I'm already familiar with this article. If you look at the first link in this post
Message 19643155
and the link in your post, you will see that although the links are different the articles are the same. Perhaps just different editions.
According to Repubblica, Italian intelligence services came into contact with an African diplomat wanting to sell the documents late in 2001.
They may then have put the diplomat in touch with British intelligence services.
Now don't you think that's a little thin. In an Italian newspaper, some unnamed African diplomat that Italian intelligence may have put in "touch with British intelligence services". If this is the best you've got, I'm with former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski
"The documents on which that statement of the president was based were fabrications. We got them from the British. We asked the British, where did you get these documents? They told us they got them from the Italians. Now, did the Italians fabricate them? And if so, for what purpose? Or did someone else give them to the Italians?
"I think we have to pursue that, because the fact of the matter is, our intelligence not only has been poor, but we have been manipulated in the intelligence area by sources which give us intelligence, in order to influence us."
Message 19680870
And of course all of this begs the second question of why such obvious forgeries were used as a justification.
usatoday.com
Sorry, but an unsubstantiated report in an Italian newspaper about an unnamed mysterious African diplomat, that just happen to have the documents that were perfectly tailored to make the Admin's case, stretches my credulity beyond it's elastic limit.
JMO
lurqer |
