Jack Shafer Gets Results! (But What Are They?)

Jack Shafer takes up the puzzle of the Nick Kristof column that started it all:

A fossil hunter in search of the origin of the Valerie Plame affair would probably trace it to New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof's May 6, 2003, piece, "Missing In Action: Truth." The column cites anonymous sources to report that a former U.S. ambassador had been "dispatched to Niger" after the office of the vice president requested more information about a purported uranium deal between Iraq and Niger.

Ahh, but the column was based on some errors, or miscommunications, or something, a point we have belabored seemingly endlessly.

But now Jack Shafer gets results:

Addendum, 7 p.m.: Sometime between my morning interview with Kristof and this moment, the columnist posted to his Times Web page a clarification to his May 6, 2003. (You must be a Times Select reader to view the clarification.) So far, so good.

That is my tipping point - as a home subscriber, I am entitled to Times select for free.  Free!  It is only the baffling sign-up procedure of Times Reject that has daunted me the last three times I tried to exercise my rights, thereby depriving my readership of selected excerpts from MoDo's finest thinking on the events of the day (no, the emailed complaints have not been piling up.)

We are undaunted!  Fourth time lucky!

But before we bash on, let's note a few points - first. Mr. Shafer includes an appropriate and understated tribute to Mr. Kristof in his column, which we will repeat here:

What distinguishes Kristof from the usual op-ed blowhard is his devotion to reporting, especially of the get-out-of-New-York-and-Washington variety. You may recall that he and his wife Sheryl WuDunn shared a Pulitzer Prize for their Tiananmen Square coverage.

For more contemporaneous examples he could have mentioned Mr. Kristof's coverage of Darfur, or of the Pakistani rape victims.  We don't always keep fairness and perspective front and center here at JustOneBashing, but we would like to imagine it is lurking around the fringes of our coverage.

Secondly, let's note the odd symmetry - both the Nick Kristof and Judy Miller journalistic puzzles surfaced around the time that Howell Raines was stepping aside and Bill Keller was taking over as a consequence of the Jayson Blair debacle in June 2003.  Mr. Keller explained recently that he deferred a look at Ms. Miller's WMD reporting (covered here by the unrelenting Jack Shafer) because the Times was in turmoil.  Might that also explain the long delay in the Kristof coverage?

MORE:  Hey, we are lucky!  Here we go, from Mr. Kristof's "not a blog" at the Times, rather than his column: [LATE UPDATE:  Nick Kristof made substantial, unnoted revisions to his original post in response to the criticisms below, so some of the excerpts below are now passe.  More here.]

The indictment of Scooter Libby has called attention to my May 6, 2003, column, in which I wrote about the Niger uranium events. Some bloggers on the right have been fuming about the column – and since I’m big on Cheney opening windows and being transparent, here’s my effort to do the same.

OK, trench warfare - Bob Somerby was on this too, and much as I would love to think of him as a righty, he would never have it.

One of the criticisms from the right is that it sounds as if the vice president dispatched Wilson to Niger, but I don’t buy that objection. The wording in the column is simply that Cheney asked for more information about the uranium deal, and then the former ambassador was dispatched. And that’s what happened.

Oh, bother.  Here is where what might have been a good thing goes sour.  On more than one occasion, more than one person has noted that Mr. Kristof wrote TWO columns with Joe Wilson as a key source.  Let's go to the lead of his June 13 column:

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.

"At the behest".  Do I need to get a dictionary?  Do I need to count how many times Chris Matthews used the exact word "behest" on his June 9, 2003 show (the show that might have prompted Lewis Libby's irate call to Tim Russert, for those scoring at home.)

Fine.  Per Merriam, "Behest" means:

"an authoritative order : COMMAND;2 : an urgent prompting"

And Chris Matthews used "behest" twice, and "request" once to describe Cheney's role in directing the Wilson trip.  Let's not pretend that the May 6 Kristof column is the only problem, or that the June 13 column had no impact.

In fairness, though, it is true that Cheney apparently didn’t know that Wilson had been dispatched. If I’d known that I would have said so.

So now we know.  Of course, DCI Tenet said that on July 11, 2003, but hey.

The better objection is that the references to the documents themselves make it sound as if the envoy had the documents in possession, while in fact he didn’t.

"Better objection"?  Grrr.  How about "the excellent objection, as contrasted with the merely very good one"?

Wilson has said that he misspoke when he made references to the documents to me and to two other journalists. By the time we spoke in 2003, these problems in the documents had been pointed out and were in the public domain, but apparently not in early 2002. So while it’s possible that he reported that the signatures were wrong, that seems to me unlikely.

Emphasis added, and I don't even know what Kristof means.  Wilson has also said (to Paula Zahn) that those anonymous statements were "either misquotes or misattributions".

Is Kristof saying it is unlikely that Wilson reported that the documents were wrong?  Well, on the one hand, yes, we all agree it is unlikely that he debunked forgeries he had not seen. 

Per the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Wilson had not seen any documents at all, summaries or otherwise (although the summaries were discussed, and folks were quite cagey in describing to the Senate just what Wilson was allowed to see).  But let's add this - anything Wilson saw at his meeting with the CIA and other intel people preceded his trip to Niger.  Did he masterfully debunk a few summaries, then leave to learn about Niger and enjoy the tea?  Hey, maybe he is that good.

But then again, in his July 11, 2003 statement, DCI Tenet said this:

There was no mention in the report [based on Wilson's debriefing] of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.

So, with Mr. Kristof on board at least we all have come together and agreed that it is unlikely that Wilson debunked any forgeries.  But when Kristof says "it’s possible that he reported that the signatures were wrong", let me ask - reported to whom?  Kristof was there, wasn't he, taking notes and all.  What is "possible" about it?  Did it or did it not happen, or doesn't Kristof know?

Is Kristof saying that his column misrepresented or misquoted Wilson?  Or did Wilson misspeak, or embellish his discoveries in talking to Kristof?  Say the magic words.  Please.  And while on this point, let's not overlook the June 13, 2003 column, which repeated the same story about debunked forgeries.  Did Kristof really mis-hear Wilson on two occasions?  It's possible!  And I suppose we could follow up with Walter Pincus and the earnest toilers at the New Republic, whose gory stories were documented by Matthew Continetti.

But Mr. Kristof is moving on:

There’s also a suggestion from the right that Wilson was wildly spinning me and others and exaggerating how strongly he debunked the deal.

Really?  By odd coincidence, Wilson joined the Kerry campaign as an advisor in mid-May 2003.  I am straining to think of a linkage, or a reason for Wilson to spin anyone. 

So where does that leave us? I think that the attacks on Wilson are overdone. He clearly was wrong in any hinting that he had seen the documents, but he has acknowledged that.  He may have exaggerated how strongly he debunked the documents, but that seems to depend a bit on who was listening.

Well, he acknowledged to Paula Zahn that the anonymous leaks about debunked forgeries were due to the sloppy reporting of others, including Mr. Kristof.  Quite a stand-up guy.  As to "that seems to depend a bit on who was listening", what does that mean?  Kristof, Pincus of the WaPo, and Judis and Ackerman of The New Republic all misheard him?  If this is a correction or clarification, I am about ready to turn to something simpler, like the Sunday crossword.

More generally, I find the attacks on a private citizen like Wilson rather distasteful. Sure, he injected himself into the public arena with his op-ed column and TV appearances, and so some scrutiny is fair. But I figure it's more important to examine and probe the credibility of, say, the vice president than a retired ambassador.

Uh huh.  The credibility of a private citizen who is working as an adviser to the Kerry campaign is off limits when he is, uhh, misheard all over Washington.

Well, if it will raise Mr. Kristof's comfort level, let's not pretend it is all about Wilson - we are delighted to point out that this is also an attack on the journalistic practices at the Times.

Just for example, Wilson's July 6 op-ed more or less contradicted some of the key points in the early Kristof columns.  For instance, Wilson wrote that:

"As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged..."

Did that tinkle any bells at the Times?  Right about July 6 might have been a good time for Mr. Kristof to offer an "Ooops" column.  Or maybe the Times editors could have alerted their readers to the possibility that their guest contributor had been changing his story over the past few months.  Or something.

Let's see how the Times described Mr. Wilson in his signed guest piece:

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.

Well, he was also an adviser to the Kerry campaign, back when Kerry was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.  Did the Times fail to detect that in their sleuthing, or did they think people would laugh at loud over their Sunday coffee if they read, basically, "Kerry adviser attacks Bush".

And was the Times utterly unaware that Ms. Wilson was at the CIA, in the same division that was locked in a bitter dispute with the White House over the use of pre-war intelligence?  Andrea Mitchell of NBC knew that Ms. Plame was at the CIA (and said it was widely known among reporters on that beat), but she did not know where in the CIA.  And, per Vanity Fair, Nick Kristof had breakfast with Mr. and Mrs. Wilson while Joe told his story.  Did they exchange knowing looks?  (We will parse Mr. Kristof's "denial" at the bottom).

Maybe a Times investigation would have prompted the following hypothetical identification of Mr. Wilson, author of the guest op-ed:

Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former Ambassador to Gabon, is a Kerry adviser.  Mr. Wilson is married to a CIA officer engaged in a dispute with the White House  and his story has been changing over the past few months, but here is his latest version.

That would have made for honest, but possibly low-impact, journalism.

Oh, well, hail progress.  Mr. Kristof acknowledges what?  He spoke to Wilson, and mistakes were made.  A bold first step.

DID Mr. Kristof use Valerie Plame as a source?  See below:

On Oct. 11, 2003, Mr. Kristof broke major news about Ms. Plame's history at the CIA, telling us that she was moved into an early retirement path in 1994 after possibly being outed by Aldrich Ames.

He also described his own reporting relationship with Ms. Plame:

I know Mrs. Wilson, but I knew nothing about her CIA career and hadn't realized she's "a hell of a shot with an AK-47,'' as a classmates at the CIA training "farm,'' Jim Marcinkowski, recalls. I'll be more careful around her, for she also turns out to be skilled in throwing hand grenades and to have lived abroad and run covert operations in some of the world's messier spots. (Mrs. Wilson was not a source for this column or any other that I've written about the intelligence community.)

Well.  "I knew nothing about her CIA career" might mean:

(a) I had no idea she was at the CIA;

(b) I knew she was at the CIA, but I had no idea what she did. 

(c) I know what she is doing at the CIA *now*, but I had no idea of the career path that brought her here.

"Mrs. Wilson was not a source for this column or any other that I've written about the intelligence community" is a bit better, but what an odd caveat to include "about the intelligence community" - were the May 6 and June 13 columns about the intelligence community?  Or were they about Dick Cheney and the White House misuse of intelligence, with the intelligence community as minor players?  Was Ms. Plame a source for some unrelated column from yesteryear about, for example, Iran's nuclear aspirations?

I would think a direct statement would be easy and appropriate - was Ms. Plame a source for the May 6 column, and/or the June 13 column?  Was she a source for any earlier columns?

If this Oct 11, 2003 denial is meant to be a denial, then there is no harm in clarifying it.

Of course, if it is meant to be a tap dance, well, here we go again.

And yes, I understand that there are source confidentiality issues.  But there is also a little issue of journalistic ethics - if the Times ran the Wilson piece without disclosing the marital conflict of interest, and then sat back and wrung their hands about the leak of infromation which their reporter already knew, well, that is a problem too.

Comments

[BurbankErnie]

TM,
You give this pinhead too much credit. He didn't even admit mistakes were made. He put all the blame on those terrible right wing blogs.

I think everyone who can read this should email this particular pinhead (and I AM being nice) the link to your article and also to Dupes R Us, a fantastic article you mentioned by Matthew Continetti.

And the beat goes on....

[Jeff]

On the question of debunking the documents, there are three different things: 1)debunking the documents; 2)seeing the documents; 3)asserting that the names were wrong and the dates were wrong. Wilson did not see the documents. The CIA, along with a host of other government agencies apparently, had verbatim text of the forged documents back in February 2002. These were discussed with Wilson at the February 19, 2002 meeting. It would be nice to know whether the issue of whose names should be and were reported to be on the documents and when the documents dated from was discussed. My bet is yes. Regardless of that point, when Wilson, to his own satisfaction, discovered that no agreement between Niger and Iraq did or could have taken place as alleged by the verbatim text of the documents, that effectively debunked the documents as forgeries. Let's not forget too that Wilson himself did not write up his own report; it was written up by others after having debriefed Wilson. emptywheel has an interesting post on these issues and much else, going along with an ongoing series by eriposte over at the Left Coaster.

[boris]

The wording in the column is simply

Which Kristof's fellow journalists "misinterpreted" in exactly the same way and used the "misinterpreted" interpretations to challange the administration.

Responding to "misinterpreted" interpretations is the fault of the "misinterpreted" challanges not the postclinton reading comprehension of the right.

[Anonymous Liberal]

I entirely agree that Kristof's "correction" is cryptic and strange (not to mention way overdue). I also agree that Wilson has made some questionable statements and should not be lionized as some sort of hero by the Left. He's just a guy who's milking his 15 minutes.

That said, I agree with Kristof that the Right's criticism of Wilson is a little distasteful. It's been entirely over-the-top. I find it comical that so many on the Right (not you, TM) are so anxious to parse Wilson's every word, but don't seem to be bothered by blatant lying by White House officials both publicly and under oath. Even if Wilson is a total crackpot, he's just a private citizen. His overstatements and embellishments were not under oath. He didn't 'out' anybody. Wilson is a distraction, a way for the Right to ignore the conduct that is actually at issue in this affair.

Wilson's actions and statements in no way justified the outing of his wife or the perjury and obstruction afterwards. Is the rule that if some private citizen lies, then White House officials get to lie too, even under oath?

When Clinton was President, lier after lier wrote stories and went on TV accusing him of all sorts of things, including rape and murder. There was an entire legion of muckrakers dedicated to lying about Clinton. But that certainly wouldn't have justified or mitigated illegal conduct on the part of Clinton's White House, even if it was just in response. White House officials don't have carte blanche to do whatever you want just because private citizens are lying about them. Nor should they.

I appreciate the fact that this site has dedicated a significant amount of time to exploring the real issues here, i.e., whether or not there was official misconduct. Lazy media scribes (like Kristof) and annoying blowhards (like Wilson) deserve their share of criticism. I just wish more conservatives (again, not you TM) would realize that however poorly Joe Wilson or the media have behaved, that is at best a side issue and certainly does not justifiy or excuse the conduct of White House officials.

[pollyusa]

To add to Jeff's excellent post, here is the text found in the SSCI regarding details of the verbatum text dicussed at the 2/02 meeting Wilson attended.

The INR analyst's notes also indicate that specific details of the classified report on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal were discussed at the meeting,
SSCI

That Wilson came away from that meeting, without actually seeing the report, with knowledge that the IC thought that "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong" seems quite likely.

[Sue]

I am a private citizen. The CIA isn't asking me to go debunk that 'crazy story' in Niger. The CIA isn't meeting me at my house to debrief me. I am not shopping a bogus story to journalists. I am not joining the Kerry team as an advisor. I am not making speeches at EPIC. I am not writing op-eds in the NYTs. I am not being photographed for Vanity Fair. Joe Wilson quit being a private citizen when he went on a mission for the CIA, came back and talked about it. I am a private citizen.

[Cheez-Wiz]

Oops Libby lied again. He plead not guilty.

[topsecretk9]

It would be nice to know whether the issue of whose names should be and were reported to be on the documents and when the documents dated from was discussed.

then it would appear to be a mute point, because Wilson has told us...

