Who Forged Uranium Reports?

A two-year inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigation has yet to uncover the origin of forged documents that formed a basis for sending an envoy on a fact-finding trip to Niger, a mission that eventually exploded into the CIA leak inquiry, law enforcement and intelligence officials say.

A counterespionage official said Wednesday that the inquiry into the documents, which were intended to show that Iraq was seeking uranium for a nuclear weapons program, had yielded some intriguing but unproved theories. One is the possibility that associates of Ahmad Chalabi, the former Iraqi exile who was a leading champion of the American campaign to topple Saddam Hussein, had a hand in the forgery. A second hypothesis, described by some officials as more likely, is that the documents were forged at Niger's embassy in Rome, in a moneymaking scheme. The official said the matter was being investigated as a counterintelligence case, not a criminal one.

The United States government did not receive the papers until October 2002, eight months after the Central Intelligence Agency sent Joseph C. Wilson IV, a retired ambassador, to Niger on the fact-finding mission, according to a review completed last year by the Senate intelligence committee. The C.I.A. decided in March 2003 that the papers were forgeries.

But a little-noticed passage in another government report said the C.I.A. had determined that foreign intelligence passed to the agency in the months before Mr. Wilson's trip also contained information that was "based on the forged documents and was thus itself unreliable."

That early foreign reporting, never endorsed by American intelligence analysts, prompted questions from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, which in turn led to Mr. Wilson's trip, a chain of events spelled out in the reviews of prewar intelligence issued this year and last year.

The continuing inquiry into the source of the forged documents has been conducted separately from the investigation by the special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald into the leak case, which has to do with whether Bush administration officials committed crimes related to disclosing the identity of Mr. Wilson's wife, an undercover C.I.A. officer.

Source:
New York Times

Here we go again.

Fact is that the Documents that were "Bulletproof Evidence" that Saddam want to make a Nuclear bomb, are Fake and were Forged.

Again, question arise, who forged them and why. By simple logic thinking, we just have to answer ourselves few questions:

Who Profited from it?
Who had the Power to do it?
Who had the Power to Cover it up?

And when we will have all 3 answers...

Well this is exactly what i thought. so who forged it then, whats been going on.
I havent seem them mentioned in the papers here in the UK, so i assumed it wasnt part of whatever is going on, it was just about the leak.

Reading the history of that entire incident leads me to the conclusion that the multi-faceted face of U.S. intelligence collection, processing and analysis is entirely too cumbersome to be effective. The reports about attempts by Iraq to purchase uranium in Niger and elsewhere in Africa were suspected of being erroneous right from the beginning and yet the various bureaucratic levels within the CIA & elsewhere just wouldn't let the reported intelligence concerning the thing die. The handling of those reports is a comedy of errors (mostly by the CIA).

To truely understand the incident though requires an understanding of the WMD reports coming out of the CIA & DIA all through the period of the Clinton Administration (and probably before). It would appear from the historical accounts that no one, of sufficiently high stature, was asking questions about the accuracy of WMD intelligence concerning Iraq. As a result, continual assumptions were made and reports generated that perpetuated older intelligence, which was quite likely no longer accurate. When the initial report was received from the U.K. about Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium in Niger it fit right in with those old assumptions & conclusions and never received the scrutiny it deserved.

In the light of hindsight, it seems the assessed probability of Iraq obtaining nuclear weapons was based upon only two things. The past efforts of Iraq in that regard and the mis-interpretation of current intelligence by the CIA & DIA. Only two intelligence items seem to have formed the basis of the NIE President Bush & other administration officials used as a justification--in part--for invading Iraq. (The Niger uranium report, and the aluminum tubes report).

It is clear the senior members of the Bush Administration repeatedly asked for clarification and/or additional information about Iraq's nuclear related activities (without getting either) and that they cleared all their speeches with the intelligence community before giving them. What isn't so clear though is why they accepted and used intelligence assessments based upon such limited information.

One could argue that the threat of a nuclear armed Iraq presented such a clear danger they really didn't have a choice. But one could also argue that they already had their minds made up to invade Iraq and the intelligence they had was all the justification they needed to sell the idea to the American people. Arguments along both lines continue to this day. It is abundantly clear however, that President Bush and others in his administration did not knowingly lie to the American people.

I thought the cia employee who went by the name of 'curveball' was the one who made up the 'fact' that Niger was sending enriched uranium over to Iraq?

