JustOneMinute

A Joe Wilson Sighting At The Dem Convention

Not exactly, but Joe Wilson is scheduled to be in Boston, according to the LA Times:

The "Campaign for America's Future" will host three days of "Take Back America" events concurrent with the convention, open to Democratic leaders, activists and "progressive" delegates. Headliners will include former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), "Nickel and Dimed" author Barbara Ehrenreich, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and former Vice President Al Gore.

...Another forum will air "the debacle in Iraq [that] has left America more isolated, more reviled, and less safe" — with such panelists as staunch antiwar Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the last of the Democratic candidates to withdraw from the presidential race, and Joseph Wilson, the former U.S. chargé d'affaires in Iraq and author of "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies That Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity."

Ignore the airbrushing, Joe - Get some camera time with Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi!

You're still a hero!

LATE UPDATE: He is a hero to the crowd! But not to Jason Zengerle, blogging for the New Republic.

The Weekly Standard Stalks The Media

Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard wrote recently that several media figures - Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, Nick Kristof of the NY Times, and Spencer Ackerman and John B. Judis of The New Republic - had all written stories with Joe Wilson as a source. Appearing on Paula Zahn, Joe Wilson announced that all of these stories were based on misquotes and misattributions.

Matthew Contineti follows up with these reporters with a story that becomes the journalistic equivalent of Michael Moore's "Roger and Me".

However, Nick Kristof makes news, (and perhaps responds to my query) with this:

Kevin Drum Makes Me Say "Wow"

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...

Bush is Pedro Martinez; Kerry is Eddie Yost

Mickey, I can't tell the candidates without a scorecard.

Real Courage

A fascinating account of a journalist with real courage.

I hope this can help folks distinguish between real courage and Hollywood courage - you know, Michael Moore daring to speak the truth about a corrupt Administration, that sort of thing. The courage to say something that everyone within earshot and everyone within your social circle will agree with. The courage to make a movie that nets you millions and makes you the darling of the left...

OK, I'm ranting now...

Kobe Bryant Update

I am not a Kobe Bryant fan, but folks who are will love this story:

The judge in the Kobe Bryant rape case has decided jurors will be allowed to hear about the sex life of the NBA star's accuser so they can determine her credibility.

...Ruckriegle, however, limited the admissible evidence to the woman's sexual activities in the three days before her July 1, 2003, hospital examination, saying it is relevant to help determine the cause of her injuries and the source of DNA evidence.

"While the defense lost some things it wanted, it has accumulated a massive amount of damaging facts," said Larry Pozner, former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "This evidence is as damaging a set of facts as a prosecutor could ever have to contend with and one wonders if at long last the accuser will pull the plug on this case."

One does wonder. The prosecutor's spokesperson earns her paycheck, or some prize, for this eloquent response:

The prosecution will decide how to proceed after reviewing the decision but has not ruled out any options, spokeswoman Krista Flannigan said.

"We have no plans of not moving forward with the prosecution," she said. "It's just, what is that going to look like?"

What is that going to look like? I don't know either, but a starting point might be to visualize the OJ media circus held inside a Vegas strip club.

MORE: For more family-oriented entertainment, it seems that we may get a look at the young woman's text messages. Hey, what about her IM, and what's her "away message", anyway?

And who is Larry Pozner, and why is he quoted in all these articles?

Spin/Counterspin

Kevin Drum does a nice job of presenting the Joe Wilson spin:

JOE WAS RIGHT....For all the frothing and fulminating about the minutiae of Joe Wilson's op-eds, speeches, and books over the past year, it's worth remembering that his central claim continues to be supported by everyone who looks into it.

Really? And what was his central claim?

...Wilson's central claim was that there was virtually no evidence to back up the idea that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger. The CIA agreed with that assessment before the war, it agreed with it after the war, and it still agrees with it — and the Senate Intelligence report backs them up.

Oh, back up - that was his central claim? What about "Bush lied", what about "They manipulated the intelligence", what about "They knew"?

From his book, page 1:

In [my July 6 op-ed], I stated that the Bush Administration had been informed a year and a half earlier that their claims of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Niger were false. I knew what information the administration had about Niger because in early March 2002 I had briefed the CIA on the results of a trip I had made for them to that African country... My report - and two others from American officials - had apparently been disregarded.."

Or, let's look at the lede to his July 6 op-ed:

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Well, was his report "twisted" or "disregarded"? Actually, it was misrepresented in his NY Times op-ed, since he neglected to mention the Iraqi contacts that were interpreted as a sign of their interest in uranium purchases. The CIA found that part of his report quite interesting; perhaps NY Times readers would have as well.

The oft-cited Conclusion 13 from p. 73 of the Senate Report said this, as Kevin is surely tired of being told:

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.

So let's see - his report was not disregarded, the intelligence he provided was not manipulated, and Bush did not lie. Wilson offered his (inexpert and partially informed) opinion about Iraqi overtures in Africa, which went into the overall analysis, and changed no minds.

I need help with Kevin's conclusion:

Wilson may be guilty of overembellishing his case on several minor points...

Such as? I don't know where to finish with Wilson's overembellishments, but since the Nick Kristof columns triggered Wilson's rise to prominence, let's start there. Does any aspect of Wilson's story bother Kevin, in terms of Wilson's credibility, media accountability, or Kerry's judgement in keeping Wilson around (and held in high regard by some!).

...on the central question he brought up — should the president have made those claims about African uranium in his State of the Union address? — he was right. The CIA admits it, the White House admits it, and the Senate Intelligence committee admits it. Republicans ought to keep this in mind.

I would be curious to see where the Senate Intelligence Committee concludes that the President should not have uttered the 16 Words in the State of the Union. I do see this, from Conclusion 19 on p. 77:

Both agencies continued to publish assessments that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa. In addition, CIA continued to approve the use of similar language in Administration publications and speeches, including the State of the Union.

Now, the CIA eventually found out they were wrong, but that is still a long way from "Bush lied".

That said, a confused White House, buffeted by frenzied media reporting that someone knew about the forgeries in the spring of 2002, and unable to prove the negative (Nope, no one knew. NO one!), backed down. I will keep that in mind.

MORE: Joe hammers the "They backed down on the 16 Words" theme in his conclusion to the LA Times editorial, and it is probably his best argument. Odd that the NY Times didn't run it...

Kevin Drum, Kidding; Howard Kurtz, Enabling

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post links to a rhetorically effective but intellectually defective post by Kevin Drum.

