Joe Wilson (On CNN) Wants A Piece of Pincus

Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson appeared on CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. Pending a transcript, it appeared that Joe Wilson implicitly challenged the reliability of Walter Pincus of the Washington Post. Mr. Wilson claimed that a Washington Post reporter (on a story with Mr. Pincus' byline) "misattributed" quotes to Joe Wilson in the Washington Post story cited in the Senate investigation of intelligence failures. [The transcript confirms this, below]

In the interview with Wolf Blitzer Wilson essentially recycled his defense presented in the Washington Post and Salon. However, new ground was broken when Wolf Blitzer asked him about the misleading information reportedly given by Wilson to the Washington Post. Wilson's explanation to the Senate staff was that he "mis-spoke". His new explanation to Wolf Blitzer was that he had not read the story the staffers were asking about; he sees now that it has several sources, so he actually mis-spoke to the Senate staff - he should have said that he was "misattributed" by the reporter.

Our thought - oh, please. The Senate staff had (we imagine) supporting evidence, and possibly statements from the reporters themselves (Wilson's role in this had already been reported by the WaPo). For Wilson to change his story now, when we the people can't see all the evidence, is a bit slim.

Here is the Post story in which the misleading information appeared; here is the current WaPo reporting.

Is it unreasonable to think that Susan Schmidt checked with the other WaPo reporters before printing this charge? If the Senate report is wrong, that is news - why is the Post keeping it quiet?

And is it unreasonable to think that Walter Pincus, who printed the story describing what Wilson reported, and relied on Wilson as a source, checked with Wilson before describing the nature of Wilson's report? We wonder whether Mr. Pincus appreciates having his journalistic skills challenged on national television.

Finally, Mr. Wilson wrote a lengthy letter to the Washington Post ombudsman - wouldn't that be a more appropriate forum to present these charges?

As a bit of an aside, in the course of a wide-ranging interview, Acting CIA Director McLaughlin was asked whether Ms. Plame had recommended Mr. Wilson for the trip to Niger. He declined to answer, citing the ongoing criminal investigation.

That is a stock excuse, of course, but it does not jibe with the Josh Marshall argument that her involvement is legally irrelevant.

More interview notes below:

UPDATE: The stalwart Roger Simon has thoughts on this, and provides a link to the reply of the WaPo ombudsman to Wilson's letter.

UPDATE 2: The transcript is up. Soundbite:

BLITZER: So when the committee says that you told them you had misspoken, what did you misspeak?

WILSON: Well, actually, what I misspoke was, when I misspoke to the committee, when I spoke to the staff -- this interview took place 15 months after The Washington Post article appeared. I did not have a chance to review the article. They did not show me the article.

They threw it out there, and the question I took as being a rather generic question: Could you have misspoken? Yes, I am male, I'm over 50. By definition, I can misspeak. I have gone back since and taken a look at this particular article. It refers to an unidentified former government official. If it is referring to me, it is a misattribution, of facts that were already in the public domain and had been so since March.

My first public statement on this, in my own words, was on July 6th.

A rather generic question, just a casual chat with some Senate investigators trying to figure out whether there was some sort of security hiccup in the flow of classified information. Reading the report, the staff clearly spent time on this question of who knew what and when about the forgeries. Maybe they should have alerted Mr. Wilson to the fact that this was not a casual investigation; maybe the Dem staffers should have asked him whether he was comfortable with his answer, or offered him a copy of the article in question.

Let's be clear - these forgeries are the subject of an FBI investigation; Seymour Hersh has alleged (debunked here) that rogue CIA agents planted them. The Senate staff asked each person in the Wilson meeting whether they had discussed documents with Wilson (no one remembered doing so). This was not a matter the staff was taking casually.

One hopes that Mr. Pincus of the Washington Post can shed some light on this allegation of sloppy journalistic practice - misattributed quotes are not what WaPo readers expect.

Michael Getler: ombudsman@washpost.com

Walter Pincus: pincusw@washpost.com

Susan Schmidt's email is not listed, but, in looking at the directory, I detect a pattern which would suggest that this might work: schmidts@washpost.com.

And a concluding Bold Prediction, in the form of a song: "Joe's just a man who's intentions are good/ Oh man, please don't let him say he was misunderstood". Which will be his next fall-back, when he explains that the quote is correct, but in a more complicated context. Since Nick Kristof staggered to the same misunderstanding, we will be skeptical. Just guessing.

Wolf Blitzer hit on several points. He displayed and read the excerpt from the Senate report describing Ms. Plame's involvement. Joe Wilson's explanation - his wife was a conduit only, the CIA had his name from a 1999 trip, and the memo prepared by his wife which cited his qualifications was simply in response to a request for something like a resume.

[One wonders why his resume was not on file, since, as the Senate report makes clear, they did have his name from the 1999 trip. There is also a suggestion that his wife suggested him for thattrip, IIRC]

Asked about the section of the Senate report where a CIA officers is quoted as saying that Ms. Plame "offered up" his name. Wilson argues that the quote is out of context, although he admitted to having no idea what the full context had been.

He also repeats his "believe the anonymous leaks" defense.

Wolf asks about the leaks of "misleading information" to the Washington Post, pointing out that Wilson's explanation to the senate staff was "I mis-spoke."

Wilson gives more detail here - when the Senate asked him about those stories, he did not re-read them. He has since learned that the stories had several sources, so when he "mis-spoke" it was to the Senate staff - he should have said that he was "misattributed".

And what about the trade mission, Wolf Blitzer wonders - how did that get left out of your early accounts?

Wilson explains that there were several unimportant Iraqi-Niger contacts, and that eventually the CIA gave up on the story. Therfore, we are left to conclude, what he said was essentially accurate.

Wolf Blitzer asks whether there is anything he would like to take back; Wilson admits that, although it is a surprise to him, he has to admit that apparently Cheney was not briefed on his report.

And Mr. Wilson informs us that this is an orchestrated smear campaign, which explains that tingling in my dental fillings.

Comments

[reg]

Opps! Ombudsman Getler has his own big fat whopper. He's wrong, in part, when he writes:

Wilson takes issue with Schmidt's reporting that his report on the trip to Niger "bolstered the case" about purported uranium sales to Iraq. But the study concludes that Wilson's March 2002 report, which noted that the former prime minister of Niger said that in 1999 he was approached by a businessman insisting he meet with an Iraqi delegation (which he did not do), "lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal."(Getler, WaPo, 7/18/2004).

Here’s what the Senate Intelligence Report actually said:

Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [DELETED]… businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “ALTHOUGH THE MEETING TOOK PLACE [emphasis mine], Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.”(Senate Intelligence Report, page 43, last para).

Furthermore, the Senate report says, "The former ambassador [Wilson] said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by “expanding commercial relations." (Senate Intelligence report, page 44, para U).

[The Kid]

Wrongo, reg. When Getler wrote "lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal" he was accurately paraphrasing the report page 71:

Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

[reg]

Umm, TK your reply doesn’t seem to contradict or have any relevance to my post or the fact in dispute. I think you just misread my post,

Did Mayaki actually meet with the Iraqi delegation? Getler says he did not. The Senate report and Wilson say he did.

I say Getler’s wrong. To make that clear I used upper case when quoting the Senate report where the report specifically contradicts Getler (ie “ALTHOUGH THE MEETING TOOK PLACE [emphasis mine] Mayaki let the matter drop due …” Senate report page 43).

[The Kid]

Righto, reg!
My bad, per the report and contrary to the (which he did not do), the report states in several places that the meeting did occur. One example is on page 42:
In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations." The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.

I was focusing what I thought Getler’s main point was, that “For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal…”

I’ll try to be more careful.

[IceCold]

Reporter: Did you have access to the British assessment cited in the State of the Union?

Amb. Wilson: No.

Reporter: So you don't know its details, its sourcing, or even which countries to which it pertains?

Amb. Wilson: No.

Reporter: Did the US intelligence community give you access to their full information and analysis on any African uranium deals or interactions with Iraq by Niger or any other African country?

Amb. Wilson: No.

Reporter: And you couldn't have been relying on such classified information anyway in your op-ed for the Times, because you wouldn't be permitted to reveal such information, right?

Amb. Wilson: That's right.

Reporter: How many currently producing or potential uranium sources are there in Africa? How many have had contacts with Iraq?

Amb. Wilson: I don't know.

Reporter: How many African uranium-producing countries did you visit on behalf of US intelligence?

Amb. Wilson: Just one, Niger.

Reporter: So your Times op-ed alleges manipulation of intelligence as reflected in the State of the Union address, but you've no particular knowledge of the British assessment cited in that address, don't know which countries it concerned or on what information it was based, you visited only one African uranium-producing country out of several, and don't have access to the full US information and assessments on the same topics, to include the Niger situation.

Amb. Wilson: Uh .... well ....

(an imagined interview with a journalist displaying even rudimentary logical reasoning ability, and some knowledge of the topic, on July 7, 2003 ..... of course it would only get worse for Wilson in follow-up interviews, as the Brits stood by their report, informed the world it had no basis in any forged documents, and the assessment was found reasonable by parliamentary committees ..... oddly enough, this interview and the even tougher follow-ups NEVER occurred .... I believe this is the point as which a frequent commenter here asks "can I start banging my head against the wall now?")

[TM]

Reporter: How many currently producing or potential uranium sources are there in Africa? How many have had contacts with Iraq?

Amb. Wilson: I don't know.

I am in total thematic agreement with you. However, I have read interviews where Wilson expounds on the four African countries that export uranium.

But how did Wilson's op-ed get the title "What I Didn't Find in Africa"?

The MAD magazine version - What I Didn't Find in Africa - Because I Only Looked In Niger.

[IceCold]

OK, amend Wilson's answer to "Four, and I don't know". Glad to hear Wilson can Google and spend 15 minutes on the web (just kidding, but that's all it takes to be able to expound thusly -- and did he include Somalia?).

I'll stop. But since the day his op-ed appeared I've been waiting for anyone to ask him an intelligent pertinent question revealing that he was in no position to even comment in an interesting way on the British report, much less accuse the WH of manipulation or dishonesty. Even bloggers never seemed to focus on the substance of the matter -- too many secondary goats to rope. Mendacious or not, his wife involved or nefariously "outed" or not, whatever the verb chosen by WH speech-writers for the Sixteen Words -- Wilson was (obviously) never in a position to make the charges he made.

[TM]

On the subjectof getler's "big fat whopper", (and if that is a whopper, how do we explain obesity in America?), I will wager as much as fifty cents that he was betrayed by his own red pencil.

My gues is that he originally wrote something like "in 1999 he was approached by a businessman insisting he meet with an Iraqi delegation **to discuss uranium purchases** (which he did not do)..."

and then, in the editing process, lost his thread.

Since it doesn't change the point, so what?

[Cecil Turner]

Wilson is forcing a reassessment of his credibility (and may have redeemed himself) with this brilliantly PC bit of illogic: "Yes, I am male, I'm over 50. By definition, I can misspeak."

If he actually believes the definition of misspeaking is dependent on gender and age, he may not be a liar after all . . . just very confused.

[Paul Zrimsek]

I'm baffled by the age-and-sex reference as well, but I'm guessing that what he meant is that he's slowing down a bit with age, and now is merely ALMOST infallible.

Alternative hypothesis: now that his gig with a prospective Kerry administration looks unlikely, he's angling for Bob Dole's job.

[Reg]

Re: Big Fat Whooper?

Sweat the details, TM.
It's all I'm say'in.

[TM]

Ok, is it a detail, or is it a Big Fat Whopper?

That's all I'm askin'.

[TM]

Ok, is it a detail, or is it a Big Fat Whopper?

That's all I'm askin'.

[The Kid]

Ooops! Sorry, back to “Wrongo, reg.”

WaPo Ombudsman Getler was correct – the meeting did not occur.

See this 7/14/04 BBC report which says: Ibrahim Mayaki told the BBC that no Iraqi delegation went to Niger while he was foreign minister or prime minister.

With a date of 7/14 - Wednesday - Getler could easily have seen this before the Sunday edition was put to bed.

Gotta watch them details. No Big Fat Whopper here, not even a happy meal.

Your turn to apologize to Tom.

[Reg]

TK, my correction was directed at Getler not Tom.
If I'm wrong then Getler is owed the apology-- a big fat one-- not Tom.

Happily, I don't think I'm wrong. Though the BBC report adds an interesting twist to my original comment on Getler's article.

What started as a critique of "alleged" sloppiness in Getler's critique (which IMHO TM was a big fat whooper from an ombudsman) has now turned into something else. That "something" is my next post.

[Reg]

Wilson’s Reported Iraqi/Niger Meeting that “Was”, “Was Not”, and Now “Was”—Again!

I believe Joe Wilson--really, The question is not “if” it’s “when” you believe him.

Consider the alleged “meeting” between an Iraqi official and former Niger Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki in Algiers during the Organization of African Unity (OAU) conference in June 1999. (Obscure enough for you?) Questions have arisen here and elsewhere about this issue. So I decided to take a fresh look.

Has Wilson lied about this issue? I’ll be charitable and say probably not. But it’s a close call. I suspect Wilson-- if asked-- would say it depends on what the meaning of the word “meeting”. Is it a formal meeting between official delegations or an informal meeting between government officials? Did Wilson spin and was he misleading? You bet.

Here’s a quick chronology (note: I’ve added that which is in brackets[ ]):

1. March 5, 2002 Wilson is Debriefed Just After Returning From Niger (SSCI, p.43-44)
Wilson tells two CIA officers according to their report that Mayaki met with the Iraqi Delegation in June 1999.

2. July 6, 2003: “What I Didn’t Find In Africa” Wilson’s NY Times Op/ed:
No mention of the previously alleged meeting in the NYT op/ed or in his first “Meet the Press” interview that same day.

3. July 11, 2003: DCI Tenet Releases a Statement on Niger Controversy/Wilson’s Trip:
First (?) public mention of the alleged June 1999 Iraqi/Niger meeting.

4. September 16, 2003: Talking Points Memo Interviews Joe Wilson (page 16-17)
Wilson says his interlocutor [Mayaki] “declined” to take the 1999 Iraqi meeting in question.

5. October 5, 2003: Wilson Appears on “Meet the Press”—Again! (MSNBC, transcript)
Wilson’s asked about Tenet’s July 11 statement. Wilson responds, “the meeting never took place..”

6. January, 2004: Wilson Speaks Again to His Source [Mayaki] (“The Politics of Truth” p.28)
Source [Mayaki] tells Wilson that “Baghdad Bob” was probably the Iraqi he [Mayaki] met at the OAU meeting in 1999.

7. May 2, 2004: Wilson Appears on “Meet the Press” Yet Again. (MSNBC, transcript)
Wilson: “That’s right…there was a meeting...between a senior Niger official and an Iraqi official”

8. July 7, 2004: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report Is Publicly Released
Report States: [Wilson] said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by “expanding commercial relations." (Senate Intelligence report, page 44).

9. July 14, 2004: BBC Report “Ex-premier [Mayaki] denies Iraq link” *(See below)
BBC interviews Niger’s ex-prime minister Mayaki. The BBC reports that Ibrahim Mayaki said the following:
A) Iraq did not try to buy uranium
B) No Iraqi delegation went to Niger while he was foreign or prime minister.
C) Mayaki denies allegations in the Senate report that he admitted meeting a delegation from Iraq in 1999.
D) Mayaki now says he has no recollection of such a meeting [as described in the Senate Report], while he was in government from 1999-2001.

10 July18, 2004: WaPo Ombudsman Response to Wilson’s Critique of the Post:
“But the [Senate] study concludes that Wilson's March 2002 report, which noted that the former prime minister of Niger said that in 1999 he was approached by a businessman insisting he meet with an Iraqi delegation (which he did not do)…” (Getler, WaPo, 7/18/2004)

*Note: On item #9 the 7/14/2004 Mayaki Interview as Reported by the BBC:
Allegation A may be correct. Certainly “expanding commercial relations” has just enough plausible deniability to deny uranium as Iraq’s goal.
Allegation B is false. Iraq’s Vatican ambassador visited Niger on 2/8/1999 as an envoy of the then President of Iraq to Mr. Ibrahim Bare, the then President of Niger. At the time Mayaki was Niger’s Prime Minister. Allegation C is probably false. Is he hanging on the word “delegation” as opposed to meeting an Iraqi official in June 1999? If not, and he’s telling the truth then Wilson’s the liar. Allegation D is probably false and is certainly highly deceptive--or was Wilson highly deceptive?.Did Wilson make up his January 2004 conversation with Mayaki as he reports in his book? Simply stated, I trust Wilson under oath more than I trust a BBC report of a former Nigerian official not under oath.