FITZ:PROBING NIGER FORGERIES-POSSIBLE CONSPIRACY IN CIA LEAK (LEOPOLD)

[kpete]

Special Reports Last Updated: Jan 25th, 2006 - 22:23:01

Prosecutor probing Niger forgeries, possible conspiracy in CIA leak
By Jason Leopold
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Jan 25, 2006, 22:20

............

They said the questions Fitzgerald asked them about the Niger documents suggested to them that the special prosecutor was putting together a timeline. They said they believe Fitzgerald wants to show the grand jury how some people in the Bush administration may have conspired to retaliate against former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an outspoken critic of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence.

............

Lawyers close to the leak case said Fitzgerald seems to be pursuing conspiracy charges against some of the higher-profile suspects in the leak, such as Rove.


The State Department officials said they were asked by Fitzgerald how important they thought the Niger uranium claims were in making a case for war. He also asked them why they doubted the authenticity of the Niger documents, why the reports appeared to be dubious, if they knew how Wilson was picked to investigate it, whether they heard about his verbal report upon his return, how and why the INR memo was prepared, and whether it was done in response to Wilson's claims about the Niger intelligence or so officials could find out how Wilson was chosen for the trip, and why any reference to his wife was made in the memo.

Ironically, a day after Wilson's July 6, 2003, op-ed titled "What I didn't Find in Niger" was published in the New York Times, Hadley accepted responsibility for allowing the infamous "16 words" to be included in Bush's State of the Union address. Hadley was sent two separate letters from the CIA, warning him not to allow Bush to cite the Niger uranium claim in his State of the Union address. Hadley said he forgot about the letters.

Exactly one week later, Valerie Plame Wilson's cover was blown in a column written by conservative journalist Robert Novak.


http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_454.shtml

[H2O Man]

1. Thanks for this.

(Good job on the links!)

Making a time-line is essential for understanding anything as complex as this. I remember years ago, in the case of my friend Rubin, a few people from Canada made a huge chart that showed events over the years, including documenting how some peoples' stories changed.

[MADem]

2. Great timing on this tidbit--just in time for the SOTU

The nation might benefit from a reminder that when the clown goes to address Congress, he's in the habit of telling LIES:

The officials have provided the first in-depth look at how the administration came to rely upon the Niger documents in the fall of 2002, and how it played a direct role in the Plame leak, which ultimately forced the White House to acknowledge that it shouldn't have allowed President Bush to cite the uranium claims in his State of the Union address - a move the White House had hoped it could avoid.

[FreedomAngel82]

27. Wasn't he warned but did it anyways?

[MADem]

37. More than once, apparently nt

[HereSince1628]

3. It's good to see the story is still on someone's radar

But the story of Fitzgerald tracking the yellowcake forgeries is old and to me it there doesn't seem to be anything new added.

[dweller]

4. this article needs to be spread far and wide

printer friendly page: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_454.shtml

post everywhere!

K&R,
dp

[stop the bleeding]

5. Thank you kpete - K&R - I am at work right now, but will read this shortly

and also by then there will be more comments and feedback on what all this means. Thanks again - you rock!

[kpete]

6. stop the bleeding - one of the reasons I like to post these stories

is to get your feedback...
So, what do you think, is any of this new?
I thought the "timeline" aspect of the story was VERY interesting.

[stop the bleeding]

10. here is my feedback - Hadley and Rove are going to be indicted soon

Sorry if this is long but these are some the key phrases for me, also I would be curious to see if Darth Cheney gets indicted after Rove and Hadley

"We already expressed our opinion about the intelligence the vice president was asking about. We thought it had no merit," one former senior State Department official said. "We resented that they didn't trust what we said."

~snip~

"We felt vindicated," the State Department official said because there had long been animosity between the White House and State over disagreements concerning intelligence on the Iraqi threat.

~snip~

"Some very senior people in the vice president's office saw that as an opportunity," an official who currently works at the State Department in a senior capacity said. "They took it and ran with it, and it was wrong."

~snip~

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- Cheney's former chief of staff, who was indicted on five-counts of lying to federal investigators, perjury, and obstruction of justice related to his role in the Plame leak – National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, and Cheney had embraced the uranium claims cited in the "white paper," according to the State Department sources, and they had all pushed for its inclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002.

~snip~

"I have no idea how or why got in there," one of the current State Department sources said. "To this day I don't know. Secretary Powell knew that we disagreed with the intelligence. It wasn't that we disagreed with the White House per se. It's that we disagreed with the intelligence regarding Niger. We were the only people in the intelligence community who thought the documents were bogus."

~snip~


stb talking here: I think this next section only highlights the conspiracy claims by this article hence is why I included it with my summary.


In conversations and correspondence with Waxman in March 2003, ElBaradei said White House officials pledged to cooperate with United Nations inspectors but repeatedly withheld evidence from them.
Cheney, who made the rounds on the cable news shows that month, tried to discredit ElBaradei's conclusion that the documents were forged.

"I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong," Cheney said. " has consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past."

~snip~

Many career State Department officials were also lividthat the so-called "16 words" made its way into the State of the Union address, the current and former department officials who commented for this story said.

"To me it showed a total disregard for the truth, plain and simple," said one former State Department official who had worked closely with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, referring to the administration's use of the flawed intelligence.

"I refuse to believe that the findings of a four-star general and an envoy the CIA sent to Niger to personally investigate the accuracy of the intelligence, as well as our own research at the State Department, never got into the hands of President Bush or Vice President Cheney. I don't buy it. Saying that Iraq sought uranium from Niger was all it took, as far as I'm concerned, to convince the House to support the war. The American people too. I believe removing Saddam Hussein was right and just. But the intelligence that was used to state the case wasn't."

~snip~

By May 2003, Wilson had made enough noise in Washington, DC, political circles about the veracity of pre-war Iraq intelligence to attract the attention of Libby and Hadley. Wilson had been a source for Nicholas Kristoff's New York Times column that suggested the administration knowingly used the phony Niger documents to win support for the war.

"You have to understand," the former State Department official said, "this was two months after the invasion, and here was a person contradicting what the administration felt strongly about. The administration put so much stock into the fact that WMD (weapons of mass destruction) were there. But it was clear that in May 2003 there was no evidence of WMD. Anyone bringing it up, calling the administration out, so to speak, became a target."
All of the officials said that after Kristoff's column was published, they received phone calls from Libby and Hadley inquiring about the unnamed official in Kristoff's column, who turned out to be Wilson. For the first time, the public learned that the US had sent an American envoy to personally check on the accuracy of the Niger claims.

This was in stark contrast to what the administration had been saying publicly up until this point: that they only cited the Niger documents because they had been confirmed by British intelligence. But the column raised new questions about what the administration knew and when they knew it. The revelation in Kristoff's report threatened to expose how senior White House officials ignored Wilson and all the other warnings they had received about the veracity of the documents.

~snip~

A retired State Department official who was a source for a July 20, 2005, Associated Press story told the AP that the memo was drafted to respond to specific questions about Wilson's debunking of the Niger uranium claims.
"It wasn't a Wilson-Wilson wife memo," the State Department official told the AP. "It was a memo on uranium in Niger and focused principally on our disagreement with the White House."

The retired official was tracked down and interviewed by this reporter. This person said some senior members of Cheney's staff wanted the memo "toned down" after they read it.

"Try to understand their concern," the retired State Department official said. "This was the very first time there was written evidence - not notes, but a request for a report - from the State Department that documented why the Niger intel was bullshit. It was the only thing in writing, and it had a certain value because it didn't come from the IAEA. It came from State. It scared the heck out of a lot of people because it proved that this guy Wilson's story was credible. I don't think anybody wanted the media to know that the State Department disagreed with the intelligence used by the White House. That's why Wilson had to be shut down."



stb talking again here: this ties into the previous section from above that I commented on in regards Cheney vs IAEA



~snip~

All of the sources interviewed separately for this story said they were told that Karl Rove was the person who first suggested using the media to "turn the tables on Wilson." The officials wouldn't identify the person who told them this. The decision, however, was made during a meeting that took place between the White House Iraq Group.

~snip~

The State Department officials said they were asked by Fitzgerald how important they thought the Niger uranium claims were in making a case for war. He also asked them why they doubted the authenticity of the Niger documents, why the reports appeared to be dubious, if they knew how Wilson was picked to investigate it, whether they heard about his verbal report upon his return, how and why the INR memo was prepared, and whether it was done in response to Wilson's claims about the Niger intelligence or so officials could find out how Wilson was chosen for the trip, and why any reference to his wife was made in the memo.

Ironically, a day after Wilson's July 6, 2003, op-ed titled "What I didn't Find in Niger" was published in the New York Times, Hadley accepted responsibility for allowing the infamous "16 words" to be included in Bush's State of the Union address. Hadley was sent two separate letters from the CIA, warning him not to allow Bush to cite the Niger uranium claim in his State of the Union address. Hadley said he forgot about the letters.

Exactly one week later, Valerie Plame Wilson's cover was blown in a column written by conservative journalist Robert Novak.

[kpete]

11. WOW !!!!!!!

You NEVER dissappoint!!!! Thanks

[FreedomAngel82]

29. Simply amazing

I hope Fitzgearld is going after this.

[Nothing Without Hope]

46. Super post, STB!! Everybody: READ THIS POST!!! n/t

[robertpaulsen]

47. Hey stb, thanks for the good work regarding the conspiracy.

Very very interesting. Especially this part:

All of the sources interviewed separately for this story said they were told that Karl Rove was the person who first suggested using the media to "turn the tables on Wilson." The officials wouldn't identify the person who told them this. The decision, however, was made during a meeting that took place between the White House Iraq Group.


There's two ways I read this. Either these sources are telling the truth and this implicates Rove as the leaker and everyone at WHIG attending this meeting of conspiracy and obstruction of justice, or these sources are not telling the truth. The motive for lying would be that this puts the heat on Rove (the President's office) and takes the focus off Libby (the VP's office).

Either scenario is possible. I believe Joe Wilson spoke of a rift between the Rove and Libby camps regarding the outing of Plame once Fitz got on the case, each side trying to shift the blame to the other. Personally, with what I've learned about Cheney's past, as well as Rove's foreign policy advisor Michael Ledeen, I say they're ALL GUILTY.

[stop the bleeding]

48. let me know what you all think about posts # 25 and 26 - we have

asked these questions before but it never hurts to keep chewing the info over and over for new ideas and clues

[druidity33]

7. K&R

I'd love to see a graphic representation of the timeline... my brain works visually. I guess i should start looking for pics of Hadley to include in stinker sticker series...


...little stickers...

[Peace Patriot]

8. "...seems to be pursuing conspiracy charges against...Rove..."

Impatient DUers were upset when Fitzgerald didn't indict Rove on perjury and obstruction (along with Libby). This may be why. He is pursuing more serious charges. (And the other charges are still possible as well.)

---

"Exactly one week later, Valerie Plame Wilson's cover was blown in a column written by conservative journalist Robert Novak."

Reporters/bloggers on this conspiracy often forget that there were TWO outings, one on July 14, 2003, in which Novak blows Valerie Plame's cover as a CIA agent, and the second on July 22, 2003, when Novak outed the entire CIA counter-proliferation project, Brewster-Jennings, 20 years in the making, putting all of its covert agents/contacts at risk of getting killed. I think this second outing is even more important than the first. Why out the entire, important counter-proliferation project, to get back at Wilson? Why go to all the trouble of a second planted leak? --especially since the second outing compounds the risk that top Bushites put themselves in, of treason charges. This doesn't make much sense, and it calls into question the entire Rovian revenge story.

And here's another reason why the July 22 outing may be the more important one:

July 14, 2003: Plame outed, by Novak.

July 18, 2003: David Kelly (Brits chief WMD expert, BBC whistleblower on exaggerated prewar WMD intel) is found dead, under highly suspicious circumstances**; his office and computers are searched.

July 22, 2003: Brewster-Jennings, the entire CIA counter-proliferation project, outed by Novak.

--------

The WMD-planting theory of Treasongate is that the Niger forgeries were intended to be exposed as forgeries (that's why the forgeries were so crude; easily detectable), in order to draw the CIA into a public position of no nukes in Iraq; then, to plant nukes in Iraq, after the invasion, to be "found" by Judith Miller (to whom Donald Rumsfeld had given a special embed contract, which seemed to give her unique authority, for a journalist, to direct the US troops' hunt for WMDs). This "find" of nukes in Iraq would make fools of the CIA, discredit them and make them more purge-able by the Bush junta, and would provide enormous political advantage to Bush/Blair. David Kelly got caught in the middle of this--found out about the deceitful plot to plant nukes, or helped foil it. There is evidence that Blair found out something important about what else Kelly knew (besides 'sexed up' prewar intel), on July 7, 2003 (one day after Wilson's publication), and since Kelly was already 'off the reservation' (whistleblowing), they couldn't trust his word that he wouldn't reveal the worser thing, and they (someone acting on behalf of the Bush junta) killed him to prevent the truth from going further, found evidence in his office/computers of Plame/BJ involvement in foiling the nuke-planting plot, and consequently acted to destroy the entire CIA operation, in the second Novak outing.

A fuller time-line goes like this:

Late May 2003: Kelly starts whistleblowing anonymously to the BBC about 'sexed up' prewar intel.

Mid-June 2003: Miller/Libby meetings.

Late June 2003; Someone outs Kelly to his bosses; he is interrogated at a safe house.*

July 6, 2003: Wilson publication.
July 7, 2003: Blair is informed that Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things" (Hutton report).

July 14, 2003: Plame outed, by Novak.

July 18, 2003: Kelly found dead near his home**;his office searched, his computers seized.

July 22, 2003: Brewster-Jennings outed, by Novak.

----------

You can see in this outline that the trigger for the Plame outing could appear to be Wilson's publication, July 6--but in truth be events of the next day (Blair being informed that Kelly knew the worst; Blair calls Bush), July 7. There is evidence that the Bushites expected Wilson's publication. Why the big and excessively risky reaction to it?--Bushites calling at least six reporters (six journalist witnesses to treason) in one week, and involvement of many top Bushites, in what looks to me like a rushed, panicked effort to get Plame/BJ outed immediately. All this over a dissenting editorial by an ex-diplomat? Why the rush? Why the risk? They were already in Baghdad at this point, and beginning the occupation. They had plenty of time to destroy Wilson before the next election (which would be Diebolded anyway). Why do this particular thing--commit treason--to out Plame, and, having done that, why go to the extreme, four days later, of outing the entire BJ operation, putting yet more covert agents and FRIENDS OF THE US (covert contacts) at risk of getting killed?

