| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
About those fake uranium documents
Update: Eeep! I didn’t realize this story was a little over a year old. My bad … oh well, it was news to me, anyway 
Via the UK Telegraph:
The Italian businessman at the centre of a furious row between France and Italy over whose intelligence service was to blame for bogus documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy material for nuclear bombs has admitted that he was in the pay of France.
The man, identified by an Italian news agency as Rocco Martino, was the subject of a Telegraph article earlier this month in which he was referred to by his intelligence codename, “Giacomo”.
His admission to investigating magistrates in Rome on Friday apparently confirms suggestions that – by commissioning “Giacomo” to procure and circulate documents – France was responsible for some of the information later used by Britain and the United States to promote the case for war with Iraq.
Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade “yellowcake” uranium from Niger, France was trying to “set up” Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.
Surprise surprise. I’d love to know from who “Giacomo” got his marching orders.
Hat tip: ST reader Fat Tone
(Cross-posted at Blogs For Bush)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
8 Responses to “About those fake uranium documents”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
The Frogs….knee deep in oil for food, and knee deep in manufactured intel……how about they just stick to Brie and wine ?
Fat Tone, They didn’t want the world to find out the degree of French arms sold to Saddam after Gulf War I, nor did Chirac want the world to find out about Chirac’s role in helping Saddam build the reactor that Israel bombed.
The predominance of evidence determined the need to oust Saddam. You use that rule for making decisions because no decision would ever be made in a timely manner if we insisted on 100% on every indicator. Look at the crap that came down when someone said that, some time before 9/11, a briefing had mentioned the possibility that pople might fly airplanes into buildings, yet we didn’t order airplane proof fences around all buildings.
I was over at the CaliforniaConservative. He had a nice rebuttal in a letter to Chris Matthews that I, for one, believe Matthews doesn’t have the integrity to read, let alone answer.
http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=1282
Walter, not only that, but the Able Danger group identified both the 9/11 threat and the threat to the USS Cole. The warnings were stiffled by Jaime Gorelick aides.
It sounds too clever for me. France didn’t want war so they created documents to support the case for war?
Yet the French wanted the false documents to be discredited (thus impeding the US, et al) but they didn’t keep strong proof handy and blast that all over the world as we prepared for war?
And with little more effort they could have made it look as if the US had falsified the papers to begin with. But they didn’t do that either?
Even so, sometimes the spies come up with the damnest schemes. And this may have been one. Think how well the idea of killing the Pope worked. Or the French sabotage of the GreenPeace boat. Or killing the priest in Poland just as the Iron Curtain was wobbling.
I was over at the CaliforniaConservative. He had a nice rebuttal in a letter to Chris Matthews that I, for one, believe Matthews doesn’t have the integrity to read, let alone answer.
http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=1282
Comment by PCD @ 10/26/2005 – 3:33 pm
Wow, that email dropped the show on Hackthews…I mean Matthews. Thanks !
LOL FT