Posted on 11/23/2005 10:03:41 AM PST by parnasokan
Nigergate: The shadow of the French inspector
After yesterday’s posting, a close look at Ambassador Wilson, today’s the turn of Mr Jacques Baute. The following article raises some incredible questions and reveals some amazing facts. Mr Baute, a Frenchman, seemed to know all about the the Niger forgeries and kept very quiet about them. The result: the Bush administration was ridiculed. The day after Baute’s organisation, the International Atomic Energy Agency, declared the documents to be forgeries the French Government made a startling announcement.....
The Bush administration was decieved by it’s presumed allies and the blame was placed on the Italians. This posting is yet another in a series of pieces that have no scope or objective other than getting the truth to emerge. The real truth, not, as we have seen and continue to see, an adulterated or manipulated truth.
The following article was published by Il Giornale this morning. Chiocci and Sechi are doing an excellent job in exposing a number of the characters involved in the Nigergate affair for what they really are.
Other postings will follow.
ARTICLE BEGINS ---
Nigergate: The shadow of the French inspector By Gian Marco Chiocci and Mario Sechi
November 23, 2005 URL: http://www.ilgiornale.it/a.pic1?ID=44890
Crushed, battered and buried by the official statements somebody thought that the best policy was to give up on Niger-gate, to close and forget about the affair. In reality the affair is far from closed, if anything it’s even more open that at any other time. The only difference is that the hypothesis whereby the false evidence was all a neocon plot to justify a war is completely dead. The story can’t be archived because even if the political-mediatic «anti Tre B» league have tried to bury the scenario they invented all of the facts and truths remain: the strange role of France and it’s secret agents, of the group of personalities hostile to the Bush administration, basically all of those involved in the manipulation of the truth.
Just the other day Newsweek reported what Il Giornale had anticipated in regards to the source – probably the State Departments dove Richard Armitage – that first revealed to the Washington Post’s star reporter, Bob Woodward, the identity of Cia agent and wife to Ambassador Wilson, Valeria Plame. Wilson is the diplomat who after having been sent to Niger to track down some evidence on the sale of uranium to Saddam Hussein entered into a collision course with the White House. A revelation that – if confirmed – is destined to leave an important mark on the entire Niger-gate affair. Basically because it completely destroys the entire neocon plot theory, all that’s left is to expose the French plot. France, which was against the war knew about the false documents from the Niger Embassy all along, the documents had been handed over to one of its secret agents. Yesterday on CNN Woodward revealed that his «deep throat» was a male.
Independently of the fact that Il Giornale or Newsweek are correct as regards Armitage another series of facts are creating difficulties for France. The facts in question have already been exposed but the greater public knows nothing about them. This is due to the fact that the author of Oppdraget (The Charge) only found one editor ready to publish a book that exposed a story diverse from «the official line», the editor was Norwegian.
Who is the author in question? His name is Jafar Dhia Jafar and he was the head of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program. He had direct access the raìs, to Tarek Aziz, with the entire establishment, basically he was far from being a nobody. According to the Iaea he knew all there was to know about Iraq’s arms of mass destruction. Jafar had to deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency and dealed in particular with a certain Mr. Jacques Baute, at the time head of the UN mission in Iraq (Invo). It’s exactly here that worrying behind the scenes details regarding the already enigmatic and obscure role of the French in the Nigergate affair.
According to Jafar on January 20, 2003 Baute asked him for some very specific answers regarding uranium. Jafar fell from the clouds but Boute insisted. Jafar replied, by then a little angry: «Let me see the documents that accuse me». The head of Invo replied: «The Iaea got them from a certain country on the condition that we didn’t show them to the Iraqi’s ». Jafar, already angry, didn’t take this too well and cut the discussion short by saying: «If they are documents from our government then why can’t we see them?». It’s simple. Because Baute, in reality, hadn’t as then “officially” received them from the Americans. Baute would see them “officially” only on February 4 and, by sheer coincidence, the information contained was that of Rocco Martino’s (the 007 working for Paris) false documents. Question: was Bauté bluffing? Or did he already have something in his hands. Did he perhaps already possess, far ahead of everybody else, a copy of the forgeries?
