Here is the link to the original.

A better quality version of the report (with pictures) is at
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

Link via http://www.overpressure.com/archives/week_2003_09_28.html#000480
Jim

Thanks, Jim. That's the link I have above for "read this report."

Until there's a loaded warhead put in front of the Senate Intel Committee, no matter what we find it won't be enough.

Can someone explain to me why a vial of botulinum toxin found hidden in a BW scientist's home isn't a "smoking gun"?

Pete it isn't illegal in the US for your high school scinece teacher to have a vial of botullism toxin in his/her home either.

Actually, it wasn't a vial of botulism toxin. According to the report, it was a vial containing a reference strain of Clostridium botulinum. Before 9/11, you could have owned one, too. C. botulinum is not itself a biohazard. The toxin secreted by this bacterium under anaerobic fermentation conditions, however, is.

I have a sample of Clostridium botulinum myself, in my garden. It is a common soil bacterium. Are we to have a global war on soil?

Can someone explain to me why a vial of botulinum toxin found hidden in a BW scientist's home isn't a "smoking gun"?

Because, it is Botox, the stuff they inject between Lura Bush's eyebrows to make her look younger. And it wasn't even extracted, but just the generic bacteria, which is commonly used in any biology courses around the world!

Anyway, I am visiting here in search for info.
I am a regular at Whiskeybar , and I wonder, is anyone in the British Blogspeare working on debunking the Yellowcake aspect of the fake WMD claims.

I mean no offense to anyone, but I googled my way here, and all the other blogs in the UK that I tracked so far, were horridly right wing or blatendly uninformed.

You might know, that Al Chalabies consorts supplied a lot of the fake evidence through Judith Miller of the NYT, and also that the Niger Embassy in Rome was buglared and ransacked for seals and letterheads a half year before the crudely forged Niger Documents surfaced in Italy -
but, I found it impossible so far to find any evidence supporting or debunking the existence of any other African Country trying to export yellowcake to Iraq.

Not, that any counrty did. 4 month, 2300 investigators, and they find zilch.

But, in the States, in the 'slime and defend' strategy implored by the NeoCons and right-wingnut punditry, one of the newest strategy that seems to be in the talking point memos, is the reference to ominous British evidence, that Iraq sought to buy Yellowcake from other countries in Africa

Of course, then it is cited, that evidence "is classified secret".
Good trick, eh, to declare anything that opposes the fascist governments views as "secret". The current White House does this a lot.
The whole Wilson/Plame affaire only hit the light of day, because it was kept alive in the blogspheare.

So, can anyone point me where I should look for answers.
I am asking no one to agree with me, I just ask for some blogger courtesy. Hope, I didn't offend anyone.

Thank you

Mr. Thomas,

unfortunately, we won't know the real truth about any of this until the original sources are declassified. That may not be for decades. Consider, for example, some of the hidden history of WWII.

I for one believe the WMD was a convenient excuse. I believe, as does Steven den Beste, the real object was to pluck the lowest hanging fruit in Arab culture to reform. As to which WMD sources are or are not reliable, this question is a sideshow, a chasing after the wind. There may be indeed nothing to find. In my opinion, whether this does or doesn't pan out in the future is irrelevant.

The real question, the root cause of this war (of which Iraq is now the central campaign) is: Can Arab civilization and Islam co-exist in peace with the rest of the world? Can they discard their fascist fantasies of dar al Harb and dhimmitude, wherein the entire world submits, either in belief or chains or death, to Arab rule?

This is still an open question, and the issue is still in doubt. The only guide we have is the Reformation, and the lesson Western civilization took from it. That is, to separate the spheres of religion and state, so that each follows their own conscience's dictates, and the state ensures everyone's right to their own belief, free from coercion by any other. Or as has been noted elsewhere, we are trying to force Islam to abandon the jihad of the sword, and to take up the jihad of the pen.

We really have no choice. Even if there are no WMD to be found in Iraq, WMD makes the jihad of the sword so lethal, should radical Islam obtain them (and they may already have them, given the machinations of Pakistani ISI), that you and I would have to choose whether death is preferrable to submission to their sterile and rigid rule.

