Brilliantly done, eriposte. Thank you so much for your hard work.

Dang, eR. This is almost like a "why didn't the dog bark?" mystery. Perhaps we can issue that FOIA request even if the MSM doesn't take up the challenge. I remember writing a piece about how one would go about doing it from a report I heard on NPR.

BTW: I think it is pretty cool that we have our own present-day Sherlock Holmes writing for TLC. Keep up the great work.

Good stuff.

So, one of our willing members of the coalition set us up with all kinds of forged docs to enable us, without our prints on the material via CIA, to go to war against Iraq.

Who was working with the Italians, then, is the next question.

It seems like I recall Bolton or Negroponte or somebody going to Italy around then, but somebody had something to do with it in the bush admin.

Or maybe it was the CIA Fogge dude, which would connect with Brent Wilkes who is obviously, to my mind, a CIA ops kind of guy.

Hmmm.

Mary, I was thinking as I read this that eriposte must be a detective or at least would be a great one - good call!

Duckman, Ledeen had made several trips to Rome during that time, as I recall.

Wow. emptywheel sent me over here for a look-see at your post. Again, wow.

Thanks!

The saga continues!

who forged the uranium sale "accord"

Years ago, I put my money on Doug Feith (Office of Special Plans) with Cheney as the background image gris. See no reason to move my chips now.

JMO

Just to be clear, since your conclusion somewhat confusingly seems to slide between "verbatim text" and "accord," it could very well be that there's purportedly verbatim text of the accord that is a fabrication and the document of which it is supposedly verbatim text (the accord itself) simply doesn't exist, right? For whoever might have fabricated the verbatim text, the obvious appeal of that is it's much easier to just produce text than to reproduce a convincing, very specific format (complete with stationary, stamps, signatures and so on) for that text.

More recently, we learned that the "Wissam al-Zahawie/uranium/July 6, 2000" document is actually a letter and was a forged document that was provided to the IAEA. So, it was not the uranium sale "accord" (although it is possible that the letter may have a mention of the (fake) uranium "accord").

So, that naturally raises the question - is there an "accord" forgery and was the IAEA given a copy of it - considering it was the most important documentary evidence for an alleged uranium sale?

If you're suggesting El Baradei based IAEA's 07 March 2003 findings on the provenance of one document ( "Wissam al-Zahawie/uranium/July 6, 2000" ) and/or other documents unrelated to the specific allegation of attempted procurement -- you are mistaken.

El Baradei, 07 March 2003:

The IAEA has made progress in its investigation into reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger in recent years. The investigation was centred on documents provided by a number of States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001.

The IAEA has discussed these reports with the Governments of Iraq and Niger, both of which have denied that any such activity took place. For its part, Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger, and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries, including Niger, in February 1999, which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports. The IAEA was also able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the Government of Niger, and to compare the form, format, contents and signatures of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation.

Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence, if it emerges, relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials.

Jeff,

I'm rushing out somewhere right now, but quickly,

>> it could very well be that there's purportedly verbatim text of the accord that is a fabrication and the document of which it is supposedly verbatim text (the accord itself) simply doesn't exist, right?

Yes, and I think that is what happened here and I should have worded the text better but I ran out of time this morning :-)

Great job, mate. Keep it up.

Eriposte, good work as usual.

I still come back to a question though. If the documents were obvious forgeries that ran the risk of eventually being found out, what were they good for? What was the administration doing with them? I can think of four possibilities:

1. Using them as evidence despite the fact they were forgeries This is lame since they were eventually debunked. On the other hand, it's consistent with the administration's view that enough public relations can persuade people of anything and the documents gave the administration a needed extra narrative in the absence of signifcant evidence.

2. Using them to buy time (they're still being analyzed, we have more documents, other countries had evidence).

3. Using them for deniability (we thought we had proof).

4. Using them to impress the Congressional leadership, select journalists and other administration figures (even Bush?) who couldn't be expected to look at the documents too closely.

The first three sound like strategies for people worried about legal accountability down the road but who want to get their damn war started.

In the end, I still have more questions than answers.

Alas, the IAEA's response does not deal with Mr. Zahawie's signature and seal. If the spokesperson is correct in his assertion, then Mr.Zahawie's testimony is wrong or false. Or it implies that there still is a missing document- bu not an accord- with his signature and seal.

Ledeen. Remember Ledeen. Connect the dots.

De Gondi,

>> Alas, the IAEA's response does not deal with Mr. Zahawie's signature and seal. If the spokesperson is correct in his assertion, then Mr.Zahawie's testimony is wrong or false

I read the IAEA's statement very differently - I'll send you an email to discuss this.

Given the letter exists and was in the hands of the IAEA; given the letter was discussed with Al Zahawie in coincidence with the IAEA investigation into the US supplied forgeries; given that neither the French nor the Americans are responsible for having turned over the said letter to the IAEA, one has the impression another state supplied the IAEA with the excellent forgery.

The said state apparently had the means of "acquiring" the letter, seal and sig galore, which coincidently alleged activity by an Iraqi ambassador who exercised his diplomatic functions in Italy.

It is also a coincidence that General Pollari sent a representative to the IAEA at the behest of the IAEA to discuss the case, apparently with a briefcase and instructions to answer as little as possible. If I recall that occurred in 2002.

The Nigergate forgeries? Who benefits? The Neocon idealogues, who also happen to be Zionists, that's who.

Chase down people like Michael Ledeen who was also involved in Irangate. It is a place to start.

eRiposte,

Doesn't it look more and more like there were at least two sets of forgeries? Some of the documents were obviously forged in 2001 and others, particularly the "Global Suppport" crap, were forged between June and October 2002. I'm starting to think that Hersh's informant was talking about the later forgeries. Now I'm wondering if the release to Panorama was intended to expose them?

You're incorrect. The 'fake' Niger uranium story is totally off-base, Joe Wilson went there and asked some friends of his, never on sanctioned US mission conferring with intelligence sources from Britian and Italy.