It just doesn't add up.

----------

*(One of Kelly's last emails, on the day he died, was to Judith Miller--an old colleague, who had used him as a major quoted source in her book "Germs." He wrote that he was looking forward to his daughter's wedding, and to returning to Iraq. He thought the controversy would blow over in a week, but he expresses concern about the "many dark actors playing games." Miller is my candidate for who outed Kelly to his bosses in late June--which starts off the chain of events that leads to his death two weeks later.)

**(No surveillance or protection for Kelly (apparently); story goes he slit one wrist outdoors in the rain and bled to death all night; body moved; not enough blood at the scene for a suicide, no suicide note, forward-looking, etc., etc., etc. The Hutton inquiry report on Kelly's death is about as believable as the Bushites' and Blairites' prewar WMD intelligence reports. It was a cherry-picked, stovepiped inquiry that ignored considerable evidence of foul play. I'm about 99% sure that he didn't commit suicide, but even if he did, the reason may be the same--it was a consequence of what he knew. The WMD-planting theory of Treasongate is unaffected, as to its main outline, whether it was suicide or murder, although murder would of course underscore the evidence of panic and rush, and risk-taking, in what the Bushites did next--the outing of Brewster-Jennings.).

[stop the bleeding]

12. I think once Rove and Hadley get indicted then more questions will

be raised in regards to your points about B/J and the Iraq War in general. I think there will be a mutiny in the press, congress and in the public.

[FreedomAngel82]

30. I agree

From when I started following this story I knew in my "gut" that Fitzgerald was going after something bigger than Rove and was using him as a key for more information.

[joeunderdog]

50. I'm right with you, Peace Patriot.

Your posts are consistently on target.

Fitzgerald is caught up trying to untangle a complex web of lies. As soon as he undoes one, he uncovers another strand leading to another knot of crime. David Kelley had more than criticisms of sexed-up propoganda. That's where this story gets into a real high stakes game. And Fitz doesn't look like the kinda guy who is just gonna punch out when his shift is over. If a bigger plot needs to be unfolded, then he gets on it.

You just gotta wonder...when does he draw the line? Looks like murder, treason, conspiracy, and much much more. It's not like this story is finite.

This guy represents the only true sign of fair process I see out there. I'm not convinced they are looking for the whole story on Abramoff, Rush or Kenny Boy, but I do think we will know about Rove and Libby and the rest of the filthy bunch in this mess.

[Wordie]

9. Thanks for posting this...very good to hear Fitz is still pursuing it. K&R

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. Just because you don't see it in the media doesn't mean that it's not....

...happening. The mainstream media has not been our friend for quite some time.

[seemslikeadream]

14. Thanks kpete

Dick Cheney exposed Valerie Plame to cover up his association with A.Q. Khan's Nuclear Walmart. Read about it here: http://s93118771.onlinehome.us/DU/AMERICANJUDAS.pdf or http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&top

[stop the bleeding]

16. One can hope that if it gets that far then yes the American Public

will learn the truth about Cheney and why Khan only got a slap on the wrist. American Judas is a mind blowing article.

[BR_Parkway]

15. Can you imagine a Rove indictment on Tuesday morning? Just

in time for SOTU and Alito votes?

Talk about sweeping the news coverage. Hey, a guy can dream....

[tex-wyo-dem]

23. Yes, that would be a beautiful scenario!

We also need the truth to come out soon to help put the breaks on the next neo-con war with Iran, which I fear will be coming sooner than later.

Excellent posts by everyone, by the way!

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Octafish]

19. Great compendium! Thanks, 'dreamy!

Gosh. You know everybody.

[stop the bleeding]

24. Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi and Francis Brookes

I can never read this summary of yours enough.

Related DU thread here: Posts 78 -90 are the one's worth reading and are about the counterpunch article linked below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=163776&mesg_id=163776

This counterpunch article here ties into with what you said in your post above.

http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html




Here is a response that I asked RP on the DU thread indicated above and here is what he said.

robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-25-06 05:40 PM

Response to Reply #85

86.
My guess is the very specific questions were about Michael Ledeen.
I think the "retired national security official" that was a source for Green is Noel Koch. I've heard lots of claims that Ledeen is a Mossad agent from unnamed sources, but Koch went on the record for Green stating this. My guess is that this is what the FBI wanted to take a deeper look at.

I'll be sure to read post 82.

I think that this whole deal about Green being questioned is very interesting.

I know that I made the thoughts a bit choppy but I thought that you would enjoy this bit of research.

[Peace Patriot]

25. Absolutely fabulous compendium, SeemslikeaDream! Thank you!

We need to ask: WHY were the Niger forgeries so "crude"?

Surely the Bush junta and its Italian and Iranian operatives could come up with better forgeries than this--that could be taken apart almost at first glance by any decent intelligence professional! True, they did try to withhold the originals for a time, but still, they HAD to know they would be the laughingstock of the world as soon as the originals were examined. So why didn't they do a better job? They could have at least got the names and dates right. And presumably they were cooking up this scheme way back in 2001--they had plenty of time.

