JustOneMinute

I Ignored Bush's Lies (But Supported the War Anyway)

Dianne Feinstein provides a fascinating alternative view on the question of manipulated, confusing, or misunderstood intelligence on Saddam's nuclear capabilities and aspirations.

Writing her separate opinion in the SSCI report (p. 483), she said this about the intelligence on Iraq's nuclear program:

"I think it is clear that there was not an ongoing nuclear program. In August of 2002, prior to the vote in the Senate on the authorization to go to war, I spent a day in Vienna at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA is the agency that runs nuclear inspections; they saw no signs of a nuclear program in Iraq. The IAEA convinced me that there was no on-going nuclear program in Iraq. The intelligence reporting on a possible Iraqi nuclear program did not have an impact on me, because I did not believe it was correct."

So, she didn't believe the lies (and neither does she suggest anyone is lying, but I am employing a bit of literary flair here.) We wonder - what did she say about the war resolution in October 2002 when she voted in favor of it?:

...For the past 11 years, Saddam Hussein has prevaricated, manipulated, deceived and violated every agreement he has made to disarm.

If the past is prologue, this record means that arms inspections, alone, will not force disarmament.

The great danger is a nuclear one. If Saddam Hussein achieves nuclear capability, the risk increases exponentially and the balance of power shifts radically in a deeply menacing way.

As I said on this floor in earlier remarks, I believe that Saddam Hussein rules by terror and has squirreled away stores of biological and chemical weapons. He has used them on Kurdish villages and in his invasion of Iran.

Evidence indicates that he is engaged in developing nuclear weapons. However, today the best authorities I could find indicate he does not yet have nuclear capability. But this is only a question of time.

And we cannot let Saddam Hussein become a nuclear power.

My goodness. Even though she saw through the smokescreen of the Bush-Cheney lies, she thought Saddam was a long term nuclear threat and supported disarming him. Go figure. Is Ms. Feinstein hopelessly out of the mainstream or is she still a serious figure in her party?

And somewhat parenthetically, we note that Ms. Feinstein apparently succumbed to the Wolfowitz mind-rays for much of the rest of her statement - she entertains us below. I shouldn't even comment (but I do):

Mark Steyn On Joe Wilson

Mark Steyn is beautiful on Joe Wilson. Chew on a few soundbites, then send an e-mail to Daniel Okrent of the NY Times.

But it turns out JOE WILSON LIED! PEOPLE DIED. Of embarrassment mostly. At least I'm assuming that's why the New York Times, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, PBS drone Bill Moyers and all the other media bigwigs Joseph C. Wilson IV suckered have fallen silent on the subject of the white knight of integrity they've previously given the hold-the-front-page treatment, too.

And what about John F. Kerry? Joe Wilson campaigned with Kerry in at least six states, and claims to have helped with the candidate's speeches. He was said to be a senior foreign policy adviser to the senator. As of Friday, Wilson's Web site, restorehonesty.com, was still wholly paid for by Kerry's presidential campaign.

...Some of us are on record as dismissing Wilson in the first bloom of his unmerited celebrity. But John Kerry was taken in -- to the point where he signed him up as an adviser and underwrote his Web site. What does that reveal about Mister Nuance and his superb judgment?

It reveals, again, his only relevant attribute - his name is NOT George Bush. This is the ultimate negative campaign.

We note that Mark Steyn does a much better job of linking Kerry to Wilson then Ed Gillespie does.

MORE: A Wilson defense from columnist Tim Rutten of the LA Times, which continues the pattern established by Josh Marhsall and picked up by Wesley Clark's former press spokesperson at Salon - begin with name-calling and derogation of the other side:

It takes a strong stomach to plunge into the sea of malice, mendacity and misrepresentation that now churns around the affair of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, Valerie Plame.

But while a quick immersion in the muck may not completely clarify some of this case's hazier facts, it is disturbingly instructive about some of the tendencies playing themselves out in the American media over this contentious election year.

We know what you are, Tim, but what are we?

Roger Simon is the unifying link, and thanks.

My Seriously Good Idea

Daniel Okrent, public editor of the NY Times, just devoted a column to the Times handling of the Tony Hendra book review and the Times subsequent story about serious allegations against Mr. Hendra which seemed to be relvant to the book.

The Times recently ran a very positive review of Joseph Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth".

Since then, they have devoted just a few paragraphs to the follow-up on Wilson's credibility, buried in a larger a story; shouldn't we expect more? Surely the question of how both sides approached the debate on our use of intelligence is newsworthy.

For example, missing from the Times rowback in the James Risen piece is any mention of the book review or the two Nick Kristof columns or the NY Times op-ed that launched Mr. Wilson's balloon. (Subsequent sourcing info in the WaPo.)

For a sense of how the media storm built, let's re-print the lead from the second Kristof 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.

The Times archive is on display here.

Let's go!

Daniel Okrent can be reached at: Public(at)NYTimes.com

UPDATE: Getting warmer! The NY Times tiptoes up to the issue with a Sunday piece titled "New Reports Again Question Whether Iraq Sought Uranium in Niger".

Some of Mr. Wilson's credibility problems are cited. However, the Times remains sphinx-like on the Senate report finding, undisputed by Mr. Wilson, that the Ambassador gave "misleading information" in anonymous leaks to the Washington Post and by extension, Nick Kristof of the NY Times. They also mention that Mr. Wilson's credibility is challenged by the news that his report to the CIA included information about an Iraqi trade delegation, but they fail to mention that Mr. Wilson omitted this key fact from his famous NY Times op-ed, and they slide past the fact that George Tenet disputed this part of the Wilson op-ed a year ago.

We also note that the Times gives one sentence to the Senate finding that Wilson lied about his wife's involvement, and four sentences to Wilson's response, thereby giving space to Wilson to rebut a case the Times never presents. Bah.

Much as we would like to credit the InstaPundit, we infer that the Times was stung by this:

Referring to Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page on Thursday said, "It now appears that both leaders have been far more scrupulous in discussing this and related issues than much of the media in either of their countries, which would embarrass the journalistic profession, if that were possible."

Must See TV

The Kobe Bryant trial starts Friday, Aug 27. The Republican National Convention starts three days later (with a veeery interesting and controversial schedule.

Where's the remote?

Joe Says It Ain't So

Joe Wilson rises to his own defense in an open letter to the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ("SSCI").

In a separate section of the SSCI report (Additional Views, starting on p. 441), the Chairman had presented certain proposed conclusions to which the Committee could not unanimously agree. Apparently the Chairman believed that (1) "former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's public statements were not based on knowledge he actually possessed", and (2) "it was the former ambassador's wife who recommended
him for his trip to Niger."

