Time Out Of Mind (WaPo, Too)

Neither the Times nor the WaPo seem able to keep certain details of the Wilson/Plame/"16 Words" saga in proper order.

Let's start with the Saturday Times:

The saga began when the C.I.A. asked Mrs. Wilson's husband, Joseph, a retired ambassador, to look into claims by the Bush administration that Iraq had been acquiring material for nuclear weapons from Niger. Mr. Wilson published an Op-Ed article in The New York Times debunking those claims.

And, perhaps relying on the paper of record, the Sunday WaPo gives us this:

...In the summer of 2003, Wilson, a former diplomat, accused the White House of using "twisted" intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

He claimed firsthand evidence: At the behest of the CIA, he had flown to Niger in February 2002 to investigate the administration's assertion that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium in the African nation for use in its nuclear weapons program. Wilson returned unconvinced the assertion was true. However, Bush himself made the charge in his 2003 State of the Union address, prompting Wilson to spread word throughout the government and eventually make public his rebuttal.

Both papers cite administration "assertions" or "claims" as the motivation for Wilson's trip.  Please - Wilson went in Feb 2002, and by his own account it was in response to Cheney's questions about a recently circulated intelligence report.

The British White Paper mentioning Iraq's interest in African uranium was released in Sept 2002; Bush gave his famous Cincinnati speech in October 2002, and the 16 Words, as the WaPo correctly notes, were delivered in Jan 2003.  All of this is in the SSCI report, and is hardly confusing.

As to whether Wilson's report constituted a rebuttal, the SSCI is also clear on that:

Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' 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 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.

Whatever.

MORE:  The WaPo continues to amuse as they explain Wilson's motivation:

The Niger claim was central to the White House's rationale for war.

So central that it was not part of either the 2003 State of the Union or Colin Powell's presentation to the UN on the case for war.

And let's duly note the conspiracy theory:

But a new theory about Fitzgerald's aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.

...Conspiracy cases are viewed by criminal prosecutors as simpler to bring than more straightforward criminal charges, but also trickier to sell to juries. "That would arguably be a close call for a prosecutor, but it could be tried," a veteran Washington criminal attorney with longtime experience in national security cases said yesterday.

So let's see - Fitzgerald might try to prove a conspiracy to do something legally that, if done differently, would have been illegal?  Just for starters, every politician who ever consulted with his legal team in order to accept contributions in compliance with the law is guilty of a conspiracy (as Tom DeLay is finding out).

Well, we'll see what Fitzgerald has soon enough.

Comments

[Syl]

After ALL this time, they STILL can't get it straight. What is our press good for again? Certainly not informating the public!

Cheney asks 'what do we know about this'.
The CIA sends Wilson to Niger.
Wilson's report sheds no real light on the matter.
Bush gives his SOTU.
Wilson pulls a Chris Matthews and assumes Bush should personally pay attention to his every word.
Wilson then debunks a strawman in the New York Times.

And they're off....

[SteveMG]

This is just ridiculous that one of the world's leading news organizations cannot get this simple part of the story correct.

Just ridiculous.

Bush did NOT allege in his SOTU address that Iraq was seeking uranium from NIGER. He stated that British intelligence had learned that Iraq was seeking uranium from AFRICA.

His exact words (which took me 2 seconds to find):

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

AFRICA IS NOT NIGER. NIGER IS NOT AFRICA.

What exactly do editors do over there?

Jeebus.

SMG

[Jeff]

TM - It would be great to see you -- and the right -- start talking about the Niger documents. I would love to see your intelligence devoted to that. (That's politically- and truth-seeking-motivated, not idle, flattery.)

But meanwhile, there's what might be a stunner in Newsweek's new article. Isikoff writes,

Tate acknowledges that Libby did indeed tell Miller that Iraq war critic Joe Wilson's wife (Plame) had arranged for Wilson to take a CIA-sponsored trip to Africa to probe reports that Iraq was seeking uranium for a nuclear bomb. But he says Libby did not know Plame's real name nor her undercover status at the CIA.

Not much news there, beyond confirming that Tate's been leaking for Libby, and this: real name? Libby did not know Plame's real name? What does that mean? What name did he know? And is that what all those fools in the White House have been meaning when they say they didn't know or didn't mention Plame's name? In one sense, this may not matter, insofar as -- as Scooter's letter to Miller implicitly allows -- Plame can be, and was, identified by some of the fools without being named. But it has implications for how we understand what info was gained by whom how and passed on to whom. As well as potentially pointing to far more casuistry and weaseling that Clinton ever could have mustered.

Here's a guess: all this time, when people like Scooter have talked about not knowing her name, they mean, of all things, "Valerie Wilson." After all, that was her real name after marrying Joe, wasn't it? And in fact, all along folks like TM have been emphasizing how easily one could discover "Valerie Plame" as being married to Joe Wilson. Well, how easy was it to discover that "Valerie Wilson" was married to Joe Wilson? Maybe not so easy at all. To say nothing of the fact that "Valerie Plame" was apparently her nom de CIA operative for some time, and perhaps even after her marriage to Joe. Which would mean knowledge of her unreal name by some of the relevant actors could actually be pretty damning.

