Washington — Before and after U.S. President George W. Bush claimed in January that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa, U.S. intelligence officials expressed doubts about the British intelligence report that Mr. Bush cited to back up his allegation, senior U.S. officials said.
Those doubts were relayed to British officials before they made them public and across several agencies of the federal government before Mr. Bush gave his State of the Union speech, the officials said.
CBS, ABC and CNN reported Thursday that CIA officials who saw a draft of Mr. Bush's speech even questioned whether his statement was too strong given the quality of the British intelligence. But the remark was left in, provided it was attributed to the British.
The reports surfaced as Democrats kept up a drumbeat of criticism of the Bush administration's justifications for going to war. Much of the criticism has focused on Mr. Bush's contention that Saddam Hussein's government had chemical and biological weapons and was working to build more of them and develop nuclear bombs. No such weapons have been found in Iraq.
Related Articles
Critics also have attacked the administration's characterizations of the current outlook in Iraq, where the war's former commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, told a House panel Thursday that U.S. troops may have to remain in Iraq for four years.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was among several Democratic presidential candidates to assail Mr. Bush's postwar performance.
"We now know that the administration went to war without a thorough plan to win the peace," Mr. Kerry said. "It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the postwar burden internationally for the sake of our country."
The Senate on Thursday, in a 97-0 vote, called on Mr. Bush to work harder to get other countries to share the military burden in Iraq.
Mr. Bush, on an African tour, conceded there was a security problem in Iraq and said U.S. forces would have to "remain tough" in the face of attacks that Mr. Franks said were coming at the rate of 10 to 25 a day.
Officials contacted by The Associated Press declined to discuss the nature of discussions between the White House and CIA just before Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech, but noted the CIA's own assessment before the Iraq war about Mr. Hussein's efforts to make weapons of mass destruction did not give strong credence to the British report.
U.S. officials have said the doubts about the uranium allegations date back to early 2002, when a retired diplomat asked by the CIA to investigate the reports went to Niger and spoke with officials who denied having any uranium dealings with Iraq.
Though the U.S. officials expressed their doubts to the British, the British included their information in a public statement on Sept. 24, 2002, citing intelligence sources, that said Iraq sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
U.S. officials noted that a speech Secretary of State Collin Powell gave just a week after the president's address also did not repeat the African uranium allegations.
"When we looked at it more thoroughly and I think a week or two later when I made my presentation to the United Nations, and we really went through every single thing we knew about all of the various issues with respect to weapons of mass destruction, we did not believe that it was appropriate to use that example anymore," Mr. Powell explained Thursday in Pretoria, South Africa, where he was touring with Mr. Bush. "It was not standing the test of time."
Mr. Powell, nonetheless, defended the president's use of the British allegation.
"'There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people. The president was presenting what seemed to be a reasonable statement at that time," he said.
About a month after Mr. Bush's speech, the United Nations determined the uranium reports were based primarily on forged documents initially obtained by European intelligence agencies.
In its vote Thursday, the Senate advised Mr. Bush to call on NATO and the United Nations to help round up troops to provide stability and security in Iraq. Nearly 150,000 American troops are in Iraq, along with nearly 20,000 from other countries, mainly Britain.
The resolution's author, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said the administration's reluctance to enlist the French and Germans in postwar Iraq "continues to make us a target there."
Mr. Franks, who stepped down Monday as head of the military command overseeing Iraq and Afghanistan, said he didn't see a quick end to the hit-and-run attacks that have killed at least 31 U.S. troops since Mr. Bush declared major combat over on May 1.
"I anticipate we'll be involved in Iraq in the future," Mr. Franks told the House Armed Services Committee. "Whether that means two years or four years, I don't know."
Besides the 19 countries with forces in Iraq, another 19 are preparing to send troops and 11 are discussing it, Franks said. The United States hopes to have two divisions of about 20,000 international troops in the next few months, one led by the British and one by the Poles. NATO is helping Poland organize its division and several other members of the alliance already have troops in Iraq.
"'The United States, the United Kingdom, Poland, Spain, Italy, others are making their contribution now," Mr. Powell said.