Mr. Drum's gist is that Tom Davis, the same (Evil Republican) Congressman who remained silent during the Plame leak investigation, is screaming for Congressional hearings into the Berger leak, and he presents a timeline with a July 17 2003 starting point to illustrate his argument. His Big Finish:

Hey! Tom Davis can move mighty quickly when he puts his mind to it! I wonder what the difference between these two cases is?

As I said, it is rhetorically effective - yeah, what about those rotten, hypocritical Republicans, anyway! And Howard Kurtz liked it, so good job.

However, it is a terrible analogy, and to start the comparable timeline at July 17 2003 is absurd. In the Berger case, the FBI has had eight months to gather evidence; the prime (and, one hopes, only) suspect has been identified; and we are all wondering why this is unresolved (including Kevin "What's taking so long" Drum). Maybe a Congressional hearing can move things along (and embarrass the Dems - a double play!).

In the Plame case, neither Howard Kurtz nor Kevin Drum is so young that they can feign ignorance of Lawrence Walsh and the Iran-Contra debacle - Congressional hearings preceded the criminal investigation, and crippled the criminal cases.

That's why hearings last July 17 would have been premature - at that point, the CIA had not even given a criminal referral, and I doubt Congressional hearings were going to be triggered by the bloviatings of Joseph Wilson. Sen. Charles Schumer and other Democrats did call for a criminal investigation, and they got one. They also called for Ashcroft to recuse himself, and they eventually got that.

So - do people think the Plame investigation has stalled, and are they willing to jeopardize potential criminal cases by having Congressional hearings? This seems to be a more complicated case, and the special counsel seems to have reached a long-foreseen sticking point - under Justice Dept. guidelines, reporters (who might be able to shed substantial light in the question of who leaked to them) can only be subpoenaed when all other investigative alternatives have been exhausted. From news accounts, it appears that the Special Counsel is currently negotiating subpoenas with various news agencies. Is this the right time for Congressional hearings?

Terrible comparison, great post. The rhetorical question with which he closes, "I wonder what the difference between these two cases is?" has got to be a joke - I don't think he spent two seconds wondering.

MORE: I explain why the Dems ought to clamor for hearings (and why they won't) in second half of this post. Now, I am counting on you guys to ignore good advice here...

From The Time Vault

The 9/11 Commission report cites this April 1999 NY Times article as an example of media inattention to the terror problem:

It is hard now to recapture the conventional wisdom before 9/11. For example, a New York Times article in April 1999 sought to debunk claims that Bin Ladin was a terrorist leader, with the headline “U.S. Hard Put to Find Proof Bin Laden Directed Attacks.” (8)

See for yourself.

The Blogosphere Gets Results!

Well, someone got results, anyway. Memeorandum has what has become a very funny post. The reference story is ostensibly headlined "Flight 93 Crashed Without a Struggle"; three bloggers (including Charles Johnson of the high-traffic LGF) correctly denounce the headline as absurd, inaccurate, and insulting.

But of course, time and pixels move on, so all of the posts link to a story now headlined: "Panel: No Cockpit Struggle on Flight 93".

Much better. And for any skeptics out there, a quick check with Google confirmed that this was not a mass hallucination. However, the headine is disappearing fast, so you may have to take my word for it.

"We Have A Responsibility, As Leaders, To Stand Up.

John Kerry finally notices that there was a bit of a problem at his fundraiser in New York City:

I do think we have a responsibility, as leaders, to stand up. I think there were people at that, at that concert we had in New York who stepped over the line. I've said that.

If I could turn back time...

Here we are the night of the event:

Mr. Kerry, inviting his and Mr. Edwards's adult children onstage for a sing-along of "This Land Is Your Land," told the crowd that "every single performer" on the bill had "conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country."

And what did Jodi Wilgorn of the Times point out in her account?

But unlike one of Mr. Kerry's vanquished primary rivals, Howard Dean, who denounced racial humor and profanity at one of his own fundraisers in New York, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Kerry hardly veered from their script when they mounted the stage at the end of the extravaganza, looking more subdued than they had all week.

So we are all in agreement - we do have a responsibility to stand up. Real leaders actually meet that responsibility.

Captain Ed delivered a broadside. And another.

MORE: Kerry also threatens us with this: I will stand up and struggle, as others have, to try to get that right balance between violence, and sex, and things.

Don't worry John - it's just as much of a struggle for the people listening to you in the audience.

UPDATE: Waiting For Sister Souljah - a commenter suggests that Kerry, in cooperation with some of his Hollywood friends, will stage a redemptive moment of leadership and courage during the convention. And cameras will be there!

Good Idea, or Unnecessary Distraction? I like it.

We We're Mugged

"Terrorism was not the overriding national security concern for the U.S. government under either the Clinton or the pre-9/11 Bush administration.

9/11 Commission, Executive Summary, p. 10, July 22, 2004

Clarke told the commission in testimony yesterday afternoon that whereas the Clinton administration treated terrorism as its highest priority, the Bush administration did not consider it to be an urgent issue before the attacks.

Washington Post, March 25, 2004, describing (or arguably misdescribing) Richard Clarke's public testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

I think we were mugged by Viacom," Lehman told NRO in a phone interview on Thursday afternoon. "Because they changed the release date of the [Richard Clarke] book and geared up 60 Minutes to launch his book to time them with his testimony and they edited his book to take out all of the criticisms of Clinton from his [original private] testimony. Because they wanted to make it a jihad against Bush."

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman (Rep)., July 22, 2004

Richard Clarke chewed up a lot of bandwidth.

A Question

Does anyone know how to perma-link an article on The Kerry Spot? I must be brain-locking. There is a classic interview with Kerry on abortion, where he explains that life begins at conception but it is not really life, which I would like to commemorate.

MORE: Pejman tackles this and wins "Title du Jour" with "INSOUCIANT INCOHERENCE". RedState has links and more.

The NY Times Opines On Sandy Berger

This editorial could be even more annoying; although it essentially recycles the Kerry talking points (and I recycle my rebuttals), it has a brief nod towards evenhandedness - don't blink or you'll miss it!

First, the editors recycle the silliness from yesterday's news story:

The missing documents were copies of memos, which Mr. Kerry would have had access to anyway.

I'm begging them, stop - no one is worried that Kerry will take time out of his busy schedule to peer at documents in the National Archives. Kerry has a huge campaign coterie, and I doubt that they all have the proper clearances.

Of real concern is that bleeding, yet again, of politics into criminal justice. After initially claiming it knew nothing of the case, the White House has had to admit it was informed. That sort of heads-up taints both sides. It leaves the White House open to questions about whether it timed a leak to the release of the 9/11 panel's report, and it feeds cynicism about the independence of federal prosecutors.

