|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Iraq I: U.S. Sanctions Jordanian for Allegedly Aiding Iraqi WMD ProgramsBy Mike Nartker According to a notice published in the Federal Register today, the United States has imposed sanctions against Mohammed al-Khatib for biological and chemical proliferation activities in violation of the Arms Export Control Act and the 1979 Export Administration Act. The sanctions, which took effect today, prohibit the United States from entering into any contracts with al-Khatib and prevent him from exporting goods to the United States for at least one year. Today’s sanctions against al-Khatib were imposed for the same activities that resulted in sanctions being imposed against him earlier this year for violating the 1992 Iran-Iraq Arms Control Act, the State official said. The official also said that Khatib was part of a network that included the Indian company NEC Engineers Private Ltd. Earlier this year, the United States imposed sanctions against NEC Engineers and a second Indian company, Protech Consultants Private Ltd., for allegedly aiding Iraq’s biological and chemical weapons programs (see GSN, Feb. 20). The United States could possibly soon announce new sanctions against NEC Engineers, the State Department official said.
From August 7, 2003 issue.Iraq II: Army Examining Possible Role of Vaccines in Pneumonia OutbreakThe U.S. Army is planning to examine the possible role of vaccinations against diseases such as anthrax as officials study recent pneumonia cases among U.S. soldiers in Iraq and southwestern Asia, an official said yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 6). “Among all of the possible causes or contributing factors, we are looking at the immunizations that the soldiers received as well,” said Col. Robert DeFraites of the Army Surgeon General’s Office. “It is premature to say that there is any relationship at all,” he said. John Sever of the George Washington University’s medical school, a co-author of a study that examined the possible side effects of the anthrax vaccine, has also said the Army should examine if the vaccine has played any role in the pneumonia cases. That study found that the vaccine might have been the cause of two earlier pneumonia cases, according to the Washington Times (Mark Benjamin, Washington Times, Aug. 7).
From August 7, 2003 issue.Iraq III: Hundreds of Radioactive Sources Still Missing From TuwaithaA spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Agency has said that hundreds of radioactive sources are still unaccounted for from the Tuwaitha complex in Iraq, the main center in former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program, the Glasgow Sunday Herald reported Sunday (see GSN, July 16). As many as 400 sources are still missing from Tuwaitha, which was found in April to have been looted, according to IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming. A source for the Sunday Herald said he was approached to help sell uranium oxide in the southern Iraqi city of Basra for $250,000. The source said he believed the material came from the Tuwaitha complex (Pratt/Arbuthnot, Glasgow Sunday Herald, Aug. 3).
From August 6, 2003 issue.Iraq: Biological, Chemical Weapons Largely Ruled Out in U.S. Pneumonia CasesBy Joe Fiorill “We’re sparing no effort to fully analyze and diagnose this condition,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Clinical and Program Policy David Tornberg said at a Pentagon briefing. Streptococcus has been identified as the cause of pneumonia in at least two of the cases, Col. Robert DeFraites of the Office of the Army Surgeon General said at the briefing, but no such cause has been established for the two deaths. No evidence so far indicates any biological warfare agent has played a role in any of the cases, DeFraites said. “We’ve found no evidence of anthrax, smallpox or any other biological agent [to which] we can attribute the pneumonia,” DeFraites said. “Based on all the information we have to date, there’s been no positive findings of any anthrax or smallpox or any other biological weapons. So [I have come] pretty close to ruling it out,” he said. DeFraites added after the briefing that chemical weapons have also been ruled out as a cause of the pneumonia cases. Pneumonia is generally caused by infections, usually bacterial, or by noninfectious factors such as inhalation of dust, metals or smoke. The American Lung Association lists inhaled food, liquid, gases and dust as noninfectious causes of pneumonia. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Web site indicates a kind of “chemical pneumonia” can result from exposure to mustard gas. Deaths Led to Dispatch of Special Teams Fifteen of the U.S. troops with pneumonia have been placed on respirators, 10 of them in Iraq, DeFraites said, adding that the last confirmed case emerged last Wednesday. No link has been established so far among the troops that developed pneumonia, and none of them appears to have transmitted any infection to any of the others, he said. DeFraites said the total number of cases, at about 100, is within the range one would expect under normal conditions, given that up to 500 pneumonia cases are registered worldwide each year in the U.S. Army. Nevertheless, the two deaths, which both occurred over the last two months, spurred the Army to send in the investigative teams, DeFraites said. Seventeen Army troops died of pneumonia during the five-year period ending last year, he said.
From August 6, 2003 issue.International Response: U.S. Delays Call for South Korea to Join Proliferation Security InitiativeA rough draft of a speech given yesterday by Gen. Leon LaPorte, the top U.S commander in South Korea, included a call for Seoul to join an international effort to intercept shipments of WMD-related cargo, but the general left out that section when he delivered the speech, according to the Korea Times (see GSN, Aug. 4). “The navy of the future must join in the effort to interdict WMD (weapons of mass destruction) delivery,” said the draft of LaPorte’s speech, which was prepared for the eighth International Sea Powers Symposium, hosted by the South Korean Navy. LaPorte did not mention that South Korea should join the Proliferation Security Initiative, however, when he actually gave the speech, according to the Korea Times. Lee Ferguson, a spokeswoman for U.S. Forces Korea, said the rough draft of the speech had been provided to reporters by mistake. A South Korean official said no decision has been made yet on South Korea joining the initiative. “Nothing has been decided on South Korea’s participation in the PSI so far, as the meeting itself has not yet progressed to a stage where it can court new members,” the official said. The official also said that South Korea may be asked to join the initiative during the next meeting of PSI members, scheduled to be held next month in Paris (Seo Soo-min, Korea Times, Aug. 6).
From August 6, 2003 issue.British Response: Hundreds Have Received WMD Response Training This YearMore than 700 British health care workers have received training this year in responding to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction, the British Health Protection Agency said yesterday (see GSN, May 29). The agency is also “scanning the horizon” for new biological and chemical threats, agency Chief Executive Pat Troop said (Xinhua News Agency, Aug. 6).
From August 5, 2003 issue.Libya: Qadhafi Suggests Willingness to Allow Inspectors to Visit Industrial SitesBy Mike Nartker During an interview with ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulus, Qadhafi suggested that he would allow international experts to visit Libyan industrial sites. Such experts could come from international organizations, similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency, that address biological and chemical weapons. “This is my proposal. Yes,” Qadhafi said. “And I think this is the correct approach,” he added. The United States believes that ever since U.N. sanctions against Libya were suspended in 1999, Qadhafi has resumed trying to acquire chemical weapons equipment and expertise, primarily from Western Europe, according to a CIA report released in April (see GSN, April 11). Libya wants to develop both an offensive chemical weapons capability and an indigenous production capability, the report charges. The report also says that Libya is still working to develop a biological weapons program. Despite these charges, arms control experts told Global Security Newswire yesterday that Qadhafi’s proposal was promising in light of Libya’s recent efforts to re-establish ties with the West. In the past few years, Libya has undertaken several measures, such as providing terrorism-related intelligence to the United States following the Sept, 11, 2001, attacks, to help rehabilitate its image. “Libya [is] making a major effort” to end its status as a proliferator and as a sponsor of terrorism, said Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Such an effort has been consistent enough to indicate that Qadhafi is “serious” with his proposal, Cordesman said (see GSN, May 1). If Libya follows through with its proposal, the results could be more promising than the last time international inspections were conducted in a country of concern, namely Iraq, according to Jeffrey Bale, a senior research associate at the Monterey Institute for International Studies’ Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Bale said yesterday that he doubted Qadhafi would work to frustrate inspectors, unlike former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, because there has been a relative lack of international pressure on Libya to allow inspectors to visit sites there. If Qadhafi had planned not to comply with inspectors in Libya, he probably would not have suggested he was open to inspections at all, Bale said.
