In his first series, Eriposte examined the public documents, public statements, and the Senate Report (SSCI) on the Niger Forgeries. He reached the following conclusions in his final post last August:
- "The Senate Report did not conclude or prove that Saddam Hussein was, in fact, seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Indeed, it demonstrated that there was no credible evidence to substantiate that claim (prior to the SOTU, certainly prior to the Iraq invasion and most certainly after the Wilson op-ed), with or without recourse to British intelligence." This is the generally accepted fact at this point – the Administration’s public hype about Weapons of Mass Destruction was not based on credible evidence. Eriposte concludes that it was not based on faulty intelligence as Bush claims, but instead it was based on distorted intelligence.
- The President’s and his Administration’s claims of the Iraqi danger were based only on the Forged Niger documents. There was no other corroberating evidence.
- "Despite it’s attempts to ignore or sidestep this fact, the Senate report also left many telltale signs that attempts were made by the White House to misrepresent the views of the intelligence community or use dubious, uncorroborated information (something that has been obvious in the public record for a long time). What’s more, in an attempt to cover up their book-cooking of intelligence information, the White House and then-NSA Condi Rice flat out lied by claiming that Rice never read the entire NIE." The White House cooked the books and later tried to cover up their deceit.
- "There was only one set of documents" [forged documents]. Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger based on these doccuments in February 2002 even though the Administration claims to have not gotten these documents until October 2002 when They were sent by Elizabeth Burba of the Italian magazine, Panarama [see last Post]. The Administration [C.I.A.] must’ve had these documents before Wilson’s trip.
- "One of the sources of the first set of reports (late 2001/early 2002) on the alleged Iraq-Niger deal must have been aware that the documents were forged and the evidence suggests strongly that he or she made some effort to mask this fact, until the documents surfaced." What Eriposte is getting at here is that we not only had access to these documents way before has been admitted and that the original source of these documents knew they were bogus. The ‘official’ appearance of these documents in October 2002 was a ‘glitch’ that threatened to expose that our basis for going to war was [beyond] flawed.
- In the C.I.A. report, the fact that our decision was based on transcripts rather than raw data was cover up in the SSCI Report.
- The C.I.A. knew these were forged documents in September or October 2002 and tried to get references to this intelligence removed from speeches thereafter even before they supposedly got the documents from Panorama. Yet this information continued to be used and the basis for attacking Joseph Wilson was to keep his exposure of the manipulation from being taken seriously.
- "Former Amb. Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger, rather than providing support for claims regarding Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from Niger (Africa), provided strong evidence against this when viewed in conjunction with other evidence available at that time."
Summary of the Summary:
Our C.I.A. knew, early on, that the Niger documents were forged even though they were being sent to us as credible [by someone who knew they were forgeries]. The C.I.A. sent Joseph Wilson to check out the claims and his negative findings confirmed the impression that they were without basis as did the arrival of the "real" documents. Our Administration continued to use them as the basis for going to war. Wilson’s trip and the arrival of the originals were thorns in the side of this deceit, and were actively swept under the rug. The Administration’s later public conclusion that the intelligence was faulty is a lie, consciously elaborated en masse to hide the this deceit.
What’s lost in the synopsis above is that Eriposte proves his conclusions. So if you have any lingering doubts that he’s just another Liberal raving, you need to read his original posts. The guy may be a Liberal writer, but he’s a Liberal writer telling the Truth, and backing it up…
~In the timeline from Wilson’s (boring) book, he writes:
DEC 01-Jan 02: “The first reports of Iraq-Niger uranium connection surface in the Bush Administration.”
In my opinion, the ‘reason’ for the ‘Administration’ /CIA-attempt to skew the date by which they KNEW the docs were forgeries, is DUE to the release date of the BRITISH WHITE PAPER on SEPT. 24, 2002. It is THIS DOCUMENT that “enabled” Bush to use the 16 word LIE in his SOTU ’03.
It is also, sadly, the document that Dr. David Kelly took issue with, and is at the center of the “official story” in the months prior to his ‘suicide’ in Britain, during July of ’03~ (concurring w/ the public release of the Joe Wilson “work-up” in America.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/documents/0,12962,916659,00.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAN20050702&articleId=622
The Senate report then reveals that a CIA analyst in September 2002 suggested to a staff member of the White House’s NSC that the White House remove from a proposed speech the claim that Iraq attempted to acquire uranium from Africa. SR p. 51. According to the CIA analyst the NSC staff member responded by stating that removing the claim would leave the British “flapping in the wind.” SR p. 51.
Excellent job, as usual, M. !
PS You remember that the last email that Dr. Kelly sent was to JUDITH MILLER, right? “…Many dark actors, playing games” (!)
Dawn,
Yes I remember Dr. Kelly. That’s the story that got me blogging in the first place. When I catch up with Eriposte, I plan to start my new ‘timeline’ hobby, and he’s a part of it. He knew that the British were twisting things. I wonder what else he knew? Your version of the timeline is part of that. I’ll be in touch…