CIA leak inquiry expands to include the
forgery of documents on African uranium
UPI
By MARTIN WALKER
October 23, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 (UPI) -- The CIA leak inquiry that threatens senior
White House aides has now widened to include the forgery of documents on
African uranium that started the investigation, according to NAT0 intelligence
sources.
This suggests the inquiry by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald into the
leaking of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame has now widened
to embrace part of the broader question about the way the Iraq war was
justified by the Bush administration.
Fitzgerald's inquiry is expected to conclude this week and despite feverish
speculation in Washington, there have been no leaks about his decision whether
to issue indictments and against whom and on what charges.
Two facts are, however, now known and between them they do not bode well for
the deputy chief of staff at the White House, Karl Rove, President George W
Bush's senior political aide, not for Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of
staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
The first is that Fitzgerald last year sought and obtained from the Justice
Department permission to widen his investigation from the leak itself to the
possibility of cover-ups, perjury and obstruction of justice by witnesses. This
has renewed the old saying from the days of the Watergate scandal, that the
cover-up can be more legally and politically dangerous than the crime.
The second is that NATO sources have confirmed to United Press International
that Fitzgerald's team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation
on the forgeries from the Italian government.
Fitzgerald's team has been given the full, and as yet unpublished report of
the Italian parliamentary inquiry into the affair, which started when an
Italian journalist obtained documents that appeared to show officials of the
government of Niger helping to supply the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein with
Yellowcake uranium. This claim, which made its way into President Bush's State
of the Union address in January, 2003, was based on falsified documents from
Niger and was later withdrawn by the White House.
This opens the door to what has always been the most serious implication of
the CIA leak case, that the Bush administration could face a brutally damaging
and public inquiry into the case for war against Iraq being false or
artificially exaggerated. This was the same charge that imperiled the
government of Bush's closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, after a
BBC Radio program claimed Blair's aides has "sexed up" the evidence on Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction.
There can be few more serious charges against a government than going to war
on false pretences, or having deliberately inflated or suppressed the evidence
that justified the war.
And since no WMD were found in Iraq after the 2003 war, despite the evidence
from the U.N. inspections of the 1990s that demonstrated that Saddam Hussein
had initiated both a nuclear and a biological weapons program, the strongest
plank in the Bush administration's case for war has crumbled beneath its
feet.
The reply of both the Bush and Blair administrations was that they made
their assertions about Iraq's WMD in good faith, and that other intelligence
agencies like the French and German were equally mistaken in their belief that
Iraq retained chemical weapons, along with the ambition and some of
technological basis to restart the nuclear and biological programs.
It is this central issue of good faith that the CIA leak affair brings into
question. The initial claims Iraq was seeking raw uranium in the west African
state of Niger aroused the interest of vice-president Cheney, who asked for
more investigation. At a meeting of CIA and other officials, a CIA officer
working under cover in the office that dealt with nuclear proliferation,
Valerie Plame, suggested her husband, James Wilson, a former ambassador to
several African states, enjoyed good contacts in Niger and could make a
preliminary inquiry. He did so, and returned concluding that the claims were
untrue. In July 2003, he wrote an article for The New York Times making his
mission -- and his disbelief -- public.
But by then Elisabetta Burba, a journalist for the Italian magazine Panorama
(owned by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi) had been contacted by a "security
consultant" named Rocco Martoni, offering to sell documents that "proved" Iraq
was obtaining uranium in Niger for $10,000. Rather than pay the money, Burba's
editor passed photocopies of the documents to the U.S. Embassy, which forwarded
them to Washington, where the forgery was later detected. Signatures were
false, and the government ministers and officials who had signed them were no
longer in office on the dates on which the documents were supposedly
written.
Nonetheless, the forged documents appeared, on the face of it, to shore up
the case for war, and to discredit Wilson. The origin of the forgeries is
therefore of real importance, and any link between the forgeries and Bush
administration aides would be highly damaging and almost certainly
criminal.
The letterheads and official seals that appeared to authenticate the
documents apparently came from a burglary at the Niger Embassy in Rome in 2001.
At this point, the facts start dribbling away into conspiracy theories that
involve membership of shadowy Masonic lodges, Iranian go-betweens, right-wing
cabals inside Italian Intelligence and so on. It is not yet known how far
Fitzgerald, in his two years of inquiries, has fished in these murky
waters.
There is one line of inquiry with an American connection that Fitzgerald
would have found it difficult to ignore. This is the claim that a mid-ranking
Pentagon official, Larry Franklin, held talks with some Italian intelligence
and defense officials in Rome in late 2001. Franklin has since been arrested on
charges of passing classified information to staff of the pro-Israel lobby
group, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. Franklin has reportedly
reached a plea bargain with his prosecutor, Paul McNulty, and it would be odd
if McNulty and Fitzgerald had not conferred to see if their inquiries
connected.
Where all this leads will not be clear until Fitzgerald breaks his silence,
widely expected to occur this week when the term of his grand jury expires.
If Fitzgerald issues indictments, then the hounds that are currently baying
across the blogosphere will leap into the mainstream media and whole affair,
Iranian go-betweens and Rome burglaries included, will come into the mainstream
of the mass media and network news where Mr. and Mrs. America can see it.
If Fitzgerald issues no indictments, the matter will not simply die away, in
part because the press is now hotly engaged, after the new embarrassment of the
Times over the imprisonment of the paper's Judith Miller. There is also an
uncomfortable sense that the press had given the Bush administration too easy a
ride after 9/11. And the Bush team is now on the ropes and its internal
discipline breaking down, making it an easier target.
Then there is a separate Senate Select Intelligence Committee inquiry under
way, and while the Republican chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas seems to be
dragging his feet, the ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, is
now under growing Democratic Party pressure to pursue this question of
falsifying the case for war.
And last week, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, introduced a resolution
to require the president and secretary of state to furnish to Congress
documents relating to the so-called White House Iraq Group. Chief of staff
Andrew Card formed the WHIG task force in August 2002 -- seven months before
the invasion of Iraq, and Kucinich claims they were charged "with the mission
of marketing a war in Iraq."
The group included: Rove, Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Mary
Matalin and Stephen Hadley (now Bush's national security adviser) and produced
white papers that put into dramatic form the intelligence on Iraq's supposed
nuclear threat. WHIG launched its media blitz in September 2002, six months
before the war. Rice memorably spoke of the prospect of "a mushroom cloud," and
Card revealingly explained why he chose September, saying "From a marketing
point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."
The marketing is over but the war goes on. The press is baying and the law
closes in. The team of Bush loyalists in the White House is demoralized and
braced for disaster.
© Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
|