Who else knew that the Nigerian Embassy in Rome was ransacked on Jan. 2, 2001?

Nothing much was stolen, just a watch, a couple bottles of perfume, and oh yeah, some stationery.

Anyone else think the theft and the forgeries are connected?

I was going to write a snark about having to know the future, but if they were always going to invade Iraq, they would need the stationary anyway.

I never saw (or at least don't remember) the story.

However this is a dead issue until 2009, when we can REALLY open the files, investigations, and charges.

... and yes.

"Nigerian" usually is taken to refer to Nigeria, not the same country at all.

The break-ins occurred in fall '00 and 1/31/01, according to the newspaper that is usually quoted. The fall '00 break-in was announced on 02 Jan 01.

In three parts. It's a good read.

http://nuralcubicle.blogspot.com/2005/10/yellowcake-dossier-not-work-of-cia.html
http://nuralcubicle.blogspot.com/2005/10/berlusconi-behind-fake-yellowcake.html
http://nuralcubicle.blogspot.com/2005/10/nigergate-great-nuclear-centrifuge.html

:silly:

and Yes! Yes! ;)

purpose--a sting operation of some kind--but were appropriated by the NeoCON cabal that were prepping for the Iraq War lies. A cover sheet was added to original documents. Later in 2001, there was a meeting in Rome attended by rabid NeoCON Michael Ladeen (and others on Rumsfeld's payroll), Manucher Ghorbanifar (notorious Iran/Contra arms dealer), and the head of the Italian intelligence service (a fascist). Many people believe that the Niger/Iraq nuke scam originated at this meeting. I have thought for a long time that there was a Part 2 to that scam. Get the allegation into a major Bush speech (--it went into his State of Union, despite many objections by the CIA and others), then make the allegation come true, by planting nukes in Iraq, to be "discovered" by the U.S. forces who were hunting for WMDs after the invasion.

I still think this is a really good theory. It explains the Bushites' rage and panic in July 2003, when they outed Plame and the entire Brewster-Jennings counter-proliferation network, and possibly also assassinated the Brits' WMD expert David Kelly in the same week. Their plan had been FOILED.

Outing a CIA agent, and an entire network--and one working on counter-proliferation, of all things--has always seemed like overkill to me, just to win points in a corporate newsstream that they entirely controlled at that time, and to chill dissent. Why not just let Wilson's piece slip into the river of corporate news forgetfulness? Why did so many top Bushites get involved, and take such risks--the risk of treason charges, the risk of truly pissing off the CIA? They were already in Iraq, in force. Dissent was hardly an issue. Hell, they DISDAIN dissent. They pay it no mind. Right now, SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people oppose the Iraq War and want it ended--and what do the Bushites care (or the War Democrats, for that matter)? They DON'T care. Our opinion means nothing to them.

Nope, I think it had to do with OTHER secrets--beyond their lies. Disclosure of an outrageous dirty trick, like trying to plant the weapons, might well have broken through the well-nurtured ILLUSION of the corporate media of majority support for the war, and started a democracy movement here much sooner (--maybe in time to stop the spread of rigged voting machines all over the country, prior to the '04 election); also, a more accelerated impeachment movement. It would have brought down the Blair government. And it may well have stymied Bush/Cheney's real goal in Iraq--killing and torturing Iraqis until they sign over their oil rights to U.S. oil companies. Iraqis know they lied about WMDs. But what if they knew that they had tried to plant the evidence (not to mention the dangers of doing so--nuke contamination)?

Anyway, it makes a lot of sense that they weren't going to stop at the mere allegation of Iraq nukes, but intended to plant the evidence.