Skip to main content

View Diary: Is it possible the INR memo is a red herring? (140 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I googled for it (none)
    I couldn't recall the first time I'd heard it came from the Italians, so I put "Italian Intelligence Service and March 2003 into Google and this came up.

    I'm beginning to think we should step back to the day El-Baradei said the documents weren't authentic and move forward from there.    

    •  Italy (none)
      Note that the article references a UN official with the Italy information (Baradei?). So this would not have been a US leak of classified documents. Certainly at the time of the SOTU, CIA was still very adamant that Italy should not be mentioned at all.

      Further, the article refers to a report from Italy on the documents. But that report doesn't appear in the SSCI report (or, if it does, they've blacked out the whole paragraph).

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 07:53:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  El-Baradei and Report from Italy (none)
        I doubt that El-Baradei felt any need to be secretive about the origin of forged documents, by this point he must have been thoroughly disgusted with the US (Cheney had reiterated his stance that Iraq had reconstituted their nuclear program, and that El-Baradei was "in fact wrong" just 6 days before this article).  

        IAEA didn't get the actual documents until the day of Powell's UN show (Feb), but they'd been handed over to the US in October, and up until that point Western intelligence had been relying on a summary of the documents that was provided by Italy.

        I'm taking a good deal of what came out of SSCI with a few grains of salt because there was a lot of shit going on behind the scenes between the senators, and all the pressure put on the GOP side by the WH was yet another attempt to fit the facts to the agenda.    If I had my way the senators on the SSCI would also be testifying to the Fitzgerald grand jury.

        •  SSCI (none)
          I'm taking a good deal of what came out of SSCI with a few grains of salt because there was a lot of shit going on behind the scenes between the senators,

          Oh, me too. But I think the Dems were able to keep some of the incriminating information in there for posterity. You just need to read against the grain.

          The reason I find it fascinating that the Italy mention wasn't in the SSCI (or was still considered secret) is that the WaPo article was almost certainly a compendium of everyone at CIA and State trying to CYA because they already knew there'd be no WMD. (Note, this story was particularly unfriendly to State and didn't include much of State's side of the story; I think it was because they were justifiably trying to pin this--particularly the December fact sheet--on Bolton, but they don't seem to admit that an INR analyst identified those documents as forgeries as soon as he got them.) So this Italian summary discrediting the memos gets mentioned by some CIA people trying to explain their innocence. But it doesn't show up in the SSCI. It's a clear example of Roberts (or someone) burying incredibly relevent evidence.

          Now, keep in mind that those forgeries came into the US through Bolton's shop. So it's possible he skimmed off that Italian summary at that point.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 05:37:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site