Details like this bother me a lot.

Say the Niger forgeries were cooked up just to fool Congress and the American people. I don't believe it, but just for the sake of argument. Wouldn't they want the scheme to LAST through more than a few news cycles? Why go to all this trouble to create really fake looking documents, about which there wasn't, and isn't, the slightest doubt that they are forgeries?

---------------

BR_Parkway, I think the Khan scenario has much plausibility, and it may be that destroying the CIA's counter-proliferation network had several different motivations--to cover up Cheney and other Bush Cartel arms dealings, AND to shut Plame/BJ down after the junta's plan to plant nukes in Iraq was discovered and foiled.

In fact, it was all the OTHER arms dealing that got me to thinking that the events of July 6-22, 2003 had their origin way before spring '03 (when the Libby/Miller, WHIG scheming against Plame/Wilson seems to begin), and was a scheme to draw out and identify any honest government professionals (like Plame) who might oppose their lies. So they plant obvious forgeries on them, to see who objects. And, after some people object, they go further, and put the forged material into Bush's speech, DESPITE inside objections to it, in order to BAIT people into more vociferous opposition--the purpose being to flush out anyone who could track Cheney/Cartel shady arms dealings and other crimes. This was before I learned of the Rome meeting, where the forgeries were cooked up. I never had any doubt that the Bush junta was behind the forgeries. I now think that that meeting was about far more than the forgeries.

My guess (as I outlined above): they had a two-part scheme, to manufacture the idea that Iraq had nukes, and then to plant the nukes--and in the fuzz-brained world of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, the forgeries would be CONFIRMED; no attention would be paid to anyone who questioned them, because "here are the nukes." The nukes are real; ergo, the Niger docs must have been real--or, in any case, "we were right, so who cares?"

'We were right, and the CIA was WRONG.' That would have been the meme--a discredited, and purge-able CIA. (--and discredit and purge-ability for anyone else who objected.) The consequence would then be a game board free of opposition, and free of any chance of insider detection of past, present and future Bush Cartel crimes.

But no nukes were found. Nor any WMDs of any kind. What happened to Part 2 of their scheme?

I think what we're looking at is a FOILED scheme. A truncated scheme. The "crude" forgeries, all cooked up and conveyed. Insiders start objecting. They put it into the SOTU speech anyway--to get MORE objection (meanwhile taking names). They invade Iraq (THAT part of the scheme wasn't foiled, alas)--kill tens of thousands of people, to get their oil, to immensely enrich all their war profiteering buds, and to "protect" Israel (by installing mullahs everywhere?!). And SOMEBODY detects the illegal movement of nukes, and STOPS them. They found out who it was (in the Kelly interrogation?), outed Plame, and found confirmation in his computers after he was dead who else was involved (in the BJ network), and went for the throat (outed the entire network). Their plan to bait the insider opposition has meanwhile gone forward, and is working. Wilson publishes his article--which they use opportunistically to create a cover story about Rovian revenge.

Mission accomplished. But they are left with this rather huge P.R. problem that no WMDs were found (not to mention the P.R. problem of having committed treason). Since they don't give a crap about convincing anybody of anything (I'm convinced of this--it's all just illusions and delusions, and endless "talking point" blather)--they quickly switch memes to "WMD program related activities" and "9/11" and "democracy in Iraq" and 9/11, and so on. None of this fools anybody and it isn't really intended to--except in the sense of putting up a shadow play of legitimacy that no one (or few people) can penetrate, or puncture. They do know how to play the game of brainless, cleansed "news" that forgets, from day to day, what was said before. And then there is always, "Well, the American people voted for them, didn't they?" (No, we didn't--but that's another story--more magician's tricks.)

THEIR main purposes--an open board for arms dealing and other crimes, for framing Iran, Syria, Venezuela and anybody else who has a lot of oil, and for less headaches in covering up PAST crimes--have indeed been accomplished. And it really doesn't matter what the American people think of it, as long as this veil of memes, that moves smoothly along, from day to day, in Illusion World, can keep any little bits of reality from gathering momentum.

I do think we will break through--and are breaking through--the spell they have cast over the country. It's not the kind of spell that actually fools anybody. It's much thinner than that. But it does create a feeling of disempowerment. I think a lot of people are going around muttering to themselves, "has everybody else in the country gone nuts?" (not realizing that most everybody else is thinking the same thing).

To conclude, I want to repeat that I strongly suspect that the Niger forgeries were not intended to fool anyone, but rather to provoke certain reactions inside the government, and to be combined with other related schemes (such as planting nukes in Iraq), in order to increase and consolidate the junta's power, including their ability to coverup past and current crimes. They had a very specific crime that had gone awry that they needed to clean up (planting nukes in Iraq) in the midst of a long term scheme to "get" the CIA (purge it of the honest, and install yes men and toadies). I think it's very likely that both things--outing Plame/BJ, and disabling all honest functions of the CIA (and other agencies)--are connected to very dirty dealings of various kinds including the Pakistan nuclear arms bazaar.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AntiFascist]

52. So the theory posted above is that....

the Niger documents were forged poorly so that, once the CIA pointed this out, then after planting WMDs in Iraq it would have discredited the CIA.