Maybe there's nothing to this, and maybe it really doesn't matter at the end of the day, because we now know that Plame was identified by Rove and Miller even if she was not named one way or the other. But maybe there is something to it.

[Jeff]

One other quick comment: whether Wilson's report constituted a rebuttal or not, that conclusion you cite from the SSCI does not speak to that issue. It only speaks to whether people changed their mind or not. Different issue.

[cathyf]

Libby did not know Plame's real name? What does that mean?

I took that to mean what every participant in this incident with the exception of Joe Wilson has been consistently claiming from Day One. That nobody in the White House and nobody in the DC press corps gave a shit about Wilson's wife's identity beyond the two factoids which explained how Mr. Wilson came to be in Niger. The two factoids being 1) that she knew Mr Wilson (by marriage) and 2) that she knew the CIA WMD analysts (because she is one.) Those two factoids explained how this bozo ended up in Niger, and other than that, nobody cared who she was.

cathy :-)

[rb]

The Butler Report, available for download at

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/report/

is worth the read ... very detailed and factual. Among its conclusions are:

498. The range of evidence described above underlay the relevant passage in the Prime
Minister’s statement in the House of Commons on 24 September 2002 that:
In addition,we know that Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of
uranium from Africa,although we do not know whether he has been successful.
499. Weconcludethat,onthebasisoftheintelligenceassessmentsatthetime,coveringboth
Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy
uranium fromAfrica in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House
of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in
President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
was well-founded.

[SteveMG]

RB:
Thanks for that link.

Lord Butler's report has been brought up a number of times here with little acceptance from those who argue that intelligence was manipulated or "fixed". For some reason, some people just don't think it's credible.

Not sure how exactly they determined that, i.e., not a credible investigation, since we don't know who Lord Butler interviewed or what sources he examined.

If a critic can cite where Butler's sources were incorrectly quoted, then perhaps we can start a debate (hell, I guess).

Remember: it's now what we know NOW, it's what the pre-war intelligence showed. Now, the intelligence may have been _subsequently_ found to have been wrong; but that's irrelevant. The issue was whether it was tenable at the time it was presented.

SMG

[rb]

Well, here is the first page of the list of witnesses:

LIST OF WITNESSES
Ministers
Rt Hon Tony Blair MP - Prime Minister
Rt Hon Jack Straw MP - Foreign Secretary
Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP - Defence Secretary
Rt Hon Lord Goldsmith, QC - Attorney General
Officials
(i) 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office
Jonathan Powell
Tim Dowse
Sir David Omand
John Scarlett
Sir Andrew Turnbull
(ii) Foreign and Commonwealth Office
William Ehrman
Sir Jeremy Greenstock
Sir David Manning
Sir Peter Ricketts
Stephen Wright
(iii) Ministry of Defence
Admiral Lord Michael Boyce
Air Marshal Joe French
Julian Miller
Lieutenant General Andrew Ridgway
Sir Kevin Tebbit
Simon Webb
and four members of the Defence Intelligence Staff
(iv) Members of the intelligence community
Sir Richard Dearlove
Eliza Manningham-Buller
Dr David Pepper
and one member of GCHQ, and two members of the Secret Intelligence Service
International Organisations
Dr Hans Blix

sorry about the formatting ... copied from the PDF

[Jeff]

cathyf - You appear to have lost a grasp of both the meaning of ordinary language and the facts of the case. It may be that Newsweek, or Tate, was imprecise, but in ordinary English, to say, "Libby did not know her real name" is really quite different from saying "Libby did not know her name." To say the latter is to say that Libby never had any knowledge of any name for Plame. To say the former is to say that he had some knowledge of her name, but just not her real name, i.e. maybe he knew her as "Valerie" or "Agent codename WMD-Buster" or -- most sympathetically to Libby now -- "Mrs. Wilson." So there's something there, at the very least Newsweek itself screwed up with its use of English.

Your claim that nobody cared about her identity beyond 1) and 2) is not true to the facts and the way you present 1) and 2) deeply misleading. It's not clear what "caring about her identity" means here, but the point is that it was not a matter of her knowing Wilson and knowing WMD analysts, with her marriage and being a WMD analysts being secondary, worthy of only parenthetical mention. Presumably anyone the CIA would have chosen to go to Niger would have met the non-parenthetical characteristics you mention, or something very much like them, for someone involved. The point of the smear, in part, was that she was his wife and worked for the CIA, so she was involved in getting him sent. And the fact of the matter is that Robert Novak identified her as a CIA operative -- and it is absolutely ludicrous to say that he meant "political hack" -- and he is on record as saying that at the very least her name was given to him, he didn't have to dig it out. Now, what is true is that it remains to be seen whether Rove, Libby et al knew that she was an operative. Maybe they did not break IIPA (as far as I can see all the other elements for having done so are in place). But let's remember what they did is shameful, dishonorable, immoral, and easily a firing offense -- and the latter by any reasonable interpretation of what Bush himself wanted understood at the time, however casuistically he strung his words together.

So it's pretty much not clear what force there is to saying, nobody cared about her identity beyond the fact that she was married to Wilson and worked for the CIA, the agency that sent WIlson on his trip. That's all they needed to care to carry out their smear.

