"This is a long read, but I think the gist of it is that France had financial reasons to have Saddam continue in office thus NO war on Irag."
That part, I would think we would all agree with. I just don't understand yet how that translates into a motive to fake these particular documents - I'm not close minded on it - it just seems like the documents encouraged war so I would think they were most likely faked by someone who supported war.
FYI
I agree completely gondram.
There are dots that are connected, Connecting dots is easy, the question is how long and straight the lines are.
I think those forged docs were an attempt to "pre-empt" the US' position that Iraq sought/bought nuclear materials in Africa/Niger. Isn't that what's called a "double blind"?
For example- you have a legitimate videotape of me robbing a bank, so I produce a tape showing almost the same thing, but in the end, either it shows it's not me afterall or it contains telltale signs that (my) videotape was faked, which casts considerable confusion and doubt on your videotape, especially to those - say, the public at large- who have no way to examine either tape.
I need to expand my spookese vocabulary! Surely there's a term for what I described? I dunno if "double blind" is correct.