Why would Tenet have thought Wilson should find forged documents?

[MGKrebs]

After the 2003 SOTU, Tenet, you remember, took the blame for the infamous 16 words being in there. But he also said this:

“There was no mention in {Wilson's} report of forged documents — or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all. Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials.”

Wilson was in Niger in February and March 2002. Although there were intelligence reports about a uranium transaction coming out of Italy, there were no reports of any forged documents until 7 months later, in October. And of course they were obtained in Italy.

So why would Tenet mention that Wilson didn't find any forged documents in Niger? Despite other accounts to the contrary, the Tenet statement doesn't look like a swipe at Wilson to me. It's used just an excuse for not having shown the report to Bush. But there is no reason for Tenet to have used "forged" documents. He could have just used "documents" or "evidence" or "trace" and it would have served the purpose just as well.

Was Tenet, in his mea culpa about misinformation, purposely spreading even more misinformation? Or did he inadvertently expose that he had some personal knowledge about those documents before they surfaced?

Why would Tenet expect the documents to turn up in Niger when all of the reports were coming out of Italy? As Wilson said, his trip was not secret and everybody knew he was there on behalf of the US government. He was unlikely to turn up any forged documents in that role.

Somehow, in Tenet's mind, "forged documents" and "Wilson" were linked. Why would that be? What did Tenet know and when did he know it?

Brief timeline:
Jan. 2001- break in at the Niger embassy in Rome.
Fall 2001- reports begin to surface in Italy about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger. Reports apparently based on a trip to Niger by Iraq’s ambassador to the Vatican which took place in 1999.
Feb.-Mar. 2002- Wilson goes to Niger
Sept. 2002- British intelligence publishes a dossier which includes a reference to the Niger claims.
Oct. 2002- Italian journalist buys (forged) documents in Rome. She immediately suspects them as being fakes but is told to turn them over to the US embassy. She travels to Niger for more info and becomes convinced they are fake and abandons the story.
Oct. 2002- Tenet personally intervenes to remove reference to the Iraq/Niger transaction from a Bush speech.
Jan. 28, 2003- Bush SOTU address.
Feb 2003- US State Department finally turns over the forged documents to the UN’s IAEA for authentication. IAEA quickly determines that they are fake.
July 6, 2003- After unsuccessful private attempts to get the administration to correct the record, Wilson published his op-ed in the NY Times.
July 8, 2003- Rove/Novak phone call.
July 11, 2003- Cooper/Rove phone call.
July 11, 2003- Tenet press release taking blame for the “16 words”.
July 14, 2003- Novak column.
July 17, 2003- Cooper story in Time.

Tenet statement:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr07112003.html

Wilson’s op-ed:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

Good timeline:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&general_topic_areas=africaUraniumClaim

[Carni]

1. Damn! Could it have been a freudian slip?

Why on earth would he say "forged" documents when no one (supposedly) knew they were forged yet? (or am I reading this wrong?)

[joemurphy]

2. Tenet knew about the forgeries:

Wilson was told about some documents purporting to evidence an Iraqi uranium buy when he met with CIA officials in February, 2002. He was never shown them. He wasn't tasked with investigating whether they were forged or not. He was tasked with going to Niger and finding out if the Iraqis had, indeed, bought uranium.

He went and found nothing and in early March 2002 Wilson returned and reported that rumors of such a purchase were highly unlikely.

Apparently the forged documents weren't given to the IAEA until March, 2003, about a week before the Iraq invasion began. They were pronounced as forgeries by the IAEA almost immediately.

This quote is from July, 2003 and here Tenet is dissembling -- making it sound as though Wilson hadn't found much of anything in 2002 and that, therefore, Cheney and Bush weren't told.



It's balony. Why would the CIA send Wilson (at Cheney's indirect behest) to Niger and then not tell Cheney's boys what Wilson didn't find? Later, Hadley admitted he'd gotten a CIA report about Wilson's trip in March, 2002 but he apparently forgot to pass it on to Condoleezza. Jeez! I just (duh!) forgot.