To summarize the Ambassador's defense:

- the Chairman shouldn't call a memo from Wilson's wife singing his praises a "recommendation". It's a.... well, Wilson doesn't say. But I will note on his behalf that her memo was written just before Valentine's Day, so maybe it was a draft of something she meant for him alone.

- the Chairman should go back to the Democrats who refused to vote these conclusions out and remind them to include the exculpatory evidence in their Additional Views, or the main report, or somewhere. Evidently the presumably sympathetic Dems forgot to do this, but Wilson is sure there is a better story somewhere;

- we should believe some anonymous leaks in the press that tell a different story about his wife, because the press has been totally reliable on this story;

- in evaluating his public credibility we should focus exclusively on the words that come out of his mouth - we should ignore how others report on what he says, and ignore what he writes in his book. And anyway, where is their sense of artistry? He is quoted in the Senate report as explaining that for certain passages of the book, he used "a little literary flair".

The Ambassador does not address the matter of his anonymous credibility - the "misleading" information he leaked to the WaPo.

Now, my summary of his defense may not be perfectly fair, but I have additional thoughts below.

MID-COURSE UPDATE: The always-interesting Memeorandum round-up of a related Wilson apologia in Salon is here, so you can play "Spot the Serious Wilson Defenders" along with me (Hint - I already linked to them earlier in this post. Second hint - NO, you aren't overlooking any links. And a caveat - Memeorandum may pick up some new posts - they have eight right now, and the most recent is Tim Dunlop, who may or may not be fence sitting, but was Wilso-phobic when last we looked. Be Careful - Tim Dunlop has changed my mind on some things, so be forewarned as to his sinister powers...)

MORE: Wilson has a letter to the WaPo criticizing their story; as a kindness, they don't link to their story to highlight the difference between "decided" and "recommended" (but I do).

EVEN MORE: I'm hassling Daniel Okrent again (probably doesn't bother him); I'm thinking like Jonah Goldberg (hmm, that probably ought to bother him.... oh, you see me smiling); and revealing my own cache of quotes and stories, with a HUGE assist from Alex Parker.

UPDATE: The Washington Post ombudsman replies.

Buried Lede Watch

The NY Times headline and lede:

"Iraqi Liquor Store Owners Fear Fundamentalists' Rise"

Luckily it was mostly beer - 6,000 cans of it - that was shot up Sunday. But the liquor distributor in Baghdad was hit with a full-scale assault: several cars and a minivan full of masked men with guns and grenades sprayed the building with hundreds of rounds. Fifty workers and customers huddled for safety on a second floor as it was raked with bullets.

What is going on? Eventually we learn that the Mahdi militia, still loyal to Sadr, have:

...been handing out leaflets in Sadr City, the poor Shiite slum named for two of his relatives, listing nine categories of crimes for which the penalty is death.

"It is allowed to kill: 1. hijackers 2. kidnappers 3. thieves who are trying to disrupt safe family life 4. collaborators, spies and terrorists from Al Qaeda, Wahhabis and Saddamists," the proclamation reads. It goes on to list prostitutes, pimps, pornography sellers, gamblers - and those who sell alcohol.

Gee, point (4) seems very interesting - the militia is targetting Al Qaeda? Yes it is, but we must read on to find this buried quote describing the leaflet:

That was the intention," said Sayeed Rahim al-Alaq, deputy head of the committee that drafted the list of offenses. "We are with the government. We are antiterrorists."

In upcoming series, we expect the Times to alert us to the free speech problems faced by porn shop operators. Meanwhile, this sort of news can remain hidden and our follow-up questions (for example, are there any actual reports of Al Qaeda being captured or killed?) can remain unasked.

Four Walls of a Prison Were Three Walls Too Many

Allawi reportedly sends a message.

This story will hurt him with the "no death penalty" crowd in the US, and may one day interfere with Iraq's entry into the EU. However, I have a grim suspicion that, true or not, the rumors will not diminish his standing amongst his domestic audience.

And is Allawi simply helping Bush to put Abu Grahib debacle in a new light, per Jim Hoagland (it doesn't!). Who knows?

MORE: Yes, we are stealing the line.

UPDATE: Memeorandum reaction (ABC -1-), (ABC -2-), (Wash Times) (Aus - The Age)

And do see Roger Simon.

Is It Safe? Maybe John Edwards Missed The Briefing

Last week, Adam Nagourney of the Times asked Johns Kerry and Edwards a question that should not have come as a surprise - has George Bush made America safer?

John Kerry gave a little bit of this and a little bit of that before explaining that he couldn't answer until his national security briefing in a few days.

Time has moved on, but the questions remain the same. Don Imus, interviewing Johns Edwards and Kerry, asked whether Bush had made America safer. While Kerry remained silent, Edwards gave - a little bit of this and a little bit of that! Saddam is gone, he reassured us, and that is good. But the world community is angry with us, and that is bad.

Perhaps this is simply a sneak preview of a revised "Two Americas" speech - "I see one America made safer by Saddam's removal; but I see another America made more dangerous by our diminished standing in the world community...". But they might want to rehearse a snappier answer to this - didn't Edwards attend the briefing?

Normally, the questions get more difficult. In this case, the questions remain the same, and it is the answers that get more difficult. Will reporters keep torturing our hapless pair with "Is it safe?"

The Well-Oiled Machine Squeaks Towards Boston

The Kerry camp discovers that Hillary has supporters in the Democratic Party!

Oh, these folks can operate, can't they?

The WSJ Appraises Joe Wilson

We appraise the WSJ:

The Yellowcake Con
The Wilson-Plame "scandal" was political pulp fiction.

Take me to Mickey D's, I'm loving it (although I will have indigestion shortly). I'll skip past the discussion of thre Butler report and focus on Joe Wilson:

The news is also relevant to the question of whether any crime was committed when a still unknown Administration official told columnist Robert Novak that Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA employee and that's why he had been recommended for a sensitive mission to Niger.

Huh?

The LA Times Finds Joe Wilson

The LA Times overcomes past headline problems (see 7/7) and shows their awareness of both the "16 Words" story and Joe Wilson:

Merit Seen in Claims That Iraq Sought Uranium.

They then recount the saga of Bush's 16 Words, Amb. Wilson's trip to Africa, and the hullabaloo he created.

Quibbles:

...the controversy led to a criminal investigation after an administration official leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a newspaper columnist in an apparent attempt to discredit the operative's husband, a prominent critic of the administration.

Well, the motive is open to interpretation - maybe the goal was to discredit the CIA, for failing to take this seriously by sending a trained agent.

