Skip to comments.Niger Yellowcake and The Man Who Forged Too Much
Posted on 07/22/2005 7:44:56 PM PDT by blogblogginaway
They say all roads lead to Rome. Well, this one certainly does. It's a road that starts in Paris, at the door of Iranian arms dealer and Mossad double agent Manucher Ghorbanifar, a man known to the CIA as an "intelligence fabricator". It's a road that runs through Niger uranium mines, past a Genoan fascist organization operating as a parallel Italian intelligence network with ties to Rocco Martino, and down the streets of Milan, where a CIA operative, now considered a fugitive at large by Italian authorities, once operated.
Ultimately, however, it is a road that does not end in Rome. It runs past that ancient icon of Imperial corruption and leads us to Washington D.C., past a Federal Investigation into Israeli espionage and right up to the steps of the White House and Dick Cheney's Office of Special Plans.
All signs along this road point to the answer to the question: Who forged the Niger Uranium Documents?
We find ourselves beginning our journey in Paris with Manucher Ghorbanifar.
(Excerpt) Read more at uruknet.info ...
ping for later. Marron, pardon the ping, but I respect your opinion. I'm hoping you find this article interesting.
This story is from the Daily Kos?
Thanks for the ping, I'll have to stew on it for a day or two.
"liberallarry" pinged me to a similar one:
I've got my work cut out for me.
Meanwhile, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm interested in the subject of Libyan uranium.
There are many articles out there stating that Libya got its uranium from Niger under the table, but as far as I can tell they are all quoting the Mark Huband article from Financial Times.
On the other hand, I haven't seen anything that believably refutes or denies the story. If the story is true, as I have said elsewhere, then much of what has been written falls away.
And the IAEA report I saw avoided the subject of where materials and equipment came from, merely rferring to things as being of "foreign origin" which strikes me as odd.
Again, thanks for the ping.
This article starts out telling us that George H. W. Bush DID fly to Paris on an SR-71 to set up the "October Surprise" in 1980, and then it gets REALLY paranoid!
Having read through the piece, this is my first impression.
There is a lot of extraneous information here that only serves to muddy the water, even where it is true or partly true.
Its helpful to cut to the chase.
The docs were created with a land-mine buried in them, they had egregious errors that anyone could catch, using the name and signature of an official who had been out of office for a decade, and using some impossible dates.
These documents were designed to be exposed as forgeries.
So now you have to work backward through this hall of mirrors, to figure out who had an interest in producing forgeries that were designed to be revealed as forgeries.
That would not be in the interest of someone planning a war.
It would be in the interest of someone trying to discredit a story that was already being circulated.
You'll notice that this version of events completely ignores France, although we have other sources telling us that the guy who produced the docs was on salary to French intel. So we can surmise the source of this version of events.
We know that France was in bed with Saddam, we know that a fair percentage of his modern weaponry was French, some of it arriving on the eve of war despite the embargo. We know that France was making billion dollar oil deals that couldn't be fulfilled with sanctions in place, we know that France was one of the largest recipients of Saddam's oil-voucher bribes.
All the nonsense in the article about "fascists" is just name-calling, which again tells more about the source of the information than it does the people being labeled. The default political persuasion in Europe is socialism. A socialist who believes in God and the flag is pretty much by definition a fascist. A socialist who doesn't believe in God and the flag is just your garden variety marxist. In Europe, there really isn't much else, since Locke, Burke, and Hayek have never really taken hold there.
forgot to ping you to post #9
That was the main thing I noticed, too :-) It is an incomplete analysis and/or misleading in other respects as well. There are some important pieces of information but the framework being used to interpret them misses some clues. I'll comment on it in more detail in an article I'm working on.
I haven't read the article but I think I know where they are going with this.
The French control the yellowcake production in Niger. Yellowcake is just about the only product that Niger produces, but they have no skills, so France does all the work and reaps a hefty profit along the way, not to mention getting to control where that yellowcake goes.
The British came out with a report saying that Saddam had sent an envoy to Niger to look into buying yellowcake from Niger, but really from the French.
The French were not happy about the British report because they had promised Saddam that they would cover for him and keep the UN off his back in exchange for all those oil vouchers.
So,,, the French came up with the idea to forge some documents, make them look obviously fake and pass them through the Italians, so that every one would look at them and say, the British are nuts, no one would believe that Saddam really bought yellowcake from Niger.
Then Joe Wilson writes his little op-ed in the NYT, accusing
the President of lying and Rove of exposing his wife's CIA identity. Along the way Wilson claims to have seen these forged documents and also claims to have known all along that they were fakes.
But... there were a couple of problems with that. The US didn't even have possession of the documents yet, when Wilson was in Niger, so how could he have seen them, and known that they were fakes.
There are a couple of possibilities; one he was lying and never saw them, and therefore shouldn't have known they were fakes. or two he saw them because he is so friendly with the French that they let him in on their little secret, or three he never saw them, but the French had already let him in their secret.
Take your pick.
That's not where this guy is going. He still doesn't get it that the French were behind the forged docs and is looking at Italian fascists. They may have been behind the forgeries, but the French were behind them.
Be advised that uruknet is Saddam Hussein's Baathist web domain- it mainly consisted of Sadam Hussein speeches before the war and other content from the government of Iraq. I posted & linked some of "secular" Saddam's religious rant speeches from Uruknet onto FR back then in response to the endless litany of "Saddam can't be allied with religious extremist muslims like al Qaeda- he's secular!" arguments.
So yes, in a way it's not much different than the Daily Kos. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.