Could it be because they did not impact the opinion of the CIA as to the attempt to purchase uranium in Africa by Iraq?  The intelligence supporting CIA's opinion was independent and prior to the production of the forged documents. 

If "X" unrelated to "Y" provides the basis of an opinion and "Y" turns out to be forged, the forged "Y" does not detract from the validity of the opinion based on "X."  

How would it advance the ball to find who or under what circumstances the forgeries were made?  We already know that the Iraqi ambassador's meetings with Niger's former prime minister underlay the CIA's conclusion that Iraq sought to purchase uranium in Niger.  This had nothing to do with the forged documents.  In fact, even Joseph Wilson confirmed the meeting.

The obsession over the forged documents merely constitutes what is technically known as a "red herring."  The real issue relates to the Iraqi ambassador's attempt to "expand commercial relations" with Niger and Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium in Congo and Somalia.  Those issues are unaffected by the forged documents.

Cheers.

I guess investigating the Niger forgeries will probably lead in inconvenient directions.  Seems like the FBI's approach here is not unlike Pat Roberts' unwillingness to investigate misuse of intelligence.  And like the DOD not investigating up the chain of command as well as down vis a vis torture.  You get the feeling that they're all assiduously avoiding examining the actions of certain people.

Anytime anyone gets anywhere close to investigating the misuse of intelligence, they avert their eyes.  Gives me the willies sometimes.  Pat Roberts went so far as to say that he saw no reason to investigate the alleged misuse of intelligence since there was nothing to it.  How can you argue with such tight logic?  Jay Rockefeller didn't have much to say in response -- he just sat there and looked kind of ill.

It leaves me with one thought -- Democrats need subpoena power.  As far as I know, there's only one way to get that power.  If we don't do really, really well in 06, I doubt we'll ever know the truth behind the Niger forgeries or  many other little mysteries.  I think there's a better than even chance that the Rove/Plame mess will also hit a impenetrable wall -- behind which, no doubt, will be the 'undisclosed location.'

All agreed except you're forgetting the press and those of us who still live in the reality based community still have a bit of clout.

Understand that the pendulum will swing back.

If it didn't competitor nations will beat the US economically as educated liberal people choose to train, work, live and contribute there instead of here.

Germany used to be the height of culture and power, then it’s culture went nationalistic reactionary and quickly all the educated people fled. Much the same happened with the Soviet Union. It’s happened countless times in history and can happen even easier now due to capital movement, workforce mobility, and nuclear arms as the great equalizer.

History is lacking nations which were for their times especially religiously fundamentalist or conservative, and were also successful and innovative.

For example the Bush base preaching creationism is a cultural suicide of historical proportion. May as well preach mandatory lobotomy for all the good it will do US competitiveness. That sort of belief guarantees a spot at the bottom of the food chain, while also being a luxury of ignorance, an oxymoron in the modern world.

The parts of the country going fundie already qualify as "flyover" territory and are below par on international competitiveness.

Take Texas for example. Austin, hub of innovation, very "blue" while Houston is more "red" and is largely about finite resource extraction, a dead end. Toyota just passed over Southern bids including subsidy for a new plant, choosing Canada for it’s better educated work force and more efficient health care system. This when Toyota is the #1 seller in America now, and will remain so because they make better cars.

There are countless examples.

Ultimately if there aren’t large numbers of educated, secular, scientific minded, and empowered “blue” people, the de Lays and Bush of the world have nothing to steal. Thier sort of reactionary conservatism is basically a proven route to evolutionary dead ends.

That’s the ultimate reality.

erasmus wrote:

I guess investigating the Niger forgeries will probably lead in inconvenient directions.

erasmus also wrote:

Democrats need subpoena power.

I really don't think there is anything more to it.  Why in the world would anyone expect a corrupt regime to investigate its own misdeeds?  Aren't we long past the point of no return when it comes to honesty and decency?  It strikes me that current American politics is a game of solitaire...

The world is full of countries that got run into the ground by greedy incompetent despots.

People assume it can't happen in the US because its economy is so huge.  But at the present rate, the US economy will be gutted by the end of the decade.  The expenditure on the Iraq debacle only accelerates the decline. Our children and grandchildren will only look forward to declining living standards, crumbling infrastructure, ....