[MGKrebs]

3. Wilson may have been told about some documents,

and certainly there were rumors of documents, but why would anyone think they were forgeries as opposed to just being irrelevant, or inconsequential, or actual evidence? The whole IDEA of forgeries didn't occur until October.

I want to send a message to Fitzpatrick. He might want to look into Tenet's records (if he isn't already).

[hootinholler]

4. Outstanding question!

Wish I had the answer... more crumbs to follow.

-Hoot

[mzteris]

5. George lied.....

Here is his statement..........

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
11 July 2003
STATEMENT BY GEORGE J. TENET
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues.


STATE of the Union Address: Jan. 28, 2003- Bush SOTU address.


But check the timeline/specific info who knew what when........


Fall 2001
The Italian intelligence agency, SISMI, provides the CIA with a report on a 1999 trip to Niger made by Wissam al-Zahawie (see February 1999), Iraq's former ambassador to the Vatican. The report suggests that the trip's mission was to discuss the future purchase of uranium oxide, known as “yellowcake.” According to sources later interviewed by New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, the report is “dismissed as amateurish and unsubstantiated” by US intelligence.



After Summer 2002
The CIA shares its doubts about the veracity of the Africa-uranium claim with the White House, National Security Council staffers, members of Congress, other intelligence offices and the British. The agency warns administration officials against using the Africa-uranium claim as evidence that Iraq is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons.

Unnamed Bush administration official
The CIA's doubts about the veracity of the Niger documents “were well-known and widely shared throughout the government before Bush's speech.” — June 2003



September 24, 2002
George Tenet briefs the Senate Intelligence Committee on the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq (see October 1, 2002). In his summary of the document, he includes the allegation that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Niger. He mentions that there are some doubts about the reliability of the evidence, but he does not say that the CIA had sent former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson as an envoy to Niger in February (see Late February 2002) and that the former ambassador's conclusion had been that the claims were “bogus.”
People and organizations involved: George Tenet, Joseph C. Wilson



October 1, 2002
“(T)he claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious,” it reads.


October 6, 2002
The CIA sends a second memo in two days, warning the White House that there is little evidence behind the Africa-uranium claim.


October 8-9, 2002
One day after receiving the Niger documents (see Early October 2002), Elisabetta Burba meets with her editors and expresses her concern that the documents might be fakes. (****NOTE: She's a JOURNALIST - she knew after one DAY they were fakes! Maybe they should recruit HER for the CIA, eh?)


After October 9, 2002
Elisabetta Burba travels to Niger to investigate the documents (see Late 2001) she received a few day earlier (see Early October 2002). In Niger, she quickly becomes convinced that the documents are not authentic.


October 9-16, 2002
After the documents arrive in Washington, they are reviewed by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) and within days its analysts conclude that the papers might be fakes. On October 16, the INR distributes the documents to the CIA and several other US intelligence agencies with the caveat that the documents are of “dubious authenticity.” . . .
. . . the CIA quickly saw that the documents were not authentic. A senior Central Intelligence Agency official will tell Knut Royce of Newsday that the CIA “had serious questions about from day one.” The agency “had accounts of them and that was close enough. We didn't take it that seriously to begin with. ... We didn't put a lot of stock in these reports from Niger. We didn't rush around to get the actual documents.” Likewise, a US intelligence official will tell the New York Times that CIA officials were always suspicious of the Niger documents. And Hersh's anonymous CIA source also says the papers were quickly assessed as fakes. “Everybody knew at every step of the way that they were false—until they got to the Pentagon, where they were believed.”

*******

So when Tenet "confessed" on July 11th that they "didn't KNOW the documents were fake before the Jan SOTU address - he LIED!

[ThoughtCriminal]

6. Tenet either suspected or knew they were forgeries

in or before Oct 2002.

[creeksneakers2]

7. They keep trying to confuse things

Before Wilson's trip, the CIA possessed both reports that Iraq purchased uranium from Niger and a retyped version of a purported contract. So while the CIA had a contract, it couldn't really be called a document. All involved agree Wilson never saw a copy of the contract. I'm not sure it was even discussed before his trip, but it seems likely.

