Funhouse Mirror Image (Josh Marshallcollaberating with 60 Minutes on the Niger/uranium story)

Man without Qualities ^ | September 24, 2004 | Robert Musil

[NavySEAL F-16]

Funhouse Mirror Image

Astute reader Daniel Aronstein draws my attention to a curious Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball Newsweek article concerning a Sixty Minute II item that was displaced by the now-infamous fraudulent Killian memo piece, with the displaced item resembling a funhouse mirror image of the displacing story. The displaced item was to have criticized the Bush Administration for its alleged reliance on forged documents - specifically, forged documents provided by Italian sources purporting to show Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium from Niger. I have not seen the displaced item, but Newsweek's description suggests it was to have falsely asserted that Mr. Bush's State of the Union Address relied on the Niger uranium forgeries:

[T]he story, narrated by "60 Minutes" correspondent Ed Bradley, asked tough questions about how the White House came to embrace the fraudulent documents and why administration officials chose to include a 16-word reference to the questionable uranium purchase in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech.

Of course, what Mr. Bush said in his address - the famous "16 Words" - was this:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

That's it. He made no mention of Niger or of the forged documents. And, as noted below, British intelligence did not rely on the forged documents, either. The authors of this Newsweek article and Sixty Minutes II knew perfectly well that the State of the Union Address relied on British intelligence reports that have since been further substantiated, and not on forged documents regarding Niger uranium to which the displaced Sixty Minute II item was to assign so much significance, because one of those authors - Mr. Issikoff - wrote in a prior Newsweek article:

Tenet did have qualms about using the Niger information in a presidential speech. The DCI warned deputy national-security adviser Steve Hadley not to include a reference to Niger in a speech delivered by President Bush on Oct. 7 in Cincinnati. But according to a top CIA official, another member of the NSC staff, Bob Joseph, wanted to include a mention of Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Niger in the president's State of the Union speech. According to this CIA official, an agency analyst cautioned him not to include the Niger reference. The NSC man asked if it would be all right to cite a British intelligence report that the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium from several African countries. The CIA official acquiesced. Though the British have not backed off that claim (a British official told NEWSWEEK that it came from an East African nation, not Niger), CIA Director Tenet publicly took responsibility for allowing a thinly sourced report by another country to appear in the State of the Union. (The White House last week denied that the Niger reference had ever shown up in an SOTU draft.) What Bush said in his address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

It wasn't until February, several days after the State of the Union, that the CIA finally obtained the Italian documents (from the State Department, whose warnings that the intelligence on Niger was "highly dubious" seem to have gone unheeded by the White House and unread by Bush).

Since neither British intelligence nor Mr. Bush's State of the Union Address relied on the forged documents, what possible legitimate significance could the displaced Sixty Minutes II item have assigned to them?

The later Newsweek article says:

[T]he Italian journalist... [obtained] the potentially explosive documents in early October 2002 - just as Congress was debating whether to authorize President Bush to wage war against Iraq. The documents, consisting of telexes, letters and contracts, purported to show that Iraq had negotiated an agreement to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from Niger, material that could be used to make a nuclear bomb. ... [The Italian journalist] then provided the documents to the U.S. Embassy in Rome in an effort to authenticate them. The embassy soon passed the material on to Washington where some Bush administration officials viewed it as hard evidence to support its case that Saddam Hussein's regime was actively engaged in a program to assemble nuclear weapons. But the Niger component of the White House case for war quickly imploded. Asked for evidence to support President Bush's contention in his State of the Union speech that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, the administration turned over the Niger documents to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Within two hours, using the Google search engine, IAEA officials in Vienna determined the documents to be a crude forgery.

This is an odd grab bag of "significance" and "reliance." Did Congress rely on the Italian documents? Newsweek suggests that the displaced Sixty Minutes II item makes that connection by noting that the documents materialized "just as Congress was debating." But there is no indication that anyone in Congress ever relied on or even saw these documents. As Daniel Aronstein points out, the State of the Union address was given January 28, 2003, months after Congress voted to authorized the use of force against Saddam (October 10th in the House and on the 11th in the Senate in 2002). Since not even the CIA had received the forged Italian documents until February 2003, it seems highly unlikely that Congress relied on them.

Then there is the observation that some Bush administration officials viewed it as hard evidence. It's difficult to take an assertion about nameless "officials" seriously under the best of circumstances, but it is unlikely any such official's "belief" endured long enough for him or her to have relied on it, since we have the old Isikoff Newsweek article reporting:

It wasn't until February, several days after the State of the Union, that the CIA finally obtained the Italian documents (from the State Department, whose warnings that the intelligence on Niger was "highly dubious" seem to have gone unheeded by the White House and unread by Bush). At the same time, the State Department turned over the Italian documents to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which had been pressing the United States to back up its claims about Iraq's nuclear program. "Within two hours they figured out they were forgeries," one IAEA official told NEWSWEEK. How did they do it? "Google," said the official.

Since the State Department gave the documents to the CIA and the White House with a warning that they were "highly dubious," isn't it likely that the State Department gave the same warning to the IAEA? Wouldn't that help explain why the IAEA started "Googling" the documents within two hours of receiving them? There seems to have been no demonstration of reliance by the State Department or the IAEA or any Bush Administration at this juncture.

So why would Sixty Minutes want to run a half-baked story like this, apparently full of many false and highly misleading suggestions (from the Newsweek account)? Well, in the case of the displacing story CBS and others are now suggesting that a big problem was that Mary Mapes, its producer, was just so partisan and liberal that it obscured her journalistic judgment. Similarly, perhaps one might want to take a look at the political agendas of some of the creators of the displaced item:

"This is like living in a Kafka novel, said Joshua Micah Marshall, a Washington Monthly contributing writer and a Web blogger who had been collaborating with 60 Minutes producers on the uranium story. "Here we had a very important, well-reported story about forged documents that helped lead the country to war. And then it gets bumped by another story that relied on forged documents."

