- if the link does not support your point of view why cite it? If
there is a link in some reputable newspaper that you do not consider
biased then please feel free to provide it
- I am totally unclear as to how the cited story proves bias
- Wilson found contacts, yes. But no evidence of a sale of uranium.
>From your own link:
"Mayaki told Wilson he met with the Iraqis but steered the discussion
away from commercial activity because he did not want to deal with a
country under United Nations (news - web sites) sanctions. "
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: 9/11 Commission to Cheney - You're still wrong.
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sorry, it was joke. I love to point out the bias of
the NY Times.
They ended the story by stating that the documents are
now known to be forgeries.
They want you to think it's all about those docs but
it isn't.
They were decoys. The original facts are still there.
French and British intelligence separately told the
United States about possible Iraqi attempts to buy
uranium in the African nation of Niger, the report
said. The report from France is significant not only
because Paris opposed the Iraq war but also because
Niger is a former French colony and French companies
control uranium production there.
Joseph Wilson, a retired U.S. diplomat the CIA sent to
investigate the Niger story, also found evidence of
Iraqi contacts with Nigerian officials, the report
said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=1278&e=4&u=/ap/20040709/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_uranium
-sm
--- dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to concur with Kevin's reading of the the NY
> Times article.
> Also your quoted conclusion says that the *forgery*
> of these documents
> (and who is reponsible for that forgery is beng
> investigated). That
> they were in fact forged does not seem to be in
> question.
>
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:16:46 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (U) Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the
> > Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign
> > language documents2 on the Iraq-Niger uranium
> deal, it
> > was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq
> may
> > have been seeking uranium from Africa based on
> Central
> > Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other
> > available intelligence. 2 (BLACKED OUT) In March
> > 2003, the Vice Chairman of the Committee, Senator
> > Rockefeller, requested that the Federal Bureau of
> > Investigation (FBI) investigate the source of the
> > documents, BLACKED OUT the motivation of those
> > responsible for the forgeries, and the extent to
> which
> > the forgeries were part of a disinformation
> campaign.
> > Because of the FBI's current investigation into
> this
> > matter, the Committee did not examine these
> issues.
> > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731/
> >
> > This investigatin was also reported in a Financial
> > Times article a few weeks back.
> >
> > -sm
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That doesn't say it's still being investigated.
> It's
> > > just a post
> > > mortem of the investigation that concludes that
> the
> > > purchase was an
> > > indefensible assertion.
> > > -Kevin
> > >
> > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:54:15 -0700 (PDT), Sam
> Morris
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > --- dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > > can you document this?
> > > > There's more but this is a good start since
> it's
> > > the
> > > > NY Times.
> > > > -sm
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politics/14nige.html
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > Dana
> > > > >
> > > > > > beginning. The Niger Uranium purchase
> attempt
> > > is
> > > > > still
> > > > > > being investigated.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