Well, I'm not exactly sure what public comments they're referring to. If they're referring to leaks or sources, unidentified government sources in articles that appeared before my article in "The New York Times" appeared, those are either misquotes or misattributions if they're attributed to me.

but from the SSCI, we learn

On February 20, 2002, CPD provided the former ambassador with talking points for his use with contacts in Niger. The talking points were general, asking officials if Niger had been approached, conducted discussions, or entered into any agreements concerning uranium transfers with any "countries of concern". The talking points also focused on whether any uranium might be missing from Niger or might have been transferred and asked how Niger accounts for all of its uranium each year. The talking points did not refer to the specific reporting on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, did not mention names or dates from the reporting, and did not mention that there was any such deal being reported in intelligence channels.DO officials told Committee staff that they promised the former ambassador that they would keep his relationship with CIA confidential, but did not ask the former ambassador to do the same and did not ask him to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement. The former ambassador left for Niger on February 21, 2002.

'The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged."

and
Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue.

[RogerA]

I am perplexed at anonymous liberals protestations--lets review the indictment against Libby--for lying to the investigators and grand jury--NO indictments for "outing," white house conspiracies or the like--

As a conservative, I am all for throwing the book at Libby for lying; I dont believe you will find a real conservative who views Libby's actions as reprehensible.

The Fitzgeral did his investigation professionally, without leaks, and the white house did not demonize him or his investigation--Indictments were made, and a trial will proceed.

I might also take issue with your statement about Wilson as a private citizen--he was serving as a retire FSO-1 as a representative of the USA and I will be we was carrying a red passport.

Go back and review the indictments, AL--you are assuming a lot of facts not evidence.

[RogerA]

apoogies--second graf my post--"I dont believe you will find a real conservative who views Libby's actions as OTHER THAN reprehensible.

[Brutus]

This Kristof response is disgraceful. Kristof is being intellectually dishonest, plain and simple, in calling Wilson a private citizen. He knows that is not true in any sense of the term when it comes to this story.

The intellectual dishonesty goes further. There is a story, plausible and capable of investigation, as to why Wilson was picked for the trip and what motivated him throughout this affair. Not merely a "right wing" theory but a verifiable story: the backdrop of the already widely-reported war between the CIA and White House, the odd choice of someone outside the CIA to investigate the Niger claims -- coupled with the views of at least some at the CIA that existing agency assets could do a better job than Wilson on this issue, the failure to require him to sign an NDA, the discrepancies between what Wilson told his debriefers and what he told Kristof and the rest of the world, those speeches he gave where he allegedly warned of the danger posed by Saddam's WMDs, Wilson's eventual role with the Kerry campaign, etc., etc., it is inconceiveable that no intrepid reporter/columnist at a major newspaper would find any of this unworthy of investigation and coverage.

I don't agree with Kristof on many issues, but I always considered him unafraid of the truth wherever it might lead. Sadly, his "clarification" reveals a newfound reluctance to confront the facts staring him in the face.

[topsecretk9]

The talking points did not refer to the specific reporting on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, did not mention names or dates from the reporting, and did not mention that there was any such deal being reported in intelligence channels.

[boris]

A rather bold statement there TS!

[Jeff]

topsecretk9 - What exactly do you take the significance of your double super bolded text to be? Maybe we can use this as a test case of my claim that the SSCI is misleading in its presentation of facts.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Roger,
I don't think I am "assuming a lot of facts not in evidence." I didn't say anything about a conspiracy in my previous post. And yes, Plame was "outed." Whether that outing amounted to a crime is another question, but she was outed nonetheless. Her affiliation with the CIA was classified and Novak blew her cover. Fitzgerald said both those things right at the beginning of his press conference in clear plain english.

And my point was not that Wilson doesn't deserve to be criticized. It was that it makes no sense to exclusively criticize Wilson. He's a side issue, at best. This investigation isn't about him.

On a related note, I can't count the number of times I've heard otherwise intelligent people say this week that Fitzgerald's indictment proves there was no conspiracy or underlying crime. That's total rubbish. Just because Fitzgerald has decided that he can't (yet) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy or underlying crime occurred doesn't mean they didn't happen. It may turn out that there was no conspiracy or underlying crime, but just because something isn't charged doesn't mean it didn't happen. Using that reasoning, Al Capone was guilty of nothing more than committing mail fraud. Please. Moreover, Fitzgerald's indictment strongly suggests that he feels that an underlying crime may have been committed. There are a lot of facts which appear to be included in the indictment for the sole purpose of supporting the inference that Libby knew Plame's identity was classified. In fact, Fitzgerald will likely use that evidence to establish motive at trial. He'll argue that Libby was attempting to cover up underlying conduct. So the jury is still very much out on whether there was an underlying crime or a conspiracy to cover it up.

[lemondloulou54]

Hello? Why was the VP's office so testy on this subject? One would think that tough guys like Cheney et al could take mosquito-like folks such as Wilson and Kristof, no? why even react to them? Hell, the Dalai Lama lets mosquitos drink from his arm! But Wilson really hit a nerve, didn't he? And why was that? Have you ever stopped to think about that instead of parsing what people say. Actions speak louder than words, and it's the VP and his offices actions that were criminal.

[Al]

More Kristof:

"Incidentally, when the White House did once raise the issue of my Niger reporting with me, the senior official who complained did not argue that any of this was incorrect. Rather, he noted that Bush's reference in the State of the Union address was to "Africa" rather than to Niger -- and that even if the Niger connection was fraudulent, there were possible linkages to other African countries like Congo that could have made Bush's 16 words technically correct. That was a very flimsy branch, and the official gave up the argument pretty quickly."

I wonder whether Kristof ever heard of the Butler Report? You know, the UK government's report that said that Bush's 16 words were not only "technically correct" but "well founded"?

Apparently not.

[RogerA]

Perhaps I misread your initial post AL, but I certainly inferred you believed the White House to be behind the "outing" of VP; and I continue to infer that believe there are some underlying shenanigans--And, of course you are right, just because something isn't charged didnt mean it didnt happen. Do you have another mechanism to find out if it did, in fact, happen? Or perhaps the WH conspiracy was so adept, Fitzgerald simply couldnt uncover it. It seems to me you are mirror imaging the thinking of those you decry--I suspect we will not convince each other of our respective points, so lets agree to disagree and see what the results of the trial are--and as a good liberal, I am sure you are giving Libby the presumption of innocence.

[The Unbeliever]

Wilson's actions and statements in no way justified the outing of his wife or the perjury and obstruction afterwards

I'd say his actions and statements certainly justified pushback from the White House and detailed scrutiny of Wilson's claims. And the nature of his charges, especially in the middle of the war, were such that the whatever came to light would inevitably become public. Whether scrutiny of his credibility should have included potential nepotism in the form of his connected wife is a subject for debate, I suppose.

And a random question, because I haven't been paying attention: does Valerie Wilson/Plame still work at the CIA? Has her outing done anything to hamper her usefulness as an analyst? I'm sure her usefulness as an undercover agent is shot, but if Wilson had more than two brain cells in 2003 he had to have known that was inevitable.

[Sue]

Anon,

Al Capone was only guilty of committing mail fraud (I thought it was tax evasion, but oh well). You are doing our justice system a huge disservice by convicting people of something they aren't even being tried for. When and if Fitzgerald indicts for other charges, your point might be valid.

[Sue]

To follow through with my thought...that is like saying Clinton (both of them) were guilty because there had to be more to the Whitewater story than we knew, especially since Susan McDougal chose to go to jail rather than testify and Ken Starr would not just let it go.

[Chants]

Pllyusa noted:

"That Wilson came away from that meeting,
without actually seeing the report, with
knowledge that the IC thought that "the
dates were wrong and the names were
wrong" seems quite likely."

Interesting point, and entirely possible.

But I have to ask. Was this sensitve information imparted to Wilson before or after he was granted his "operational clearance"? What official procedures must be followed in order to be granted an "operational clearance"? What forms must be signed? Were those procedures followed and those forms signed by those involved in the Niger trip? If not, why not? And if they weren't, is there any "safety-gap" rule, statute, or regulation requiring anyone with a clearance, whether a "security clearance" or a "operational clearance", to keep secret any classified information imparted to him or her even if proper procedures were not followed?

I ask these questions in part because I hear many people speaking eloquently about the unintended consequences of failing to keep secret information secret.

[Wilson's a liar]

If Joe Wilson was set up by the Kerry campaign, his motives and actions certainly are a central issue in this story. If he was used to spread false stories to a gullible, Bush-hating press in order to undermine the President in the middle of an election campaign, and he was promised a juicy appointment in a Kerry Administration in return, it certainly is a central issue in this story.

If Wilson "struck a nerve" with the White House, perhaps it was because people there saw right away what was going on - a former Clinton NSC staffer and Kerry campaign adviser was spreading lies about Dick Cheney sending him to Niger and ignoring his report, and he was getting away with it. And how convenient, as Zell Miller pointed out yesterday in the AJC, that he could hide the real story behind his wife's classified status. At least until Novak exposed him as a liar.

It is simply comical to claim that Joe Wilson is NOT the central issue here.

[topsecretk9]

Jeff
In honor of polly, I bold

Maybe we can use this as a test case of my claim that the SSCI is misleading in its presentation of facts.

Yes we know that you claim the SSCI is misleading, but since you are just you, who are you to know better?

Joe can't have it all ways (well he can but it would show that he was the beneficiary of classified info)...the talking points (instructions) and requests by the US Ambassador in Niger (to limit his discussions) illustrate that Joe was sent to gather more "details".

Now Joe either A) turned his trip into a 007 mission charging himself to go beyond what he was asked to do or B) he has lied his way into papers by distorting his findings and significance or C) he was not lying but recipient of classified information (or a combination of AB and C--I raise my hand here)

DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerian denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerian Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales.

(U) Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue.

[Wilson's a liar]

And another thing - if Joe Wilson wants to know what real White House retaliation against a whistleblower looks like, he might want to give Linda Tripp a call.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Sue, Roger,
I'm not "convicting people of something they aren't even being tried for." In fact, I said that the jury was still out as to whether there was any underlying crime. My point was only that we don't know, and that it's therefore silly to conclude, as many on the Right have, that no underlying crime was committed. I haven't concluded anything definitively one way or the other because I don't have enough information.

As for the point about not giving Libby the "presumption of innonence," this is a commonly misunderstood idea. The phrase refers to a legal presumption, not a logical one. All it means is that Libby must be treated, for legal purposes, as if he were innocent until he is convicted. It says nothing whatsoever about what a rational human being should conclude based on the publicly available evidence. In other words, it's not a rule of logic. For example, someone who is caught on tape murdering someone is also entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. That doesn't mean that intelligent people must reserve judgment or refrain from excercising their logical faculties. Libby's story is implausible on it's face. Fitzgerald's indictment is very damning. While I am open to the possibility that new information will somehow exculpate Libby, I feel fairly confident in infering from the available evidence that Libby did in fact lie to the grand jury. Fitzgerald is certainly very convinced of this, or else he would not have brought these charges.