From August 5, 2003 issue.Iraq: Former CIA Envoy Repeats White House Intimidation ChargeFormer U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who visited Niger last year on behalf of the CIA to investigate reports that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium there, accused the White House again yesterday of using intimidation to prevent criticism of its handling of prewar intelligence, according to Reuters (see GSN, July 25). After returning from Niger, Wilson reported that Iraq had probably not attempted to purchase uranium there, helping to discredit the Bush administration’s claim that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Africa. During a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, Wilson said there had been several attempts at discrediting him, most notably a leak to the media identifying his wife’s as a CIA employee. Wilson also said the recent apparent suicide of British WMD expert David Kelly, whom the BBC cited as a source in a story claiming London had exaggerated the case for war, would also have a chilling effect on other intelligence experts coming forward (Tabassum Zakaria, Reuters/Yahoo!News, Aug. 5). Iraqis Attacks Conducted by Hussein Loyalists Meanwhile, U.S. military officers in Iraq and Iraqis themselves have said that militia groups loyal to former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein are behind the continuing attacks on U.S. forces there, not al-Qaeda fighters as some senior U.S. officials have said, according to the Associated Press. Over the past week, several senior U.S. officials, including Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq; and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, have suggested that foreign terrorists were conducting the attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. Several U.S. military commanders, however, have said the attacks appear to be conducted by loyalists to the Hussein regime. “We think Saddam Fedayeen are operating in this area,” Army spokesman Capt. Mike Calver said in the Anbar Province west of Baghdad, referring to a loyalist militia. “We suspect there are ex-regime loyalists — people who are much disenfranchised with the loss of the regime,” he said. A number of Iraqis have also denied that foreign fighters were taking part in the attacks on U.S. troops, saying that most of the 4,000 to 6,000 Arab fighters that came into Iraq before the war had been killed or left the country. Those Iraqis interviewed by AP said U.S. officials were blaming the attacks on foreign fighters in an attempt to show that Iraqis supported the occupation. “They are claiming there are al-Qaeda fighters in order to justify to their people their invasion and occupation of Iraq,” said Sheik Diyab Younis Zo’ebi (Scheherezade Faramarzi, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Aug. 5).
From August 4, 2003 issue.Iraq: Hussein Destroyed Weapons in Mid-1990s, Aide SaysAn aide to former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has said Iraq destroyed its WMD stockpiles years prior to the recent war with the United States, but maintained an ambiguous stance over their existence in an effort to appear strong, the Associated Press reported Friday (see GSN, Aug. 1). By the mid-1990s, “it was common knowledge among the leadership” that Iraq had destroyed its stockpiles of chemical weapons and had discontinued its biological and nuclear weapons programs, according to the aide. Hussein believed, however, that a deliberate ambiguity over the fate of the weapons of mass destruction would deter a U.S. attack, the aide said. “He repeatedly told me: ‘These foreigners, they only respect strength, they must be made to believe we are strong,’” the aide said. Some experts believe that Iraq released false information about its WMD programs to help create the impression that it still possessed such weapons, U.S. Defense Department intelligence experts said. “That explanation has plausibility,” said Robert Einhorn, a former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation. “But the disposition of those missing weapons and materials still has to be explained somehow,” he added (Slobodan Lekic, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Aug. 1). Niger Repeats Denial of Uranium Sale to Iraq Meanwhile, Nigerien President Mamadou Tandja yesterday reiterated that his country did not attempt to sell uranium to Iraq, as has previously been alleged by the United States and the United Kingdom (see GSN, July 29). Prior to the war, both the United States and the United Kingdom cited Iraq’s alleged attempts to obtain uranium from Africa as evidence that Hussein was seeking to relaunch his nuclear weapons program. However, a major piece of evidence used to back that claim — documents purporting to show an attempted Iraqi purchase of uranium from Niger — was later determined to be false (see GSN, July 30). Tandja yesterday again denied that his country had any involvement in a uranium sale to Iraq. “Against our wishes our country has been front-page news over an affair of the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq: this affair is nothing else than an accusation without foundation,” Tandja said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Aug. 3). Tandja also called on the International Atomic Energy Agency to publicly clear Niger of any involvement. The IAEA should “publicly wash Niger of all suspicions before the U.N. Security Council,” Tandja said. “Without that, our country can only remain harmed and hampered by a situation in which it isn’t implicated in any way,” he said. The IAEA refused yesterday to comment on Tandja’s request, saying it still needed to be formally made. “It’s an unusual request,” IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said. “We’d have to get it formally in writing and then see what we would do with it,” she said (Associated Press/Globe and Mail, Aug. 3).