In February 2002, the CIA sent Wilson to Niger to investigate reports that Iraqi officials had sought to buy uranium. Wilson reported that "there was nothing to support allegations either that Iraq had tried to obtain or succeeded in purchasing uranium from Niger."

Huh? Later in the story they reverse course on that, but still...

Novak said his information had come from "two senior administration officials."

Yeah, yeah, and CIA sources too, which is almost never mentioned.

Some Left Reaction to Joe Wilson

First, a Semi-Shorter Matt Yglesias: I have always thought Wilson lacked credibility; liberals should figure out that a person can hate Bush and still be a lying self-promoiter who can't write. But the truth about the motivation for the outing - White House hawks exposing a dovish CIA - works for liberals, since we now know the CIA was not dovish.

OK. I disagree about his "motive" point - did the leakers know about the CIA in 2003 what we know now? And wasn't the motive question closely connected to the Vicious Bush Brute Squad theory of revenge and intimidation? But I will accept his main point with an evil cackle and move on.

Let's keep Tim Dunlop in the mix, who opined a few days ago that "It seems to me that if you call your book The politics of Truth: Inside the lies that led to war and betrayed my wife's CIA identity then you set yourself a pretty high standard for, well, telling the truth."

Next, Kevin Drum, typing with the Auto-Rebut feature activated, fisks himself so I don't have to. Cruel excerpts:

Oh, Now My Confidence Is SKY-High!

Where is my Dowdifier when I need it?

Kerry with Imus:

KERRY: I’ve seen several national intelligence estimates. I don’t know what they’re referring to. I’m not sure what they’re referring to.

Yeah, there are the Iraqi thingies, and the North Koreans whatsits, and man, it must be confuisng as all get out.

The question was pretty specific when the Kerry side asked it - why doesn't he know what NIE his own people asked about?

Hail the King!

MORE: OK, this interview is ridiculous: Imus: Are we safer? Little John: Well, Saddam's removal is good, but other countries are angry and that's bad... Please.

Where's Mark Kleiman?

The Joseph Wilson / Valerie Plame affair is, in my recollection, associated with Three Big Bloggers from the left - Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, and Mark Kleiman.

Josh Marshall is experiencing his experience, and do check his site for updates.

Kevin Drum has put up one post that I noticed, calling attention to the WaPo story and suggesting that "... it sure has an impact on Wilson's credibility". Indeed.

And what about Mark Kleiman? Good question, actually. We infer from his blog that he has been off at a very interesting conference, and his thoughts are available at his blog.

So, might we expect his latest thoughts on Joe Wilson? Well, and this may be a bit of a surprise to some on the left, his assessment of Wilson's credibility has been gloomy for quite a while - last September, when Wilson backed away from his Karl Rove allegation, Mr. Kleiman suggested that folks might be justified in their hesitancy about taking Wilson at his word. He repeated this thought in December (late in an update), both times noting (correctly) that, Wilson notwithstanding, there is a legal process which must go on.

But surely there is more to the latest Senate revelations than the question of Joe Wilson's ability to attract an audience? Mr. Kleiman might have some insights into possible changes in the legal or political environment. Or he might want to suggest a mirror image to this post, and view the latest blogospheric reaction in Left profile. Well, if he can find any reaction to review.

My thought - it may come as a shock to the folks on the left not following this story closely that one of their own threw in the towel on Wilson a long time ago. Since Wilson is back in the news, would Mr. Kleiman care to re-apprise people of that fact? Or (and I can't think why) has he since changed his mind about Wilson, picked up the towel, and re-joined the left?

In light of these new Senate report revelations, has he re-calibrated just how much hestitancy about taking Wilson's word is he now experiencing, or recommending to others? Does he think that Kerry should continue to have Wilson as an advisor to his campaign?

Not that we would presume to tell him when or how to run his blog, but the Djerejian Challenge lives.

MORE: Related only to the minor point of dictating terms of surrender prematurely: My home-court version of Point-Counterpoint. Oh, man, and this is how friends treat each other...

Read The Prospectus, Andrew

Andrew Sullivan points to the Iowa Electronic Market as evidence of a non-bounce for Kerry. I would not say it is useless, but the IEM is certainly counter-intuitive (perhaps the designers are still obsessed by Florida 2000).

Andrew linked to ther chart for the "Winner Take All" market. You might think, as a casual observer, that the winner of the election is the fellow who raises his right hand on January 20 and takes the oath of office.

Wrong. The winner, per the rules, is whoever receives the most popular votes. So, people betting on Gore would have collected on the "Winner Take All" if this format had been in place in 2000.

Fine, it's an objective standard, and it is certainly highly correlated with my "right hand held high" standard. It's just not quite the standard people might be expecting.

At TradeSports, the winner is the winner, and they show a similar result to the IEM. Just click on the tab labelled "All Events", and Bush should be there. Or, live feeds at Don Luskin's site (and other sites, too; let me know, please.)

I Have Three Words For Their "16 Word" Coverage

[UPDATE: Good news, Bad news - in a later edition of this story (which appears in my Dead Tree version), they move the news about the Niger-uranium link UP to the sixth paragraph. The Bad News is that they mis-state a conclusion of the US Senate Intelligence report. Gregory Djerejian goes after this version of their story.]

The NY Times splashes some ink on the newly released Butler report, but just grazes the question of greatest interest to their American readers - what about the President's State of the Union address, and the once-infamous "16 Words":

The British findings departed from the American report last week in several key areas. Firstly, Lord Butler said Britain had received information from "several different sources" to substantiate reports that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger, an assertion dismissed by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

That is it. And placement? I am afraid to count; it is the fifth paragraph from the bottom, or, roughly, the thirtieth paragraph of the story.

Somehow the Times missed this tidbit from the Butler report:

499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

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

was well-founded.

Do they seriously not find that to be newsworthy? They found space for this, around paragraph 22:

"We went to war under a false premise," said Alice Mahon, an anti-war Labor legislator. "We went to war on George Bush's timetable."

A year ago, on July 20, 2003, the Sunday NY Times ran a piece titled "How Powerful Can 16 Words Be?" by Christopher Marquis.

A few excerpts:

Mr. Bush portrayed the United States as under an imminent threat from Iraq. In 16 words, he passed along this chilling information: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

A nuclear Iraq? That carried so much freight with ordinary Americans. Concerns about biological or chemical weapons, the possibility of a Baghdad alliance with Al Qaeda — these worries paled when compared with the prospect that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program and might share weapons with terrorists.

...Today, those 16 words haunt the administration. They are the best-remembered flourish in a portrait of Iraq that today seems unrecognizable. They are a leading rationale for a war that has resulted in the death of 224 Americans. And they are either unsubstantiated or based on a lie.

