Agent behind fake uranium documents worked for France
[...]
His admission to investigating magistrates in Rome on Friday apparently confirms suggestions that – by commissioning “Giacomo” to procure and circulate documents – France was responsible for some of the information later used by Britain and the United States to promote the case for war with Iraq.

Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade “yellowcake” uranium from Niger, France was trying to “set up” Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.

My point is that we could have known this if we had let the inspectors do their job, but they were undercut and ridiculed by the warmongers in the WH before their job was over. The inspectors said “we can’t find current evidence of a weapons program,” and the WH said “It’s there, trust us. You can’t find it because you don’t have unfettered access, the sort of access one can only get by taking over the country.”

So we did that. And unfettered access turned up Jack and Squat.

If I bought a butcher knife ten years ago, it doesn’t mean I’m a serial killer today.

Christ, JWG, all evidence since the war shows that the UN was right

The UN believed Iraq had a working WMD program and was pursuing a more advanced productivity. The UN was wrong.

I made no statements about the decision to actually go to war. I merely restated the FACT that the world believed Iraq had a WMD program.

There’s a difference between lying and being wrong.

Did you read your own cut and bolded text?

Yes, I did, BD. It was very clear. Did YOU read it? It says the UN had evidence that “demonstrated that Saddam Hussein had initiated both a nuclear and a biological weapons program.”

Was the UN lying?

It is interesting to note that in spite of the fact that Cheney, Rice and minions kept hammering  mushroom cloud that Bush would weasel his State of the Union address by referencing  British . This suggests the need for legal loopholes was anticipated by the Administration. Hence their rallying the troops around the  technically legal defense as the only strategy left for their rapidly evaporating credibility. As for the stretch to an all-encompassing conspiracy. It is doubtful. But their awareness of their “House of Straw”and the paper-thin ‘evidence’, is at least evidence of “careless disregard”,

Some have clamed that the French government circulated these bogus documents to Britain and the US with the intention that they would wrongfully use them to justify the Iraq war… the theory being that France was trying to “set up” Blair and Bush with false documents which when revealed, would humiliate them and undermine the case for war.

Here’s a link: http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/19/wniger19.xml

I don’t know if I buy it, but it will be interesting to see the results of the investigation, but I’m also no buying the theory that the U.S. is behind the forgeries. At the very least, the Bush and Blair administrations used highly questionable intelligence to justify that Iraq was planning to procure nuclear material, and for that they should be embarassed.

Clap harder!!!!

The inspectors found nothing. We went to war anyway.

Did you read your own cut and bolded text?

about the lies and exaggerations

Did you read the linked article?

And since no WMD were found in Iraq after the 2003 war, despite the evidence from the U.N. inspections of the 1990s that demonstrated that Saddam Hussein had initiated both a nuclear and a biological weapons program, the strongest plank in the Bush administration’s case for war has crumbled beneath its feet.