The Wilson Gambit Part II

Early in the Fitzgerald case I wrote the Wilson Gambit in which I said," The Wilson Gambit was a stealth operation undertaken outside normal procedures and supervision, used as a political weapon, complete with lies spread by a cooperative media establishment interested in bringing down a leader and his policies which they detest" . http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_wilson_gambit.html :

Azaghal, a former law enforcement officer and regular Just One Minute poster has taken a close look at what we learned as the Libby trial proceeded and concludes  in an email to me that my view has been born out:

"

I've been puzzling over the circumstances surrounding the referral letter that CIA sent to DoJ in what is commonly referred to as the Plame case. My puzzlement arises particularly in light of what Victoria Toensing wrote in the Washington Post on 02/18/2007. First, here are four statements relating to the referral:

Toensing in WaPo

THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES THE CIA for making a boilerplate criminal referral to cover its derrierre.

The CIA is well aware of the requirements of the law protecting the identity of covert officers and agents. I know, because in 1982, as chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, I negotiated the terms of that legislation between the media and the intelligence community. Even if Plame's status were "classified"--Fitzgerald never introduced one piece of evidence to support such status -- no law would be violated.

There is no better evidence that the CIA was only covering its rear by requesting a Justice Department criminal investigation than the fact that it sent a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure.

Judge Reggie Walton to the trial jury:

Walton announced that not only did the jurors not know Mrs. Wilson's status but that he didn't know it, either. "I don't know, based on what has been presented to me in this case, what her status was," Walton said. "It's totally irrelevant to this case." Just so there was no mistake, on January 31 Walton said it again: "I to this day don't know what her actual status was." (From an article by Byron York, NR, 02/05/2007)

Team Fitzgerald to Team Libby:

But in a letter to the Libby team last Tuesday, Fitzgerald's deputy, Kathleen Kedian, said the special prosecutor will not give up the referral — and that Libby simply did not need to know what was in it. "After consultation with the CIA, we advise that we view any such documents in our possession as not discoverable," Kedian wrote. "The documents remain classified and contain information compiled for law enforcement purposes that is neither material to the preparation of the defense, nor exculpatory as to Mr. Libby." (From an article by Byron York, NR, 02/27/2007)

Deputy AG Comey to Special Counsel Fitzgerald, 12/20/2003:

I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity ...

What can we draw from these four statements?

1. I assume that Toensing doesn't just mouth off without knowing basic facts. She asserts as a fact that the referral was for "a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure." I have to believe she has good information for that assertion, namely that the referral was general in nature and specifically did not address the elements of Plame's status that would allow a reader of the referral to come to preliminary opinion as to whether Plame was "covert" for purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA).

2. Judge Walton's statement to the jury would appear to confirm Toensing's assertion, because if the referral had addressed the question of Plame's covert status he would be unlikely to make such a statement to the jury, nor tell Libby's attorneys that there was no relevant information in the referral that would be of any use to them. It seems unlikely that the CIA could have sent a referral regarding the disclosure of a covert officer's indentity without presenting prima facie evidence that that officer did in fact qualify as "covert" under the IIPA--the CIA could hardly have said, hey, we don't know whether our own employee was covert but we want DoJ and the FBI to investigate it. Therefore, again, the referral would seem not to have been based on the IIPA.

3. But, running counter to these indicators is Comey's delegation of "authority" (not of "function" as the statute reads) to Fitzgerald, which specifically states that it relates to "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity..." What strikes me about this delegation is that it makes no reference to specific criminal statutes that may have been violated. It essentially states: here is a factual situation, investigate it. Now, there was in fact a very public allegation that a specific statute had been violated: the IIPA. Anyone who had followed the whole Plame kerfuffle in the newspapers and on the internet would have expected that the IIPA, which was referenced almost immediately after Robert Novak's article which referenced Plame appeared. Moreover, as Toensing knows better than anyone, that statute was written as a direct response to--as a solution to--the problem of unauthorized disclosures of covert officers' identity. What's going on here?

4. The answer may lie in the wording of Comey's delegation. Rather than referencing "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a [covert] CIA [officer's] identity..." the delegation only makes a vague reference to an "alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity..." Viewed through this prism, Comey's phrasing may constitute confirmation of Toensing's assertion: the referral makes no reference to covert status but only vaguely suggests that the disclosure of Plame's employment somehow violated a statute prohibiting unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

5. In the event, the investigation disclosed no violations of law whatsoever. Nevertheless, in his closing statement Fitzgerald made repeated references to the possibility that a covert officer's identity had been disclosed maliciously and that people might die as a result--in spite of the fact that the referral letter apparently never referenced covert status as an issue.

6. Beyond pointing up the essentially unethical nature of the Libby prosecution--long obvious--these factors suggest to me that there may have been a type of bait and switch at the heart of the entire investigation. The operation of this bait and switch relied on the public outcry in the MSM about the disclosure of a covert officer's identitity. The reality, if the above analysis is correct, is that the referral letter did not reference such a possibility because it was known that Plame was not "covert" for purposes of the IIPA. The relevant officials at CIA and DoJ knew that this public scenario, replete with images of Administration officials frog marching out of the White house, bore no relation to the reality of the situation--especially in light of what those officals had learned from Richard Armitage. So, the investigation was an open ended warrant to find a violation of any statute or, failing that, to induce a process violation in the course of the investigation. The bait and switch relied on the public hue and cry to provide cover for turning the White House inside out in search of a crime--any crime.

7. The real targets of the investigation (Cheney, Rove, Libby) would be told that they were not targets as such but merely witnesses. They would be required by the president to appear over and over before the Grand Jury, ostensibly to give evidence to assist the investigation of what publicly appeared to be the disclosure of a "covert" officer's identity. These targets would rely on the Special Counsel's representations because they had not committed the acts that appeared from public statement's--including Comey's letter--to be the focus of the investigation. The Special Counsel had deniability in the form of Comey's letter, although all Fitzgerald's actions reveal all too clearly that they were in fact targets and not merely witnesses. No doubt the Special Counsel hoped that the targets' sense of their own innocence of what was publicly alleged would lead them to reveal something factual situation that could be construed as a criminal violation--or, failing that, become involved in a process violation. Had the investigation in fact concerned the disclosure of a covert officer's identity, the true target would of course have been Armitage. The lack of prosecutorial interest in Armitage gives the game away.

8. Finally, the release of all 8 hours of Libby's testimony before the Grand Jury disclose the inordinate amount of time Fitzgerald spent grilling Libby about the declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and when Libby talked to reporters about that. This is a clear indication that Fitzgerlad was fully aware that there was no hope for a violation of the IIPA, despite the outrageous statements he made to the trial jury. It is further apparent from the record that the CIA did not want the declassification of the NIE to take place quickly even though that left the Administration hanging out on a cliff, unable to respond to Wilson's charges. Moreover, when DCI Tenet made his July 11 mea culpa he refused to do what the Administration wanted him to do--state publicly that the CIA, not the Office of the Vice President (OVP) had sent Wilson to Niger.

From all the above, it is clear beyond dispute that this entire disgraceful episode was manufactured deceitfully as part of a campaign to undermine and even bring down the Bush Administration."

Clarice Feldman

On edit:American Thinker has retitled and edited this to put in urls for the cited material. You can find thea article at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/bait_and_switch_and_trap_the_r.html

Comments

[Jane]

There is no better evidence that the CIA was only covering its rear by requesting a Justice Department criminal investigation than the fact that it sent a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure.

First question: Why was Tenet so intent on pushing the referral?

[Martin]

"I assume that Toensing doesn't just mouth off without knowing basic facts."

A really poor assumption.

[Jane]

Feeling a little threatened Martin?

[dorf]

The original referral could be looked at as a sort of charging document. IMO Plame's status is a material fact that the jury should have been told. The Judge's handling of that issue is pathetic.

[clarice]

Jane, perhaps the dupers were duping him, too, and forcing him to cover for them. Why did he take so long to declassify the NIE? And why when he issued his July 11 statement did he refuse to put in his statement--what the WH wanted and what would have ended this--a statement that the agency, not th VP had sent Wilson to Africa?

If you read Rocco's post last night, he made a compelling argument that the only reason Wilson was sent was to cover for his first false report from his first mission to Niger where he failed to report that there had been an agreement signed in 2000 to provide uranium to Niger.