Dear Samuel,
thank you for your response, although it is incoherent with what my parents told me about the British, listening under death-penalty threat to the BBC in world war 2 from an earplug dropped into an enamel dish, listening up close, so the neighbors couldn't denunciate them.

Perhaps, you are right, and they stopped making Britts like that long ago.

Perhaps, when now the "Lords" mean to keep things away from you, it is a British duty to oblige.

Perhaps, Hitler didn't know about all the bad stuff, and if he had known, he surely would have stopped it. Perhaps, Israel is not a fascist Apartheit state, and perhaps everything wrong is just the fault of Arafat and "radical Islamists".

Perhaps not.

However, in the real World, Robin "Would You Sleep With This Man?" Cook just very clearly stated:

"There were two distinct elements to this exchange that sent me away deeply troubled. The first was that the timetable to war was plainly not driven by the progress of the UN weapons inspections. Tony made no attempt to pretend that what Hans Blix [the chief UN weapons inspector] might report would make any difference to the countdown to invasion.
"The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to argue me out of the view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass destruction that were designed for strategic use against city populations and capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances."

So, Cute Robin didn't wait for future generations,
Begs the question, why would you want to wait?

I don't know Steven den Beste. If you don't link to him, how would I have a clue what you are talking about?

the real object was to pluck the lowest hanging fruit in Arab culture to reform

- no, easily debunkt, it was not. It was about

Oil, War and Panic
But it can't make the oil flow. The cost of making it flow could produce an economic crisis in the US. And it is this--rather than the daily killing of young American soldiers--that lies behind the Bush administration's growing panic. Washington has got its hands on the biggest treasure chest in the world--but it can't open the lid. No wonder they are cooking the books in Baghdad.

Buddy, for the record, both my ex-wifes were Heb's.
One of them was a vegan, but none of them were zionist true believers.

SO, let's continue with intelligent discourse.

to separate the spheres of religion and state - you mean of course, to give Israelies and Palistinians equal citizenship in the state of Israel, right?
Because, you are a Democrat, and that incorporates all human beings, no matter the ethnicity or religion, right?

You would not adhere to a biggotted, fascist state divided along questionable ethnic lines, right?

You would have read Aron's Israel Peace Weblog, and thus you would follow up "the state ensures everyone's right to their own belief" with the righteous condemnation of Sharon, before you even start to drool unsubstanciated falsities about "Islam", right???

OOOhhh, "Islam", how evil! Shudder! We don't even need any logical thought to support the veracity of any atrocity accused, everybody knows Islam is evil! Oooohhh.....the humanity!

Well. meanwhile, in the real world, I find it quite hard to believe, that British Education has failed to teach you the basics of a logical argument.

On Southern States Babtists, I let it pass as an argument, because it is really that bad down there.

wherein the entire world submits
Sorry, Samuel Tai, who again did you say lives in a phantasy? My young paduan friend, we have not traveled much, now have we?

You, Samuel Tai, however, have no valid excuse whatsoever, to spew venom like WMD makes the jihad of the sword so lethal without feeling obliged to actually back up your statements with any, by god, any kind of supporting evidence.

So, the question remains, does anybody here understand what democracy is, and can point me toward somewhere in Britain's blogsphear, where what the lords feel fine to allow us to know is not the measure of what we want to know?

Robin Cook just didn't give a damn what Queen or Lords may or may not wat us to know. Anybody out there?

Werner, I'm scratching my head trying to discover a real argument in there. Or intelligent discourse, for that matter.

The is no shortage of material, or of sites, who cover the lead-in to Iraq, the concerns involved, and the multiple reasons that drove the large political gambles we have seen George Bush & Tony Blair take. The question is whether research actually interests you, or are you just another troll with a head full of conspiracy theories? All indications currently point toward the latter view.

Meanwhile, the official documents that are relevant to this blog post are linked herein. My suggestion: try reading them.

I am not a troll.

Please link pertaining arguments.