Alternative explanations to the "dirty Republican trick" can be found here; my own horse is riding right here. And the NY Times itself quoted Beth Nolan, White House counsel under Bill Clinton, as noting that "there may be a legitimate explanation for all this", since the WH counsel and the NSC were responsible for working with the 9/11 Commission on documents. Maybe the editors didn't make it all the way to the last two paragraphs yesterday.

OK, folks, perk up, here comes the evenhandedness!

Mr. Kerry, by the way, ought to stop stoking that cynicism with groundless claims that the prosecution of Kenneth Lay was improperly delayed.

I hope that didn't hurt too much. Their Big Finish:

For its part, the White House's denials about this leak would sound more credible if it assigned some urgency to solving the C.I.A. leak case.

Apparently, the NY Times has activated the auto-rebut feature - earlier in the editorial, they told us that "The politicians should all let the Justice Department do its job.

And for their part, while on the subject of credibility enhancement, when last we looked, the Times had told us that "new reports also raised questions about one of the White House's chief critics over the issue, Joseph C. Wilson IV".

What the questions are, and what the answers might be, is not a subject the NY Times has, as yet, dared to broach with their readership. But the Wall Street Journal was not so coy - when is the Times going to explain the process that led to two fantasy columns by Nick Kristof, and one fantasy guest op-ed by Joseph Wilson?

The WaPo Discovers Partisan Posturing in Washington!

Oh, these guys are good! Washington politicians engage in partisan posturing, and the WaPo is on it!

Or almost - they have noticed the partisanship, but haven't quite caught on to the "posturing" aspect. In editorializing on the Berger affair, they ritualistically denounce Mr. Berger's "reprehensible" behavior, and then commence bashing the Republicans:

Still, it's hard not to be repulsed by the reaction to the affair by President Bush's campaign spokesmen and Republicans in Congress. They have suggested, without foundation, that Mr. Berger took the papers to benefit Mr. Kerry, who says that he knew nothing of the matter; House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has spoken, with gross hyperbole, of a "national security crisis."

Shocking! Almost as shocking as this letter one year ago from Sen. Charles Schumer demanding on investigation into the Plame leak:

"This is one of the most reckless and nasty things I’ve seen in all my years of government," Schumer said. "Leaking the name of a CIA agent is tantamount to putting a gun to that agent’s head. It compromises her safety and the safety of her loved ones, not to mention those in her network and other operatives she may have dealt with. On top of that, the officials who have done it may have also seriously jeopardized the national security of this nation."

Of course, this calm, measured response came before we had any official confirmation whatsoever of Ms. Plame's status. Eventually, Mr. Kristof reported that the alarmists were being a bit excessive.

The Post picks up the Kerry campaign spin in their conclusion:

It's worth noting that news of the months-old investigation of Mr. Berger just happened to leak on the week before the Democratic convention, and two days before the release of the Sept. 11 commission's report -- which covers serious lapses by President Bush as well as President Bill Clinton. Officials at the Bush White House had been briefed on the Berger probe. Could that be a coincidence?

Yes, it could be a coincidence - alternative theories include a Democratic motivated "we control the timing and blame the Republicans" leak, or an idea that the 9/11 Report would raise questions about Berger anyway (it does!) so the commission leaked the Berger news to avoid distraction. InstaPundit readers know all these theories - what do the Post editors read?

The WaPo also runs a news story devoted to this "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" theme. Apparently, Ms. Rice and some other NSC officials may have known; since some of these officials report to the White House Counsel's office, and others, surely including Ms. Rice, may have been involved in work for the 9/11 Commission, this seems as reasonable to me today as it did yesterday, when Beth Nolan, White House counsel under Clinton, was quoted in the Times as saying "there may be a legitimate explanation here".

MORE: FYI for Wilson buffs - I stumbled across a useful lefty-friendly collection of links to newstories.

Can't Distinguish Between What You've Read and What You've Lived? (cont.)

When Ronald Reagan did stuff like this - making up stories about "his life" that were actually incidents taken from movies - people fell down laughing.

In what has become a continuing series, we learn that Bill Clinton is pretty funny, too, although the subject matter ought to have been a lot closer to home. From the 9/11 Commission report (p. 480):

One Cryptic Reference, One Less So

We have been wondering about possible motivations for the leak of the Sandy Berger investigation, and have previously suggested a connection to the 9/11 Commission itself. Support for this can be found in the report (as we had predicted).

One of Glenn Reynolds' many intrepid readers found what may be a cryptic reference to Sandy Berger in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Here is another reference that is a lot less cryptic, and might easily prompt many follow-up questions about documents, after-action reports, and Sandy Berger. From the footnotes on p. 482:

46. NSC email, Clarke to Kerrick,“Timeline,”Aug. 19, 1998; Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004). We did not find documentation on the after-action review mentioned by Berger. On Vice Chairman Joseph Ralston’s mission in Pakistan, see William Cohen interview (Feb. 5, 2004). For speculation on tipping off the Taliban, see, e.g., Richard Clarke interview (Dec. 18, 2003).

And to what does footnote (46) refer? On p. 117, Chapter 4, we find this:

Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20–30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin. (46)

How about that? How many times have we heard Clinton say that he missed Bin Ladin by just a few hours? Yet the after-action report is missing, so the Commission relied on Sandy Berger's testimony.

At a minimum, this can be tied to the Berger leak. My guess is that someone would have asked about that puzzling footnote; once on the subject of Berger and missing after-action reports, the story of the criminal investigation could hardly be kept quiet. Hence, the timing of the Sandy Berger leak last Monday - rather than a Republican dirty trick, it was a pre-emptive leak by someone close to the commission so that the Sandy Berger circus would not distract from the public release of the 9/11 report. (As if!)

Last Tuesday, Josh Marshall was out of ideas, and could only imagine a malicious Administration leak. InstaPundit readers had other, and better, ideas.

Well, I'll know I am on to something if I don't see it in the Times tomorrow.

MORE: Ok, the Times might run a headline like "Bush Denies Knowledge of Footnotes", but that does have a certain "Dog Bites Man" quality.

UPDATE: Just to be clear - the news accounts have talked primarily about missing Millennium after-action reports, not the 1998 cruise missile attack after-action reports, and I suppose I could have emphasized that. But my point is, once people start asking the Commissioners about Sandy Berger and missing documents, an answer along the lines of "that's a matter of a criminal investigation" becomes almost inevitable, and very distracting.

NOTE: Very slightly revised at Mickey's prompting, and yes, I wonder what the real lede is, too.

Stand By Your Man

But don't stand too close.

