Replies

Thanks for the ping, I'll have to stew on it for a day or two.

"liberallarry" pinged me to a similar one:

http://warincontext.org/editorials/bogusdossier.htm

I've got my work cut out for me.

Meanwhile, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm interested in the subject of Libyan uranium.

There are many articles out there stating that Libya got its uranium from Niger under the table, but as far as I can tell they are all quoting the Mark Huband article from Financial Times.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1161297/posts

On the other hand, I haven't seen anything that believably refutes or denies the story. If the story is true, as I have said elsewhere, then much of what has been written falls away.

And the IAEA report I saw avoided the subject of where materials and equipment came from, merely rferring to things as being of "foreign origin" which strikes me as odd.

Again, thanks for the ping.

Having read through the piece, this is my first impression.

There is a lot of extraneous information here that only serves to muddy the water, even where it is true or partly true.

Its helpful to cut to the chase.

The docs were created with a land-mine buried in them, they had egregious errors that anyone could catch, using the name and signature of an official who had been out of office for a decade, and using some impossible dates.

These documents were designed to be exposed as forgeries.

So now you have to work backward through this hall of mirrors, to figure out who had an interest in producing forgeries that were designed to be revealed as forgeries.

That would not be in the interest of someone planning a war.

It would be in the interest of someone trying to discredit a story that was already being circulated.

You'll notice that this version of events completely ignores France, although we have other sources telling us that the guy who produced the docs was on salary to French intel. So we can surmise the source of this version of events.

We know that France was in bed with Saddam, we know that a fair percentage of his modern weaponry was French, some of it arriving on the eve of war despite the embargo. We know that France was making billion dollar oil deals that couldn't be fulfilled with sanctions in place, we know that France was one of the largest recipients of Saddam's oil-voucher bribes.

All the nonsense in the article about "fascists" is just name-calling, which again tells more about the source of the information than it does the people being labeled. The default political persuasion in Europe is socialism. A socialist who believes in God and the flag is pretty much by definition a fascist. A socialist who doesn't believe in God and the flag is just your garden variety marxist. In Europe, there really isn't much else, since Locke, Burke, and Hayek have never really taken hold there.