfolding before, during, and just after the war. Here is the latest BBC article on the Blair dossier row: > [@](#): > > _From the BBC site:_ [Governors back BBC in dossier row](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3050080.stm) > > BBC governors have defended its news team in the row with the government over claims Number 10 “sexed up” a dossier on Iraqi weapons. > > They called on Downing Street’s director of communications Alastair Campbell to withdraw his allegations that the BBC’s reporting of the Iraq war was biased based on a largely anti-war agenda. > > The statement came ahead of the foreign affairs select committee’s publication of its findings of its investigation into the government’s presentation of the case for war. > > \ > > BBC defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan first sparked the row after he reported on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that a senior intelligence official had told him Downing Street had asked that extra prominence was given to a claim Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes. > > Mr Campbell said on Sunday governors had still failed to answer “the fundamental question” of whether this story was “true or false”. > > \ > > Governors concluded the overall [BBC] coverage of the war in Iraq and political issues surrounding it had been fair and impartial, following their two-hour briefing from director general Greg Dyke and senior executives in London. The British media machine exhibits somewhat less sophistication and cohesion than the American one, but then again the Brits have the BBC to contend with on their home soil. In a recent program, “Correspondent” I believe it was, the BBC systematically identified and stripped back the messages from the coalition’s carefully controlled “news” information, revealing the underlying propaganda without spinning. Well worth watching. I’ve always thought the best thing for the average Americans’ information (and for politicians’ accountability!) would be to carry BBC World broadcasts over the entire territory, and thus raise the bar of independent news quality and depth – and hang the competiton with local outfits, I imagine the “Fox factor” will ensure viewers will still watch what they want, but at least they will have a choice. To my knowledge the only time you can catch the BBC on TV in the states is on PBS for half an hour a day, (unless you have a satellite set-up?). Increased availability could do wonders for actually informing people. ---
**Author:** ![LCP2972](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@LCP2972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LCP2972)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570/26 "2003-07-07T06:24:53Z")
Thats all well and good, but a whole lot of folks just don’t watch the news. or read the news. or listen to anything other than short clips in-between songs and/or tv shows. I like the BBC world report, but its not for everyone. Sadly, FOX still looks a lot prettier to some, and its exciting too! or something. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570/27 "2003-07-07T07:11:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > \*\ ***Tee, Eolbo, Scylla, Zoe,** > > Do you think that the American electorate will cares? \*\* as a whole I don’t know. For a lot of people, “it was a mistake” will suffice, and be forgiven, and it’s likely true although disturbing. The people for whom it won’t suffice will be the people predisposed to disliking the current administration anyway, and it won’t be forgiven, because it’s surely symptomatic of an evil, lying administration and a new one will fix everything. ( :rolleyes: ) Each entrenched side likes to paint the other as dumb, misinformed, or worse, and I doubt each by themselves could carry an election so you’re dealing with the “uncommitteds” in the middle. And I’m one of them. I think this one issue of the forgery is certainly symptomatic of a problem, but I also think that it was right and necessary for the US to be concerned about Saddam reconstituting his nukes program (among other things.) This one false piece of evidence isn’t doing enough for me to combat the overall picture of SH painted by the other evidence that various states and state agencies put forth. I’ll just go ahead and vote “no.” No, they won’t care too much about this. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Demostylus_ > **Not suggesting that that’s actually the case, because even the CIA stuff was full of disclaimers and maybes that the admisistration simply chose to ignore.** Really? I’d like to see a CIA disclaimer. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570/28 "2003-07-07T07:11:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\*But if everything coming from the CIA is crap, what’s the use of the CIA at all? > > Not suggesting that that’s actually the case, because even the CIA stuff was full of disclaimers and maybes that the admisistration simply chose to ignore. \*\* I very much doubt everything coming from the CIA is crap. I have some good friends in the Agency, obviously not clandestine (although I may have those as well, who knows…) and have had nothing but respect for their analytical abilities such as I know them. The issue, I rather think, arises at the level of transmission and acceptance. It rather appears that certain factions in the Administration went shopping for the intel that they wanted for a pre-set policy. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570/29 "2003-07-07T07:21:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tee \* > \*\*Really? I’d like to see a CIA disclaimer. \*\* [http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-06-13-iraq-cia\_x.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-06-13-iraq-cia_x.htm) > [@](#): > > CIA says it doubted Iraq uranium reports > > WASHINGTON (AP) — The CIA shared with other U.S. agencies its doubts about prewar reports — later proven false — that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, a senior intelligence official says. > > The CIA passed the information along anyway, and the reports made it into President Bush’s State of the Union address. > > About a month after Bush’s January 2002 speech, the United Nations determined the uranium reports were based primarily on forged documents initially obtained by European intelligence agencies. > > A Bush administration official said the information was vetted by relevant agencies, and it was included in the president’s speech because at the time it was believed to be reliable. It is no longer regarded as such. > > The Washington Post, quoting unidentified U.S. officials, reported Thursday that the CIA did not pass on the detailed results of its investigation to the White House or other government agencies. > > The U.S. intelligence official, however, said the CIA’s doubts were made known to other federal agencies through various internal communications, starting more than a year before the war began. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570/30 "2003-07-07T07:37:12Z")
Good work Desmo my boy, good work. What was right and necessary was for the US to have a rational policy driven by actual data and events, not an ideologically driven fantasy skewed into misconceptions and frankly supported by whole cloth invention. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570/31 "2003-07-07T15:38:14Z")
Speaking as an uninformed member of the rabble, I’d like to say that I don’t care right now. Saddam has had to go since '92, anyhow. But I can’t wait for the election and I can’t wait to watch the hash the Dems stir up about it. Long as they don’t mess up the results of the war, Bush is gonna get what he done dug up. Wasn’t the right way to go about it, but seems like it was a thing that needed doing. Now it’s done, we better fix it right. Speaking as an informed member of the hoi polloi, I’d like to point out that nobody rolls out a campaign in summer. I don’t think it’s being ignored, as such, so much as they’re saving their rounds for when it’s a bit closer to election time or something more important comes on the table. Like the economy getting better. Or worse. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2003, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570/32 "2003-07-07T16:59:21Z")
No **Desmostylus** , that’s a news report on the existence of a disclaimer, which is obviously in dispute. Some people get pitted for not recognizing those subtle differences. It’s believable though. Here’s a CIA report regarding Iraq reconstituting its nuclear program (scroll down to Iraq): [http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721\_reports/jan\_jun2002.html](http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2002.html) I see a couple of things that could be called disclaimers regarding certain facts but no “maybes”, lots of actual data, and no apparent inventions. It’s not even necessary to prove he was purchasing uranium to say he was restarting his nuclear program. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2003, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570/33 "2003-07-09T07:44:17Z")
The White House admits they used information which was false: > [@](#): > > The reference to Iraq’s attempt to obtain uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech - - White House statement > > [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm) > > White House spokesman Ari Fleischer appeared to concede on Tuesday that the uranium claim in the State of the Union address was based on inaccurate information > > a former US diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had travelled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them. > > Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson’s findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002. > > That means that the administration would have known nearly a year before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false. > > In response, a US Government official told the BBC that the White House received hundreds of intelligence reports every day. > > The official said there was no evidence that this specific cable about uranium had been passed on to the president. ::sigh:: So, there you have it: It has been proven the CIA and a bunch of other people in the government knew it was false but you have to prove the president himself was informed. In summary: they take the public for idiots. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/niger-uranium-and-plausible-deniability/186570.md?page=1)