Dear Mr. Kraft, Mr. Wallsten, Mr. Hamburger and Mr. Meyer:
I am writing in regard to an oped piece, written by Msrs Wallsten, Hamburger and Meyer, which was given the title "FBI Is Taking Another Look at Forged Prewar Intelligence" and was only thinly masquerading as a news report.
The first error is in the title itself. It makes the impression that the FBI is looking into "Prewar Intelligence", in general, when in fact it is looking into one set, I repeat one set, of documents that made their way into the intelligence stream in the run up to the invasion of Iraq ("pre-war"). The article is an oped piece and not a news report, due to all the lies it states and for all the facts it refuses to divulge. Apparently you and your paper still believe that your role is as a propaganda mill for the left, and the Democrats in this country.
Your writers said: "The FBI has reopened an inquiry into one of the most intriguing aspects of the pre-Iraq war intelligence fiasco: how the Bush administration came to rely on forged documents linking Iraq to nuclear weapons materials as part of its justification for the invasion", which is nothing more than a string of half-truths which joined together constitute a lie.
The Bush administration, the CIA, the American intelligence community never, at any time "came to rely on forged documents linking Iraq to nuclear weapons materials as part of its justification for the invasion", though the infamous, lying Joe Wilson would like everyone to believe that.
The intelligence stream that led to Valerie Plame suggesting that her husband be sent to Niger was not based on any "forged documents". That intelligence stream had multiple sources and when the Vice President questioned some of them, Valerie Plame's CIA division was asked to look at those questions. She suggested they send her husband to Niger to check out those questions. That was not a request or suggestion by anyone above her own division at the CIA; her bosses acceeded to her suggestion. Wilson's trip consisted of eight days or so living at a hotel in Niger, drinking tea and talking to some former and current Niger officials with whom he was acquainted, from prior State Department duties he had in Africa. Wilson made no formal report written or otherwise and later on when the Vice President inquired about the status of his Niger questions with his CIA briefer, he was told they will have to get back to him. Within a few days some CIA de-briefers met with Wilson and his wife at Wilson's house, on a weekend, and listened to him discuss his trip. That de-briefing never became a bullet point or separate report in the intelligence stream to the Vice President or to anyone else. You might ask why. But, if your oped writers, Wallsten, Hamburger and Meyer and done their research you would know why.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in its report described the facts that (1) Wilson's trip did not change the CIA consensus view on the subject of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Niger, and more than that (2) Wilson's conversations in Niger did not shed any new light on the subject, as far as the CIA was concerned. Part of the CIA analysts problem was (3) that to the extent that the reports might have any validity, nearly everyone Wilson talked to would have been implicated in breaching international sanctions against the transactions that Wilson was inquiring about, because they would have had some role in the transactions or in authorizing them. Wilson's trip, from the perspective of the CIA did not debunk anything. Read the Senators' report.
Now, what does any of this have to do with "forged documents"? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The "forged documents" were not part of the intelligence stream prior to Wilson's trip, they were not the basis of that intelligence stream and they did not even become planted into the intelligence stream until eight months after Wilson's trip, when an Italian reporter handed them in to the U.S. Embassy in Rome. The "forged documents" were not part of the "justification for the invasion" as Great Britain's independent Butler Commission made clear.
Your writers are lying when they say the "documents inspired intense U.S. interest in the buildup to the war — and they led the CIA to send a former ambassador to the African nation of Niger", for they were not even in existence to the knowledge of anyone in the US intelligence community until eight months after Wilson's trip. And as noted above, Mr. Wilson can state his own beliefs about Iraq, uranium and Niger, but his beliefs were not the conclusions of the CIA, as the US Senate has documented. Yet your newspaper keeps selling Wilson's lies about "debunking" "forged documents"; documents that played no role in his trip, before or after.
President Bush's reference in his 2003 State of the Union speech is also not based on the "forged ducuments" because it is based on the intelligence that preceded Wilson's trip, which preceded the "forged documents" by eight months. And, again, as Britain's Butler Commission (which looked at all the "evidence") noted, the President's statement was founded on reasonable intelligence assessments. Yet your paper continues to knowingly lie on this matter.
Then your writers go into a merry-go-round of unfounded speculation that someone wanted the "forged documents" in the intelligence stream to justify the war, when the facts are that they never were part of the intelligence stream for justifying the war. That intelligence stream pre-dated Wilson's trip in February 2002, was not changed by that trip and was not changed when the "forged documents" were planted into the intelligence stream eight months after Wilson's trip.
The clear facts are that whoever wanted the "forged documents" inserted into the intelligence stream wanted them inserted because they knew they would be found to be forgeries. Their intended use was to try to discredit intelligence that existed before the forgeries. The dirty non-secret that you in the media hide is that the intelligence stream that preceded the forgeries did not have the wrong names and dates that are contained in the forgeries - which is why Britain stands by their reports today. Again, Msrs Wallsten et. al. are not reporters or they would have reported these facts in their story. It is clear that they had no intention for the truth to be part of their story; hoping to continue a failed leftist mantra.
The documents are received in October 2002 (8 months after Wilson's trip). Almost immediately the French intelligence service sends word to the CIA that it has received "independent verification" of the transactions noted in the documents and from reliable sources. What does Valerie Plame's division do? They are the ones who are supposed to know every legitimate and illegitimate source, country, government official, company, broker, transporter and recipient of WMD materials, trafficked around the world. If anyone could detect what was wrong or right about the "forged documents", it would be Valerie Plame's division at the CIA. Yet, strangely, for six months (October 2002 - March 2003) no one in Valerie Plame's division at the CIA ever looks at the documents. They remain locked in a safe "because the person they were sent to was away when the documents arrived and that person was not told, for six months, that they were in the safe". (Yea right). Someone wanted the US presentation of intelligence to the IAEA and the UN to include what they knew were forgeries, before their forged status was revealed, to embarrass the US. It took the IAEA only days to recognize the errors in names and dates while Valerie's CIA division had done nothing yet to check the documents out. The facts are that those documents were not needed in the US and Britain's intelligence case, and someone wanted them in the case, to muddy the water.
Not so funny is the fact that immediately after the IAEA announced that they thought the documents were forgeries, the French immediately contacted the U.S. and sent word that its earlier report, in October 2002 had in fact been based on the "forged documents" as opposed to its assertions to the contrary at the time.
Also not so funny is your paper's failure to report that Martino, the rogue Italian spy-wannabe has admitted in open court that was working under hire for the French. And who was trying to scuttle the US and Britain's pending action in Iraq? And who in the US, involved in all of this, has many French connections?
Chalabi is an intentional distraction and anyone intentionally directing reporters to Chalabi on this matter is closer to the truth and wants to keep reporters away from it.
Meanwhile, you owe the American people for the libelous lies in your oped that weakly tried to masquerade as a "news report".
You all need to quit pretending you are journalists and announce your leftist party affiliations in public.
You can all join the Dan Rather brigade, in retirement.
Mr. Kraft, I expect to see some retractions and corrections in your paper and soon.
Well stated. Let us know if you get a response.