1
   

Tell Us Who Fabricated the Iraq Evidence

 
 
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 04:16 pm
October Monday 10th 2005 (23h57) :
Tell Us Who Fabricated the Iraq Evidence
President Bush's principal adviser Karl Rove is to be questioned again over the improper naming of a CIA official. Mohamed ElBaradei, accused by the American right of being insufficiently aggressive, wins the Nobel Peace Prize for his stalwart work at the helm of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Pentagon official Larry Franklin pleads guilty to passing on classified information to Israel. Just a normal week in politics. But there is a thread linking these events and it is Iraq.
Politicians tell us they acted in good faith on the road to war, and maybe they did, but that leaves a prickly question: who was so keen to prove that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat that they forged documents purporting to show that he was trying to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger to develop nuclear weapons? The forgery was revealed to the Security Council by ElBaradei. That was not an intelligence error. It was a straightforward lie, an invention intended to mislead public opinion and help start a war.

At the beginning of 2001, a few weeks before George Bush took office, there was a break-in at the Niger embassy in Rome. Strangely, nothing of value was taken. Months later came 9/11 and a month after that, as George Bush wondered how to get back at the terrorists, a report from the Italian security service (Sismi) reached the CIA: Iraq was seeking to buy uranium.

Disappointingly for the neocons, the CIA sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to check the story: he reported that it was nonsense. When the story was repeated by Bush, Wilson went public. His wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, was then outed by the White House. Hence Rove's predicament.

An organisation called the Office of Special Plans (OSP) was set up in the Pentagon by Douglas Feith, a former consultant to Israel's Likud party, to prepare for the war. In the words of Robert Baer, a distinguished former CIA man, it was a "competing intelligence shop at the Pentagon"..."if you didn't like the answer you're getting from the CIA". In short, bogus stories would get a second chance at the OSP.

A clue to the ancestry of these black arts can be found in 1980, when right-wing Republicans wanted Ronald Reagan elected. They publicised a story that Billy Carter, the then President Jimmy Carter's colourful brother, had received $50,000 (£28,000) from the Libyan government.

The story was always denied by the President and no evidence of the payment was found, but the story helped to elect Reagan. Its source? Sismi, and an associate of a man called Michael Ledeen.

Ledeen is an intriguing and enduring presence in the murkier parts of US foreign policy. He is an American specialist on Italy with a long-standing commitment to Israel. According to The New York Times, in December 2001, a few months after the CIA first heard the Niger claims, Ledeen flew to Rome with Manucher Ghorbanifar, a former Iranian arms dealer, and two officials from OSP, one of whom was Larry Franklin. In Rome they met the head of Sismi.

Some months later, the documents were published, having been sold to an Italian journalist by a Roman businessman linked to Sismi.So far, so circumstantial. One man who might well know the answer to all this is Vincent Cannistraro, the former head of counter terrorism operations at the CIA. His belief is that the documents were produced in the US but "funnelled through the Italians". When an interviewer asked Cannistraro "if I said Michael Ledeen", he reportedly replied "I don't think it's a proven case ...You'd be very close"

Ledeen, on hearing this, issued the following statement: "I have absolutely no connection to the Niger documents, have never even seen them. I did not work on them, never handled them, know virtually nothing about them, don't think I ever wrote or said anything about the subject."

It seems it wasn't Ledeen but someone close to him. So who was it who had been planning since before 9/11 to create a fraudulent casus belli against Saddam?

Norman Dombey is Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Sussex and an expert on Iraq's nuclear capability.

http://www.independent.co.uk/
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,611 • Replies: 35
No top replies

 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:30 pm
Manucher Ghorbanifar, I thought I would never see that name again.

Go ahead. Goggle him.

Joe(Excuse me, Ollie, you have a phone call)Nation
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:44 pm
Just the fact that Saddam Hussein had had WMD and development programs, and had lied to and misled the inspectors in order to conceal them was sufficient reason to believe that he might well still be doing it. Even just the superficial events of the case justified invasion, if we are serious about keeping doomsday weapons out of the hands of madmen. So, who cares if one or two pieces of evidence turned out to be false? The basic sequence of events was more than sufficient justification.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:46 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Just the fact that Saddam Hussein had had WMD and development programs, and had lied to and misled the inspectors in order to conceal them was sufficient reason to believe that he might well still be doing it. Even just the superficial events of the case justified invasion, if we are serious about keeping doomsday weapons out of the hands of madmen. So, who cares if one or two pieces of evidence turned out to be false? The basic sequence of events was more than sufficient justification.


Shoot first and ask questions later. I thought that ended with the wild west. Seems that the west is just as wild as ever.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:47 pm
According to Brandon, a child in kindergarten has the potential to kill millions. Best to massacre the little dude now, as the moral response.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:56 pm
If you wanted to fake a cause celebre on the cheap it looks like this would be your guy.


Wikipedia

Manucher Ghorbanifar

"Iranian officials also suspected Ghorbanifar of passing them forged American documents. The CIA issued a "burn notice" (or "Fabricator Notice") on Ghorbanifar in 1984 meaning he was regarded as an unreliable source of intelligence. A 1987 congressional report on Iran-Contra cites the CIA warning that Ghorbanifar "should be regarded as an intelligence fabricator and a nuisance".
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 08:22 pm
"Shoot first and ask questions later" is the rule for the cowboy Bush. He went AWOL while he was supposed to be serving our country, but Big Daddy got him off the hook.

I believe Bush is the first (and last) president that's ever gone AWOL who later became the commander in chief.

