Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is this the "French Connection" we were looking for?
Self | 30 October, 2005 | Paperjam

Posted on 10/30/2005 8:38:05 AM PST by paperjam

Okay, Freepers, I need your help here.

I think I may know what happened to get Wilson’s wife outed. For the most part I think I can prove it. I just need a little more information. The kind of stuff I can’t get to. But, I now know it all was a last ditch effort to stop the war before Saddam was captured in Iraq on 14 December, 2003

Please don’t go thinking I’m off my rocker, I don’t normally attempt investigative sourcing, but I do think there are legs under this story and they might begin here.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: cia; cialeak; d; espionage; josephwilson; niger; plame; plamegate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-204 next last
To: paperjam

Paperjam? Get Pam!


121 posted on 10/31/2005 7:10:57 AM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
There were twenty-two pages, mostly in French, some with the letterhead of the Niger government or Embassy, and two on the stationery of the Iraqi Embassy to the Holy See. There were also telexes. When Burba asked how the documents could be authenticated, the man produced what appeared to be a photocopy of the codebook from the Niger Embassy, along with other items.

To clarify, these items were from the burglary in January 2001 of the Niger Embassy in Rome. Cannistraro's argument that it was Ledeen falls apart because the Italians (SISME) did not forge the documents and that is backed up by Martino's statements that he was employed by the French. Ledeen also issued a public denial and asked for an apology from Cannistraro. Also, one premise of Cannistraro's argument is that Ledeen was in Rome in Dec 2001. Well, Cannistraro was in Rome in Nov 2001, so doesn't that make him just as suspect? Then there is the curious factor about how the two people Cannistraro fingered for the actual forgeries...both of them, Alan Wolf and Duane Clarridge, worked with Aldrich Ames, the guy who outed Plame in the 90's. Coincidence? I think not. I have suspected Cannistraro for a long time, just a bad feeling I have about him, he's trying waaay too hard to point the finger in the wrong direction...unfortunately for him, he has three fingers pointing right back at himself.

122 posted on 10/31/2005 7:34:59 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

My theory, for what it's worth, Is that Wilson knew of the docs before British and American intelligence did. He said so himself, then he backtracked. That's one of Wilsons "lies" so often cited. That he said the docs were obviously forged when there was no way he could have known about them. I say he did know about them.


123 posted on 10/31/2005 7:46:31 AM PST by saleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
I don't remember reading this anywhere before...

“I know [Wilson] very well also,” said Diatta. “And you know, something very strange—when he(Wilson) went to Niger in February 2002, I was myself in Niger and we had a meeting in my house and we spoke about this matter.

124 posted on 10/31/2005 7:46:54 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Ditto; ravingnutter; kcvl

You’re right about the timeline and the uncovering of the documents. He’s been fully discredited in the congressional reports and in the news articles concerning his involvement with the documents.

You wrote: “Most likely possibility, IMHO? Wilson is a pathological liar and mixed what was common knowledge, (the existence of forged documents) with a distorted version of what he actually told the CIA a year earlier in order to puff up his resume. The other possibility, that Wilson saw the documents before he made his report and failed to mention them, makes him part of the forgery scheme -- i.e. working for the French.

While I think everyone who reads up on him will agree with your first sentence, it is the second one that inspired me to begin this journey.

Thanks to the great work of ravingnutter and kcvl. The two of you have done much to flesh this issue out!


125 posted on 10/31/2005 7:51:08 AM PST by paperjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat

Paperjam? Get Pam!

Sorry, ADAF guy.


126 posted on 10/31/2005 7:54:17 AM PST by paperjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: saleman

That's what I think as well and is what put me on his trail. The big problem is trying to see the forest among all the trees.


127 posted on 10/31/2005 7:59:21 AM PST by paperjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: paperjam

128 posted on 10/31/2005 8:18:10 AM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

"There is the possibility that Wilson saw the documents before he made his report to the CIA on his trip, but if he did, he didn't mention them"

How do you know he didn't mention them? I haven't seen a text of his debriefing to CIA. He claims he didn't have a written report, which in itself seems strange. But when he was debriefed at CIA surely that would have been recorded. So anyway, where's the report?


129 posted on 10/31/2005 8:21:40 AM PST by saleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

I haven't tracked the Diatta quote to when it was first posted, but what is he referring to when he says "this matter"? Whether Iraq was seeking yellowcake in Niger?


130 posted on 10/31/2005 8:28:42 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: saleman
How do you know he didn't mention them?

