French told CIA nukes claim was bogus
French told CIA nukes claim was bogus
13dec05
LOS ANGELES: France's spy service tried for months to warn the CIA there was no evidence to support a US allegation that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material in Africa.
For more than a year before US President George W.Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material in Niger, France, in previously undisclosed, secret exchanges beginning in 2001, repeatedly warned that the charges were bogus, according to Alain Chouet, its retired chief of counter-intelligence.
Mr Chouet, former head of France's Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure, said the French conclusions were reached after extensive investigations in Niger and other former French colonies, where the uranium mines are controlled by French companies. Paris had investigated the claims at the CIA's request, he said.
The CIA sought France's help in 2001 and 2002 because French firms dominate the international uranium business and former French colonies lead the world in production of the strategic mineral.
France was particularly sensitive to the assertion about Iraq trying to obtain nuclear materials, given the role that French companies play in uranium mining in France's former colonies.
"In France, we've always been very careful about both problems of uranium production in Niger and Iraqi attempts to get uranium from Africa," Mr Chouet said.
"After the first Gulf War, we were very cautious with that problem, as the French government didn't care to be accused of maintaining relations with (Iraqi president) Saddam (Hussein) in that field."
A US official said Mr Chouet's revelation was "at odds with our understanding of the issue". AFP
privacy terms © The Australian
Interresting news, thanks ed. This is just another piece to the "fabricated evidence" puzzle.
Anyone who still doesn't believe the Bush administration faked WMD evidence against better knowledge and lied to the international community is a hopeless case.
In any other country the gouvernment would have had to step down immediately, in the USA they get re-elected. But enough, we had this discussion a thousand times before and it's getting boring.
*walks off, shaking his head*
Awesome! It only makes sense that French Intelligence knew that Iraq didn't have any WMD, for France to have taken such a strong stance against the Bush regime.LOS ANGELES: France's spy service tried for months to warn the CIA there was no evidence to support a US allegation that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material in Africa.
Ok, I'm confused.
#1. The British investigation has reported that there was good basis for the UK report as to WMD's & Africa.
#2. The French gave this information to the CIA who never used it in their final report to the WH.
So Bush is at fault?
Er, if the French were in Saddam's pocket at the UNSC, and they were running a scam during the oil-for-palaces program, and they promised the US to back us during the UNSC vote and instead blocked all action, and they have a stake in uranium production in Niger...why exactly would they be regarded as a reliable source for this information? Wouldn't they be just about the last people to ask about it? Just sayin'
like it or not , the french were rightOriginally Posted by 2Sheds_Jackson
and there is a secret plan at the french secret service to deliver Sadaam and restore it to the gvt (we need oil), all the WMD you didn't found are stored in the french metropolitan near the secret labs wehre ancient chemist and bio from irak prepare gaz and virus to attack usa.
"sur ce, messieurs je vous ma reverence, ce forum a atteint une abysse telle que ca en devient ridicule."
and don't forget the "Saddam financed Chirac 's electoral campaign"
Maybe they were right (depending upon who you ask) - but the question is - would it have been wise, or even appropriate to believe them? I would say "no".like it or not , the french were right
Sigh, after all this and you STILL believe that George W. Bush is a nice guy who wansn't lying to the American people?
What will it take? Maybe if he publically admitted that there were no WMD then would you believe it?
Bush has a hard time admitting he is wrong. Just like almost everyother politician
But then what? Dismantle the Agency that committed gross negligence in preparing intell analysis?
I for one say: YO!!!!
i have to agree here. Blaming Bush or not, being anti/pro bush, doesn't count here. One thing is clear, it's not that he behaves very different from any other politician. There's 1001 options you choose before admitting an error. One is admitting minor errors you haven't even made to get around admitting a bigger error. That's how you get in very powerful positions.
"we didn't have the proper intel and so there was no way believing the opposite"
instead of
"we knew we couldn't prove it, but hoped the outcome will give us right in one or another way"
the problem here is that everyopne by now realizes that the bigger error has taken place. but bush is still clinging to his original excuses. when people realize that the emperor has no clothes, it's time for the emperor to admit that he's been naked all along.
lol it's obviously inappropriate if you're faking reasons to invade another country... better to discredit or cover up anything which would go against your projects
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
