Some basic facts about the Plame investigation are beginning to penetrate the consciousness of members of the main stream media, although no observer is at risk of being blinded by the spectacle of lightbulbs going off over the heads of the various reporters.
Let's start with Chris Matthews, who provides a plausible summary of the background to the Cheney-Wilson dispute:
It all begins with a big fight between the CIA and the White House, especially the vice president's office. Scooter Libby, his chief of staff, is also his WMD expert.
The vice president has made the case for war very effectively on programs like 'Meet the Press,' that we had to go to war with Saddam Hussein because he possessed the potential to make nuclear war against the United States - to somehow deliver a nuclear weapon to this country.
...Well, we got over there, and our troops took that country, and there was no WMD, no nuclear, no nothing, so there is a lot of concern about how we could have gotten into a war based on false pretenses.
All of the sudden, Joe Wilson comes up and starts leaking to the New York Times' Nick Kristoff, 'Wait a minute, they not only don't have any WMD to justify the war, they knew there wasn't going to be any WMD because they knew, based upon my trip over there, that there was no deal to buy uranium by Saddam Hussein in Africa.' That's the big picture here.
Fine, we can work with that. But check this out:
What questions still remain?
... (When) Joe Wilson came back, did he or did he not issue a clear cut denial that there was any issue with uranium and Saddam? Was his report clear as a bell that there was nothing there, or was it murky, open to different interpretations? That's the question.
That's the question? What would Chris Matthews accept as an answer? Then-DCI George Tenet said in July 2003 that Wilson's report was inconclusive; the bipartisan SSCI said the same thing in July 2004. Just who is Matthews waiting for, Howard Dean and the Democratic Underground?
Tenet:
Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials.
SSCI, Conclusion 13:
(U) 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 [note - which were hawkish], 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.
More from Matthews:
Did the vice president ever know about his trip to Niger? We apparently now are realizing that he never knew about that trip. For some reason, the FBI [sic] never told the vice president's office that they were responding to his inquiry about a possible uranium deal in Africa by sending this one-man mission by Joe Wilson.
"We apparently now are realizing"? Tell us what led to the breakthrough, and maybe next time we can avoid these two-year lags in communication and comprehension.
But it could also be that even though they were wrongly accused by Joe Wilson of knowing about his trip over there, they may have reacted to the heat that that put them under and then there may have been illiegalities in terms of outing Joe Wilson's wife, an undercover agent, and thereby breaking the law.
"Even though they were wrongly accused"! This is breakthrough stuff! Sure, they "may" have reacted to the heat by doing something illegal. But can it be that Matthews is now open to the possibility that an Administration is allowed to respond to its critics, especially when the basis of the attack is, at a minimum, in serious dispute? My goodness.
Oh, we can relax - Matthews is still locked in to the notion that this was brutal revenge:
Is that legitimate? I think a straight-arrow attorney or prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald may be saying 'I don't care if this is politics or this is hardball, no government official has the right to try and go out and squash somebody else, using the power they have with the media and other resources.
Squashing him by making him a media darling, a hero to the left with a big book deal, and so on. One day Matthews may wonder whether a CIA faction that is irritated with the attitude of the Executive Branch should be allowed to leak attacks with impunity and gin up criminal charges when the Executive Branch responds. His apparent belief that Valerie and the CIA were totally innocent bystanders to this dispute is absurd.
Let's move on. The Daily News delivers something so baffling that conspiracy theorists will catch the vapors:
"There were a number of occasions when White House officials or Vice President [Cheney's] staffers, or others, wanted to push the envelope on things," an ex-intelligence official said. "The agency would say, 'We just don't have the intelligence to substantiate that.'" When Wilson was sent by his wife to Africa to research the claims, he showed the documents claiming Saddam tried to buy the uranium were forgeries.
Emphasis added. Wilson certainly gave the impression that he had personally debunked the forgeries when he leaked to Kristof in May 2003, and again with Pincus in June 2003. And since the IAEA had debunked the forgeries in March 2003, by the time of Wilson's leaks there was widespread public awareness that key documents had been forged. However - Tenet's statement says that Wilson's report said nothing about forgeries; the SSCI story was that the CIA had been relying on summaries, and the actual forgeries only came into their possession in the fall of 2002. So how did Wilson debunk them months earlier? Conspiracy theorists insist that the SSCI investigation was phony, and that the CIA had the "real forgeries" much sooner than they are prepared to admit. On the other hand, Wilson explained his seemingly eerie prescience this way to the Senate:
Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded 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.
Later, our hero Joe modified that slightly, and explained to Paula Zahn that "those are either misquotes or misattributions if they're attributed to me." Uh huh.
So where is the Daily News in all this? Are they breaking news, or hopelessly confused? I don't have the impression that they are even aware of a controversy on this point.
Finally, the LA Times picks up the scent, with this insightful headline:
Cheney, CIA Long at Odds
The vice president's history of tension with the agency may help explain why his office is an area of interest in the blown-cover probe.
Ya think? Gee, is it possible that Cheney was worried that the CIA misunderestimated Saddam's nuclear capability after Desert Storm, missed India going nuclear, missed 9/11, and may have been missing Saddam's re-armament? The LA Times has finally noticed this possibility, although Howard Fineman was pushing that argument over two years ago.
FAIR AND BALANCED - the ReddHedd appraises the LA Times from the left.
For this idiocy, Matthews makes big bucks. TM please help me get the word out--for that kind of money I'm willing to cut off guests who disagree with me, spray the TV camera lens with spittle,spout nonsense and act deranged, too. ;)
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 11:21 AM
I'll bet you feel better now, don't you. I wish I were so sure the CIA were involved. Joe is enough alone.
================================================
Posted by: kim | October 20, 2005 at 11:21 AM
Look, TM, on this Plame thing, by virtue of continued obsession, you qualify as a subject matter expert. These reporters who drift in and out of the story do not. So they get facts wrong; they forget things; their editors (who, remember, are always in a hurry -- deadline and all) don't remember whether an issue had been resolved two years ago or not. It's certainly worthwhile to point out misinformation. But, seriously, taking them to task over some of this stuff is unfair. This is different than beating up on Krugman, who has his job, presumably, because he is a subject matter expert.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | October 20, 2005 at 11:30 AM
Nonsense AM. It takes very little time to get the basics of the story and if, like Matthews you are reporting on it regularly, you should be held accountable for repeatedly getting it completely wrong.
The MSM reporting on the story makes their coverage of Katrina look good by comparison.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 11:34 AM
AM,
Are you saying they should be given a break for reporting incorrect information? Isn't this what started everything? Wilson providing incorrect information to the press?
Posted by: Sue | October 20, 2005 at 11:35 AM
Didn't I read something like this in a Tom Clancey novel? If I didn't, he needs to get busy. :)
Posted by: Sue | October 20, 2005 at 11:38 AM
Your comments on Chris Matthews are right on. I cannot imagine how he got confused between the CIA and the FBI, and how he missed several things that were stated in the Senate Intelligence Committee.
I went back to Wilson's original "What I did not find in Africa" article, and nowhere does he state in there he had seen the forged documents. Rather he states otherwise - "As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged."
Wilson's article is very clear on this point.
The other things that Wilson states in that article is that Niger's ambassador had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Is that true? If true, why did the Bush administration ignore them. While I do not have proof, there is ample evidence that the Bush administration knew everything that supported the case for war, and claimed to know of no evidence that would not have supported the case for war. It is this that Wilson referred to when he said - "What else are they hiding?", and it is that which touched off some raw nerves in the Bush administration.
Posted by: Pete | October 20, 2005 at 11:38 AM
Actually, Wilson's report did not undermine the Administration's assertion that Iraq had sought to buy Uranium in Africa, it SUPPORTED their claim.
Save yourself hours of reading. Put a not in front of everything Wilson said and you'll have the facts straight.
In any event, the uranium business was a tiny part of the Administration's justification for war, and Matthews' efforts to claim otherwise are mendacious.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 11:44 AM
Another hmmm...Matthews says FBI, Miller's notes say Libby said Bureau. Connection?
Posted by: Sue | October 20, 2005 at 11:48 AM
Andrea and Tim must have had an 'intervention' with Chris.
I think even Imus figured this out...with Andrea giving him pointers.
Posted by: paul | October 20, 2005 at 11:50 AM
I also have a feeling that we won't see many of the dem critcs wishing to get into a discussion of the fact that Wilson lied to them as well.
You'd have thought he would have issued a written report, but, I guess they'll just have to take Joe at his word.
They'll believe anything for the right reason...
Posted by: paul | October 20, 2005 at 11:52 AM
Hey all you leftys, read this from a former federal prosecutor and then go get a refill on that prozac:
http://www.radioblogger.com/#001081
Money quote :
This was the CIA doing a covert action against the President. Now why is it that they would allow Joe Wilson to go over, do this mission, not sign a confidentiality agreement, and then allow him to write about it in the New York Times?
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | October 20, 2005 at 11:58 AM
Let me see... the CIA underestimates the threat... so Cheney pushes them to see the "truth" that the nuke program is up and running. The administration outstrips the evidence several times (nearly every time they open their mouths)... and then when there's no WMD it's the CIA's fault. The power of ideology makes me dizzy.
And no matter how much you hate Joe Wilson... that's no defense of lying to the FBI or Fitz. much less playing fast and loose with classifed information.
You need to get up on some "Fitz" gave to Dems tip or something tried and true... maybe he's a judicial activist or something.
Posted by: eli | October 20, 2005 at 12:02 PM
Pete:
"As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors"
You're correct re Wilson's op-ed piece. But Pincus, Kristoff and Judis all reported that Wilson told them that he (Wilson) had seen the forged documents and knew that they were fake because the names were wrong.
Wilson has replied that Pincus et al. "miquoted" him or that he (Wilson) "mis-spoke."
Possible, I guess but that's a lot of pretty good reporters making some significant errors.
SMG
Posted by: SMGalbraith | October 20, 2005 at 12:05 PM
Pete - Bless you for trying, by pointing out what Wilson actually said.
But I've posted direct quotes from the very reports the winger clowns hereabouts cite as supporting their contentions, direct quotes that contradict the winger claims. And even when what I've posted are quotes from people not named 'Wilson' and not named 'Plame,' all the local wingers do is bray that I'm posting Joe Wilson's talking points.
I don't know if they're illiterate or just have zero reading comprehension.
Anyway, quoting directly from actual documents, actual reports, and actual transcripts does you no good here. Including links to said documents, reports and transcripts does you no good here.
The wingers here know what they believe and cling to that like it's their last hope of heaven. No amount of evidence to the contrary will move them.
Posted by: CaseyL | October 20, 2005 at 12:07 PM
Did the CIA underestimate the threat? Or did some of it underestimate it and another part overestimate it. Your comment makes it sound so monolithic, and well, visible.
===============================================
Posted by: kim | October 20, 2005 at 12:08 PM
" missed 9/11, "
Now, given what they had to work with in the White House, the only way they could have gotten Bush to take notice beforehand would have been to tell Bush that Osama was apparently planning to attack a GOP fundraiser.
And maybe it would help if they labeled memos "NOT A HISTORICAL DOCUMENT"
Posted by: Jon H | October 20, 2005 at 12:11 PM
Wonder why Joe had to tell someone he misspoke or was misquoted? :) Damn them reporters...
Reading comprehension does seem to be a problem. Just depends on what you are willing to read when you read what you read.
Posted by: Sue | October 20, 2005 at 12:13 PM
Chris Matthews will have egg on his face more than anyone IF no indictments come down. Not only has he dedicated his entire program to the Leak case for the past week, but yesterday he even alluded to have 'inside info' that he knew for certain there would be indictments. And he's talking Libby, Rover, no some joe blow we've never heard of. He also claimed just yersterday that the Niger-Uranium story "orginated in Cheney's office". That's news to me unless he's creatively spinning the original concern Cheney's office had about uranium and Niger.
Posted by: Go Metro | October 20, 2005 at 12:15 PM
TM:
Cheney was also Secretary of Defense during the first Gulf War back in 1990. And we discovered then that the CIA had completely missed how advanced Iraq was in producing nuclear weapons. That is, they were 6-12 months away while the CIA reported that they were still several years away.
I'm sure that foulup by the CIA played a role in Cheney's scepticism about the Agency's knowledge on Iraq's WMD programs.
EH
Posted by: EricH | October 20, 2005 at 12:30 PM
What exactly did the CIA know about anything? They missed the Pakistan/Khan fiasco. They missed NK reconstituting their nukes. They missed Saddam's nuke program which we learned about from his son in law, you know, the one he killed later. I think it is time to think long and hard about our present day CIA.
Posted by: Sue | October 20, 2005 at 12:34 PM
looks like Joe managed to break out of the muzzle with his "too many wives and too many drugs" speech in SF
Posted by: windansea | October 20, 2005 at 12:36 PM
CaseyL:
Sorry my friend but your defense of Wilson's honesty is riddled with inaccuracies and errors.
The main report of the SSCI documents that Wilson lied when he said his wife had no role in him getting the mission to Niger. The SSCI main report includes a memo written by Ms. Wilson recommending her husband for the job.
You said that this section was part of the addenda by the Republican members. That's incorrect.
Wilson has repeatedly told reporters that he saw the Niger documents. False. He repeatedly has said that he debunked the Irag/Niger uranium story. False. He has repeatedly said that Cheney saw his report. False.
And on and on and on and on.
Wilson is a serial liar and fraud. The only people at this stage who don't see that are looking at the situation with their eyes closed.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | October 20, 2005 at 12:36 PM
Either SF Gate is 'misquoting' Wilson, again, or he said the same things that have been debunked again. ;) Damn them reporters...
Posted by: Sue | October 20, 2005 at 12:39 PM
Speaking of bad media, here is The Independent in the UK:
"When Joseph Wilson got the call from Vice-President Dick Cheney's office asking for assistance, the former diplomat had no qualms.
The request related to a disturbing report from Italian intelligencesuggesting Iraq was buying uranium from Niger and trying to restart its nuclear weapons programme."
LOL!!! I'm sure that is just an innocent mistake. Joe Wilson REALLY didn't want anyone to think that the VP's office called him to check on Italian documents, right?? The fact that the press all over the world continues to report Wilson's claims in this manner is just a big misunderstanding and TOTALLy not Joe Wilson's fault, right?
Posted by: politicaobscura | October 20, 2005 at 12:45 PM
It is ironic that the team that was trying to portray Wilson as a liar were themselves caught in a lie. Scott McClannan clearly said that Rove and Libby told him that they had no invlovement. It took almost two years for that truth to come out. In those two years Wilson has been vilified ad nauseum. Will the same people vilify Rove and Libby for their lies?
Posted by: Pete | October 20, 2005 at 12:50 PM
What's this about drive-by wuzzle mugging?
Is that anything like whacking mailboxes or other assorted targets?
============================================
Posted by: kim | October 20, 2005 at 12:55 PM
And don't forget these oh so convenient forgeries. :)
We are frying our brains over this.
I need some ketchup.
Posted by: Syl | October 20, 2005 at 01:06 PM
drive by snizzle post
Some in the audience urged him to run for political office. But Wilson said he'd been a true child of the 1960s and had ``too many wives and taken too many drugs. And, yes, I did inhale.''
Posted by: windansea | October 20, 2005 at 01:11 PM
Pete, what exactly was their involvement? As far as I can see it is hearing about Plame from reporters and telling other reporters they heard that story, too? Funny how the SSCI report which notes he's a serial liar is shitcanned by the left but the most innocuous comments by Rove and Libby, designed to discredit Wilson's lies, are a big deal.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 01:14 PM
A long post that left out another "BASIC FACT", the identity of an undercover CIA agent (a classification given to her by the CIA when they pressed for the investigation, NOT given to her by liberals) specializing in the area of weapons of mass distruction, was revealed for political reasons.
If what Wilson said was wrong, then just prove that, revealing his wifes name didn't make what he said true or untrue, did it? If you make a statement, does its truth depend on who your spouse is? Of course not. They couldn't prove Wilson wrong because the documents involved are still commonly believed to be forgeries.
And don't forget, THIS IS WAR TIME...
Revealing a CIA agents undercover identity DURING WARTIME? We have a word for that out in the reality based community. We call it treason.
Not a lot to spin here, not a lot of partisan crap, reveal a CIA agents undercover identity DURING WARTIME and its treason.
Thanks for listening, good luck with those basic facts...
Posted by: Big Time Patriot | October 20, 2005 at 01:15 PM
yes Windansea
macr wondered if he included that info on his standard form 86.
I thought this was especially rich
"...He said he hoped that the Iraqi constitution vote had failed, not because he wanted to see the administration fail but because he believed a negative vote would cause America and others to rethink their strategy and ``go back to the drawing board"..."
I wonder if he held up his pictures and letters of GHWB when he said this, to demonstrate he has non partisan bones. I am sure Iraqis glad to hear this!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 20, 2005 at 01:18 PM
Hey Petey,
Scott said not involved in leaking Plame's identity. That statement is still true. If it is good enough for Russert to use...
What exactly was "leaked"?
Posted by: Fact Dude | October 20, 2005 at 01:19 PM
Apparewntly everything about the trip was classified. The claim that saying his wife played a role (when the speaker obviously didn't know that was classified information) is to be weighed more seriously than Wilson's fabulist reports on the Mission itself. LOL
And then there's Bob Somerby, the last honest liberal who observes today:
[quote]Meanwhile, with all the local comedy excitement, we’ll postpone till tomorrow our troubling treatment of a basic question about the Plame matter: Since Wilson’s op-ed didn’t really contradict what Bush had said about Niger, why did the press corps act like it did? (To this day, they shave basic facts to keep this perception alive.)[/quote]
Indeed.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 01:19 PM
Hey Big Time,
Please forward the link showing where the CIA said Plame was undercover.
Thanks.
Posted by: patty five | October 20, 2005 at 01:22 PM
Forget any link to what the CIA said. All of the sudden the lefties are big backers of whatever the CIA claims. LOL.
Posted by: Dannyboy | October 20, 2005 at 01:27 PM
Only the third time was for political reasons.
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | October 20, 2005 at 01:27 PM
Since Wilson’s op-ed didn’t really contradict what Bush had said about Niger, why did the press corps act like it did?
Better question. If Wilson's op-ed didn't realy contradict Bush, why did the WH react like a bunch of hysterical ninnies and put themselves in this jeopardy?
Posted by: JayDee | October 20, 2005 at 01:28 PM
... (When) Joe Wilson came back, did he or did he not issue a clear cut denial that there was any issue with uranium and Saddam? Was his report clear as a bell that there was nothing there, or was it murky, open to different interpretations? That's the question.
The administration was not making a case for “inconclusive” or “murky” – they were stating Saddam’s intentions as fact, along with other “facts” like “we know where the WMDs are”.
Did the vice president ever know about his trip to Niger? We apparently now are realizing that he never knew about that trip. For some reason, the FBI [sic] never told the vice president's office that they were responding to his inquiry about a possible uranium deal in Africa by sending this one-man mission by Joe Wilson.
How was Wilson supposed to know this? They may not have told the VP’s office, but they certainly could have told Wilson that this request came from the VP’s office (and by extension, the VP). They asked for it, it’s certainly logical for Wilson to think that the people who asked for an investigation knew about his trip.
About the forgeries – I’m stuck between Wilson claiming credit for something he didn’t do (not at all unusual) or somebody showing him the forged documents when they shouldn’t have – in other words, he claimed knowledge before he had it, or he had knowledge before he was supposed to. A head scratcher.
Posted by: TexasToast | October 20, 2005 at 01:31 PM
Uh, maybe because the press kept saying that it did?
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | October 20, 2005 at 01:31 PM
put themselves in this jeopardy?
Correction-- David Corn did this.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 20, 2005 at 01:32 PM
windansea, if my suspicions about their domestic life are true, Joe may soon have the opportunity to lengthen the list of his wives. Women don't generally like men with long noses. Not the wooden noses.
================================================
Posted by: kim | October 20, 2005 at 01:33 PM
How was Wilson supposed to know this?
exactly, so it curious he pedaled this to Pincus and Kristof
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 20, 2005 at 01:36 PM
Ah, the truly incredible facility rightwingers have these days in accepting accountability for nothing. Basically, if you're a Repubbie, whatever you do, it's somebody else's fault. Usually the eeevil "M-S-M". Either that, or a librul. In-credible.
I still can't understand how the Bushies ever let this Fitzgerald guy be put in charge of this thing. It is going to be so hard for them to smear him. Not that they won't do it, but he just doesn't fit into any of their little boxes.
Posted by: JayDee | October 20, 2005 at 01:37 PM
Why did the White House seemingly overreact, JayDee? Maybe because Joe's lying meme 'Bush Lied, People Died', has itself contributed to the MAJORITY of the casualties over there, something I STILL get pretty goddamned fierce about.
================================================
Posted by: kim | October 20, 2005 at 01:38 PM
It was aid and comfort. By the neck, traditionally.
=======================================
Posted by: kim | October 20, 2005 at 01:38 PM
JayDee
"Better question. If Wilson's op-ed didn't realy contradict Bush, why did the WH react like a bunch of hysterical ninnies and put themselves in this jeopardy?"
Because people with wishful-thinking eyes thought Wilson had just stuck it to Bush and were calling for blood.
Posted by: Syl | October 20, 2005 at 01:39 PM
JD writes: "Better question. If Wilson's op-ed didn't realy contradict Bush, why did the WH react like a bunch of hysterical ninnies and put themselves in this jeopardy?"
Because they did NOT react like a bunch of hysterical ninnies. In truth, their interactions with reporters on this issue were very matter of fact. That is why questions like, "who did you talk to two years ago about this?" are hard for the principles to answer. Joe Wilson WASN'T that big of a deal ... it only appears to be a big deal if you start to pretend that there was a conspiracy of revenge.... that is where true weirdness comes in to play.
Posted by: politicaobscura | October 20, 2005 at 01:46 PM
of this thing. It is going to be so hard for them to smear him. Not that they won't do it, but he just doesn't fit into any of their little boxes.
are you suggesting we initiate the Ken Starr approach?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 20, 2005 at 01:48 PM
JayDee,
Is there an argument in your post somewhere?
To me it reads . . . Republicans bad. Fitzgerald good. Republicans hurt good man.
Is that it? That's what you spent time at the keyboard to say to us?
Posted by: jawnybnsc | October 20, 2005 at 01:48 PM
Clarice:
This is Ray McGovern, during the Q&A with Wilson at the June 14th Epic Speech
""We know that it was Dick Cheney who sent the former US ambassador to Niger to investigate. We know he was told in early March of last year that the documents were forgeries.... To have global reporters like Walter Pincus quoting senior administration officials that Vice President Cheney was not told by CIA about the findings of this former US ambassador strains credulity well beyond the breaking point. Cheney commissioned this trip, and when the fellow came back, he said, "Don't tell me, I don't want to know what happened." That's just ridiculous."
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 20, 2005 at 01:55 PM
Well, we have some interesting new voices from the left.
revealing his wifes name didn't make what he said true or untrue, did it?
Let's compare two potential news stories -
(1) "Joe Wilson, retired diplomat, said today that in the dispute between the White House and the CIA over the missing WMDs, the CIA was right"
(2) "Joe Wilson, spouse of CIA operative in the section engaged in a bitter dispute with the White House over missing WMDs, said today that the CIA was right".
Are these the same? You make the call!
And from th ill-manered Casey L.
I don't know if they're illiterate or just have zero reading comprehension.
Anyway, quoting directly from actual documents, actual reports, and actual transcripts does you no good here. Including links to said documents, reports and transcripts does you no good here.
Very well, let's test Casey's reading comprehension, which we hope is above zero. Links are in the timeline.
May 6, Kristof column, Wilson as anon source:
On the off chance that Casey has not exercised his reading ability on the SSCI:
Contra Kristof, Cheney's office did not "ask for an investigation"; the envoy's report was not accepted as unequivocal; he did not report on forgeries; and the forgeries were not debunked i nwide circulation.
Pincus, June 12, Wilson as a source:
Ahh, per the official bipartisan cover-up, the US got ahold of the forgeries in the fall of 2002.
Kristof again, June 13:
At the "behest" of Cheney's office? Forgeries, again?
July 13, Wolf Blitzer with Condi Rice - this is *after* Wilson's op-ed, and *after* Tenet's statement, but it gives a nice sense of how the confusion had settled in:
And we still love the Paula Zahn quote up in the main post - Joe was misquoted.
Your thoughts, Casey?
Posted by: TM | October 20, 2005 at 02:07 PM
The Daily News reporters are James Gordon Meek and Kenneth R. Bazinet. Their coverage of this has been so atrocious that I couldn't even bring myself to correct them. I just don't know where to begin.
kbazinet@nydailynews.com
Matthews may understand that no matter who swings from the BA, Wilson's bones are going to get dug up and killed all over again.
Posted by: spongeworthy | October 20, 2005 at 02:08 PM
"Are these the same? You make the call!"
Ok, so we've established motive...
Posted by: Cheez-Wiz | October 20, 2005 at 02:10 PM
This is kind of OT here, but it's about Fitzgerald's role as a special prosecutor. I thought the whole deal with needing the SP was that the White House was involved, and since the DoJ is the WH's lawyer, there is a conflict of interest.
If Fitzgerald were to decide that nobody in the WH broke any laws, but there is probable cause to investigate Wilson, Plame and/or others in the CIA about revealing classified info, etc., would Fitzgerald (as special prosecutor) be the correct person to investigate? Or would he say, "No White House, no conflict, I'm handing all my information over to the FBI and the federal prosecutor for DC (or maybe Northern VA, since that's where the CIA is) and going back to Chicago"?
Just throwing a little bone out there to all the Kerfufflittes... Maybe it won't all be over in a week, and we'll get a whole new phase?
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | October 20, 2005 at 02:12 PM
for the record:
be·hest P Pronunciation Key (b-hst)
n. An authoritative command.
An urgent request: I called the office at the behest of my assistant.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 20, 2005 at 02:15 PM
OT too...Corn is semi off the 22 indictments and floating "sealed" indictments with continued investigation (or some such)
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 20, 2005 at 02:20 PM
Clarice:
revise, not Q&A...Ray being interviewd just after speech
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 20, 2005 at 02:24 PM
Cathy, that's a good question. Apparently at the SCCI's request an independent FBI investigation was initiated and is apparently ongoing.
My best guess is that if the matter is far removed from this inquiry--Administration leaks of classified information--he'd refer is over to a USDA for further action, but if he has uncovered another crime in the course of this inquiry--say, perjury by a reporter, a CIA (or ex-official)official, Wilson or Plame, he'd proceed on that.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 02:27 PM
Topsecret, the EPIC transcript transcribed by Freeper Eudora (video at EPIC site) is a goldmine.
In the Q and A Wilson admits he is the "envoy" referred to in the earliest Kristoff and Pincus articles.
Was he shepharded about by Kerry's staff? He joined up in May. If he was, wasn't that another bit of duplicity by Pincus and Kristoff? By that I mean had we known that how much credence would the charges have been given?
By the way if you go to the "Uncovered" Move ON(Soros) funded campaign movie for Karry, Wilson and Rand Beers are the stars. But also involved are, inter alia, David Corn, Stansfield Turner (Carter's ex-CIA director) and McGovern. http://www.offoffoff.com/film/2003/uncovered.php
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 02:34 PM
(Substitute "fedora" for "Eudora"..Please)
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 02:35 PM
My cite to Uncovered got cut off.Here is the correct URL
http://www.offoffoff.com/film/2003/uncovered.php
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 02:38 PM
thanks Clarice
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 20, 2005 at 02:42 PM
Once again rather than quoting what a third party said, or what the meaning of behest is, let us go back to "What I did not find in Africa"
Here is what Wilson writes: "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."
Regarding who sent Wilson to Africa, the issue is not as clear cut as some selective quotes of the Senate Intelligence Committe may imply. Walter Pincus has an interesting article on that. Here is a hypothesis which may not fly well with the crowd here. Plame's superiors had already used Wilson in a trip to Niger in 1998 and wanted to send him. They ask Plame to draft a memo suggesting Wilson's qualifications. A person from an outside agency gets the impression that Plame is involved in Wilson's selection, and writes it in a memo. The contents of that memo get in the hands of Rove and Libby and they decide to use the information in that classified document.
We will find out soon.
Posted by: Pete | October 20, 2005 at 02:43 PM
It got cut off again!the last part of the url should be php
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 02:43 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001918_pf.html
Posted by: Pete | October 20, 2005 at 02:47 PM
I spot a new trend....the libs have gone from 22 frogmarching indictments to
"we'll soon see"
"sealed indictments"
"will we get a report?"
Posted by: windansea | October 20, 2005 at 02:48 PM
Windansea- HAH
Clarice,
Mac has Investors Biz Daily piece up, but one thing it says
"...So when Rove, in an e-mail sent to Time magazine's Matt Cooper in July 2003, said Wilson's trip to Niger for the CIA was arranged by "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency," without providing her actual name, he was not exposing Plame as an agent..."
He sent Cooper and email? Is this just an error?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 20, 2005 at 02:53 PM
not and--an
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 20, 2005 at 02:54 PM
Here is the transcript of Uncovered. On p. 18 you will see that Wilson is still suggesting he reported back the documents he saw were forged..http://www.truthuncovered.com/UNCOVEREDtranscript.pdf
It is more obscure a reference than his earlier claims, but it is there.
You will also see other ex-CIA Wilson cohorts and others like Scott Ritter.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 02:55 PM
Again, the url was cut off--let me try this: http://tinyurl.com/77ht5
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 02:58 PM
top, it does seem to be an error.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 02:59 PM
topsekret, It is an error. He sent that email to Steve Hadley. It was about Cooper's call to him.
Posted by: Florence Schmieg | October 20, 2005 at 03:02 PM
The starring players of Uncovered--Did they leave Johnson off cause he was too nuts even for them? And how deep in this is David Corn anyway?
Directed by: Robert Greenwald.
Produced by: Robert Greenwald, Kate McArdle, Devin Smith.
Featuring: David Albright, Robert Baer, Milt Bearden, Rand Beers, Bill Christison, Kathleen McGrath Christison, David Corn, Philip Coyle, John Dean, Patrick Eddington, Chas Freeman, Graham Fuller, Mel Goodman, John Brady Kiesling, Karen Kwiatkowski, Patrick Lang, Dr. David C. MacMichael, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, The Rt Honorable Clare Short, Stansfield Turner, The Honorable Henry Waxman, Thomas E. White, Joe Wilson, Colonel Mary Ann Wright, Peter Zimmerman.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 03:11 PM
I believe that the entire Wilson initiated thing was an attempt by himself, the anti-war groups, the New York Times and Washington Post columnists (not necessarily their entire organizations) and the Kerry campaign (until Wilson became too hot to handle and got dumped by them) to influence the election against Bush and to Kerry. It would be naive to think that all of those CIA leaked documents, the Aqaqaa (boy, how do you spell that?) lost WMDs (that of course were never there until their disappearance could be used against Bush the week before the election) and other leaked negative reports or statements from Defense officials, State, etc. were unrelated to the election. They all tried their hardest to defeat him and failed. Now this is their last hurrah. Why don't they just present a good message to the American people to win elections instead of unleashing prosecutors, lawsuits, etc.?
Posted by: Florence Schmieg | October 20, 2005 at 03:13 PM
Because they haven't a good message that will appeal to their base(s) and so they keep repackaging the garbage and hiring Shrum to send out another clown to "fight for you". LOL
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 03:15 PM
Clarice - that P 18 reference does not say that Wilson saw the documents. First of all he says that he spent 8 days talking to people (not looking at the document).
Then the exact text is:
"One, from a business perspective, because of
the way the consortium was structured, you just couldn’t do it without a lot of people
knowing. And two, the way the government bureaucracy was structured, you could not
make the decision without a lot of people knowing. And if you made the decision, the
decision would be reflected in a series of documents, uh, signatures on the documents and
if the documents did not contain those signatures, they could not be authentic,
government of Niger documents."
"If the documents did not contain those signatures" is a far cry from whatever you are implying.
Posted by: Pete | October 20, 2005 at 03:25 PM
Joe Wilson wanted to seem important. If reporters got the impression he had seen the document, which they did, then he was certainly not going to correct them. Joe Wilson is a slimy character. That doesn't mean Rove/Libby, et al are not guilty of anything. It just means Wilson is slimy.
Posted by: Sue | October 20, 2005 at 03:35 PM
Here is a hypothesis which may not fly well with the crowd here . . .
Not at all, I think you've got it mostly right.
Plame's superiors had already used Wilson in a trip to Niger in 1998 . . .
Which she recommended him for. She probably had a bit more involvement than you suggest in the latter assignment as well, but that's the subject of some debate (and not, I think, terribly important).
A person from an outside agency gets the impression that Plame is involved in Wilson's selection, and writes it in a memo.
Apparently because she introduced him at the meeting where they decided to send him:
The contents of that memo get in the hands of Rove and Libby and they decide to use the information in that classified document.Here you've probably left out a few steps. The folks reading the memo almost certainly "played telephone" with the information, as the details morphed. And it's very likely journalists were discussing it as well (and they could have gotten the information directly from Wilson or Plame, or from Administration sources, or both). Other than that . . .
Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 20, 2005 at 03:43 PM
Pete:
Remember the saying, "Beware the man of one book."
You keep referring to Wilson's op-ed piece in the NY Times but ignore what he told Pincus, Judis, Kristoff et al. about his trip.
Wilson himself has acknowledged that he "misspoke" when he said he saw the Niger forged documents. That admission is at least an implicit acknowledgement that a previous statement was wrong.
On other occasions, Wilson has alleged that reporters "mis-quoted" him (see TM's links above).
Wilson talked a lot more journalists than Gail Collins during his little 15 minutes of infamy. And a lot of what he told them didn't turn out to be true.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | October 20, 2005 at 04:33 PM
The premise of the entire original article is that reporters (Chris Matthews anyone?) are sloppy. There is plenty of amibiguity in some of the statements for reporters to misconstrue something. I've been in many BB debates where either I or the person I was debating said something wrong. Not that it was intentional.
Which is why the original article is very important.
On the salient points Wilson has been correct and the Bush administration has been wrong. Wilson has been right on the nuclear issue. Wilson has been right that the White House was involved. The White House was wrong about Rove and Libby's involvement. And spare me the Clintonian defenses about how the two were not involved (I'm no partisan).
Posted by: Pete | October 20, 2005 at 04:44 PM
Couldn't it be possible that Joe Wilson DID see the document in question because of what his wife does? Or he at least knew what the general contents were and that it was debunked prior to being declassified??
I don't know how their day-to-day conversations go, but if she had done a ton of work based on a document that turned out to be a forgery, could you see how she may conveyed that fact to her spouse?? Just speculating, but then again, that's what this case has been about.
Posted by: millco88 | October 20, 2005 at 04:52 PM
Pete:
Wait, that's not fair.
You get to parse Wilson's statements and also get to insist that we have to understand the sloppy nature of the press.
So we must exonerate him of dishonesty because he was misquoted or the press messed things up.
But when it comes to Rove's and Libby's involvement we have to accept the press's accounts of their roles (sloppy reporting?) and we can't parse the W.H.'s statements?
Why the loose standards for Joe Wilson and a strict standard for Rove and Libby?
And again, why did Wilson acknowledge that he "misspoke" about having seen the Niger documents? Isn't that an admission that his former statements were wrong? Isn't that pretty signficant?
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | October 20, 2005 at 04:57 PM
It's very significant, because we have three choices, none of which is good for him:(a)He lied, not only to the press, but under oath to the SSCI;(b) Or, he saw classified documents to which he shouldn't have had access,or (c) He saw them before we ever got them at Langley.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 05:00 PM
(a)He lied, not only to the press, but under oath to the SSCI;
Perhaps he got the dates wrong? He had seen the documents later – after they were determined to be forgeries and that fit with the other facts he knew.
(b) Or, he saw classified documents to which he shouldn't have had access,
Possible, as I said above, but unlikely because the CIA made the referral. If their folks were passin’ out documents, I doubt they would have pursued it with a criminal referral.
or (c) He saw them before we ever got them at Langley.
Has anybody posted about this possibility?
Posted by: TexasToast | October 20, 2005 at 05:39 PM
TexasToast:
"Has anybody posted about this possibility?"
Yes. One theory emanates from a Seymore Hersh piece where he stated that the forgeries had been done by ex-CIA agents in an attempt to embarass the W.H.
If - a hugh qualifier - Wilson had been in on this attempt (the VIPs?) or had knowledge of it and had been told ahead of time that the fogeries were to be disseminated, it's possible that he erred in thinking that they had been in the possession of Langley when, in fact, they were still being circulated.
Lots of if's and maybe's. There's a whole lot of intrigue behind this, of course. Factions in the CIA, factions in the W.H., et cetera all at war with one another and with other factions in their departments.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | October 20, 2005 at 05:46 PM
TT--Once again:(a) It was a big part of his story that he told the CIA and DOS that they were relying on forged docs, that the report he made went to the VP and the Administration ignored his warning:(b)We didn't get the docs until 8 MONTHS after his Mission.
All those reporters didn't misquote and misreport his statement and though he fudges it somewhat in Uncovered, he still is alluding to the warnings he made of forged docs.
And he repeated his warning of the forged docs to the SSCI undear oath and backed off only when they noted his story didn't fit the facts.
He Lied repeatedly about when he saw the docs.or
He saw classified docs he wasn't entitled to see, or
He saw the docs BEFORE we got them. (When? Where? How?)
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 06:01 PM
this what I keep asking...I don't think he mispoke about the docs....he talked about them like he'd seen them...or heard from someone who had
and both of those result in "mishandling of govt secrets"
If Fitz is not looking into this then I am a Chimpy's uncle
Posted by: windansea | October 20, 2005 at 06:17 PM
SteveMG - I have not parsed any Wilson's statements. That is why I prefer to go back to the original article which caused all the uproar.
It is not a matter of parsing the White House statements. The bottom line is that they could have come clean, they could have explained then what their involvement was, or even kept completely quiet about it then. But they chose not to, and they chose to issue false and misleading statements. To me the lid was blown off when Cooper's testimony surfaced. That was the moment of truth. Now you may adopt a partisan attitude and say that the WH said nothing wrong. I did not buy it from Clinton and I do not buy it from this WH.
Posted by: Pete | October 20, 2005 at 06:39 PM
Don't know if anyone else posted this, but Chris Matthews continues to demonstrate ignorance. On tonight's show, in the first segment, he says that Russert, in his statement, very clearly said that he gave Libby zero information during the call in question. Matthews is such a tool. TM should check the transcript, post the relevant part, and continue to pile on Matthews.
Posted by: Jim E. | October 20, 2005 at 06:45 PM
Mickey Kaus also has my respect as an honest Dem--He hits ABC's The Note for trying to make this case into more than it is (the reason why Matthews, most of the press, et al is doing the same)--Here's an excerpt. Read it all. It is what is behind the Wilson story and all the reporting on it:
Note to Dems: Choose BS! Isn't the advice that ABC's The Note gives Democrats about the Plame scandal (in the form of a fictional memo from Democratic media strategists Fabiani, McCurry and Lockhart) almost completely, and revealingly wrong. ** The Dems have a nice little (or not-so-little) scandal going in the Plame investigation. High Bush officials may be indicted. The gist of the crime is that a CIA agent's cover was blown, and potential intelligence assets endangered. The best propaganda the Dems could produce would be the many patriotic CIA officials angry that an agent was compromised. So what does the ventriloquizing Note argue?
This cannot be a case about a leak (since the press doesn't like to cover leak stories as most of them are recipients of leaks and it sounds small bore); this cannot be a matter about White House aides (most people think Scooter Libby is something you ride on, and Karl Rove isn't as famous as you think he is); this cannot be about an isolated incident that smells, feels, and tastes like business as usual in Washington, DC (since that won't break through).
It's got to be about big things that impact the real lives of real Americans — and about how Bush pushed our country into a war.
Here are the specific steps to take:
(1) Message: Make this much bigger so that there is a political narrative that draws the connection between the manipulation of intelligence and the war in Iraq.
The Bush Administration manufactured and manipulated information in order to fool elected officials and the public into supporting a war where nearly 2,000 American soldiers have been killed. ...
But this is a case about a leak! It's not about whether the Iraq war was justified or whether there were weapons of mass destruction or even whether Saddam tried to buy yellowcake in Niger. Cheney, Libby, Rove et al could have quite easily manipulated intelligence about Iraq and pushed the country into war without violating the U.S. Criminal Code. The point of a prosecution would be that they didn't.
In essence, the Note tells Dems, in classic, media-consultant fashion, that instead of basing their pitch on the reality of the case (the leak) they should base it on BS (that somehow the prosecution is refighting the Iraq war). Shouldn't it be a general premise of Democratic politics that it's reality-based and not spin-based? And while Dems might get a majority of Americans to agree that the Iraq War was a bad move, they'd get about 95% to agree that compromising covert American agents is a bad move. Why not make the latter the issue?(more)[/quote] http://slate.msn.com/id/2128316/
[quote]
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 06:50 PM
Pete:
Sorry to belabor this and I promise that this will be my last labor, but you said this re Wilson's statements:
"There is plenty of amibiguity in some of the statements [by Wilson] for reporters to misconstrue something."
I just cannot comprehend how anyone can see ambiguity in Wilson stating, inter alia:
(1) That he personally saw the Niger forged documents - No he didn't;
(2) That his wife had no role in him getting the assignment to go to Niger - Yes, she did;
(3) That Cheney had seen his report - No he didn't;
(4) That he debunked the Iraq/Niger uranium story - Nope, sorry Joe, you even acknowledge that now;
(5) That Cheney ignored his report - Nope, again he never saw it.
Ambiguity? Pretty definitive statements to my eyes.
Do you believe that ALL of these reporters mis-quoted him? Pincus, Judis, Kristoff? Every time? On all of the above?
Enough from me on this.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | October 20, 2005 at 07:24 PM
"New York Times reporter Judith Miller told the federal grand jury in the CIA leak case that she might have met with I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby on June 23, 2003 only after prosecutors showed her Secret Service logs that indicated she and Libby had indeed met that day in the Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, according to attorneys familiar with her testimony."
She might have met?
Wass strikes again!
Posted by: TexasToast | October 20, 2005 at 08:12 PM
After being shown logs from the White House Secret Service. Reckon Libby saw those logs, too?
Posted by: Sue | October 20, 2005 at 08:20 PM
off
Posted by: TexasToast | October 20, 2005 at 08:37 PM
"New York Times reporter Judith Miller told the federal grand jury in the CIA leak case that she might have met with I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby on June 23, 2003 only after prosecutors showed her Secret Service logs that indicated she and Libby had indeed met that day in the Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, according to attorneys familiar with her testimony."
Bingo. Notebook to Judy, what Rove's Cooper email was to Rove.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 20, 2005 at 08:51 PM
Sue, I reckon that since he testified first, and is a good lawyer who surely reviewed what the WH provided to the sp in the discovery process, Libby testified about that meeting first.
And I suspect, he was a great deal more forthcoming about what Judy told him than she was if you get my drift.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2005 at 08:54 PM
Yep -- both Miller and Rove are liars until faced with uncontrovertable evidence. Then they both change their stories. Bingo, indeed.
Posted by: Jim E. | October 20, 2005 at 08:54 PM
Sue:
Of course he did. If Waas is right (???big???) we know why Ffitz lightened up on his "other sources" expedition...and it is a pretty safe bet Libby left open the possibility that they could have perhaps talked about the niger trip in June. He is a lawyer, he knows not to limit the possibility.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 20, 2005 at 09:03 PM
JimE's getting test(ier)---go tell it to Arianna!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | October 20, 2005 at 09:09 PM