peacenik

As you may know, the Bush administration has repeatedly cited to forged documents that claimed that Saddam was trying to obtain uranium from Africa in order to build support for an impending war on Iraq.

See this link for more information: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/spr...nts/index.html

Of course Bush and Powell claim that they relied on these documents in good faith, but in any case but the fact that our President has presented these forged documents as if they were true raises several important questions worthy of discussion including the following:
(1) How could the CIA and the Bush administration have failed to recognize these documents as fakes when it was clear that (i) the signature did not resemble that of President Tandja Mamadou of Niger and (ii) the document was written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger yet bears the date of October 2000?
(2) Aren't there only 2 logical conclusions that can be drawn from the fact that the Bush administration relied on these badly forged documents? Either the CIA and Bush Administration are incompetent when it comes to assessing the reliability of intelligence information, or the Bush administration knowingly mislead the American people and the world community in order to gain political support for attacking Iraq, right?
(3) If the Bush administration knowingly mislead all of us by using this forged document in order to rally support for war on Iraq, how can we be certain that any of the intelligence that the Bush administration cites in order to support its case for war aren't lies?
(4) If the Bush administration and the CIA are so incompetent that they couldn't recognize these forged documents for what they were, how can we be so trusting of the administration when they tell us that the risks associated with attacking Iraq are clearly outweighed by the risks of not taking immediate military action?
(5) If the Bush administration knowingly mislead all of us by using this forged document in order to rally support for war on Iraq, is this type of deception an impeachable offense considering the fact that the lives of thousands of American soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians are on the line? At a minimum isn't this lie more harmful to our nation than Clinton's failed attempt to cover up his fling with Monica Lewinsky?

Any thoughts?

Zar

Assuming the "good faith" line, I'd say "incompetence" is fair enough to say. Nay, its downright charitable. And this isn't the first example of this kind of thing, but this one was caught quicker than usual. For me, this is an example of an administration out of control, on a lying spree, hemorraging politically, desperate for legitimacy (outside the obedient American press) and, well, failing. Any little table scrap of support in the form of a half-baked bit of forged evidence will seem like a feast to them. And they can hope that the scare factor at least gets a few more sheep in line. The coming war after this long train of debacle will be quite an apalling show.

But who did this? I read a report (can't remember where) that the forgery came from a delivery by some foreign country, but the identity of this country was as yet undetermined or not disclosed. Which country would have done this thing, which obviously would have helped make war more likely? Not Iraq. Not Nigeria. Not Egypt. Not any arab nation. Not the governments in the security council. It would be bizarre for any other country to do it, and if it was actually done by some lone crazy guy, that makes the U.S. look like even bigger idiots. Could it be the UK? A good possibility, given that dossier mishap. Israel? A hand in glove fit. I think those two countries are the likeliest culprits.

ex-idaho

I would have to point to Isreal. It is the only government that stand to gain any tangible benefit from Saddams overthrow.

Of course the entire thing could have been an elaborate set up by the hawks in our own government. Perle, Wolfowitz and those ilk are very capable of this sort of thing.

Primordial Groove

Senator to ask FBI to Investigate Fake Iraq Document

I hope this investigation doesn't end up like the energy meetings investigation by the GOA.

One can hope that Senator Rockefeller will see this through without any outside encouragement. If he seems to sway, a letter writing campaign should begin.

Zar

Ah, hope springs eternal. My bet is it ain't happening at least until there is regime change in America. After that, who knows?

Can people see where I get my cynicism and mistrust of the U.S. government from? Isn't it about time to admit there is a problem here and stop pretending the U.S. is God's right hand?

Mr. Superbad

I'm thinking Al Qaeda may have been behind it. They hate Saddam, us threatening him makes him more likely to hand out WMD to terrorist groups, and they want to inflame the middle east against us. Then they'll have tons of american troups to target and a huge destabalized region to play around in.

Either them, Israel, or people in our own gov't who want us to go to war.

Putney Swope

If Saddam is killed as a result of action sanctioned n=by Bush, he will be in technical violation of a US law which makes it illegal to assassinate a foriegn Head of State. They tried Clinton because he violated the law by purgery. THis law sound much more serious.

And as long as I am being [I]technical]/I], if a US soldier is killed by friendly fire due to a Presidential Order, Dubya could be guilty of killing a soilder, which could make him to be a war criminal.