[clarice]

Here's Rocco's post--it remains the best explanation of the Wilson Mission I've yet seen:
"What I Didn’t Find In Africa…The Sequel

Like a sequel to a lousy movie, Wilson’s first trip to Niger didn’t get much attention. Little is known about his 1999 trip. But by piecing together what we do know, maybe we can connect some dots. For starters, the first trip, like the 2002 trip, was made at his wife’s recommendation. And like the first one, no report was written.

Page 39 of the SSCI - “The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf (Redacted). The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region (Redacted). Because the former ambassador did not uncover any information about (Redacted) during this visit to Niger, CPD did not distribute an intelligence report on the visit.”

The SSCI doesn’t shed any light on why Wilson took that first trip, but Wilson tells Wolf Blitzer on July 14, 2005 that it was uranium-related.

“BLITZER: What would have been so bad if your wife would have recommended you to go to Niger for this investigation.”

”WILSON: Of course, from my perspective, it wouldn't have been bad at all. This was a legitimate request to answer a national security question. I was well qualified to do so. Indeed as the Senate Select Committee report says, I had made a trip in 1999 to Niger to look into other uranium-related matters, so I was well known to the CIA.”

What happened in Niger in 1999 that prompted the CIA to send Wilson? Well for one thing, the President of Niger, General Ibrahim Bare Mainassara was murdered in a coup d’etat in early April, 1999. This coup was carried out by the head of his own Elite Presidential Guard, Daouda Malan Wanke. Wanke’s military spokesman Ibrahim Assane Mayaki (where have we heard that name before) called this murder an “unfortunate accident.” Mayaki, who was the Prime Minister under Mainassara’s regime, was re-appointed to the same position by Wanke.

Who else traveled to Niger in 1999? Christopher Hitchens of Slate.

“In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president's State of the Union address in January 2003.”

And from The Times Of India, AQ Khan traveled to Niger in the same month of the same year that Zahawie did!

“We left Dubai for Khartoum on 21 February 1999. The education minister of Sudan received the group and we were lodged at the State Guest House. After making a short stopover in a Nigerian city we reached Timbuktu on 24 February 1999. After spending a couple of days we were on our way back and our first stop was Niamey, capital of Niger.”

Zahawie and AQ Khan both traveled to Niger in 1999, as did Joe Wilson on a uranium-related matter. Evidently Wilson’s mission was a failure…or was it? Let’s take a look at his second trip to Niger also on a uranium-related matter in February 2002.

Page 36 of the SSCI begins with a chapter called Niger, and states “Reporting on a possible uranium yellowcake sales agreement between Niger and Iraq first came to the attention of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) on October 15, 2001.” The report claimed that the uranium sales agreement had been in negotiation between the two countries since at least early 1999 and had been approved by the State Court of Niger in late 2000. At the time all IC analysts believed the report to be limited and lacking in detail. CIA, DIA, and DOE all thought the report possible with INR the only agency regarding the report as “highly dubious.” Only the CIA wrote a finished intelligence product on the report (Senior Executive
Intelligence Brief [SEIB], Iraq.• Nuclear-Related Procurement Efforts, October 18, 2001).”

It’s very possible that this initial report was in fact the real deal, tipping off the IC that their collective asses were about to be hung out to dry, so to speak. Here’s what I think.

Please refer to page 36 of the SSCI. It begins by claiming that “reporting on a possible uranium yellowcake sales agreement between Iraq and Niger first came to the Intelligence Community on October 15, 2001. The report stated that the agreement had been in negotiations since at least early 1999 and was approved by the state court of Niger in late 2000

Now read what the CIA wrote when they published their SEIB on October 18, 2001, concerning this Italian report.

According to a foreign government service, Niger as of early this year planned to send several tons of uranium to Iraq under an agreement concluded late last year.

Iraq and Niger had been negotiating the shipment since at least early 1999, but the
state court of Niger only this year approved it, according to the service.

Now either the foreign government service (SISMI) is so incompetent, they didn’t realize what year it was, or the CIA is lying when they claim they received that report on October 15, 2001. If the agreement was concluded in late 2000 and the state court of Niger “only this year approved it,” the CIA had to receive that report in 2000!

The IC didn’t receive another report until four months later, plenty of time to procure forged documents to conceal their malfeasance and/or complicity. Wilson was told by Mayaki that an Iraqi delegation wanted to discuss uranium sales. Wilson lied about in his op-ed. Think about that!"

