Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 10, 2007
False ‘Intelligence’ Led To NoKo Nukes

False ‘intelligence’ allowed North Korea to aquire nuclear weapons.

There are two major ways to build a ‘nuke’, either with highly enriched Uranium or with Plutonium gained from spent reactor fuel.

In 2002 the U.S. started to claim that North Korea was enriching Uranium for a nuclear bomb program.

North Korea denied the enrichment charges. The dispute led to an end of the ‘agreed framework’, a 1994 contract that provided North Korea with fossil fuel in exchange for it not to develop nuclear weapons.

Based on the allegations of NoKo Uranium enrichment the Bush administration stopped its part of the deal. Retaliating North Korea threw out the IAEA inspectors and started to extract plutonium from the used fuel of its research reactors. In 2006 it detonated a (likely) nuclear device.

Only thereafter did the U.S. restart serious talks to again provide fuel and other incentives in exchange for North Korean denuclearization.

It now turns out, as some had said before, that the whole story about North Korean Uranium enrichment was likely a ‘failure’ of U.S. intelligence. Glenn Kessler writes in the Washington Post:

North Korea is providing evidence to the United States aimed at proving that it never intended to produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, undermining a key U.S. intelligence finding, South Korean and U.S. officials said this week.
[…]
"This is now in the process of being clarified," a senior South Korean official said in an interview. "The North Koreans are now ready to prove that they did not intend to make a uranium-enrichment program by importing some materials."

He said North Korea is attempting to show that the materials it imported — including 150 tons of aluminum tubes from Russia in June 2002 — were intended for conventional weapons programs and other dual-use projects, not for weapons of mass destruction.
[…]

Aluminium tubes purchased by Iraq, intended as rocket casings and unfit to be used in centrifuges, were part of the Bush administration false claims about an Iraqi nuclear program.

As we learn now a similar ridiculous claim led to an end of the agreed framework and to a North Korean nuclear device.

.. the tubes acquired by North Korea needed to be cut in half and shaped in order to be used as the outer casings of centrifuges.

A major figure in the U.S. claims of nuclear bomb programs in Iraq, North Korea and Iran is John Bolton. He and his former special assistant Frederick Fleitz, supported by Representative Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), were the key people in providing the false claims.

Currently Bolton and the Wall Street Journal opinion editors are propagandizing an alleged nuclear program in Syria which they claim to be supported by North Korea.

Their aim seems to be to derail the talks in North Korea and to build public ground for an attack on Iran and Syria. As they have been caught in a huge lie again, one hopes that the public will disregard their claims.

Comments

Could we have just lived through a partial reprise of the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor? On current evidence, it is the least unlikely possibility.
yawn. they are going to squeeze as much blood out of this turnip as possible.

Posted by: annie | Nov 10 2007 16:05 utc | 1

Spooks refuse to toe Cheney’s line on Iran

The US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear program. The aim is to make the document more supportive of Vice President Dick Cheney’s militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts provided by participants in the NIE process to two former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officers.
But this pressure on intelligence analysts, obviously instigated by Cheney himself, has not produced a draft estimate without those dissenting views, these sources say. The White House has now apparently decided to release the “unsatisfactory” draft NIE, but without making its key findings public.
..

Posted by: b | Nov 10 2007 19:33 utc | 2

This seems like a great place to ask my question. I love your site and all your readers are incredibly informed. What about the 40 tons of bomb-grade uranium that still is at large in the world from our policy of giving it to countries in the 50’s? It was called the Atoms for Peace program and was described in the Chicago Tribune this last winter.
Why can’t North Korea just get it’s hands on this stuff or for that matter, Iran? According to the Tribune, the one man who was on its trail has been basically let go by the government and no one else seems to know much about it.
Does anyone here know more? The article also seemed to imply that the other countries with nuclear weapons may have used the uranium that we gave them.
Anyway, thanks for a great blog.

Posted by: christiana | Nov 10 2007 23:07 utc | 3

bolton tried to pull the same kind of crap wrt cuba & falsified intel on a bio-weapon program there a few years back, but he was called on it & even ridiculed
it’s a shame that the guy is still given any credibility outside his nuclear family

Posted by: b real | Nov 11 2007 3:37 utc | 4

Not to take devil’s advocate position, but that N Korean “nuclear” test yield was
little more than ~3T, about the seismic force of the high explosives required to
start a chain reaction, that obviously didn’t happen, perhaps was never meant to.
N Korea has nothing but a tin foil saber in a cardboard sheath, no industry and a
starving population. It serves their aid strategy, and serves Bush GWOT paradigm
to pretend that N Korea can ‘destroy the world’, but in fact, knowledgeable rocket
scientists have already proven the Taepo Dong is not stable enough to support
an intercontinental payload, as was proven precisely in fact when the last N Korean
ballistic missile test self-destructed down range due to structural instability.
Yet the Bush Administration deliberately (it’s their rocket scientists, after all)
ignored the evidence, the analysis, the failed test, and continues to spread the
lie that N Korea can threaten the US mainland, when, in fact, even if a Taepo Dong
could somehow miraculously survive re-entry when it can’t even survive boost phase,
and miraculously the mini-warhead that failed a scripted test could survive to
explode downrange, the farthest a Taepo Dong could reach is the Aleutians or the
Hawaiian Archipelgo, home to innumerable wildlife, but only a handful of humans,
and therefore not a strategic target at all, but a charade. A game of checkers.
A charade for Oil for Food, same as Saddam. A charade for GWOT and another $193B
down the rathole of DoD aerospace defense that never yet defended US, not once!
Just a cabal of barking mad pol’s, NK and DC, a Church of Death of white labcoat
pharisees, corrupting the truth for very fat paychecks and double-dip pensions.
Turn them out! Make them grow their own food, and build bicycles and get off the damned dole they’ve been collecting for three generations now, another tax and
tithe catholic of popes and high priests, golden idols and death worship, and by g-d, The Right Stuff(TM), whatever the hell that means in aerospace welfare-speak.
North Korea has nothing. It’s a side show. Give ’em $2B a year like we grift Israel.
Let’s get back to the real war of terror taking place on Wall Street and WADC, one
that threatens the lives of millions of people around the world, every single day.

Posted by: Peris Troika | Nov 11 2007 5:03 utc | 5

Why can’t North Korea just get it’s hands on this stuff or for that matter, Iran?
almost as scary as israel having the bomb, or us?

Posted by: annie | Nov 11 2007 5:59 utc | 6

@Christina – The U.S. is buying back “Atoms for peace” stuff it once gave to others. The highly enriched stuff (don’t know if its 27tons – sounds too much) is usually within research reactors and not in pure clean form as it would be needed. One could extract Plutonium from it though.
Anyone who has this stuff would not sell it. The IAEA was founded to exactly control the AfP stuff. The U.S. gave some of the stuff to countries not under IAEA limits (India, Israel, Pakistan) and those countries used it to develop their programs. But to buy it today from someone? Who would sell?

Posted by: b | Nov 11 2007 6:40 utc | 7

@ #3, Christina, I might be wrong, but I recall, this atoms for peace material was reactor grade, not weapons grade, true a lot could have been done with it since, to up grade or breed plutonium.

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Nov 11 2007 6:47 utc | 8

I wish I could link to the article but it is an easy google. (I’m not very computer savvy). It was weapons grade material and there is still about 40 tons of it out there and people have been caught carrying it in their pocket to sell.
And Annie, I agree with you. I think Iran or any nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons particularly if the nuclear nations are doing nothing to inhibit or stop the growth of their own programs. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.
I just don’t understand why this uranium that exists isn’t part of the discussion about other nations making the bomb.

Posted by: christiana | Nov 11 2007 14:07 utc | 9

I just don’t understand why this uranium that exists isn’t part of the discussion about other nations making the bomb.
Simple: The discussion isn’t about nuclear bombs at all … it’s about regime change whereever the U.S. desires regime change …

Posted by: b | Nov 11 2007 14:10 utc | 10

‘Intelligence’:

That missile spotted by analysts of satellite imagery? It was a rotating steel drum for drying corn. The missile photographed from the air? Chickens in Iraq are raised in long, low half-cylinder coops. Some weapons searchers finally had T-shirts printed with the U.N. symbol and the words “Ballistic Chicken Farm Inspection Team.” In the middle of the night in Baghdad, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, was calling from Washington with precise geographic coordinates to guide searchers to Iraq’s hidden WMDs. The supposed hiding place was in Lebanon.

Curveball, Swing and A Miss

Posted by: b | Nov 12 2007 10:15 utc | 11

@spook #12
I expect that if NoKo had serious weapon capabilities, they would also have “feed their people” capabilities. I’ll worry about it when they start testing a delivery system more advanced than the Taepodong Bottle Rocket II.
No, I don’t take every politically motivated claim at face value. George W. Bush, for example, claimed, despite solid intelligence evidence to the contrary, to be fiscally conservative.
The blowback from living in a climate of scare tactics for the past six years is that we’ve all become inured to it. My being unimpressed is not a continuation of a Sunshine Policy… it’s just that I’m unimpressed.

Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 15 2007 6:31 utc | 12

And Annie, I agree with you. I think Iran or any nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons
you agree w/me? i never said anything about agreeing nations being allowed to have nuclear weapons. my comment was the idea of NK or iran having then being as scary as the US or israel.
is there a suggestion that reasonable people ignore the north’s claims and pretend that they didn’t declare a nuclear capability, the objective of their programme, or the intended purposes for their missile delivery systems?
i think most people understand NK uses threat to get money/oil. i heard clinton speak once, he said they need food and oil and they have weapons. if you give them what they need, the threat goes off the table. so far anyway.
why, do you worry about NK being a threat to the US? i don’t. of course they could ratchet up the propaganda and get people afraid pretty fast, if it served their purpose. maybe we could call them part of the axis of evil and then connect them w/another axis of evil, and then another..
we’re being played, and it ain’t by NK.
Political strategists debated the domestic implications of the North Korean test with midterm elections four weeks away. Some Republicans predicted it would take the focus off the Mark Foley congressional page scandal and remind voters that it is a dangerous world best confronted by tough-minded leaders. Some Democrats argued it would be seen as another failure of Bush’s foreign policy and moved quickly to try to pin blame on the Republicans. “Is this going to help Republicans?” asked Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). “The answer to that is absolutely not. This is another significant foreign policy failure for the administration.”
sunshine blogging? not being afraid of something is not the same as being ‘in favor’ of.

Posted by: annie | Nov 15 2007 6:37 utc | 13

yes, what monolycus said. we were cross posting.

Posted by: annie | Nov 15 2007 6:40 utc | 14