Let's resurrect this beast.

[Yonivore]

According to the Robb-Silberman Report on "The Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction:"

Subsequently, Vice President Cheney requested follow-up information from CIA on this alleged deal. CIA decided to contact the former U.S. ambassador to Gabon, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been posted to Niger early in his career and maintained contacts there, to see if he would be amenable to traveling to Niger. Ambassador Wilson agreed to do so and, armed with CIA talking points, traveled to Niger in late February 2002 and met with former Nigerien officials.

Following the trip, CIA disseminated an intelligence report in March 2002 based on its debriefing of Ambassador Wilson. The report carried the caveat that the individuals from whom the Ambassador obtained the information were aware that their remarks could reach the U.S. government and “may have intended to influence as well as to inform.” According to this report, the former Prime Minister of Niger said that he was not aware of any contracts for uranium that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states. He noted that if there had been such an agreement, he would have been aware of it. He said, however, that in June 1999 he met with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq, which the Prime Minister interpreted as meaning the delegation wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. (<< This was reported to the CIA by former ambassador Joseph Wilson) The Prime Minister let the matter drop, however, because of the United Nations sanctions on Iraq.

The British Government weighed in officially on the Niger subject on September 24, 2002, when it disseminated a white paper on Iraq’s WMD programs stating that “there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quan ies of uranium from Africa.”

Now, how do these three consecutive paragraphs from the Robb-Silberman Commission Report contradict the President's State of the Union Statement that:

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quan ies of uranium from Africa"

In the course of three paragraphs, from the Commission Report, you have the CIA testifying that Joseph Wilson told them the Prime Minister of Niger believed Iraq was seeking to "expand commercial relations" probably for the purchase of yellowcake uranium and you have the British Government supporting that assessment.

Again, where's the lie?

[boutons_]

"Iraq was seeking to "expand commercial relations" probably for the purchase of yellowcake uranium"

That Saddam had definitely purchased y/c and had it delivered to Iraq where it could be a threat, if Saddam had the capability and desire to process y/c into a bomb.

The Repugs lied like a Richard Nixon in the run up to the war. They knew they were cherry picking and extorting and exaggerating supportive "evidence" while suppressing and hiding from Congress the serious doubts by the intelligence community about ALL their "evidence".

The Repugs made the decision to go after Iraq before 2000 and exploited 9/11 to justify it and every ing Repug action since.

head repeatedly said that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Now, we see dubya his dumb ing self admitting in his progress-free, depressingly negative recent press conference that there was no connection. head was lying and most of the USA and the military believed him.

It's over, pussy eater. Keep quibbling about minor bull , it proves you don't have ing clue about what's going on.

The big picture is that the Repugs criminally, impeachably, willfully ed up big time, they've been exposed, Iraq is a disaster and will be taken over by Shia militias as soon as dubya cuts and runs "in victory", if not sooner.

In place of an effectively neutralized, non-threatening Saddam blowing blustery, posturing smoke up everybody asses while serving as a counter-weight to his arch enemy Iran, dubya/ head have opened the door to a radical Shia Muslim theocracy in Iraq mimicking and in cahoots with Shia Iran.

The M/E, the USA and the world are much less safe and less stable thanks to the Repugs.

"You're doing a heckuva a job, dubya!"

[George Gervin's Afro]

Published on Monday, October 24, 2005 by United Press International
Bush at Bay
by Martin Walker

WASHINGTON - The CIA leak inquiry that threatens senior White House aides has now widened to include the forgery of do ents on African uranium that started the investigation, according to NAT0 intelligence sources.
This suggests the inquiry by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald into the leaking of the iden y of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame has now widened to embrace part of the broader question about the way the Iraq war was justified by the Bush administration.

Fitzgerald's inquiry is expected to conclude this week and despite feverish speculation in Washington, there have been no leaks about his decision whether to issue indictments and against whom and on what charges.

Two facts are, however, now known and between them they do not bode well for the deputy chief of staff at the White House, Karl Rove, President George W Bush's senior political aide, not for Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The first is that Fitzgerald last year sought and obtained from the Justice Department permission to widen his investigation from the leak itself to the possibility of cover-ups, perjury and obstruction of justice by witnesses. This has renewed the old saying from the days of the Watergate scandal, that the cover-up can be more legally and politically dangerous than the crime.

The second is that NATO sources have confirmed to United Press International that Fitzgerald's team of investigators has sought and obtained do entation on the forgeries from the Italian government.
Fitzgerald's team has been given the full, and as yet unpublished report of the Italian parliamentary inquiry into the affair, which started when an Italian journalist obtained do ents that appeared to show officials of the government of Niger helping to supply the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein with Yellowcake uranium. This claim, which made its way into President Bush's State of the Union address in January, 2003, was based on falsified do ents from Niger and was later withdrawn by the White House.

This opens the door to what has always been the most serious implication of the CIA leak case, that the Bush administration could face a brutally damaging and public inquiry into the case for war against Iraq being false or artificially exaggerated. This was the same charge that imperiled the government of Bush's closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, after a BBC Radio program claimed Blair's aides has "sexed up" the evidence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

There can be few more serious charges against a government than going to war on false pretences, or having deliberately inflated or suppressed the evidence that justified the war.

And since no WMD were found in Iraq after the 2003 war, despite the evidence from the U.N. inspections of the 1990s that demonstrated that Saddam Hussein had initiated both a nuclear and a biological weapons program, the strongest plank in the Bush administration's case for war has crumbled beneath its feet.

The reply of both the Bush and Blair administrations was that they made their assertions about Iraq's WMD in good faith, and that other intelligence agencies like the French and German were equally mistaken in their belief that Iraq retained chemical weapons, along with the ambition and some of technological basis to restart the nuclear and biological programs.

It is this central issue of good faith that the CIA leak affair brings into question. The initial claims Iraq was seeking raw uranium in the west African state of Niger aroused the interest of vice-president Cheney, who asked for more investigation. At a meeting of CIA and other officials, a CIA officer working under cover in the office that dealt with nuclear proliferation, Valerie Plame, suggested her husband, James Wilson, a former ambassador to several African states, enjoyed good contacts in Niger and could make a preliminary inquiry. He did so, and returned concluding that the claims were untrue. In July 2003, he wrote an article for The New York Times making his mission -- and his disbelief -- public.

But by then Elisabetta Burba, a journalist for the Italian magazine Panorama (owned by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi) had been contacted by a "security consultant" named Rocco Martoni, offering to sell do ents that "proved" Iraq was obtaining uranium in Niger for $10,000. Rather than pay the money, Burba's editor passed photocopies of the do ents to the U.S. Embassy, which forwarded them to Washington, where the forgery was later detected. Signatures were false, and the government ministers and officials who had signed them were no longer in office on the dates on which the do ents were supposedly written.

Nonetheless, the forged do ents appeared, on the face of it, to shore up the case for war, and to discredit Wilson. The origin of the forgeries is therefore of real importance, and any link between the forgeries and Bush administration aides would be highly damaging and almost certainly criminal.

The letterheads and official seals that appeared to authenticate the do ents apparently came from a burglary at the Niger Embassy in Rome in 2001. At this point, the facts start dribbling away into conspiracy theories that involve membership of shadowy Masonic lodges, Iranian go-betweens, right-wing cabals inside Italian Intelligence and so on. It is not yet known how far Fitzgerald, in his two years of inquiries, has fished in these murky waters.

There is one line of inquiry with an American connection that Fitzgerald would have found it difficult to ignore. This is the claim that a mid-ranking Pentagon official, Larry Franklin, held talks with some Italian intelligence and defense officials in Rome in late 2001. Franklin has since been arrested on charges of passing classified information to staff of the pro-Israel lobby group, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. Franklin has reportedly reached a plea bargain with his prosecutor, Paul McNulty, and it would be odd if McNulty and Fitzgerald had not conferred to see if their inquiries connected.

Where all this leads will not be clear until Fitzgerald breaks his silence, widely expected to occur this week when the term of his grand jury expires.

If Fitzgerald issues indictments, then the hounds that are currently baying across the blogosphere will leap into the mainstream media and whole affair, Iranian go-betweens and Rome burglaries included, will come into the mainstream of the mass media and network news where Mr. and Mrs. America can see it.

If Fitzgerald issues no indictments, the matter will not simply die away, in part because the press is now hotly engaged, after the new embarrassment of the Times over the imprisonment of the paper's Judith Miller. There is also an uncomfortable sense that the press had given the Bush administration too easy a ride after 9/11. And the Bush team is now on the ropes and its internal discipline breaking down, making it an easier target.

Then there is a separate Senate Select Intelligence Committee inquiry under way, and while the Republican chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas seems to be dragging his feet, the ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, is now under growing Democratic Party pressure to pursue this question of falsifying the case for war.

And last week, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, introduced a resolution to require the president and secretary of state to furnish to Congress do ents relating to the so-called White House Iraq Group. Chief of staff Andrew Card formed the WHIG task force in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion of Iraq, and Kucinich claims they were charged "with the mission of marketing a war in Iraq."

The group included: Rove, Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and Stephen Hadley (now Bush's national security adviser) and produced white papers that put into dramatic form the intelligence on Iraq's supposed nuclear threat. WHIG launched its media blitz in September 2002, six months before the war. Rice memorably spoke of the prospect of "a mushroom cloud," and Card revealingly explained why he chose September, saying "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

The marketing is over but the war goes on. The press is baying and the law closes in. The team of Bush loyalists in the White House is demoralized and braced for disaster.


© Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Look Yoni it's very simple. The President and his handlers knew prior to the State of the Union that this story was not verifiable. It made it's way into the State of the Union anyway and was used to justify the necessity of rushing to war with Iraq. Most of Bush's follower's will claim that "we went to war for many other reasons besides WMDS.." My question would then be if there were many 'other' reasons then why in the do you use information that cannot be verified? If the case were so strong then the uranium issue should have never been used much less put in the State of the Union. You may think that people like me just hate Bush.. I hate what he has done to this country and there are other questionable instances that he usedd to justify this war..

why not just use what you know to be fact?

[Yonivore]

Way to obfuscate.

Wilson, reporting to the CIA on his trip to Niger, said the Prime Minister of Niger believed Iraq was seeking large quan ies of yellowcake uranium.

British Intelligence believed at the time and still maintains this is the case.

Bush stated such in his State of the Union Address.

I believe that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa is significant. And, everyone who has investigated this -- from the Robb-Silby Commission to that Brits have concluded this was a reasonable conclusion; that Iraq was seeking significant quan ies from an African nation.

Where's the lie?

The forged do ents (while a fascinating story in themselves -- regarding provinence) didn't come into to play until Wilson lied about them to the commission.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Way to obfuscate.

Wilson, reporting to the CIA on his trip to Niger, said the Prime Minister of Niger believed Iraq was seeking large quan ies of yellowcake uranium.

British Intelligence believed at the time and still maintains this is the case.

Bush stated such in his State of the Union Address.

Where's the lie?

The forged do ents (while a fascinating story in themselves -- regarding provinence) didn't come into to play until Wilson lied about them to the commission.

lie

Pronunciation: (lī), [key]
—n., v., lied, ly•ing.

—n.
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
5. give the lie to,
a. to accuse of lying; contradict.
b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.


mis•lead

Pronunciation: (mis-lēd'), [key]
—v., -led, -lead•ing.

—v.t.
1. to lead or guide wrongly; lead astray.
2. to lead into error of conduct, thought, or judgment.



You can play semantics all you want and ignore the obvious but Bush was not honest about this.

[Yonivore]

You can play semantics all you want and ignore the obvious but Bush was not honest about this.

Really? How so?

The only person to have been proven a liar over this issue is Joseph Wilson.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Really? How so?

The only person to have been proven a liar over this issue is Joseph Wilson.

If Bush and his staff knew prior to the State of the Union that the uranium story could not be verified and that he should not include the statement wouldn't that be , at least, dishonest?

Now you are playing semantics with Bush repeating what he heard from the british govt.. of course he's not 'lying' about what the brits stated! However at the minimum he was wrong to state it as fact knowing full well he did not know for sure. Hence he misled!

Guess what this means? He cherry picked information he wanted to let out... !

[2centsworth]

If Bush and his staff knew prior to the State of the Union that the uranium story could not be verified and that he should not include the statement wouldn't that be , at least, dishonest?

Now you are playing semantics with Bush repeating what he heard from the british govt.. of course he's not 'lying' about what the brits stated! However at the minimum he was wrong to state it as fact knowing full well he did not know for sure. Hence he misled!

Guess what this means? He cherry picked information he wanted to let out... !

Now you're getting somewhere.

[Yonivore]

If Bush and his staff knew prior to the State of the Union that the uranium story could not be verified and that he should not include the statement wouldn't that be , at least, dishonest?

To what "uranium story" are you referring?

If you're referring to the story that Iraq was seeking significant quan ies of uranium from an African country. That was verified by Wilson when he visited Niger. Iraqi overtures to "expand commercial relations" with Niger were interpreted by Niger as a desire to purchase yellowcake uranium. What part of that Wilson-provided report doesn't add up to Iraq seeking significant quan ies of uranium from an African nation? British intelligence only supported this assertion.

So, really, to what "uranium story" are you referring?

Now you are playing semantics with Bush repeating what he heard from the british govt.. of course he's not 'lying' about what the brits stated! However at the minimum he was wrong to state it as fact knowing full well he did not know for sure. Hence he misled!

He prefaced his sentence with "British Intelligence has learned..."

How is that misleading? British Intelligence stands by their intelligence and, indeed, some special commission formed to see if Tony Blair "sexed up" his dossier concluded that this was a reasonable conclusion given everything else that was known about Iraq.

Are you saying that Iraq wasn't seeking significant quan ies of uranium from an African country and, if so, upon what do you base that?

Guess what this means? He cherry picked information he wanted to let out... !

It means he stated a belief that Iraq was seeking large quan ies of uranium from an African country and he attributed that belief to British Intelligence who, by the way, stand by it and have been found to have done so reasonably.

That's what it means.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Following the trip, CIA disseminated an intelligence report in March 2002 based on its debriefing of Ambassador Wilson. The report carried the caveat that the individuals from whom the Ambassador obtained the information were aware that their remarks could reach the U.S. government and “may have intended to influence as well as to inform.” According to this report, the former Prime Minister of Niger said that he was not aware of any contracts for uranium that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states. He noted that if there had been such an agreement, he would have been aware of it. He said, however, that in June 1999 he met with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq, which the Prime Minister interpreted as meaning the delegation wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. (<< This was reported to the CIA by former ambassador Joseph Wilson) The Prime Minister let the matter drop, however, because of the United Nations sanctions on Iraq.


Your own article says there was no purchase? So then Bush knew there had been no purchase but he used the information anyway... the only thing remotely consistent with your defense is that the Nigerian PM 'assumed' it was to discuss the yellow cake. That's it? That's your proof? So now we can surmise that bush used this information in the State of the Union based on an assumption by the Nigerian PM. I guess you think that is a solid reason to rush into war..

[Yonivore]

Your own article says there was no purchase? So then Bush knew there had been no purchase but he used the information anyway...

No ! Where, in the President's statement, did he mention that Iraq had actually acquired uranium from Africa? All the President said was that Iraq was SEEKING significant quan ies of uranium.

In and of itself, the fact that Iraq was shopping around for uranium is a significant breach of U.N. sanctions.

It's like your brain isn't wired to understand the difference between possession and seeking to possess. Who says Niger was the only place to which Iraq had travelled? Who says he didn't get what he wanted from another country? , given that Russia, France, and Germany were in cahoots with Saddam and, in some cases, providing him with military gear; who's to say they didn't cover for him in other ways?

the only thing remotely consistent with your defense is that the Nigerian PM 'assumed' it was to discuss the yellow cake. That's it? That's your proof?

Why else would Iraq want to "expand commercial relations?" I think it is a given that the only reason Iraq would have been there was to buy uranium. I believe that is the general concensus of most WMD experts and intelligence experts alike. You can pretend all day long that Saddam was seeking something else from Niger but, you'd be a fool.

Uranium is Nigers chief export -- damn near their only source of income. For what other reason would Iraq have wanted to "expand commercial relations?" Their Prime Minister understood what he meant. Why can't you?

So now we can surmise that bush used this information in the State of the Union based on an assumption by the Nigerian PM. I guess you think that is a solid reason to rush into war..

Well, if it were the only piec of intelligence and, if WMD's were the only pretense for resuming hostilities with Iraq, after a 12 year hiatus, then you'd have a point.

But, it wasn't. It was just another piece in the puzzle.

[boutons_]

"if WMD's were the only pretense for resuming hostilities with Iraq"

WMDs were the first, main, principal, overhwelming pretense for the phony Repug war.

The WHIG position was WMD ALONE was enough to justify the invasion.

WMD: as in Colon Powell pimping before the UN a mobile bio-weapons lab that wasn't a mobille weapons lab.

Every ing "reason" has been de-bunked as bull , and/or completey offset by severe doubts in the other direction.

The opinion from the US intelligence insiders was the WHIG/ head came to the intelligence agencies with the Repug decision to invade Iraq already made ( the evidence, we have a partisan Repug agenda to complete and an incompetent president to re-elect), and the role of intelligence agencies was to justify that decision.

[ChumpDumper]

Where are the stockpiles of WMDs again?

[ChumpDumper]

It's like your brain isn't wired to understand the difference between possession and seeking to possess.

No, we clearly understand the distinction.

We understand that Saddam maybe kinda sorta hinted at possibly attempting to inquire about obtaining nuclear materials.

We understand that Saddam never used WMDs against the US, even though he had the chance twice in defense of his own regime.

We also understand that Iran actually posesses nuclear material, and is developing nuclear bomb technology every day we are forcing marines back into duty in Iraq.

We also understand that all this time North Korea posessed nuclear material and actually made a couple of nuclear bombs.

We also know that the regimes in Iran and NK have real ties to terrorist groups to which they have not been diametrically opposed in the past.

It's great to know what your priorities are.

[Yonivore]

No, we clearly understand the distinction.

We understand that Saddam maybe kinda sorta hinted at possibly attempting to inquire about obtaining nuclear materials.

He was actively working to resurrect his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. And, with the complicity of the French, Germans, Russians, and Kofi Annan; he had plenty of cash on hand to do so.

We understand that Saddam never used WMDs against the US, even though he had the chance twice in defense of his own regime.

So, you wait until we suffer massive losses before you take actions. I see.

We also understand that Iran actually posesses nuclear material, and is developing nuclear bomb technology every day we are forcing marines back into duty in Iraq.

Different responses for different problems. What makes you think our presence in Iraq isn't part of the strategy for dealing with Iran?

We also understand that all this time North Korea posessed nuclear material and actually made a couple of nuclear bombs.

Again, different responses for different problems. China is involved in dealing with North Korea. Are you saying the motivations for Kim Jong Mentally-Ill are the same as for Ahmandinejad or Hussein or the others? Can you deal with one as you would deal with another? That's an overly simplistic view of geopolitics.

We also know that the regimes in Iran and NK have real ties to terrorist groups to which they have not been diametrically opposed in the past.

See above.

It's great to know what your priorities are.

It's good to know you're omniscient.

[2centsworth]

No, we clearly understand the distinction.

We understand that Saddam maybe kinda sorta hinted at possibly attempting to inquire about obtaining nuclear materials.

We understand that Saddam never used WMDs against the US, even though he had the chance twice in defense of his own regime.

We also understand that Iran actually posesses nuclear material, and is developing nuclear bomb technology every day we are forcing marines back into duty in Iraq.

We also understand that all this time North Korea posessed nuclear material and actually made a couple of nuclear bombs.

We also know that the regimes in Iran and NK have real ties to terrorist groups to which they have not been diametrically opposed in the past.

It's great to know what your priorities are.

So what are you suggesting the US should have done?

I think we all agree Iraq was a threat, to what extent we disagree. The evidence suggest with time Saddam had some very ambitious goals.

Nevertheless, in an intellectual honest way what would your plan look like to protect Americans from future terrorist attacks?

[ChumpDumper]

He was actively working to resurrect his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs.

So it wasn't active like the others. Nice.

So, you wait until we suffer massive losses before you take actions. I see.

No, you DON'T see. He was never going to use them on the US -- even if he did have them.

Different responses for different problems. What makes you think our presence in Iraq isn't part of the strategy for dealing with Iran?

Yeah, that stopped their nuke program in it's tracks. Mission accomplished.

Again, different responses for different problems. China is involved in dealing with North Korea. Are you saying the motivations for Kim Jong Mentally-Ill are the same as for Ahmandinejad or Hussein or the others? Can you deal with one as you would deal with another? That's an overly simplistic view of geopolitics.

If you think these guys are half as bad as Saddam, nothing but an invasion and overthrow will stop them as well. It's nice that we don't have that card to play anymore.

It's good to know you're omniscient.

Don't be mad because you were wrong about the stockpiles.

[ChumpDumper]

So what are you suggesting the US should have done?

I think we all agree Iraq was a threat, to what extent we disagree. The evidence suggest with time Saddam had some very ambitious goals.

Nevertheless, in an intellectual honest way what would your plan look like to protect Americans from future terrorist attacks?

You guys are pretending Saddam wasn't already under our thumb.

The intellectually honest thing to do? Remember Osama? The guy who was actually behind 9/11?

[smeagol]

No, we clearly understand the distinction.

We understand that Saddam maybe kinda sorta hinted at possibly attempting to inquire about obtaining nuclear materials.

We understand that Saddam never used WMDs against the US, even though he had the chance twice in defense of his own regime.

We also understand that Iran actually posesses nuclear material, and is developing nuclear bomb technology every day we are forcing marines back into duty in Iraq.

We also understand that all this time North Korea posessed nuclear material and actually made a couple of nuclear bombs.

We also know that the regimes in Iran and NK have real ties to terrorist groups to which they have not been diametrically opposed in the past.

It's great to know what your priorities are.

[2centsworth]

You guys are pretending Saddam wasn't already under our thumb.

The intellectually honest thing to do? Remember Osama? The guy who was actually behind 9/11?

So are you saying we kill Osama all our terrorism problems are solved?

[ChumpDumper]

So are you saying we kill Osama all our terrorism problems are solved?

I'm talking about priorities.

Really, when you found out Osama was behind the 9/11 attacks, was the first thought in your head "Let's get Saddam!"?

[cheguevara]

killing Osama would have been a great start. Instead of commiting billions, years and many lives into Iraq, a non-terrorist country. That's right, Saddam's regime even though it was terrible, did not resort to terrorism ever.

[ChumpDumper]

That's right, Saddam's regime even though it was terrible, did not resort to terrorism ever.

That would necessitate a pretty specious definition of terra. Saddam terrorized his own people and neighbors to be sure. He just wasn't the imminent threat to the US he was played up to be.

[boutons_]

"we kill Osama all our terrorism problems are solved?"

Invading Iraq solved none of our terrorist problems,

very probably radicalized more Muslims into being terrorists than terrorists attracted to and killed in Iraq, creating more anti-US terrorists, not less.

has de-stabilized the M/E right into the hands of Iran.

and has tied down the totality of the US military for years to come, preventing it from being available in more threatening areas, eg, Iran, NK, finishing/stabilizing Afghanistan, the horn of Africa.

YV is just like WHIG. Let's do Iraq no matter what, and for secret agendas, and now le'ts go find all the evidence needed to justify our pretextual "belief" that Iraq is a immediate threat to the USA.

Hey, sounds just like the Bible-thumpers: we believe the literal interpreation of the Bible, now let's go negate all of science so we can proclaim the only other possible explanation is the Hand of God in 6 days a few 1000 years ago.