Wilson testified that he sought out names on the trip that would be on "the documents." According to Wilson, he confused later reports of forged documents with his trip and remembered things incorrectly.

Tenet isn't saying Wilson didn't find documents in Niger. He's saying there was nothing in Wilson's report about documents. There wouldn't have been, unless Wilson was talking about the documents the retyped version was based on. Anyway, Wilson's report was oral, so there is no record of exactly what he did and didn't say.

To add to the confusion, there must have been wingers working on this whole thing. The reports Wilson went to verify were that Iraq had not only sought uranium but concluded a deal. Wilson reported that there could not have been a deal. That would prove the report false. But, you know how wingers are. When you disprove something they want to believe, rather than using logic or balancing evidence, they look for some way it could possibly be true. That failed here, except that they were able to say, "Hey, maybe there was no deal but this does not disprove that Iraq might have TRIED to buy uranium."

Of course, the idea of Iraq trying to buy uranium didn't make any sense either. They already had enough uranium for 50 nuclear bombs. They had no way to refine it and nothing even remotely like a nuclear weapons program. The amount reported was enough for another 50 bombs. What sense did that make?

However, being wingers, they still said that because Wilson talked to a former president Mayaki, and Mayaki told Wilson that he met with Iraqis and inferred that they wanted to buy uranium, that there was some evidence to support the impossible hypothesis. This wasn't the case either. (Mayaki's former position in Niger was #2 in the nation, but he had no real power, and there is no way he could have said yes to this.)

Even so, there is no proof this information was passed to Cheney. Here, I have questions. Cheney asked for more information. The Bushies say Cheney already had the information that the deal wasn't possible, so Wilson's information didn't add anything new. If Cheney was informed, he would have known the Niger story wasn't true. Why would he ask for more information?

Still, the leftover story that Iraq could have tried to buy uranium from Niger kept coming back. Tenet's statement here does a good job of trying to confuse the issue of what the finding meant, and what the documentary evidence was.

**Note** Tenet also lies here that before the the SOTU the documents weren't known to be forgeries. The first analyst that looked at them thought they were funny. One said something like Iraq and Iran were plotting to attack the world together and the whole conspiracy was being run out of the Iraqi Embassy at the Vatican.

[MGKrebs]

8. There actually seem to be two streams of information, but

I believe both are coming from the same source.

There are the original "reports" of a transaction that started in late 2001. This would appear to mostly be about the Iraqi ambassador to Rome visiting Niger in 1999, and perhaps some subsequent correspondence. It's not clear to me whether the US ever saw whatever documents were supposedly floating around at this time. But this would be the information stream that prompted Cheney to ask for more information.

The second stream doesn't start until October 2002, when the Italian journalist buys the forged documents. These may be the very same documents, or more of the same package, or something totally different.

The thing is, although the original stream has been referred to as "not credible", "unrealistic", "amateurish and unsubstantiated", it has not, to my knowledge, been called "forgeries". It is as if no one really had actual documents to look at, so "forgery" wasn't even applicable to consider. But this was all that was supposedly known at the time of Wilson's trip. There would have been no reason to suspect forgeries, especially in Niger. But Tenet implies that Wilson could have mentioned them. It's not just confusion: That could have been achieved more easily and just as effectively without even mentioning the forgeries. One might be tempted to think that Tenet just got confused on the timeline a little bit, and I suspect that might be the case. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows exactly of what he speaks. Then one should assume that the (forged) documents already existed by February 2002, and Tenet knew about them, and had some expectation that they would be found, but since they weren't, the CIA had to keep looking, and no need to bother the President until we find them.

Did word get back to Rome that the US was sniffing around looking for evidence? Did this cause the source of the documents (Rocco Martino) to clam up for a while until he could figure out how to unload them? After all, it's not like a spy hands them to Rocco and says "give them back to me tomorrow and I'll act as if I never saw them before". Surely they passed through two or three intermediaries first, so Rocco would not necessarily know who to trust. Finally, in October, things have cooled down enough that he can approach a regualr customer, the Italian journalist. Or was it that word had been passed that the US would be receptive to them no questions asked? We were coming down the home stretch on gearing up for war, and all available justification would be required, and fast.