Niger sold uranium

Iraq Had Talks on Buying Uranium for Nukes:

Although the European intelligence material suggested a proactive role by the sellers, intelligence officials said that Iraq actively sought supplies, the FT said.

…

Despite evidence that it was supplied to at least two of those countries, it was not clear if talks with Iraq ever led to exports, the report added.

Okay. My reading of this says Iraq had the intent to do nasty things (duh). There doesn’t seem to be any evidence so far of them carrying out that intent. This made (makes?) Saddam Hussein dangerous, but not as dangerous as Bush and Blair (oh, I forgot Howard) led many to think.

(Resurrecting an old thought — not mine — if the Bush administration found assassinations an acceptable way of dealing with dangerous criminals, why not just have Saddam Hussein and his sons taken out way back when, and have the UN step in as peacekeepers? Less blood on their hands.)

And now that they’ve invaded and currently occupy Iraq (two more days till the handover!), they have to suck it up and deal with the attacks, the resistance, and public dissatisfaction over their performance. Way to go promoting Western-style democracy in the Middle East, lads.

(This is a Letter from Iraq, and it’s pretty good. Stops mysteriously in mid-sentence on page 4, though.)

Does Niger get in trouble for selling uranium?

Update: Glenn Reynolds gets on the story one week late. Jon Henke writes:

I plan to spend the rest of this evening enjoying the vindication.

This would be based on the belief that Yes, it’s okay to use forged documents to back up your story, on the off-chance the claim turns out to be true?

Those documents aren’t any less fake now. They should not have been used as evidence, and if Henke feels vindicated, it means he supports using fakes. I propose we forge documents alleging anything we like, and we are allowed to do that now, according to Henke.

• 28 Jun 2004

• Thinking