View Full Version : So the US 'evidence' for Iraqi nukes was faked.


kypper
03-25-2003, 01:18 PM
Great... how many Iraqis are dying right now for this?
How much money are Bush and Cheney making off of it? (I know Cheney's Haliburton stands to REALLY profit)

-----------
U.N. Official: Fake Iraq Nuke Papers Were Crude
Tue March 25, 2003 09:39 AM ET
By Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA (Reuters) - A few hours and a simple internet search was all it took for U.N. inspectors to realize documents backing U.S. and British claims that Iraq had revived its nuclear program were crude fakes, a U.N. official said.

Speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, a senior official from the U.N. nuclear agency who saw the documents offered as evidence that Iraq tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, described one as so badly forged his "jaw dropped."

"When (U.N. experts) started to look at them, after a few hours of going at it with a critical eye things started to pop out," the official said, adding a more thorough investigation used up "resources, time and energy we could have devoted elsewhere."

The United States first made the allegation that Iraq had revived its nuclear program last fall when the CIA warned that Baghdad "could make a nuclear weapon within a year" if it acquired uranium. President Bush found the proof credible enough to add it to his State of the Union speech in January.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) official said the charge Iraq sought the uranium was to be the "stake in the heart" of Baghdad and "would have been as close to a smoking gun as you could get" because Iraq could only want it for weapons.

OBVIOUS FAKES

Once the IAEA got the documents -- which took months -- French nuclear scientist Jacques Bautes, head of the U.N. Iraq Nuclear Verification office, quickly saw they were fakes.

Two documents were particularly bad. The first was a letter from the president of Niger which referred to his authority under the 1965 constitution. That constitution has been defunct for nearly four years, the official said.

There were other problems with the letter, including an unsuccessful forgery of the president's signature.

"It doesn't even look close to the signature of the president. I'm not a (handwriting) expert but when I looked at it my jaw dropped," the official said.

Another letter about uranium dated October 2000 purportedly came from Niger's foreign minister and was signed by a Mr. Alle Elhadj Habibou, who has not been foreign minister since 1989.

To make matters worse, the letterhead was out of date and referred to Niger's "Supreme Military Council" from the pre-1999 era -- which would be like calling Russia the Soviet Union.

After determining the documents were fakes, the IAEA had a group of international forensics experts -- including people from the U.S and Britain -- verify their findings. The panel unanimously agreed with the IAEA.

"We don't know who did it," the official said, adding that it would be easy to come up with a long list of groups and states which would like to malign the present Iraqi regime.

The IAEA asked the U.S. and Britain if they had any other evidence backing the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium. The answer was no.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei informed the U.N. Security Council in early March that the Niger proof was fake and that three months with 218 inspections at 141 sites had produced "no evidence or plausible indication" Iraq had a nuclear program.

But last week Vice President Dick Cheney repeated the U.S. position and said that ElBaradei was wrong about Iraq.

"We know (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein) has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons," he said.

http://www.reuters.com

--------------

DeviousJ
03-25-2003, 06:32 PM
I heard some of it was submitted on the headed paper of a government which hadn't been in power for decades. And apparently the CIA did claim to have other evidence, but after reviewing it the IAEA stated they had seen no evidence to support the claims.

Blank
03-25-2003, 09:09 PM
Please explain to me how Cheney will profit from Halliburton obtaining governmental contracts?

sppunk
03-25-2003, 09:30 PM
I wouldn't trust Reuters or its "sources" to much, they are essentially a private tabloid news service that is attempting to revive themselves after the surging Associated Press took control over defunt UPI.

Affect
03-25-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by kypper

Speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, a senior official from the U.N. nuclear agency

Soundz legit 2 me.

Fucking idiot.

kypper
03-26-2003, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Affect


Soundz legit 2 me.

Fucking idiot.

Reuters has been established long before CNN.

Suck my joint.

DeviousJ
03-26-2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Blank
Please explain to me how Cheney will profit from Halliburton obtaining governmental contracts?

He owns a *lot* of stock

DeviousJ
03-26-2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Affect


Soundz legit 2 me.

Fucking idiot.

moreinfo4u

http://www.counterpunch.org/close03102003.html

DeviousJ
03-26-2003, 10:38 AM
Oh, here's the full IAEA report if anyone's interested

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml

kypper
03-26-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by DeviousJ
Oh, here's the full IAEA report if anyone's interested

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml

thanks Lee :D

Blank
03-26-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by DeviousJ


He owns a *lot* of stock
Hmmm, do you mean all of the common stock that he donated? I don't think that he will profit from that. Check out the company filings with the SEC, and then look into their proxy statements. He got rid of all of his options, and common stock ownership when he began campaigning.

You normally don't post statements that are full of bs. I am surprised.

sawdust restaurants
03-26-2003, 05:16 PM
Yeah, Reuters aren't the only people who have reported on this--it's pretty accepted now that a lot of the CIA's evidence was fake. That doesn't preclude Iraq from having weapons, but it's still kinda harrowing.

DeviousJ
03-26-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Blank

Hmmm, do you mean all of the common stock that he donated? I don't think that he will profit from that. Check out the company filings with the SEC, and then look into their proxy statements. He got rid of all of his options, and common stock ownership when he began campaigning.

You normally don't post statements that are full of bs. I am surprised.

Yeah you're right, sorry. I knew he'd divested a lot of his stock but not that he'd sold the rest later. So as far as Cheney's direct benefit goes, I can't really see it. You could of course argue that he's looking after his friends, and that he could return to the company if the Democrats win the next election (it happened with the Reagan administration) which is just conjecture.

Blank
03-26-2003, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by DeviousJ


Yeah you're right, sorry. I knew he'd divested a lot of his stock but not that he'd sold the rest later. So as far as Cheney's direct benefit goes, I can't really see it. You could of course argue that he's looking after his friends, and that he could return to the company if the Democrats win the next election (it happened with the Reagan administration) which is just conjecture.
Agreed.

I just refuse to buy into the arguments that he is directly benefitting from these contracts.