Don't confuse legal burdens of proof with logical reasoning.

[mattman]

Wilson just a private citizen? Gimme a break. This guy went on a mission as a US government official. He then began a smear campaign against the White House, first anonymously and then with his name attached, claiming that the Bush Administration knowingly ignored evidence that undermined the case for war. In fact, there is at least a substantial basis for believing that Wilson lied about his role and even about the contents of his "report." And now he's the victim, and we should get off his back? Forget it.

[Jeff]

topsecretk9 - Once again, I can't quite make out what your answer to what I thought was my straightforward question is. But from what I can figure out from your reply, I'm not quite sure why you equate talking points (which Wilson received) with what he was being asked to do. Against what you say, talking points are not instructions. Moreover -- and your pointless snarking aside, here's where I suspected you were being misled by the SSCI passage you cited -- the SSCI report itself elsewhere states that Wilson did in fact discuss the intelligence report from February 2002 at his February 19, 2002 meeting, and, again I think elsewhere in the report, we learn that that Febrruary 2002 report contained what was understood to be verbatim text of what eventually turned out to be the forged documents. In that sense he was a recipient of classified information, on the assumption that that the February 2002 report was classified.

Here's another example of the suspiciousness of the SSCI report. The last bit you cite makes it sound like the report produced out of WIlson's trip never made it to the Vice President's office. But it doesn't actually say that. All it says is that the CIA did not brief the VP on it, which is only one species of the ways the VP's office might have learned of the reports's contents.

[TM]

Good point by Polly and Jeff about Wilson seeing summaries. Here we go, I am taking this new spin out for a, well, spin:

As to what was discussed at the meeting - first, that meeting was before Wilson left. Maybe he debunked the forgeries, jauntily waved good-bye, and flew to Niger to enjoy the tea.

But it seems odd that he knew enough about Niger and how their controls/signatures worked to debunk the documents even before he left.

Secondly, Tenet does say that the written summary of his oral report made no mention of documents.

And thirdly, that bit of the SSCI is about as opaque as this Kristof colummn, but... it seems like different folks from the fateful meeting were bobbing and weaving as to whether Wilson had the right clearance, and whether anyone actually showed him the document summaries.

I would bet they showed him something, but it reads to me like a bit of a cover-up.

[J Mann]

Argh. Let me get this straight - Kristof writes this:

In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

and he thinks the only problem with it is that "the references to the documents themselves make it sound as if the envoy had the documents in possession, while in fact he didn’t."

Does Kristof seriously believe that Wilson reported that the documents were forged, and that his "debunking of the forgery" was "passed around the administration?"

How would Wilson even know whether the report was passed around the administration? On the other hand, if Kristof is standing by that statement, it's at least a light suggestion that the source for the "passed around" comment was Plame, not Wilson.

[MeTooThen]

All,

Could someone find the quote where Fitzgerald states that Veronica Double-O-Flame's name was classified, or that the fact that she worked at the CIA was classified?

This is important, I think.

It appears that Mrs. Joseph Charles Wilson IV's status at the Agency was classified.

I am yet to understand how and by whom she was outed?

Her name could not have been classified as it appeared in Who's Who for several years, as did it before the NY Times editorial in other publications.

Just askin'.

[RogerA]

AL--for the record, I agree that there is prima facie evidence that Libby lied--We agree on that issue; and that is all the Fitzgerald came up with after two years of investigation--Will other evidence emerge showing some white house conspiracy? possibly, so we can not discount that eventuality on a logical basis--When that evidence emerges, I will look at it then and, until then, refrain from making any judgments about the guilt of other parties not now indicted no matter how logical those speculations might appear.

A final note--of course it is "logically" possible other crimes were committed; but that isnt the way the legal system operates--and thus far the legal system as indicted one person.

[Jeff]

But it seems odd that he knew enough about Niger and how their controls/signatures worked to debunk the documents even before he left.

Why? Only if you buy the rightie talking point that Wilson was utterly unqualified for the trip, which is utterly untrue. On the contrary, Wilson was quite knoweldgeable about who would be in the relevant offices at the time of the alleged agreements and documents.

Secondly, Tenet does say that the written summary of his oral report made no mention of documents.

True, which raises several questions. 1) Did Wilson say anything about the documents to his CIA debriefers that, for one reason or another that I can guess at, didn't make it into the actual report written by others? 2) Might Wilson not have said anything about the documents because a) he had already dealt with that, as far as he was concerned, in his meeting of February 19, whereas the trip was for another angle on the set of questions raised; or b)as you suggest, because he was aware that he was not supposed to have seen the documents on the 19th, and he did, so he didn't say anything to his CIA debriefers?

I would bet they showed him something, but it reads to me like a bit of a cover-up.

Or at least they talked about the reports in some detail, but no one is sure to what extent that was kosher, so no one takes full responsibility for it. By the same token, I suspect some of Wilson's bobbing and weaving on the issue of the documents is some combination of the same uncertainty and a more laudable recognition that he was dealing with classified information, so he couldn't (or shouldn't, for those less sympathetic) be very specific and clear about it. Consider, in this regard, that Wilson starts to talk right when the documents are declared forgeries by the IAEA, presumably -- in his mind at least -- making them either actually or effectively no longer classified.

