by emptywheel
eRiposte at the Left Coaster has been doing incredible work piecing together the Niger forgeries. For those who haven't been following along, I'd like to offer a quick summary of what he has shown, including:
- The substantive American and British claims about Iraq acquiring uranium all relied on the Niger documents
- There are several pieces of evidence that prove some in the Administration knew the Niger documents were garbage before they used them to justify war
- There was clearly cooperation from someone at SISMI to make the documents more useful to justify the Niger claim
I really encourage you to go look through eR's work. But here's my short explanation of what it all means.
The substantive American and British claims about Iraq acquiring uranium all relied on the Niger documents
eR looked through all the various reports (SSCI, Butler, Robb-Silberman, Taylor) and their cross references to show that all of the substantive claims that Iraq was trying to acquire, buy, or otherwise get uranium come back to the Niger forgery claims. There are a few red herrings--the claim that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Congo or Somalia--but eR shows them to be ridiculous claims that were never taken very seriously.
There was one other bit of intelligence that Niger fans used to "corroborate" the claim that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger--the report that Iraqi Ambassador to the Vatican Wissam al-Zahawi visited Niger in 1999. Note, this tidbit--which was widely known among western intelligence agencies--was used and abused in a number of ways. Almost every time the connection is made, for example, the person using this tidbit ignores that al-Zahawi was visiting three other African nations on the same trip--it clearly wasn't a trip exclusively about uranium. The week of Joe Wilson's op-ed, Libby and Fleischer used the fact that one of Wilson's sources had mentioned a different contact with an Iraqi (which happened in Algiers) in 1999, and that Wilson himself had traveled to Niger for the CIA in 1999, to claim that Wilson was somehow involved as a go-between between Irag and Niger. But most of this abuse of the al-Zahawi is hocus pocus, using a real (albeit insignificant) piece of intelligence to hang a bunch of bogus theories onto.
But there is one curious aspect of this al-Zahawi intelligence. After CIA analysts mentioned that the al-Zahawi trip might corroborate the reports they were getting from SISMI, the SISMI source included a tidbit about al-Zahawi, suggesting there may have been a feedback loop to the SISMI source.
In any case, suffice it to say that the whole Niger claim relied on those documents--although, as I'll explain, the documents were laundered along the way. The claims that there was something more than the Niger claims basically amounted to using a very unconvincing piece of intelligence just to be able to claim there was something else.
There are several pieces of evidence that prove some in the Administration knew the Niger documents were garbage before they used them to justify war
There are a few moments we can look at to show that some in the Bush Administration knew these documents were bogus.
First, something made the CIA back off otherwise unquestioned intelligence on Niger at the beginning of October (leading up to and including the vetting they did on Bush's October 7 Cincinatti speech). There is no clear mention of what makes them doubt the Niger intelligence (although the WaPo once cited a report that would have been received in September that discredited the Niger intelligence). But doubt it they did.
Now, I personally believe this is why Elisabetta Burba ended up receiving copies of the Niger forgeries--because the CIA had given up on that intelligence. By providing "real" documents, perhaps the perpetrators of this fraud believed they'd give the Niger claims renewed credibility.
But once they got the forgeries, they should have known something was up.eRiposte shows in detail how there are a number of discrepancies between the forgeries and the intelligence reports CIA had received from SISMI (in addition to all the discrepancies of accuracy that most people have focused on). For example, while the SISMI intelligence said Foreign Minister Nassirou Sabo signed the deal, the actual documents said Foreign Minister Allele Elhadj Habibo signed the deal. You would think the discrepancy would have discredited the entire claim. But it didn't.
One important reason why the discrepancy didn't discredit the intelligence is because the documents were distributed in such a way to make sure no one vetted them (this stuff is mine, not eRiposte's, so it is more speculative and any errors are mine). Rather than coming in through CIA, which would be the normal distribution channel for these documents, the forgeries came into the US through John Bolton's office. One INR analyst saw them and knew immediately they were garbage. But somehow, that analyst was unexpectedly on leave the following day, so he couldn't explain the problems of the documents to his colleagues, nor could he make sure they actually got the documents. (The SSCI says they did, but it based this conclusion on the fact that the documents were in files that Fred Fleitz would have had access to.) Further, the probable supervisor for this INR analyst testified during the Bolton confirmation hearings that Bolton prevented her INR analysts from distributing intelligence with their opinions on it. They were supposed to give the intelligence to WINPAC, and then comment after WINPAC redistributed the intelligence. In the case of the Niger forgeries, this would have meant four months elapsed before the INR analyst could share his opinion with his colleagues.
Bolton's office did something funky with the forgeries when they came in; I strongly suspect they prevented their distribution and also prevented the one person who had debunked them from actually sharing that debunking with anyone at CIA. In any case, the stuff on Bolton's role in this is weaker than eRiposte's stuff, but it does suggest someone in Bolton's office knew the documents were bogus--and therefore prevented them from getting vetted properly or even seen for four months, until it was too late to stop the war.
Finally, there's the news that is as close to a smoking gun as we've gotten on the Niger forgeries. When the Bush Administration gave the Niger forgeries to IAEA, they didn't include the "Global Support" letter that the INR analyst had recognized as BS as soon as he saw it. This is the document with the faked Niger seal and the wacky conspiracy theories tying Iraq and Iran together. The most logical reason someone would hold back that document from the IAEA is because it is clearly BS. By giving the IAEA the more plausible forgeries, the Bush Administration claim that they were "fooled" by the forgeries might be plausible. It wouldn't have been plausible if the IAEA had seen the Global Support letter.
There was clearly cooperation from someone at SISMI to make the documents more useful to justify the Niger claim
This was one of eRiposte's huge breakthroughs (and it's got some cool diagrams, so it's definitely worth clicking through). I mentioned that there were discrepancies between the SISMI intelligence and the forgeries. Well, it turns out that the discrepancies all relate to incorrect details. Effectively, the intelligence coming in from SISMI had corrected any details of the forgeries that would have revealed they were fake. So SISMI told CIA that Foreign Minister Nassirou Sabo had signed the uranium deal, even though the documents said Foreign Minister Allele Elhadj Habibo had signed it, because Sabo was the Foreign Minister at the time of the alleged deal. SISMI was basically correcting any incorrect data so the intelligence would be more plausible to the CIA.
In other words, eRiposte has shown that someone at SISMI and some people in the Bush Administration were aware these were forgeries from the very start--from October 2001. The SISMI person effectively edited out the information that would reveal the forgeries as fakes. And someone in the US knew that the Global Support document would also reveal their game (and also, I think, Bolton's office knew they were forgeries and intervened to prevent them from being vetted).
It sounds like some people at the CIA had debunked these documents through Wilson's efforts and what they had seen of the documents. But we know that others at the CIA either believed them, or at the very least, found them useful for selling the war.
And that is always the question, isn't it? Did they know the documents were fakes but use them anyway? Did some people realize they were probably fakes but that the boss would be interested in them so pass them on? Were they known from the get-go to be fakes and the VP/Bush just didn't care?
If it works to sell the war it is true?
Posted by: Mimikatz | December 01, 2005 at 17:50
New article today out of La Republicca. It is mostly based on an interview with Alain Chouet, former Vice Director of The Direction Générale de la Sécurité extériéure (Dgse), or French counter espionage abroad, during the crucial time in question.
I've blogged about it here: http://emmajoe.blogspot.com/ and spotted the original translated article at BooTrib. I think you'll find it very informative in terms of timeline and info...
Posted by: emmajoe | December 01, 2005 at 18:19
So are there any ideas who at SISMI did the editing?
Posted by: cathy | December 01, 2005 at 19:30
Congratulations on getting through Left Coaster's posts. I agree that it's one of the more remarkable pieces of decoding ever mounted, but Lord it's dense to follow. Dan Brown could fictionalize it and sell it I think. My summary [of your summary] is that it was an ACTIVE FRAUD. Left Coaster makes that clear.
I also agree that John Bolton was an ACTIVE PART of that ACTIVE FRAUD. I hope we don't wear out with this thing too fast to not investigate the NIGER story thoroughly. It's the real GATE that leads to John Bolton, who with Michael Ledeen, constitute the the rottenest apples in the whole barrel. And they're both part of NIGER GATE...
Posted by: Mickey | December 01, 2005 at 20:04
Excellent summary, especially the EW logic of document distribution. Makes perfect sense. And I'd sure like to know exactly how it was that this particular INR analyst was "unexpectedly on leave" that particular day. BTW, if this post is a "quick summary," let's anticipate a more characteristic massive analysis... hopefully soonish.
A few random contributory thoughts:
1. A scrupulous trekking of the Yellowcake Road may yet deliver the knockout blow to the Neocons, with an historic jolt for your average patriotic American. Although I'm not optimistic on the prospects of actually reaching Oz -- key individuals would start turning up unalive if things were to get too hot -- I was struck by Ledeen's recent attempt to shift the forgery blame onto France. An absurd and possibly slightly desperate move. Has the curtain been pulled back a tad too far? How long will AEI/NRO be keeping him on board?
2. Some helpful Yellowcake perspective lies in Theodore Draper's "A Very Thin Line." The 1991 Iran/Contra summarium paints a lethal portrait of Ledeen & Ghorbanifar, the dynamic duo at the root of Iran/Contra, known to have been reuniting in Italy recent years. Draper shows over and again Ledeen's rogue-like behaviour and "strangely amateurish" (161) approach to illegal public policy. Meanwhile, the ties to SISMI and Mossad are, well, perhaps, something less than amateurish.
3. Regarding Woodward... it's intriguing how he goes out of his way in "Plan of Attack" to associate Tenet with his "slam dunk" statements. I note five references to Tenet and the "slam dunk," with two of them followed by exclamation points. As if we didn't get the point. [Paperback: 249, 249, 288, 422, 440]. Seems Woodward was more than willing to help the WH scheme to blame pre-war intel woes on the CIA. Of late, Tenet's temp-successor John McLaughlin has been remarking that Tenet's "slam dunk" line has been unfairly taken out of context. Interesting -- how so? At any rate, taking "Plan of Attack" into context as a whole, if Woodward is willingly in on the Plame scene now, I say odds are he's helping the Neocon branch of the WH.
4. If Tom Maguire is onto something in suggesting Libby went after Wilson due in part to his perceived anti-semitism, what does it mean if another perceived anti-semite, Bob Novak, ended up being the guy who outed Wilson?
Posted by: Smokestack | December 02, 2005 at 01:53
Smoke
I should have a look at the Ledeen post shortly--the whole series in fact.
And yes, I've got Draper's book right here in front of me. It's part of one coherent effort.
Posted by: emptywheel | December 02, 2005 at 08:44
Finally Phase II of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has been implemented. Although it has fallen off the media radar yet again. Phase II will hopefully be investigating the OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS, THE WHITE HOUSE IRAQ GROUP, AND THE COUNTERTERROISM EVALUATION GROUP all of these groups were 'OFF LIMITS" to Phase I.
The Inspector General of the Pentagon has also begun an investigation into charges that the Vice Presidents OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS conducted unauthorized, unlawful or inappropriate intelligence activities.
Who and when will get to the bottom of this false intelligence about WMD's?
Our congress spent millions of dollars and a great deal of time getting to the bottom of a President's extra marital activities (a BJ). You would hope that our congress would find false intelligence that took us into a war.. equally or just a little more important........
CONTINUE TO CALL, E-MAIL AND VISIT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES DEMANDING THAT THEY GET TO THE BOTTOM OF ALL OF THE INTELLIGENCE AND ALL OF THOSE INVOLVED. THEY NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
WE OWE THIS TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES DUE TO THE CREATION AND DESSIMINATION OF THIS FABRICATED INTELLIGENCE.
FROM A SOCCER MOM
Posted by: kathleen galt | December 02, 2005 at 12:35
EW,
Again thanks for the great summary.
Here are some points of clarification.
>>"The week of Joe Wilson's op-ed, Libby and Fleischer used the fact that one of Wilson's sources had mentioned a different contact with an Iraqi (which happened in Algiers) in 1999, and that Wilson himself had traveled to Niger for the CIA in 1999, to claim that Wilson was somehow involved as a go-between between Irag and Niger. "
Actually, I don't believe they were referring to Wilson's 1999 trip. Perhaps you may have gotten this impression reading Judith Miller’s article in the Times. Here’s what Miller said:
“As I told Mr. Fitzgerald and the grand jury, Mr. Libby alluded to the existence of two intelligence reports about Iraq's uranium procurement efforts. One report dated from February 2002. The other indicated that Iraq was seeking a broad trade relationship with Niger in 1999, a relationship that he said Niger officials had interpreted as an effort by Iraq to obtain uranium. My notes indicate that Mr. Libby told me the report on the 1999 delegation had been attributed to Joe Wilson.”
What Libby was talking about here is what Wilson reported from his 2002 trip (about the Algiers meeting as you correctly pointed out). And Libby was clearly lying through his teeth because both the CIA and DIA had abandoned the Wilson's-trip-proves-uranium-seeking garbage by then.
>> "After CIA analysts mentioned that the al-Zahawi trip might corroborate the reports they were getting from SISMI, the SISMI source included a tidbit about al-Zahawi, suggesting there may have been a feedback loop to the SISMI source.
I am not certain that CIA analysts mentioned a possible Al-Zahawi/uranium connection to SISMI. They may have, but there is no published evidence for it yet. Based on the known evidence so far, one may conclude (tentatively) that SISMI sent the Al-Zahawi garbage to the CIA in Feb 2002 to bolster their earlier claim to the CIA in Fall 2001 that Iraq had been seeking uranium since 1999.
>> "One important reason why the discrepancy didn't discredit the intelligence is because the documents were distributed in such a way to make sure no one vetted them (this stuff is mine, not eRiposte's, so it is more speculative and any errors are mine)."
You are right that I have not formed an opinion on this just yet, but I will add that I am not yet convinced that "the documents were distributed in such a way to make sure no one vetted them". There are multiple pieces of evidence suggesting that this cover story from the CIA is false. For example, the CIA was examining the documents prior to the Bush SOTU. Moreover, when the IAEA asked them for proof of the uranium claim they sent them the forgeries. If hardly anyone knew that the documents existed, why would they magically pick the very documents to send the IAEA that they had ostensibly either not seen or not vetted? And if they had seen the documents it makes no sense that they would not have been vetted by experts before sending them on to the IAEA (indeed, the fact that the Global Support doc was hidden from the IAEA is another smoking gun).
>> "Further, the probable supervisor for this INR analyst testified during the Bolton confirmation hearings that Bolton prevented her INR analysts from distributing intelligence with their opinions on it."
I know you've looked at the Bolton hearings closely. Could you send me an email with the links to your posts on that that might relate to this uranium hoax? Thanks.
>> "intelligence coming in from SISMI had corrected any details of the forgeries that would have revealed they were fake"
I would say the more accurate statement here is "SISMI had corrected many details"...they didn't fix the Wednesday July 7, 2000 error for example, which in the end was an obvious clue that gave away the fact that the reports were based on the forgeries.
>> "someone at SISMI and some people in the Bush Administration were aware these were forgeries from the very start--from October 2001"
Actually, we don't yet have totally solid evidence that "some people in the Bush Administration were aware these were forgeries from...October 2001". The "Global Support" doc was discussed in Oct 2002, not Oct 2001. That said, the odd behavior of the CIA on Oct 18, 2001 - when they changed the alleged date of the alleged ratification of the uranium deal by the State Court of Niger - from 2000 to 2001 - is a red flag that warrants further investigation into whether someone in the CIA knew that they were peddling dubious/bogus stuff. There may be other revelations as we go along, but that's it for now.
Thanks for the great job!
Posted by: eriposte | December 04, 2005 at 11:28
eR
Thanks for the correction on your stuff.
Let me say, when I argue the distribution ensured these would never be debunked, I didn't mean they weren't seen. If you buy the Repubblica article on the French, for example, we know CIA had the documents in Summer 2002. So we know CIA had seen them. I'm suggesting that (after the first distribution to INR) Bolton made sure the forgeries never got into the hands of someone who would out them. He made sure only reliable people saw them.
Actually, I think you're mistaken on the 1999 stuff. As I show here Libby was pushing an Ari briefing (the one the WH subsequently removed from their server that was eventually subpoenaed) the week of July 7 in which Ari alleged that Wilson had been the businessman in 1999. Add that to the reference in Judy's story (Libby seemed to be backing off a claim he made on the 8th), and it appears clear that this was more than just Ari's confusion; for a day or two that week, they were planning on claiming that Wilson was a go-between.
I'll do a post on the Bolton testimony this week.
Posted by: emptywheel | December 04, 2005 at 13:48
EW,
I read your post on Ari's comment. Here is his comment that you cite:
"In fact, in one of the least known parts of this story, which is now, for the first time, public -- and you find this in Director Tenet's statement last night -- the official that -- lower-level official sent from the CIA to Niger to look into whether or not Saddam Hussein had sought yellow cake from Niger, Wilson, he -- and Director Tenet's statement last night states the same former official, Wilson, also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official, Wilson, meet an Iraqi delegation to discuss expanding commercial relations between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales."
Whether or not Ari was trying to hint about Wilson's 1999 trip to Niger is a matter on conjecture. You are certainly correct that Ari was misconstruing what Tenet said by confusing the former Nigerien official (Mayaki) with the former US official (Wilson). So, you can take Ari's statement either as a product of misunderstanding the facts or as lying. But the fact is that it was after the 2002 trip that Wilson reported on Mayaki's claims about the June 1999 incident.
Also, I have taken one read of the latest La Repubblica article. I have not formed any judgements yet on the claims in the article. I need to read it a couple of more times and digest the information and compare it to other information reported to date.
Posted by: eriposte | December 04, 2005 at 14:55
eR
I don't think the 2002 trip really affects this, if Ari (and Libby) were lying.
What Libby and Ari woudl have been referring to is Wilson's 1999 trip to Niger for the CIA. Recall that Libby was asking Addington what kind of paperwork there would be if a CIA employee's spouse took a trip. He asked this the day AFTER talking to Judy in his effort (according to Waas) to give Judy more substance on what he said on July 8.
But this really wouldn't have been pertinent to Wilson's 2002 trip. Libby had presumably already gotten all the available documentation on it. I suspect Libby was trying to make this case (as was Ari) believing the confluence of the dates (Wilson 1999 trip, al-Zahawi 1999 trip, Mayaki 2002 conversation about 1999 reference) would support the allegation that Wilson was the original Mayaki source.
And, by the time Libby spoke with Judy on July 12, he realized that accusation wasn't going to hold up.
My original point was that the 1999 al Zahawi trip--the only thing that was backed up by uncontested intelligence--was the anchor they tried to hang a lot of unsubstantiated accusations on.
Now it seems that the paperwork relating to the 2002 trip woudln't be interesting.
Posted by: emptywheel | December 04, 2005 at 15:51
mature vs young hard mature women vieille salope mature amatrice mature fuck young young boy and mature mature vieille mature salope mature young first time mature and young boy < mature old fuck mature woman fucking girl hot mature men mature woman asshole mature pics free grosses.femmesmuresx.com grosse femme mature hairy bush mature mature hot movies film mature fuck dogs mature black busty photo penetration femme mature hot nasty mature galerie nylon mature brune mature nu hot wife mature blowjob woman mature mature free galerie rencontre femme mure femme mure amatrice cochon photo de femme mure hard cum her face mature photo x femme mure femme mure pour jeune homme 19ans mature mom cum photo gratuite fellation femme mure age mure nu gratuite x femme mure femme mure tres poilue photo femme mure amateur exhib rencontre coquin femme mure > femme mure et nu gratuit mure femme mure avec jeune mec recette and confiture and and mure photo x femme mure et ronde photo de femme mure xxx femme mure nu photo photo gratuite vieille mature nu mature busty babe gallery nymphomane mature amatrice lady mature mature drunk suck vieille saint girons photo vieille salope gratuit mature collant nylon galerie gratuite mature mature and granny mature lady posing femme amatrice mature vieille salope .com pipe hard concert hard rock berlin hard rock cafe black orchid rock nantes hard audrey tautou film hard archive journal hard pps hard ecoute musique hard rock couple hard roman photo hard film and x and hard photo hard de brigitte lahaie music hard core teen hard preview hard top nissan navara hard and top rencontre hard gratuite pps hard gratuit hard anal fucking photo gratuite femme hard peugeot dangel 505 hard top dvd x hard discount sodomie hard amateur pps humour hard liste hard discount essonne mature riding hard hard tv net hard xxx gratuit
Posted by: Frankeynstain | June 28, 2006 at 08:24