If you read my requests again, I am in search of British Blog Research pertaining to the British problem of ascertaining, yet secret, other sources of implied Iraqi attempys to aquire "Yellowcake" from nations unidentical to Niger ( For, Niger has been already debunkt royally ).

And, if you would have extended the common blogsphere coutesy to actually read the link I provided ( Which, in even greater outreaching courtesy I entirely placed within your own geography ) you, Joe Katzman, would extend the the same courtesy back to me by helping me to investigate,
weather the gambles we have seen George Bush & Tony Blair take were within the realms of democratic behaviour or not.

As things are, it is a so very, very a valid question, if there is an evil conspiracy behind the imerialistis drive of US and UK to go to war, when there was no clear and present danger at all.

My challenge than is that:

You bring on your documents, I bring on mine (Though, I really don't see how you are helping or answering any of my initial questions at all )

But, fine; the Fascist/Heb ( if you endeavour in this kind of distinction, "let them eat cake", No, wrong, I am not antisemite, goldarn, what will it take before you start reading Aron's blog????? ) rep I can shake off like water:

Well, let's see, what can we agree about?
Has "Evil Weasel" Wolfowitz just been declared "Man of the Year"? Does that make you shudder? Appearently not!

You realize, "Try reading them" is not the standard course of recommondation, neither in blogspheare nor academia?
No? Trust me, it is!

Fine then, let's accept you are that advanced outpost of democracy, a latter day, minor, Berthold Brecht.
What then, do you make of this:

Once IAEA  forensic analysts got them, it became immediately clear that the documents were not genuine. "Within two hours they figured out they were forgeries," said one IAEA source familiar with the material.

Obviously, you have trouble with dealing with several points at once. So here it is, Mevagissey way, one cornish for you at a time: what evidence do you have at hand to warrant waging war against Iraq.

If it is all there, hidden deeply in your blog, you surely have no problem pulling it up in a one-two-three fashion, because, figure this, anywhere else in the world there seems to be no problem in doing exactly that.

So, please, indulge me!
(And, sorry, a troll, by definition is always anonymous! )

Hey, I am not even your enemy.
I wish you well, and wish you to prosper.

Again, it is not my job per se to educate you to the parameters of the international blogspheare, Coudn't care less.
Do you have any good leads to any informed blogs? All I wanna know.

Mr. Thomas,

I would like to correct some minor points of fact. First, I am American, not British, so I have no insider's perspective on British politics. Second, I apologize for not linking to den Beste's site. Here is a link to Steven's summary of the events and rationales leading up to war.

Now, I am not aware of any British blogs containing the arguments for which you seek. However, I would like to challenge your assumption that there was no clear and present danger from Saddam's WMD. Consider the historical record, from public sources:

1. Saddam had chemical weapons in the past, and used them against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. He also used them against the Kurds in Hallabjah. It is reasonable to infer that in 2003, he had WMD and the will to employ them, based on his past behavior.

2. Al Quaeda documents and videotapes clearly show they desired WMD. They also clearly demonstrate they intended to use WMD should they obtain it.

3. The bulk of WMD in closest geographic proximity to Al Quaeda was in Russia, Iraq and Pakistan. Russia, having fought against Al Quaeda in the Afghanistan war, is an unlikely source. Pakistan is unlikely to offer up nuclear weapons, since there is a chance al Quaeda using a nuclear device could lead to mutual assured destruction with India. That leaves Iraq.

4. The public sources on whether Iraqi Intelligence Services were collaborating with Al Quaeda or not were contradictory. Nevertheless, such a scenario was supported by some of the sources.

5. Some methods of WMD attack have little or no warning time in which the MoD or the Pentagon could respond to neutralize the threat. Indeed, studies with WMD stand-in biological agents show that it may not be possible without epidemiological studies weeks or months later to even definitively say a biological attack had taken place.

6. It is therefore prudent to infer, then, that there was a danger of Iraq providing WMD to Al Quaeda. Such a danger was present, because of the little-to-no reaction time available in which to defend, should the danger come to pass. Such a danger was also clear, given Saddam's enmity towards America and Britain. Given the decrepit state of Iraq's forces, giving WMD to Al Quaeda would have been one of the few means left to Saddam to strike his enemies away from Iraq's borders.