Finally, I have no idea what kind of character Joe Wilson really is, but I find the characterization of him by those on the right to be ridiculous and a continuation of the smear. You can call him a bozo, but doesn't it make any difference that -- to paraphrase Judy Miller -- he was proved fucking right? Any difference? And don't get started by citing what his trip proved and so on. The fact of the matter is that based on what he himself had learned and what he learned from others, he made a judgment that turned out to be right, and the Bush administration was wrong. Period. Who's the bozo in that?

What's more, the smear that he was uniquely unqualified for the Niger trip is complete nonsense. Not only was he an Africa specialist who had also been a top diplomat to Iraq, he had undertaken a previous trip to Niger at the request of the CIA. There's more, but the charge collapses so easily. The smear is just disgusting.

[Shrikeangel]

I don't understand why Jeff keeps using the word "smear". A "smear" is a lie that is intended to diminish the target's reputation.

But Joe Wilson is really married to Valerie Wilson and really was suggested by her to her superiors as a man to send to Niger.

So I fail to see that is a "smear". Maybe Valerie is ashamed to be known as her husband's wife, but whether that be true or not, her marriage to him is a matter of record.

And where is Jeff's proof that Karl Rove had anything to do with anything? Scooter Libby is the name of Judith Miller's source, according to what I've been reading here.

Thirdly, Valerie Plame has been known publicly by that name as Joseph Wilson's wife since at least 1999--since it was published in Who's Who in America then and continuously since.

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/006664.php

[Tm]

So there's something there, at the very least Newsweek itself screwed up with its use of English.

My problem with Isikoff as the writer is that "screwed up" is a heavy favorite.

To take an almost equally interesting example from this very story:

Tate's claim that his client was willing to provide a personal assurance all along drew a sharp rebuke from New York Times lawyer Floyd Abrams. In a blistering Sept. 29 letter faxed hours before Miller's release, Abrams protested that in conversations more than a year ago Tate agreed that a written waiver signed by Libby authorizing reporters to talk about their conversations with him was "by its nature coerced" and that Libby's failure to sign it "would result in his dismissal."

Emphasis added. It seems to me that "Tate agreed" strongly implies that Ambrams suggested - that would be mildly noteworthy, since it would mean that Abrams raised the somewhat unanswerable abstract point - "Gee, Tate, isn't it reasonable for Ms. Miller to consider this waiver to be coerced since it is a condition of Libby's continuing employment?"

But when I go to the actual letter, I see roughly this:

In our letter, you did not say his waiver was uncoerced; in fact, you said the opposite.

Well, now, this does *not* read as if Tate introduced the point.

So, did Isikoff learn elsewhere that Tate raised the point, or did he screw up?

And a classic Isikoff screw-up came when he did a story headlining Russert in which he completely failed to read Russert" rel="nofollow">

Frankly, I would not build a house on a foundation of Isikoff word choices.

And let me add this - since his lead is that the specter of an extension of the grand jury spurred Ms. Miller to negotiate, one might argue (aand I do!) that she really was intent on running out the clock, until he reminded her that she couldn't.

On the Niger docs - I have not punted on that totally - we all waited eagerly for Jos Marshall's big expose, and there just hasn't been much info through which to sift. I have spent an hour here and an hour there on it, and I have never found a promising trail to follow.

[jerry]

Libby's belief that Plame "arranged" Wilson's trip to Niger shows that, directly or indirectly, he is passing info from the June State INR memo - which either falsely (tag the leak?) or mistakenly made this claim.

[Larry]

Jeff, the first paragraph in your 7:03 post is a perfect example of circular logic. I almost skipped the rest.

We're still looking for Saddam's stockpiles of chickpeas. Wilson's report says Iraq approached Niger about trade.

Bush was wrong to say the British government had learned Iraq was trying to buy U from Africa?

[SteveMG]

Jeff:
Joe Wilson is a liar and a fraud and a disgrace to public service.

His allegations in the NY Times were proven to be demonstrably false and total lies. The Butler Report shows them to be false and the Senate investigation shows them to be false. We can throw in the Silberman/Robb report as well although they essentially examined a different area.

Now you continue to dismiss those reports but can not cite one instance where the conclusions of the reports are wrong.

Not one single CIA analyst or intelligence expert or agent has come forward or leaked anonymously to the news media that the Bush Administration fixed a single piece of intelligence.

Wilson is a bum. He's a liar and a fraud. And the evidence shows it.

SMG

[Jeff]

Shrikeangel - 1)The claim was not only that Plame suggested Wilson -- though that appears not even to be true -- but that she was more involved than that. Robert Novak expressed it succinctly to a stranger on the streets of D.C.: "She sent him." 2)You leave a lot out (evidently substituting unwarranted mean mockery for which you should be ashamed, continuing the smear in good robotic fashion). Just off the top of my head: he was unqualified; he's a partisan hack; he was sent because he was married to her; he was sent because the CIA, or the Democrats, or the New York Times, or somebody was out to get poor Bush; he didn't do his job in Niger, all he did was drink tea; nobody gained any knowledge from his trip; his trip provided confirming evidence of WMD; she's a secretary at the CIA; everybody knew she worked for the CIA; and so on. Again, that's off the top of my head, without really trying or going to the documentation.

And where is Jeff's proof that Karl Rove had anything to do with anything? Scooter Libby is the name of Judith Miller's source, according to what I've been reading here.