It surely would have come out at the Senate hearings that Wilson "saw" these documents in Africa in Feb of 2002, and mentioned them in his "report" over 6 months before the CIA said they first saw them and turned them over to the IAEA for authentication.

The fact is that Wilson recanted on his statement to the Washington Post that he "saw" the documents in that early 2002 timeframe when pressed on the inconsistancy saying he was "confused."

I'd also say that if these documents were as easy to discredit as the article says (Google name search that any number of Freepers would have done automatically) it's mystifying to me that the CIA needed to turn to anyone to verify them. That smells mighty funny to me.

131 posted on 10/31/2005 10:27:39 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Hmmm....

Feb. 18, 1999 - Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorist operations, said: "Hijazi [Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey] went to Afghanistan in December and met with Osama, with the knowledge of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. We are sure about that. What is the source of some speculation is what transpired."

Guardian

October 19, 2000 - "The Iraqis have wanted to be able to carry out terrorism for some time now," Mr Cannistraro said. "Their military people have had liaison with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and could well have supplied the training."

Guardian

Sep 2002 - The administration's attempt to link Iraq to terrorism has been criticized by former military, intelligence and national security officials who monitored terrorism in both Democratic and Republican administrations. "Is there any confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism? No," said Vincent M. Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism office.

Source

Jan 2004 - Former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director of counterterrorism operations and analysis, Vincent Cannistraro, agrees: "There was no substantive intelligence information linking Saddam to international terrorism before the war. Now we've created the conditions that have made Iraq the place to come to attack Americans.""

Source

Say what? Shades of Scott Ritter...and we know Ritter was paid off.

132 posted on 10/31/2005 1:33:16 PM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Giacomo is the same person as Martino (it was a code name) and he has now confessed that it wasn't the Italians (SISME), it was the French who employed him. An excerpt from an interview with him:

As far as I know, the SISMI has nothing to do with it. I never, and I repeat never, said that Forte Braschi (SISMI's Rome headquarters) was involved, and certainly not that the Italian Government was involved.

Global Research

The Italians have also denied this.

133 posted on 10/31/2005 1:41:35 PM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: paperjam
" On July 12, 2004, Clifford D. May wrote a nice piece titled: Our Man in Niger seen here: http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp In it, he writes this gem: The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

How the hell did Wilson know anything about any documents?"

This has been my question all along. (I need to go back and read Congressman BillyBob's post again.)

Jen

134 posted on 10/31/2005 1:48:25 PM PST by IVote2 ( God Bless our military men and women! Thank you for your service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Albertafriend
I knew that Jacqueline Wilson definitely exists--there's also a picture of her wedding with Joseph in the December 18, 1990 of the New York Times. I'm still wondering about "Jacqueline C. Wilson", though.
135 posted on 10/31/2005 2:05:18 PM PST by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
So why create fake documents that would influence us in the direction of war? Italy was much more supportive of war - they seem like a more likely source on the surface.

Read up on those documents. They were obviose forgeries with the intent of being discovered as such to weaken the standing against action in Iraq. There were names of officials who werent in power in decades, and the language used was alledgely something out of a babelfish translation. Although the U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies had extensive amounts of information on Iraq's intention's of purchasing Uranium, by introducing these fake documents the anti-war types could succesfully argue that the allegations were based on forged documents. Here we are 3 years later, numerous U.K. and U.S. investigations later proving beyond a shadow of a doubt to the contrary, yet people are still saying that (just head over to DU). {sigh}

136 posted on 10/31/2005 3:19:58 PM PST by chudogg (www.chudogg.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chudogg

"Read up on those documents. They were obviose forgeries with the intent of being discovered as such to weaken the standing against action in Iraq. There"

I'm not trying to be argumentitive but asking a sincere question - if they were obvious forgeries why did President Bush reference them in the State of the Union?


137 posted on 10/31/2005 3:42:42 PM PST by gondramB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Bush didn't, he used the information from the British White Papers they wrote up on their own.

The CIA couldn't refute them because the information came from the Brittons so they left the 16 words in the State of The Union Address.

The British sources were completely different and they still stand by them today.


138 posted on 11/01/2005 4:48:48 AM PST by paperjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: chudogg

That's an interesting angle I had not considered.


139 posted on 11/01/2005 6:26:45 AM PST by gondramB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

We need to recall that the Iraqis had purchased tons of yellow cake from Niger in the past hence the probability that they could have been looking for more was high.


140 posted on 11/01/2005 8:09:07 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-204 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson