PDA

View Full Version : "Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake" Washington Post


axis
2003-03-10, 12:45 AM
Learn from this...

Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake
U.N. Nuclear Inspector Says Documents on Purchases Were Forged

A slide shown by U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to the U.N. Security
Council shows aluminum tubes that Powell said were intended to be used to
build the centrifuges needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. (State
Department Handout Via AP)

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A01

A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears
to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said
yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims
about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.

Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in
Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny
by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.

ElBaradei also rejected a key Bush administration claim -- made twice by
the president in major speeches and repeated by Secretary of State Colin
L. Powell yesterday -- that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum
tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Also, ElBaradei reported
finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive
sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.

"There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities," ElBaradei said.

Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation described
the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials
in the central African nation of Niger. 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.

"We fell for it," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents.

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.

The discovery was a further setback to U.S. and British efforts to convince
reluctant U.N. Security Council members of the urgency of the threat posed
by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Powell, in his statement to the Security
Council Friday, acknowledged ElBaradei's findings but also cited "new
information"
suggesting that Iraq continues to try to get nuclear weapons components.

"It is not time to close the book on these tubes," a senior State Department
official said, adding that Iraq was prohibited from importing sensitive
parts, such as tubes, regardless of their planned use.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein pursued an ambitious nuclear agenda throughout
the 1970s and 1980s and launched a crash program to build a bomb in 1990
following his invasion of neighboring Kuwait. But Iraq's nuclear infrastructure
was heavily damaged by allied bombing in 1991, and the country's known stocks
of nuclear fuel and equipment were removed or destroyed during the U.N.
inspections after the war.

However, Iraq never surrendered the blueprints for nuclear weapons, and
kept key teams of nuclear scientists intact after U.N. inspectors were forced
to leave in 1998. Despite international sanctions intended to block Iraq
from obtaining weapons components, Western intelligence agencies and former
weapons inspectors were convinced the Iraqi president had resumed his quest
for the bomb in the late 1990s, citing defectors' stories and satellite
images that showed new construction at facilities that were once part of
Iraq's nuclear machinery.

Last September, the United States and Britain issued reports accusing Iraq
of renewing its quest for nuclear weapons. In Britain's assessment, Iraq
reportedly had "sought significant amounts of uranium from Africa, despite
having no active civil nuclear program that could require it."

Separately, President Bush, in his speech to the U.N. Security Council on
Sept. 12, said Iraq had made "several attempts to buy-high-strength aluminum
tubes used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Doubts about both claims began to emerge shortly after U.N. inspectors returned
to Iraq last November. In early December, the IAEA began an intensive
investigation
of the aluminum tubes, which Iraq had tried for two years to purchase by
the tens of thousands from China and at least one other country. Certain
types of high-strength aluminum tubes can be used to build centrifuges,
which enrich uranium for nuclear weapons and commercial power plants.

By early January, the IAEA had reached a preliminary conclusion: The 81mm
tubes sought by Iraq were "not directly suitable" for centrifuges, but appeared
intended for use as conventional artillery rockets, as Iraq had claimed.
The Bush administration, meanwhile, stuck to its original position while
acknowledging disagreement among U.S. officials who had reviewed the evidence.

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Bush said Iraq had "attempted
to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons
production."

Last month, Powell likewise dismissed the IAEA's conclusions, telling U.N.
leaders that Iraq would not have ordered tubes at such high prices and with
such exacting performance ratings if intended for use as ordinary rockets.
Powell specifically noted that Iraq had sought tubes that had been "anodized,"
or coated with a thin outer film -- a procedure that Powell said was required
if the tubes were to be used in centrifuges.

ElBaradei's report yesterday all but ruled out the use of the tubes in a
nuclear program. The IAEA chief said investigators had unearthed extensive
records that backed up Iraq's explanation. The documents, which included
blueprints, invoices and notes from meetings, detailed a 14-year struggle
by Iraq to make 81mm conventional rockets that would perform well and resist
corrosion. Successive failures led Iraqi officials to revise their standards
and request increasingly higher and more expensive metals, ElBaradei said.

Moreover, further work by the IAEA's team of centrifuge experts -- two
Americans,
two Britons and a French citizen -- has reinforced the IAEA's conclusion
that the tubes were ill suited for centrifuges. "It was highly unlikely
that Iraq could have achieved the considerable redesign needed to use them
in a revived centrifuge program," ElBaradei said.

A number of independent experts on uranium enrichment have sided with IAEA's
conclusion that the tubes were at best ill suited for centrifuges. Several
have said that the "anodized" features mentioned by Powell are actually
a strong argument for use in rockets, not centrifuges, contrary to the
administration's
statement.