You evidently have some catching up to do. Rove was Novak's confirming source, and a source for Matt Cooper of Time. Contra what the Bush administration explicitly and seemingly categorically said, both Rove and Libby were certainly involved in spreading the word about and against the Wilsons. For that, they should both have been fired long ago, regardless of the legal disposition of the case.

Thirdly, Valerie Plame has been known publicly by that name as Joseph Wilson's wife since at least 1999--since it was published in Who's Who in America then and continuously since.

I have several genuine questions about this. First, is it Who's Who's convention to list female spouses by their married name or their maiden name, or is there norm or convention? Second, what difference does it make how she was referred to and by whom? Third, does it make a difference to you that her name was in fact "Valerie Wilson"? Fourth, why won't Novak just come out and tell us where he got her name from? Fifth, why do you think Novak walked off the set on CNN just after the Who's Who appears on Ed Henry's desk next to him, and in full knowledge that he is about to be questioned about the Plame matter?

[_Jon]

If she hadn't been a covert agent in a number of years then the release of her name is moot.

[Syl]

Jeff

You sound as if a good man is being smeared and you take umbrage at those who dismiss Wilson.

Wilson is either a liar or is so stupid he doesn't understand the English language. He debunked a strawman! And if he's as smart and sophisticated as he seems to claim, then he thinks his audience is a bunch of stupid idiots who would fall for something like this.

And they did!

Go back and read his piece in the New York Times. He was sent to Niger to check on a memorandum that Cheney wanted more info about. Wilson did not see it. He said it concerned a SALE of uranium to Iraq from Niger.

In his piece he explained how that would not have taken place, and hinted that the document was a forgery.

So...no ACTUAL SALE OF URANIUM to IRAQ from NIGER.

And he says, according to SOP, Cheney would have seen his briefing or would have been informed of it in some manner though he never talked to Cheney himself.

Which is all fine and good (mixed in with his partisan take on the war).

So up pops the 16 words in which Bush NEVER CLAIMS THERE WAS A SALE.

And Wilson gets all outraged! Cheney knew! I'm a big whig and I told the CIA. Cheney HAD TO KNOW there was no sale!!

See THAT's the strawman!

And Wilson accuses the administration of manipulating the intelligence because Bush didn't say what Wilson accused him of saying. The nerve.

And you get upset because we're down on the guy?

[Jeff]

TM - Thanks for the reply, and point well taken, even though you screwed up your "Tate"s and your "Abrams"s, I believe. At least, Isikoff's "real name" is worth a follow-up, however one would do that.

Larry - Since I think you are completely wrong, please be explicit about what about my little piece of ordinary language philosophy is, as you say, is a perfect example of circular logic. I challenge you to show it. I have no idea what your comment about Iraqi chickpease is about. Yes, Bush was wrong to say that the British government had learned Iraq was trying to buy U from Africa. He was wrong to say it if you're the most literally minded Bush worshipper on earth, and he was wrong to say it if you are not. Literal-minded version: it wasn't true, even on the most narrowly weaselly terms, since the British government had learned no such thing, since it wasn't the case. If Bush had said, "The British government has claimed etc etc", then the most literal-minded Bush lovers amongst us might console themselves. But that wouldn't be a very persuasive way of putting things, now would it. Beyond those most literal-minded, Bush was deeply deeply wrong to have said such a thing. We can start with what Tenet said on July 11, in his famous statement.

SMG - Please be specific about which allegations you're talking about. Because in fact I have disputed the conclusions of the SSCI, and I do believe a number of them are wrong and misleading. In addition, while most of the facts in the SSCI report's section on Niger are, best as I can judge, accurate (though, it seems to me, not all of them), they are repeatedly placed in misleading contexts of interpretation and used to present false and misleading impressions, some of which lead to the false and misleading conclusions. One of the ways the report does this is to present facts isolated from what evidently are relevant proximate facts. Just one example: I don't doubt that Plame wrote some memo saying something about her husband being qualified for the Niger trip (which was of course true). But that's just about all we get, and the sense is left that this was an affirmative step taken more or less out of the blue by her. Was this item written in response to some kind of request (as has been claimed on her behalf)? If so, that seems kinda relevant, and it's misleading to leave it out. Did the thing she wrote single out her husband among many people she was asked about, without her acknowledging that she was doing so just because she had particular knowledge of him (which I take it is ordinary procedure in most offices)? Or not? Who knows? Similar things can be said about that infamous meeting on Feb. 19 or whenever it was. For instance, the balance of testimony goes against the idea that she was materially involved in it. Yet that's not the impression left by the report. I could go on, but I don't feel like going back through all the weeds of the report yet again.

Stack up against that the way the Wilsons have been treated by the Bush administration and their allies in politics and in the media, as well as the sheer fact that the Bush administration out and out lied about the the roles or non-roles of Rove and Libby in this matter, and the way the war was justified in public, and so on, and I arrive at a different idea of who is a disgrace to public service.

[Fresh Air]

Jeff--

In order:

1. The convention is to put the maiden name in the listing, IIRC.

2. What difference it makes is that at the time of her supposed outing Plame was no longer covert as defined under the Espionage Act because she was not (a) overseas and (b) clandestine.

