Fake Iraq documents

[renata]

Not a good thing. Our credibility was pretty low to begin with- this will detract from legitimate issues. Now anything we show will be dismissed as a fake. Are we really that desperate that we could not figure out these are fakes, especially if they are as obvious as this article indicates?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council outlining the Bush administration's case against Iraq.

.....

Responding to questions about the documents from lawmakers, Powell said, "It was provided in good faith to the inspectors and our agency received it in good faith, not participating ... in any way in any falsification activities."

"It was the information that we had. We provided it. If that information is inaccurate, fine," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday.
.....


But the discovery raises questions such as why the apparent forgeries were given to inspectors and why U.S. and British intelligence agents did not recognize that they were not authentic.

Sources said that one of the documents was a letter discussing the uranium deal supposedly signed by Niger President Tandja Mamadou. The sources described the signature as "childlike" and said that it clearly was not Mamadou's.

Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been foreign minister of Niger in 14 years, sources said.

.....

Close said the CIA should have known better.

"They have tremendously sophisticated and experienced people in their technical services division, who wouldn't allow a forgery like this to get by," Close said. "I mean it's just mystifying to me. I can't understand it."


......
But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries?

Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men.

Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.

President Bush even highlighted the documents in his State of the Union address on January 28.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Bush said.

U.S. officials said that the assertion by the president and British government was also based on additional evidence of Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from another African country. But officials would not say which nation and a knowledgable U.S. official said that there was not much to that evidence either.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Who cares? Fire when ready!!!!

[renata]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Who cares? Fire when ready!!!!

For entirely inappropriate reasons this reminds me of this Lehrer song ( But Lobachevsky will always be my favorite)

Who's Next?

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?

[corplinx]

Blame it on Hans. The documents came from the inspectors, not from our people.

Inspections work so well, 12 more years! 12 more years!

[renata]

Originally posted by corplinx
Blame it on Hans. The documents came from the inspectors, not from our people.

Inspections work so well, 12 more years! 12 more years!

The article is not clear, but this comment suggested to me that US passed it on the the IAEA

A U.S. intelligence official said that the documents were passed on to the International Atomic Energy Agency within days of being received with the comment, " 'We don't know the provenance of this information, but here it is.' "


and this links spells it out - we got it from an unnamed source and passed it to IAEA

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030315/ts_nm/iraq_usa_documents_dc_5



"As you know, the International Atomic Energy Agency has recently determined that some of the intelligence documents provided to it by the United States are forgeries," Sen. John Rockefeller said in a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller.


"These documents were provided to the IAEA as evidence of Iraqi efforts to procure uranium from the Republic of Niger. I am writing to request that the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigate this matter," the West Virginia senator said.
....

U.S. officials say it was not known who forged the papers, but they were given to the United States and Britain by a third country which they would not identify.


The United States gave other information on the uranium issue to the IAEA in early February, along with the documents with caveats attached about their credibility, a U.S. official said on condition of anonymity.

[Zep]

Why would this documentation be "publicised" like this if it was not proofed and confirmed to the best of someone's abilities? There are myriads of US and UK experts at this sort of stuff who could have positively confirmed or denied its authenticity within a few weeks, perhaps even days.

And why hasn't it been made public anyway? We haven't seen much of it publicly here in Australia, one of Dubya's biggest allies at this time. Surely, if this is genuine stuff, it puts to rest all the outstanding "smoking gun" questions?

Way too many questions unanswered, and way too many doubts raised as a result. Like all scams, it looked too good to be true, and it is proving that way on closer examination.

Or was it known from the start that it was indeed a fake, but that good local and international PR was available as a result? Sorry, Dubya, but we, the INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, are NOT fooled. BZZZZT! Wrong! Please try again .

Zep

[Always Free]

You don't think any politician gives a flying duck what any of you intelligent people believe--do ya?

[Zep]

You don't think any politician gives a flying duck what any of you intelligent people believe--do ya?
That's "us" intelligent people, including very many Americans. And the answer is "It certainly doesn't look like it."

Zep

[corplinx]

"U.S. officials say it was not known who forged the papers, but they were given to the United States and Britain by a third country which they would not identify.


The United States gave other information on the uranium issue to the IAEA in early February, along with the documents with caveats attached about their credibility"


So whats the big deal? They turned out to be fake. Big whoop.

[renata]

Originally posted by corplinx
"U.S. officials say it was not known who forged the papers, but they were given to the United States and Britain by a third country which they would not identify.


The United States gave other information on the uranium issue to the IAEA in early February, along with the documents with caveats attached about their credibility"


So whats the big deal? They turned out to be fake. Big whoop.


Come on, corplinx- you are beign a tad disingenuous.

The big deal is that our intelligence organizations could not spot what appear to be obvious fakes. The big deal is that we are trying so hard to rationalize the war is that we do not examine the evidence we use to support it. The big deal is that next time we present evidence, even if it is 100% correct, it will be discounted. The big deal is that Bush and Powell used forged documents to justify a course of action. Now that they know the documents were forged- will the course of action change? Of course not. This confirms worldwide held impression that we already decided on a war, we are just looking for justification for it. Finally, I bet most people will think US or Israel manufactured these docs, even though the article says it is unlikely.

I am sorry, but it IS a big deal.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
"U.S. officials say it was not known who forged the papers, but they were given to the United States and Britain by a third country which they would not identify.


The United States gave other information on the uranium issue to the IAEA in early February, along with the documents with caveats attached about their credibility"


So whats the big deal? They turned out to be fake. Big whoop.
I reiterate what Renata said.

CIA intelligence is supposed to be the main reason the UN sent weapons inspectors to Iraq. If CIA intelligence is so poor that it cannot spot a bad forgery, then what are people to think about their "intelligence" about Iraq's WOMDs? A loss of credibility like this is horribly damaging to the US case for war and is likely to lessen international support.

Is it okay to make up, or accept made up documents to support any invasion we choose, then shrug when they are exposed as forgeries? How about if terrorists came up with some forged documents that they used as an excuse for attacking the US?

[corplinx]

Is it really an "obivous forgery" is that just the opinion of of the person who said it? You put too much credence in something that you cannot confirm.

[shanek]

Originally posted by renata
Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.

Just FYI (and to show off my geekiness), Lehrer sometimes replaced this with:

Japan's gonna get their own device
Transistorized at half the price

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
Is it really an "obivous forgery" is that just the opinion of of the person who said it? You put too much credence in something that you cannot confirm.
You're right. All I have to go from is the story on the wire. I seriously doubt they will let me examine the document. However, since Bush and Powell are making no attempt to contradict the story, it seems likely to be true. Even you have admitted as much. ("big Whoop").

Our difference seems to lie into how important this is. I suspect it may be of fairly high importance as to getting our allies to believe us. All I can imply from your response is either that you don't think it is important to our allies, or that you don't think our allies are important.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Tricky
since Bush and Powell are making no attempt to contradict the story, it seems likely to be true.


And following that logic...since NASA is making no attempt to rebut Bart Sibrel’s moon hoax story then it must also be correct, right?

Our difference seems to lie into how important this is. I suspect it may be of fairly high importance as to getting our allies to believe us. All I can imply from your response is either that you don't think it is important to our allies, or that you don't think our allies are important.

Nah, I do not think it is all that important. Sure it undermines our intelligence in my eyes a bit, but all will probably be forgotten/forgiven after the war when the US finds/manufactures all the after-the-fact-evidence we need to justify (what history will remember as a) liberation.

So, until the war is long forgotten maybe we can distract folks with “dub dweeeeeeee dah dah dah dweedow (http://www.xenafan.com/tick/dweedow.wav) ”!

[corplinx]

Has does _one_ false document which we stated might be false when we turned it over undermine our complete intelligence gathering or the other documents we turn over?

It reminds me of Powell's speech to the security council where he had the wrong villages' name on a photograph and people were going around acting like _all_ if his points were invalid and evidence was wrong because of that one error.

People are simply nitpicking.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by no one in particular
And following that logic...since NASA is making no attempt to rebut Bart Sibrel’s moon hoax story then it must also be correct, right?
I was unaware that Bart Sibrel's theory was reported as "fact" by any reputable news source. Perhaps you could show me where it was. I am quite certain I can show you any number of places it was rebutted by knowledgable authorities. (Including Buzz Aldrin who rebutted it with his fist). And yes, NASA considered making a rebuttal to the story, but ultimately decided against getting into the gutter with a kook. Certainly they have in no way shown that they accept the story, as Bush and Powell have done with the forgery claim.

Originally posted by no one in particular
Nah, I do not think it is all that important. Sure it undermines our intelligence in my eyes a bit, but all will probably be forgotten/forgiven after the war when the US finds/manufactures all the after-the-fact-evidence we need to justify (what history will remember as a) liberation.
You seem all too sure on what history will remember. The culture in that part of the world is not likely to forgive and forget as easily as you seem to think. They tend to have somewhat long memories about outsiders coming in and taking over bits of their land. If it were otherwise, then Israel would be accepted by now.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Tricky

I was unaware that Bart Sibrel's theory was reported as "fact" by any reputable news source. Perhaps you could show me where it was. I am quite certain I can show you any number of places it was rebutted by knowledgable authorities. (Including Buzz Aldrin who rebutted it with his fist). And yes, NASA considered making a rebuttal to the story, but ultimately decided against getting into the gutter with a kook. Certainly they have in no way shown that they accept the story, as Bush and Powell have done with the forgery claim.

And the answer to my question was in there somewhere? Point being absence of denial is not the same as acceptance. And yes, Mr. Plait often is rightly annoyed at some of the media going light on Mr. Sibrel.

Originally posted by Tricky

You seem all too sure on what history will remember. The culture in that part of the world is not likely to forgive and forget as easily as you seem to think. They tend to have somewhat long memories about outsiders coming in and taking over bits of their land. If it were otherwise, then Israel would be accepted by now.

Perhaps it is just wishful thinking, perhaps not. I do appreciate the fact that that we have an administration that is willing to speak about an independent Palestine; the status quo is doing no one a hell of a lot of good (albeit it is contingent on his master plan working out). I am willing to support a change of the status quo.