Lets get a list started of problems with BFEE's Niger Story

[Az]

We need to figure out what loopholes they left and keep the focus on them. Lets get some issues down so we know what we are looking at.

Who made the forgery? A document like this has no use other than peddling a war to the citizens. Who cooked it up?

Who provided the so called British Intel to George and Co. The claim that it was British Intel suggests that the administration has two different sources for intel. Intel is provided by the CIA. Thus there claim becomes that the CIA knew the Niger info was fraudulent but passed them the same information as British Intel. This makes no sense.

Who insisted the Niger issue be in the SOTU? What was the path by which it was researched. Were they aware the CIA had discredited the info and were forcing it anway?

Why isn't Tenet fired? Is he part of the BFEE? Can they simply not afford to lose control of him? Why doesn't he walk?

Put your brains to work and let's see if we can find any more holes in this tapestry of lies. We can make a difference on this. Lets get this list together and then start hitting elected reps, news outlets, talk shows, and anyone that can spread the questions further. Bush is not good under pressure. Lets keep it up.

[julka]

1. couple of things

re: Tenet......someone here said he knows very well how much intel he passed to *, pre 911, and it may be enough to sink the "ship of state"

example given was the Aug 6 report, which, IIRC mentioned HIGHjackings, right?

also, WRT the uranium story, here' something that Andrea Mitchell reported:

U.S. officials told NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell that Tenet himself advised Rice’s top deputy, Steven Hadley, to remove a reference to the uranium report from a speech Bush delivered Oct. 7 in Cincinnati, establishing that the nation’s top intelligence officials suspected that the allegation was false more than three months before they approved Bush’s repeating it in his nationally televised address on Jan. 28.

http://msnbc.com/news/937524.asp

[julka]

4. also, this seems a point that could muddy the waters:

many have been saying, in print and on the air, that US intel knew about the FORGERIES in 2002.

I don't think that's correct.

I've read this many times, and it's linked above, that:

The United Nations, however, determined in February {2003} that the British report was based primarily on forged documents initially obtained by European intelligence agencies. Senior U.S. officials, meanwhile, said they concluded as long ago as early 2002 that the claim was unlikely, after a retired diplomat traveled to Niger at the CIA’s request and spoke with officials who denied having any dealings with Iraq.

the UN didn't get to see the docs til 2003, right, cause we wouldn't release them

correct me if I'm wrong, but you know how important it is to get EVERYthing correct, after the Terrance J. Wilkinson embarrassment.

and now.....just for fun

Dear Dad,
For heaven's sake, don't dig up that garden, that's where I buried the biological weapons.
Love, Abdul.

At 4 a.m. the next morning, F.B.I. agents and local police showed up and dug up the entire area without finding any weapons. They apologized to the old man and left. That same day the old man received another letter from his son.

Dear Dad,
Go ahead and plant the potatoes now. That's the best I could do under the circumstances.
Love, Abdul.

thx to Jim Sagle for that

[tjdee]

2. Why did the CIA warn the UK, but not the US?

That makes no sense.

Why would the CIA ask the UK to drop the claim, but not tell their OWN COUNTRY?

Why isn't Tenet getting fired?

[robbedvoter]

3. Why did Tenet tell W to take the info out in October 2002

but it stayed in all drafte of SOTU? (msnbc, NYT)
Why didn't Powell say something (his boys knew since last year it was fake)
What about all the other proven lies in SOTU (Iraq nuclear program, aluminium tubes and all them WMDs)?
Does the preznit bear any responsibility for what he says?

[julka]

5. you sure that the State Dep knew they were forgeries in 2002?

or did they just not buy the story?

the link above, and others I've seen, indicate that it was the IAEA (UN?) that sussed out the forgery aspect.

not sure

will the press take up the cudgel, or just move on, per Ari?

[Az]

7. From the descriptions

of the documents anyone with any sense of documents can see the Niger docs are forgeries after a brief examination. In fact its errors are notable.

[bluedog]

10. check this site

these were what the state dept were saying was wrong with the Iraq paper involving the weapons in Iraq..half way down is the Niger question....yes, the state dept wanted to know about the uranium in Dec 2002....

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/16118.htm



also check this site out....Global Security.....staements and releases from members of the bush gang....

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_hotdocs.htm

[HFishbine]

6. My Thoughts

"Who insisted the Niger issue be in the SOTU? What was the path by which it was researched. Were they aware the CIA had discredited the info and were forcing it anway?"

This is the next big question to be answered. My guess, on nothing other than gut feeling, is Cheney or Rumsfeld.

As for other things we should keep alive, this is what Rumsfeld said to congress this week:

"QUESTION: Secretary Rumsfeld, when did you know that the reports about uranium coming out of Africa were bogus? RUMSFELD: Oh, within recent days, since the information started becoming available. QUESTION: So, in other words you didn't, right after the speech, you didn't know that? Or even before the speech, you had no knowledge of that? RUMSFELD: I've just answered the question." (Congressional Hearing, 7/9/03)

Okay. Fine, Mr. Rumsfled. Now the questions become, is Rumsfeld so astoundingly incompetent as to not know what we on DU have known for months now, or did he lie to congress?

[blm]

8. This was the first big story I saw on the "cooked intelligence books."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1607676
Oct. 8, 2002, 10:47AM

Some administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq
By WARREN P. STROBEL and JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight-Ridder Tribune News

WASHINGTON -- While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.

These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses -- including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network -- have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.

They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[newyawker99]

13. blm

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you.


NYer99
DU Moderator

[scipan]

9. Condi Rice is culpable

Read Tenet's "mea culpa" letter, and note the use of the word "concurred" -- the CIA concurred with the NSA that the statement was factually correct (British intelligence said Saddam sought uranium from Africa). But the CIA and NSA both knew the actual intelligence was at a minimum, dubious and couldn't be relied upon. (The Brits are still saying the uranium from Niger documents aren't the only intelligence they have, but aren't saying what that intelligence is.) Tenet is only taking part of the blame; the other part belongs to the NSA and by extension Bush.

From Tenet's statement:
From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct – i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/tenet.statement/

So, how could Tenet be fired for only "concurring" with NSA? Also, the uranium from Niger documents were originally sold to the Italians -- anybody remember reading this? I did several times. Not that it means much, but it's important to keep the facts straight.

[mopaul]

11. is dubya too stupid to understand the speeches he's reading?

if so, he's not qualified to be in the office.

[scipan]

12. Is Tenet covering up for Cheney?

Cheney was the one who triggered Wilson's trip to Niger to check out the intelligence. Wilson's NYT Op Ed, for one, mentions this. But Tenet, in his mea culpa, says the CIA decided to check it on their own initiative. So who do you believe, Wilson or Tenet? Easy choice -- Wilson. It's hard to believe no one told Cheney about what Wilson found out, since he was the one who asked.