Another theory I read (wish I could provide a link) is that someone in the CIA wanted to discredit the administration so they ensured that the documents were forged poorly, yet good enough to fool the state dept. The theory is that top officials knew that the documents were forged, but thought they had been forged well. Then when the truth came out they all had egg (and treason) on their faces.

[FreedomAngel82]

31. Didn't they steal memo sheets from an embassy?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stepnw1f]

35. Damn... Did I Miss Something?

Why the delete?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stepnw1f]

43. Thanks!!! (nt)

[seemslikeadream]

42. Use of links not allowed at DU

[Octafish]

18. Leopold!

The guy's on the ball.

Here's what he said about Cheney's role in protecting Dr. Khan and the Pakistani H-Bomb:

The Veep and Pakistan

Cheney Helped Cover-Up Nuclear Proliferation in 1989, So Pentagon Could Sell Pakistan Fighter Jets

By JASON LEOPOLD
Counterpunch
March 8, 2004

When news of Pakistan's clandestine program involving its top nuclear scientist selling rogue nations, such as Iran and North Korea, blueprints for building an atomic bomb was uncovered last month, the world's leaders waited, with baited breath, to see what type of punishment President Bush would bestow upon Pakistan's President Pervez Musharaff.

Bush has, after all, spent his entire term in office talking tough about countries and dictators that conceal weapons of mass destruction and even tougher on individuals who supply rogue nations and terrorists with the means to build WMDs. For all intents and purposes, Pakistan and Musharraf fit that description.

Remember, Bush accused Iraq of harboring a cache of WMDs, which was the primary reason the United States launched a preemptive strike there a year ago, and also claimed that Iraq may have given its WMDs to al-Qaeda terrorists and/or Syria, weapons that, Bush said, could be used to attack the U.S.

Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and top members of the administration reacted with shock when they found out that Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan's top nuclear scientist, spent the past 15 years selling outlaw nations nuclear technology and equipment. So it was sort of a surprise when Bush, upon finding out about Khan's proliferation of nuclear technology, let Pakistan off with a slap on the wrist. But it was all an act. In fact, it was actually a cover-up designed to shield Cheney because he knew about the proliferation for more than a decade and did nothing to stop it.

Like the terrorist attacks on 9-11, the Bush administration had mountains of evidence on Pakistan's sales of nuclear technology and equipment to nations vilified by the U.S._nations that are considered much more of a threat than Iraq_but turned a blind eye to the threat and allowed it to happen.

SNIP...

But Barlow's findings, as reported in a January 2002 story in the magazine Mother Jones, were "politically inconvenient."

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold03082004.html

Leopold!

Nails Them.

[seemslikeadream]

21. If this planet blows to pieces this year, thank Khan Labs' and Bush

or next year!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1104251

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=312&row=0

You may never have heard of Khan Laboratories, but if this planet blows to pieces this year, it will be thanks to Khan Labs' creating nuclear warheads for Pakistan's military. Because investigators had been tracking the funding for this so-called "Islamic Bomb" back to Saudi Arabia, under Bush security restrictions, the inquiry was stymied. (The restrictions were lifted, the agent told me without a hint of dark humor, on September 11.)

Noam Chomsky, who read the story on page one of the Times of India, has wondered, "Why wasn't it all over US papers?

.. A top-level CIA operative who spoke with us on condition of strictest anonymity said that, after Bush took office, "There was a major policy shift" at the National Security Agency. Investigators were ordered to "back off" from any inquiries into Saudi Arabian financing of terror networks, especially if they touched on Saudi royals and their retainers. That put the Bin Ladens, a family worth a reported $12 billion and a virtual arm of the Saudi royal household, off limits for investigation.

I probed our CIA contact for specifics of investigations that were hampered by orders to back off of the Saudis. He told us that Khan Laboratories investigation had been effectively put on hold.


and YOU are everywhere Mr. Fish!

[FreedomAngel82]

32. Oh wow

And I remember either 2005 or late 2004 Bush said it was okay to not do anything with Saudi Arabia and looking at their weapons but they want to other countries like Iran, Iraq, etc.

[Peace Patriot]

20. I think we have to be careful about selective whistleblowing, such as

State Dept. officials might engage in.

For instance, Leopold quotes one of the former State Dept. officials that he interviewed as having told the Wash. Post (9/28/03), "Clearly, it (leaking of Plame's identity) was meant purely and simply for revenge."

I don't think there is anything clear about it at all. I think this strongly smells of a White House cover story. But again, if you tend to forget that there were TWO outings--the second one bigger and more damaging than the first--you might not question the emphatic tone of this statement ("clearly," "purely and simply" for revenge), nor consider the possibility of disinformation and ulterior motives.