3. It makes no difference whether her name was Wilson or Plame.

4. Novak has his own reasons. Ask him.

5. I'm sure Novak is familiar with Who's Who, as he is the first person to report Plame's entry in the book under Joseph Wilson, IV (which entry I have read, by the way--evidently Mr. Wilson likes surfing).

I fail to see what the crime is here, or how, short of someone lying under oath, how there could even be an indictment of anyone in the administration regarding this matter.

[Syl]

The name matters since she's officially covert and that's her identity as a covert officer.

But I haven't seen that anyone used the name 'Plame' outside of Novak.

I don't think for a minute that Wilson's claim is even close to being true (that the administration purposefully outed his wife to punish him). I think they didn't even know she was covert.

I think it was an oh wow moment when they discovered she was CIA and had something to do with his going on the trip.

But then normal caution should have kicked in. They have to find out whether she is or is not covert before they can publicly identify her. (A good percentage of CIA who work at Langely are officially covert.)

But they (excuse the imprecise pronoun) figured they could let others in the press know what they themselves had learned (and learned possibly from the press itself) and then it would be the press's responsibility to find out whether she was covert or not before they identified her in print. (Which is SOP for the press too, when CIA personnel are involved in a story).

In fact, Libby and/or Rove may not have known she was covert and may not even have attempted to find out.

Perhaps they (imprecise pronoun again) thought of the Wilson's wife bit as more of a 'background' type of info rather than a full blown story for the public. Letting the press know what was behind Wilson's trip might possibly change their POV about his claims. (I know, wishful thinking.)

It was Novak who called the CIA to confirm the information he had. The CIA spokesman confirmed and THEN checked on her status. Oops. He's the one who blew it officially which allowed Novak to go to print with her name.

So what was possibly meant for background only, now is a full blown public story.

[Jeff]

Syl - I have no idea if Wilson is a good man, but it is quite clear to me that he and his wife have been and continued to be smeared and defensively and unjustifiably dismissed. I take your central claim to be that Wilson set up and then knocked down a strawman, where that strawman was actual sales of uranium to Iraq by Niger, whereas all the Bush administration used was a claim about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger. I think that is incorrect. Wilson was claiming not only that there was no sale, but that there was no effort to set up a sale, no effort to seek uranium from Niger -- and you know what, from all the evidence, he appears to have been right, regardless of the fact that at the time intelligence people who already believed Iraq was seeking etc etc, and the SSCI partisanly following them subsequently, claimed that Wilson's trip actually strengthened their case. For the evidence that Wilson was right, see the Duelfer report, our own thing on Iraqi WMD. Admittedly, this was to some degree a matter of judgment; but it matters that Wilson's was right, doesn't it? And that he thought it was obviously right, not because of his own abilities, but because it was obvious.

So much for that strawman. But you also mention Wilson's claim that the VP should have and probably did receive a response to his initial question which prompted the CIA to instigate his trip to Niger. You say

Cheney knew! I'm a big whig and I told the CIA. Cheney HAD TO KNOW there was no sale!!

Let's stipulate that Cheney did not in fact know of the results of Wilson's trip. I frankly remain unsure of that -- after all, he asked followup questions as late as the very day Wilson was debriefed, and he was told that there might be new info coming. Did he never follow up again? And we know from Tenet's July 11 statement that the report based on Wilson's trip was circulated in the normal channels, or whatever the language, which to me makes it highly unlikely it didn't make it to the VP's office, though I find it highly believable that, say, Libby would not share the to them unhappy results with his legendarily ornery and single-minded boss. In any case, let's say Cheney did not in fact know. I say: 1)Wilson's claim that he should and ordinarily would have learned of the results is right -- and that's one conclusion from the SSCI report I can endorse! 2)Wilson's confidence that Cheney and the Bush administration did know was misplaced. Instead, there was a big screw-up in the administration. (see 1 above) Wilson did not, however, claim that he knew that Cheney knew. 3) The Bush administration absolutely would have gained my respect if their response to Wilson had been -- as it should have been -- "We did not learn the results of Wilson's trip. Not only should the 16 words never have been included in the SOTU, there was a massive failure in the failure of Wilson's information to make its way to the principal policy-makers in the administration, and we are going to find out how that happened and rectify the problem." And so on. But as we know, instead they sought to discredit Wilson.

[rb]

If working on classified issues that support the intelligence mission of the CIA means that you are 'covert', then everyone there is 'covert'. Of course it doesn't mean that at all, as anyone in the intelligence community will confirm.

Real covert agents have an elaborately crafted false identity and occupation, and one simply cannot be seen going in and out of CIA headquarters openly every day and be known as any kind of CIA employee and be covert.

Foreign intelligence agencies are not in any way fools or asleep on the job.

As I recall, she had been already outed by Aldrich Ames over 6 years ago, and brought back in from the cold because of that. Outing is a one-way street, and un-outing is a bit like trying to unscramble an egg.

[D. Fox]

Re "Who's Who" --

Marquis (the publisher) gets its information from the person being listed. They send you a form and you fill it out. So if Valerie Wilson is listed as "Valerie Plame" in Ambassador Wilson's "Who's Who" entry, it is because Ambassaador Wilson gave that information on the form.

