Fans of the Joe Wilson story will find this post to be astonishing. Kevin seems to be speculating that the timing of Wilson's leaks and public statements were driven by information held only inside the CIA and passed to him by his wife.
Whoa. Any hopes I had for the crown of "Most Extreme Wilson Critic" have been dashed.
And this speculation will not hearten Wilson's supporters; clearly, his wife's involvement in his trip and its aftermath becomes important if we seriously think she may have been feeding CIA info to the media through him while hiding behind her covert status (not to mention press protection and spousal immunity). Those agent protection statutes are meant to be a shield, not a sword.
MORE: Let's add this from the Senate Report, p. 25:
The Committee does not fault the CIA for exploiting the access enjoyed by the spouse of a CIA employee traveling to Niger. The Committee believes, however, that it is unfortunate, considering the significant resources available to the CIA, that this was the only option available.
We don't criticize you, but we do.
And to put a few more logs on the fire - the Senate investigators were curious about what Wilson knew, and how he knew it (p. 44):
...Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the XXX intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no "documents" circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from XXXXX intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal.
Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report .
Fine, so no one remembered or was willing to 'fess up. Maybe it's that simple. But there is a question about who recommended him; no one signed him to a confidentiality agreement; his anonymous leaks to the press were "misleading", his explanation to the Senate staff was comical, and he has subsequently changed his story in appearances with Wolf Blitzer and Paula Zahn.
A cautious prosecutor might follow Kevin Drum's lead and catch a whiff of rat here. Who wouldn't?
A Late Note: Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard has been pursuing the press angle; Walter Pincus of the WaPo is non-responsive, but Nick Kristof stands by his story, for now.
Excerpts from Kevin's post below:
LATE UPDATE: More grist for Kevin's mill - Wilson's story is that he didn't object to the SOTU at the time because he thought maybe the African country is question was not Niger. But this State Dept. chat sheet identified Niger in December 2002, as noted by Seymour Hersh in March 2003. Maybe something else influenced Wilson's timing...
Here's the question: the first time that Wilson directly charged that the African uranium story was false — and that George Bush had known it when he delivered his State of the Union address — was in anonymous comments to Nick Kristof published on May 6. Why did he wait until then? And why did he wait until July 6 to talk openly about it (in an op-ed in the New York Times)?
Here's a frankly speculative guess: it was because he didn't know until May that the CIA had concluded that the African uranium story was false. He knew that his own trip had produced no evidence, and he also knew there were other negative pieces of reporting, especially at the State Department, but he didn't know for sure what other evidence the CIA had. So he wasn't completely certain that the Africa uranium story had been conclusively debunked.
...This [June 17] CIA memorandum is a key document (and one that's never been publicly released). After taking into account all the bits and pieces of data floating around, the CIA's final judgment was that there was no good evidence that Iraq had sought uranium "from abroad" — not from Niger and more generally not from Africa either. And since Wilson's wife worked in the WMD section of the CIA, it's possible that she saw a draft of this memo in May and mentioned its conclusion to Wilson. This in turn might have convinced him that it was safe to flatly tell Kristof that the uranium story was bogus.
Re the comment in the Senate report cited above:
"The Committee does not fault the CIA for exploiting the access enjoyed by the spouse of a CIA employee traveling to Niger. The Committee believes, however, that it is unfortunate, considering the significant resources available to the CIA, that this was the only option available."
----
Maybe the CIA did not feel inclined to waste a lot of resources disproving the bonehead theories of Dick Cheney and the neocon intel unit at the Pentagon --especially if they felt such Cheney insights were driven by a compelling political need to suck up to huge campaign donors like Haim Saban rather than by any plausible connection to reality.
Posted by: Don Williams | July 24, 2004 at 11:38 AM
Well, that would be a problem, wouldn't it Don? Especially given the British intelligence confirming that Saddam was seeking to buy (note to moonbats: seeking to buy != bought) uranium from Niger.
Be a shame if the CIA's political beliefs prevented it from investigating that sort of thing.
Posted by: j | July 24, 2004 at 01:31 PM
If it was the result of the "bonehead neocon intel outfit", the deserve a medal. The story was, after all, true--the British stand by their story.
Posted by: Ernst Blofled | July 24, 2004 at 01:33 PM
Hmm, it appears that "the bonehead theories of Dick Cheney and the neocon intel unit at the Pentagon" turned out to be correct. Or, at least, to have some substance requiring further analysis and examination.
Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium from Niger (and other African nations).
Interesting, is it not, that some (repeat: some) on the Left are quite willing to quickly believe any and every theory implicating the Bush Administration in some impermissible activity - no matter how questionable the source - but just as quick to dismiss any theory implicating Saddam Hussein in impermissible activities.