---------

Another State Department official (who had worked closely with former Secretary of State Colin Powell) is quoted as saying:

"I refuse to believe that the findings of a four-star general and an envoy the CIA sent to Niger to personally investigate the accuracy of the intelligence, as well as our own research at the State Department, never got into the hands of President Bush or Vice President Cheney. I don't buy it. Saying that Iraq sought uranium from Niger was all it took, as far as I'm concerned, to convince the House to support the war. The American people too."

"The American people too"? But the American people were not fooled. In February 2003, after Bush's SOTU speech, after Colin Powell's 100% pack of lies to the UN, and just before the invasion, 58% of the American people opposed Bush's war. 58%!

The Bushites didn't give a crap what the American people thought. I think their goal--and certainly Rove's goal--is to create an illusion of support, by this sort of constant palaver of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, fed to them by Rove, and thus to put an aura of legitimacy around Bush. The layers of lies, delusion and falsehood is simply staggering. I don't think they care about, or have any intention of, convincing people of anything. It's a house of cards. A false picture. A bubble, that if you put your finger into it, it bursts.

So, back up here and ask: WHAT were they REALLY intending to do, when they crippled the nation's WMD counter-proliferation capability, which had taken 20 years to create, and involved covert agents/contacts in sensitive positions all over the world?

Convince the American people?

Neither do I buy the contention (of this State Dept. official) that the promotion of the Niger forgeries as real intel was to convince the House of Representatives. By 2002, Bush had a scared, Tom Delay-controlled, anthraxed Congress, which had already given him everything he wanted (tax cuts for the rich, Patriot Act, electronic voting controlled by his buds at Diebold and ES&S, whatever). He didn't need to convince them of anything. All he had to do was say, "Boo!," and they bent to his will.

The Niger forgeries were part of an orchestrated illusion, not an attempt at persuasion. And it's my belief that they were likely part of a larger scheme to bait the CIA, to plant and then to "find" nukes in Irag, thus to discredit and destroy the better public servants within our government, most especially those in the CIA. I think the Rome group was up to more than forgeries (that's why the disreputable Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar was present). They COULD HAVE created better forgeries. They didn't (for a reason). And Part 2 of their scheme (which I think was hatched in the Pentagon) was to plant nukes in Iraq.

In any case, I think that alternative scenarios (to the touted story of Rovian revenge) need to be explored, and some of the more bizarre aspects of this entire event need to be seriously questioned and investigated. WHAT was really going on here? I think that everything that is now public knowledge is merely a scratch on the surface.

Fitzgerald is necessarily limited to what he can indict people for, in the midst of massive coverups. So his investigation may not be able to get below that surface, or not very far below it. But I don't necessarily agree with Leopold's statement, that "There is no indication that Fitzgerald is investigating Cheney." I think the Libby indictment clearly points to Cheney, and to a conspiracy. We really have very little knowledge of what Fitzgerald's evidence may be (beyond Libby). And we certainly should not trust the statements of anonymous former State Dept. officials as to Fitzgerald's direction or the types of evidence his has or is seeking. (Fitzgerald himself may be involved in a bit of misdirection--to protect his investigation).

-----

One of these former State Dept. officials says the following: "I believe removing Saddam Hussein was right and just. But the intelligence that was used to state the case wasn't."

It was "right and just" to slaughter tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis--and torture many more--to achieve that goal? How can we trust the word of someone who would say this, on any matter?

-----

"They were going to show that Wilson and his wife were Democrats. Can you imagine? They were going to say 'don't listen to them, they're partisan.' It was a coordinated effort to turn him into the story. Much to my surprise, it worked."

See above. Anyone who would be greatly surprised that Bush junta spin would succeed with war profiteering corporate news monopolies is either fairly stupid, or is being less than candid, and may be covering something up, and doing some "spin" himself.

-----

I just want to say that I am deeply grateful to Jason Leopold for all the work he has done on this matter, and for informing all the rest of us with his reports. My criticism of this report is not meant to dis him. I think he is giving us a straightforward report of what he was told, and is in no way collusive with his sources. This is a very informative and important report--and obviously the result of a lot of hard work. I just want us to be wary of those sources, and of all semi-official disclosures. If the disclosures play upon our understandable distrust and dislike of the Bush junta, we are all the more vulnerable to being spun in ways that are hard to detect. For instance, when the State Dept. official says that the Plame outing was "purely and simply" for revenge, we think, 'yeah, that's Rove.' But I think we need to entertain the possibility that Rove's reputation itself has been used to create a cover story (perhaps orchestrated by Libby, against Rove--to make him the fall guy). (There is some evidence for that--not that Rove is innocent, but that he was not the source of this scheme, and may not have been privy to its deeper aspects.)

[stop the bleeding]

22. your posts are always very insightful and you post good questions on

this. Hopefully time will tell. I wonder how much of a War was going in the State department between Powell, Bolton and other officials? Uncovering this may shed some light on what sources are saying what for what reasons.