The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based
research organization that specializes in nuclear issues, reported yesterday
that Powell's staff had been briefed about the implications of the anodized
coatings before Powell's address to the Security Council last month. "Despite
being presented with the falseness of this claim, the administration persists
in making misleading arguments about the significance of the tubes," the
institute's president, David Albright, wrote in the report.

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

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Passing Glimpse
2003-03-10, 01:08 PM
Isn't it obvious that the US and Britian are just trying to take over so they can be in control of the oil supply?

"We fell for it," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents.
Whatever that's just an excuse.

axis
2003-03-10, 03:04 PM
you're damn right Oil is one of the obvious reasons. But there are still alot of Americans thinking they're "patriotic" by believing everything our executive branch tells them.

Passing Glimpse
2003-03-10, 05:26 PM
Did you think that it was funny how almost everyone in America became so patriotic after 9.11. That is one thing that pisses me off so much because I bet that most of them were talking about how much they hate America that morning and the day before it happened.

axis
2003-03-11, 01:10 AM
I think people got scared facing reality and brought about this American hype revolution and mindfucked themselves trying to define an "Us" and a "Them". Minds closed from fear and ignorance.
What kills me tho' is the fucking Ford Explorer "Patriot Edition". hilarious.

[ March 11, 2003: Message edited by: axis ]</p>

Passing Glimpse
2003-03-11, 11:44 AM
They are making a car called the "Patriot Edition?" How gay is that!!

I just went to their wedsite, didn't see any "Partriot Edition," Axis send a link or post a pic about it. The only thing that came up was their new fuel efficent cars. Hmmmm.

axis
2003-03-12, 03:28 AM
My old roommate told me about it in like November, and later I thought I saw 1. It was red with star and stripes decals, and I think it said "Freedom" on it maybe at the top of the windshield.

axis
2003-03-12, 06:13 AM
i asked my old roommate and this is what he said about it:
Patriotic Edition ford explorer: seen driving by myself on 4th st. I
think that the deal was, it had gold trim, a banner on the top of the
windshield saying: 'Patriotic Edition' in a sort of metallic red-white-blue
pattern, and it sucked patriotic levels of gas.

SonRa
2003-04-09, 09:20 AM
You guys are right. You see Ford even knows that people mindfucked themselves thats why the "patriotic hunk of steel" was created. For the mindfucked its genius. Theres alot of cash in selling to manufactured emotions.(next were going to have an elegant Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur comemerative Coin Set! Get em while supplies last! limit two sets per customer.) graemlins/lol.gif graemlins/flame.gif

casual
2003-04-09, 08:38 PM
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Isn't it obvious that the US and Britian are just trying to take over so they can be in control of the oil supply?<hr></blockquote>

That's a bunch of propaganda that the liberals are hoping everyone will believe. The Bush Administration knows if they actually pursued the oil, the GOP would suffer greatly in 04 elections and beyond. I'm sure it's tempting to some involved but I don't believe that was ever the intentions of this operation. The Republicans are on a roll right now and will continue to steam roll over the DFL in the future if they handle the post war as well as they handled the war. And you better believe the Bush Administration knows that.

And the Washington Post along with N.Y. Times is losing a lot of credibility as they report on the war. They're editorial boards are run by extreme lefty's and are delivering some very unbalanced and slanted news. Same with CBS and ABC whose news program's ratings have gone to the toliet since the war has started. Although some are jumping on the bandwagon in recent days. Too little, too late. They're all communists as far as I'm concerned.

axis
2003-04-09, 11:51 PM
I saw a quote once of George Bush 1 that was something like "If Iraq grew carrots, our policy would be totally different." I can't find the quote, but it was something to that effect.
I understand that the argument that oil is the ONLY reason for the war is slanted, but it is rediculous to think that it isn't a major factor. I heard a scholarly argument that the desire to control the oil isn't so much for US import, but the idea is that the middle east does a lot of business with Asia, and thats a HUGE market that US corporations want in on. Who knows the validity yet, but it makes sense. Iraq has 2nd largest oil reserves, Iran the 3rd. Scholars are already speculating we will invade Iran next, and Bush has threatened. Was it Reagan or Nixon who illegally sold arms to Iran? anyways as far as elections go, money and popular influence is very important. If you open up world markets you got corporations behind you. If you got corporations behind you you got mad cash for propoghanda and many domestic markets to channel it through. This war is opening up markets for US corporations, that is fact, not "liberal propoghanda". So in all, how one feels about these ideas depends on their ethics.

and remember, propoghanda works in all directions. The only tv news I've been impressed with so far on the war has been the BBC. Most American channels including CNN is shit. But the American channels ARE very good at bringing you a 24 hour very flashy Extreme coverage of the hottest reality show, and of screening out conflicts of dissent. I admit they're fun to watch.

oh and "They're all communists as far as I'm concerned." really, is this the 1950's?? are you still believing all this 'hate and fear communism' propoganda?