The benefit of the doubt, so to speak, is given to Saddam but no similar benefit is extended to President Bush.
Very odd times we live in, no?
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | July 24, 2004 at 01:35 PM
I think the speculation why/when Wilson delivered his messages about uranium and Niger was to embarass the President on the eve of his trip to Africa. The Bush trip was supposed to highlight poverty-related and AIDS-related programs; instead, he was dogged with questions about Niger every step of the way. Wilson had/has long been a critic of US apathy towards Africa; this was his way of saying "you didn't do it MY way, so take THIS."
Posted by: glenlyon | July 24, 2004 at 01:37 PM
The possibility of Plame leaking classified information to her husband is an interesting hypothesis. I wonder if the Justice department’s special counsel thinks so too?
Why doesn't someone "cut and paste" a chronology to test this hypothesis? Somewhat like the one I did for this blog under "Stand By Your Man" 7/22/04 on the Niger/Iraq "meeting". At least with a timeline we can all agree on WHEN most "facts" occurred.
Finally, I too have thought that Plame leaking to her husband about some important issues was likely. Particularly after reading this excerpt:
“In an interview with Committee staff, Mr. Wilson was asked how he knew some of the things he was stating publicly with confidence… For example, when asked how he “knew” that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told the Committee staff that his assertion may have involved “a little literary flair.” (See Additional Views of Chairman Pat Robert et al., SSCI Report, page 445)
Given that-- I was thus somewhat astonished to read the following exchange:
Sen. Bond:”...The ambassador has said that his wife had nothing to do with recommending him. And when we interviewed... our committee interviewed his wife, she then... she was asked specifically if she had... who had recommended the ambassador go. And she said that "I can't remember exactly whether I recommended him or my boss did." And other people... other agents reported that it was on her recommendation that the ambassador was sent.
MARGARET WARNER: And briefly, Ambassador Wilson, there was a memo cited by her or written by her in which she basically, to her boss, touted your contacts in Niger. You didn't consider that a suggestion that they...
JOSEPH WILSON: My understanding... and let me just go back here. On July 14, Mr. Novak exposed my wife's identity and made the allegation that she had suggested me for the job. On July 22, the CIA said to a couple of reporters who asked about that, she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment.
They... the officers who did ask him to check the uranium story were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising. She did not recommend her husband to undertake the...
MARGARET WARNER: You don't consider that memo a suggestion?
JOSEPH WILSON: I have not seen the memo. I don't know what transpired, if her supervisor asked her to list my qualifications. My bona fides were well established, having made a trip out to Niger in 1999, in addition to 23 years service for my country..." (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. 7/20/04).
Ok, assume Sen. Bond’s Plame quote “I can't remember exactly whether I recommended him …” is essentially accurate.
Questions:
1. Was Sen. Bond telling Wilson something Wilson didn’t already know?
2. If “yes”—Wilson didn’t know his wife doubts—then has this always been the case? Did Plame keep Wilson is the dark on *everything* he was not authorized to know? Or did she pick and choose: leaking some that might support his case and suppressing others that might damage it.
3. If “no”—Wilson did know his wife doubts—then his “...the CIA said to a couple of reporters who asked about that, she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment” is a nice example of deception by non-disclosure.
Posted by: Reg | July 24, 2004 at 02:23 PM
Ol' bigot Don blamin' the J-E-W-S, which is pretty funny because Haim Saban is one of the Democratic Party's biggest Hollywood contributors.
Go wipe the spittle off your chin, Don. Not very becoming.
--furious
Posted by: furious | July 24, 2004 at 02:26 PM
"Maybe the CIA did not feel inclined to waste a lot of resources disproving the bonehead theories of Dick Cheney and the neocon intel unit at the Pentagon."
----
Maybe Don and his ilk are incapable of handling the truth when finally confronted with the facts. Now that its been proven that Joe Wilson lied, his supplicants remain in denial lest their fanatical efforts to defeat Bush at all costs become undermined. But, hey, they probably still believe the world is flat, too.
Posted by: HotJavaJack | July 24, 2004 at 02:32 PM
So Tom, your telling me that Kevin is accusing Mrs. Wilson of leaking CIA secrets to her husband (how else would her husband know the CIA's position). Does Kevin have any shame, apparently not.
Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog | July 24, 2004 at 02:52 PM
I've seen Don posting on a half dozen websites. He always comes in with some assinine theory espousing the evils of Dick Cheney, then runs off to his Commissars house for another debriefing. He's nothing but a troll, with an active imagination. Don, do everyone a favor and stick to what you know best. Doing the ball tuck in front of the mirror, and screaming at the girl in the cistern, "it puts the lotion on it's skin". Those nice men in the clean white suits will be by to pick you up after Bush gets another 4 years. ;}
Posted by: Brad | July 24, 2004 at 03:01 PM
So Tom, your telling me that Kevin is accusing Mrs. Wilson...
I think he used the word "speculating", which I certainly hope I repeated. (Now I am afraid to look...)
Posted by: TM | July 24, 2004 at 04:13 PM
Hmmm, makes me wonder if something even more nefarious is afoot.
CONSPIRACY THEORY #476: Someone at CIA can't stand George Bush & Company (yes, yes, I realize that's a stretch), additionally, someone at CIA (out of sheer jealousy and envy) can't stand Valerie Plame, aka Jane Bond, or the officious ass to whom she is married. Beautiful set-up really, definite two for one: create political chaos for the Bushies, sidetrack Val's career and you won't ever again have to behold that husband of hers waxing eloquent at any more office parties.
HEY, it could happen. Hee hee.
Posted by: Lesley | July 24, 2004 at 05:23 PM
Hmmm.
If the CIA did did in fact choose not to use any available resources to investigate Iraq seeking yellowcake, relying instead on a completely inexperienced outsider, when so directed by THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA then the CIA has got even more problems than we're aware of.
The CIA isn't supposed to make policy decisions. Nor is it supposed to judge whether or not to obey instructions given to it from the upper echelons of the executive branch. It's supposed to do it's damn job.
I'm thinking the CIA needs to be fired en masse and replaced from the ground up.
Posted by: ed | July 24, 2004 at 06:39 PM
Hmmm.
I'd suggest that framing Valerie Plame is not reasonable idea. Frankly most of the leading executives at the CIA seem to come from the DO, operations, branch and not from the DI, intelligence, branch. Additionally being an analysin the WMD section pretty much won't give you any real opportunities to excel or get noticed for promotion.
On the other hand here we have an analyst, with access to highly classified information, married to a egomaniacal publicity hound who has extremely strong ties to the Democratic party.
Well another way to get a promotion is to scratch someone's back.
Posted by: ed | July 24, 2004 at 06:44 PM
Ed, ofcourse, you are perfectly correct :), I was just being silly and having some fun adjusting the antenna on my designer tinfoil hat. What I've never understood, however, is why with ONLY (supposedly) one piece of the puzzle (ie., his Niger contacts), Joe Wilson could say that Bush lied with reference to British intel in his State of the Union Address? What am I missing here? This is an odd tale, indeed, but I remain firmly convinced that any attempts by Saddam to acquire yellowcake were merely directed toward an entry into Pillsbury's (little known) Nuclear Bake Off Contest.
Posted by: Lesley | July 24, 2004 at 07:39 PM
On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal said "Special Procecutor Patrick Fitzgerald should fold up his tent" as identifying Ms. Plame, as the source of the suggestion to send Joe Wilson to Niger, would not be a crime, but merely a connection of the dots.
So exactly what is Mr. Fitzgerald doing ?
Last time I checked, Mr. Novak had not been interviewed, at least not aggressively. As Mr. Fitzgerald is not covered by the Watergate era statues and is merely a formality within the DOJ attorney structure, he comes with all the tools of the DOJ and none of the old rules that made it easy for the Clinton White House to paint Ken Starr as out of control.
Items still on the table include: the source of the "forged documents" and, as mentioned here, was Joe Wilson getting "coaching". Rumours have it that some elements within the CIA and with CIA connections had their hand in both, but only time will tell.
Posted by: J_Crater | July 24, 2004 at 09:18 PM
Items still on the table include: the source of the "forged documents" and, as mentioned here, was Joe Wilson getting "coaching". Rumours have it that some elements within the CIA and with CIA connections had their hand in both, but only time will tell.
Seymour Hersh in "The Stovepipe" "reported" that a CIA cabal was the source of the forgeries.
A debunking is here. Color me skeptical, but *if* the FBI is taking it seriously, it becomes one more reason that a prosecution of the Plame leakers is problematic - it would be nice if the prosecutor went after the bad guys, rather than played into the hands of a CIA cabal trying to embarass (and ocverturn) the Administration. And Ms. Plame and her hubby may be dupes of the cabal, rather than participants.
Did I put enough caveats and disclaimers in there?
Posted by: TM | July 24, 2004 at 09:34 PM
Hmmm.
1. "Ed, ofcourse, you are perfectly correct...".
I'm glad you see this. For some strange reason it's not as obvious for some other, less perceptive, people. :) Just joking. (for those less perceptive people)
2. "... :), I was just being silly and having some fun adjusting the antenna on my designer tinfoil hat."
No idea where that came from as I didn't state anything that could be construed in that manner.
3. "What I've never understood, however, is why with ONLY (supposedly) one piece of the puzzle (ie., his Niger contacts), Joe Wilson could say that Bush lied with reference to British intel in his State of the Union Address? What am I missing here?"
The press.
The simple fact is that it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a politician to fight the press. Especially when it's not just one or two elements, but nearly the whole damn thing. Such an effort would get bogged down in irrelevant particulars with, unsubstantiated accusations.
In this case you had an incredibly biased and aggressive press that was just waiting for a scandal, any scandal at all. The press, as you might have noticed, didn't bother comparing the "16 words" with the accusations made by Wilson. To the press the actual details were irrelevant. What was important was that there was a "scandal" and that, with enough combined shouting, the President wouldn't be able to get a word in edgewise.
Maybe he could have fought on this issue. But how much shouting would he have had to do to outshout the whole MSM? Additionally the whole purpose of fighting on an issue would be to win. How could he win? Only by showing that the entire MSM was either completely staffed by credulous lying incompetents without a shred of ethics or morals.
And remember. The President gets to choose when, where and what he says to the Media. The Media gets to choose when, where and if we get to hear it.
No contest. The only way out of that is to let the story die as fast as possible and then revisit the issue later on.
Posted by: ed | July 25, 2004 at 02:24 AM
Ed, thank you for your thoughtful response. I know you weren't trying to make fun of me. I was making fun of myself and my conspiracy theory although given Tom's response "it would be nice if the prosecutor went after the bad guys, rather than played into the hands of a CIA cabal trying to embarass (and ocverturn) the Administration. And Ms. Plame and her hubby may be dupes of the cabal, rather than participants," I might not be completely off the mark. Thanks, Tom, for the links to the Hersh and Hans articles.
Ed, as you so wisely pointed out, "And remember. The President gets to choose when, where and what he says to the Media. The Media gets to choose when, where and if we get to hear it," I have often wondered why the WH has been so silent on this yellowcake, Wilson, forged documents, etc. business. If there is a problem between the White House and a CIA "cabal", Bush and co. must be carefully monitoring this information/disinformation/leaks campaign against them in an attempt to smoke out the perps. At the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, I don't give a damn what party is in charge of the executive branch, the thought that someone at CIA is actively engaged in a dirty tricks campaign (especially during wartime) enrages me. I do understand that is a naive comment. I'll go out on a limb here: who knows if the British intel comment in the State of the Union Address wasn't deliberately placed there to help smoke out the rats and watch how they attack the cheese. Ok, that's nutty, I know.
At any rate, thanks gentlemen. Always a pleasure reading anything you have to say and I appreciation any elucidation you have to throw my way.
Posted by: Lesley | July 25, 2004 at 12:43 PM
Re: Alleged CIA involvement in "Niger" forged documents. Two words: Occam's razor.
However,
Re: Allegations that Wilson may have received unauthorized classified information or maybe even just a "wink and a nod" confirmation on some critical questions. Oh, I think that is quite possible.
Now does anyone want to do that chronology I suggested in a comment above? Where's Mickey Kaus' assigment desk when you need it??
Posted by: Reg | July 25, 2004 at 01:44 PM
"Seymour Hersh in "The Stovepipe" "reported" that a CIA cabal was the source of the forgeries.
A debunking is here. Color me skeptical, but *if* the FBI is taking it seriously, it becomes one more reason that a prosecution of the Plame leakers is problematic - it would be nice if the prosecutor went after the bad guys, rather than played into the hands of a CIA cabal trying to embarass (and ocverturn) the Administration. And Ms. Plame and her hubby may be dupes of the cabal, rather than participants."
The trouble with all these analysises is that they use the "one-dimensional chess" approach, exploiting the notion that there are a minimum of players involved or more simply, myopia.
Just as Joe Wilson assumed that his reporting was the only source for Bush's statement, meanwhile the French are revealing it really did happen (but aren't allowing the Brits to id them as the source); who'd a thunk it, another report.
Of course, none of the debunking takes into consideration that the French were seeing uranium trading to Iraq, Iran, North Korean, China and Libya. Let's just tote the report, any report, out there and see them hunker down and make things even harder to detect.
Posted by: J_Crater | July 26, 2004 at 11:38 AM
Does elBaradei know about these French and their connaisance of uranium trading to Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China, and Libya?
===========================================
Posted by: kim | October 09, 2005 at 10:50 AM