As has been reported from day one those documents were not the basis of our going to war nor used as evidence that Saddam was snooping around for yellow-cake which we now know he was.
It turns out Bush was right about Iraq's quest for uranium
Apr 17, 2006
by
John Leo
In a surprising editorial, The Washington Post deviated from the conventional anti-Bush media position on two counts. It said President Bush was right to declassify parts of a National Intelligence Estimate to make clear why he thought Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. And the editorial said ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson was wrong to think he had debunked Bush on the nuclear charge because Wilson's statements after visiting ***** actually "supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."............................................
Testifying before the Senate intelligence committee, Wilson said that the former prime minister of ***** told him he had been asked to meet with Iraqis to talk about "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries. Everybody knew what that meant; ***** has nothing much to trade other than uranium......................................................................
Saddam Hussein had already acquired a large amount of uranium from ***** once before, in 1981, so he knew where to go. Amid suspicions that Saddam was trying to revive his nuclear program, Iraqis made a 1999 visit to *****. The head member of the visiting Iraqi team was Saddam's senior public envoy for nuclear matters. Hmmm.....................................
The forged documents claiming an Iraq-***** connection were so crude that they could never have fooled the CIA or British intelligence for very long. Who would do this, and do it so badly? Nobody knows. But if the forgeries were meant to distract from other evidence that Bush was right, then they certainly worked. Look around in American journalism, and you will find great certitude that the forgeries destroyed Bush's claim. That certitude can only be founded on the belief that Tony Blair, the U.S. Senate intelligence committee and the special investigative team of Parliament were all liars when they said there was substantial non-forged evidence backing Bush's claim. The investigative team was headed by the highly regarded Lord Butler, who served as a Cabinet minister under five prime ministers. It concluded that Bush's 16 words about Iraq's uranium shopping were "well-founded."
So once and for all the so-called forged documents are a moot point, why do you keep bringing them up?
Here is what the NYT stated
"It (the report) also defended British officials in the case of an apparently erroneous British report on Iraq's nuclear ambitions that made its way into President Bush's State of the Union speech last year claiming that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium in *****. The Butler report confirmed that Iraqi officials had visited ***** in 1999, and the British government had several different sources insisting that the purpose was to buy uranium. But it added, 'the evidence was not conclusive that Iraq had actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.'"
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/johnleo/2006/04/17/193811.html
The only lying and misinformation there is comes from the press and those who still make these claims.
