TellMeAgainWhyWeShouldInvade?

“Bush LIE to us? Never!


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in his presentation to the U.N. Security council outlining the Bush administration's case against Iraq.

"I'm sure the FBI and CIA must be mortified by this because it is extremely embarrassing to them," former CIA official Ray Close said.

Responding to questions about the documents from lawmakers, Powell said, "It was provided in good faith to the inspectors and our agency received it in good faith, not participating ... in any way in any falsification activities."

"It was the information that we had. We provided it. If that information is inaccurate, fine," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday.

"We don't believe that all the issues surrounding nuclear weapons have been resolved [in Iraq]," he said.

How were forgeries missed?
But the discovery raises questions such as why the apparent forgeries were given to inspectors and why U.S. and British intelligence agents did not recognize that they were not authentic.

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.

"The IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents -- which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger -- are not in fact authentic," ElBaradei said in his March 7 presentation to the U.N. Security Council.

Close said the CIA should have known better.

"They have tremendously sophisticated and experienced people in their technical services division, who wouldn't allow a forgery like this to get by," Close said. "I mean it's just mystifying to me. I can't understand it."

A U.S. intelligence official said that the documents were passed on to the International Atomic Energy Agency within days of being received 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 due to incompetence not malice.

"That's a convenient explanation, but it doesn't satisfy me," Close said. "Incompetence I have not seen in those agencies. I've seen plenty of malice, but I've never seen incompetence."

Who made the forgeries?
But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries?

Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men.

Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.

President Bush even highlighted the documents in his State of the Union address on January 28.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Bush said.

U.S. officials said that the assertion by the president and British government was also based on additional evidence of Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from another African country. But officials would not say which nation and a knowledgable U.S. official said that there was not much to that evidence either.”

“THOUSANDS OF SOLDIERS WOUNDED, HUNDREDS DEAD IN IRAQI POISON GAS ATTACK.











What will be the Liberal’s response to this headline?




Huh? They had chemical weapons?



Of course not! The Liberals will accuse the Bush administration of starting a war that killed Americans. The Iraqi’s are not guilty. The President is.”

“I'm sure that this is not the first time the US has been "creative" when it needs to get something it wants. Prolly more times than we'll ever know.

The realism here is that the future will judge if this was a good move or not. We have no way of knowing for sure what the out come will be.

One point I'd like to make is that Saddam is one of the biggest criminals against the enviroment the world has ever seen. What he did the the oil fields and how it impacted the Persian Gulf enviroment would be grounds lone for his removal, but we do not hear this from the "granolas". I wonder why that is?

Some say that to be against the war makes Saddam stronger by making him almost look like a guy whose getting the shaft. I kinda don't like this. He IS a murderer. I know people from Iraq that will never go back unless he is gone. I grew up with Arabs in my old 'hood and they used to talk about some real bad stuff that would happen over there....and that was way before the first Gulf war.

I agree that he MUST go, he shoulda went before, I just don't like the way it's going down, very sloppy. This is yet another Clinton "bill" we have to pay for while he was party with da ho's......”

“Snakpac, the reason he isn't allowed to have those types of weapons is that he invaded another sovereign country without provocation.


Think about it.”

“If we're making a pre-emptive strike, we'd BETTER damn well have our ducks in a row. Is Iraq a threat to the US? Is it?


HOW?”

“War has not fixed anything since WWII. We are not in that world today. Everything you have been told as a child, (you believe because you were a CHILD at the time), is not true. Can you not see for one second that you and your family are in a way you can't get out of if we go to war. I have one question....Why is it that you think everything will be fixed by war? What is it you see in the future that hasn't been proved incorrect in the past? I served in Desert Storm. I not only believed in our direction, but I did things that I wasn't happy to do. You are the least of my worries in this situation. You are all talk and no do. I have shot and killed people! Can you say that? Shut your ass. The ones with the biggest mouth are usally the ones that never should have had a mouth. Live it before you talk out your butt. I am against this one and sign me: A man that has been there. But don't trash your country. We saw enough of that in Vietnam. Be American for once people. Not the spoiled brats everyone in the rest of the world see us as. P.S I don't believe Bush has the American people in his best intrest. Think about it .... If you can....”

“What did he just say?”

“No 'lies'... just 'stretching the truth,' perhaps.

Gulf of Tonkin? What?”

“'Pentagon Papers'? What?”

“I used to work with a guy who was on a USN destroyer in the area when the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident occured. He swears it never happened.

As far as Saddam goes, if all this posturing and pressure can get him to dissarm then great. The pressure isn't working very well with the UN waffleing.

Invading without provacation is not a good idea in my opinion. Even if we have solid evidence of violations. He has to strike first, then we fight.

If we (the USA) are not wanted in that part of the world, lets pull our bases out and bring them closer to home. Bring home the foreign aid dollars. Bring home the oil dollars. We have enough long range stratigic weapons and carriers to project power if need be. Isn't there enough oil in South America and Alaska?

BTW I am an exremly conservative Republican, and I'll support the President, I just hope there's no war.

Also - Stratdewd asked me to say hi to all you liberal flamers - he misses you.”

“My point re: the Gulf of Tonkin is just as you relate... it did not occur as advertised. The fabrication was subsequently used to justify war or 'police action'.

Blind faith should not be placed in governments. Politicians are just people; they're not saints. They make mistakes like anyone. Unfortunately the stakes are much higher and others (many, many others) can pay a very heavy price.

When someone in a position of power says "Trust me," the hair on the back of my neck stands on end. It doesn't matter What part of the political spectrum they may represent.”