[Syl]

Jeff

You're wrong.

Here's Wilson's piece and NOWHERE does he debunk any claims of ATTEMPTS.

In fact, in a later piece he confirmed he talked with the former minister of trade who said an Iraqi delegation had come wanting to open up trade, which he took to mean uranium.

Wilson actually confirmed an attempt. He did not debunk it.

So, with that in mind, it doesn't matter whether nor not Cheney saw anything regarding Wilson's conclusions or not! Wilson debunked a SALE. He did NOT debunk an ATTEMPT.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

[Syl]

rb

Her status was officially covert.

Doesn't matter what we think it should be. The official status is what counts.

The CIA had started the process of moving her off NOC a few months prior. But nothing had been done yet.

There are many employees at Langley who are officially covert. They even have a separate cafeteria. As I said, it's not what we think it should be. It's what it is.

[Jeff]

Fresh Air and Syl -- Thanks for the pair of responses. First, on the covert issue, I thought apart from boris, we're all agreed that she was covert. (Also, Fresh Air, i think you're talking about the requirement of IIPA, not the Espionage Act, right?) I take your answer to 1., Fresh Air, to rightly contradict Shrikeangel. Syl says

The name matters since she's officially covert and that's her identity as a covert officer.

But I haven't seen that anyone used the name 'Plame' outside of Novak.

Right, but that's exactly why I got all excited by the Isikoff article -- though my excitement has been cooled by TM's skepticism. Because one interpretation consistent with that article was that perhaps Libby did know "Valerie Plame," he just didn't know that her real name was Valerie Wilson, and that would push him in the direction of knowing her in her covert capacity. And that is exciting because I agree with you that knowledge of her covert status is the weak point in any IIPA prosecution here. In any case, the scenario you sketch is still pretty damning. Rove, Libby et al decide to let the press work it out for the sake of politics rather than taking care with intelligence assets themselves. The other thing is that it will be interesting to hear what people testified to under oath regarding the Novak-Harlow interaction, since the press reports are still inconsistent and open to dispute.

[Syl]

re the Novak-Harlow interaction, the only report we have is Novak's. Anything else used Novak as the source. We have heard nothing from Harlow AFAIK.

But, I will say this, Novak is an old hand and knows the rules. He's probably called the CIA for confirmation or whatever thousands of times.

[Jeff]

Syl says

Here's Wilson's piece and NOWHERE does he debunk any claims of ATTEMPTS.

In fact, in a later piece he confirmed he talked with the former minister of trade who said an Iraqi delegation had come wanting to open up trade, which he took to mean uranium.

Wilson actually confirmed an attempt. He did not debunk it.

Believe it or not, i was familiar with all of these claims, and I had them precisely in mind when I wrote the post you're replying to. I think your claims are wrong. Basically, Wilson made the judgment that from what he had learned not only was there no sale, there was no effort to seek a sale. That judgment obviously took into account everything he learned, including the business about setting up a trade deal. Again, other people obviously latched onto that item to make different judgments. The point is the man himself judged otherwise. Wilson did not confirm an attempt by Iraq. Other people interpreted something he came up with in such a way as to confirm an attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium. Wilson himself interpreted it as part of a disconfirmation of such an attempt. And surely it must make some difference to you that he is right, as best as we can tell? Among other things, see the Duelfer report here.

Again, you may say you are not satisfied that WIlson's arguments do, as a matter of your judgment, add up to a debunking of attempts by Iraq to acquire uranium. Fine. But he clearly thinks they do, and that is what he is doing, or attempting to do. You think he doesn't succeed; but it's what he's doing. Surely you have to admit this makes much more sense than interpreting Wilson as saying, "Bush said X, I say Y, which is not not-X, but not-X nevertheless."

[Jon H]

For people hanging onto the excuse that Plame was only identified as "Wilson's wife", I suggest you try posting a threat to "Laura Bush's husband", then using the same excuse when the Secret Service comes for you.

I assure you, the excuse that you didn't threaten the President, you just threatened "Laura Bush's husband" won't get you very far at all.

[rb]

So if it is well known in my neighborhood that someone there works at Langley, and I say he does in conversation, and turns out he was using the 'other' lunchroom when his name gets in the paper, what then?

The 'official' knowledge of who is actively convert has got to be extremely closely held on a need to know only basis, else the entire designation is nonsensical.

So how would various others 'know' this unless the horse was already out of the barn anyway and visible as such to foreign operatives?

[Jon H]

"The 'official' knowledge of who is actively convert has got to be extremely closely held on a need to know only basis, else the entire designation is nonsensical."

If you go to the CIA website, you'll find that several top administrators are described as having secret identities:

"The Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is currently under cover and cannot be named at the present time. Assisted by an Executive Board and the Directorate of Support, the EXDIR manages the CIA on a day-to day basis."

"The Directorate of Operations is responsible for the clandestine collection of foreign intelligence. The current director is under cover and cannot be named at the present time."

This is right there on the About the CIA page.

Now, what would happen if, say, Bob Novak wrote a column saying that "Jane Smith's husband is the current director of the Directorate of Operations at the CIA" ?

That person would be outed. It would be trivial to determine who Jane Smith is married to.

[Jon H]

Oh, and apparently Plame's neighbors had no clue she worked at the CIA.