All that being said, you and I can both agree that the arguments advanced by both Bush and Blair concerning WMD as the primary cause of war to be facetious. It was a convenient fig leaf covering the actual reason, which is not oil, as you claim.

For the real reason, I direct you to den Beste's site.

(BTW, it is refreshing to respond to reasoned argument of the issues, instead of ad hominem attacks. Thank you.)

I'll say this: your ability to bury your yellowcake request in a confusing screed is exceptional.

With respect to that request, we have not covered it here. What we do know is that British intelligence, oddly, continues to stand by its claim. AndrewSullivan.com had plenty of coverage re: the Gilligan affair, and the Parliamentary investigation into Iraq's pre-war dossier. Those reports and transcripts may or may not mention yellowcake specifically - my recommendation would be to look through Parliamentary documents available to the public, and perhaps Hansard. Anything the British blogosphere knows on the subject is likely to be derivative of that. Good luck.

One presumes that MI-6 has some reason to continue to stand by its claim, but being MI-6 in a Parliamentary system you're unlikely to find out why unless they specifically tell you. A democratic Parliamentary system means review by Parliament, not review by you. Which means that sometimes the best you can do is "they looked into this issue, and didn't say there was anything wrong." Unsatisfying, but normal, esp. if it deals with intelligence sources who would still be active (which this does). Welcome to the real world.

Speaking of which, it's worthwhile to note that if the allies were more than slightly jumpy, it may be because the CIA had done an intelligence assessment of what they knew and wat they thought they knew about Saddam's nuclear capabilities in the aftermath of the 1991 war. That alarming wake-up call can be found here. Key paragraph:

"[post Desert Storm] The GWAPS assessed that Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was fiscally unconstrained, closer to fielding a nuclear weapon, and less vulnerable to destruction by precision bombing than U.S. intelligence realized before the war."

In the wake of Sept. 11, this was not a mistake they could afford to repeat.

Of course, intelligence is NEVER perfect. It is ALWAYS flawed. That's just life. In the real world, where all players work to hide their intentions, one must act on incomplete information. The question always comes down to a balance of risks - and the risks of not acting in Iraq factor in as well.

This is why I disagree with Samuel. While I agree with Den Beste's broad strategic summary, Saddam's determined non-compliance regarding his WMD programs and open intentions of someday acquiring these weapons made this issue an open threat that was indeed worth addressing. See also:

Iraq: Intelligence Flaws & the Containment Myth
Walking Back the Cat
The WMD Shell Game
10 Questions about Iraq's WMD
This Sydney Morning Herald article isn't exactly comforting.

I believe SgtStryker.com also did an analysis of U.S. Administration's stated rationales before the war, and that even the narrow slice of time they looked in showed clearly that the war was being justified on multiple grounds, which included but were not restricted to the WMD issue. You may wish to go run some searches there.

Again, I'll remind you that we are looking at a balance of probabilities assessment here, with the scale weighted toward action given the magnitude of the threat. It's the same kind of calculus you would perform as you consider whether moving in next to a nuclear power station is a good idea: What do I know, or think I know? What are the odds of something bad happening? What's the cost if I gamble and lose?

Your choice of words still does not offer any signs of you being a serious seeker after truth, but I thought I'd put this answer out there anyway.

I'll say this: your ability to bury your yellowcake request in a confusing screed is exceptional.
Guilty as charged. I am a nut, that is evident.

My tone, especially in addressing Mr. Samuel Tai was clearly unacceptable, and presumptious.
Undoubtedly, I was not my polite self, not as well-mannered as the discours demands.
For this, I want to apologize to Mr. Samuel Tai especially, and express regret for having him caused any discomfort. Perhaps, I should install a breathalizer on my keyboard. I hope you can find forgiveness. I have offended, but regret this now. It is sometimes hard to stay calm, when you perceive the White House as being run by ruthless and dangerous felons.
Friends?

That said, thank you Mr. Joe Katzman for your kind response and your links. It will take me some time to sift through the material provided, and I'll report my findings back here, if I am still welcome to do so.