From August 4, 2003 issue.International Response: Legal Authority Is Uncertain for U.S.-Led Cargo Interdiction EffortU.S. officials have said there is debate over how much legal authority exists under which to conduct the Proliferation Security Initiative — a U.S.-led effort to interdict suspect shipments of WMD-related cargo, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, July 23). Some U.S. officials have said that current laws allow for most of the effort, and all that is needed is better coordination and enforcement. Legal experts, however, differ over what existing laws allow, the Post reported. Under current international law, countries may board ships with the permission of the country whose flag the ship is flying, or if the ship is unmarked, according to the Post. Ships carrying illicit cargo — such as illegal drugs — or those transiting between countries with established agreements, can also be stopped and captured. “The plan is to use existing authorities in the first instance, because if you do that in a proactive way by sharing information with others and being prepared to move, you’ll have an 80 to 85 percent solution,” a White House official said. However, there currently is no international ban on shipments of WMD-related materials, according to the Post. To address this, some legal experts have recommended that the United States work within the United Nations to expand the current legal authority. “More important than adding one country after another to the president’s initiative, you need to get something through the U.N. Security Council,” said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. “The reason is, if you’re going to get international common usage, that is the most efficient way to make that happen,” he said. U.S. officials said the Bush administration has no plans to seek U.N. approval for seizures of WMD-related cargo because of concerns that such a move would trigger debate over what would qualify for interdiction. They also said that the initiative would not result in the creation of a large-scale international system, such as a task force or an enforcement mechanism. “It’s not like there’s going to be some big unveiling, where the marker will come down and all of a sudden we’re going to be out there looking for bad guys shipping around bad things,” a U.S. Defense Department official said. “We’re doing that now,” the official said. There are also concerns over the U.S. motive for the initiative, according to the Post. While Bush administration officials have said the initiative is meant to be a global effort, some countries are concerned that it is a covert attempt to establish a blockade around North Korea, the Post reported. In a speech last week, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton explicitly linked the effort to both North Korea and Iran. Initiative members are planning to enlist more members by targeting costal Asian and Middle East countries, as well as those countries whose flags are most often used by traffickers, officials said (Bradley Graham, Washington Post, August 3).
From August 4, 2003 issue.U.S. Response: Scientists Studying Use of Fish to Detect Biological, Chemical AgentsResearchers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Center for Water Security are examining whether a species of fish could be used to help detect toxins placed in the U.S. drinking water supply by terrorists, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, May 29). Center scientists are studying whether zebrafish could be used to detect the presence of toxins in water, according Michael Carvan, head of the project. The fish are genetically modified to glow when they encounter different types and levels of chemicals, AP reported. For example, scientists expose the fish to high levels of E. coli. Only those fish with the gene to react to high levels of the bacterium should glow, while others should remain a dull gray, AP reported. More work still needs to be done, however, before the fish could be used to test water supplies, Carvan said. “We can get them to light up,” Carvan said. “But they don’t pass that trait onto the next generation,” he said (Tim Cigelske, Associated Press, Aug. 4). Researchers at the Office of Naval Research and Duke University are also working on ways to modify organisms to react to the presence of certain materials, such as toxins and pathogens, according to New Technology Week. The scientists are working to develop a method to produce proteins that could link to molecules of a substance to be identified. Those proteins, which could also include a fluorescent molecule to glow in the presence of the substance, could then be inserted into organisms for use as chemical and biological detectors (Dave Ahearn, New Technology Week, Aug. 4).
