Hmmmnnn. So El Baradei contacted the WH and warned them in Dec 2002.

[Brotherjohn]

To me, this is the most intriguing element to the Jason Leopold truthout article already much-discussed here at DU (Fitzgerald Eyes Plame-Niger Conspiracy,
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012306Z.shtml).

El Baradei contacted the White House and the NSC,even before the 2003 SOTU, warning about the flimsy evidence and asking for further evidence.

"ElBaradei sent a letter to the White House and the National Security Council in December 2002, warning senior officials he thought the documents were forgeries and should not be cited by the administration as evidence that Iraq was actively trying to obtain WMDs. ElBaradei said he never received a written response to his letter, despite repeated follow-up calls he made to the White House, the NSC and the State Department."

Also, he followed up with the U.S. Congress, in the form of Rep. Henry Waxman, seeming frustrated with the WH witholding evidence. This points to the likelihood that Waxman probably has much more going back much further than we realize:

"In a second letter sent to Congressman Henry Waxman, D-California, in March 2003, after the Iraq had war started, ElBaradei laid out the details of his attempts to get to the bottom of the Niger uranium story."

"The IAEA asked the U.S. Government... to provide any actionable information that would allow it to follow up with the countries involved, viz Niger and Iraq."

"ElBaradei said he was assured that his letter was forwarded to the White House and to the National Security Council. ...ElBaradei said White House officials pledged to cooperate with United Nations inspectors but repeatedly withheld evidence from them." (the last part alone shows that the U.S. was in violation of Resolution 1441)

I don't know if Fitzgerald is going anywhere with this element of the case, and I don't know what El Baradei's correspondences with the WH and Waxman add to this in a legal sense. But it seems to me further "smoking gun" proof that the WH knew the evidence was bogus, yet still used it.

How far do we have to go to determine that they "intentionally misled" us into war?

Just what does a "high crime" have to be?

Fitz has said he cares not about the causes for war and whether the administration misled us. But with this delving into the workings of WHIG, and as secretive as he has been so far, I wonder... Also, with Waxman involved to this extent, the WH is probably putting all its eggs in the 2006 election basket, b/c if they lose the House, impeachment is most definitely coming (I don't think you could stop Waxman if the house turned Dem).

Makes me think there's something to this impeachment story (Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst; http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/impeachment.htm). Maybe a coalition will form because some Repubs will feel it's better to clean house first, seeing the writing on the wall re the 2006 elections.

[Horse with no Name]

1. Most of the world knew it was a fraud

That is why we didn't have international support.

[Cocoa]

2. the CIA got the Niger reference removed from an earlier speech

It was in the draft for Bush's October speech in Cincinnati, but the CIA said we can't back that up.

How it made its way back into the SOTU is a mystery...

[Brotherjohn]

4. Well, according to one report, the wording was specifically changed...

... when the CIA and WH were going back and forth, and the WH "capitulated" and agreed to change the langauge to read "British intelligence has learned" after the CIA insisted the evidence was not reliable. In short, the WH changed the language to be intentionally misleading, to paint something as fact that they knew damn well was probably not (sorry, I don't remember where this story came from, maybe the Wash. Post?).

This has always been, to me, the most clear evidence that the WH lied to gain support for the war. Whether that story is true, the official line is simply ridiculous: Hadley knew, but didn't relay the message? (he apologized and got promoted to National Security Advisor). There were also numerous instances of the CIA warning the WH. But oh yeah, Condi doesn't read her e-mail (so now, she's Sec. of State). And then, as you pointed out, the simple fact that the WH already deleted the "evidence" from prior speeches.

So yes, we all already knew the CIA warned the WH. BUt so far, they have managed to get away with the "Condi didn't read her e-mail" and "Stephen is just a moron" lines. But this new revelation shows they were repeatedly contacted by the U.N. on the same issue, pointing out the same problems with the evidence. And Waxman can back it up.

Seems to me, in the more "I"-friendly environment we're in now (or at least "I"-plausible), this adds significantly to the case against Bush.

[Stephanie]

3. Fitz doesn't care about causes for war but I bet he cares about forgery

That's a crime in anyone's book. If he's tracing the timeline back to the origin of the document, I think he will find a virulent nest of neocons there. If the entire war was based on this forged document and the forger can be identified as a Bushite, we're going to have a really good show to watch this spring!

[Brotherjohn]

5. But he wouldn't care about a forgery unless the forgery involved law.

And the law involved here DOES deal directly with the causes for war (War Powers Act, lying to Congress, high crimes and misdemeanors... oh yeah, that Constitution thingy).

Forgery in and of itself isn't a crime. I could forge my son's homework, and I don't think the law would ever get involved. CBS could forge documents damning Bush's NG record (although they didn't), and no law is involved (unless Bush wanted to sue for slander in a civil court).

But if a forgery broke the law, he'd be interested. If these forgeries were knowingly used to promote war, little things like lying to Congress are involved.

So he WOULD care about the causes for war.

[peacetalksforall]

6. Keep in mind - that Wilson said that the Ambassador who was there

had already reported that there was nothing to the story about Iraq-Niger negotiations. When Wilson arrived in Niger and met with her they agreed that he would include (contact) people he knew when he was Ambassador in the region since many of the people she knew had already said they knew nothing. So, this trip was in some ways unnecessary as Dick arleady knew the findings from his own Ambassador.

If Dick knew, then why didn't he send a compatriot, someone who would lie?

Or was he constrained by the process because of the protocal of using the CIA and State. There is so much we don't know. 'Ol Dick is at the center. And we know why.

[Brotherjohn]

7. I think they were cocky to the point of expecting everyone to be a yes-man

They thought this was one of the few things they could lay their hopes on. But to them, "check it out" means "make it look good". They figured, if someone doesn't play along, we'll just ignore them. If need be, we'll hush them up.

That succeeded with most. They tried it with Joe and it didn't.

Or then there's the possibility that Cheney et al were so delusional, they believed their own hype.

I go with the former: cocky and arrogant.