[Peace Patriot]

28. A very serious war, indeed, by the Bush junta on every honest function of

our government--on the intelligence agencies, on the Justice Dept., on the armed forces, on the armed forces legal team (i.e., torture), on FEMA, on the EPA, on all regulatory functions--and while Soc Security temporarily escaped, they are looting the fund (it may be destroyed by attrition). Good people purged, and toadies and yes men installed, everywhere. INCOMPETENT toadies and yes men, not even good at covering their tracks.

It's one of my arguments against the Nazi Germany parallel. The Nazis took a broken country and turned it into an efficient, lethal war machine. The Bush junta, on the other hand, has taken a thriving country and turned it into a basket case. Their main motive seems to be grand scale looting. And they are so-o-o not creating anything, or building anything, one wonders what the junta intends to use all these extraordinary executive powers that Bush is setting up FOR. I see a lot of Nazi precedents and powers, but I DON'T see a Nazi country, or anything close to one. Just the opposite--I think we've got a country that is bursting to throw this junta off, and already tried to in 2004. So, maybe the spying, the torture and so on--Bush writing his own laws--is just the means to cover up their crimes and avoid jail. (Or it could be a long term plan to install Hitler II at some later date.) I don't mean to trivialize the horrors they have inflicted on people, in the course of their massive thefts and coverups. I'm just trying to gage where it's going--always useful to know in devising strategies.

I have certainly suspected that the anonymous prisoners who have been whisked off on black flights to torture dungeons in eastern Europe and elsewhere are not terrorists, but rather witnesses and whistleblowers. I just hope that the people who have died at their hands are some day un-disappeared, buried properly, and honored for what they may have tried to do.

[AntiFascist]

53. It may be the case that...

there is a broader, multi-national umbrella group that is starting to take control. They've seen the writing on the wall that the U.S. is losing its superpower status and they want to ensure that the properly sworn anti-communist (anti-socialist) forces are in place and ready to exert military control when necessary. Top officials mediate between these forces, but there may also be an anti-semitic aspect which needs to be kept in check. This is just a hunch....

[FreedomAngel82]

33. I think that line might be half truth

They were probably planning on outing Mrs. Wilson but Mr. Wilson gave them the opportunity because he didn't go along with them. So maybe it's a 50/50 thing. :shrug:

[Stephanie]

38. Is this the same article from last week, or has it been updated?

I don't see the changes.

[David Zephyr]

39. K&R.

:thumbsup:

[balzac]

40. Fake intelligence is what it's all about

There's a lot of fake intelligence out there that Bush has used, but the Niger Forgery is the most important.

Someone said this once before, and I agree:

Fitzgerald is prosecuting the most important criminal case in U.S. history.

[stop the bleeding]

41. love your name and Welcome to DU - we share the same hobby

even though it is not my only one. :evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin:

[balzac]

56. Thanks, DU is great community to be a part of.

I've been lurking for a while, but lately I joined DU and Kos because I feel the call of the netroots! We're making the TV heads notice us lately, aren't we?

[Independent_Liberal]

44. Kick!

[Nothing Without Hope]

45. This is good news. I just hope the Bushies don't manage to scuttle

Fitz's investigation after it's put together.

K & R

[Nothing Without Hope]

49. Time for one of my favorite Toles CARTOONS:

[kpete]

51. Thanks

Good timing, needed a laugh

[Nothing Without Hope]

54. kick n/t

here they are, from a PFAW email I just received. PFAW is urging that these senators be faxed and called to urge them to support the Alito filibuster:

Obama, Barack (Democrat) - United States Senate, IL

Dodd, Christopher (Democrat) - United States Senate, CT

Lieberman, Joseph (Democrat) - United States Senate, CT

Biden, Joseph (Democrat) - United States Senate, DE

Durbin, Richard (Democrat) - United States Senate, IL

Bayh, Evan (Democrat) - United States Senate, IN

Snowe, Olympia (Republican) - United States Senate, ME

Reid, Harry (Democrat) - United States Senate, NV

Schumer, Charles (Democrat) - United States Senate, NY

Clinton, Hillary (Democrat) - United States Senate, NY

Chafee, Lincoln (Republican) - United States Senate, RI

Feingold, Russell (Democrat) - United States Senate, WI

EDITED TO ADD LINKS TO FAX NUMBERS:
Democratic Senators:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x122095
Republican Senators:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x122095#122144

[robbedvoter]

55. Tenet was asked, but REFUSED to take the fall - Hadley complied

I thought it was significant, because Tenet said he personally warned W about including the "16 words" in his October speech - and W still did it then and in SOTU. Do people remember the pics MWO unearthed just in time of W, glasses on, "redrafting" his speech? That pic was shown in the Senate too - a backfiring photo-op.

[ClayZ]

57. K and R

:kick:

[robertpaulsen]

58. Kick this to the top!

Hopefully I'll have time today to respond to this, glad I saved it.

:kick: