The INR Memo Strikes Again!

The NY Times tells us what we have been telling you for months, and creeps closer to the truth about their own role, and that of their columnist Nick Kristof, in the Wilson saga:

WASHINGTON, July 15 - Prosecutors in the C.I.A. leak case have shown intense interest in a 2003 State Department memorandum that explained how a former diplomat came to be dispatched on an intelligence-gathering mission and the role of his wife, a C.I.A. officer, in the trip, people who have been officially briefed on the case said.

Investigators in the case have been trying to learn whether officials at the White House and elsewhere in the administration learned of the C.I.A. officer's identity from the memorandum. They are seeking to determine if any officials then passed the name along to journalists and if officials were truthful in testifying about whether they had read the memo, the people who have been briefed said, asking not to be named because the special prosecutor heading the investigation had requested that no one discuss the case.

The memorandum was sent to Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, just before or as he traveled with President Bush and other senior officials to Africa starting on July 7, 2003, when the White House was scrambling to defend itself from a blast of criticism a few days earlier from the former diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, current and former government officials said.

Mr. Powell was seen walking around Air Force One during the trip with the memorandum in hand, said a person involved in the case who also requested anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about talking about the investigation.

The WSJ described the memo in Oct 2003, as the Times notes.  However, the Times confirms that the memo names ms. Wilson as "Valerie Wilson".

There is more background in the Senate Subcomittee on Intelligence Report in the Niger section.

Newsweek connected the memo to the investigation in August 2004:

Sources close to the case say prosecutors were interested in discussions Powell had while with President George W. Bush on a trip to Africa in July 2003, just before Plame's identity was leaked to columnist Robert Novak. A senior State Department official confirmed that, while on the trip, Powell had a department intelligence report on whether Iraq had sought uranium from Niger—a claim Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, discounted after a trip to Niger on behalf of the CIA. The report stated that Wilson's wife had attended a meeting at the CIA where the decision was made to send Wilson to Niger, but it did not mention her last name or undercover status. At the time, White House officials were seeking to discredit Wilson, who had become a public critic of the Bush administration. There's no indication Powell is a subject of the probe; the department official said the secretary never talked to Novak about the Plame matter.

Let's give props to Cecil Turner, who left a cogent comment at the Beldar Blog summarizing all this back in Feb '05.  And Arianna Huffington her naughty self noted the link in this post from July 8, so the Times is not blazing an unfamiliar trail.

We note the obvious - Operation Take A Leak For Karl, Day II, is off to a good start for the White House.  Can Special Counsel Fitzgerald get the many lawyers and witnesses back to their former scared and silent selves?  Or can we find some faction to leak what we presume is the other side of this story - I saw obstruction of justice and perjury floated somewhere, but the Times has gone over to All The Good News Thats Fit To Print.  Cynics will suggest they just want to Free Judy - well, there, I suggested it.

We also note the Times creeping up on the truth about their role in launching Joe Wilson's star:

The memorandum was dated June 10, 2003, nearly four weeks before Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article for The New York Times in which he recounted his mission and accused the administration of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq.

We will explain the June 10 date in a moment.

It is not clear who asked for the memorandum, but in the weeks before it was written, there were several accounts in newspapers about an unnamed former diplomat's trip to Africa seeking intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program. On May 6, 2003, Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for The Times, wrote of a "former U.S. ambassador to Africa" who had reported to the C.I.A. and the State Department that reports of Iraq seeking to acquire uranium in Niger were "unequivocally wrong."

Yes, and that May 6 Kristof column got results - let's let Mr. Kristof enjoy his victory lap, writing on Friday, June 13, 2003:

Condoleezza Rice was asked on "Meet the Press" on Sunday about a column of mine from May 6 regarding President Bush's reliance on forged documents to claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. That was not just a case of hyping intelligence, but of asserting something that had already been flatly discredited by an envoy investigating at the behest of the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Ms. Rice acknowledged that the president's information turned out to be "not credible," but insisted that the White House hadn't realized this until after Mr. Bush had cited it in his State of the Union address.

Ms. Rice was embarrassingly ill-informed on Sunday, June 8 (Tim Russert replayed it on Sept 28); by June 10, a memo was circulating addressing the question of "what is this trip they are asking about, and who is this mysterious ambassador?" 

Of course, both Kristof columns are riddled with errors given to him by Joe Wilson, his no-longer secret source.  Regular readers will recall that last summer I wondered if the NY Times would ever face up to this.  Perhaps their long journey back to the truth has begun.  (Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard has more on Wilson's early misunderstandings and miscommunications).

And for a trip down memory lane, here is an old post:

Excerpting from "The Politics of Truth" by Joe Wilson himself (p. 355), I find Wilson describing a meeting with David Shipley, editor of the op-ed page, at the Times on July 24, 2003:

En route, down a long windowless corridor [inside the Times building] with offices on either side, doors sporting the names of Times writers, we ran into veteran Timesman Robert Semple. David [Shipley] explained that I was "the one who wrote the article on what he didn't find in Africa," and Semple, turning to me, said, "So, you're the one who turned our paper around." The Times had been mired in the scandal surrounding Jayson Blair, the fraudulent journalist whose reporting had been questioned by a number of colleagues. 

Well, they wouldn't want anyone to question their reporting, would they?

MORE:  Did I say that the INR memo "strikes again"?  Folks who remember the Jeff Gannon debacle will remember that the Kos Crew overestimated Gannon's access to intelligence - what they saw as access to classified intelligence looked more like a subscription to the Wall Street Journal.  But they managed to gull Josh Marshall and the NY Times before reality struck.  Background and mockery, for those with Dark Hearts.

Comments

[Ripclawe]

Just a side note with Rove,AP somehow got emails and Rove figured out that Cooper was trying to bait him when he called. These leaks have to be driving fitzgerald nuts.

[peapies]

um ---this new TM post is raher...great, I would say more but that would be ...whatever

this JUMPED

---Of course, both Kristof columns are riddled with errors given to him by Joe Wilson, his no-longer secret source. ---

th crux...powell/tenet, no bother the non-interested (ie 99% of the population) could give a rats ass...

however JM never seems to pontificate on Judy?

[SamAm]

The timing of the INR memo's production and its accumulated frequent flyer miles (Africa's pretty far away) don't look so hot for the White House.

And if Ari knew of it, what are the chances Rove didn't?

[peapies]

sam--read new TM post...the investment gave no returns...sorry about that

[SamAm]

So the best case scenario for the WH is that the memo didn't mention her undercover status?

Let's assume that's correct. The prep time involved shows an administration that wanted to discredit Wilson, that was churning up info about him. Chances that Plame's specific status didn't come up, minus chances that detail was studiously avoided? Pretty small, I'd say.

[Lesley]

Tom, I think the entire comments section of the Beldar Blog (clink link on props to Cecil Turner) of which both you and Mr. Turner were contributors is a must-read for all JustOneMinute fans as it lays out many of the legal issues being tackled by this Grand Jury.

[TM]

The prep time involved shows an administration that wanted to discredit Wilson...

You say that like it is a BAD thing!

Look, if they wanted to "discredit" him in the sense of sliming him by saying, "How are you going to believe a guy who is on his third marriage and probably has a drinking problem", well, that would be bad (Ask John Tower. And I have NO EVIDENCE that Wilson has a drinking problem.)

If, as is the case, they wanted to "discredit" his report by saying (a) it was not, contrary to his assertions, undertaken at the request of Cheney; (b) it was not, contrary to his statements, conclusive; and (3) his non-conclusions were not, contrary to his assertions, widely circulated - well, we could use the word "rebut" rather than, e.g., "slime".

And for Wilson to complain that they slimed me by calling me a liar - well, that is a stronger defense if you aren't one.

[kim]

Wilson makes stuff up and bends rules like a borderline personality. An older name is sociopath, and an even older one is borderline schizophrenic. Kerry is another one.

I blame Joe Wilson for the mess Africa is in today and the mess the Mideast was in until this administration started paying appropriate attention to it.

Well, I suspect his career has some, shall we say, curious, moments. If he acted, representing the US then, as he acts now, I feel assured asserting that he did us diplomatic harm.
============================

[Jabba the Tutt]

"The prep time involved shows an administration that wanted to discredit Wilson...

The prep time involved shows an administration that wanted the truth about Wilson, which would discredit the lying scumbag...

[The Kid]

Today’s WaPo also reports on the memo, but doesn’t have the key details that the NYT’s piece does, but it does add this:

Rove said of the memo that he "had never seen it, had never heard about it and had never heard anybody else talk about it," according to a lawyer familiar with his testimony. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said he can say "categorically" that Rove did not obtain any information about Plame from any confidential source, such as a classified document.