[DANEgerus]

Ambassador's wives pictured on the cover of Vanity Fair are covert?

Joe Wilson(D) said he wanted to see Karl Rove "frog marched" out of the White House before he ran an 'errand' for his CIA employed wife, that he lied about, where he in fact confirmed Saddam was trying to add to the 400 tons of Yellow cake previously purchased from Niger, but Joe Wilson(D) lied about that too...

Bankrolled by the Kerry campaign's funding of his website restorehonesty.com Joe Wilson(D)'s frauds were paraded by the MSMs repeatedly including the faux-impeachment hearing in which Conyers & Sheehan embraced the anti-Semitic rantings of Ray McGovern

So these offensive lies of omission are just part of the MSMs toolbox...

[Jon H]

"Ambassador's wives pictured on the cover of Vanity Fair are covert?"

She'd already been outed, Einstein. Or do you think foreign governments have time-travel equipment allowing them to carry the Vanity Fair issue back to when her association with the CIA was a secret?

[Jeff]

Danegerus pretty much has the talking points nailed, and pretty much makes my point for me. Take, for instance, his opening comment:

Ambassador's wives pictured on the cover of Vanity Fair are covert?

Um, DANEgerus, you might want to go back and check the pub date on that Vanity Fair, and compare it with the date of when Plame was exposed by Robert Novak's piece. I think you might find that the second event took place before the one you mention, so that provides you with a pretty good explanation for how she was not covert at the time of the Vanity Fair thing (which was a tactical mistake, as DANEgerus nicely if moronically illustrates).

Or again, note that DANEgerus smears both Wilson and his wife by saying he ran an errand for her, that is, she sent him to Niger (plus a little feminization of Joe Wilson for good measure).

There are numerous other falsehoods here. I have one question for DANEgerus: is it possible -- is it just possible -- that Wilson became an opponent of George W. Bush because of what he learned about the Bush administration, rather than seeking to undermine the Bush administration because he already hated them? Is that possible? Or let me put it this way: have you ever even considered the possibility? You seem to have relevant chronology problems here too.

Oh yeah, I forgot, the MSM (or for DANEgerus the multiple MSMs) did it. They did it all.

[Syl]

Jeff

Sorry. Your spinning does you no good.

What started this whole thing?

The NY Times piece.

SHOW ME where Wilson debunked an ATTEMPT.

You can't. He debunked a SALE.

Everything else flowed from that piece.

[Jon H]

"Everything else flowed from that piece."

And yet, nothing Wilson ever wrote justified the administration's reckless outing of a CIA agent.

[Jeff]

Syl,

You want text, here's text:

In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

Wilson clearly thinks the facts as he understood them -- which obviously include what he learned about Iraqis approaching Niger about trade -- did not support the actual claim in the British White Paper and in the SOTU regarding efforts by Iraq to seek uranium from Niger. Now, you can disagree and say he should have thought otherwise (even though, from what we now know, Wilson turned out to be right and you would have turned out to be wrong). But he didn't.

Again: you can say he didn't debunk an attempt, as a matter of fact. But that's certainly what he thinks he's up to. He is not setting up a strawman, in other words. He knows full well what the President's claim is, and says that what he learned in Africa doesn't support it. That's not spin on my part. That's an accurate interpretation of the op-ed from which, you say, everything else flowed.

One more time: Wilson was indeed sent to Niger with the question, was there a sale? He comes back with the answer, there's nothing to it. And such an answer encompasses efforts by Iraq to seek uranium from Niger, not just an actual sale. You can make the claim, if you want, that he shouldhave come to a different conclusion until the cows come home (and it doesn't look like they're ever coming home). But the fact remains that he didn't come to your preferred conclusion, he came to his own, which was contradictory to what the President claimed in the SOTU.

So basically if you just clear up the ambiguity in the way you use the word "debunked", it all comes together.

[syn]

The fact that Joe Wilson went to the NY Times puts the whole story in the garbage can. How much more of this 'all the lies we want you to know that's fit to print' will it take before the public realizes this newspaper is worthless.

As for Joe Wilson, all he did was sip tea by the poolside. Big deal.

[Warmongering Lunatic]

Jeff --

We still run into the fact that while Niger is in Africa, it is not even remotely the whole of Africa. Bush never made any claims about Niger, Wilson had no information about the rest of Africa. Wilson:

a) could not rationally come to the conclusion that Iraq never sought uranium in Africa, because he knew nothing about the situation in uranium producers like the DR Congo or South Africa;

b) could not give the Administration any evidence that Iraq did not attempt to acquire uranium from non-Niger Africa, because he knew nothing about the situation in uranium producers like the DR Congo or South Africa, and;

c) admits himself, with the "suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger" bit, that he does not know that the claim had anything to do with Niger.

If he couldn't know if Iraq tried to acquire uranium from non-Niger Africa, and didn't know if the Africa claim was based on Niger, how could he possibly debunk the claim?

By analogy, let's say I did a thorough investigation of a report of a Space Shuttle launch attempt from Utica, New York in 1995, and found no evidence for such a launch attempt. Let us then say that forgeries circulate claiming an attempt was made from New York State. And then let's assume Bush announced that the U.S. in 1995 had made an attempt to launch a Space Shuttle from American soil. Would my saying, "I went to New York, and there were no launches from New York, and if Bush was refering to the claimed New York launches he was wrong" in any way refute the claim that a Shuttle launch was attempted from the U.S.?

Of course not. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together can figure out that, 1) lots of places in America are not New York, and 2) my investigation may have been mistaken anyway.

However, I'd apparently become a hero to the American left, hailed as the man who debunked Bush's claims that the U.S. tried to launch Space Shuttles.

[rastajenk]

I haven't followed all this as closely as most of you have, but one aspect that I think gets underplayed is that uranium production and processing in Niger is under control of the French. So, just because the official documents that Wilson sees and the people he speaks with don't support an Iraqi attempt, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Surely the French have plenty of reasons to obscure the truth.

[RogerA]

I simply have not followed this story very closely--clearly many people have. It seems to me that those supporting the president policy clearly see Wilson as a fraud; those opposed to the President see Wilson as a hero. At the risk of being overly cynical, this whole affair smacks of typical Washington DC insider stuff--internecine bureaucratic warfare between State INR and CIA analysts--and lets see: wasnt Judy Miller a WMD guru for the NYT fishwrap? And presumabably she would be quite conversant with CIA analysts in her role of WMD pimp--And looks like she has more than one source she is protecting--hmmmm: connecting the dots tends to lead me back to Wilson or Plame as the unnamed source.

This whole affair has long since decended into farce--which says a lot about the relationship of the press and washington politics, none of which is a very pretty sight.

[boris]

Her status was officially covert.

Doesn't matter what we think it should be. The official status is what counts.

Sorry, does not compute. Regs might be totally FUBAR but this has a glaring logical flaw.

(1) Of all CIA employees some are covert status
(2) which ones are covert status is classified
(3) we can talk about the non covert all we want
(4) we cannot mention the covert at all
(5) we have no idea which is which
(6) therefore we are screwed no matter what

If you want to clarify this situation you may do so but as described it's nonsense.

[Jeff]

Warmongering Lunatic - Believe it or not it's not only people on the right who have more than two brain cells. We realize that Wilson's claims went to Niger, partly because that's what he said in his op-ed. Now, Bush didn't explicitly refer to Niger in the SOTU. But: 1)What do you make of the fact that the 16 words were retracted, you know, right after Wilson wrote his op-ed? 2)What do you make of the Duelfer report's finding no evidence that Iraq sought uranium abroad after 1991? 3)Where's all the evidence of non-Niger African uranium-seeking?

Bush never said the word "Niger." He said the word "Africa." From the evidence we have, claims about seeking uranium in Niger were a major, if not the principal, support for the claim made in the SOTU. We understand that. It's you who seem to have the problem.

[Appalled Moderate]

If Fitz starts indicting on a theory of conspiracy, I sure hope he indicts the person who first leaked to Novak. Because that's neither Rove or Libby.

I have a feeling Fitz's office is mulling options right now, based on what they have. These may not be serious options, but they are floating in the air. And someone leaked one of the options, without any consideration for how seriously it is being taken. Because I don't see how you make a conspiracy charge stick against Libby and Rove unless it can be demonstrated they knew Plame was covert. I do not see a jury convicting on that. Maybe there is some kind of duty of care here, and a reckless disregard of this sort of thing for political purposes can support an indictment. Thoughts?

Personally, I think what these people did was slimy and that the Prez should fire their rumps. But not every sleazy act is illegal, or deserving of attention of the judiciary. I wish the people who scream impeachment, indictment whenever their policy wishes are not being honored would begin understanding that. We see too much of the legal adversarial approach in our politics these days, and it is one of the reasons the nation is so often both polarized and ineffective.

[boris]

I think what these people did was slimy

Subjective based on your politics.

What the Wilsons did was subversive.

Based on their actions and intent.

Exposing Wilson's wife wasn't vindictive, it was part of the story. Anything classified about her status at the CIA was a technicality, and nobody revealed that until Joe.

[kim]

More mask-pulling AM. That 'reviewing of options' from Fitz's office is actually based on speculation from witnesses' lawyers, who talked to Fitz. That it is being characterized as a 'leak' or a clue to Fitz's thinking is more of the school of herrings being taught by Principled Professors of Pseudojournalism.

I'm intrigued by Cap'n Ed's conjectures about more grand juries, and further questions.

Bear in mind that Big Bob keeps referencing that more questions about Iraq and uranium may be asked. Maybe that Yellow Cake ain't depleted, yet.
==============================================

[Jon H]

RogerA writes: "wasnt Judy Miller a WMD guru for the NYT fishwrap? And presumabably she would be quite conversant with CIA analysts in her role of WMD pimp--And looks like she has more than one source she is protecting--hmmmm: connecting the dots tends to lead me back to Wilson or Plame as the unnamed source."

Except that John Bolton, who also worked on WMD issues, was in contact with Miller, and even visited her in the slammer.

Bolton's a far more likely suspect than Wilson or Plame.

[Jon H]

boris writes: "What the Wilsons did was subversive."

Luckily, this is the United States, not Stalinist Russia. Perhaps you would have been more at home in the USSR.

[kim]

No, but Pinch might have effectively published Pravda.
===============================================