ROME, Nov. 3 - Italy's spymaster identified an Italian occasional spy named Rocco Martino on Thursday as the disseminator of forged documents that described efforts by Iraq to buy uranium ore from Niger for a nuclear weapons program, three lawmakers said Thursday.

The spymaster, Gen. Nicolò Pollari, director of the Italian military intelligence agency known as Sismi, disclosed that Mr. Martino was the source of the forged documents in closed-door testimony to a parliamentary committee that oversees secret services, the lawmakers said.

Senator Massimo Brutti, a member of the committee, told reporters that General Pollari had identified Mr. Martino as a former intelligence informer who had been "kicked out of the agency." He did not say Mr. Martino was the forger.

The information about Iraq's desire to acquire the ore, known as yellowcake, was used by the Bush administration to help justify the invasion of Iraq, notably by President Bush in his State of the Union address in January 2003. But the information was later revealed to have been based on forgeries.

Senator Brutti also told reporters that Italian intelligence had warned Washington in early 2003 that the Niger-Iraq documents were false.

"At about the same time as the State of the Union address, they said that the dossier doesn't correspond to the truth," Senator Brutti said. He said he did not know whether the warning was given before or after President Bush's address.

Source:
New York Times

Despite the Warnings that the Documents were FAKED - Bush still used them in his speech in the State of the Union adress, and was one of the Major reasons for the war in Iraq.

FAKED.

Souljah...

Here's an interesting twist (from your own source), that I can only assume that you missed before you insinuated that this was all just a Bush fabrication. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one...

Senator Luigi Malabarba, who also attended Thursday's hearing, said in a telephone interview that General Pollari had told the committee that Mr. Martino was "offering the documents not on behalf of Sismi but on behalf of the French" and that Mr. Martino had told prosecutors in Rome that he was in the service of French intelligence.

The French have refused to comment so far, except to call the allegations "scandalous." Interesting.

Another source:

According to a senior Italian lawmaker, Pollari also told the group that Martino had told a prosecutor in Rome that he was working for the French intelligence service, not Sismi (Italian intelligence).

Christian Science Monitor

Another thought:

His admission to investigating magistrates in Rome on Friday apparently confirms suggestions that - by commissioning "Giacomo" to procure and circulate documents - France was responsible for some of the information later used by Britain and the United States to promote the case for war with Iraq.

Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade "yellowcake" uranium from Niger, France was trying to "set up" Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.

News.Telegraph

I'll reserve judgement until I know more.

[edit on 5-11-2005 by Hamburglar]

BUMP...

You know Souljah, it's been a while, and this is your thread, but I had hoped you would have some response to my post and the one immediately following it.

And, while I often disagree with you, I am trying to reserve judgment on this issue, so I'm curious what your take is on the potential involvement of the French government.

here some copies of the documents. cryptome.org...

the answer to the three questions asked by Souljah would be France. no doubt about it. 1. France in the past has profit from Saddam and still does just before Saddam's regime was wiped out. and could still profit from the new Iraqi govt. 2. France has in the past to produce fake documents to mislead others as long as it works in their interests. 3. Has the ability to cover it up. France aint stupid.

Note that in the Article it says that France was Responsible for SOME of the Informaton and that they were "TRYING" to set up US and UK.

But, have you forgotten about the OTHER TWO MAJOR REASONS FOR WAR?

- Saddam IS connected to Al-Qaeda

- Saddam has hold of WMD's

Where is France involved there?

Now, they might have something to do with these Forged Documents, since Niger was a Former French Colony if I am not mistaken.

You are Diverting Attention from the Topic of the thread and pointing it from US to France, as if they would PROFIT Enourmously with the Invasion of Iraq. France does not hold the Oil Reservs of Iraq. They are not Rebuilding Iraq. They are not selling weapons to newly formed Iraqi Army. They are not MAKING MONEY out of Iraq.


But HEY, Look what I found!

US intel on Iraq-Qaeda ties 'intentionally misleading'

US military intelligence warned the Bush administration as early as February 2002 that its key source on Al-Qaeda's relationship with Iraq had provided "intentionally misleading" data, according to a declassified report.

Nevertheless, eight months later, President George W. Bush went public with charges that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had trained members of Osama bin Laden's terror network in manufacturing deadly poisons and gases.

These same accusations had found their way into then-secretary of state Colin Powell's February 2003 speech before the UN Security Council, in which he outlined the US rationale for military action against Iraq.