Therein lies the incompetence - like all the cronies he's given jobs to in our govament.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 11:24 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
According to Brandon, a child in kindergarten has the potential to kill millions. Best to massacre the little dude now, as the moral response.

This is an extremely stupid thing to say. A child in kindergarten may have a theoretical possibility of growing up to kill millions, but a terrible dictator, with a history trying to annex his neighbors, with a history of trying to build every form of doomsday weapon, with a history of hiding the doomsday weapons and lying to weapons inspectors, had a reasonable likelihood of concluding his weapons development in secret. Anyone who compares a one in a million chance to a reasonable likelihood is arguing like a fool.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 11:26 pm
Brandon, Did your momma teach you about fear?
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2005 07:48 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Just the fact that Saddam Hussein had had WMD and development programs, and had lied to and misled the inspectors in order to conceal them was sufficient reason to believe that he might well still be doing it. Even just the superficial events of the case justified invasion, if we are serious about keeping doomsday weapons out of the hands of madmen. So, who cares if one or two pieces of evidence turned out to be false? The basic sequence of events was more than sufficient justification.


We made the wrong decision.

Quote:
Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.


Downing Street Memo
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2005 08:29 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Brandon, Did your momma teach you about fear?

Why are you libs so terrified of arguing on point here? You people flee from confronting our arguments directly, as in a debate, and prefer instead the wisecrack. I assume it's because your ideas can't compete with ours, but whatever the reason, it just means you forfeit.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2005 08:30 am
freedom4free wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Just the fact that Saddam Hussein had had WMD and development programs, and had lied to and misled the inspectors in order to conceal them was sufficient reason to believe that he might well still be doing it. Even just the superficial events of the case justified invasion, if we are serious about keeping doomsday weapons out of the hands of madmen. So, who cares if one or two pieces of evidence turned out to be false? The basic sequence of events was more than sufficient justification.


We made the wrong decision.

I don't suppose you'd have the guts to give an actual argument to back up your ideas?
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2005 08:37 am
Just keep hanging on by your fingertips, pathetic delusional Brandon and the other few remaining Bush supporters.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2005 08:39 am
Brandon, Bushie was providing Blix and ElBaradei with intelligence to investigate. Upon investigation it was proven over and over that Bushie's intelligence was fake, fabricated, forged and just dead wrong. The right way to go would to have given Blix a few more months. In the end he would have discovered what Bushie has discovered, nothing. No WMD. No rationalization for war. But then Bushie never needed a rationalization. He had long been planning an invasion Iraq in league with his PNAC cohorts. Their plan is found in their position paper written in the late 90s which not only called for establishing bases in Iraq whether Saddam was still around or not, but openly stated that a catastrophe on the order of a new Pearl Harbor would help them sell their plans to the American people. And we know they got their new Pearl Harbor on 911 and then lied us into war.
0 Replies
 
AliceInWonderland
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2005 08:53 am
No one is disputing the fact that few wmd's were found in Iraq after the invasion. I think the real question is, "So, where did they go?" Seriously - they were there in 1991 and were seen by inspectors, the inspector were booted, they were gone when the inspectors came back. If they were actually destroyed by Sadaam, why not keep the inspector to prove it?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2005 08:55 am
Synonymph wrote:
Just keep hanging on by your fingertips, pathetic delusional Brandon and the other few remaining Bush supporters.

I don't suppose you'd care to actually support your position with an argument? If I am wrong and you are right, why is it that I can give arguments for my case, but you cannot, or else regard yourself as somehow above discussion? These are not usually characteristics of someone who is in the right.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2005 08:58 am
blueflame1 wrote:
Brandon, Bushie was providing Blix and ElBaradei with intelligence to investigate. Upon investigation it was proven over and over that Bushie's intelligence was fake, fabricated, forged and just dead wrong. The right way to go would to have given Blix a few more months. In the end he would have discovered what Bushie has discovered, nothing.

They had had 12 years and failed while Iraq lied, prevented inspector access to sites, and hid weapons. No one lied about the fact that Hussein had had WMD and WMD programs and obstructed inspections. That's a matter of public record and sufficient to justify invasion.
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2005 09:06 am
Brandon, the facts are there. They've been pointed out to you over and over. Your neocon sheep-self still refuses to see what the rest of the world sees.

You're beginning to look very comical.

Carry on. I'm sure you'll be still parroting away the next time I check the Politics forums.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2005 09:10 am
Synonymph wrote:
Brandon, the facts are there. They've been pointed out to you over and over. Your neocon sheep-self still refuses to see what the rest of the world sees.

You're beginning to look very comical.

Carry on. I'm sure you'll be still parroting away the next time I check the Politics forums.

The person who cannot back up any of her ideas with argument, no matter what her rationale, is the comical one, not the person who does support his ideas. Your pose of somehow being above arguing with the likes of us is just another way of forfeiting. Calling me "comical," a "sheep," or a "parrot," is not logical argument, it's name calling - strange behavior for someone "in the right."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2005 09:45 am
Brandon, You keep asking for evidence, but it's the other way around. You can only say Saddam "had" WMDs at one time. We all agree "he had," but didn't in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. You're the one sitting on straws while demanding some cockamayme proof. Our proof has been repeated ad-nauseum; Blix, Baradei, and Smith all warned this administration the info they had were wrong; that the yellow cake purchase by Saddam was fake. These are facts. You have provided none.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Tell Us Who Fabricated the Iraq Evidence
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/09/2024 at 01:33:24