Tinfoil time: Could the Niger forgery have been a plant to entrap Bush?

Let's assume that the creator of the Niger forgery knew that this bogus "evidence" would eventually be used by BushCO as "proof" of Saddam's nuclear program. They knew that this corrupt administration would lie about everything, including this forgery, and could not resist the tempation to cite this "evidence" in their unrelenting agenda to demonize Saddam in order to get their war.

The creator knew that there was no other way to expose and destroy the cabal. They must be shown as stupid, arrogant, warmongering liars who would stop at nothing, not even fabricated evidence, to go to war in Iraq and the PNAC agenda.

So the forged "evidence" was planted and, of course, quickly determined to be bogus. But, just as the creator knew they would, BushCo fell for the trap and referenced the evidence, even if it was determined a forgery, by announcing it to the world.

The rest is history. BushCo hubris, arrogance and greed were so overwhelming, they could not help themselves. This would prove to be their undoing.

But who was the creator?

then it could very well make sense.

this might be the biggest backstab in political history. and whoever forged that evidence is the "Deep Throat" of today.

I just saw on ABC Late Night News that the information about the uranium deal in Nigeria was sold to the Italians by a former government official with the Nigerian government. The Italians gave him a few thousand dollars for it. The information was then passed to the British who passed it on to the Bush administration. The whole time the CIA new the information was bogus--and the Bush White House, as well. This thing was a bad hoax that was unraveled from the beginning.

Cheeney sent the CIA official to Nigeria to give the claim an outline of validity--trying to use that as the main premiss for their illegal war. Unfortunately, for Cheeney, the information was quickly recognized to be bogus by the CIA official. Yet, as we all know by now, all of Bush's men and women (i.e., Condi Rice) knew it was bogus from Cheeney. He was informed about it by his own front man from the CIA.

This thing goes right into the White House and onto Bush's desk. He signed off on his own State of the Union Address. He is ultimately responsible for what comes out of his own mouth--not his aids, not his wife, not Cheeney, not the CIA director, no one but himself. Period.

If this was a trap it was the most poorly disguised trap ever. The guy is probably laughing his ass off that Bush used his forgeries in his speech.

shortsighted and stupid.

Why is good question. But given CIA protection of lousy sources, I would not be surprised if this was a field guy letting a source have fun.

The forger planted to dupe Dubya take is too convoluted. I think that those documents were forged by the Bushies or Blairies, or simply an attempt by the forger on his own to make some money off the sale.

Who do you think is really running things?


In the May 4 New York Times writer James Atlas traced an intellectual genealogy much in the news this spring: the connections between “the cohort of journalists, political philosophers, and policy wonks known as Straussians.” Classicist and political philosopher Leo Strauss, who taught at Chicago from 1949 until 1967, was known for his critiques of value-free social science. How influential are Straussians? Here are some with U of C degrees.


72 Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, PhD’72, is close to the roots of the Strauss family tree. Earning a doctorate in political science, he studied at Chicago with the late mathematician and nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter, who, according to Atlas, “put forward the idea of ‘graduated deterrence’—limited, small-scale wars fought with “smart” precision-guided bombs.” ..snip.. “Recruited by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld,” Atlas writes, “Mr. Wolfowitz is widely regarded as a chief architect of foreign policy.”

69 Wohlstetter also taught Ahmad Chalabi, PhD’69, a founder and leader of the Iraqi National Congress who is a contender for a leading role in the post-Hussein government. Chalabi, who did his mathematics thesis at Chicago on the theory of knots, is a controversial figure within Iraq and the Bush administration, in part because of his 1992 conviction in Jordan for bank fraud (a conviction he charges was politically motivated).

72 Another Straussian Atlas doesn’t mention is Abram Shulsky, AM’68, PhD’72, director of the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. Convened by Wolfowitz in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, these policy analysts and advisers, writes Seymour Hersh, AB’58, in the May 12 New Yorker, “have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq.” With Gary Schmitt, AM’76, PhD’80 (mentioned by Atlas), executive director of the conservative foreign-policy group Project for the New American Century, Shulsky cowrote a 1999 essay, “Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous).”

79 Earning a spot on Atlas’s family tree is Zalmay Khalilzad, PhD’79, a member of the National Security Council who is also President Bush’s special envoy to the Iraqi opposition. A native of Afghanistan, he had a similar role in setting up the post-Taliban administration in that country. Khalilzad also studied under Wohlstetter, and he sees the postwar challenge of creating a democratic government in Iraq in Straussian terms, telling the March 31 New York Times that “the transformation of the Middle East and the Islamic world at large” is “the historic challenge of our times.”

http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0306/alumni/lines.shtml

I have my guesses as to who they are, but they're taking the PNAC down. OR, Cheney is with the other group and the PNAC is not happy that he is holding up the Middle East Partition Plan, and the PNAC is taking Cheney down. Has he been vocal about attacking Syria or Iran? I haven't noticed.

Either way, there's a war we can't see. Verrrry interresting.

