|
Questions on the uranium controversy
Does anyone know who is supposed to have forged the document indicating Iraq got uranium from Niger, and why this party allegedly forged it? The continual, non-specific reference to a “forged document” sneakily implies that U.S. intelligence itself forged it, yet (though I haven’t been following the story closely), I haven’t seen even rabid Bush critics actually make such a charge. So, if those Macchiavellian Bushies (you know, the same people who employed a Hitler-sized lie to start a war which would be exposed as a lie the moment the war was won) did not forge the document, who did? In whose interest would it have been to make up such a document? In whose interest would it have been to fool the U.S. into thinking this uranium sale had occurred? Without this information, the constant references to a forged document make absolutely no sense. But has anyone in the media attempted to explain these puzzles? No—instead, we just keep hearing the same mindless repetition about a forged document.
Are there any reporters who still function as reporters instead of as recyclers? Comments
I (like most paleocons and non-Christian/non-Zionist conservatives) opposed the war from the very outset. What is the present VFR position on the war? Posted by: Sporon on July 16, 2003 12:10 PMThere is no VFR position on the war, since Mr. Kalb and I had different views about it, though he spoke little about it. I have written and conversed extensively about it, and you could do a search or look through the archives page for any number of threads we have had here. I supported the war as a necessary act of national defense. That view hasn’t changed. By the way, since Zionism is the movement that brought the Jewish state into existence and has maintained it in existence, for an American to identity himself (quite gratuitously) as a non-Zionist can only mean one thing: that he is against the existence of the state of Israel. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on July 16, 2003 12:24 PMSome of the most fervent supporters of the war self-identify as “Christian Zionists”. Is pointing out that I’m not one of them some sort of crime? Posted by: Sporon on July 16, 2003 12:47 PMI hadn’t heard of “Christian Zionists,” but by that phrase they obviously mean that they support the existence and safety of the state of Israel against all the forces in the world who lust to destroy it, or who support and make excuses for those who lust to destroy it. Identifying oneself as the opposite of those who support the existence of the state of Israel carries the self-evident meaning that I indicated. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on July 16, 2003 12:57 PMmy guess is the document was some highschool student’s art project pulled off the web. Posted by: abby on July 16, 2003 1:25 PM“a non-Zionist can only mean one thing: that he is against the existence of the state of Israel.” An anti-Zionist would be one against the State of Israel’s existence. A non-Zionist can also mean someone who doesn’t particularly care about Israel’s fate; or alternately, it can also mean one who neither supports nor opposes Israel, one way or the other, rather than being in favour of or opposed to its existence (and thus taking sides in the Israeli-Arab conflict). In other words, a non-Zionist isn’t necessarily anti-Zionist per se; if not anti-Zionist, this could be either because one is apathetic regarding the matter (doesn’t consider it important), or neutral for principled reasons (doesn’t see why one should take one side or the other). Posted by: Will S. on July 16, 2003 2:15 PMRespectifully, I don’t accept Will’s distinction between anti-Zionist and non-Zionist. When half the world wants to destroy Israel, to say “I’m neutral about it” is not a credible position. I stick to what I said: that a person would not go out of his way to identify himself as a “non-Zionist” unless his views were as I said. However, the Israel-Arab dispute was not the topic of my article; I only brought it up because Sporon did. I was seeking explanations of the famous forged uranium document. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on July 16, 2003 2:52 PMIt is a unique semantic situation. There is no term that means “in favor of the existence of France”. One can be anti-French without being against the existence of France, so certainly one can be anti-Israel without being against the existence of Israel. There is room to oppose France or Israel without wishing for their utter eradication. But because “zionism” means “in favor of the existence of Israel” is creates a clear dichotomy between those who see the existence of Israel as just as legitimate as the existence of other countries, and those who view Israel as uniquely illegitimate. Posted by: Matt on July 16, 2003 3:21 PMhttp://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/uranium030715_docs.html It seems an underpaid Nigerian diplomat forged them and sold them to the Italians with only a modest profit for a motive. Or so it seems. The fact that the Niger documents were forged is not in dispute by anyone. Posted by: Jason Eubanks on July 16, 2003 4:31 PMFurthermore this fact about the Niger/Iraq documents was known months prior. The FBI even launched an investigation about who was behind the forgery. http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,52428.jsp Posted by: Jason Eubanks on July 16, 2003 4:36 PM |