Ad hoc, I'd like to state, that while I believe that there is a reasonable degree of clear and immanent danger with North Korea, they do have an active nuclear program, we were given the reason that Iraq must be attacked at this time.

In fact, it looks like this:
1) The NeoCons desperately wanted to go to war.
2) The CIA could not provide the evidence of clear and imminent danger from Iraq. They also were uncooperative in forging evidence for the NeoCons to that effect. (Hence, the quarrel between CIA and Pentagon to this day)
3) Thus, the OSP in the Pentagon sent Agents to Italy to break into Niger Embassy there

"Italian investigators have theorized that the thieves who broke into the Niger Embassy had come looking for letterhead stationary and official seals that could be copied to create bogus documents. Some months later, the Italian Intelligence service-the SISME-obtained a stack of official-looking documents signed by officials of the government of Niger, outlining attempts by agents of Saddam Hussein to buy from the African nation 500 tons of pure "yellowcake" uranium, an ingredient that can be used to build nuclear bombs."

Who are the OSP?

"...The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise... "

4)Perhaps, Mr. Joe Katzman, you are right, that the NeoCons were playing a high stakes gamble, solemny based on the idea, that once in Iraq they would find some kind of evidence to justify the war after the fact.
They also though, the war would practically pay for itself.

However, Robert Fisk gives us a better view on what this war was really about in Oil, War and Panic "It's possible to argue that it was Saddam's decision to switch from the dollar to the euro in November 2000 that made "regime change" so important to the US. When Iran threatened to do the same, it was added to the "axis of evil". The defence of the dollar is almost as important as oil."

Gotta go now, but I'll be back later.
Cheers

Good guess, Joe.

"It's possible to argue that it was Saddam's decision to switch from the dollar to the euro in November 2000 that made "regime change" so important to the US. When Iran threatened to do the same, it was added to the "axis of evil". The defence of the dollar is almost as important as oil."

Good lord. It has been official US policy since 1998 when Hussein kicked out the weapons inspectors to seek regime change in Iraq. They passed the Iraq Liberation Act calling for Saddam's removal. Indeed, I don't know enough about monetary policy or econ, but I've heard numerous refutations of this.

Iran has been on our shitlist since the late 70s.

Robert Fisk is one of those lying liars who lie about all sorts of lying-related lies.

Debunking Kay
Clostridium botulinum, the bacteria which produces botulinum toxin, is a normal soil bacterium. You've probably ingested large quantities of it yourself, if you've ever eaten vegetables straight out of a garden without washing them thoroughly, or if you've ever eaten unfiltered honey. Live C. botulinum is used in undergraduate microbiology labs as a teaching tool...the live bacteria are not dangerous, are ubiquitous in nature, and are ubiquitous in microbiology labs around the globe--even those not hell-bent on the destruction of American liberty & whatnot.
If Kay said that large quantities of purified botulinum toxin had been found, that would be significant. It's difficult to purify the toxin from the bacteria (which produce the toxin in exceedinly small amounts), and there's no good reason to have lots of it. (Although it would not mean much if only small amounts of purified botulinum toxin were found anywhere--small amounts of the toxin are injected by doctors into patients for the treatment of chronic pain and wrinkles--that's what BoTox is.)

Mr. Thomas,

have you ever worked in a microbiology laboratory? The fact that only small amounts of Clostridium botulinum cultures were found does not lead to the conclusion Iraq was only using them for peaceful purposes.

The fact is, parties w/ only clinical and/or educational quantities of C. botulinum cultures can use commercial fermenting equipment to rapidly convert the initial "seed stock" to industrial quantities suitable for weapons development. It is also possible, by adjusting the formulation of the growth medium and the conditions of fermentation, to greatly increase the yield of toxin production.

(You are correct BoTox is just botulinum toxin. It is botulinum toxin type A [there are several toxin strains, and weaponized strains use the less frequent varieties, for which anti-toxin is less available] diluted to therapeutic levels. I am worried about weaponized undiluted toxin.)

