Reply #33: I believe that the Italian Parliament's report on the matter, that... [View All]

[Peace Patriot]

...Fitzgerald requested an unredacted copy of, concerned the burglary of the Niger embassy in Rome, to obtain the letterheads for the forgeries.

Also, I think you have to ask, why were they such crude forgeries--almost laughably crude? One, is SISMI that stupid--to push laughably crude forgeries on the CIA and then the Bushites? Two, why did the SISMI fascists meet in Rome with rabid neocons, Michael Ledeen and others, and Iranian arms dealer Ghorbanifar (of Iran-Contra notoriety), early on?

My theory is that they were INTENDED to be crude forgeries, to bait the CIA into a public position of "no nukes in Iraq," and then to make fools of the CIA and discredit them--and also reap enormous political benefit--when the nukes they intended to plant in Iraq were "found" by Judith Miller. Their plot was foiled (somebody stopped them from planting the nukes). Blair warned Bush that David Kelly (the Brits WMD expert, and whistleblower to the BBC) knew about it, and that's what triggered the panicky outing of Plame and her whole WMD project, with involvement of, and great risk to, so many top Bushites (they were in great fear of their deceitful scheme being exposed). This theory presumes that Wilson's article was expected by the Bushites (lots of evidence of this) and that the article publication does not explain the risks they all took (contacting at least six journalist witnesses to treason, for instance) in the way they outed Plame and also their compounding their risk by then, additionally, outing the whole CIA WMD project (Brewster-Jennings).

The Niger forgeries were part one of a long term Bushite plan to "get" the CIA (planting of the crude forgeries, planting of the provably bogus Niger allegation in Bush's speech, sending the CIA on a wild goose chase to Niger to investigate an allegation the Bushites knew to be false), with part two being the "find" of the planted WMDs (probably nukes or nuke components) in Iraq--but part two got thwarted.

As I said above, it's a pretty good theory, but still mostly just a theory--although, every new fact that comes out--like Hadley's meeting with the Italians--seems to confirm some part of it. (It now appears likelier than it did before that the forgery idea may have been hatched in the WH--rather than by some rogue group--with the forgeries commissioned by the neocon cabal, and then you have really got to ask: Why would they commission such crude forgeries? Why not commission GOOD forgeries? Is it just neocon incompetence again, or something more devious? It makes sense that it was bait to the CIA to debunk the forgeries--maybe partly to draw them out to see "who's for us?" and "who's against us?"--and then to get the CIA really pissed when the damned stupid forgeries showed up again in Bush's speech--a provocation, a dare.)