I keep coming back to Sharon's cave on the "Road Map". Why was he suddenly so willing to take down the settlements (at least publicly), and so willing to negotiate?

He's deeply involved here, somehow, but I can't quite get it.

Yes, I agree with you. There's a big power play going on, two big power groups are warring with each other for control. I wonder what/ who we should be rooting for?

but I think it's the folks at the Council on Foreign Relations. It was started by Averel Harriman, Brown Brothers & Harriman, which is totally connected to the Bush family. If they are the CIA connection, and Poppy is connected there, they may not be liking something about the way things are going. I thought the obvious PNAC and Cheney needs to go in order for them to get their guy in there and keep Georgie in line. He sure isn't in charge.

But the other thought is that Cheney is on Poppy's side and the PNAC is taking Cheney out. Maybe both sides were after Iraq, but PNAC wants to keep going and CFR (Cheney) doesn't. I'm afraid we won't know until this thing plays out.

And the Israelis do keep popping up in here. I read the PNAC plan was for Iraq and Israel to become allies. That's so funny. And yeah, Sharon went along with the Road Map, but seems to be taking a u-turn again.

Something has not gone according to plan, danged if I can figure out what that piece of the puzzle is.

but someone here pointed out to me that its possible that with Poppy's connections that the opposite has happened. Tenet is falling on his sword and it could be a backup plan in case phony evidence was discovered.

Anything is possible though and I might end up changing my mind back to the way it was before.

They wanted this to be true, even though it wasn't vetted, and had a report in March, 2002, that it was bogus. My guess is that the boys in the Office of Special Plans created this document.

If there's any hubris in this, it's that of the whole bunch in thinking they could get away with it. After all, they've gotten away with everything else. They wanted a war in Iraq so badly their teeth were aching. They just didn't expect to get caught diddling the public with forgeries. One day, perhaps years from now, someone will dredge up the pasted-up original in someone's cast-off files.

If one looks at most of the so-called "evidence" used to justify this war, it was bogus or badly out of date. The war was a con job, and the con came from the con men in the administration, not some shadowy character determined to bring them down. The cabal did it to themselves. That's the definition of hubris.

Cheers.

I think they ASSUMED that they'd find WMD after the war. It was inconceivable to this braintrust that Hussein actual would have destroyed the weapon stocks....even though they must have had the intel from the Saddam's son-in-law that affirmed this.

I think the collective braintrust figured that WMD would be there and no one would care about the evidence after the weapons were found. Sorta like their complete inability to plan for a post-war Iraq. These guys just assumed that everyone would be happy to have American forces handling security for the oil compaines after the war...and didn't stop to think about a post war infrastructure that would need complete overhauling.

Reading the PNAC site, it should be small wonder that these guys were suffering from mass psychosis. I think they all spent a little too much time together and started believing in their group fantasy. The reality in Afghanistan and Iraq has brought them abruptly back to reality....and they aren't particularly prepared to deal with the consequences..


BTW, PP, did you listen to the CD's?

It's just that they knew they couldn't tell the truth, which is: "We're going to war against Iraq because my oil is under their dirt and war is the only thing that fixes my approval rating, fuck y'all and the horse you rode in on."

There could have been chemical and biological weapons. Or not. No matter.
There could have been a nuclear weapon. Or a program to build one. Or not. No matter.
Iraq could have been led by Saddam Hussein. Or Mother Teresa. No matter.

Bush needed a war because his post-9/11 ratings were starting to drop off too much, and because his friends in the oil business were calling him up saying, "y'know, George, even the shitty wildcatters you hire could find oil in Iraq."

it stands a good chance of being at least in the ballpark.

My personal guess is Colin Powell. I think he's really in a state of personal crisis right about now.

Yeah, it was subtly disguised as an obvious forgery, but despite all the clear and unequivocal warnings the Bush team saw through the quadruple duplicity, and the rest of the world still hasn't caught up.

by some patriot? Possible. Seems sorta precognitive though. How could anyone assume this document would actually be used and come to light in the manner in which it did? It was such an obvious, clumsy thing. Still, we need to know who made it and why.

A better explanation is that whoever created it was simply trying to bolster the feeble claims from the fascists that war with Iraq was necessary to prevent, well, whatever it was supposed to prevent and had no more brains than the Bushmeister. Let's go with the Occam's razor thing here. The simpler the explanation, the better.

The forgery is not a plant.

The persons-unknown who are now orchestrating the
campaign against * are way too subtle for plants. They
just use whatever is at hand. They knew from the beginning
that Georgie and the Cabal are a bunch of lunkheads.
They knew there would be plenty of evidence just
laying around anytime they wanted to "push the button"
and get Bush.

The question I asked in my thread "Getting Rid of Bush
the Wrong Way" is the same question you are asking
here (albeit with much more enthusiastic discussion here):

who is running this "dump Bush" operation, and who do
they plan to insert in his place while the hapless Democrats
wring their hands and dither?

arendt