[JonofAtlanta]

'..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.'

Dear Mr. Kristof:
In Logic 101, we learn that a negative ('there was NO attempt to purchase uranium, etc..') cannot be proven. Only the positive can be proven ('I have bulletproof evidence of the attempt,etc..).

Therefore your 'envoy' CANNOT 'flatly discredit' the assertions of the VP.

I cannot prove that Bigfoot DOESN'T live in a condo in Boca Raton.

Not.Even.Remotely.Possible.

[Anonymous Liberal]

MeeTooThen:

This is from Fitzgerald's press conference:

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003,the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003."

I suppose Fitzgerald could just be wrong about all this, but I doubt it.

[Brutus]

Unbeliever -- you hit the nail's head. But there's really more here.
Libby clearly was engaged in pushback. This notion that "outing" Plame was Libby/Cheney's motivation is so patently absurd. Imagine the scene:

CHENEY: This Wilson guy is a harsh administration critic who calls into question the intelligence on which we sold the Iraq war to the American public. What do we do about him?

LIBBY: (rubbing hands together) Let's out his wife from her CIA cover. That will serve as due punishment for Wilson's criticisms of the intelligence on which we sold the Iraq war to the American public.

CHENEY: Yes. Outing her will really show 'em. But Scooter, won't people think that we outed her to show that Wilson's trip was really a CIA agenda-driven mission and not some honest investigation? If people thought that, maybe Wilson won't get the message we are trying to send him by outing his wife.

LIBBY: Don't worry. No one will mistake the outing for pushback.

By all accounts -- including those of the NY Times and others outside the "right" -- Cheney became highly concerned (obsessed?) with WMD threats after 9/11. Cheney (and Libby, Wolfowitz, etc.) knew -- KNEW -- that the CIA had blown it at least twice with respect to Iraq WMD issues. First, the CIA was unaware of Iraqqi WMD programs and capabilities that were discovered after the 1991 Gulf War. Second, the CIA deemed Khidir Hamza, the former Iraq weapons prgram official (head?), not credible because of his INC involvement, just as the CIA routinely (and sometimes correctly) deemed not credible all INC-connected defectors and intelligence -- but the CIA was proven wrong with respect to Hamza and his information. Let's not forget that the CIA did not come close to uncovering the 9/11 plot either.

So you have Cheney et al highly concerned about WMDs and terrorism, and a CIA that has done a less-than-stellar job gathering and verifying information about WMDs and terrorism. And you have a CIA that no longer (if ever) viewed itself as an instrument of a duly elected administration's policies, but rather as the policymaker itself (in the guise of recommending what is possible/likely based on its intelligence). Accordingly, Cheney sets up an alternative intel gathering and analysis mechanism -- BECAUSE THE CIA HAD DROPPED THE BALL SO MANY TIMES THAT ITS ASSESSMENTS COULD NOT BE TRUSTED. And at some point, this Wilson guy, not an agency operative, comes out and announces that he uncovered information contrary to the White House's statements regarding Iraq but it was disregarded. Wilson goes public, says things that are not true, says things he never told his debriefers -- and by the way, why is this guy speaking publicly about a CIA mission anyway? Didn't he sign an NDA? Cheney sees this as part of the CIA's ongoing attack on those who have "intruded" on its turf (on which it had performed oh-so-well). So Cheney/Libby/whomever decides the public ought to know that Wilson was sent by his wife for this trip, because maybe, just maybe, this is information that would shed some light on what the CIA was up to. Is this plausible?

Or is it more plausible that Cheney and WHIG were making up intel. Concocting it from whole cloth. Why? To get us into war. Why? To (a) make Haliburton rich, and/or (b) fulfill the Je-er... neocon dream of democraticizing the mideast for Isra-er... peace. But ol' Joe Wilson came along and came dangerously close to debunking this whole scheme. So he had to be taught a lesson. But these ruthless Republicans, who so easily sacrifice American blood and treasure, who will expend life for oil, who will stop at nothing to get what they want -- how do they "get" Wilson, teach him and every other whistleblower to stay away from the "truth" of their nefarious plot?

They out his wife.

[pollyusa]

TM

I didn't say and I doubt that Wilson saw the report, I said that Wilson likely left the 2/02 meeting with the knowledge that the Intelligence Community thought "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong".

On the general bobbing and weaving you are correct, but in the SSCI the paragragh stating that the specifc details of the report were discussed contains only one other sentence and that details Wilson's clearance.

Additionally, why would Wilson bother to mention the documents in his debriefing, if he had knowledge on the IC postion on the documents.

BTW thanks again for html link to the report.

[clarice]

TM,once again, I tip my hat to the master. (Not just for cracking into Time Select , but for your excellent analysis of the Kristof blather.)

[Florence Schmieg]

Not Guilty!! So we proceed. I hope to see Tim Russert, Andrea Mitchell, David Gregory, Matt Cooper, Judy Miller, Walter Pincus, Nicholas Kristof, (have I forgotten anyone?) on the witness stand and cross-examined by the defense for once. I look forward to Dick Cheney's icy answers to the prosecution that once and for all will put these absurd conspiracy theories to rest.

[tibor]

Not sure if Tom or anyone else has advanced this theory -- VP asks about reports that Iraq has tried to purchase yellowcake from Niger, asks CIA. Valerie Plame recommends that the CIA send Wilson to investigate this "crazy" story about Iraq trying to buy yellowcake in Niger. CIA sends Wilson. Wilson reports back to CIA (former PM thinks they wanted to buy yellowcake in 1999). CIA doesn't tell VP. Forged Niger documents come to light. Valerie Plame learns about them and tells Wilson (during pillowtalk?). POTUS uses 16 words about British reports of Iraq trying to buy uranium in Africa (not Niger). Wilson talks to Kristof, Pincus, et al. and Libby talks to Cooper, Miller, Russert, et al. Wilson writes op-ed. The rest, as they say, is history.

Perhaps Wilson told Kristof about the forged documents HIS WIFE HAD SEEN? He had to backtrack (or misremember or claim he was misquoted to protect the fact that his wife leaked info about the forged documents to him). This would explain her attitude about the "crazy" report. It would also explain Wilson's knowledge of the forged documents that he had never seen. Any takers? Has anyone advanced this yet?

[Florence Schmieg]

I forgot Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson. instead of being interviewed by friendly CNN and MSM types, they can answer questions from Libby's top flight defense lawyers. Let the games begin.

[MeTooThen]

AnonLib,

Thanks.

But did the Special Prosecutor say when and by whom Mrs. Joseph Charles Wilson IV was outed?

Here again, from the WaPo,

"The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said."

This is confusing.

Really.

Now, the Special Prosecutor may yet indict someone for this outing, but who?

It seems to me, on the surface at least, there is as much indication that the Ambassador of Sweet Mint Tea shared information regarding Veronica-00-Flame with the John Forbes Kerry campaign, Mr. Kristoff and others, as there is indication that RovEvil or Scooter did.

Again, if Scooter lied to the Grand Jury, my understanding is that he did wrong and may face punishment for that. So be it.

But it seems strange, or strained, that there remains so much energy devoted to the "Outing for Blowback" scandal when there doesn't seem to be much there there.

Just sayin'.

[Chants]

Jeff wrote:

"I suspect some of Wilson's bobbing and weaving on the issue of the documents is some combination of the same uncertainty and a more laudable recognition that he was dealing with classified information, so he couldn't (or shouldn't, for those less sympathetic) be very specific and clear about it. Consider, in this regard, that Wilson starts to talk right when the documents are declared forgeries by the IAEA, presumably -- in his mind at least -- making them either actually or effectively no longer classified."

Interesting question, Jeff. Just what was on Joe's mind regarding the secrecy of his mission? Joe Wilson, 07/06/03: "The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret." No bobbing and weaving there.

However, the CIA appears to think that trip was secret. SSCI report: ...[Wilson]had been given an "operational clearance" up to the Secret level for the purposes of his trip to Niger."

I recognize, Jeff, that you were speaking of the "documents," and I leaped over to "mission". But it certainly seems that Joe Wilson -- in his mind at least -- made the same leap. A leap, I might add, which led to his concluding that a mission that started in a room in Langly containing his wife, supposed super spy Valerie Plame, was not secret.

I agree with you Jeff, that Joe has a good resume and has good connections in Niger. But he stinks at handling intelligence. I think that sending him to Niger was just about the dumbest idea ever hatched at the CIA.

I wonder who suggested it?

[Cecil Turner]

Not sure what's unclear about "As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it." And hopefully I'm not the only one who thinks it unlikely that the dates were briefed in enough detail to note the day-of-week error, and yet the forgeries went unchallenged. Further, it looks like the names were at that time considered to be a supporting point:

On February 18,2002, the embassy in Niger disseminated a cable which reported that the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal “provides sufficient detail to warrant another hard look at Niger’s uranium sales. The names of GON [government of Niger] officials cited in the report track closely with those we know to be in those, or closely-related positions. However, the purported 4,000-ton annual production listed is fully 1,000 tons more than the mining companies claim to have produced in 2001.”

And, yet, according to Tenet, Wilson's perspicacious observation doesn't appear in his report: "There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all." Trying to come up with some convoluted explanation of how he might not have been lying on the point seems a bit of a stretch.

But the only thing I really want to know from Kristof is when he knew about Plame.

[J Mann]

Tom,

I hate to dump cold water on part of the theory, but I don't think we can be 100% sure that Plame was present at the May leak breakfast with Kristof. IIRC, the article that you always link to says that "Wilson had breakfast with Kristof and his wife."

As Daffy Duck would say, "Ah, pronoun trouble!" Kristof and Wilson were and are both married. I agree that it's likely Plame was there, but it's possible that Kristof's wife was there instead.

[clarice]

As I recall, the SSCI (or the additional views) report stated clearly that the CIA denied Wilson had seen any of the classified documents (that is, the memo or the forgeries). Is my memory failing yet again?

[Reg Jones]

TM, did you catch this Dana Priest comment?

How do you answer critics who point out this may be a 'leak' that could potentially compromise national security, ala the Plame leak?

Dana Priest: I don't actually think the Plame leak compromised national security, from what I've been able to learn about her position.... [WaPo, Online Chat, 11/03/05]

[Sue]

Anon,

I would never dream of confusing legal with logical.

You think it is okay to poison the jury pool with facts not established?

[clarice]

Some people watch too many crappy movies about Washington.

I seriously doubt that Cheney or anybody else wanted to kick Wilson in the ankles (interfere with Plame's job).They wanted to kick the story in the nuts(prove it was false which it was BTW.).

[clarice]

Reg--great catch!