[Martin]

From todays WAPO:

Rove said of the memo that he "had never seen it, had never heard about it and had never heard anybody else talk about it," according to a lawyer familiar with his testimony.(the great Luskin).

And of course Rove said "i didn't know her name,I didn't leak her name."

The thing is these absolute denials come with no expiration date. Like, in 1982 I hadn't heard of Plame either.

Which of you McGruff the Slime Dogs can tell me what
time period Rove is talking about b/c otherwise they're pretty useless.

[kim]

Argumentum ad absurdem, M; I'll give you one guess what time period he was talking about.

Hello, we've been time-machined back there every year for the last two.

At the risk of being repetitive:

June,
July.
Joe'll
lie.
===============================

[Martin]

Well, take the name, the date is no longer Novak's column, since we know he talked to Novak before it was published-and confirmed it to Novak, so he knew it even before that.

So really what's the cut-off date?

[Martin]

Oh right-it's when he learned it from the other journalist-whose name he can't remember.

[kim]

Hey Joe,
C'mon, Fool
Shake us all out o'
Them Summertime Blues.
=========================

[kim]

M: It seems everyone was talking to everyone about it, back in the unspecified time period. Why was that?
==============================

[kim]

Rove will march to and frog in his fortress til his opponents croak.

Wilson turns slowly, slowly, in the wind. Or is that a spit? Let's ask John Dean.
============================

[Martin]

Also from this NYT story: "The C.I.A. was asked by Mr. Cheney's office and the State and Defense Departments to look into the reports."

Hasn't that been attacked as a lie repeatedly on this blog?

[Martin]

And I've yet to understand why Bush would need to hire a personal attorney if the RNC points are correct?

[kim]

Faced with deviousness this deep, I'd get a lawyer, too. People like Wilson can be extremely dangerous people. Just look at all the ones whose lives he has touched, lately.
===============================
============================

[Seven Machos]

Clearly, Marty, people only hire attorneys when they have done something wrong or have something to hide.

[Martin]

Yep. Unless Bush is going to sue the pretzel maker for that choking incident, you're right.

[kim]

You might be surprised just how many people have aspiration incidents with pretzels. For exemplary purposes, try crunching a mouthful of crackers, then breathing in.
============================

[jukeboxgrad]

TM

"we could use the word 'rebut'"

I'm still waiting patiently for someone to explain why Rove found it impossible to "rebut" Wilson without mentioning words such as "Wilson's wife." And without hiding the whole thing behind "double super secret background."

Also, since Rove was simply protecting democracy by setting the record straight, why has he (and the White House) been lying about this for two years?

Also, since making sure that reporters only run accurate articles is a top priority for Rove, why did he say (according to Cooper) that Plame "authorized" Wilson's trip, since there is apparently no support for such a strong claim, outside of Rove's imagination?

KIM

"I suspect his career has some, shall we say, curious, moments"

Please refer me to any sign that anyone on the right was ever critical of Wilson at any time in his long career, prior to the moment when he started blowing the whistle on Dubya's WMD scam. Maybe around 1992, when he voted for Dubya's dad?

[Seven Machos]

What I love about you, Marty, is that you continually demonstrate a patently provincial worldview: Republicans-Evil-Bad-Stupid, under all circumstances. At the same time, your comments show that you think are witty and sophisticated.

It's all highly amusing.

[Martin]

No, the world is much more complicated, I admit, but I have to dumb it down for you guys.

Incidentally, why do you people think its good news that the locus of the leak is now placed on a plane with Bush himself?

No wonder he hired an attorney.

[Seven Machos]

JUKEBOXGRAD

Publicly, American diplomats are supposed to support American policy. Period. They are not supposed to go on network television and write op-eds in the New York Times blasting a war which the U.S. is currently fighting.

If an American diplomat does this, it's bad. If an American diplomat does this and it turns out that much of what he says is wrong, and that he has told lies, and that his claims are based on a negligent investigation which he himself conducted, it's corrupt.

[jerry]

Hmm... nice sober conversation here,eh?

[Seven Machos]

You are right, Marty. We're dumb. Consequently, I'm sure that I speak for everyone when I say that this sentence makes no sense whatseover:

"Incidentally, why do you people think its good news that the locus of the leak is now placed on a plane with Bush himself?"

Indeed, please break this down for me and help me understand this complex sentence. The plain meaning is an implication that President Bush leaked information. I'm sure it's more complex that that. More subtle.

You are the one who has the learnin'. I am counting on you.

[jukeboxgrad]

Seven, you're doing a fabulous job of answering questions I haven't asked while you consistently sidestep the ones I have asked. Very impressive. Also impressive is the way you make questionable statements and then crawl into the woodwork when they're shown to be false. Here's a little reminder for you:

"Valerie Plame was not a clandestine officer."

Talk is cheap, especially yours. I realize that typing those words is easy for you. What's not easy is lifting a finger to even begin to dispute the proof presented here.

[Seven Machos]

Buddy, Valerie Plame was not a clandestine officer for several years before her husband went to Niger. That's a fact.

[SamAm]

TM,

You really miss my point. Put aside the issue of which party (Wilson or the WH) is right about this stuff.

Say Wilson was wrong about everything he reported on. The White House still had to go into damage control mode. Wilson may have been lying through his teeth, but he was still damaging.

So the WH started getting ammo for push-back, more than a month before the NYT op-ed.

They learned his wife was CIA at the very least.

What are the chances they didn't learn she was covert? Not very high.

More pointedly, how did they learn she was CIA without learning she was at least possibly covert?

You can't come up with a plausible scenario in which they learn she's CIA without them either learning of or making an express point not to learn of her status. Remember, she was not officially CIA at that point.

Plus, Novak's non-Rove source clearly knew. If Source X knew, what are the chances his fellow high-ranking administration colleagues didn't know?

[Seven Machos]

SamAm -- She wasn't covert. I think this fact may be somewhat damaging to your argument.

[SamAm]

Oh yeah, the phrase "double super secret background" clearly alludes to the fact that it wasn't public knowledge that Plame was CIA.

Why use it if she's just a regular ole' employee?

[SamAm]

She was NOC (Brewster-Jennings, anyone?). She was not a regular CIA employee.

CIA asked Novak not to publish her name. CIA made a criminal referral. Fitzgerald is still looking into the matter 2 years later. She was not a regular CIA employee, and the very pattern of leaks suggests that fact.

[Seven Machos]

The phrase "double super secret background" clearly alludes to the fact that Rove was to be an anonymous source.

Valerie Plame was a regular CIA employee.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'(b) it was not, contrary to his statements, conclusive...'

That needs to be kept in the forefront. Wilson's entire essay was a classic of the ad ignorantum fallacy (the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence). Wilson is so stupid he still doesn't realize his little trip added nothing to what was known about uranium purchases.

[SamAm]

If it were all on the up-and-up, Judith Miller wouldn't be sitting in jail.

Among other things. Novak's use of the word "operative" being one of them. Or Plame's 1999 FEC filing.

It doesn't say CIA.

[Lesley]

Tom, I've been reflecting on those Beldar comments (BTW Beldar had a small heart attack, may the Lord bless and keep him), especially Mr. Turner's "leak vector" notion. Did I understand you all correctly that Valerie Plame may not have been covert but the operation of which she was a part may have been compromised and that is why the CIA is determined to get to the bottom of this?

[Seven Machos]

Miller chose to go to jail. She can walk out any time she likes.

[SamAm]

Also, the fact that Miller hasn't gotten a genuine waiver is clear evidence that the administration is not fully cooperating and that the White House has lied to the nation when they said all members of the administration were doing so. It also makes me wonder why Bush hasn't fired Miller's source.

[Seven Machos]

SamAm -- Are you cleverly skewering the leftists here, so much so that I'm not quite getting it?

"[T]he fact that Miller hasn't gotten a genuine waiver" -- What is a genuine waiver? How do you know when a waiver is genuine? Perhaps Miller has not gotten a waiver from her source. Rove, Libby, et. ad. naus. signed waivers. Are you questioning the authenticity of what they signed? The quality of the paper?

"It also makes me wonder why Bush hasn't fired Miller's source." Perhaps her source is no longer in the government. Perhaps her source never was in government. Perhaps her source is Wilson, or Plame. Perhaps her source is herself. Perhaps her source is another journalist. Perhaps she has no source because it was common knowledge that Plame has a job working at Langley. What is my source for the fact that it is hot outside today?

[Martin]

nachos-in his brief, Fitzgerald says he know whose source is-its a specific executive branch official.

