[AzJohn]

Unfortunately it looks like the U.N. inspectors are correct this time. Also some discussion in the full article about those aluminum tubes.

[Quilla]

Yet the article concludes:

"Powell's spokesman said the secretary of state had consulted numerous experts and stood by his U.N. statement."

Right now, I think I'll believe Powell over an unnamed U.S. source that claims we fell for it.

[Thane_Banquo]

I can picture the next statement by El Baradei:

"The nuclear device fired from Baghdad to Tel Aviv was a forgery. It did not truly exist. Move along. Nothing to see here."

[Dont Mention the War]

I'm having a LOT of trouble believing that US and UK intelligence could possibly be so stupid as to make such basic mistakes in a forgery that a bunch of uneducated UN bureaucrats could spot it. Who do they think we use as forgers, the staff of The Guardian?

If anything, such claims by the UN (which is a known anti-US organization, except when it comes time for the membership checks to be sent in) make the US/UK claims MORE RELIABLE.

[Martus]

I wonder if this will give the anti-war/pro-Saddamers fodder.

[this_ol_patriot]

This was plastered all over my local "paper" this morning, they insinuated that we also did the forging. There was nary a word about the drone and other negative things in the Blix report, just a lot harping on how Bush was dragging us into a Vietman quagmire. All this and more before I even got to the editorial page.

[ET(end tyranny)]

More here U.N. Inspectors: U.S. Used Forged Reports

[FRgal4u]

will WP or IEAE retract this story if we go in Iraq and find all the hidden chambers???

Personally, I don't trust the El baradei guy and his grp...did IAEA certifies Iraq was YEARS away from nukes in 1991...and guess what - they were MONTHS away...

Saddam said, his biggest mistake was he invaded Kuwait TOO EARLY..had he waited, he would have nukes...and yes, the world will be a lot safer then, just because IAEA say so...

both blix and el baradei has all the incentives to claim the US/UK evidence is false, ho wmany body blows these agencies can take before the world finally see the truth..these guys can never verify anything unless the host country decides to do so...these agencies give a false sense of security and a protection blanket for tyrants until it is too late...

could we trial incompetence in the world court..lol..

ignorance is blix

[paws_and_whiskers]

Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake ....

The inspectors...Hans "Ignorance is Bliss" Blix?

[Behind Liberal Lines]

You should have excerpted the part of the article (at least at MSNBC, I think its the same one) that noted the OTHER evidence against Saddam was still there.

[piasa]

Ping me if the actually quote a source by name...

[MadIvan]

FYI:

A spokesman for the IAEA said the agency did not blame either Britain or the United States for the forgery. The documents "were shared with us in good faith," he said.

What cannot be denied is that Saddam wants nukes. Recall before the last Gulf War when he held a press conference and held up a trigger for such a bomb.

At worst, this is merely one small portion of the case against Saddam. You will have to do better than try to criticise America and Britain over this.

Ivan

[pgkdan]

. The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away -- including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said.

Sorry, but I'm not buying this. The forgers made crude errors that even the UN weenies could find but American and British intelligence both missed it? Now...when the stakes are so high??

I know the CIA ain't all it's been cracked up to be, but Inspector Clouseau worked for the frogs, not us. I don't believe this for a second.

[The Raven]

The plot thickens.....who did the forgery? Iraq?