For a historical analogy, think of the Byzantine emperor Justinian, who hollowed out the Byzantine empire with an ill-fated war to reunite the eastern and western ends of the Roman empire. 

JP and Libertine are right (Comments #8 and 9 for those keeping track at home), the question of "why" is rhetorical.  It's like asking "why wouldn't a corporate embezzler want embezzlement to be investigated?"  What galls me is that the MSM sees all of it, every bit of it, yet sits on its collective backside acting like the necessary filter for all things too terrible to contemplate, in their humble opinion.  Well, 1800 dead Americans and 25,000 dead Iraqis is terrible to contemplate.  An entire nation plunged into chaos is terrible to contemplate.  A perpetual Iraqi College of Terrorist Knowledge is terrible to contemplate.  All of the above spoonfed to the American public sprinkled with sweet lies is terrible to contemplate as well but there you have it.

This all sounds very logical, except...

The fact that these two had a meeting might raise suspicions, but not conclusions.  Could you imagine Bush's State of the Union mentioning that these two guys got together for a meeting (for all we know they are both stamp collectors)? 

No.  Something like this raises a suspicion that then gets investigated.  And here we have a split.  Cheney's intell people are pushing these forgeries, while the CIA sends Wilson to Africa. Some of this might reflect an underground bureaucratic struggle, but that only increases the importance of finding out where the forgeries originated.  Even if Wilson found things favorable to Bush's case, the forgeries would still be important.  Intelligence is not  black&white.  All the evidence matters, and this is the ultimate point here.
dc

We understand why the Republicans in Congress have been so silent on this issue, but why have the Democrats remained so silent?

Why would someone investigate a dodgy document if they knew it would lead to themself?

It's a very simple question:  Who and why did they forge the Niger documents?

Does anyone think that the Fitzgerald investigation will bring an answer?  

I like the other Helen Thomas question, it's also simple:  Why is the president waiting for the investigation, why does he not bring Karl in and ask him?    (I guess you don't do that with your brain)

The problem with this whole thing is that it's so complicated that most Americans' will just avoid it cause they will not take time to understand it.  That is why I like the simple questions like who forged those documents?  

Apparently they had obvious mistakes:  Dates of the month and dates did not match, wrong French spelling, signed by the official that had the job ten years before.  

Sounds like Rove to me.  

As I recall, the forgery was of laughably poor quality, supposedly with the signature of a long-dead official.  This, it would seem, lends it an element of plausible deniability, where an outfit within our government could argue the "bad apple overseas because our forgery would have been better" defense.  As for a foreign government planting it, this seems unlikely without WH/OSP  involvement.  A "Joe Schmoe somewhere in the world" would most likely be Chalabi, also with WH/OSP involvement.  I think the FBI attitude is because all forgery roads lead to the WH.  It would interesting to see if Rocco Martino could be asked to testify in front of the GJ, and if copies of the forgery could be examined by the Fitz team.

Nick, I think there's a fourth possibility.

Someone aware of the opportunity to make a buck.  That person would have known that there was a standing market for anti-Iraq "evidence."

Actually, No.  this has been debunked too.  See the series now at The Left Coaster.  The ambassador was trying to set up some meetings of Africans to Iraq as Khadaffi had done to try to undemine the sanctions at the UN.  There is no truth whatsoever to the Niger uranium story. 

With benefit of the hindsight, we know that there was no nuclear program, therefore we know that the attempt to "increase commercial ties" was probably unrelated to it -- it is a hard to be related to something not in existence.

 Thus we know that the guesswork of the "Nigerian minister" was wrong.  Was it possible to get the correct conclusion ahead of time -- that it is not a proof but a weak, unreliable indication?  The aswer is an emphatic yes, with Amb. Wilson being an expert who got that conslusion back then.

Mind you, we have a lot of weak unreliable indications that extra-terrestrial aliens are kidnapping our citizens etc.  

Here's the actual Section II of the SSCI report on prewar intelligence which was issued July 2004. <a href="http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/ www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf" target="_blank">Section II: Niger</a>

 Take note that the proof, besides the Former Prime Minister's inference, except on "foreign intelligence." Roberts' committee also admits Amb. Wilson had done CIA work BEFORE this particular mission, but leaves out what it was. The report also confirms that Dick Cheney's office did ask the CIA to investigate the Niger claims.