eR
I've got to stop reading you before I've had my coffee. But this raises two questions.
First, it seems like one could put together a sub-dossier of documents that support only the three claims that the CIA "received," and take out the rest. So we could probably figure out which ten documents Baute received. I wonder (but doubt) whether the redacted line about turning over the documents in the SSCI relates to what was turned over?
Also, I'm confused. Didn't we say yesterday that the IAEA got a whole set, including the documents we haven't seen? The confusion, I'm sure, is due to the coffee.
Finally, this makes me wonder whether the only reason why John Wolf (a good guy) or Bolton/Fleitz (well, you know what kind of guys these are) handed the documents over to our mystery INR analyst. Because they wanted to see what would fly, and on what basis the INR analyst would discredit them. I also wonder whether, once the INR analyst was mysteriously "on leave" the next day, when he should have been handing out the documents, whether those dodgy documents were skimmed off. Just a speculation, but it might explain why someone who clearly was really assessing these got a hold of documents from what was effectively Bolton's shop.
Posted by emptywheel at February 23, 2006 05:03 AMEW,
>> First, it seems like one could put together a sub-dossier of documents that support only the three claims that the CIA "received," and take out the rest. So we could probably figure out which ten documents Baute received.
It might be possible to do this. In fact, I may already have the information to a large extent - see here:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005895.php#III
>>> I wonder (but doubt) whether the redacted line about turning over the documents in the SSCI relates to what was turned over?
Are you talking about the redaction in the bottom paragraph of page 67? If so, no, that does not relate to the number of documents turned over.
>>> Also, I'm confused. Didn't we say yesterday that the IAEA got a whole set, including the documents we haven't seen?
Actually, no. All that I said was that the IAEA got at least one document from the CIA/INR that is not part of the bunch that Burba turned over to the US Embassy. That does not imply in any way that the IAEA got all the documents that Burba turned over to the US Embassy.
>>> Finally, this makes me wonder whether the only reason why John Wolf (a good guy) or Bolton/Fleitz (well, you know what kind of guys these are) handed the documents over to our mystery INR analyst. Because they wanted to see what would fly, and on what basis the INR analyst would discredit them. I also wonder whether, once the INR analyst was mysteriously "on leave" the next day, when he should have been handing out the documents, whether those dodgy documents were skimmed off.
I don't know about the last part...because the INR analyst's email preceded the meeting and attendees would have certainly wondered about the accuracy of his email if the documents were not consistent with his observations. So, there's more to it. I just don't think Bolton may have had much of a choice here since these documents were supposed to be the smoking gun that could implicate Iraq.
Posted by eriposte at February 23, 2006 07:19 AMIn the last week I have begun reading this series. Quite good.
What has been obvious, that the forgeries were intentionally used by the Administration to push this war, is only one step away from someone under the direction of the Bush Administration doing the forgeries themselves. Except, as I understand it, at least some forged documents were floating around prior to the election. Is that so? And if so, does anyone here have a theory as to who the author was, to what purpose, and how the author may have been connected to the Iraqi War Bunch?
Posted by Bob in Pacifica at February 23, 2006 07:57 AMeR,
I have been reading the series and following along. As others have noted in other threads, just because this type of work doesn't generate many comments, it certainly doesn't mean people aren't reading it. Not quite sure what/where/who the end result might be of all your diligent work..... but, needless to say, I have learned many things that I did not know before. Thanks again.
agree with emal.
read with much interest and fascination
and dying to read that chapter
wherein
we finally learn the names of that cabal of american officials who safely guided the nuclear allegation forgeries thru the swamps of state, cia, dept of energy, and/or dia into the daylight of american newspaper and television comverage.
thanks
Posted by orionATL at February 23, 2006 09:44 AMWhy would the Bush administration send the "Global Support" document to the IAEA? Did that document have anything to do with uranium or any matters concerning the IAEA?
Nope.
Are we sure that Mrs. Burba did not receive this "Global Support" document along with the other documents she got from Mr. Martino? Or are we conveniently assuming that is the case?
Posted by Seixon at February 23, 2006 08:24 PMSeixon,
Again, you have a habit of writing comments without reading the posts. I don't have infinite patience to retype what the post already says.
The document had a stamp which looked fake. The same kind of stamp was in the supposed Niger/Iraq uranium documents. Even a dolt can see that that might indicate all the documents were bogus. The INR analyst clearly saw through it instantly. Obviously, he used that information to conclude that document and all the others might be bogus and told everyone. So everyone knew the whole thing was suspect.
Did you miss that?
Did you also miss this? It mentions Iraq and nuclear weapons.
"While the paper does not deal directly with the Niger claims, it has volumes to say about the credibility of the papers and so should have been passed to the IAEA. It does also contain a reference to nuclear weapons, which also means US officials had a duty to pass it to the IAEA."
I can see why you are thrilled with Bush. If the guy suppresses all information that shows some intelligence is fake, and deceives people by claiming the intelligence was solid, you will provide every excuse for dishonesty and stand and cheer the crime.
Just unbelievable.
Posted by eriposte at February 23, 2006 09:33 PM