 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dcornutt
PO3
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 267
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
"Giacomo"...has been on "everybody's" payroll. He sells/middles...info (specifically ...documents). Of all kinds..to highest bidder.
Some of it is usefull, some of it not. He pilfers, buys, steals...documents and then pawns it for money. That's what he does. He does this based on what he understands people are "looking for".
In that regard, his credibility is about like a junkie selling information. Sometimes..it's good. Sometimes..not. Just depends. He'll sell/find..whatever you are looking for. He just can't be trusted on his word.
I would imagine that the US, UK France, Italy, Russia, etc..all have at one time or antoher paid him for information or documents. (most of it bogus...but occasionally a winner). So, it would be quite easy for him...regardless of situation...to claim he was an "agent" on the payroll of just aobut any country ...if the circumstances warranted it. (ie..money, or to get out of trouble).
I'm with you on this.. I believe there's some stink in this. And nothing stinks worse than old goat cheese from france. But, this guy..is an obvious looser in regards to information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
While I agree that the guy can't be trusted, there is this quote in the article I posted.
| Quote: | The Sunday Telegraph has been told that the man draws a monthly salary of €4,000 (£2,715) from the DGSE - the French equivalent of MI6 - for which he is said to have worked for the past five years.
He had an expense account and received bonuses in return for carrying out orders allegedly given him by the head of the French services' operations in Belgium.
|
That goes beyond just paying for information, he was a French employee!!
Also, why has no one questioned why the New York Times allowed stories about WMD to be published by Judith Miller when we all know that they would not do anything to benefit the Bush Administration? Then, they continue to defend that same reporter and even protect her when they should have fired her a long time ago. Remember, Judith Miller was the only reporter publishing these stories on WMD. Also, where did she get this information if it wasn't from the CIA WMD operatives, IE Valerie Plame. This was all a setup by the CIA with the help of the New York Times and Judith Miller, to bring down the President of the United States. Nothing else explains the way the New York Times has acted in this regard and nothing else explains the wrong leaked information to reporter Judith Miller. At this point, I would not be suprised to find out that the CIA hid all of the WMD in Iraq during this same time period as well.
Was the whole world really wrong??
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcornutt
PO3
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 267
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| "Giacomo" was "also" on the Italian payroll at the same time. He may also have been on the UK payroll during the same timeframe. Like I said, that's the kind of person you are dealing with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hmminCanada
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:05 am Post subject: Is It Possible that Wilson Set up the fraud papers on Niger |
|
|
On Tuesday (25) someone posted this on Free Republic on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508920/posts
It was post #42. I've edited it a bit to include the Urls to other articles that he refers to but if you go to the original thread the links are all live and provide a LOT of very insightful information.
Depends on what you mean by "produced"...Rocco just received the documents, he did not forge them. Read on:
Jacqueline, (Wilson's second wife), was a French diplomat and may have provided the connections for Wilson to see the forged documents that were supplied by the French through the Italians. It has been reported that she was a "cultural counselor" for the French Embassy, which some say is code for she was doing undercover work.
In other words it is possible that Wilson knew that the docs were forged because he was privy to the information that French wanted to discredit the British info on Saddam shopping for yellowcake and that Wilson's objective was the same. The French just happen to manage the yellowcake production in Niger.
IOW, he didn't lie in his first statement...he saw the documents.
And Fedora has contributed this:
French intelligence soon began a campaign to discredit the US case for war against Iraq. In 1999, French intelligence had begun investigating the security of uranium supplies in Niger, where uranium production was controlled by a consortium led by the French mining company COGEMA, a division of the French state-owned nuclear energy firm AREVA. At that time, Italian businessman Rocco Martino provided French intelligence with genuine documents revealing that Iraq was planning to expand trade with Niger. French intelligence took an interest in the documents and asked Martino to provide more information. In 2000 he used a contact in the Niger embassy in Rome to provide French intelligence with documents purporting that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger. These documents were later exposed as forgeries;
< snip >
Since it is now also known that French intelligence was trying to push Martino’s forgeries on US and British intelligence, as simultaneously the Democratic National Committee was planning to discredit President Bush’s Iraq policy by accusing his administration of manufacturing evidence against Hussein’s regime, heightened suspicion is cast on Wilson’s use of the Niger investigation to discredit the Bush administration’s case for war.
What Wilson Didn’t Say About Africa (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1256475/posts)
Wuli also just posted a timeline thread asking the question about how Joe Wilson saw the documents before they were turned over to the CIA and other questions. It also validates the theory that he saw them in advance:
Joe Wilson's Lies, A Timeline - Who Forged the Documents? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1509007/posts)
Then if you connect the dots between the article,Was the Joe Wilson Valerie Plame Affair a CIA Plot? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1506711/posts) and the article New York Times: CIA Leaked Plame's Name (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508939/posts), you come away with all the makings of French/CIA coup attempt. George Tenet was Novak's first source, he was the administration official that was described as "no partisan gunslinger" by Novak.
