Lying about Nukes

by emptywheel

We now know, definitively, that the Bush Administration consciously oversold claims about nukes to get us into Iraq. The Presidential NIE Summary Bush received in early October 2002 warned that two agencies disputed the claim that the aluminum tubes were best suited for developing a centrifuge. Just before he mentioned Niger uranium claims in his SOTU, Bush received a memo from the NIO of Africa saying the Niger claim was baseless and should not be used. Bush knew both claims that Iraq had nukes were sketchy, yet he still used those claims to bring us to war.

Just as disturbing, back in the summer and October 2002, Bush hid information of a real nuclear threat, for fear it would derail his plans to go to war in Iraq. In June 2003, an NIE reported ongoing nuclear activity in North Korea--with support from Pakistan.

Last June, four months before the current crisis over North Korea became public, the Central Intelligence Agency delivered a comprehensive analysis of North Korea's nuclear ambitions to President Bush and his top advisers. The document, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, was classified as Top Secret S.C.I. (for "sensitive compartmented information"), and its distribution within the government was tightly restricted.

[snip]

The C.I.A. report remained unpublicized throughout the summer and early fall, as the Administration concentrated on laying the groundwork for a war with Iraq. Many officials in the Administration's own arms-control offices were unaware of the report. "It was held very tightly," an official told me. "Compartmentalization is used to protect sensitive sources who can get killed if their information is made known, but it's also used for controlling sensitive information for political reasons."

One American nonproliferation expert said that, given the findings in the June report, he was dismayed that the Administration had not made the information available. "It's important to convey to the American people that the North Korean situation presented us with an enormous military and political crisis," he said. "This goes to the heart of North Asian security, to the future of Japan and South Korea, and to the future of the broader issue of nonproliferation."

Then, in an early October meeting with North Korea, just before Congress voted to authorize war against Iraq, Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly confronted North Korea with its ongoing nuclear program. And North Korea admitted to the program. Once again, the Bush Administration kept the information secret; it did not reveal the active, immediate nuclear threat in North Korea (that relied on Pakistan's assistance) until after Congress had voted to take out a non-existent nuclear threat in Iraq.

But, as with the June C.I.A. report, the Administration kept quiet about the Pyongyang admission. It did not inform the public until October 16th, five days after Congress voted to authorize military force against Iraq. Even then, according to Administration sources quoted in the Washington Post, the Administration went public only after learning that the North Korean admission—with obvious implications for the debate on Iraq—was being leaked to the press.

Both with the exaggerations it told claiming Iraq had nukes, and in the secrets it kept about North Korea's nuclear program, the Bush Administration willfully misrepresented the status of nuclear threats around the world so it could have the war it wanted.

Is it any wonder, then, that the Bush Administration didn't reveal Pakistan's plans (discussed here yesterday) to expand its nuclear program, even as it approved the sale of F-16s to Pakistan and presses Congress to pass the Indian nuclear deal?

The Bush administration acknowledged yesterday that it had long known about Pakistan's plans to build a large plutonium-production reactor, but it said the White House was working to dissuade Pakistan from using the plant to expand its nuclear arsenal.

[snip]

The acknowledgment came as arms-control experts and some in Congress expressed alarm about a possible escalation of South Asia's arms race. Some also sharply criticized the administration for failing to disclose the existence of a facility that could influence an upcoming congressional debate over U.S. nuclear policy toward India and Pakistan.

"If either India or Pakistan starts increasing its nuclear arsenal, the other side will respond in kind," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-chairman of a House bipartisan task force on nonproliferation. "The Bush administration's proposed nuclear deal with India is making that much more likely.

The Bush Administration's approach toward nuclear proliferation is completely irresponsible. It allows proliferation rather than face complex diplomatic negotiations with some countries. While it trumps up charges to justify imperialist wars of choice with other countries.

In isolation, this latest non-disclosure is just one more snub of Congress, a false boast that BushCo knows best, that it doesn't need advice about complex matters of security. But taken in the context of its established history of mobilizing nuclear claims to serve unrelated goals, it is clear that Bush's dishonesty about nukes is just a tool for him to sustain his failed foreign policy, and has little to do with a plan to minimize the nuclear threat.

Update: Evan Derkacz adds this from the One Percent Doctrine (which I haven't gotten to yet):

The world's foremost supplier of nuclear technology to anyone with a checkbook, A.Q. Khan -- friend and adviser to Pakistan's dictator, Musharraf -- was busy, according to the CIA in 2001 (THAT'S 2001), dealing nuclear technology to Iran.

So the Bush administration knew that Iran, Libya, and North Korea were receiving weapons technology from their Pakistani allies' friend and adviser, yet they chose to invade Iraq.

Comments

[John Forde]

Great Piece EW!

Hiding the nuclear threats in North Korea and Pakistan is frightening.

Unfortunately, lying is Standard Operating Procedure in politics and easily dismissed in the mind of the public.
But using a forgery is a crime - in this case a hanging crime.
I want to know: 1. Who told Bush to his face that the Niger docs are forgeries? 2. What can be proven about the administrations efforts to prevent the Niger docs from being vetted?

I want justice.

[Semanticleo]

I just want to see some sitting President, pardon Bush and Partners in Crime, and explain, it's 'for the National well-being'.

[jwest]

“………..two agencies disputed the claim that the aluminum tubes were best suited for developing a centrifuge.”

Thank you.

I rarely have praise for the authors of liberal blogs, but this wording shows an amazing grasp of facts and reality not often found on your side of the aisle. By accurately portraying this particular portion of the pre-war intelligence, you have helped advance the level of truth and understanding so necessary for intellectually honest discussion.

Let’s savor this moment and not go into the deeper debate about why reasonable people would differ on the end purpose of these tubes. It is just so refreshing to have a simple statement of known facts presented in such a forthright manner that it would be a shame to ruin the rainbow of agreement that floats over us now.

Again, thanks. (We’ll discuss this “sought uranium” statement later – when the afterglow wears off)

[mamayaga]

In addition to the profound puzzlement of why Cheney and his sock puppet chose to invade Iraq, there is another puzzlement which you keep circling around, ew, and that is, why are we such "good" friends with Pakistan? The party line is that we need them to help hunt for Al Qaeda, and maybe keep the Taliban and its Pakistani sympathizers boxed in, but can that really be it? By their actions, it's clear that Cheney & Co are not at all serious about catching/destroying Al Qaeda and the Taliban. If they were they wouldn't have walked away from Afghanistan when they did. And they'd be seriously hunting bin Laden, not disbanding the unit assigned to that job.

In addition, if Bushco were really concerned about the so-called axis of evil, they'd have pressured our "good" friends to close the nuclear bazaar to those particular parties at least. And, as I mentioned in a previous thread, Cheney & Puppet seem to have given them (and Saudi Arabia) a complete pass for their officials' seeming complicity in 9/11. At least we know that the Saudis have oil, and maybe that makes a lot forgivable to a retrograde oilman, but what do the Pakistanis have? Or maybe, what do they have on us?

[prostratedragon]

TOPS is a terrific book, ew. It shows how not just fear, but also a kind of short attention-span frenzy can be whipped up and used to keep a government destabilized. Our government, sad to say.

[ojfd]

nhjhjnhk