Regretfully John Teo has not been particularly up-front with us on facts pertaining to the Niger uranium incident and the alleged al-Qaeda Saddam Hussein link.

He made some assertions that cannot withstand scrutiny. His messages were, unwittingly or deliberately, identical to what hardline Republican Party campaigners have been pushing in recent times to shore up President George W Bush's faltering reputation.

First, he claimed that the Butler report has exonerated the British intelligence report (and thus Tony Blair) on the Iraqi purchase of Niger's uranium. What he did not reveal was that the Butler Report made that conclusion on a qualified basis.

I reproduce relevant segments of the Butler Report without any of the distortions that Teo had adopted, as follows:

' From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British government did not claim this.

d. The forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.

The sentence, 'Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible' has been the entire basis of Butler's exoneration of British intelligence. This is another way of euphemistically saying that:

'I say, old boy, 75 percent of Niger's exports are uranium, so what else could the Iraqis be looking for? What we have to say is the blooming obvious, that the Iraqis did not purchase the uranium, and leave an open-ended question of whether they had sought it. That's the best we can do for you, old sport.'

Thus, the entire British case on this intelligence issue, which constituted part of the so-called justification for war against Iraq, was founded on nothing more than guesswork, argued away by the Butler's Report on principally an arithmetical possibility (I won't dignify such amateurish or sinister intelligence with the word 'mathematical').

Despite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) informing the British that the documents providing the 'evidence' were forgeries, the Report's last conclusion was, 'The forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it'.

This is a classic example of brazen-faced intention to whitewash the lie. With typical British stiff upper lip, it puts a gloss over the entire sordid untruth. That message could be translated as:

'Bad show, old chum, you should have checked and verified your intelligence rather than rushed pell-mell with indecent haste into condemning that Saddam bounder. Blast those IAEA chaps.

'Now, listen up old chap. We'll give you a slap on the wrist and say the documents were not available at the time you made that questionable allegation. Confound those silly things like facts and evidence. Hope the great unwashed don't notice that a forgery is a forgery is a forgery, and that you basically lied.'

What else can one expect of British intelligence that had been based on an outdated (10-year-old) PhD thesis by a Californian postgraduate student? But the greater evil had been the insistence on using it.

The Americans on the other hand were more repentant, acknowledging the IAEA confirmation of the so-called 'evidence' as forgeries. They blamed instead the CIA for not advising the president. Thus, there is no question whatsoever about the entire lie on Niger's uranium.

In fact, the case of the forged documents (purportedly provided to the British and the US by a third country which both coalition members have refused to name) is currently under investigation by the FBI on the bidding of Senator John Rockefeller.

He voiced his concern that the forgeries 'may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq'.

Even the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman, Senator Pat Roberts had to grudgingly admit that US intelligence analysts believed from the beginning the information was questionable and did not factor it into their analysis of the Iraqi threat.

If one were to read the 'Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq' one would be able to detect the internal tussle between the Cheney camp and the US State Department.

The State Department's bureau of intelligence and research (INR) has consistently dismissed the allegation of Iraq seeking uranium from Niger. Niger has only two uranium mines, one of which was flooded and the other managed by a French company, which exercised very strict control over the uranium product. The INR has been proven correct.

Even an independent investigator, Marine General Carlton W Fulton Jnr who was detailed to Niger to assess the uranium issue, was confident that it would not be possible for the Iraqis to source that material due to French control. He passed his assessment to General Meyers, the US Chief of Joint Staff.

It has been widely known that US Vice President Cheney visited CIA headquarters on several occasions. The Senate Report showed that he was pushing for evidence to show Iraq had approached Niger for the uranium.

To the CIA's credit, one of its analysts asked for the allegation to be removed from the president's speech but the National Security Council analyst remarked that removal of the Niger uranium statement would have left the British 'flapping in the wind'.

Hence, we can guess that there was mutual support between the British and the American authorities on the false allegation, a 'collusion of the willing', so to speak.

Joseph Wilson (I stand corrected on my error in suggesting it had been his wife) did nothing more than to confirm what the State Department's intelligence body (INR) and General Fulton had already stated, and what the IAEA had confirmed.

His crime was to reveal it publicly and expose Bush's lie. His punishment was to have his wife deliberately and dangerously revealed to the world as a covert CIA operative. Teo failed to address this act of malice.

The case of revealing a covert CIA operative's identity is a serious crime in the US, and is now under investigation by the US Justice Department.

Teo erred in suggesting that the Senate Committee made a bipartisan confirmation of Bush's statement on the Niger uranium issue. Only the Republican senators made the conclusion that Joseph Wilson assessment was unreliable, obviously to shore up Bush's failing credibility.

One item that they claimed Wilson lied about was the fact that a former prime minister of Niger stated that he received an Iraqi business delegation, thus 'proving' in their minds that the Iraqis had sought Niger's uranium product.

What they deliberately left out, as has Teo, has been the fact that the same prime minister also said that nothing came out of the meeting, including and particularly, any request for uranium.

A common tactic of the Bush camp has been to smear any opposition. Their victims have included John Kerry and even the Republican senator, John McCain. The latter spoke up against the vicious dirty tricks campaign against Kerry, calling upon Bush to condemn the dishonest and dishonourable lies, but Bush refused.

McCain was accused by the same people of having an illegitimate black daughter, when he had actually adopted a Bangladeshi girl. A prisoner of war in the infamous Hanoi Hilton during the Vietnam War, he was viciously accused of collaborating with the enemy.

He was also labeled a homosexual, and his wife who had to take pain-killer medicine, was badmouthed as a drug addict. One could argue that by comparison, Joseph Wilson got off lightly.

As for the al-Qaeda-Saddam alliance, the 9/11 Inquiry dismissed that, stating that there was no 'collaborative operational relationship' between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Remember Paul Wolfowitz, the mastermind of the Project for the New American Century Project, who then became the mastermind for the Defence Department's plan to invade Iraq when he joined the Bush administration?

The 9/11 Report clearly spelt out Paul Wolfowitz's urging that Iraq be attacked for the Sept 11 incident when no such evidence of Iraqi involvement existed.

Furthermore, it stated that there was 'no credible evidence' supporting Paul Wolfowitz's argument that Iraq was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre.

The report made short shrift of this most incongruous allegation by showing that al-Qaeda considered Saddam Hussein as an American stooge. It also brought out evidence to dismiss the allegation that Mohamed Atta, one of the Sept 11 attackers, had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer.

Teo has been very callous in stating 'so what' when I pointed out that the US had backed Saddam even in his evil machinations. He wanted us to view the Saddam video on his recommended right-wing site so that we can applaud Bush for his 'regime change' invasion of Iraq.

But he failed miserably in explaining the US' crocodile tears concerning the continued support of other equally repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan, and some former USSR states.

He dismissed any allegations of a US oil grab in Iraq. I ask him to read the 9/11 Report (page 335) where in the aftermath of the Twin Towers attack, Bush ordered the USA Defence Department to prepare for Iraq, with plans to occupy the Iraqi oil fields.

His arguments about the US motive during World War Two is disingenuous, a study in dissembling his lack of substance in his need to apple-polish the US. He had earlier reminded us to be grateful to the US for intervening to save the world.

And when I pointed out that the US had sat on its backside for years before it was forced into the war out of its own defensive needs rather than any altruistic reason, Teo changes tack.

I can understand how Colin Powell must have squirmed with embarrassment as he had to endure the nonsense coming out of the neo-cons faction of the Bush administration. I too squirm with embarrassment when I see how some genuflect to the US under the Bush administration.