Posted by: Rocco | February 21, 2007 at 03:53 PM

[Tom Bowler]

The relevant officials at CIA and DoJ knew that this public scenario, replete with images of Administration officials frog marching out of the White house, bore no relation to the reality of the situation--especially in light of what those officals had learned from Richard Armitage. So, the investigation was an open ended warrant to find a violation of any statute or, failing that, to induce a process violation in the course of the investigation.

I think you just nailed it, Clarice.

[SWA]

Azaghal is a cop!!!

Original five year law maker!!!!

Well, there's the five year intelligence ban law, the five year no committee for the Congressman who gets the subpeona law, etc.

So, is the McViegh thing under the five year law and is it a cover for the Plame Spain thing? Pretty nasty.

So, we're reminded of the bombing, the guy who the church passed on, plane engines, convenience stores, DOJ guys in grain silos and Potts, the Attorney General passing, and Louie Freeh set up. Louie was the only one who took care of the problems. Reno and Bill passed.

Plame got found in that law and there is probably a reason why.

Tennet. An idiot. He went for hiring more human intelligence.

Five year law maker!!!!!!!!!

So, who's the chlorine bomber? Maybe it's Dr.WMD who got freed by the Iraqi courts the day Plame looked all confused in TIME?

[Tom Bowler]

One question occurs, though. Did Fitzgerald get lucky drawing Walton for the trial, or could he have influenced that aspect as well?

[clarice]

Tom B--azaghal just nailed it. My contribution was to post it when we thought TM had gone AWOL.

[Rosley]

So why did Bush give Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

[gambit2@yahoo.com]

Looks like Rocco knows that there is legislation regarding the haiti coup and Joe looks just perfect for the job, but, hey, alot of those get blamed for coups.

Five year Law Maker!!!!!!!!!!!

[clarice]

Tom B, after it turned out there had been some hanky panky going on in the assignment of cases involving Clintonistas charged w/ crimes the court put into place a perfectly neutral rota system.

[hit and run]

Tom better have brought a note from his mom or a doctor.

[Jane]

Clarice,

Yeah, I read Rocco's post and agree with you. But as I understand it, Tenet personally pushed this referral several times. Was this another case of the best defense is a good offense?

[MarkO]

Interesting information. Like Martha's case---supposedly lying about a non-crime. What a waste of time and money. Clearly, there were other agendas.

[clarice]

Re Rocco's theory, I remind you that in his June 14, 2003 EPIC presentation, Wilson conceded we might find nuclear weapons in Iraq.

[clarice]

Jane, that's what it looks like to me. Imagine yourself at the top of a snake heap getting whatever info you can from the bottom and having to rely on it.

[Jane]

Okay I am out for the rest of the day. As much as you are all on pins and needles, please don't let this verdict happen without me!

[Tom Bowler]

Apologies to Azaghal for skipping skipping past the credits. Great analysis!

[PMII]

Most of the time this almost looks like a practical joke that got out of hand within the DC political circle. But it got so carried away it became impossible to stop for anyone.

So do you let Libby hang or do you do something to allow for this whole chapter to die. So, there's a plant on the jury to insure that Libby doesn't get convicted and all the players know this.....

[clarice]

Jane, I'll do my best. LOL

[Wilson's a liar]

I've never been convinced that George Tenet knew about the DOJ referral beforehand. He did not sign it. This was all pushed by CIA bureaucrats as a CYA for their bad WMD intel. And it worked - took all the media heat right off of them and put it on the White House. I don't see it as a big bad plot to bring down the President; just a small plot to cover their own butts and send the media hounds somewhere besides Langley.

You have to be able to think like a bureaucrat to understand most of this stuff. I spent 8 years in the bowels of the federal government and it is easy for me. Bureaucrats -- even CIA bureaucrats -- are never clever enough to pull off big bad plots, but they are plenty able to pull off small plots, especially when it comes to covering up their own incompetence.

[jerry]

Something for the mix, from today's WaPo discussions:

Pauling, N.Y.: Is it possible that Valerie Plame was covert but would not be covered by the IIPA? Why is it that no government official will comment about Ms. Wilson's employment and covered status?

Dana Priest: Because she was covert! No, she's covered. If she were not, you could not have this trial in the first place.

[Gary Maxwell]

Bravo Feldman bravo.

[Wilson's a liar]

PMII, it wasn't a practical joke, it was a simple CYA operation that got out of hand.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Why was Tenet so intent on pushing the referral?'

One possibility is that he was angry at State.

Another is that he thought the Wilsons had a problem and he wanted that exposed.

[TimS]

The comment was made that Fitz got lucky on drawing Walton.

That may be true for the trial, but not necessarily for the appeal if such occurs.

[Patrick]

Azaghal:

I've seen your assertion about the Judge "not knowing her status" in various comments here at JOM. Although I do not think it affects your analysis, which I find compelling, I think you may be mistaken on what the judge meant. When he made the statement, he was doing so in the context of instructing the jury they were not to consider Plame's status within the CIA, because the status was not material to the case. (Yeah, right...). Anyway, I think it is possible that he was referring to the fact that he did not know Plame's status "based on the evidence introduced at trial." That is the way I understood the Judge's statement when I first read it.
I don't think it detracts from your larger point. I think it's clear that if Fitz had information that Plame was COVERT (as opposed to classified), he would have indicted Armitage, and maybe Rove, and tried to get them to roll on Cheney, as I think it's clear from his closing the Fitz wants Cheney.

[clarice]

Patrick FWIW, I think the judge made is clear that (even though he'd read the referral letter) even he did not know Plame's status.

[royf]

Dana Priest: Because she was covert! No, she's covered. If she were not, you could not have this trial in the first place.

Isn't amazing that jerry posts a quote from Dana Priest talking about a case concerning the leaking of CIA personnel names. Lets see didn't she win a pulitzer for leaking a alledged CIA rendition program? Which has led to the LA Times exposing 3 real "covert" CIA employees which happen to be pilots.

jerry what you posted says more about you than it does about this case and frankly I don't believe anything Dana Priest has to say.

[cathyf]

I'm still obsessed with the NIE disclosure -- specifically Fitzgerald's disclosure of secret grand jury testimony about the NIE disclosure which was not in any way shape or form relevant to any of the perjury or false statement charges he brought.

I thought that the whole purpose of grand jury secrecy rules was to protect people's non-criminal secrets? For example, an investigation collects alibi's, and one person's alibi is that he was at an AA meeting, while another person's alibi was that he was at the casino, another person's alibi was that she was in a restaurant giving a sympathetic ear to a friend's story of being abused as a child, while another person's alibi was that he was bailing his wife's nephew out of jail, even though everyone in his wife's family had agreed that the good-for-nothing nephew shouldn't be bailed out. I thought that the point was that the interests of justice were best served by people feeling free to tell investigators things that they want kept secret, because they know that the investigators will only disclose information in a way that is absolutely necessary for the investigation, and not make any other use of the information.

The NIE declassification was all about the very strained relationship between the elected politicians and the CIA, and was about the president and vice president doing what their (insubordinate) subordinates refused to do. In virtually every context that I can think of, politicians are supposed to deal with insubordination as a confidential personnel matter. But anyway, how much publicity Bush and Cheney wanted while they dealt with insubordinate underlings was a decision entirely up to them, and Fitzgerald's act of publicizing things that they had not themsleves chosen to publicize was clearly insubordination on his part.

Except, of course, that there is the little problem of just who Fitzgerald is subordinate to. It's logically impossible to be insubordinate if you don't have a supervisor...

[Patrick]

Clarice,
Did he make it clear other than in reference to instructing the jury not to consider her status? If so, when? And if he did so, I am wrong, but was unaware of that other than the statement to which I refer.

Thanks.

[UglyinLA]

I think that Tenet pushed the referral so the DoJ and FBI could rule that IIPA was not violated. In other words, Plame was not covert, so shut up Joe Wilson.

What Tenet didnt expect was a partisan Fitzgerald stringing everyone along for three years in regards to her status. Sooner or later Fitz is going to have to cough up an answer.

We know the answer. Fitz knows the answer. Its almost like he is under a death threat to keep his mouth shut.

[clarice]

cathyf, another good point and further evidence of the prosecutor's animus to the Administration, I think.

Patrick I do not recall the judge telling the jury specifically that his knowledge included what he's received from the govt (i.e. the referral letter). But he did state it broadly and did not limit it to knowledge that was in evidence in the case.

[PeterUK]

"Dana Priest: Because she was covert! No, she's covered. If she were not, you could not have this trial in the first place."

Back with Kafkaland again.

[clarice]

I remember reading early in this matter some report that the referral letter was in a pile of things and Tenet signed it w/o reading it. OTOH he made that phone call to DoJ to get them to act.
He was not a passive player in this. I do not know his motive and maybe never will. As I say , I think he may have been duped.

[azaghal]

Thanks for the positive comments. I'm preparing for a new computer, so I have limited time to contribute. Of course, what I wrote isn't gospel--woops, sorry for introducing religion into this!--but I did want to highlight some of the very serious issues that are at stake in this whole Plame Game. Speaking of which...

With regard to Tenet, that's one of the murkier areas. Back on 10/02/2003 when this was still relatively new Howard Fineman wrote an article called The Plame Game. Here's the link:

The Plame Game

I'll paste in part of it. Just remember, Fineman's views aren't gospel either--woops, there I go again!

Anyway, here's Howard, as excerpted by me:

Now a new legal firestorm is consuming the Beltway world. The plotline: unnamed White House insiders are being investigated by the Department of Justice for having leaked the name of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, supposedly with the aim of discrediting or intimidating her husband, Joe Wilson. He’s the former American diplomat, who had the temerity to attack President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq. There are the inevitable calls for a “special prosecutor” and lots of heavy breathing by the usual legal pundits who emerge from their law school carrels at such times. But what’s this new furor—the Plame Game—really about? Here is my sense:

THE WAR IN IRAQ

Behind the scenes or openly, at war or at peace, the United States has been debating what to do in, with and about Iraq for more than 20 years. We always have been of two minds. One faction, led by the CIA and State Department, favored using secular forces in Iraq—Saddam Hussein and his Baathists—as a counterweight to even more radical elements, from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the Shiite ayatollahs in Iran to the Palestinian terrorists in the Levant. The other faction, including Dick Cheney and the “neo-cons,” has long held a different view: that, with their huge oil reserves and lust for power (and dreams of recreating Baghdad’s ancient role in the Arab world), the Baathists had to be permanently weakened and isolated, if not destroyed. This group cheered when, more than 20 years ago in a secret airstrike, the Israelis destroyed a nuclear reactor Saddam had been trying to build, a reactor that could have given him the ultimate WMD.

The “we-can-use Saddam” faction held the upper hand right up to the moment he invaded Kuwait a decade ago. Until then, the administration of Bush One (with its close CIA ties) had been hoping to talk sense with Saddam. Indeed, the last American to speak to Saddam before the war was none other than Joe Wilson, who was the State Department charge’ d’affaires in Baghdad. Fluent in French, with years of experience in Africa, he remained behind in Iraq after the United States withdrew its ambassador, and won high marks for bravery and steadfastness, supervising the protection of Americans there at the start of the first Gulf War. But, as a diplomat, he didn’t want the Americans to “march all the way to Baghdad.” Cheney, always a careful bureaucrat, publicly supported the decision. Wilson was for repelling a tyrant who grabbed land, but not for regime change by force.

CIA VS. VEEP’S OFFICE

That history is one reason why, in the eyes of the anti-Saddam crowd, Wilson was a bad choice to investigate the question of whether Iraq had been trying to buy uranium in Africa.

Here’s how that came about. We’re in the winter of ’01-’02. Attacked on Sept. 11, the administration of Bush Two has responded by destroying the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now it’s looking for its next target. Cheney and his allies in Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon know what Bush should do next: take out Saddam. Rumors are in the air (apparently from British intelligence) that he has been trying to acquire uranium “yellowcake”—raw fissile material suitable for bomb-making—from Niger. If this is true, it adds urgency to the argument that the United States needs to invade Iraq, because the United Nations is either too slow-moving or antagonistic to the idea altogether. Cheney, at a regular briefing from the CIA, is told of rumors about the uranium. He expresses interest in the topic. According to a Cheney aide, the CIA reports back to him a few days later with what seems like further, credible information. Cheney’s office says he did not specifically ask the CIA to send someone to investigate the matter further.

The CIA sends Wilson to check it out. On the surface, he would seem to be a logical choice: he’d spent years in Africa, knew French, knew the Saddam regime. But there were other things about him that Cheney’s office might not have liked. Wilson had close ties to the Democrats, having worked for them on the Hill and on Clinton’s national security staff; he was close to Democratic Sen. John Kerry and some other former NSC people who are now allies of the senator. Plus, he contributed to Al Gore’s campaign in 2000. Just as important, his wife was a CIA analyst who specialized in assessing WMD risks—and the CIA was not leading the charge to attack Iraq. In fact, the agency was doing just the opposite: In a report and testimony, CIA Director George Tenet argued that attacking Iraq would do more to create a generation of terrorists than eliminate one. What did Valerie Plame think of the seriousness of Saddam’s WMD capability? Sooner or later, we’ll find out—because it bears on what Wilson probably thought before he ever got to Niger to ask questions.

In any event, Wilson went, found nothing, and reported back to the CIA, which then reported as much to the administration—though who said what to whom is murky. Still, the yellowcake allegation got into the president’s now infamous State of the Union address, attributed only to the Brits. When the speech came under fire for accuracy (or lack thereof), the CIA at first ducked. Then White House aides let it be known that the agency had “signed off” on the entire contents of the speech, after which the CIA came forward to say yes, after much discussion and emendation, that they’d approved it. Tenet took the heat. But it was clear that he had been forced to do so.

TENET AND BUSHES

It was a fascinating moment if you know the history. The way I hear the story, Bush Two, when he was elected, had his doubts about Tenet, but was told he was a “good guy” by the ultimate arbiter of “good guys” in the Bush Family, Bush One. Tenet had curried favor with the family years earlier when he was still an intelligence bureaucrat on the Hill, serving as chief of staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Though he was working in a Democrat-controlled environment, Tenet helped out—or at least did not stand in the way—when Bush One wanted to appoint his friend, Robert Gates, to head the CIA. Word was that Tenet was a “team player”—a standup guy, not a relentless Democratic partisan by any means. An expert at the inside game from his years as a staffer on the Hill, Tenet knew how to fit into Bush Two’s world. He did so with ease from the start.

Bush presumably trusted Tenet and the CIA to get the goods on Saddam and his WMD. Cheney’s staff evidently did too. But why did Tenet send Wilson to Africa? Maybe he just thought he was sending the most qualified guy. But the neo-cons and their allies came to see it as a conspiracy to ignore the truth—especially after Wilson, last July, went public with the essence of his findings, which was that the yellowcake rumors were false.

The moment that piece hit the op-ed page of the New York Times, it was all-out war between the pro- and anti-war factions, and between the CIA and its critics. I am told by what I regard as a very reliable source inside the White House that aides there did, in fact, try to peddle the identity of Joe Wilson’s wife to several reporters. But the motive wasn’t revenge or intimidation so much as a desire to explain why, in their view, Wilson wasn’t a neutral investigator, but, a member of the CIA’s leave-Saddam-in-place team.

And on Tenet’s part, it was time for payback—whatever his past relationship with the Bush’s had been. First, he and his agency had been humiliated, caught by the White House trying to distance themselves from the president’s speech. Then the CIA was forced to admit that it had signed off on the speech. Now one of its own investigations was coming under attack, as was one of its own undercover staffers.

Are we to believe that it was a routine matter for the CIA to forward to the Department of Justice a complaint about the leak of Valerie Plame’s name and job? Are we to think that Tenet didn’t know that the complaint was being forwarded? Or that Tenet couldn’t have shortstopped it if he wanted to?

[jerry]

"jerry what you posted says more about you than it does about this case"

What's it saying? I can't hear it.

[Appalled Moderate]

It was a hot night. So hot, it melted the gum from my shoe. My name -- Al Moderate. My job -- figure out how Big Joe Wilson, all powerful ex-ambassador of Niger plotted to bring down the whole e pluribus unum between whiskey sodas.

Well, seeing as it was hot, I sweated. But not the gal. Val. Val Plame they called her. How she never sweated -- that was a secret. She didn't even tell Vanity Fair when showing them her moves with an AK 40.

"Hey Val", I said.

"You don't see me. You don't know me."

"But you're in front of me. As big as life!"

"That's what YOU think". And suddenly, she reached to her head, and took off a mask. A mass of very important hair stuck up over the ruins of a fake female figure.

"My wife didn't send me to Niger", said Joe Wilson, sipping a whiskey soda. "I sent myself."

I woke up in a hot sweat. Last time, I swore to myself I'd go to one of those bars liked by second tier diplomats.

[royf]

What's it saying? I can't hear it.

Believe me I never entertained the idea that you could.

[JM Hanes]

azghal & Clarice:

With apologies to those who have already seen it, I'm cross posting the following from the dead Times on Times thread (and the dying cboldt thread as well!) It's what I believe is a related comment Imade on this bit from the Rutenberg article (emphasis mine):

The release of the intelligence estimate was a sensitive issue. Others in the administration had considered doing so that spring when Mr. Wilson’s claim first surfaced, but faced resistance from the C.I.A. One investigator questioned in the trial testified that Mr. Libby’s notes indicated that George J. Tenet, then director of central intelligence, was personally opposed to doing so.

Mr. Libby said he found a way around that resistance by getting backdoor approval from the president. In a hush-hush meeting described in testimony, Mr. Libby asked the vice president’s chief counsel, David S. Addington, whether the president could declassify intelligence personally, effectively without C.I.A. knowledge or approval.

Rutenberg is practically the only one who has ever suggested that the idea of declassifying the NIE originated with Libby. Everyone else has Libby checking with Addington because he was worried the VP might be asking him to do something wrong.

This version makes so much more sense. The OVP was not happy with Tenet's proposed public statement (or Tenet's CIA). If Libby (whether on his own or with Cheney) comes up with the declassifying scheme in order to make an end run around Tenet altogether, it's entirely logical that Libby would not only start by checking out the legalities with Addington but also tell Addington to keep his voice down. They certainly wouldn't want to advertise the fact that they were going to try cutting Tenet off at the knees.

George Tenet cut back big time with the referral. The NIE, not Valerie Wilson, was always the undisclosed center of this investigation. Or as Fitz ever so aptly put it, Valerie Plame was not a person, she was an argument -- on the prosecution/CIA side.

[azaghal]

The money line, of course, is the last para:

Are we to believe that it was a routine matter for the CIA to forward to the Department of Justice a complaint about the leak of Valerie Plame’s name and job? Are we to think that Tenet didn’t know that the complaint was being forwarded? Or that Tenet couldn’t have shortstopped it if he wanted to?

Know that we know a lot more about the investigation we can quarrel with Fineman's spin on what he believes the facts to be, but his last para stands. Fineman thinks Tenet's motive was simple revenge. Stranger things have happened. When was Tenet forced out? Before or after the 2004 election?

[clarice]

By George, I think we've got it.

[Bob]

swa... Speaking of McVeigh and Oklahoma!

Affidavit: McVeigh had high-level help

[glenda waggoner]

Tom B & Clarice.."Elementary, my dear Watsons"
Great job in dissecting true meaning of this farce!
Wilson was a puppet mastered by whom and for what?
To undermine the White House and it's appointees
who did not follow the long-term "company" plan.
Fitz is definite member of that plan, as I see it.

[Steve]

Toensing has been guilty of the same fallacy since Day One of this topic - the argument that unless the IIPA was violated, there's no other law that possibly could have been violated.

When an agency - be it the CIA, or whoever - makes a referral to the Department of Justice, they're saying "here's what happened, we'd like you to investigate to see if there should be a prosecution." They don't say "here's what happened, we'd like you to determine whether there should be a prosecution under the IIPA, to the exclusion of all other statutes."

The definitions contained in the IIPA apply to that statute and only in that statute. Toensing's argument assumes that unless a CIA employee meets the IIPA definition of covert, he or she is no more undercover than is the Pope, and the CIA can't complain if his or her identity is revealed. Again, this simply assumes away the existence of the entire US Code other than the IIPA.

[maryrose]

Tenet I believe left before the 2004 election and along with Fleischer's exit makes me want to go Hmmm...

[Great Banana]

Steve,

The definitions contained in the IIPA apply to that statute and only in that statute. Toensing's argument assumes that unless a CIA employee meets the IIPA definition of covert, he or she is no more undercover than is the Pope, and the CIA can't complain if his or her identity is revealed. Again, this simply assumes away the existence of the entire US Code other than the IIPA.

Okay, I'll bite. Cite a statute that may have been violated other than the IIPA.

[royf]

Well gee steve thats a nice theory you have there, but they haven't charged or investigated the leaker Richard Armitage. Hey they haven't even questioned him.