If you can step back a little from the heat of argument, you can see that what we are both arguing over is intelligence analysis. We are trying to discern Saddam's intentions from his capabilities. Unfortunately, the two are somewhat independent. Yes, biological material can be used for both good and ill. I concede that the presence of C. botulinum cultures, by itself, means nothing. In the context of known weapons programs and historical demonstration of Saddam's willingness to employ WMD, however, it suggests something more sinister.

Let me propose a thought experiment. Suppose we lived as neighbors, each next door to the other. If you saw me repeatedly purchase arms and ammunition, would that alarm you? If you knew that I were a police officer, maybe not. However, if you knew that I were a convicted felon who had shot up several banks in the past, what then?

Unspoken in your criticism of the Kay report is that it is not evidence that would stand in a court of law. That is true. It is also inapplicable. War is not a criminal prosecution. It would have been sheer madness to have revealed to Nazi Germany that Britain had cracked Enigma. Yet, if war were a prosecution, then Britain would have been obliged to share all information with the other side, to ensure a fair trial.

Clear and immanent danger, ready to deploy in 45 minutes within an order?

Mr. Thomas,

I don't understand your last post. Could you elaborate?

Moving right along to the crystal-clear matter of weapons of mass destruction, we find Secretary of State Colin Powell saying of Saddam back in 2001: "I think we ought to declare our containment policy a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. He threatens not the United States."
Cheney then believed the same. Five days after 9-11, he said, "Saddam Hussein is bottled up."
But the story line changed, and by October 2002, Bush told the nation: "The threat comes from Iraq. America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a nuclear cloud."
We could go on and on with all the detailed information that the administration gave us about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction -- more than 500 tons of Sarin gas, etc. But now comes the Kay report confirming what we have been learning all along: There ain't none.

An outright false characterization of Kay's report, Werner.

From "Bug Juice" by Billmon
1.) Duel use R&D work with non-prohibited organisms that might have developed techniques suitable for use with weaponized anthrax and/or ricin. Not clear if the clandestine status of these programs has been confirmed by Iraqi scientists, or was merely inferred by the [Iraq Survey Group].
2.) One vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. stashed in a scientist’s home refrigerator since 1993. No toxin found, or evidence of any effort to produce toxin.
3.) Preservation of some (undescribed) nuclear equipment and documents that might have been useful to restarting work on centrifuge purification of uranium at a later date.
4.) Several suspected efforts to build or adapt prohibited long-range ballistic missiles. Most never got beyond the drawing boards, and all were scrapped prior to the return of the UN inspectors last year.
5.) One alleged test flight of a drone aircraft beyond the maximum allowed range.
6.) Alleged discussions with the North Koreans about purchasing prohibited long-range ballistic missile technology. No actual transactions ever completed.

(sic)...Based on Kay's statement, the answer to that question would appear to be no: The pre-war sanctions regime was, in effect, working. Saddam's WMD ambitions were being contained, albeit at a high price to the Iraqi people. The return of the U.N. inspectors to Iraq only plugged the bottle even tighter....

Mr. Thomas,

so what is your point? Let's speak plainly here. Is your assertion that invasion was not justified under any circumstances? Why?

Two sentences say it all

Kay's discovery of one vial of a reference strain of botulinum toxin that an Iraqi scientist had stored in his refrigerator in 1993 at his government's request was described by Bush on Friday as a piece of evidence that Iraq was prepared to have prohibited biological weapons.
Before the war, the administration, using 1998 data from U.N. inspectors, said that Iraq had not accounted for 25,000 liters of anthrax bacteria and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin.

For the moment he had shut his ears to the remoter noises and was listening to the stuff that streamed out of the telescreen. It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it …. The fabulous statistics continued to pour out of the telescreen.

George Orwell
1984

so what is your point? Let's speak plainly here. Is your assertion that invasion was not justified under any circumstances? Why?

A UN sanctioned invasion probably would have been justified, if combined with a clear peacekeeping mandate, and an internationally accepted plan for nation-building (perhaps even under Nato mandate, depending on the specific terms).

An imperialistic invasion, based on lies and forgeries and deception of the democratic public, to the benifit of some few corporations, without any proper planing on how to win the peace, surely is not.

It all depends, weather, or how strongly you believe in Democracy.

I am a Democrat.

I very much doubt that last line, Werner. You cannot believe in the U.N. (most of whose members are dictatorships), and profess at the same time to believe in democracy. Or its more important cousin, liberty.

Anyway, Flit has a roundup of the Niger-related materials that may help you. The yellowcake reports would appear to be mistaken. I remain puzzled re: MI-6's continued support of them, but this is a verdict that will be rendered by history in due course.

"An imperialistic invasion, based on lies and forgeries and deception of the democratic public, to the benifit of some few corporations, without any proper planing on how to win the peace, surely is not."

I'm sorry, but when you say such things you sound like a loony (no, not our dollar coin, and not the bird - the other kind). Lack of background or understanding when it comes to international relations as actually practiced is forgivable, but not when combined with simplistic demonization of this kind. You like Orwell? I recommend his essay "Politics and the English Language." It might hold an interesting mirror up to your formulaic diatribes.

Personally, I don't much care about the Niger yellowcake controversy, because it doesn't change the reasons I supported the war. It's one matter out of hundreds, some of which dealt with risk, probabilities, and the WMD threat, and some of which dealt with other issues. On balance, I believe the right thing was done... and I'm very confident that most Iraqis feel the same way (unfair advantage: I have polls by Zogby backing me up on that one).

But we'll never get anywhere discussing it. Your consistent refusal to actually investigate and respond to the sources people bring you, or to deal with the crux of their points, or engage in reasoned debate on their merits rather than invective, makes debate with you a waste of time.

I trust this concludes our interactions.

I investigate and respond to the sources you bring me.

Hey, It's your Blog.
I rest my case.

Excuse me for intervening here, but I have a question. Being a Canadian citizen, what possible business is it of yours, why America is defending itself? Your yellow cake obsession is rather amusing, but the real question is "why was a Bush hating pundit like Joe (sweet mint tea) Wilson, sent to investigate a sensitive security issue like that? Our President was 100% correct by saying that "Brittish Govt. has recently learned that Saddam sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger". However, this does not fit into your narrow window of Republican conspiracy. You are stuck in the protester mode and would rather believe that "Bush Lied...Troops died" Well, they're not your troops, so F---k off. If I want to hear your pseudo intellectual elitism, I can go to any of a million Anti-American forums, that seem to be so cool with the professional student crowd, that seems to be afraid of hard work and reality.

Excuse me for intervening here, but I have a question. Being a Canadian citizen, what possible business is it of yours, why America is defending itself? Your yellow cake obsession is rather amusing, but the real question is "why was a Bush hating pundit like Joe (sweet mint tea) Wilson, sent to investigate a sensitive security issue like that? Our President was 100% correct by saying that "Brittish Govt. has recently learned that Saddam sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger". However, this does not fit into your narrow window of Republican conspiracy. You are stuck in the protester mode and would rather believe that "Bush Lied...Troops died" Well, they're not your troops, so F---k off. If I want to hear your pseudo intellectual elitism, I can go to any of a million Anti-American forums, that seem to be so cool with the professional student crowd, that seems to be afraid of hard work and reality.

James,

According to Bush, British intelligence claimed that Saddam was seeking uranium in AFRICA, not Niger. In fact, according to some recent accounts, the correct country might have been Congo or Somalia. Bush never said Niger, despite what some people are claiming.

Sam, have a look at the link to Flit's coverage, it deals with that.

No, Werner, I was thinking about another poll. Yes, a link to the full Zogby results (and others) would be nice - anyone?

Yes, Werner, of course you're right. The Iraqis are all pining for the days of childrens' jails and the benevolent reign of Saddam, Uday & Qusay, whom they miss terribly. Why ever did the evil United States ever bother that nice man and his country?

Next...

That was easy Mr. Katzman.

While I have never stated or believed the points you try to lay in my mouth, in lieu of having any better arguments on your part, I somehow thought you'd be able to type 'Zogby' into your browser.
Sheesh!