Perhaps the Times can provide an anniversary piece - "How Invisible Can 16 Words Be?"

I have three words for their "16 Words" coverage - "Where is it?"

MORE: Additional glimpses of their coverage a year ago.

We are especialy intrigued by this editorial titled "The Vanishing Uranium".

And we note that today's story is datelined London, and is by Alan Cowell, who seems to be on the British beat. Still, how the editors left out a bit of news of topical interest in the US is a puzzle.

UPDATE: The WaPo buries it, and does not mention the 16 Words, but does say this:

But the report defended as "well founded" the dossier's claim that Iraq had sought to obtain enriched uranium from African countries. The CIA has questioned the claim, saying it was based on forged papers, but the Butler panel said there were other sources for the assertion.

One Real Turkey In Baghdad

Lots of real turkeys at the NY Times.

I Can't Wait

According to Matt Drudge, Ms. Bumiller gets 1,600 front page words to recycle Democratic gossip about something we were joking about a week ago.

I want to see it before I start screaming about news priorities for a paper that can't spend three paragraphs clarifying the record on the Joe Wilson debacle that was all over their front pages a year ago.

And it may be that this is a "death by leak" ploy in which some disgruntled NY staffer with a toehold on reality leaks this to Drudge in hopes of killing it.

UPDATE: I don't need to wait any longer. Drudge was mostly) right - he said it would be all Dems, and we hear from some Reps.

Can Anybody Here Play This (Or Any) Game?

More from Kerry, King of Comedy, who appears not to be a chess player. Or a checker player. Or a player of any other game requiring anticipation of an opponent's response:

Kerry's campaign has challenged Bush to say whether he read the complete intelligence report before deciding to go to war, or whether he just read a one-page summary, which Democrats say gave him none of the dissenting views included in the full version.

The Kerry campaign stepped up the attack on Wednesday, sending out an e-mail with the headline, "Did anyone in the White House read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq?"

Bold and aggressive! However, there is a fairly obvious follow-up question for which the Kerry camp might have been expected to have a good answer. Or not.

Democratic candidate John Kerry... did not read the document himself before voting to give Bush the authority to go to war, aides acknowledged.

..."Along with other senators, he was briefed on the contents of the NIE by George Tenet and other administration intelligence officials," said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer.

Yeah, so was George Bush. It was a slam-dunk!

Heart and Soul

It's dueling Oldies - last week, Kerry played "It's My Party" at a tasteless NYC fundraiser where he demonstrated his bicoastal appeal and utter lack of judgement or quick thinking.

Now George Bush is answering with "Heart and Soul". And, if he is anything like the piano-players in my house, he will play it a lot. Over and over and over until someone loses his mind... Sorry.

I'll say this - if Kerry could collect royalties on the sound-bites that hop out of his mouth, his campaign would be self-financed. Maybe the John Edwards has some creative financing ideas!

And Away We Go

It took the media a few days, but now Matt Drudge is blaring a headline - "Wash Post - "Open Season" on Bush Twins". He links to a Dan Froomkin on-line chat, where Dan says:

Dan Froomkin: I think it's, yeah, sort of open season now. Possibly presaged by that Sunday New York Times piece I linked to this morning. But I think we've already seen the Girls Gone Wild photos -- remember that one of Jenna?

He is referring to his column, with this excerpt and link from his (lead) section about the twins:

Of course, the press coverage may not stay all sweetness and light for long. In fact, the New York Times on Sunday ran a long diary by Coco Henson Scales, a hostess at a chi-chi New York restaurant and lounge, in which she describes a visit from the twins during which Barbara goes outside, bends over, burps and spits.

This is all very responsible, big-time journalism, folks. The Times, the Post, no worries. Where IS Dick Cheney?

The blogospheric reaction has begun - "corrente", a rather largish blog, has picked it up (and they were so excited they mistyped their lead - "Bush twin watch: All the respect they deserve — Little Babs was (sic) such a sense of impunity!"). I suspect we will see a lot more of this.

Somewhat less publicized in the forums that pick up the Scale story will be this, also from the Times:

In the Vogue interview for the August issue, conducted in a Manhattan hotel room on Mother's Day, the daughters present a picture of themselves in striking contrast to the image of fun-loving twins known for partying and under-age drinking in Texas. Barbara Bush says that after the election she plans to sign up for a program to work with children with AIDS in Eastern Europe and Africa; Jenna says she plans to teach at a charter school.

I was annoyed last Sunday. Now I am just resigned.

UPDATE: Eschaton, home of Atrios, has picked it up, so we know that the left half of the blogosphere is on board. Don't blame Atrios himself, BTW, "Hamilton" posted it. The comments are mostly what one might expect, although a few point out that Bush probaly can be evaluated on his own merits. (Did I say "blame"? This is news; see NY Times, WaPo, above.)

And it makes Memorandum

Where's Joe Wilson?

Someone file a missing persons report! James Risen of the NY Times delves into the Senate Intelligence report (finally!) and tells us a bit about Joesph Wilson:

The director of the C.I.A.'s center for weapons intelligence, nonproliferation and arms control responded by writing in a report that "information on the alleged uranium contract between Iraq and Niger comes exclusively from a foreign government service report that lacks crucial details, and we are working to clarify the information and to determine whether it can be corroborated."

Another unit of the C.I.A., the counterproliferation division of the Directorate of Operations, tried to collect more evidence.

Instead of assigning a trained intelligence officer to the Niger case, though, the C.I.A. sent a former American ambassador, Joseph Wilson, to talk to former Niger officials. His wife, Valerie Plame, was an officer in the counterproliferation division, and she had suggested that he be sent to Niger, according to the Senate report.

That finding contradicts previous statements by Mr. Wilson, who publicly criticized the Bush administration last year for using the Niger evidence to help justify the war in Iraq. After his wife's identity as a C.I.A. officer was leaked to the news media, Mr. Wilson said she had not played a role in his assignment, and argued that her C.I.A. employment had been disclosed to punish him. The F.B.I. is investigating the source of the leak about Ms. Plame, which was classified information.

Mr. Wilson went to Niger in February 2002 and met with the former prime minister, former minister of mines and other business contacts. In his C.I.A. debriefing, Mr. Wilson reported that the former prime minister said he knew of no contracts with any so-called rogue nations while he was prime minister, from 1997 through 1999. But he did say that in June 1999, a businessman insisted that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss expanded commercial relations with Baghdad, according to the Senate report. The meeting took place, but the prime minister said he never pursued the idea because of United Nations sanctions on Iraq.

Analysts at the C.I.A. did not believe that Mr. Wilson had provided significant information, so the agency did not brief Mr. Cheney about it, despite his clear interest in the issue, the Senate found.

Now, what is missing from this story? C'mon, where are the rebuttal quotes? Was the suddenly shy Ambassador not available for a quote or two in his own behalf? Maybe he is trying to escape by sea!

Oh, but seriously. Risen does not quote anyone at all in this story, although he does recycle quotes extracted from the Senate report. Is this the New NY Times - lock the top reporter in a closet with a 500 page Senate report and a five day deadline? And how is that different from my own humble little blogging, anyway - hey, I am covering this story with as many sources as the NY Times! And more links!

Now, this is not all recycled material - I daresay that this bit - "After his wife's identity as a C.I.A. officer was leaked to the news media, Mr. Wilson said she had not played a role in his assignment, and argued that her C.I.A. employment had been disclosed to punish him" - is nowhere in the Senate report. Does the Times still offer sources on ocassion? Now, I happen to think that those assertions could be validated, but still.

The Washington Post boldly addressed Joseph Wilson's troubling relationship with the media with a Saturday-in-the-summer story splashed across page 9 (or was it in with the Real Estate ads?); the NY Times might want to do something similar. Or bolder. And they can quote me.

Butler Report - Ouch

[UPDATE: Below, I surrender to a bipartisan Reader Rebellion; also, I read the full report. Carry on.]

Based on this summary from Jan Haugland (following Glenn, natch), there is a bit of a caveat (noted earlier) to the notion that the Butler report would support the claim that the Brits stand by their Iraq-uranium story.

Excerpting the excerpt:

Update 1: Here is what the Butler report says on uranium from Niger:

45. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it. (Paragraph 503)

Well. Does this mean that the assessment was based on the forgeries, but it was an innocent mistake? Sure looks like it to me. Which represents something less than total vindication, I think.

Developing (I gloomily imagine)...

UPDATE: Butler report here, (NOT here!), uranium excerpts here, and Reader Rebellion in the comments.

Ok, since the report cites other intel not inspired by the forgeries, I withdraw my objection.

Some excerpts below:

The Forgery Story in the Media

How did the story of the Iraq-Niger forged documents unfold in the media? Jack Shafer did the homework in July 2003. He left out the Nick Kristof columns from May 6 and June 13, as well as this WaPo story from June 12, but he provides some interesting leads. The point - we are doing our impression of Inspector Javert while looking for Ambassador Wilson's footprints.

MORE: NO, not Inspector Clouseau.

Ready For Prime Time?

I am sure John Kerry's spokeperson, Stephanie Cutter, is a wonderful person doing a challenging job to the best of her extraordinary ability. But I sense that the press is getting a bit impatient with some of her answers.

For example, Ms. Cutter was asked to comment on the surprising news that Hillary! would not be a featured speaker at the Democratic Convention, leading to this:

"She never asked," said Stephanie Cutter, a spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign. "Obviously, Hillary Clinton is a leader in the party and is working hard to elect John Kerry." But Ms. Cutter said she did not know whether each speaker, including Ms. Clinton's husband, had formally requested time.

If your excuse is "the dog ate my homework", you might want to be ready for follow-ups such as "Do you even have a dog?".

Earlier, Ms. Cutter induced a smile with her (understandable and excusable) confusion about the new ground her boss was breaking on abortion. Sen. Kerry delivered the news that he believed that life began at conception, leading to this report:

Spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said that although Kerry has often said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," and that his religion shapes that view, she could not recall him ever publicly discussing when life begins.

The Kerry Message Machine is not purring precisely.

UPDATE: Well, it is not just Stephanie. More from Kerry, King of Komedy:

Kerry's campaign has challenged Bush to say whether he read the complete intelligence report before deciding to go to war, or whether he just read a one-page summary, which Democrats say gave him none of the dissenting views included in the full version.

The Kerry campaign stepped up the attack on Wednesday, sending out an e-mail with the headline, "Did anyone in the White House read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq?"

Bold and aggressive! However, there is a fairly obvious follow-up question for which you might want to have a good answer. Or not.

Democratic candidate John Kerry... did not read the document himself before voting to give Bush the authority to go to war, aides acknowledged.

..."Along with other senators, he was briefed on the contents of the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) by (then-CIA (news - web sites) Director) George Tenet and other administration intelligence officials," said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer.

Yeah, so was George Bush. It was a slam-dunk!

Early All Star (Re)Action

Early, can't-keep-'em-in thoughts about the All Star game:

Someone had the idea that having Muhammed Ali appear would re-create the magic of the Ted Williams 1999 All-Star appearance. Someone is an unforgiveable fool. "The Greatest" is visibly afflicted with Parkinson's disease, and his uncontrollable shaking was awkward and embarrassing. Derek Jeter showed a national television audience why he is the Captain of the Yankees, salvaging the moment by sparring with The Champ and then urging his All-Star teammates to gather round for a group photo.

Other tidbits - a Keen Eyed Observer predicted that Randy Johnson is coming to the Yankees - the Big Unit had gotten a Big Razor and trimmed his hair and most of his scraggle, clearly prepping for a new "No Facial Hair" regime. The mustache goes when he come to NY (against my wishes, but later for that).

It was great to look at the American League infield and see the 2006 Yankee line-up - Giambi, Soriano, Jeter, and A-Rod.

And have you ever seen an All-Star pitcher actually bat in the first inning? Clemens haters loved watching The Rocket get launched for six runs. But there was a time...!

Check The Calendar

Crafty BushCo prepares for the Democratic Convention.

Maybe it's time to re-line the tin-foil hat.

File Under "THIS Media Bias"

The Man Who Would Be President, being interviewd along with John Edwards, by Adam Nagourney of the NY Times:

KERRY: And I believe if you talk with Warren Hoge or you talk to David Sanger, you talk to other people around the world, they will confirm to you, I believe, that it may well take a new president to restore America's credibility on a global basis so that we can deal with other countries and bring people back into alliances. The credibility of this country has been tarnished by this president. We can restore it. We will restore it.

Gee, is that what two NY Times reporters are telling Kerry? And what sort of tough follow-up questions do they ask when he offers that sort of insight to the public?

All the News That Is Fit To Be Fed Back To Us By Agreeable Candidates.

Will Nick Kristof Come In From The Cold?

We have mail! Outgoing mail, that is - an open letter to the NY Times public editor on the matter of Nick Kristof and the Wilson trip to Niger.

Dear Mr. Okrent;

Ambassador Wilson, who came to national attention a year ago with his op-ed in the NY Times ("What I Didn't Find In Africa") and the resulting furor about the President's "16 Words" (not to mention the "outing" of his wife, Valerie Plame), is back in the news.