In his opinion, Judge Hogan says he knows her source is and the person has signed a waiver allowing her to testify.

That's why she's in jail for contempt.

At least stick to the facts.

[Seven Machos]

Let's assume Karl Rove is the exclusive source for everything and everyone, including Miller (though, of course, he is not).

Rove signed a waiver. Miller chose not to testify. The current theory in vogue, then, is that the waiver is somehow not "genuine"? What, exactly, is the standard for authenticity? What would someone have to do to "genuinely" waive this mythical journalistic privilege?

Isn't it more likely that there is a different source? Isn't it more likely that Miller has gone to jail to protect someone who does not wish to have his or her name revealed as a source?

By the way, Marty: I had not heard that the Judge voiced such speculation. If he did, it's unwise. Judges tend to avoid giving opinions on evidence before the evidence is presented.

[martin]

rom the Dc Circuit Appeals opinion:

"In the meantime, on August 12 and August 14, grand jury subpoenas were issued to Judith Miller, seeking documents and testimony related to conversations between her and a specified government official “occurring from on or about July 6, 2003, to on or about July 13, 2003, . . . concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description as the wife of Ambassador Wilson) or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.”

See http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf on pg. 6.

"Specified" in the subpoena, in the week before Novak's column, i.e. Fitzgerald knows who she talked to-he does have phone records.

Fitzgerald doesn't want to know who she talked to, but what they talked about.

These are the conversations Miller won't discuss-and per today's Wapo, Fitzgerald is going to ramp it up to criminal contempt next.

[Seven Machos]

So you have shown that the prosecutor has obtained phone records, Marty. That's impressive. Your intellect knows no bounds. Still, I don't understand how any of this proves your contentions:

"Fitzgerald says he know whose source is-its a specific executive branch official.

In his opinion, Judge Hogan says he knows her source is and the person has signed a waiver allowing her to testify."

I'm just silly and slow, so I'm hoping you can clarify some things for me. Thanks so much for your patience.

[Martin]

Ok-

1. in the subpoena to Miller (still under seal), Fitzgerald names a specific government official who talked to Miller from July 6 to July 13, 2003.

That's from the Appeals opinion quoted above.

2. I can't dredge through the briefs, but here's the Wapo story:

"Yesterday, Hogan questioned the reporters' assertions that they are keeping a promise not to identify a confidential source. In appellate court filings, Fitzgerald has indicated that he knows the identity of Miller's source and that the official has voluntarily come forward.

"The sources have waived their confidentiality," Hogan said. "They're not relying on the promises of the reporters. . . . It's getting curiouser and curiouser."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063000205_pf.html

So Fitzgerald knows the source, and the Judge knows the source, and the source has signed a waiver-according to Judge Hogan.

Now this is apparently the same general waiver that Cooper felt wasn't good enough to testify it was Rove. But Cooper weaseled out anyway.

Miller won't weasel like Cooper-but why won't Miller's source come forward witha specific release?

[Seven Machos]

1. "Fitzgerald has indicated that he knows the identity of Miller's source and that the official has voluntarily come forward." I would suggest that Fitzgerald thinks he knows, because of other evidence that he has.

2. What is a specific release? Is this a special legal document that only super-smart lefties like you know about, Marty? Why should anyone sign a special "Judith Miller Release"? If Miller's source waived but Miller wants to rot in jail, that's her problem, isn't it? She either has a waiver from her source or she doesn't.

I'm guessing that she doesn't, or that she does but she won't talk. In the latter case, the source is probably a government official or former official who is a little more popular with Big Media than, say Karl Rove or Scooter Libby.

[SamAm]

Seven Machos-

If Libby (who's almost certainly her source) signed the gov't provided release to begin with, why not tell the world he wants Miller to testify openly and honestly about their meeting. Why not sign a more explicit release? Why not wave any pretense of source confidentiality?

It's clear that's because Libby doesn't want to increase the chance Miller testifies. Libby is depending on Miller's silence. Miller is helping him obstruct justice, is helping him get away with what are almost certainly indictable behaviors.

Libby is not fully cooperating. That is a cover up.

[Martin]

"She either has a waiver from her source or she doesn't. I'm guessing that she doesn't"

So you're saying Fitzgerald and the Judge are lying?

"or that she does but she won't talk."

Penetrating insight.

SamAm is correct.