It also validates the article by Seymour Hersch (who we normally dismiss as a leftie moonbat):
“Who produced the fake Niger papers? There is nothing approaching a consensus on this question within the intelligence community. There has been published speculation about the intelligence services of several different countries. One theory, favored by some journalists in Rome, is that [the Italian intelligence service] Sismi produced the false documents and passed them to Panorama for publication.
“Another explanation was provided by a former senior C.I.A. officer. He had begun talking to me about the Niger papers in March, when I first wrote about the forgery, and said, 'Somebody deliberately let something false get in there.'
He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents themselves.”
(54 paragraphs deep into an October 27, 2003 story for the New Yorker titled “The Stovepipe.”)
The stranger that approached Novak? Larry Johnson, Ex-CIA. And if my theory is correct, Vincent Cannistraro, another ex-CIA agent, who is a security consultant to the Vatican in Rome, engineered the break-in at the Niger Embassy there, where the letterhead and seals were stolen for the forgeries.
I just hope Fitzgerald is following the path. The final nail...it was kind of funny that I have been "warned" that I should not pursue this research by someone in a private freepmail. Too bad...I ain't skeered... : )
Putting this together with the information on this thread is definitely some thing that should make all of us go "Hmmm..." Is it at all conceivable that Fitzgerald could ever figure this out? I want to hope so but that's a pretty small hope considering the way things have been going the last couple of years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kimberly
PO2
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| When I think of France, it reminds me WAY TOO MUCH of sKerry. What are the chances? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Intell Committee Reports are mentioned a few times in the thread. Gee if we can read that, whats wrong with the LSM....
leaving links, and a very few short blurbs from the report
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/databases.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq July 7, 2004
Chapter II Niger, 48 pdf pages ( these pdfs allow copy/paste)
Former Ambassador pg 4 -
Niger Documents pg 22 -
Niger Conclusions 37-
| Quote: | Former Ambassador
pg4
.....The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife “offered up his name” and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12,2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, “my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.
Pg6
............. DO officials told Committee staff that they promised the former ambassador that they would keep his relationship with CIA confidential, but did not ask the former ambassador to do the same and did not ask him to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement.
Pg8
........The intelligence report based on the former ambassador’s trip was disseminated on March 8,2002. The report did not identify the former ambassador by name or as a former ambassador,but described him as “a contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record.”
pg9 -10
When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials’ accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger’s uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerian officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the (redacted) intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no “documents” circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador’s trip, only intelligence reports from (redacted) intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19,2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report (redacted).
The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (“CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,” June 12,2003) which said, “among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”’ Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken”to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged.” He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents. |
"did not ask him to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement".
--did they want him to talk?
"former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents "
-- wonder which CIA contact that was...
"He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection"
--so Wilson can get away with lying, chalk that up to misspeak or confusion, and get off scott free
| Quote: | K. Niger Conclusions
pg37 -
Conclusion 13 – The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analyst’s assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.
Conclusion 14-The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and should have briefed the Vice President on the former---ambassador’s findings.
Conclusion 15-The Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Directorate of Operations should have taken precautions not to discuss the credibility of reporting with a potential source when it arranged a meeting with the former ambassador and Intelligence Community analysts.
Conclusion 20- The Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) comments and assessments about the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting were inconsistent and, at times contradictory. These inconsistencies were based in part on a misunderstanding of a CIA Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) Iraq analyst’s assessment of the reporting. The CIA should have had a mechanism in place to ensure that agency assessments and information passed to policymakers were consistent. |
gosh, and who worked for WINPAC....
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wonhyo
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 85
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:02 am Post subject: Reading Niger Papers |
|
|
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
Following this link from kate,
The Original Niger reporting, page 39, last paragraph (page 4 on acrobat reader) It says: the former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip. after his wife mentioned to her supervisors....
So Wilson went to Niger in 1999, at the suggestion of his wife!? No reports were made, because he found nothing, sound familiar. Who sent him to Niger in 1999, there must have been some concern that there were questions about the uranium. If the CIA knew then about the forged papers, or person responsible for them, why did they need to send Wilson on the same trip years later? This things keeps getting a stranger odor every time I read more
Thanks for all your input, I had kept quiet for a long time, afraid I was becoming a democrat, looking for conspiracy theories |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcornutt
PO3
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 267
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Keep reading that report!! Just keep reading the full report. Much of what's in there was never reported by MSM. (and you know why). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