From August 1, 2003 issue.Iraq I: Top U.S. Weapons Hunter Cites Progress, Bioweapons FocusBy Joe Fiorill Speaking late yesterday afternoon after a 2«-hour Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, David Kay said U.S., British and Australian weapons hunters are “concentrating initially on biological [weapons programs] and on the role of the intelligence and security services.” However, at an earlier briefing that followed a similarly lengthy hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Kay did not deny that evidence of Iraqi chemical or biological weapons stockpiles is lacking thus far. Asked about a July 15 House of Representatives Intelligence Committee press release indicating that evidence to date did “not point to the existence of large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons,” Kay did not respond directly even though the release came at the end of a committee mission to Iraq and cited Kay as its main source on weapons programs. “I’m sure if they put it out, it was a factual statement,” he said. “Surprise” Could be Ahead; Kay Outlines Evidence Criteria In both briefings to the press, Kay repeatedly indicated a “surprise” announcement may be coming. Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who is also a member of the Armed Services Committee, echoed that thought. “I would not be surprised if there is a surprise, and it would end up changing a lot of people’s minds,” Roberts said. Kay cautioned, though, that no significant find will be made public unless three criteria are met: multiple Iraqis providing information about the find, multiple documents explaining it and physical evidence showing a connection to weapons of mass destruction activities. Progress Cited, but Patience Urged Kay and key members of the two committees referred variously to “solid,” “significant” and “good” progress being made in the hunt for banned arms. The head of the U.S. Iraqi Survey Group, Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, said it is “phenomenal what we’re finding.” All of them cited in particular what they called a new level of cooperation from Iraqis with knowledge of Hussein’s alleged weapons programs. “We are actively exploring sites based on leads from document exploitation and Iraqis who are collaborating with us,” Kay said yesterday morning. “There is not a day that goes by since I’ve been there, for five weeks, that we have not had people out on sites. But it’s not … a sterile list drawn up before the war. We are being led to these sites by Iraqis and documentation from the Saddam Hussein regime. It’s the best-type site exploitation I know that you can conduct,” he added. At the same time, Kay and several senators cautioned that because of Hussein’s alleged efforts to hide his weapons programs and deceive inspectors, patience will be required of those waiting for concrete results in the search. “This was a program that, over 25 years, spent billions of dollars [and] was actively shielded by a security and deception plan, so it is not something that is easy to unwrap, but we are in the process,” Kay said after the morning hearing. “We have found new evidence of how they successfully misled inspections of the U.N. and hid stuff continuously from them. The active deception program is truly amazing, once you get inside it. We have people who participated in deceiving U.N. inspectors now telling us how they did it,” he added. Senators Express Concern Over Prewar Claims Although all expressed some degree of confidence in the current search, some senators suggested the Bush administration’s prewar claims about Iraqi weapons programs may not have been justified. “In the course of the weeks and months prior to the initiation of force,” said Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.), U.S. lawmakers “were given facts to the effect that in all likelihood, the discovery of these weapons and the programs supporting them would be somewhat easier than facts and reality now prove to be the case.” The intelligence panel’s senior Democrat, John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), drew a distinction between finding weapons “programs” — the term now in favor at the White House and among the weapons hunters — and actual weapons. “Are they going to lead to what it is we went to war for?” Rockefeller asked. “Programs don’t do it. Programs cannot be fired. Programs can’t get somewhere in 45 minutes. Programs are not weaponized. Programs aren’t what we were told about,” he said.
From August 1, 2003 issue.Iraq II: Army Learns Lesson on Search for WMD in IraqBy David Ruppe “One of the reasons for the attack on Iraq was to expose key weapons of mass destruction facilities,” the report says. “During the transition from combat operations to support and stability operations, we did not attempt to secure these key facilities before looting started,” it continues. The report does not say why Third Infantry forces did not act to secure suspected weapons of mass destruction facilities and did not suggest who might have been responsible for that. The report’s conclusion says that securing the sites might have prevented the looting and prevented the loss of clues to suspected WMD programs and stockpiles. “The looting, in essence, turned the facilities into crime scenes. The visible clues that may have provided a detailed analysis of WMD production, research and development (R&D), or storage were either deployed or carried away by the local populous,” it says. The report recommends: “All future SSE [Secure Sensitive Exploitation] facilities should be secured by ground combat or special forces soldiers. This would allow for a detailed exploitation instead of a crime scene investigation.” The report praises the mechanized division’s overall performance in rapidly reaching Baghdad and helping to take over the country. “Operating considerably beyond existing doctrine, the Third Infantry Division proved that a lethal, flexible and disciplined mechanized force could conduct continuous operations over extended distances for 21 days,” it says in an introduction. “The lessons learned about offensive operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom will enable the Army to grow and further develop its existing capabilities,” it says.
From August 1, 2003 issue.U.S. Response: White House Used Iraq War to Promote Pre-Emption Doctrine, Senator SaysBy Mike Nartker During an address at the Brookings Institution, Biden defended his decision to support a congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, saying he “would vote that way again today.” Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he supported the resolution because former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had violated the terms of the surrender agreement reached at the end of the 1991 Gulf War and had failed to comply with U.N. inspections — a condition of that agreement. “When he [Hussein] refused, it became the fundamental right of the international community to enforce those rules,” Biden said. Biden accused “ideologues” within the Bush administration, however, of using the war with Iraq as an attempt to establish a new doctrine of pre-emptive action against those states seen as threats to U.S. security. “Iraq was to be the test case,” Biden said. “In my view, Iraq wasn’t about pre-emption, it was about the enforcement of a surrender agreement,” he said. The United States should maintain a right to use pre-emptive action to ward off an imminent threat, Biden said. However, the result of using Iraq to elevate pre-emption to the level of a “doctrine,” as some supporters have labeled it, resulted in a lack of international support for the overthrow of Hussein, he said. “Making Iraq the case for pre-emption, putting it at the heart of our foreign policy, made it harder to get the world to join us,” Biden said. “Why? Because not one of our allies wanted to validate the pre-emption doctrine,” he said. Biden also said that elevating the concept of pre-emptive action to the level of an official doctrine could jeopardize U.S. nonproliferation efforts. Such a move “sends a message to our enemies that their only insurance against regime change is to acquire weapons of mass destruction as quickly as they can,” he said. In addition, the use of pre-emptive action requires a basis in intelligence able to “stand up to world scrutiny,” he said. Biden criticized Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz for saying earlier this week that the United States may have to act on “murky” intelligence to prevent future terrorist attacks (see GSN, July 28). “Murky intelligence is hardly enough to meet that standard,” Biden said.
From August 1, 2003 issue.Iraq III: White House Orders New Intelligence ReportThe Bush administration has ordered the CIA to prepare a new national intelligence estimate on Iraq to determine the extent of militia resistance to U.S. forces there and the likelihood of the formation of a stable, democratic government, the Boston Globe reported yesterday (see GSN, July 31). The last NIE, prepared by the CIA in October 2002, focused on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and has come under increased scrutiny due to criticism over the White House’s handling of prewar intelligence. The Bush administration has now asked the CIA to assess the “sources of instability” in Iraq, including the influence of fighters arriving in Iraq from other Arab nations and the attempts of Iran to establish a Shiite Muslim-led government there, a senior intelligence official said. The new assessment is also expected to examine the attitudes of the Iraqi population and whether a democratic government can be formed, intelligence sources said (Bryan Bender, Boston Globe, July 31). No New Evidence Found to Support Aluminum Tubes Claims Meanwhile, no new evidence has been found to support claims made by the White House prior to the war that Iraq attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes for use in centrifuges to enrich uranium, according to USA Today (see GSN, July 16). A claim made by U.S. President George W. Bush in his January State of the Union address that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from Africa has been the focus of growing controversy as reports come out that there were doubts within the administration over the strength of the claim. Relatively little attention has been paid to the aluminum tube claim, however, which Bush also made in his address, according to USA Today. Coalition forces in Iraq have so far found no new evidence to support the aluminum tube claim, which was heavily debated prior to the war, USA Today reported. A week after Bush’s speech, however, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made a presentation on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. Security Council, in which he acknowledged that there were “differences of opinion” over the intended use of the aluminum tubes, White House officials said. The administration continues to stand by its assessment that the tubes were intended for use to enrich uranium, USA Today reported. “There was a very open discussion about that,” White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said last week. “It is an assessment which (CIA Director George Tenet) and the CIA stand by to this day,” he said (Nichols/Diamond, USA Today, Aug. 1).
About Newswire | Contact National Journal | Re-Use Guidelines
HOME | CONTACT US | GET INVOLVED | SITE MAP |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Back to top