CBS News is "collaborating" with Josh Marshall to create Sixty Minute items. Isn't that nice. Given Mr. Marshall's comment above, his many personal agendas and his known degree of ability to maintain political objectivity, perhaps CBS News was actually fortunate that Mr. Marshall's item was displaced by that of Ms. Mapes.

Now that Mary Mapes is to be disintegrated for perpetrating a disastrous story from the depths of her uncontrolled hyper-partisan agenda there should be an opening for a permanent news producer on Sixty Minutes II. Maybe Mr. Marshall can fill that slot as a kind of funhouse mirror image of Mary Mapes? In fact, if Mr. Rather has to go, too, there might be an even bigger opportunity here for Mr. Marshall. Talk about funhouses!

UPDATE: A number of readers have noted these suspicions that the French intelligence services are behind the forged Ialian documents. Rathergate has more on that point.

And here are some things that Josh Marshall has had to say. [These links thanks to Tim.]

[liberallarry]

[T]he Italian journalist... [obtained] the potentially explosive documents in early October 2002

Wilson was sent to Niger in February of 2002.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, it's highly doubtful that the CIA was investigating the purchase of goats. The Italian timeline has SISMI obtaining the forgeries in late 2001 and informing the British and the Americans (either directly or through the British) shortly thereafter. It may be that the CIA was investigating several reports but it's not credible to believe the forged documents were not among them.

[OldFriend]

CBS has announced that they will not be broadcasting that story because it is too close to the election. Supposedly they were going to air the 'yellow cake' story last June then put it off in favor of the TANG story.

Perhaps they ought to begin reading the news reports to see that their entire premise is BS.....but then, what's the truth got to do with it.

[liberallarry]

Since...British intelligence...[didn't] rel[y] on the forged documents

That's not proven. The group which investigated said there were two sources, one of which was the forgeries, and the other was never revealed.

[Just mythoughts]

CBS has become JFKerry's 527.

Nothing has changed at CBS, Joe Lockhart himself said the purpose of talking to Burkett was responding to the Swift Boats Vets.

Obviously talking about 'yellowcake' by CBS was not relevant to Swift Boats Vets and guess what everybody is talking about CBS, CBS, CBS, and nobody is asking JFKerry the fundamental question what the .ell were you doing in Paris cavorting with the enemy.

[NavySEAL F-16]

From The American Thinker article posted earlier:

Eye on CBS

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The statement was true, and recently a British Commission confirmed that was so. Days afterward, however, the US received forged documents about uranium sales from Africa to Saddam. (Documents, I should add that an Italian inquiry established were forged by a man working for French intelligence - apparently to discredit the good information upon which Bush and Blair had relied, and thereby to embarrass them.)

[dirtymac]

The left leaning media talking heads, such as Juan Williams of NPR, stated in their rebuttal to the forged Rathergate memos, that it was immaterial that they were forged since everyone knew that they were true and that George Bush needs to respond to their content.

If we use the same logic then the forged Nigerian/uranium documents should have be considered as 'true' and therefore need to be sponded to... Such as bombing the hell out of Sadam Hussein.

[NavySEAL F-16]

Good one!

[aaCharley]

I read the Josh Marshall blog a few days ago. He was seemingly outraged that the FBI did not intercept the Italian forger when he came to the US to talk with Marshall.

What seemed outrageous to me was that Marshall knew the forger was comming - knew he was a forger - had invited him here twice - and never notified the FBI himself so that this agent who had attempted to damage his country (Marshall's) could be put in prison. But, he has no end of outrage at the FBI for not doing it?

The guy has as big a problem as Mary Mapes.

[liberallarry]

Rocco Martino is the middle-man, the man who attempted to sell the forgeries, or did sell the forgeries, to Burba.

[liberallarry]

and recently a British Commission confirmed that was so

The British commission is the one which identified the two sources.

Once again, the Italian magazine (La Republicca, I believe) came up with a much different timeline which offered a credible explanation of why the CIA sent Wilson to Niger in Feb of 2002 - nearly a year before the CIA supposedly first saw the forgeries.

[NavySEAL F-16]

With all that's coming out about Marshall, and fortunately or unfortunately, the guy brings out strong reactions from both sides, this could very well destroy his reputation, along with CBS.

Not that there is much there to destroy.

[liberallarry]

Forged Niger Documents
Here you have the bogus dossier on Saddam’s uranium

[NavySEAL F-16]

What kind of sites are those? They look VERY FAR LEFT to me.

Hard to give them any credence.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

bump

[liberallarry]

The forgeries are what they are. It doesn't matter who posts them.

La Repubblica is an Italian Leftist magazine which, for whatever reason, has been central to the story. Trying to discredit what they have to say on the basis of broad partisan generalizations is rubbish (to be polite). If you don't like their facts or reasoning then show me their errors.

At this point I believe the CIA obtained copies or summaries of the forgeries in Dec 2001/Jan 2002, might have had other indications that Iraq was buying or attempting to buy yellowcake from Niger, sent Wilson, our Ambassador to Niger, and a 4 star general with experience in Africa (Carlton ?) to check, determined or should have determined that the documents were forgeries, and came to whatever conclusions they came to. I believe the documents were forged by some Nigerien crook in order to obtain a few thousand bucks.

What happened next is the mystery.