The director of Invo plays a strange role. When talking to Jaffar he doesn’t officially possess the documents, the documents that correspond to those produced inside the Niger embassy in Rome. The Senate report on the period prior to the war in Iraq is perfectly clear, and contradicts Baute: «On February 4 2003 the American government passed electronic copies of the Iraq-Niger documents to (blank) of the Iaea. Because of the fact that the Director [Baute] was in New York in that period, the American government gave him copies as well». The dates, and the behavior of Baute, don’t add up. At this point poor Jafar asks himself: «Why did Baute and his colleagues take from February 4 2003 [translators note: in the translation I corrected a small mistake in the original article] until March 7 to inform the Security Council that the documents were false?». A good question indeed. A reply could lie in the language used both by Baute and certain intelligence notes, the reference to the «foreign service» or the «foreign country». On January 27 2003 the Cia wrote: «Another foreign service had information on the attempts to acquire uranium from Niger in 1999». The same «foreign service» referred to as a «foreign country» appears in Baute’s phrase to Jafar during their meeting on January 20 2003. That «certain country» is France, everybody knows, Baute knows, Baute is French. He knows because France – which controls the uranium mines in Niger – had on more than one occassion signaled Saddam’s attempts to procure yellowcake at the end of the nineties. The very same story that ended up in the false documents from the Niger embassy in Rome that ended up in the hands of Rocco Martino, the French Dgse spy in Italy. All of this makes sense but there is yet another clue tied to the series of worrying coincidences: on March 1 2003 the ex Iaea inspector, David Albright, anticipated to the German television Ard the secret conclusions of the International Atomic Energy Agency in regards to the Niger documents. How did Albright know the top secret results in advance? By chance did his ex colleague Jacques Baute, with whom he had been in Iraq on behalf of the UN, whisper in his ear? There’s more. The day after the Iaea made its official announcement on the forged Iraq-Niger documents the French government told Washington that the material upon which Paris had based it’s analysis confirming the existence of a traffic in uranium were the self same documents handed over to Invo. That is to Baute. The self same documents procured by Martino that the French had always denied having ever possessed, maintaining that their information on the trafficking of uranium was of «national origin». If Baute was lying the question to ask is why.
ARTICLE ENDS ---
somehow I don't the the term "Nigergate" is going to catch on.
How about Chiracgate? Or The French Connection?
As this post takes us closer to the French connections in Plamegate/Nigergate,
I have to say quite honestly and fervently:
(1)The CIA division that includes Valerie Plame,
(a)is tasked with tracking all such "uranium transactions" worldwide,
(b)has extensive contacts with current and former IAEA officials,
(c)has extensive contacts with similar divisions in all "foreign services" that have similar concerns about such transactions,
(d)would have known in no less than one week what names and dates on the Niger documents were in error.
(2)And yet, between the date those documents are received at the US embassy in Rome, October 9, 2002 until they are declared forgeries by the IAEA in 2003, no official word from Plame's CIA division goes forth to declare the documents as forgeries.
(3)This cannot be incompetance. Any reasonable investigator would have to accept two possibilities, not mutually exclusive: (a)Plame's division knew all along, with their French sources, that the documents were forgeries planted by the French and/or (b)Plame's division in the CIA was politically motivated to withold from the Whitehouse, for months, that they had already "determined" the forged status of the documents.
We can expect that at least the French wanted the forgeries inserted into the documents that the US would give to the UN, to intentionally embarass the US.
And I do not think we can escape the possibility that so did some person or persons at the CIA.
We need a new special prosecutor, and possible criminal charges that would deal with CIA employees who knowingly work with a foreign country, in that foreign country's attempt to derail, through false evidence, the operations of the US government.
If you read the SSCI, the explanation given is that the set of these documents given to Plame's division was locked in a safe and forgotten for 6 months because the person who was to receive tham had been absent on the date of their distribution.
And if one is to believe that bureaucratic fiction then one would have to believe that the CIA had no urgent need for Wilson's trip to Niger because there was no urgent concern about "yellowcake pushcases in Niger". That same bureaucracy cannot substantiate that such documents, given their subject matter would not have been brought to the immediate attention of that individual immediately upon their return. I contend that the "oversight" was intentional.
We need people in front of grand juries under oath.
The plot thickens!
"The shadow of the French inspector"
Clouseau?
The Niger Embassy would obviously know who was in office on what date, and so the fact that the wrong names and dates were used tells me that the documents were intended to be discovered as forgeries when they were created.
They were intended as a setup from the moment ink went on paper. I realize this is only obvious, but the article dances around this without saying so directly.
I agree it is highly suspicious.
My thoughts now are that Valerie was passing "Classified Information" to Joe from the time Bush entered the Whitehouse and Joe was passing it to the Dem Camp.
Any LADY???? spy who outs herself on a third date to a married man does not qualify as a spy. Geez, even I'm better at keeping a secret than she is.
Where is good old Valerie?
Thanks! Ping to Fedora.
Thanks for the ping! Jafar isn't a reliable witness IMO, if you look at some of his other statements, so I put no great confidence in his story, but the discrepancy between his and Baute's stories has to be resolved one way or the other. My working theory is that Baute already knew about the forgeries from France before the US or UK or whoever (depending on which account you go by) reportedly told him in February. I don't claim to be able to prove that at this point, though.
Want a full investigation - this is much bigger than just Wilson/Wilson and a few cranks at CIA. This is a coup on the US President and his administration, orchestrated in my mind by the RATS.
bttt
Bump
I don't even pretend to be able to follow all of these twisted paths anymore. :-/
Pinz
"If you read the SSCI, the explanation given is that the set of these documents given to Plame's division was locked in a safe and forgotten for 6 months because the person who was to receive tham had been absent on the date of their distribution."
I believe that. Not to change the subject, but do you know if these shares of the Brooklyn Bridge being offered for sale are valid?
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.