: Some evidence on Iraq called fake


JeepinIan
03-08-2003, 02:26 PM
IMO,It's not so much thast we were acused of falsifing these documents, but that it puts the rest of the evidence in question.
THis does not alter my prior statments or stance on the US/Iraq situation.

U. N. nuclear inspector says documents were forged (http://msnbc.com/news/882311.asp)




By Joby Warrick
THE WASHINGTON POST

March 8 — A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations’ chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq’s secret nuclear ambitions.

DOCUMENTS THAT purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed “not authentic” after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.
ElBaradei also rejected a key Bush administration claim — made twice by the president in major speeches and repeated by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell yesterday — that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Also, ElBaradei reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.
“There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities,” ElBaradei said.
Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger. The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away — including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said.

ANOTHER SETBACK FOR U.S.
“We fell for it,” said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents.
A spokesman for the IAEA said the agency did not blame either Britain or the United States for the forgery. The documents “were shared with us in good faith,” he said.
The discovery was a further setback to U.S. and British efforts to convince reluctant U.N. Security Council members of the urgency of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Powell, in his statement to the Security Council Friday, acknowledged ElBaradei’s findings but also cited “new information” suggesting that Iraq continues to try to get nuclear weapons components.
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein pursued an ambitious nuclear agenda throughout the 1970s and 1980s and launched a crash program to build a bomb in 1990 following his invasion of neighboring Kuwait. But Iraq’s nuclear infrastructure was heavily damaged by allied bombing in 1991, and the country’s known stocks of nuclear fuel and equipment were removed or destroyed during the U.N. inspections after the war.
However, Iraq never surrendered the blueprints for nuclear weapons, and kept key teams of nuclear scientists intact after U.N. inspectors were forced to leave in 1998. Despite international sanctions intended to block Iraq from obtaining weapons components, Western intelligence agencies and former weapons inspectors were convinced the Iraqi president had resumed his quest for the bomb in the late 1990s, citing defectors’ stories and satellite images that showed new construction at facilities that were once part of Iraq’s nuclear machinery.
Last September, the United States and Britain issued reports accusing Iraq of renewing its quest for nuclear weapons. In Britain’s assessment, Iraq reportedly had “sought significant amounts of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear program that could require it.”
Separately, President Bush, in his speech to the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 12, said Iraq had made “several attempts to buy-high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”
Doubts about both claims began to emerge shortly after U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq last November. In early December, the IAEA began an intensive investigation of the aluminum tubes, which Iraq had tried for two years to purchase by the tens of thousands from China and at least one other country. Certain types of high-strength aluminum tubes can be used to build centrifuges, which enrich uranium for nuclear weapons and commercial power plants.
By early January, the IAEA had reached a preliminary conclusion: The 81mm tubes sought by Iraq were “not directly suitable” for centrifuges, but appeared intended for use as conventional artillery rockets, as Iraq had claimed. The Bush administration, meanwhile, stuck to its original position while acknowledging disagreement among U.S. officials who had reviewed the evidence.
In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Bush said Iraq had “attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
Last month, Powell likewise dismissed the IAEA’s conclusions, telling U.N. leaders that Iraq would not have ordered tubes at such high prices and with such exacting performance ratings if intended for use as ordinary rockets. Powell specifically noted that Iraq had sought tubes that had been “anodized,” or coated with a thin outer film — a procedure that Powell said was required if the tubes were to be used in centrifuges.

81 MM ROCKETS
ElBaradei’s report yesterday all but ruled out the use of the tubes in a nuclear program. The IAEA chief said investigators had unearthed extensive records that backed up Iraq’s explanation. The documents, which included blueprints, invoices and notes from meetings, detailed a 14-year struggle by Iraq to make 81mm conventional rockets that would perform well and resist corrosion. Successive failures led Iraqi officials to revise their standards and request increasingly higher and more expensive metals, ElBaradei said.
Moreover, further work by the IAEA’s team of centrifuge experts — two Americans, two Britons and a French citizen — has reinforced the IAEA’s conclusion that the tubes were ill suited for centrifuges. “It was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable redesign needed to use them in a revived centrifuge program,” ElBaradei said.
A number of independent experts on uranium enrichment have sided with IAEA’s conclusion that the tubes were at best ill suited for centrifuges. Several have said that the “anodized” features mentioned by Powell are actually a strong argument for use in rockets, not centrifuges, contrary to the administration’s statement.
The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based research organization that specializes in nuclear issues, reported yesterday that Powell’s staff had been briefed about the implications of the anodized coatings before Powell’s address to the Security Council last month. “Despite being presented with the falseness of this claim, the administration persists in making misleading arguments about the significance of the tubes,” the institute’s president, David Albright, wrote in the report.
Powell’s spokesman said the secretary of state had consulted numerous experts and stood by his U.N. statement.

The Adam Blaster
03-08-2003, 03:06 PM
To me, it's just another hole in the "proof".

SanDiegoCJ
03-08-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by The Adam Blaster
To me, it's just another hole in the "proof".



You'll grasp at any straw, won't you. :shaking: :shaking: :shaking: :shaking:

blt2crl
03-08-2003, 05:06 PM
I guess the intel on the chemical weapons is false to right. Just cause it can't be fully documented doesn't mean it doesn't exsist.

Explorer
03-08-2003, 05:23 PM
Ya know everyone is so eager to bomb Iraq and oust Saddam. Thing is we only know what the current administration wants us to know and that of course is info that supports their position. We have the majority of the world against us in this and we have had to buy the support of several countries that decided to go along with us. The biggest reason TOO oust Saddam is to protect the US right? If we don't have the support to do this how will our situation be any better on the world stage? Even more people and countries will be bitter towards us making way for even more attacks on the US.

Personally I trust politicians as far as I can throw them. I don't care if they're Republican or Democrat. There have been enough examples of coverups and misleading the public that I don't always believe what I hear from any administration. In this administrations case we have a President whose father was personally targeted by the enemy in question. That and the fact that his father left Saddam in power 12 years ago really makes me doubt the reasons behind GWs present intentions. I don't doubt we would forge documents to support our position.

In another thread someone stated we as civilians don't have all the evidence against Iraq. That is surely true, but what about many of the Democratic congress and senate members who are questioning the invasion of Iraq? Are they in the dark also? What about other world leaders and the UN? Don't they have the facts either? Is it just Bush who has all this info or a crystal ball?

US led regime change hasn't always turned out so well. Remember Iran? Look what our meddeling in their affairs led to.

R O
03-08-2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by SanDiegoCJ




You'll grasp at any straw, won't you. :shaking: :shaking: :shaking: :shaking:


I'd say as far as US and Britain claims that Iraq is still trying to produce nukes it's quite a bit more than a straw.

If it's true that there were basic mistakes on the forgeries and both governments missed or chose to ignore them than anything else they have claimed will be suspect.

Any further accusations will also come under increased scrutiny.

Doesn't it make you wonder how/why two of the best intelligence organizations in the world made such a blunder?

Curtis
03-08-2003, 07:29 PM
Again it shows we should be concentrating on N. Korea instead of Iraq.

AND, did everyone hear the news that Iran is VERy close to a nuke? Yep, and THEY support terrorism big time. But, hey. Saddam is more dangerous :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Neps
03-08-2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Explorer
We have the majority of the world against us in this and we have had to buy the support of several countries that decided to go along with us.
The biggest reason TOO oust Saddam is to protect the US right?

US led regime change hasn't always turned out so well. Remember Iran? Look what our meddeling in their affairs led to.

1. You've been reading too much Liberal News. They only list those against us, never mention those in favor.

2. Is there a better reason? Isn't that what the United States government is supposed to do, protect the USA?

3. A few billion people in Europe and Asia who aren't speaking German, Japanese, Chinese, or Russian have our meddling to thank.

Do you remember history, WWI WWII Korea or the cold war? That too was our meddling wasn't it :rolleyes:

And since when do we believe the media, not like they could be biased :flipoff2: