NRO: It's been suggested by Isikoff and others that some of the evidence turns up nowadays is forged, that you can't take it on its face value. To what extent is the evidence you present corroborated by other evidence, other documented meetings, etc?--from National Review Online[Stephen] Hayes: I think they're right on that point — and it's almost never a good idea to take these things at face value. There was a report that surfaced in December 2003 that suggested that Mohammed Atta had been in Baghdad during the summer of 2001. And, a little too conveniently, the very same document claimed that the U.S. was seeking uranium from Niger. There's little question that the three-page report was forged. (An interesting side note: That document came not from Ahmed Chalabi, but from CIA favorite Iyad Allawi, the new Iraqi interim prime minister. Allawi has long argued that there was a significant relationship between Saddam's Mukhabarat and al Qaeda.)
the U.S. was seeking uranium from Niger??? ...well if it's on the internet it must be true.
Would be nice to know how Hayes comes to that conclusion. Is it based on the findings of the handwriting expert who didn't see the actual memo?
Well, if that is correct, the new PM seems to be a liar.
The O'Reilly Factor Wed. 8 pm / 11 pm ET - Will a new report finally prove the link between Saddam and Usama? Bill gets the truth from author Stephen Hayes.