No surprise--it's just as we've been observing, but it is good to document it.
The retired US ambassador said it was all but impossible that British intelligence had not received his report - drawn up by the CIA - which revealed that documents, purporting to show a deal between Iraq and the west African state of Niger, were forgeries. When he saw similar claims in Britain's dossier on Iraq last September, he even went as far as telling CIA officials that they needed to alert their British counterparts to his investigation.
The allegation will add to the suspicions of opponents to the war that last week's row between the BBC and Tony Blair's director of communications Alastair Campbell was a sideshow to draw attention away from more serious questions about the justification for the war.
The comments of the former US diplomat appear to be at odds with those of the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. Appearing before a parliamentary committee last week, Mr Straw said the British intelligence community had not known of the forged documents' existence "at the time when [the September dossier] was put together".
~snip~
Well, when he went to Niger, the forgeries were not in play yet. And note the reference to the British dossier drawn up "last September". That, too, predates the forged documents coming on the scene
Text of CIA Director George Tenet's statement
Excerpt:
CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien (sic) officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger's processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the 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. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.
~snip~
No mention of them because the forged documents appear in October 2002...months after Wilson's foray to Niger:
Forged documents mostly ignored until after Bush speech
Excerpt:
The U.S. Embassy in Rome obtained the documents -- which purported to show contacts between officials in Iraq and Niger over the transfer of uranium -- from a journalist there in October 2002, officials said
~snip~
I continue to hope that the grand jury probe is really looking into these lies the Wilsons were peddling--lies meant to undermine our government, and President Bush in particular.
Here's some interesting points:
KING: When you saw the address were you shocked?WILSON: The address, when the president gave the address. He talked only about uranium from Africa and there were four countries in Africa that produce uranium one of which is Niger, the other three are Gabon, Namibia and South Africa. So long as he was talking about Africa, it wasn't clear to me that he was talking about Niger. It was really only in March when the forged documents came out and the head of the International Atomic Agency Dr. ElBaradei said that these documents were not authentic and the State Department spokesman made it clear that it was those documents on which we based the conclusion that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger.
Remember, in the NY Times editorial he pointed at the State Department Fact Sheet from December 2002. Later he pointed at Dr. ElBaradei. Now he finds some comment, supposedly, from a State Department spokesman. But notice he said "We based". Who is "We"? Is the subject here the State Department fact sheet? He avoids saying Bush. He also avoids British statements that the forged documents had nothing to do with their analysis, and Tenet's statement similar, and Tenet adding that there was information about other African countries.
Joe doesn't know about this? Hardly likely. And what documents does Andrea Mitchell have???