The report provides a critical analysis of information provided by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an Islamic radical and bin Laden associate, who served as senior military trainer at a key Al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan before it was destroyed by US forces in late 2001.

In captivity, al-Libi initially told his DIA debriefers that Al-Qaeda operatives had received training from Iraq in manufacturing poisons and deadly chemical agents.

But the DIA, according to its assessment, did not find the information credible.

US military intelligence officers concluded that al-Libi lacked "specific details on the Iraqis involved, the... materials associated with the assistance and the location where training occurred," the report said.

"It is possible," the document went on to say, "he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers."

The DIA suggested al-Libi, who had been under interrogation for several weeks, "may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest."

sg.news.yahoo.com...

Still it was used by Bush on his Warmonger Trip across America, saying:

Iraq has trained Al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

Now, if they torture somebody, he will tell you that he has pink g-string underwear, if that is what it will make them to stop torturing him.

Let's just wait some time and see what else pours out form this War in Iraq Fraud.

Originally posted by Souljah
You are Diverting Attention from the Topic of the thread and pointing it from US to France, as if they would PROFIT Enourmously with the Invasion of Iraq.

The title of your thread is “Who Forged Uranium Reports?” My providing a possible answer cannot possibly be a diversion of the thread. Your bringing up Al-Qaeda/Iraq links IS a diversion from the topic.

Originally posted by Souljah
France does not hold the Oil Reservs of Iraq. They are not Rebuilding Iraq. They are not selling weapons to newly formed Iraqi Army. They are not MAKING MONEY out of Iraq.

But they were profiting ENORMOUSLY from Iraq before the war, through oil contracts and kickbacks.

You asked a question with this thread. Don’t be afraid to examine all the answers. Who forged the document? Are you really interested, or are you just using this thread as a launching point for an anti-war rant? If the latter, then I invite anyone else interested in actually discussing the TOPIC of this thread to come along and do so.

Again, Souljah, I’ve said that I don’t often agree with you, but I’m trying to reserve judgment on this topic. I was hoping you’d provide some information on WHO FORGED THE DOCUMENTS, so I could take an objective look. I was also hoping you’d take an objective look at the information I dug up for you. Please try objectivity, as difficult as it may be given your passion for the topic. You might find it enlightening.

Finally, you said:

Originally posted by Souljah
Note that in the Article it says that France was Responsible for SOME of the Informaton and that they were "TRYING" to set up US and UK.

Actually, to my knowledge, it said that the guy who admitted orchestrating, receiving, and disseminating the documents was paid to do so by France. There’s a big difference between that and being “responsible for some of the information.” One suggests almost accidental involvement, while the former suggests malevolent intent.

he was paid in france, but i think he was working for SISME/ italian intelligence (which would explain the shooting in northern iraq of that reporter).

By late 2003, the trail of the documents had been partially uncovered. They were obtained by a "security consultant" (and former agent of the precursor agency to SISMI, the SID), Rocco Martino, from Italian military intelligence (SISMI). An article in The Times (London) quoted Martino as having received the documents from a woman on the staff of the Niger embassy, after a meeting was arranged by a serving SISMI agent. ("Tracked down," by Nicholas Rufford and Nick Fielding, Sunday Times (London), Aug. 1, 2004.) Martino later recanted and said he had been misquoted, and that SISMI had not facilitated the meeting where he obtained the documents. It was later revealed that Martino had been invited to serve as the conduit for the documents by Col. Antonio Nucera of SISMI, the head of the counterintelligence and WMD proliferations sections of SISMI's Rome operations center

Other Links:
gnn.tv...
www.alternet.org...
www.fpri.org...
www.tompaine.com...

Do yourself a favor and look up operation Gladio, and the BCCI scandal and some familiar names pop up, Such as Michael Leeden.
Then you gotta wonder why the next two appointees to the SC were catholics (even though I kind of liked Alito's approach of non activism i still have to make a mention of coincidence).

Originally posted by NuTroll
he was paid in france, but i think he was working for SISME/ italian intelligence (which would explain the shooting in northern iraq of that reporter).

Looks like you've got some interesting stuff to read...

Meantime, while I read it, puzzle this out for me... Why do the sources I referenced say he was paid not IN, but BY France?

That's a huge difference, I think. Were the French in cahoots with the Italians? And, why does your source confirm he was no longer working for SID/SISMI, but then suggests that a meeting was set up on his behalf by a SISMI Col.?

Update!


Now we know why Colin Powell regreted his speech on WMDs in Iraq to the UN Security Council