According to a recent story in the Washington Post, the Senate Intelligence committee has concluded that "misleading information" had been reported by the Post back in June 2002 based on information provided by Ambassador Wilson . Mr. Kristof reported information similar to that which the Post now describes as "misleading" in his May 6, 2002 column. In other Post reporting on this matter, Mr. Kristof seems to have confirmed that the Ambassador was a source for that column.

Are you planning to take any steps to see whether the NY Times, and its readers, were also misled by Ambassador Wilson? If the Senate Intelligence Commitee and the Washington Post can run corrections, perhaps the NY Times can as well.

Thank you for your attention. Details are available below.

UPDATE: This Nick Kristof column from June 13, 2003 continues the story, and it is a reasonable guess that Wilson was one source. It's interesting (in a car-wreck sort of way) to see how widely it differs from the Senate Intelligence report.

Back To Waziristan

Since the US is hoping to capture Osama in Waziristan, I probably ought to look at the area occasionally (the last NY Times vist, per Google, was June 18).

This editorial seems to provide some current background on how the Pakistani government is dealing with the local councils.

And fighting continues.

MORE: Previous post. June 10? Who's the slacker now? [But there's an update!]

Does J Marshall Respond To The Djerejian Challenge?

No. But Josh Marshall provides a clever bit of misdirection and topic-shifting. (Actually, one of my many very crafty commenters, "Sym", gave a similar suggestion waaay earlier, so I have a head start here.)

To back up briefly - the Dejerejian Challenge is for some prominent left-half bloggers to present a revised appraisal of the Niger scandal and Ambassador Wilson's role in it.

Instead, Dr. Marshall offers a clever attempt to re-direct the conversation, as it relates to the Plame scandal:

If there's no legal case and no political problem, why don't the senior administration officials who leaked her identity just come forward?

...I can only assume by their silence that they're rather less confident about the quality of their explanation and the degree of their legal jeopardy than their many voluble defenders in the conservative press.

No political problem? Other than a Saturday WaPo story an p. A9, and a lot of blogospheric chatter (and near-delerium), I haven't seen any change in the political landscape at all. Has Wilson resigned from the Kerry campaign? Have any top Democrats opined that maybe the Plame outing was not the work of the vicious Bush Brute Squad, a criminal attempt to silence and intimidate a devoted public servant and truth-teller? Has any top Democrat or any major editorial even hinted that maybe there was no crime, and that the leaker's motivation may have been just?

Sorry - the politics haven't changed. Even Josh Marshall, who is very well informed on the matter of Wilson's credibility, is unwilling to take the first, necessary step.

But he gives a clever try.

MORE: Yes, the press silence is deafening. But it was deafening when the scandal broke, too.

AND IF THE DEMS WERE SMART: Here is a wining idea that will never happen - get the Dem Vice-chairman of an appropriate committee to offer immunity in exchange for public hearings, and soon. Put Wilson on the witness list, as well as WH staffers and others as appropriate.

My guess is that the content will favor the Reps (Wilson aside). However, the theatrics and imagery will have all of the look of a criminal investigation - all that is missing (IMHO) are criminals and a crime, but the public's imagination will supply that. Dems will feast on beautiful nightly visuals as various Reps deny wrong-doing.

And Dems can insist that Bush testify! He won't, but the public won't follow the separation of powers argument - they will focus on "he talked to the FBI, what is he hiding from us"?

Oh, I'd be worried. Except that I'm not. Too many dreams would have to die ("We're giving a free pass to the vicious Bush Brute Squad!") for it to happen.

The AP Polls The Presidential Personalities

The Ap has polled the public on the Presidential personalities, and we are both pleased and perplexed.

Let's see - respondents are asked whether certain words describe the candidates.

Kerry has to like the "Likable", which is close at Bush 66 / Kerry 62.

Bush trails in "Intelligent", (Bush 63 / Kerry 83), but Kerry already knew that.

Bush has a big lead in "Decisive" (Bush 67 / Kerry 45), and Kerry is not sure what to do about that.

"Compassionate" is a virtual tie (59/60), but who cares?

"Honest" is also a tie (53/53), but neither campaign will admit to surprise or disappointment that they lack an advantage here.

"Arrogant" has Bush outscoring Kerry (Bush 52 / Kerry 44), and boy, is Kerry feeling smug about that.

Finally, and a bit of a surprise, Bush has a slim lead in "Wealthy" (Bush 90 / Kerry 85). Well, no man is poor who has friends (see "Likable, above). It appears that too many folks realize it is Theresa's money, and have discounted Kerry's future book deal.

Kerry, Overcome By Honesty and Wracked By Doubt

Here's a headline - Bush Insists He Has Made America Safer. Well, he would say that. And Sen. Kerry might agree! Or not, it's hard to tell.

Sen. Kerry was asked about that very point by the NY Times. With unexpected candor, Mr. Kerry bucked popular opinion and conventional political logic, until he thought better of it and swam back towards his party's mainstream. His clarity of vision and communication in response to what should not have been an unexpected question led to this exchange :

Q. In a poll we did recently, we found that a majority of Americans thought that because of the administration policy on Iraq, the chance of a terrorist attack had grown. Do you guys agree with that?

MR. KERRY: I believe that the overall conduct of this administration's foreign policy - the war included, the management of Afghanistan, the diversion from Afghanistan, away from Al Qaeda, the lack of cooperation with other countries, the lack of adequate attention on homeland security, all together - has not made America as safe as we ought to be given the options available to us in the aftermath of 9/11.

Q. That's too mushy. Are we more or less vulnerable to a terrorist attack?

MR. KERRY: Look, because I didn't answer your question the way you want me to doesn't mean my answer is too mushy. What I said is very clear. That there are a whole series of events that have not made America safer.

MR. EDWARDS: The way he answered that question, the way John just answered that question, is the way the question should be answered. Because things don't fit into boxes in this world. Any more than the things that affect American families here at home fit in boxes. You know, it's not health care, and then in another box jobs, and then in another box tuition - they all come together to affect the lives of Americans. It's also true that when you're evaluating what the effect has been of this administration, you can't look at Iraq in isolation, because Iraq acts in concert with what's happening in Afghanistan, what's happening with the war on terrorism in general, what's happening with the deterioration of our relationships around the world, all those things go together in order to evaluate what the impact is. I do not believe we are as safe as we can be, that's what I believe.

MR. KERRY: Can I tell you why? The fact that what's happened in Iraq may have created more terrorists doesn't mean they've gotten to the United States, doesn't mean they have got the ability to attack us. Those are very - that would require the briefing that I'm waiting to get this weekend, for me to ask a lot of questions. The likelihood is, yes. It certainly has increased the recruitment of terrorists and the focus on the United States as a target.

Hmm. Hard to score that - the Senator clearly wants to talk about something other than national security until he gets around to being briefed on it, although one wonders why the subject doesn't come up more often. However, by the end of his final answer, he seems to be drifting towards "less safe". If only the NY Times had provided an "Ask the Audience" feature (Ooops! These guys already are millionaires!)

MORE: Full gold mine, ahh, interview, here.

UPDATE: Patrick Sullivan culls the transcript for "Who's On Frist":

KERRY: Significantly. First of all, Homeland Security left ports unsecured. .... Second, second, the cooperative effort with other countries .... Third, we have a set of other global issues .... Third...

EDWARDS: Fourth. You already did third.

KERRY: That's why he's good.

Man, if I thought these two could keep this up for four years, I might vote for them.

MORE SUBSTANTIVE UPDATE: Eventually, the LA Times will endorse Kerry, but they don't like their evasive answers. This editorial is brutal:

Searchable Senate Report Available!

A searchable, text version of the Senate Intelligence report is available at an MIT website.

As many have noticed, the original file was scanned, with all the fun blacked-out redactions. This MIT effort is much more useful.

And Whose The Man? Adaplant, from my comments section.

Wilson, Niger, and Some Unsolved Mysteries

Just as the "16 Words" were not the full case for Iraqi liberation, so the collapse of Joe Wilson's credibility is not the full story of the case against the Bush Administration. Not that we aren't enjoying it....

However, there are many unanswered questions. Why, for example, did the Administration backpedal on the 16 Words?

Buried in the Senate report we find this cautionary note - the CIA came very close to throwing in the towel on the Iraq-Niger-Uranium connection in June of 2003. From p. 71, following the debacle with the forged documents, the CIA produced a memo for the DCI which said "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." However, that memo was never circulated or used in intelligence product outside the Agency.

The Senate report conclusions slide by this, noting only that the CIA has never produced a final update of it's view on this question (Conclusion 26, p. 83).

Ahh, but there is still the upcoming Butler report, which the Financial Times has been sneak-previewing. The gist - the Brits will stand by their claim of credible intelligence backing the "Iraq was shopping for uranium" story.

Well, we had already noted the apparent caveat, and this latest FT story renews our concerns. Let's follow the tilt:

US Senate committee supports Iraq claim

...But the committee's report has provided unexpected support for a controversial claim that even the administration of George W. Bush had backed away from: that Iraq had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

...But on Friday, the Senate committee surprised many when it concluded that the claim was entirely reasonable and not based on the forged documents.

"Until October 2002 when the intelligence community obtained the forged foreign language documents on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on CIA reporting and other available intelligence".

A parallel British investigation, due for release on Wednesday, is also expected to find that it was reasonable for UK intelligence to conclude that Iraq had been seeking uranium from Africa.

Hmm. As to whether "Bush lied", the Senate report does make clear that as of January 2003, the Administration had reason to believe the 16 Words. However, the FT is sliding by the subsequent disillusionment of the CIA noted above.

And might they, or Butler, be doing the same with the British reporting? If the Butler report tells us that, as of late 2002, the British intel was solid, that is somewhat different from a report saying that it is still considered solid today. It doesn't follow that Bush lied, obviously, but it (might) dampen the victory celebration if Butler concludes that, as of now, the British intelligence is discredited. Worth remembering.

Possible Bumper Sticker

"Remember, it's a vote FOR Kerry, not a vote AGAINST Bush."

That would be a Republican bumper sticker, obviously.

Let's Forge Ahead With Joe Wilson

Let fill in some of the new details about Joe Wilson and his debunked forgeries. Susan Schmidt told us that Ambassador Wilson misled the Washington Post but her excerpt did not do justice to a bit of a comedy classic - here is the Senate report:

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 that the documents were “forged.” He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

Hmm, confused about the difference between what you have lived and what you have read? Get a blog!

My Only Plan Is To Pray

Here we have an idea that is terrible, except perhaps in comparison with the alternatives - set up a contingency plan to postpone the election in the event of a terrorist attack.

Excellent analysis and blog round-up by Joe Gandelman. I'll single out Joe's point (4):

(4) It would create a SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY: What better way to sandbag U.S. democracy then a massive attack on the eve of elections or on election day if you know that it's going to result in the election's postponement, unprecedented political controversy and perhaps actual turmoil within the United States? In the end, the U.S. would be more divided than ever in the war against terror -- no matter who was in power.

Fine. Terrible idea. We all agree. However...

The 9/11 attack occurred the day of the NYC primary, which was promptly, and properly re-scheduled. Suppose we have a 9/11 style attack on NYC on Election Day, but the national election goes on. Will turnout be reduced in Republican-leaning upstate NY as much as in heavily-Democratic NYC? Probably not.

And if as a result of the depressed turnout in NYC Bush carries NY State, thereby winning the election, will folks feel that all was fair?

Or, since Democratic strength is concentrated in urban areas, what if a big city in a battleground state is attacked. Philadelphia, Miami, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, who knows? A few cities, a few car bombs, and Bush wins. Who wants to imagine the country after that?

And we don't even want to ask about Senate races, where a similar effect could show up. Ten car bombs and the Republicans win the White House and keep the Senate. Whoa.

Or maybe energized and defiant voters will flock to the polls in record numbers, and the response to the attacks will be seen as a triumph of the democratic spirit. If that is the plan, fine, and we will hope the physical disruption is not so severe as to make that impossible.

But we really ought to discuss the alternatives - the morning of November 2 will not be the time for folks to realize that maybe this is a real problem. Well, unless you think the lawyers who became election law experts during Florida 2000 need to be re-employed.

UPDATE: My (lame and uninspired) plan - appoint a Committee of the Impeccable Unimpeachable. Four people, with the power to postpone the election on a three to one vote. But it needs to be Walter Cronkite type personalities - who might they be? Joe Torre?

However, a commenter has a much better point - we are expecting Iraqis to stand up to terror and vote, Americans can darn well do the same.

MORE: Eugene Volokh is calm and sensible; Dan Drezner is scared, which scares me; and my guess as to why this is in Newsweek - death by leak.

And Rush Limbaugh hated the idea and gave his version of Joe Gandelman's point (4), in the five minutes I listened.

Cool Hand Josh

Susan Schmidt of the WaPo dealt Josh Marshall some pretty grim cards on the Joseph Wilson story. Well, sometimes nothing is a real cool hand. Other times, however, you are playing against Pejman. Or Gregory Djerejian. Or Jonah Goldberg. Oh, boy.

NO SALE! At The WaPo

Where is the love for Tall John? The Captain can't find it.

Interesting Editorial Judgment

Bush-bashing turns up in the oddest places. The NY Times has a fun local color story about the trials and tribulations of a Manhattan club hostess - no, really, it's kind of interesting to meet the folks who turn you away from the chic nightspots.

And amidst the dirt on various models, we meet Monica (yes, her!), hear that Chelsea is in the building (or not), and learn that Barbara Bush has both an engaging personality and a quirk of bending over outside on the sidewalk, perspiring and looking as if she might vomit. Bad sushi? Who knows?

Since the author of the story admits that she didn't even remember there was a young Barbara Bush (she was expecting mom), and is quite surprised by the absence of Secret Service agents, she might also wonder (as might the editors) whether this really was Barbara, and whether this is what the Times needs to be printing. Would this story have run a week ago, before she joined the Bush campaign?

So, how might this story break? If I were on the Bush payroll, I would ignore it and hope it goes away. The Kerry camp will (if there is a merciful God in Heaven) wait for someone else to talk it up.

But who? The left is neither shy nor filled with love for Bush, so I expect this void will be quickly filled. This story would fit Atrios like a cheap fedora (WAIT! That's Matt!). An obvious hook - it's all about family values. Wonkette might bite. Or anyone interested in shenanigans at the Times.

I see storm clouds!

Excerpt below:

UPDATE: Wednesday, July 14 - Drudge links to Dan Froomkin, trumpeting the "Open season on twins" line; Froomkin had linked to the story above in his column; and away we go.

First up is "corrente", The Blog of 4: Leah, Lambert, Tresy and the farmer.

Backfill On Joseph Wilson

While we await news from the Djerejian Challenge, let's reflect (again) on Joseph Wilson's diminished credibility. Our subject - was his wife involved in getting him the trip to Niger for the CIA? In early chats, Wilson normally managed a Clintonian non-denial, as with Corn. However, he seems to have gone over the line in an interview with Josh Marshall:

WILSON: First of all, the Novak allegation is very interesting. If I recall the article correctly, he flatly asserts my wife is a CIA operative. And then he quotes senior administration officials as saying that she was somehow responsible for sending me out there. Now, I think I mentioned to you earlier the context in which my trip was initially discussed, and I will tell you that at the meetings it was discussed, and at the meeting where it was proposed that I go out there, there was nobody at that meeting that I knew. There were a couple of people who came up and introduced themselves and said to me that they had been at other briefings I had given in the past on other issues, but I could not name any of them. I couldn't tell you who they are today--would pass them on the streets without recognizing them. So that's really--the decision-making process involved nobody that I knew.

Emphasis added. Now, on page 40 of the Senate Intelligence report (p. 5 by the .pdf numbering), we find this -

(U) On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was "apparently convened by [the former ambassador's wife] who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue." The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes."

That is my typing, and my emphasis added.

So, his wife called the meeting, and introduced him, but, according to what the Ambassador told Dr. Marshall, he didn't know anyone in the room. Calling Mr. Wilson a liar seems too obvious, so we have other ideas:

(a) His wife was in her covert deep-cover disguise, and he didn't recognize her;

(b) She introduced him and left by way of a secret passageway through the bookcase before he entered the room - actually having him in the room for the intro would have been awkward for everyone.

(c) Wilson told larger truths about the evildoers in BushCo, so his minor, uhh, misrecollections are irrelevant.

As Josh Marshall contemplates the Djerejian Challenge, he may want to puzzle over how he feels, as a journalist, about having been, hmm, misinformed by an interviewee. Hey, it happens! My guess is that choice (c) will prevail, but let's not give up on (b).

Now, I am still not convinced that his wife's involvement is deeply significant, other than as a measure of Wilson's credibility. But saying her involvement is not a big deal is hardly reassuring - if it is not important, why is he lying, and what else might he be lying about? Sorry, why does he misremember so much, and what else did he misremember?

UPDATE: We are giving props to Tim Dunlop (and probably ruining his status in the left half of the blogosphere) for noticing that a person can doubt both Wilson and the Administration.

And a Good Job by the Poor Man, who actually reads the Chairman's separate report, unearthing this nugget:

Despite our hard and successful work to deliver a unanimous report, however, there were two issues on which the Republicans and Democrats could not agree: 1) whether the Committee should conclude that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's public statements were based on knowledge he actually possessed, and 2) whether the Committee should conclude that it was the former ambassador's wife that recommended him for his trip to Niger.

Hmmm.

MORE: Josh Marshall is interesting on the forged documents, which inspired the French as well as the Italians. He might want to add this detail from p. 59 - on Nov 22, 2002, the French reported that they believed an Iraqi procurement attempt had been made, but that no uranium had been shipped. Apparently, this was based on the forgeries - the US got this bad news on March 4, 2003 (p 69).

More details - we have thanks to "The Kid", extended excerpts from the report right here. Wilson's trip seems to have been inspired in part by a report on 500 tons of uranium per year. However, the names and dates in that report did not show obvious inconsistencies, suggesting that something other than forgeries was driving this.

No, I have no idea why I did not put this in a separate post.

Senate Intelligence Report

The full report, available as one big .pdf file, and the summary (also .pdf) are available at the Senate Intelligence Committee website, but don't go there.

A text version, fully searchabe and easily copied, is availabe at an MIT website (the Senate version is scanned to allow for redactions)

For folks with bandwidth or PC issues, FindLaw has subdivided the main report for easy downloading.

Now, I can't get the Text Select button to highlight and copy text, but if someone who can would like to copy/paste pages 44/45 (Dead Tree numbering) and leave it in the comments section, the bit about Wilson, the Senate staff, the WaPo, and the forgeries is quite illuminating.

And somewhere, the CIA warns about the threat from "rouge nations". Hmm, the French have a Red State problem too?

Divide And Exit

The NY Times front-pages the apparent rift between home-grown Iraqi insurgents and the foreign fighters. Did the sovereignty transfer really help? They aren't sure. But one sheik is quoted as saying, essentially, that US troops should move into remote areas and provide targets for Iraqi patriots:

Asked recently if he advocated continued struggle against the Americans, Sheik Abdul-Satar Sattar al-Samarrai, a leader of the Muslim Clerics Association, said: "Yes. Honest and true resistance — that is away from chaos, killing innocents and policemen and sabotaging the infrastructure — should go on to kick the occupation out of the country."

Fine - if they stop sabotaging the infrastructure, stop killing policeman, and stop car-bombings, the hated occupation will be darn close to "mission accomplished", and happy to leave.