Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Faked documents used to justify Iraq war were not checked closely at the t

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:22 AM
Original message
Faked documents used to justify Iraq war were not checked closely at the t
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/199/wash/Faked_documents_used_to_justif:.shtml

WASHINGTON (AP) Documents alleging Iraq sought uranium from Africa were obtained months before President Bush cited them in making his case for war, but intelligence analysts did not look at them closely enough to know they were forgeries until after Bush had made the claim, U.S. officials say.

U.S. officials offered new information Thursday on the trail of the documents, which purported to show Iraq tried to obtain uranium from the African country of Niger for its weapons programs. Their account suggested a disconnect between the CIA and the State Department over the handling of what turned out to be a crucial but faulty piece of intelligence used to make the Bush administration's case for war.

Officials acknowledged that had U.S. intelligence analyzed the documents sooner, they could have discovered the forgeries before the information was used as fodder for Bush administration statements vilifying Iraq.

The State Department said Thursday it obtained the documents in the fall of 2002, but intelligence officials said the CIA didn't get them until the following February. The State Department said it made them available to other agencies in the government shortly after acquiring them; officials could not explain why the CIA did not get copies of them sooner.

more

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DrBB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Doesn't hold up
This comes flat up against the fact--FACT--that the CIA DID stop shrump from putting it in his October 2002 speech in Cincinatti. So if they didn't know it was bogus then, why'd they nix it?

Keep multiplying epicycles, dudes, but eventually all those nice crystal spheres are gonna crack, shatter and come crashing to earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. BS Alert.......Look to OSP, people.....
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:00 AM
Original message
Nice try! Then why drop it from *'s October speech? (Tenet)
Why tell the brits not to rely on them (also in 2002). Why did Powell have a memo on the fakeness fron 2002 as well? A 3 years old would have spotted the errors: one letter was postmarked one month prior to its date!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paschall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:00 AM
Original message
Huh?
Edited on Fri Jul-18-03 11:07 AM by Paschall
I can't reconstruct the timeline here, but it sounds like they're trying to claim that the CIA (1) didn't see the Nigerian documents until February, but (2), on the basis of something, judged the evidence inconclusive and tried to veto repeatedly Shrub's inclusion of remarks about Nigeria in his speeches in the fall.

So are we to understand that the Nigerian documents were distributed throughout the intelligence community and the information they contained was pumped up or squelched (depending) during the fall... but it wasn't until AFTER the SOTU that anyone happened to notice the documents themselves were fake?

Right! As they say, I'll have what he's smoking!

ON EDIT: There's also the little problem of Wilson's mission to Nigeria, ordered by Cheney via the CIA. Do you send a retired ambassador to Africa without first examining the documents he is supposed to go investigate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
3. Forged documents and a red flag doesn't come up?
Why are syncopant dummies still clinging to the "We did the right thing by invading Iraq" defense?

Ha...a case partailly built on phoney documents. Try to prosecute a private citizen with that kind of evidence, much less a nation of 25,000,000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damnraddem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Oh come on, they had no reason to look at the documents closely!
Why closely examine what you yourself have written?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC