Walter Pincus of the Washington Post prints a bit of a Wilson-basher today. Why do we care? The current Plame leak coverage has settled on the theme that the White House was determined to "discredit" Wilson. In that context, an understanding of the White House motive might be enriched if the media admitted that Wilson lacked credibility, and that "discrediting" him amounted to correcting the record.
Folks who make it past the summary of Wilson's political history will eventually learn a bit about his veracity. But first, for context, let's use Wolf Blitzer as our benchmark for the Wilson story as the media was presenting it. On July 13, after Wilson's leaks, after the Wilson op-ed, after Tenet explained the background to the Wilson trip, Blitzer summarized the story thusly:
...11 months earlier, you, the Bush administration, had sent Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Niger, to find out whether it was true. He came back, reported to the CIA, reported to the State Department, it wasn't true, it was bogus. The whole issue was bogus. And supposedly, you never got word of his report.
That was the media environment which Wilson helped to create. Let's go to the WaPo:
(a) Did Wilson actually see the forged documents?
Wilson told The Washington Post anonymously in June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Wilson had to admit he had misspoken.
On a better day, the WaPo would pick up Wilson's explanation of this apparent error when he spoke to Paula Zahn after the Senate report had criticized his memory:
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.
Hmm, would Mr. Pincus care to address Mr. Wilson's charge that Mr. Pincus misquoted or misattributed Mr. Wilson's remarks in his June 12, 2003 story? Or should we simply add that to the burgeoning "Wilson lacks credibility" file? Imagine our surprise - Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard found Mr. Pincus to be less than forthcoming on this point.
(b) Was Wilson's wife involved in selecting him for the trip?
Wilson has maintained that Plame was merely "a conduit," telling CNN last year that "her supervisors asked her to contact me."
But the Senate committee found that "interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife . . . suggested his name for the trip." The committee also noted a memorandum from Plame saying Wilson "has good relations" with Niger officials who "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." In addition, notes on a State Department document surmised that Plame "had the idea to dispatch him" to Niger.
The CIA has always said, however, that Plame's superiors chose Wilson for the Niger trip and she only relayed their decision.
Well. In his book, "The Politics of Truth", Wilson said (p. 346) that "the assertion that Valerie had played any substantive role in the decision to ask me to go to Niger was false on the face of it... So what if she conveyed a request to me to come to the Agency to talk about Niger? She played absolutely no part in the decision to send me there."
On the other hand, TIME couldn't get him to answer that question last summer:
That means Wilson was also shading the story: "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he wrote in his 2004 book The Politics of Truth. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." When asked last week by TIME if he still denies that she was the origin of his involvement in the trip, he avoided answering.
(c) Was Cheney, or Cheney's office, briefed on Wilson's report?
On another item of dispute -- whether Vice President Cheney's office inspired the Wilson trip to Niger -- Wilson had said the CIA told him he was being sent to Niger so they could "provide a response to the vice president's office," which wanted more information on the report that Iraq was seeking uranium there. Tenet said the CIA's counterproliferation experts sent Wilson "on their own initiative."
Wilson said in a recent interview: "I never said the vice president sent me or ordered me sent."
He never said that? Here is Kristof from May 2003, with Wilson as a source:
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.
...The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.
More Kristof, June 13, 2003:
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.
...Mr. Cheney's office got wind of [the Niger report] and asked the C.I.A. to investigate.
...My understanding is that while Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet may not have told Mr. Bush that the Niger documents were forged, lower C.I.A. officials did tell both the vice president's office and National Security Council staff members.
For those lacking a dictionary, the Merriam-Webster tells us that "behest" means "1 : an authoritative order : COMMAND; 2 : an urgent prompting".
(d) Was Wilson's report conclusive? The WaPo gives us this:
Wilson's central assertion -- disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger -- has been validated by postwar weapons inspections. And his charge that the administration exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq has proved potent.
[Big Skip]
Wilson also had charged that his report on Niger clearly debunked the claim about Iraqi uranium purchases. He told NBC in 2004: "This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations." But the Senate committee said his findings were ambiguous. Tenet said Wilson's report "did not resolve" the matter. [See Tenet's July 11, 2003 statement].
The WaPo could have done more, but they have moved in the right direction by noting some flaws in Wilson's original stage-setters.
And they are a fountain of insight in comparison with the NY Times. When the Times wrote their long account of the Judy Miller saga and the backstory to the Plame leaks, they made no mention of Nick Kristof's columns, even though his May 6 effort noted above is widely credited with launching Joe Wilson.
Today, the Times has a modest breakthrough as they confront their tortured past while discussing the timing of the conversation between Libby and Cheney about Wilson and his wife:
On June 12, 2003, the day of the conversation between Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby, The Washington Post published a front-page article reporting that the C.I.A. had sent a retired American diplomat to Niger in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium there. The article did not name the diplomat, who turned out to be Mr. Wilson, but it reported that his mission had not corroborated a claim about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear material that the White House had subsequently used in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.
An earlier anonymous reference to Mr. Wilson and his mission to Africa had appeared in a column by Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York Times on May 6, 2003. Mr. Wilson went public with his conclusion that the White House had "twisted" the intelligence about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear material on July 6, 2003, in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times.
My goodness. It seems finally to have dawned on the Times editors that they can not continue to cover this story under the pretense that Joe Wilson sprang from the earth, fully grown, with his op-ed on July 6.
Will the Times ever get around to acknowledging that much of the material presented by Kristof was not accurate? Will they acknowledge that one possible motivation for the White House attack on Wilson's credibility was that Wilson was not credible?
One day at a time at the Times.
On Steven Clemons' site, someone made mention of reading on ABC's The Note that the grand jury did not meet today.
So what does that mean?
Posted by: Sue | October 25, 2005 at 07:03 PM
Time magazine reported that Rove decided he would resign if indicted. Rove's lawyer subsequently denied that Rove had any decision one way or the other.
Posted by: Jim E. | October 25, 2005 at 07:04 PM
In the first comment, Geek, Esq. writes: "Determining who, between the administration under investigation for perjury and the fickle Mr. Wilson, is more credible is like arguing whether Beavis or Butthead was the smart one."
Asserting that "the administration" as a whole is under investigation for perjury is, to put it mildly, a gross exaggeration. Omitting mention of whether anyone else might have perjured themselves is, to say the least, misleading. And calling Wilson merely "fickle" rather than dishonest seems -- let's just say fickle, to be polite.
Those that make the decisions (besides POTUS)in the administration--Cheney, Rove, Libby--certainly are under the spotlight for perjury and obstruction. These aren't interns we're talking about here. Big Time himself has been shown to be a serial liar when the cameras are on--whether he exhibits similar behavior when being questioned by federal investigators is another question.
I really don't pay that much attention to Wilson--he's really kind of behind the point in legal terms.
More important, anyone who watched the show knows that Butt-Head, despite his name, was considerably smarter (well, considerably less stupid) than Beavis, who couldn't even understand a simple pun on 'hoe' and 'ho', just to give one example. If some members of the administration have, as it were, Butted Heads with Wilson, it's only because he's a total Beavis.
Ah, but Beavis also demonstrated a kind of savant quality lacking in Butthead. Only Beavis could pull of The Great Cornholio.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. | October 25, 2005 at 07:06 PM
I didn't see John Robert's CBS news account -- which sounds interesting with a Mr. X and all who apparently divulged the actual Plame name -- but I did see NBC's David Gregory. Gregory reported that Fitzy's investigators had conducted a few interviews with WH staffers today. Some follow-up questions? Negotiations?
Posted by: Jim E. | October 25, 2005 at 07:07 PM
Obsessed,
1. I believe that Bush thought Saddam had WMDs, just as Clinton thought he did on the eve of the war when he wrote an op-ed in the ultra liberal Guardian in support of Blair, stating that Saddam had WMDs.
2. I believe Iraq is going as well as can be expected. Did you hear they now have a constitution?
3. What exactly has the Bush administration gotten, financially and politically, out of the war in Iraq?
4. The alternative is too frightening.
Posted by: Sue | October 25, 2005 at 07:09 PM
Drudge is saying Libby.
Posted by: rocco martino | October 25, 2005 at 07:11 PM
False alarm: "A senior White House source quickly determined ABC was bluffing; the report did not run on the East coast feed of the program. "
Posted by: rocco martino | October 25, 2005 at 07:14 PM
1) Do you actually believe that the Bush Administration DIDN'T intentionally mislead the public into supporting the Iraq War with slanted and fabricated intelligence?
I don't believe they misled the public any more than I believe that Bill Clinton misled the public about the same intelligence (along with pretty much the rest of the world).
2) Do you actually believe that the war and occupation HAVE NOT been conducted with unthinkable incompetence?
I think they've been poorly run, but I also think we're winning by every strategic measure other than media spin.
3) Do you actually believe that many of the major figures in the Republican party and the right-wing religious media ARE NOT cynical criminals interested primarily in profits for themselves and their corporate sponsors?
Yes. I think they're basing what they do on (a) conservative ideology and (b) political calculations which (c) sometimes contradict one another but (d) are not criminal.
4) What is it that you guys want that makes you conclude that it's worth keeping these guys in power?
To keep the Dems out of power, because they would be worse on the military, security, judges, China-U.S. relations, taxes, etc. The GOP is just the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: Keith | October 25, 2005 at 07:15 PM
yeah, but it looks like ABC jumped the gun. See Drudge update. It was a comment earlier this afternoon at the WH. People are very jumpy.
Posted by: Doug | October 25, 2005 at 07:15 PM
Don't dare try italics. ;) From Drudge:
ABCNEWS claimed to the White House that it had double sourced how an indictment against vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis Libby was set.
A senior White House source quickly determined ABC was bluffing; the report did not run on the East coast feed of the program.
Posted by: Sue | October 25, 2005 at 07:18 PM
Rocco,
Avrai una visita da qualche i miei 'amici' entro staser. Basta con queste bugie - sei finito. Capito?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 25, 2005 at 07:18 PM
Rick -
La sua mamma è come una bicicletta tutti prende un giro. ;)
Posted by: rocco martino | October 25, 2005 at 07:26 PM
Enough with these lies?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 25, 2005 at 07:29 PM
Drudge pulled the ABC news thing completely from the page.
Posted by: Jim E. | October 25, 2005 at 07:29 PM
What happened, no get, what did ABC do?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 25, 2005 at 07:30 PM
nevermind, just read Sue. Sorry
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 25, 2005 at 07:34 PM
top -
here is link to drudge abc thingy that drudge took down.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5abc.htm
Posted by: rocco martino | October 25, 2005 at 07:35 PM
meanwhile...AJStrata has a really juicy post on the niger docs that kinda sorta implicate WINPAC and CIA CPD in a coverup....hey that's where overt Val and covert Val worked isn't it...and AJ uses actual government documents....absolutely no "sources familiar with the case"
yummy
http://www.strata-sphere.com/blog/
Posted by: windansea | October 25, 2005 at 07:35 PM
Don't dare try italics.
No problem, just use Preview. If you do miss you can issue double exit tags next post.
Posted by: boris | October 25, 2005 at 07:37 PM
Looks like Cheney did get a report back from the CIA. I wonder where Cheney heard about the Yellowcake?
Posted by: pollyusa | October 25, 2005 at 07:38 PM
Who's prediction on this board should I pay the most attention? Who here is not biased one way or the other?
Posted by: Dazed N. Confused | October 25, 2005 at 07:40 PM
B. Former Ambassador
(redacted in original) Officials from the CIA’s DO Counterproliferation Division (CPD) told Committee staff that in response to quotations from the Vice President’s Office and the Department of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD officials discussed ways to obtain additional information. [redacted in original] who could make immediate inquiries into the reporting, CPD decided to contact a former ambassador to Gabon who had a posting early in his career in Niger.
(redacted in original) Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife “offered up his name” and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the ambassador’s wife says, “my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” This was just one day before CPD sent a cable [redacted in original] requesting concurrence with CPD’s idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador’s wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him “there’s this crazy report” on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.
(redacted in original) The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA’s behalf [redacted in original]. The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region [redacted in original]. Because the former ambassador did not uncover any information during his visit to Niger, CPD did not distribute an intelligence report on the visit.
Page 39
Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq
Order Reported on July 7, 2004
Select Committee on Intelligence
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf
Posted by: BurkettHead | October 25, 2005 at 07:42 PM
Stramaledetto figlio d'una donnaccia che non puo dire il nome del tuo padre per ragione d'incertezza - quando ti prendiamo ti spacciamo la testa tua come un ouvo. Non scapperai, ragazzo - ora sara' meglio per te se ti salti dal quinto piano dal tuo squalido abitazione. Non sarai mica mancato.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 25, 2005 at 07:42 PM
Your mother's so old-fashioned she stuck some pasta in a pot and called it macaroni.
================================================
Posted by: kim | October 25, 2005 at 07:46 PM
Oh, everyone here is biased (though I think Keith might be less so than just about anyone else).
The question isn't who's biased, though.
The question is whose bias is completely unsupported by the facts; whose bias relies on discredited partisan analysis and baseless slander; and whose bias relies upon ignoring every bit of actual information that comes out of the investigation.
Posted by: CaseyL | October 25, 2005 at 07:46 PM
Tom is too gentle with Walter Pincus. After two years of covering this story, Pincus still does not know that President Bush said "Africa", not "Niger", in his 2003 State of the Union message.
And that's not a trivial point, since it means that Wilson's claim to have debunked Bush is idiotic since Wilson only traveled to a single African country -- and there are others that produce uranium.
At some point, you really have to ask what causes Pincus to make this error -- which has been corrected again and again. Does Pincus not know the facts, or does Pincus not care about them?
Posted by: Jim Miller | October 25, 2005 at 07:47 PM
Casey,
Exactly who has actual information from the investigation? ;) When we find that out, then we'll be either Fitzgerald, the GJ, or a fly on the wall.
Posted by: Sue | October 25, 2005 at 07:52 PM
polly really likes the BOLD tag!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 25, 2005 at 07:55 PM
Exactly who has actual information from the investigation? ;) When we find that out, then we'll be either Fitzgerald, the GJ, or a fly on the wall.
The lack of facts are biased!
Posted by: Mac | October 25, 2005 at 07:59 PM
Mac? Is that really you?
Posted by: Sue | October 25, 2005 at 08:02 PM
Different Mac
Posted by: Mac | October 25, 2005 at 08:05 PM
Is that you Macranger?
Posted by: clarice | October 25, 2005 at 08:07 PM
No lack of Mac.
================
Posted by: kim | October 25, 2005 at 08:08 PM
What the heck does this mean?
"There is nothing at all true about us having double sourced anything" regarding indictments.
it this an aka, "We lied to the White House"?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 25, 2005 at 08:09 PM
Rick -
Mi hai rotto i coglioni. Ficcati un dito in culo allora caccati in mano e prenditi a schiaffi.
Mille cazzi nel tuo culo.
Di buona sera, signore.
Posted by: rocco martino | October 25, 2005 at 08:10 PM
Most of S Florida is without power. 3-5 days for most to be out. A month for some. Mac is probably OK, just incommunicado.
=================================================
Posted by: kim | October 25, 2005 at 08:11 PM
I heard mac was indicted. I triple sourced it then checked my magic 8 ball.
Posted by: Joe Rockhead | October 25, 2005 at 08:12 PM
Lesley,
Generic Blonde fallout :
Only one in 10 Americans said they believe Bush administration officials did nothing illegal or unethical in connection with the leaking of a CIA operative's identity, according to a national poll released Tuesday.
ALSO (from same story)
With the grand jury investigating the leak set to expire Friday, FBI agents interviewed a Washington neighbor of Plame for a second time.
The agents asked Marc Lefkowitz on Monday night whether he knew about Plame's CIA work before her identity was leaked in the media, and Lefkowitz told agents he did not, according to his wife, Elise Lefkowitz.
Lefkowitz said agents first questioned whether the couple was aware of Plame's CIA work in an interview several months ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/cia.leak/
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 25, 2005 at 08:14 PM
Okay. Thanks.
Posted by: Sue | October 25, 2005 at 08:14 PM
RE: CNN Poll
Very few people know about this case. I'm surprised when the media go out and question people about things they don't know. They use polls to advance their agenda and as feedback to see if their coordinated media message is having its intended affect. My brother is very informed about politics and when I bought up Plamegate, he admitted he just hasn't followed it.
When the people polled aren't familiar with the topic the pollster gets to frame the issue the way they want.
Posted by: Kate | October 25, 2005 at 08:24 PM
TS,
That is kind of interesting. Why would they still be investigating?
Posted by: Sue | October 25, 2005 at 08:25 PM
Considering the headline it look like they intentionally made a typo...
Sue..maybe it has something to do with this
"A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.
"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 25, 2005 at 08:38 PM
Anyways, it's not Libby, Rove or Cheneys neighbors they are requestioning...makes you wonder where the heat is headed.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 25, 2005 at 08:41 PM
Sue,
It may be a separate investigation. Fitzgerald may have made a referral to another prosecutor based upon information that his investigators discovered that he felt was outside the purview of his mandate. If Val outed herself five years ago to neighbors would Fitzgerald want to chase it down?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 25, 2005 at 08:43 PM
It just seems odd that an investigation is still ongoing. Of any kind. If indictments are about to be handed down, one would think the investigation is over. However, if Fitzgerald does hand down sealed indictments, it could mean he is going to ask for an extension and continue investigating. Geeze...this is starting to give me a headache. :)
Posted by: Sue | October 25, 2005 at 08:45 PM
I know he's okay--but how miserable must it be for Mac to be out of commission when a story he's been following forever starts breaking? Let's get him virtually drunk when he returns.
Posted by: clarice | October 25, 2005 at 08:45 PM
Rick,
That's as good a guess as any.
Posted by: Sue | October 25, 2005 at 08:47 PM
Is anybody wondering how "a senior White House source" was able to so quickly determine that ABCNEWS was bluffing when they claimed to have double-sourced that Libby was being indicted?
How could this senior White source possibly know it was a bluff if Libby did indeed have a target letter? It sounds to me that the White House knows for a fact that Libby DOESN'T have a target letter.
Posted by: PaulS | October 25, 2005 at 08:47 PM
I think I am more miserable with access to the Internet. I wish my power would go out!
Posted by: vicky flame | October 25, 2005 at 08:48 PM
The WH source since they did not see the report on ABC News, they figured they were bluffing. So I don't think it necessarily means no Target letter.
Posted by: rocco martino | October 25, 2005 at 08:50 PM
Okay, does anyone know for sure if Fitzgerald has to issue a target letter?
Posted by: Sue | October 25, 2005 at 08:50 PM
Sue,
This is different than a target letter. It's just a courtesy (if in fact it has actually occurred) to those indicted. A little unusual - maybe they wanted to allow the Wilson's time to arrange for child care?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 25, 2005 at 08:57 PM
that curious Sept. 29th call.....lingering .....out....there
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 25, 2005 at 08:59 PM
Not a lawyer, but the Prosecutor does not need to issue a target letter before indicting. However, if a Prosecutor considers someone a target, they need to notify that person if the person is going to testify to the GJ. So it may be Rove or Libby were not targets before they testified, and they still may not have received target letters, but they can still be indicted.
"Q: Does anyone have to tell you at a grand jury hearing that you’re being indicted? Is it legal to indict a person without their knowledge or representation?
A: There isn’t a requirement that you be advised ahead of time that an indictment is going to be returned against you. Grand jury proceedings are considered secret. In general terms, this means that the authorities aren’t allowed to reveal what happens before a grand jury.
If you’re a “target” (loosely defined as a person against whom the government has evidence of an involvement in a crime for which you may be charged) or a subject of a grand jury investigation, the government may want to question you about your involvement in the crime under investigation. In that case, the United States Attorney’s Manual requires federal prosecutors to advise you in writing of your right to counsel and to use your privilege not to incriminate yourself if you so choose. "
http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers/A~1001633~LDS/FAQ+CRIME+FEDERAL.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/11mcrm.htm#9-11.153
Posted by: rocco martino | October 25, 2005 at 09:03 PM
I don't think he does. But this is a high profile case with high powered clients, and generally, they do not pull a Ronnie Earle perp walk--the gneral protocol is to establish each party's counsel, let them know that if their client is going to be indicted, they will receive a target letter in advance. After all, there is no real fear of flight.
Posted by: clarice | October 25, 2005 at 09:06 PM
The admittedly sketchy report on Drudge doesn't seem to say that the White House called ABCNEW's bluff BECAUSE ABC didn't run the segment. It says that the White House called their bluff AND ABC didn't run the segment.
Target letter or not, the point remains.
ABCNEWS claimed to have sources saying Libby was being indicted, and the White House was quickly able to say "Oh no you don't."
What's going on here? The only explanation I can come up with is that at the senior level of the White House they're confident tonight that Libby won't be indicted.
Posted by: PaulS | October 25, 2005 at 09:06 PM
clarice...did you see the cnn story linked a few above?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 25, 2005 at 09:08 PM
And they may not actually call this a target letter, it's just a courtesy to notify counsel ahead of time that the client has been indicted and establish where and when they should appear in court.
(Anyone want to call MSNBC and say we have a double sourced report that Matthews is either being indicted or locked away for observation?LOL)
Posted by: clarice | October 25, 2005 at 09:09 PM
I did. I haven't any notion what it means.Maybe it was crack abc reporters in disguise..;).
Posted by: clarice | October 25, 2005 at 09:10 PM
Looks like Cheney did get a report back from the CIA. I wonder where Cheney heard about the Yellowcake?
This looks like a summary of the SSCI background. The initial report was from DIA, and he asked for a CIA analysis:
It's unlikely he'd expect such a request to generate a mission, and apparently he got no feedback from Wilson's trip.Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 25, 2005 at 09:11 PM
The only person with lower ratings than Bush at the moment is Chris Matthews. :)
Posted by: Sue | October 25, 2005 at 09:11 PM
I am still surprised how quickly Plamegate has moved towards a discussion of perjury and obstruction of justice without addressing whether or not Joe Wilson was credible.
Despite the preemptive strike by the Democrats/New York Times to cast the Martha Stewarting of the case as spin, that is in fact what has occurred.
Now Fitzgerald is getting a lot of positive support at NRO, so I am willing to accept that any indictments do involve a crime.
I only hope that it is not a Martha Stewart one.
Posted by: Eric | October 25, 2005 at 09:11 PM
hello? anyone actually read AJStrata's post about Niger documents and CIA I linked upthread?
here's a portion
Actually the forged documents were sent to the CIA in early October 2002, but the destination inside the CIA is redacted.
Here the documents stayed unchallenged until January of 2003, when the WINPAC section of the CIA was asked to respond to the Niger government’s December ‘02 claim that they had not made any agreements with Saddam. It was then that WINPAC realized they did not have the documents! It was at this time a new version was sent to WINPAC and the forgeries discovered.
What happened to the documents sent in October of 2002? Well, there is evidence that does point back to the CIA CPD (Valerie Plame’s group at the time of Wilson’s Niger visit 8 months earlier):
http://www.strata-sphere.com/blog/
I guess nobody finds it curious that the CIA (most likely WINPAC or CPD) had these obvious forgeries for 3 months and said nothing? The guy at IAEA proved they were forgeries in six hours
Posted by: windansea | October 25, 2005 at 09:14 PM
Top, I feel somewhat sorry for Valerie Plame. If she chooses to remain in her job, her upward mobility in CIA is toast. Rick Moran (Rightwing Nut House) wondered if the reason she suggested her husband for the trip to Niger was simply to help his consulting business. TM suggested, months and months ago, they were pawns/dupes in a Greater Game than their own. The Kerry campaign dumped Wilson early on. Now, it seems even the press is backing away from her husband. If there are no indictments of administration officials, they will be official pariahs in DC. Should they sue the administration, they will find themselves in a world of hurt no matter which way it turns out (if you've ever been involved in a lawsuit, regardless of how "right" you are, its still brutal).
I don't see an upside for the Wilsons. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Posted by: Lesley | October 25, 2005 at 10:45 PM
Is this working? It should be mayhem in here.
Posted by: Seven Machos | October 25, 2005 at 10:47 PM
hmmm...no new posts for 25 minutes?
perhaps my last post was able dangered by the wilson/plame/winpac/cpd cabal and they have executed a DOS attack on Tom's site?
or maybe everyone's having dinner
I'm hungry
Posted by: windansea | October 25, 2005 at 10:47 PM
Responding to a previous request.
Here is the complete timeline w/ source quotes:
Did the former Niger prime minister meet with any Iraqi officials in June 1999?
In brief:
1. Wilson says “yes” during his private CIA debrief in March, 2002.
2. Wilson fails to mention the meeting in his NYT op/ed and his first “Meet the Press” in July, 2003.
3. Wilson lies and says “no” during a “Frontline” PBS Interview in August, 2003.
4. Wilson lies and says “no” twice during his second “Meet the Press” interview in October, 2003.
5. Wilson says “yes” during his third “Meet the Press” interview in May, 2004.
6. Wilson says “yes” to SSCI committee staff --report released in July, 2004.
Details and sources below:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Timeline:
1. March 5, 2002 Wilson debriefed by CIA just after returning from Niger (SSCI report, p.43-44): "Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, XXXX businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.”
2. July 6, 2003: “What I Didn’t Find In Africa” Wilson’s NY Times Op/ed: Wilson fails to mention the Iraqi/Niger meeting, in the NYT op/ed or in his first “Meet the Press” interview that same day.
3a. July 11, 2003: DCI Tenet Statement: "He [Wilson] reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales."
3b. August 23, 2003: Frontline Interview:
Frontline: Did you see any evidence that they, the Iraqis, had sought to purchase uranium from Niger?
Wilson: No. The only thing that was explained to me in one conversation was of course there was this Nigerien delegation who came through in 1999 that had preliminary discussions related to the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Uranium was not discussed. There was another request for a meeting on the margins of an Islamic conference meeting that was turned down. …
4. October 5, 2003 Wilson appears again on “Meet the Press” (MSNBC, transcript):
Russert: "...the White House will say Ambassador, ... that your meeting with officials in Niger, including the suggestion that in June ’99 Iraqi officials met with officials from Niger, confirmed exactly that point: that by expanding commercial relations, they could have been talking about uranium, which would confirm the president’s suggestion that they were seeking uranium from Niger.”
Wilson: “Well, there’s a couple of problems with that. First of all, the meeting never took place. An intermediary came to this official, and said, “I want you to meet with these guys. They’re interested in talking about expanding commercial relations.” The person who talked to me said, “Red flags went up immediately, I thought of U.N. Security Council sanctions, I thought of all sorts of other reasons why we didn’t want to have any meeting. I declined the meeting,” and this was out of the country, on the margins of an OIC meeting. So it was a meeting that did not take place."
5. January, 2004 Wilson Speaks Again to His Source [Mayaki] (“The Politics of Truth” p.28) and for the first time changes his public story: Source [Mayaki] tells Wilson that “Baghdad Bob” was probably the Iraqi he [Mayaki] met at the OAU meeting in 1999,.
6. May 2, 2004 Wilson Appears on “Meet the Press”(MSNBC, transcript) and contradicts his previous MTP statement:
"MR. RUSSERT: George Tenet in a statement said that a Niger official did say to you there may have been discussions about a potential business dealings and maybe that could have been a suggestion of uranium.
AMB. WILSON: That's right. And, of course, as I put in the book, there was a meeting on the margins of an OAU summit between a senior Niger official and an Iraqi official who turns out to be the former minister of information, Baghdad Bob."
7. July 7, 2004 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report released: “In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador [Wilson] was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by “expanding commercial relations.” The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.." (SSCI report, page 44).
Posted by: Reg Jones | October 25, 2005 at 10:47 PM
While mocking the media, I am loving this from the LA Times. It is best read while listening to Cher sing "If I Could Turn Back Time", but just hum that in your head for now:
Wow! We got the tip about Niger in Sept 2002, and "shortly thereafter", the Niger claims surfaced, prompting the CIA to send Joe Wilson in Feb 2002 to check them out.
I *knew* they could have stopped the 9/11 plot.
Posted by: TM | October 25, 2005 at 10:48 PM
Windandsea,
AJ's analysis on the docs is interesting but his analysis above it of the WaPo Kaplan piece is even more interesting. Kaplan isn't on the WaPo payroll but I read this piece as complementary to the Milbank/Pincus walkback from yesterday.
When is the NYT going to start dumping the Wilson's?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 25, 2005 at 10:49 PM
windansea,
That's a mighty incomplete story of the Niger docs that you link to. The text of the docs was in State Dept and CIA hands in August (according to Josh Marshall), and just based on the text, both departments said it was bogus. In fact, Tenet personally intervened to prevent Cheney or Bush bring it up in a speech during 2002 (according to numerous reports). While the CIA didn't get copies of the actual doc until Oct 2002, it's sort of beside the point since they'd apparently already debunked them. Anyways, those are some significant omissions. The 16-words, however artfully worded, shouldn't have appeared in the St of the Union.
And just today we learn that Hadley was in Rome in Sept 2002 meeting personally with the Italian official that peddled the known-to-be-bogus docs. Everyone knew the docs were bogus, except for Hadley and the White House. Or maybe they, too, knew they were bogus.
Posted by: Jim E. | October 25, 2005 at 10:49 PM
Windandsea,
AJ's analysis on the docs is interesting but his analysis above it of the WaPo Kaplan piece is even more interesting. Kaplan isn't on the WaPo payroll but I read this piece as complementary to the Milbank/Pincus walkback from yesterday.
When is the NYT going to start dumping the Wilson's?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 25, 2005 at 10:50 PM
I read it and found it very interesting, windsea--I have had great problems with this site tonight..
Posted by: clarice | October 25, 2005 at 10:51 PM
The ninth said, "Who's Bush?"
(C'mon, youse guys never watch Jay-Walking?)
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | October 25, 2005 at 10:52 PM
Upon request here are the source quotes on the Niger "meeting" timeline:
Did the former Niger prime minister meet with any Iraqi officials in June 1999?
In brief:
1. Wilson says “yes” during his private CIA debrief in March, 2002.
2. Wilson fails to mention the meeting in his NYT op/ed and his first “Meet the Press” in July, 2003.
3. Wilson lies and says “no” during a “Frontline” PBS Interview in August, 2003.
4. Wilson lies and says “no” twice during his second “Meet the Press” interview in October, 2003.
5. Wilson says “yes” during his third “Meet the Press” interview in May, 2004.
6. Wilson says “yes” to SSCI committee staff --report released in July, 2004.
Details and sources below:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Timeline:
1. March 5, 2002 Wilson debriefed by CIA just after returning from Niger (SSCI report, p.43-44): "Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, XXXX businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.”
2. July 6, 2003: “What I Didn’t Find In Africa” Wilson’s NY Times Op/ed: Wilson fails to mention the Iraqi/Niger meeting, in the NYT op/ed or in his first “Meet the Press” interview that same day.
3a. July 11, 2003: DCI Tenet Statement: "He [Wilson] reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales."
3b. August 23, 2003: Frontline Interview:
Frontline: Did you see any evidence that they, the Iraqis, had sought to purchase uranium from Niger?
Wilson: No. The only thing that was explained to me in one conversation was of course there was this Nigerien delegation who came through in 1999 that had preliminary discussions related to the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Uranium was not discussed. There was another request for a meeting on the margins of an Islamic conference meeting that was turned down. …
4. October 5, 2003 Wilson appears again on “Meet the Press” (MSNBC, transcript):
Russert: "...the White House will say Ambassador, ... that your meeting with officials in Niger, including the suggestion that in June ’99 Iraqi officials met with officials from Niger, confirmed exactly that point: that by expanding commercial relations, they could have been talking about uranium, which would confirm the president’s suggestion that they were seeking uranium from Niger.”
Wilson: “Well, there’s a couple of problems with that. First of all, the meeting never took place. An intermediary came to this official, and said, “I want you to meet with these guys. They’re interested in talking about expanding commercial relations.” The person who talked to me said, “Red flags went up immediately, I thought of U.N. Security Council sanctions, I thought of all sorts of other reasons why we didn’t want to have any meeting. I declined the meeting,” and this was out of the country, on the margins of an OIC meeting. So it was a meeting that did not take place."
5. January, 2004 Wilson Speaks Again to His Source [Mayaki] (“The Politics of Truth” p.28) and for the first time changes his public story: Source [Mayaki] tells Wilson that “Baghdad Bob” was probably the Iraqi he [Mayaki] met at the OAU meeting in 1999,.
6. May 2, 2004 Wilson Appears on “Meet the Press”(MSNBC, transcript) and contradicts his previous MTP statement:
"MR. RUSSERT: George Tenet in a statement said that a Niger official did say to you there may have been discussions about a potential business dealings and maybe that could have been a suggestion of uranium.
AMB. WILSON: That's right. And, of course, as I put in the book, there was a meeting on the margins of an OAU summit between a senior Niger official and an Iraqi official who turns out to be the former minister of information, Baghdad Bob."
7. July 7, 2004 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report released: “In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador [Wilson] was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by “expanding commercial relations.” The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.." (SSCI report, page 44).
Posted by: Reg Jones | October 25, 2005 at 10:53 PM
Windsea, I do find it interesting. I've tried to tell you for some time but if I can get on this site, I can't post. Very frustrating.
Posted by: clarice | October 25, 2005 at 10:54 PM
Top, I feel somewhat sorry for Valerie Plame. If she chooses to remain in her job, her upward mobility in CIA is toast. Rick Moran (Rightwing Nut House) wondered if the reason she suggested her husband for the trip to Niger was simply to help/promote his consulting business. TM suggested, months and months ago, they were pawns/dupes in a Greater Game than their own. The Kerry campaign dumped Wilson early on. Now, it seems even the press is backing away from her husband. If there are no indictments of administration officials, they will be social/professional pariahs in DC. Should they sue the administration, they will find themselves in a world of hurt no matter which way it turns out (if you've ever been involved in a lawsuit, regardless of how "right" you are, its still brutal).
I don't see an upside for the Wilsons. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Posted by: Lesley | October 25, 2005 at 10:57 PM
Windsea, it's interesting indeed. I've tried repeatedly to say so but am having troubles with this site.
Posted by: clarice | October 25, 2005 at 11:01 PM
Typepad is pretty hosed tonight. I can see the new postings only by hitting preview. At one point I did a refresh on http://justoneminute.typepad.com and the top article was from Oct 13. Another couple of refreshes and things looked better.
One thing that seems to be a problem is that it is taking dreadfully long times to load from one of the machines that supplies the advertising. Advertising that prevents you from reading the blog keeps you from reading the ads, if you know what I mean?
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | October 25, 2005 at 11:03 PM
I guess nobody finds it curious that the CIA (most likely WINPAC or CPD) had these obvious forgeries for 3 months and said nothing? The guy at IAEA proved they were forgeries in six hours
Do you find it equally curious that INR, DIA, NSA and DOE also had copies of the obvious forgeries during that same period (as per the SSCI report, p. 58)?
Also, I can't find where in the report it says that Winpac specifically was asked to respond to the Niger government's claims that Niger had not sold uranium in a while. Could you point that out to me? Thanks, I wouldn't want to think Aj Strata was an unreliable source.
Posted by: Jeff | October 25, 2005 at 11:08 PM
I guess nobody finds it curious that the CIA (most likely WINPAC or CPD) had these obvious forgeries for 3 months and said nothing? The guy at IAEA proved they were forgeries in six hours
Do you find it equally curious that INR, DIA, NSA and DOE also had copies of the obvious forgeries during that same period (as per the SSCI report, p. 58)?
Also, I can't find where in the report it says that Winpac specifically was asked to respond to the Niger government's claims that Niger had not sold uranium in a while. Could you point that out to me? Thanks, I wouldn't want to think Aj Strata was an unreliable source.
Posted by: Jeff | October 25, 2005 at 11:09 PM
I guess nobody finds it curious that the CIA (most likely WINPAC or CPD) had these obvious forgeries for 3 months and said nothing? The guy at IAEA proved they were forgeries in six hours
Do you find it equally curious that INR, DIA, NSA and DOE also had copies of the obvious forgeries during that same period (as per the SSCI report, p. 58)?
Also, I can't find where in the report it says that Winpac specifically was asked to respond to the Niger government's claims that Niger had not sold uranium in a while. Could you point that out to me? Thanks, I wouldn't want to think Aj Strata was an unreliable source.
Posted by: Jeff | October 25, 2005 at 11:09 PM
I guess nobody finds it curious that the CIA (most likely WINPAC or CPD) had these obvious forgeries for 3 months and said nothing? The guy at IAEA proved they were forgeries in six hours
Do you find it equally curious that INR, DIA, NSA and DOE also had copies of the obvious forgeries during that same period (as per the SSCI report, p. 58)?
Also, I can't find where in the report it says that Winpac specifically was asked to respond to the Niger government's claims that Niger had not sold uranium in a while. Could you point that out to me? Thanks, I wouldn't want to think Aj Strata was an unreliable source.
Posted by: Jeff | October 25, 2005 at 11:09 PM
I guess nobody finds it curious that the CIA (most likely WINPAC or CPD) had these obvious forgeries for 3 months and said nothing? The guy at IAEA proved they were forgeries in six hours
Do you find it equally curious that INR, DIA, NSA and DOE also had copies of the obvious forgeries during that same period (as per the SSCI report, p. 58)?
Also, I can't find where in the report it says that Winpac specifically was asked to respond to the Niger government's claims that Niger had not sold uranium in a while. Could you point that out to me? Thanks, I wouldn't want to think Aj Strata was an unreliable source.
Posted by: Jeff | October 25, 2005 at 11:13 PM
test
Posted by: clarice | October 25, 2005 at 11:13 PM
Apologies for the multiple posts. I don't actually think the point I was making is that significant.
Posted by: Jeff | October 25, 2005 at 11:17 PM
Only one in 10 Americans said they believe Bush administration officials did nothing illegal or unethical in connection with the leaking of a CIA operative's identity,
Google on "Miserable failure" and get this site.
OTOH, roughly a third of people polled believe Elvis lives.
So maybe we can get Fitzgerald to indict Elvis...
Posted by: TM | October 25, 2005 at 11:27 PM
Working?
Posted by: Seven Machos | October 25, 2005 at 11:30 PM
I'll have to agree with Frank Rich who said that Wilson is a minor player in the saga. Whether Wilson is a congenital liar or a congenital embellisher is really moot at this point. Wilson is old news. Rove, Libby, and Cheney are the new news.
With 2000 Americans already dead in the Iraq war, the Bush administration deserves an order of magnitude more scrutiny than you guys have been giving to Wilson. The CIA twice told Hadley that the Niger information is unreliable. At that level "I forgot" deserves a firing, not a promotion.
The Senate Intelligence committee seems to have forgot its promise of looking into additional matters after the election. Ironically we may get more information from Fitzgerald than we have from the Senate Committee.
Posted by: Pete | October 25, 2005 at 11:41 PM
hello out there!!!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 26, 2005 at 01:03 AM
I think it's very interesting,windansea
Posted by: clarice | October 26, 2005 at 01:07 AM
Minor player,my eye..What a joke--he is kind of the prom when his lies hurt the Administration--30 tv appearances in prime time, star of a move on movie used at all the Kerry parties, feted author, front page puff pieces slandering the President in the WaPo,NYT, big oped piece in the nYT--and now when even his buddies in the press can no longer keep up the lie--he's a bit player..LOL
Reminds me of the Clinton's refuse to respond to inquiries about their wrongdoing or lie about it, get caught, say oh it's old stuff canit we just move on..
Posted by: clarice | October 26, 2005 at 01:11 AM
KING of the prom..
Posted by: clarice | October 26, 2005 at 01:13 AM
Here is a little bit more on the Black guys with badges canvassing the neighborhood and quote the same guy (in all 3 reports)...interesting, it is the same reporter that had the info on the September 29th call
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-leak26oct26,0,2944833.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 26, 2005 at 01:34 AM
sorry guys
the VIPS are using a pirated version of the able danger program that alerted on my last post
they immediately installed a DOS worm into a previously unknown backdoor in the typepad blogcode
with the help of macranger and AJ the DOS worm has been corrupted and a retrovirus exe has been sent back down the pipeline
talk amongst yourselves freely
Posted by: windansea | October 26, 2005 at 01:42 AM
this is worm test, testing, testing
otherwise I want ti indict type-pad
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 26, 2005 at 01:45 AM
okay that didn't sound right- sorry
I meant "men in black"
apologies
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 26, 2005 at 01:49 AM
I hate to abandon TM at a moment he owns, but could move thread to AJ or MAC....cuz type-pad is just a huge pain
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 26, 2005 at 01:53 AM
Now this is rich, Joe Wilson's civil rights were violated.
Posted by: Neo | October 26, 2005 at 02:03 AM
Let's go to Mac's last thread--this is impossible.See you there.
Posted by: clarice | October 26, 2005 at 02:04 AM
Just when I finally get here (had to wait 'til 2am and use Opera....IE just pulls up garbage)..now you go off to someplace, where you aren't because nobody's there either!
Heh
I question the timing!
Posted by: Syl | October 26, 2005 at 02:32 AM