I reviewed that thread and wonder what the current state of the investigation in the UK is. I also reread my last comment there and wonder what they hell I was replying about
Evidence suggesting that such evidence did not exist
(1) Reports.
(a) Reuters reported in late March 2003: ?The IAEA asked the U.S. and Britain if they had any other evidence backing the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium. The answer was no.? [Reuters, 3/26/03]
(b) The Washington Post reported, ?An informed U.N. official said the United States and Britain were repeatedly asked for all information they had to support the charge. Neither government, the official said, ?ever indicated that they had any information on any other country?.? [Washington Post, 3/22/03]
(2) Statements
(a) Melissa Fleming, spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
(i) In mid-July 2003, she told Reuters that the IAEA suspected that London?s assertions had been entirely based on the alleged transaction referred to in the forged documents. [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(b) Unnamed Western diplomat.
(i) Reuters reported: ?A Western diplomat close to the IAEA said the agency had the impression the evidence that Britain said was genuine was ultimately referring to the same alleged transaction described in a series of fake documents.? The news agency quoted the diplomat explaining, ?I understand that it concerned the same group of documents and the same transaction.? [Reuters, 7/14/03]
1) This article is based on speculation about pure speculation on the behalf of the CIA.
2) The original claim about the Uraniun has been debunked so thoroughly that it isn´t even funny. That makes it really hard to believe a "Well the first Niger-Uranium report was false but THIS Niger-uranium report is not"-story
3) Uranium directly from Niger would have absolutely no use for Iraq. There is no refinement process going on in the country that is able to make it usable for anything. I am not talking about making it weapons grade uranium. I´m talking about seperating the uranium from, say, rocks, dust, metals and other materials. So unless it had been shipped from Nger to another country for refinement and then sent to Iraq claims about a Iraq-Niger uranium deal is nonsence.
BUT the big problem with this thread is your question. "What do the French know? When did they know it?". If I was part of the french intelligence service I might know that. But I am not (or I have written a NDA. Won´t tell you whichof the two ) and I guess noone else here is.
3) Uranium directly from Niger would have absolutely no use for Iraq. There is no refinement process going on in the country that is able to make it usable for anything. I am not talking about making it weapons grade uranium. I´m talking about seperating the uranium from, say, rocks, dust, metals and other materials. So unless it had been shipped from Nger to another country for refinement and then sent to Iraq claims about a Iraq-Niger uranium deal is nonsence.
Not only that, but Iraq would probably have started working on the uranium they already had. But that, of course, would require:
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
Scott:
You were caught by the disinformation campaign of some silly anti-war people.
The claims against Galloway are 100% legit.
Originally posted by groverat
Scott:
You were caught by the disinformation campaign of some silly anti-war people.
The claims against Galloway are 100% legit.
I reviewed that thread and wonder what the current state of the investigation in the UK is. I also reread my last comment there and wonder what they hell I was replying about
Evidence suggesting that such evidence did not exist
(1) Reports.
(a) Reuters reported in late March 2003: ?The IAEA asked the U.S. and Britain if they had any other evidence backing the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium. The answer was no.? [Reuters, 3/26/03]
(b) The Washington Post reported, ?An informed U.N. official said the United States and Britain were repeatedly asked for all information they had to support the charge. Neither government, the official said, ?ever indicated that they had any information on any other country?.? [Washington Post, 3/22/03]
(2) Statements
(a) Melissa Fleming, spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
(i) In mid-July 2003, she told Reuters that the IAEA suspected that London?s assertions had been entirely based on the alleged transaction referred to in the forged documents. [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(b) Unnamed Western diplomat.
(i) Reuters reported: ?A Western diplomat close to the IAEA said the agency had the impression the evidence that Britain said was genuine was ultimately referring to the same alleged transaction described in a series of fake documents.? The news agency quoted the diplomat explaining, ?I understand that it concerned the same group of documents and the same transaction.? [Reuters, 7/14/03]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/w...s.html#071503c
Of course, the facts surrounding this issue negate the possibility of this newest half-assed intel fabrication attempt.
Originally posted by Scott
I also reread my last comment there and wonder what they hell I was replying about
Now you know how the rest of us feel when we read your posts.
Originally posted by BRussell
Care to put that in the form of a question/comment?
My smiley comprehension is slowed; tough day at work.
1) This article is based on speculation about pure speculation on the behalf of the CIA.
2) The original claim about the Uraniun has been debunked so thoroughly that it isn´t even funny. That makes it really hard to believe a "Well the first Niger-Uranium report was false but THIS Niger-uranium report is not"-story
3) Uranium directly from Niger would have absolutely no use for Iraq. There is no refinement process going on in the country that is able to make it usable for anything. I am not talking about making it weapons grade uranium. I´m talking about seperating the uranium from, say, rocks, dust, metals and other materials. So unless it had been shipped from Nger to another country for refinement and then sent to Iraq claims about a Iraq-Niger uranium deal is nonsence.
BUT the big problem with this thread is your question. "What do the French know? When did they know it?". If I was part of the french intelligence service I might know that. But I am not (or I have written a NDA. Won´t tell you whichof the two
a) what is UNranium and,
b) who's going to give Scott spelling lessons for his thread titles?
EDIT: (spelling lessons in general)
.
Originally posted by Anders
3) Uranium directly from Niger would have absolutely no use for Iraq. There is no refinement process going on in the country that is able to make it usable for anything. I am not talking about making it weapons grade uranium. I´m talking about seperating the uranium from, say, rocks, dust, metals and other materials. So unless it had been shipped from Nger to another country for refinement and then sent to Iraq claims about a Iraq-Niger uranium deal is nonsence.
Not only that, but Iraq would probably have started working on the uranium they already had. But that, of course, would require:
feel free to start a new thread, scott
and, to the rest of you idiots: threads like this really make me want to close AO. permanently.