Sen. Kit Bond, a member of the SSCI, appeared on the PBS Newshour to discuss with Margaret Warner and Joseph Wilson the issues of the day. The Senator had this to say on the question of whether Valerie Plame was involved in the selection of her husband for this trip:

"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."

Pretty compelling stuff. Well, Joe's memory is a bit hazy, too.

Is It Safe? We Help The Johns

Senators Kerry and Edwards where stumped by the question asked by different interviewers - "are we safer?"

The 9/11 Commission has an answer:

Because of offensive actions against al Qaeda since 9/11, and defensive actions to improve homeland security, we believe we are safer today. But we are not safe. We therefore make the following recommendations that we believe can make America safer and more secure.

Ok, they don't cite the Iraq war as a reason; don't interrupt my rhetorical flow.

In Other News...

The NY Times reports that information can escape from a black hole, so perhaps we will be hearing from Nick Kristof.

That Didn't Take Long

On Day 3 of the Sandy Burglar story, the NY Times places the Kerry campaign fax on their front page and your front doorstep - what did the President know and when did he know it?

Gregory Djerejian performs the full dissection, but I can't let him spoil my fun. Here is the Times headline and lede, from the front page (below the fold):

White House Knew of Inquiry on Aide; Kerry Camp Irked

Kerry's a victim!

WASHINGTON, July 21 - The White House said Wednesday that senior officials in its counsel's office were told by the Justice Department months ago that a criminal investigation was under way to determine if Samuel R. Berger, the national security adviser under President Bill Clinton, removed classified documents about Al Qaeda from the National Archives.

The White House declined to say who beyond the counsel's office knew about the investigation, but some administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they believed that several top aides to Mr. Bush were informed of the investigation. President Bush himself declined to answer a question Wednesday about whether he had been told, saying: "I'm not going to comment on this matter. This is a serious matter, and it will be fully investigated by the Justice Department."

Readers who can endure the pain of learning, yet again, of the crazed abuses perpetrated by this power-mad Administration will eventually get to this exculpatory bit in, I kid you not, the final two paragraphs:

"There may be a legitimate explanation here because the White House counsel had responsibility for handling these documents," said Beth Nolan, White House counsel under President Clinton.

"But the better path might have been not to provide the information to the White House at all,'' she said, "because of this exact situation - if you have information that was shared and was then leaked, it creates a whole set of political problems."

No kidding. The 9/11 Commission might very well have asked the President, or Condaleeza Rice, about irregularities in the handling of documents. In which case, it might have been a good idea if the President had been briefed on that, now wouldn't it?

I would be shocked if Condaleeza Rice and Andy Card had not been briefed on this.

Josh Marshall, on the other hand, can't guess at a reason. Imagine our surprise.

Having made our main point, we continue to ventilate below:

[UPDATE: Okrent explains!]

[UPDATE 2: I seize on this comment from the WaPo to highlight the Administration's need-to-know:

[Berger] was examining the documents to recommend to the Bush administration which papers should be released to the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The New Republic Pummels Joe Wilson

Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic, has some thoughts on the Joe Wilson story:

The tale spun by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson that Iraq did not ever try to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger is now in the process of unraveling. And, of course, the phalanx of anti-war journalists is desperately trying to stop the bust-up. But it can't be done.

...Moreover, the U.S. Senate report undercuts Wilson's very believability. I myself had wondered why the CIA had been so dumb--such dumbness is something to which we should have long ago become accustomed!--as to send a low-level diplomat to check on yellowcake sales from Niger to Iraq when it should have dispatched a real spook. Well, it turns out that a "real spook" had recommended him to her boss, that spook being Valerie Plame, who happens also to be Wilson's wife. He has long denied that she had anything to do with his going to Niger and that, alas, was a lie. It appears, in fact, that this is the sole reason he was sent. Still, in a lot of dining rooms where I am a guest here, there is outrage that someone in the vice president's office "outed" Ms. Plame, as though everybody in Georgetown hadn't already known she was under cover, so to speak. Under cover, but not really. One guest even asserted that someone in the vice president's office is surely guilty of treason, no less--an offense this person certainly wouldn't have attributed to the Rosenbergs or Alger Hiss, Daniel Ellsberg or Philip Agee. But for the person who confirmed for Robert Novak what he already knew, nothing but high crimes would do.

We will mark this down as "Wilso-phobic". Although it does not directly respond to the dart tossed by Jonah Goldberg of the NRO - did The New Republic deliberately misquote Joe Wilson or is Joe Wilson simply lying again?, as discussed here - Mr. Peretz's response certainly suggests that they intend to stand by their reporting.

Mr. Peretz also shares his thoughts on Sandy Berger and anti-semitism in France. Read it all.

MORE: I'm counting on you! If you don't read it all, you'll miss gems like this:

[Sandy Berger] clearly still has McGovernite politics, which means, in my mind, at least, that he believes there is no international dispute that can't be solved by the U.S. walking away from it.

Mitch McConnell on Joe Wilson

Mitch McConnell's floor statement pummelling Joe Wilson, the unbalanced media coverage, and the Kerry campaign for keeping Wilson around.

My quick and insubstantial reaction - we see that the Senator picked up the phrase "A little literary flair", so props to the Weekly Standard for driving the debate. (OK, Roger L. Simon, too, but what are the odds?).

More thoughts later.

Sandy Berger's Memory Improves Under Bright Lights

It's deja vu all over again - it was only two years ago that Sandy Berger was promoting to TIME magazine a bold Clinton response to Al Qaeda that had been shelved by the incoming Administration.

However, a visit to a Congressional committee jogged his memory (scroll to "A Story Sullivan Likes"), and the Man with a Plan became the Man with a Nice Powerpoint Presentation - Sandy Berger admitted that the TIME story was, well, a story.

The 9/11 report eventually discussed this in Staff Report 8, starting on page 8.

UPDATE: Who wants to live forever?

WSJ - The News Desk Is Pretty Good

Mark Kleiman notes that the Wall Street Journal's news and editorial divisions often head in different directions.

Yesterday's WSJ has an excellent summary of the Wilson affair, and a fascinating explanation of what we may expect on the legal front. They eventually quote an official who seems to imply that motive matters. Since the investigation has been virtually leak-free, we wonder whether this "law-enforcement official" is connected to the investigation, or just answering a call from a friendly reporter. We also love seeing Larry Johnson quoted - many, including some at the Journal, remember him as not fully reliable.

Something like excerpts are available here.

UPDATE: Ah, yes, a point! Perhaps I never quite got to one, or perhaps the highlighting below was a subconscious cry for help, but Juan Non-Volokh delivers.

More excerpts below:

Joe Wilson Is Back For More

Joe Wilson celebrates the first anniversary of his famous NY Times op-ed with a commemorative column in the LA Times.

Oh dear. Employing the same tactic preferred by Josh Marshall and Tim Rutten of the LA Times (but not David Corn), Joe Wilson begins by smearing his critics:

For the last two weeks, I have been subjected — along with my wife, Valerie Plame — to a partisan Republican smear campaign. In right-wing blogs and on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, I've been accused of being a liar and, worse, a traitor.

I cannot speak for all right-wing blogs, but I can say this - there are bigger right wing blogs, and better, but no one has posted more about Joe Wilson than I have.

The NY Times Finds Time For Linda Ronstadt

Regrettably, the NY Times does not find time to engage their brains in this absurd editorial defending the "free speech" rights of Ms. Ronstadt:

The WaPo Editorializes on "16 Words"

According to the WaPo, Bush didn't lie.

REMEMBER THE affair of "the sixteen words"?

I'll hazard a guess that regular readers of this site do...

Excerpts from the WaPo are below. We also note that USA Today has a new article on the 16 Words, and we extract this nugget:

Bush joined the fray Tuesday when an audience member at a political rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, asked him, "Did Ambassador Wilson lie?"

"Well, you need to ask the press that question," Bush replied.

The press is stirring.

Finally, Joe Wilson made it onto PBS Newshour, and a blogger was there! (Well, in front of his television, anyway) [UPDATE: Transcript].

"The Most Obvious, And Probably The Only, Explanation"

Commenting on Josh Marshall's attempt to spin the Sandy Berger pants-dance, Jonah Goldberg points out that "Republican dirty tricks" is not the "only possible" explanation. Mr. Goldberg's perfectly plausible explanation - this was a pre-emptive leak by the Democratic side. {And he has more on that here.]

Allow me to suggest another possibility: the 9/11 Commission is due to release their report shortly. They have been informed of this investigation, but, as of the release date, it appears that the investigation will not have been resolved.

Isn't it at least possible that the Commission will have a cryptic, "CYA" sentence in the report mentioning irregularities in the handling of documents? Wouldn't they have to - if the Sandy Burglar criminal investigation eventually turns into something big, won't their report be tainted? And how will they explain the omission of any hint of that taint?

From which it follows, they can release the report with the cryptic (or maybe not-so-cryptic) hint, and await the distraction; or "they" can leak it now. And maybe it is someone from the Democratic side who would prefer that the press coverage of the report focus on Bush rather than mishandled documents.

Just a thought, and it is a theory which will be tested soon enough. But I really am disappointed that Mr. Marshall's imagination is so limited. And the notion may be helpful to Jonah Goldberg, if he cares to extend his excellent talking points.

UPDATE: From MSNBC: Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission, said the Berger investigation will have no bearing on the panel’s report.

And therefore they absolutely would not mention it in their report, or cover letter, or other opinions, or anywhere? We will see. If Berger is indicted a month after the report comes out, won't folks look at the report and wonder how such seemingly relevant info as an investigation into the handling of documents could have been overlooked? Won't folks wonder what else was left out? Wouldn't a reassuring statement in the report be a good PR idea?

UPDATE 2: Kevin Drum surprises us.

UPDATE 3: An InstaRoundup of links and theories. One wonders whether Josh Marshall's "probably the only" comment was analysis, or an attempt at self-diagnosis.

Blair Was Brilliant

I saw about ten minutes of the five hour debate in the British Parliament on the Butler report, but the bit I saw is described here, and Blair was brilliant.

And yes, I was jealous - if Blair came over here with that act, he would chase Kerry into the ocean and on to Hawaii. However, Bush can't speak, so here we are.

One line that stayed with me, and I am paraphrasing -

The British people will accept a politician who honestly supports the war, and they will accept a politician who honestly opposes the war. But they will not accept a politician who supports and opposes the war in ths same speech.

More cheerleading from the Scotsman here. One excerpt:

At the weekend, Mr Howard said that in the light of Lord Butler’s revelations about flaws in the pre-war intelligence on Iraqi arms, he now wished he had not voted for the Commons motion that paved the way for war last March.

Yet he still supports the conflict, an apparent contradiction that Mr Blair used mercilessly yesterday, telling Mr Howard: "This type of shoddy opportunism is not the solution to his problem, it is his problem."

What Would Witness Intimidation Sound Like?

Would it sound like this?

"I suggest that person is lying," he said. "And if that person has the guts, let's see who it is who made the comment that Sandy Berger stuffed something into his socks."

What does the person's "guts" have to do with it? Is there something they should be afraid of?

The speaker was Lanny Davis. A bit of background:

Law enforcement sources said archive staff told FBI agents they saw Berger placing items in his jacket and pants, and one archive staffer told agents that Berger also placed something in his socks.

That latter allegation drew a sharp response from Berger associate and former White House lawyer Lanny Davis, who challenged any unnamed official who makes such an accusation to come forward publicly.

Now, it seems as if there could be two targets for Mr. Davis' implied threat. Is he directing it at the "law enforcement sources" who claim to be passing along the statements from the archive staff?

Or is he directing it at the archive staff themselves? If this reaches court, we will hear witness testimony, including on this point. Unless the intimidation is successful, of course.

NOTE: Does anyone know whether Josh Marshall is able to keep a straight face while writing this sort of thing?

Dem Pre-Panic Watch

Stealing an idea from a frequent commenter, let's ask - if there are no undecided voters, how can Kerry get a convention bounce?

And how will that affect the Dem Panic Watch?

BONUS: Will Kerry's non-bounce take the air out of the Dump Cheney movement? (This article says forget about Changing Cheney, for other reasons.)

Excerpts below:

Sand-Berg SquarePants Steps Down From Kerry Campaign

So says Fox. Why is the first quote on the political impact from a Republican? Duncan Hunter chairs the House Armed Services Committee, which is not directly tied to the 9/11 investigation anyway. Whatever.

Now, re: Trousergate. Can we try for Zipperflap?

Sandy Burglar has the look of a winner.

Jonah Goldberg imagines the panel discussion of TV.

And, still at The Corner, Michael Ledeen needs to pick up a paper - what is this?

Under Clinton, as I recall, Clarke wasn't the counterterrorism czar; that happened under Bush.

Do I even need to look this up? (I will.) One theory about Clarke's unhappiness with Bush is that in the new regime he experienced a de facto demotion and could no longer chair Principals Meetings and Cabinet meetings. Maybe Ledeen is thinking about the cyberterorism czar appointment.

Wouldn't change his main point (upon which I do not opine, BTW).

Nobody Makes Noise Like The Howler

Bob Somerby hammers Joe Wilson. Paula Zahn is a bonus.

NOTE: I think Mr. Somerby misunderestimates the political significance of the wife's involvement. Jonah Goldberg waxes on this.

MORE: Fair's fair - Battling Bob rips the NY Times and George Bush.

Wilson and the Media - The Wall Street Journal Names Names

The WSJ runs an editorial blasting Joe Wilson which is sure to catch the eye of the NY Times, and may answer my question of whether Nick Kristof can duck this:

...in any event, we'd think that the news outlets that broadcast Mr. Wilson's story over the past year would want to retrace their own missteps.

Mr. Wilson made three separate appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press," according to the Weekly Standard. New York Times columnist Nick Kristof first brought the still anonymous Niger envoy to public attention in May 2003, so he too must feel burned by his source. Alone among major sellers of the Wilson story, the Washington Post has done an admirable job so far of correcting the record.

We hope the Times remembers that Mr. Wilson has suggested that Nick Kristof misattributed or misquoted him, so the source is getting a bit snippy.

W are also quite sure that the Times reads the WSJ editorial page carefully, since they quoted it in their catch-up piece last Sunday (excerpts here).

That said, Mr. Wilson has polished his soundbites - CNN asked the easy questions, and he did fine:

WILSON: Well, again, the "Wall Street" editorial page, I believe, is part of this smear campaign and that they just simply don't know what they're talking about. The facts are clear. The 16 words should not have been in the State of the Union address. The president, or the White House, has acknowledged that. This transaction did not and could not have taken place. And my role in this was, as I reported in the "New York Times," was a very small one.

Go back and read the original opinion piece.

We will accept that the transaction did not take place, and note that that is somewhat beside the point, since the question was of Saddam's demand rather than Niger's supply.

And the NY Times certainly reported different things about his role, as noted above. But it is a good answer for those who want to believe.

File Under "THAT Liberal Media"

NOTE: Refile under "THAT Somewhat Problematic Post"; see UPDATE.

If I can rely on Google-News [I can't], CBS News has finally taken note of the flap over Joseph Wilson. NO, it wasn't the Mark Steyn column, or the William Safire column. They didn't run an independent story, like the Washington Post, or the LA Times, or the NY Times. They didn't pick up the AP story, as with CNN or MSNBC or ABC.

What they did was reprint (in the opinion section) "Bashing Joe Wilson" by David Corn of the left-leaning nation.

Fair and balanced.

It's hard to believe that will satisfy the Hammer. And what about "Fair and Balanced", anyway?

UPDATE: A Helpful Commenter informs me that Google-News does not do the same job of searching CBS as Google itself. The real search produces this story, which produces this smile:

Wilson says he concluded that the Iraq-uranium charge was unlikely based on what he learned about the structure of the Niger uranium industry.

Unlikely? What about his book?

OK. An old, hard-to-find story with comical errors plus a David Corn quasi-editorial does not strong reporting make. Although we continue to have confidence in Google-News, the quality of information did not reach the standard for inclusion in a JustOneMinute post. However, we stand by our story. Is that clear?

Getting Ready For The Balloon Drop

We mocked TNR's conspiratorial suggestion that Sinister BushCo was planning to capture Osama during the Democratic National Convention. But who is laughing now? We have this attention-grabber from Waziristan:

Stage set for final showdown
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - A recent report by US think-tank Strategic Forecasting suggested that since "sovereignty" had now been transferred to Iraq, the United States would give its full attention to the problem of al-Qaeda fugitives in Pakistan's rugged tribal areas. Already this year, at the instigation of Washington, the Pakistani army has launched two military offensives into South Waziristan to track down foreign elements, with marginal success.

All signs now point to another offensive, but this time Islamabad and Washington have agreed that US troops stationed across the border in Afghanistan will take an active part in the action on Pakistani soil, rather than wait for suspects to be flushed out into their waiting arms. Similarly, Pakistani troops will be able to engage in hot-pursuit operations into Afghan territory.

In its single most important strike yet in the tribal areas, the Pakistani army in mid-June killed former Taliban commander Nek Mohammed, a key facilitator for al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the Afghan resistance in the tribal areas. The United States, however, played a vital role in this operation by tracking down Nek through his mobile-telephone calls, and there is even some suggestion that the US in fact launched the missiles that killed Nek and a few others in a house near Wana, the provincial capital of South Waziristan...

Other reports tell us that fighting continues.

I vouch for none of these sources, BTW, but there they are.

How Can Kristof Duck This?

Joe Wilson, of Niger-uranium-"16 Words" fame, told Paula Zahn that he did not mislead reporters with anonymous leaks, saying "I'm not exactly sure what public comments they're referring to. If they're referring to leaks or sources, unidentified government sources in articles that appeared before my article in "The New York Times" appeared, those are either misquotes or misattributions if they're attributed to me."

Nick Kristof's May 6 column reported that, "In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged."

That column drove the national debate, as Mr. Kristof gloatingly reported in the lead of his June 13 column:

Condoleezza Rice was asked on "Meet the Press" on Sunday about a column of mine from May 6 regarding President Bush's reliance on forged documents to claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. That was not just a case of hyping intelligence, but of asserting something that had already been flatly discredited by an envoy investigating at the behest of the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Now, Mr. Wilson claims that Mr. Kristof's seminal column was based on a misunderstanding.

One wonders whether the Times plans to respond to this; so far, they have not.

Daniel Okrent is the Public Editor, and he will be thrilled to hear from you at:

[email protected]

MORE: Legal problems? Mr. Kristof may be tangentially involved in both the criminal investigation into the Plame leak, and the FBI investigation into the forgeries. So what? The Times still has an obligation to its readers to address this in some fashion.

Boys Will Be Boys

Manly Men. Not Manly Men.

Joe Wilson - They ALL Misquoted Me!

Appearing on Paula Zahn, Joe Wilson continued to blame the press corps for his problems with misleading information, as noted in the Senate report:

ZAHN: I want you to respond to that very specific allegation in the addendum to the Senate report, which basically says that your public comments not only are incorrect, but have no basis in fact.

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

The Weekly Standard has the roster of misquotes and misattributions from the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the New Republic:

Nick Kristof, NY Times, May 6, 2003:

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.

WRONG!

Walter Pincus, Washington Post, June 12, 2003:

...the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official, who is familiar with the event. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity and on condition that the name of the former ambassador not be disclosed.

During his trip, the CIA's envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.

After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

He never said it!

Spencer Ackerman and John B. Judis, TNR, "The First Casualty", June 30, 2003:

Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat, who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador's report to the vice president's office, the ambassador confirms to TNR.

Misattributed!

Gentlemen, your readership is deeply concerned about this allegation that you (yes, ALL of you!) engage in substandard journalism. Must we reminisce about Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass, or can we rely on you to address this?

NY Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent: public (at) nytimes.com

Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler: [email protected]

Walter Pincus: [email protected]

The New Republic (Online): [email protected]

MORE: Recent ridicule here, and excerpts from Wilson's slightly less convincing explanation to the Senate investigators here. I am especially concerned that the New Republic just can't shake their old problem.

UPDATE: Nobody makes noise like the Howler, who rips Paula Zahn, and hammers Joe Wilson.

A quick note - I think Bob Somerby underestimates the political significance of the involvement of Wilson's wife, for which we will pass the torch to Jonah Goldberg.

Sandy Berger In Trouble

Via the InstaPundit we see that Sandy Berger has some legal difficulties:

WASHINGTON - President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, is the focus of a criminal investigation after removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from a secure reading room during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings, The Associated Press has learned. . . .

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had made while reading classified anti-terror documents he reviewed at the archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants. He also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio, they said. . . .

The officials said the missing documents were highly classified, and included critical assessments about the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium terror threats as well as identification of America's terror vulnerabilities at airports to sea ports.

So, an incident with clear national security implications, and what looks like a clear and deliberate breach of the law. And the motivation? Some will assert Mr. Berger's good faith, but can we rule out that this is a thuggish attempt to conceal key documents demonstrating malfeasance (or worse!) by the Clinton Administration?

Absurd, some will say (I will be inclined to agree with them). Mr. Berger (we will be told) is a distinguished public servant just trying to do his job, and he didn't have any sinister intention. Fair enough.

But we have been lectured recently that the law does not make an exception for intentions, and we will excerpt this:

Government officials are not allowed to disclose the identity of covert intelligence agents, whether they feel like they have a good reason or not.

And yes, this is a different law, and different circumstances, and so on. It's always different. But at first blush, it looks like the defense will be, Berger's intentions were good. Which will give us a chance to evaluate the consistency of some commentators.

David Corn Defends Joe Wilson

Attentive readers will remember David Corn as the fellow who trumpeted the "outing" of Valerie Plame by Robert Novak. He is a talented writer who is very well informed on the Wilson affair (as well as being somewhat emotionally invested, we suspect), so it is interesting to see how he deals with the rather ghastly fare circumstances have offered him.

His introduction is neither promising nor surprising - like any grumpy child, he whines for something else, pretending that Wilson's role in the 16 Word scandal is as nothing relative to the Plame leak, and wondering why we can't talk about the now-debunked link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Eventually, however, he manfully attacks the lima beans in front of him.

Geez, Matt, People Make Mistakes - Even You

The always interesting Matt Yglesias goes off on the latest William Safire column:

...Did the sixteen words get in "with no objection from C.I.A.?" Yes, they did. Yet the CIA objected to including the exact same statement in earlier speeches -- notably the Cincinnati speech of October 2002 -- and George Tenet has explained that he only failed to object to including the sixteen words because he neglected to actually read the speech.

...The generous interpretation here is that Safire is uncritically passing along disinformation from his friends in the White House. A less generous interpretation would suggest that he's been following this story closely enough to know perfectly well what the Senate report said and just doesn't really care.

The "exact same statement"? That is simply not accurate, as we shall see.

A generous interpretation would be that Matt is simply passsing along other people's talking points; a less generous interpretation is that he's been following this story closely enough to know perfectly well what the Senate report said and just doesn't really care.

But we do care - the October language was not at all the same as the 16 Words, and was struck for being overly specific. In fact, the CIA suggested language (for a never-published October paper) very similar to the 16 Words. That said, in between there are some rally points for the Administration critics.

Let's excerpt the report starting at p. 55, helpfully titled "The Cinncinnati Speech":

On October 4, 2002, the NSC sent a draft of a speech they were preparing for the President to deliver in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was draft six of the speech and contained the line, "and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase up to 500 metric tons of uranium oxide from Africa - an essential ingredient in the enrichment process."

Those are not exactly the 16 Words, are they? Or even close.

And a bit later, we complete the cover-up with this:

On October 7, 2002, President Bush delivered the speech in Cincinnati without the uranium reference. On the same day, the CIA prepared comments on a draft White House paper, A Grave and Gathering Danger. The comments suggested a change to the draft language saying "better to generalize the first bullet as follows: Sought uranium from Africa to feed the enrichment process." The original text from the White House had said "sought uranium oxide, an essential ingredient in the enrichment process, from Africa." The White House did not publish the paper.

People make mistakes.

More complete excerpts below. A long, tedious explanation of the 16 Word debacle (which addresses this very point) is here, courtesy of Holden of Eschaton. And since Holden is making today the same point I made a few days ago, at least one of us should be nervous. The Times addressed his question - why are Admin defenders more animated on this point than the Admin itself? - yesterday, BTW.

Book Blurbs From Joe Wilson

We let "The Politics of Truth" by Joseph Wilson flop open to page 1, and we find this characterization of his Jul 6, 2003 NY Times op-ed:

In it, I stated that the Bush Administration had been informed a year and a half earlier that their claims of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Niger were false. I knew what information the administration had about Niger because in early March 2002 I had briefed the CIA on the results of a trip I had made for them to that African country... My report - and two others from American officials - had apparently been disregarded.."

How has that held up?

My library is currently locating this book in the non-fiction section. Negotiations are underway!

I Can Recommend A Book To Joe Wilson

Joe Wilson told Wolf Blitzer on CNN Late Edition that Walter Pincus of the Washington Post "misattributed" a quote to Joseph Wilson in a story that was discussed in the Senate report on Iraq intelligence failures.

Wolf Blitzer wondered why Joe Wilson did not alert the Senate investigators to this, and why Mr. Wilson instead explained to them that he "misspoke". Wilson's explanation was that the investigators had not shown him the article to which they were referring.

I strongly urge Joe Wilson to run out and buy "The Politics of Truth" by the eponymous Joe Wilson. Since the book is written with "a little literary flair", I am sure he will be able to sustain his interest all the way to page 6, where he will see the June 12 Walter Pincus article both cited and excerpted, over the course of two paragraphs.

Fortunately for what remains of his credibility, the "misttributed" quote is not reprinted here.

And no, I am not able to explain why Mr. Wilson did not raise this issue of sloppy journalism in his letter to the Washington Post ombudsman. Mr. Getler responds to the issues he did raise here.

Let's excerpt a bit more from the Senate report, just to be clear about this:

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.

That is a lot of misspeaking.

A fellow who might be interested is the WaPo ombudsman, Michael Getler: [email protected]

CNN Excerpt below:

You've Got A Friend at the NY Times

You do if you are Joe Wilson, anyway, which may shed a bit of light on the coy "coverage" the Times has provided on the recent developments in the Joe Wilson story.

Excerpting from "The Politics of Truth" by Joe Wilson himself (p. 355), I find Wilson describing a meeting with David Shipley, editor of the op-ed page, at the Times on July 24, 2003:

En route, down a long windowless corridor [inside the Times building] with offices on either side, doors sporting the names of Times writers, we ran into veteran Timesman Robert Semple. David [Shipley] explained that I was "the one who wrote the article on what he didn't find in Africa," and Semple, turning to me, said, "So, you're the one who turned our paper around." The Times had been mired in the scandal surrounding Jayson Blair, the fraudulent journalist whose reporting had been questioned by a number of colleagues.

Sometimes it's hard to let go.

UPDATE: We write of Missing Persons - Nick Kristof's role in promoting Mr. Wilson is covered in this fascinating Weekly Standard piece (or see Vanity Fair, or this post).

However, Mr. Kristof is utterly absent from Joe Wilson's book - no mention in the index and no mention in the section devoted to Mr. Wilson's media promotion in the spring of 2003. Mr. Kristof's May 6 column is cited in the bibliography; his June 13 follow-up column is not.

Where did he go? One guess is that he disappeared into a legal thicket. The forgeries are being investigated by the FBI; the Plame leak is part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Maybe Wilson has been advised to keep mum about Kristof.

Now, that does not explain why the Times is not covering other aspects of this story, such as their role in fact-checking (or not) Wilson's July 6 op-ed. And it does not explain why the Times has not explained its odd situation (if this is what it is) to its readers. But it may explain the mysterious disappearance from this story of Nick Kristof.

Now The AP Fingers The Times

The Associated Press runs a story reviewing the Joseph Wilson/"16 Words" saga which ignores the dramatic accusation against Walter Pincus of the Washington Post but drags the NY Times into the story. Headlined "Reports bolster Bush Iraq-uranium claim", it includes this:

Yet even as two recent reports sharply criticized prewar intelligence, they also suggested President Bush’s claim may not have been totally off-base.

A British report has concluded that Bush’s statement and a similar one by Prime Minister Tony Blair were “well-founded.” In his speech, Bush had attributed the uranium claim to the British government.

"Well-founded" morphs to "not totally off-base"? Bring us back slowly!

...The Wilson-Plame matter
The White House’s repudiation came after The New York Times published an op-ed column by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was sent by the CIA to Niger to determine if Iraq had been acquiring uranium. Wilson said it was unlikely any uranium transaction had taken place and the administration appeared to have been manipulating the intelligence.

Republicans said Wilson was trying to boost John Kerry’s presidential campaign and looked to discredit him and his mission.

We are delighted to see the NY Times mentioned so prominently - neither the WaPo nor the Times itself noted that fact.

As to whether Republicans thought that the Wilson story was meant to boost Kerry back in the summer of 2003, well.... Kerry may have been the front-runner, but I suspect that "Republicans said Wilson was trying to boost Bush's political opponents..." would be more accurate. We Boldly Predict that some commentators will seize on this minor error to pretend the entire AP story should be disregarded.

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: [email protected]

Walter Pincus: [email protected]

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

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.

What I Didn't Find In The NY Times

With a Sunday piece titled "New Reports Again Question Whether Iraq Sought Uranium in Niger", Richard Stevenson and David Johnston of the NY Times tiptoe up to the issue of the Times reporting on the President's "16 Words".

Our question, as noted previously - will the Times report on the news contained in the Senate report that Mr. Wilson gave "misleading information" in anonymous leaks to the Washington Post, and by extension Nick Kristof of the NY Times? Will they discuss his flawed (but famous) op-ed piece, which the NY Times was surely pleased to have run?

Some of Mr. Wilson's credibility problems are cited. However, the Times remains sphinx-like on the Senate report finding, undisputed by Mr. Wilson in his letter to the Post [but see the next post], that the Ambassador gave "misleading information" in anonymous leaks to the Washington Post and by extension, Nick Kristof of the NY Times.

And this passage from the Times could have been torn from the pages of Pravda:

The new reports also raised questions about one of the White House's chief critics over the issue, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate whether Iraq had tried to purchase uranium there. Among other things, the report pointed out that Mr. Wilson's official account to the C.I.A. noted that a former prime minister of Niger had told him that he had been approached in 1999 about meeting with an Iraqi delegation interested in "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The former prime minister told Mr. Wilson that he interpreted the approach to mean the Iraqis were interested in acquiring a form of uranium.

"Raised questions"? Would these two very talented reporters care to hint at just what questions were raised? I would need a decoder ring to know that this refers to Mr. Wilson's famous "What I Didn't Find In Africa" op-ed piece that ran in the NY Times a year ago.

And since, in the matter of the Iraqi trade delegation, George Tenet made the same point about the deficient Wilson op-ed in a statement released on July 11, 2003, and Wilson confirmed his faulty memory in subsequent interviews, just what new "questions" did the Senate report raise on this point? OK, I know what question it raised for me - is the Times finally going to cover this - but what questions did it raise for them?

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 barely 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."

On the broader question, the article is interesting and insightful on the question of why the Bush White House is not trumpeting this news from the Senate and Butler reports.

Excerpts of the portions related to Wilson appear below.

UPDATE: Just a note about story placement in the Dead Tree version - this appears on p. 14 of the Sunday Times main news section in a featue called "Washington Memo". Their front page section, "Inside", which highlights other stories, does not mention it, nor does the page 2 "News Summary" feature.

As a bonus, we find this on the bottom of the Wek in Review editorial page: "Decoding the Senate Intelligence Committee Investigation on Iraq" by Andrew Rosenthal. Mr. Rosenthal describes the impact of the senate report in quite unflattering terms; perhaps I lack a decoder ring, but he makes no mention of the "16 Words".

For contrast, here is what the NY Times placed in the Week in Review one year ago - "How Powerful Can 16 Words Be?" by Christopher Marquis.

NOTE: Careful readers of InstaPundit will note that this version has been slightly revised. Think of it as a director's cut - I decided to give more emphasis to the "raised questions" passage.

UPDATE: The Washington Post ombudsman replies. But of course, they wrote a real story...