Vanity Fair's piece by Craig Unger attempts to pull together the various elements of the murky story surrounding the Niger forgeries but still leaves some outstanding questions in my mind.
http://www.vanityfair.com/...
First and foremost is the attempt to tie the break in at the Niger embassy in Italy with the subsequent discovery of the forgeries. The implication is that perhaps some documents were stolen, and formed the basis of the rather crude forgeries that eventually surfaced. But here's something I don't get. If Italian intelligence (SISMI) actually had a source in the embassy, La Signora, who occasionally sold documents to them, and if agents of SISMI were somehow involved in a plot to plant forgeries, why would it be necessary to "rob" the embassy? Couldn't they get needed documents from la Signora?
Further, if SISMI and Michael Leeden were involved, why would the forgeries be so crude? If you were trying to start a war based on these documents, wouldn't you strive for authenticity? Would you count on the eventual stovepiping that unfortunately did occur when the neocons seized on the documents, or would you try to fool even experienced analysts?
And speaking of the crudity of the forgeries, and in fact the wholesale implausibility of the deal for logistical reasons, who exactly are the mysterious "CIA analysts" who placed credibility in the transaction actually happening? In particular, this quote from the Roberts Intelligence Committee report:
"CIA Iraq nuclear analysts ... told Committee staff that at the time of the State of the Union, they still believed that Iraq was probably seeking uranium from Africa."
Who are these people and how on earth could they be collecting pay from the federal government for such a seemingly ridiculous assertion. As we know, the French controlled access to Niger Uranium, Saddam already had 500 tons of the stuff, and the plan was to transfer the illicit material at sea, which is logistically not probable, we are told.
And while we are on the subject that would eventually involve Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, has anyone noticed the timing of George Tenet's resignation? It was announced June 3, 2003, right smack in the middle of the Plame blow up inside the corridors of the White subsequent to Wilson's Kristoff column in May. And notice that the same exact day, James Pavitt, the Deputy Director of Operations, also resigned with no fanfare or reason. This is the guy who was in charge of the countries spies, ie, Valerie Plame. This from Wikipedia:
"It has been speculated that Plame may have worked in the CIA administration in the office of former CIA Deputy Director of Operations (DDO) James Pavitt."
Could they be related? Could Cheney have targeted these guys for releasing Wilson on the world? Any thoughts?