I watched one of the network newscasts on Saturday evening, ABC I think, but I’m not positive.
They led off with the story of that the administration was now questioning Hans Blix’ integrity, due to the “burying” of the drone information. I never heard them mention the forge document issue.
And like rsa, I have heard it mentioned on CNN.
Another segment on CNN today with a former CIA officer (Ray Close).
Interesting, I am curious as to the play this gets outside of the large media centres in the United States.
Second question then: should this not be an enormous scandal. Neither explanation, malice (which seems likely given the bloody string of such things we have seen coming from the Americans) or incompetence should be glossed over, no?
Even reading the threads here, I am surprised the pro-war American posters seem so blase on what looks like a dirty tricks campaign.
Don’t be surprised. The only dirt that the posters you are referring to is concerned with is who is getting blow jobs. Apparently they can only think about sex.
I watched Colin Powell being interviewed by a Senate committee last night. Regarding the subject of forged documents, He was asked if he knew which govt provided the document now disclosed as a fake to the UN inspectors.
His answer was he wasnt completely certain which govt provided it. The US didnt give the fake documents to the UN Inspectors, the US and the Britain just knew of it. No one in that room would even suggest that Colin Powell had a hand in trying to pass off a fake document to the UN inspectors.
I didn’t see Colin Powell’s appearance, but I understand that Britain provided the documents to the IAEA after being vetted by the U.S. If you have a cite that the unknown third country provided the documents directly to the IAEA, please post it.
The FBI is investigating the origin of the documents.
And on a related note, what’s up with that drone plane that had balsa wood wings held on by duct tape with a weed whacker (OK, maybe motorcycle) engine. Big whoop.
I supported the war in Afghanistan and have been on the fence for this one, but Bush and company have pushed me to side of the peaceniks.
I really hope that you weren’t paying close attention because this is just totally wrong according to the CNN report that was just on (which was a rehash of the one that I linked to earlier). I hope that you are not being as mendacious as the administration.
I was wondering about the drone plane myself. First there was some tough talk from the administration about how Blix was covering up the “smoking gun”. Then there were news reports that the plane was made of balsa wood and duct tape. Then silence. Perhaps the administration was referring to some other plane but their silence suggests otherwise.
These blunders have gone beyond incompetence and moved in the realms of absurdity.
The latest one is the apparent backing down on the UN vote after Bush announced with great bravado that he would call for a vote regardless of whether the US would win.
Heres an Article about the forgeries.
Why am I surprised the French had a hand in this…
The WaPo article clearly says that the papers were supplied by the Brits and reviewed by the US. It doesn’t mention the Italians or French. I don’t see any reason to doubt them and I haven’t seen any other mention of the French or Italians.
Excerpt from rsa’s cnn link
I think the CIA assumed the documents were real.
Remember what the say about what happens when you assume…
Christ, I probably could have caught that last error about the foreign minister using Google. I would really like to hear how they can defend a mistake like that.
I haven’t seen any news reports about the drone plane Blix left out of his preliminary report being made of balsa wood and duct tape. Why would Blix even have included it in his final report if it was such a shoddy construct?
Fraid I do not see the import of the Globe & Mail arty mate, the ‘French’ angle seems irrelevant to the issue of origin, and the issue of why the Americans tried to use this.
Like to see more than one journo report this.
Sorry mate, this “assumption” -is it not ironic you assume given your last line- says nothing about the real scandal here.
It leaves us with two conclusions:
I have yet to see anything suggesting that the US “promoted” the Niger reports. At most, the US passed them on because it could do so without compromising American intelligence assets. The Americans can’t be criticized for not passing on intelligence and then criticized when they do.
If Bush stood up and said “we’ve got these reports out of Niger,” you have an issue. If the US let the documents flow to the UN with a shrug, you don’t.
My God man, did you read the bleedin’ links here? I can’t believe anyone can honestly make the statement bolded above. These were bloody integral to the Anglo-American case for the bloody nuclear program, along with the tubes, which also bloody fell through.
Just from these links, American sources all:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59403-2003Mar7.html
“The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence.”
and
"Last September, the United States and Britain issued reports accusing Iraq of renewing its quest for nuclear weapons. In Britain’s assessment, Iraq reportedly had “sought significant amounts of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear program that could require it.”
Also Bush used them to support his case:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/2020/GMA030310Iraq_weapons_evidence.html
“The documents were first disclosed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair last September — and referenced by Bush in his State of the Union address in January.”
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/08/cst.07.html
"What else is Mr. ElBaradei reporting to the Security Council? Well, it drew little notice, because of the high powered debate and arguments among the big powers, but the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that his group has certified that documents provided by countries that allege possibly that the Iraqis were doing deals with the African nation of Niger to get enriched uranium for nuclear production were fakes, were forgeries. They refused to say whether it was the U.S. that gave them all the documents or Britain, but they’re just saying what they were given to examine shows no confirmation that Iraq, as President Bush alleged in his State of the Union address, was getting enriched uranium in a potential deal with the African nation of Niger – Renay. "
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/14/ltm.14.html
"MOHAMED ELBARADEI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: The IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are, in fact, not authentic.
ENSOR: A former CIA operations official says the Central Intelligence Agency should have known better.
CLOSE: They have tremendously sophisticated and experienced people in their technical services division who wouldn’t allow a forgery like this to get by. I mean it’s just, it’s mystifying to me. I can’t understand it.
ENSOR: A U.S. intelligence official says the documents were passed on to the IAEA with the comment, “We don’t know the provenance of this information, but here it is.” If a mistake was made, a U.S. official suggested, it was more likely incompetence, not malice.
CLOSE: That’s a convenient explanation but it doesn’t satisfy me because incompetence I have not seen in those agencies. I’ve seen plenty of malice, but I’ve never seen incompetence.
ENSOR: What makes the matter all the more embarrassing is that the African uranium plot was highlighted by the president himself.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
If highlighting this in public statements and private diplomacy is a shrug, I am a bloody kiwi.
Perhaps “promoted” was an ill used word.
Where in these articles does it say that US or Britain
a) Authenticated
b) Obtained
c) verified or corroborated
d) submitted
e) was responsible
for the Niger documents? The US and Britain knew about it. Where is it in the UN charter that specifically states the the CIA, FBI or MI-5 are to do any of that to a document independently submitted to the UN? Its not enuf that the US is the de facto albeit unappreciated Police for the entire world, now the CIA has to be the World’s intelligence service as well??
Bloody hell. Mate, see the bleedin’ quotes supra.
As NurseCarmen posted the thread to be moved to the BBQ, this recaps the prior articles:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html
Thanks for the link. A revealing quote about how obviously bogus the documents were:
"Sources said that one of the documents was a letter discussing the uranium deal supposedly signed by Niger President Tandja Mamadou. The sources described the signature as “childlike” and said that it clearly was not Mamadou’s.
Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been foreign minister of Niger in 14 years, sources said."