Now Its The Times Versus The Times

The Times editors choose their side as Bush pushes back against "baseless" charges:

The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer.

Let's contrast that with the Times Week in Review from June 20, 2004 which includes a pop-up graphic with quotes from Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney, and Bush.  That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer.

Here is the Times back in the day:

Critics of the Bush Administration argue that it falsely created a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks to help justify the war. Last week, the administration countered that it had never made such an assertion - only that there were ties, however murky, between Iraq and Al Qaeda. A survey of past public comments seems to bear that out - although whether there was a deliberate campaign to create guilt by association is difficult to say.

That was then.

Since then, we have learned that a pre-war DIA report questioned the credibility of a high level detainee who was making up stories about Iraq training Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons.  Of course, that came out at the same time that the DIA was circulating a report that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, so its not as if a full reliance on DIA reporting would have been wise.

Oh, well.  On the subject of "The Links That the Times Forgot", let's remind them that there was more than just one high level detainee and one meeting in Prague behind the Iraq-Qaeda link.  Here is Tenet writing to the Senate on Oct 7, 2002:

• Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
• We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.
• Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
• Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
• We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. [NOTE - this is now discredited, as noted].
  
• Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

So - is the Times lying, twisting the available intelligence, or what?

UPDATE:  Well, welcome to the new blog in town - the White House has used its website to factcheck someone for the third day running.  Today's target is the same NY Times editorial I took a shot at.

I think that as a media strategy, this makes sense - the WH can feed the alternative media, eliminate the middleman, and save Libby's successors the aggravation of leaking to a disinterested press.

However... when their targets were Senators and Congressman from the other party, well, all's fair.  Is it different when the White House goes after a newspaper?  Maybe.  I assume the Times will whine about intimidation, but the WH targetted an editorial - it did not question their journalistic credibility.

Comments

[Dorf]

Did the Czechs finally back away from the claim of the Prague meeting or do they still stand behind the story?

[Gary Maxwell]

I bleieve the Czechs are as firmly behind the story as ever. the FBI concluded based upon his cell phone usage that Atta was in the US at the same time. What I dont understand as why anyone thinks that Atta could not have given his cell phone over to a cohort. It was not likely to have worked in Europe anyway and they were on a budget, meaning their costs were subsidized by financiers, which might make them think tactically about the resources available to them to carry on their plot.

[Dorf]

GM: thanks.

[Foo Bar]

I guess the question is whether "in league with" amounts to "has had a few contacts with" or is (in my opinion) tantamount to "had a collaborative relationship with". The 9/11 commission concluded that the latter was untrue. I don't think Tenet's list amounts to a collaborative relationship-there's no evidence there (aside from the discredited WMD training allegations) that Iraq and al Qaeda ever jointly accomplished anything.

Regarding the Czech Atta report: Cmon, the Czechs backed away from that report long ago.

[Geek, Esq.]

You forgot the best part:

The one human being who repeated the Prague story more than anyone else was William Safire writing in, you guessed it, The New York Times!

[Dwilkers]

"So - is the Times lying, twisting the available intelligence, or what?"

None of the above. The answer is E; Spinning for Dems.

[SteveMG]

repeated the Prague story more than anyone else was William Safire writing in, you guessed it, The New York Times!

And Safire's writings were located on the OP-ED page, the section where conservative opinions are (occasionally) found.

As opposed to the rest of the paper, where liberal opinions are (not so occasionally) found.

SMG

[JayDee]

And Safire's writings were located on the OP-ED page, the section where conservative opinions are (occasionally) found.

As opposed to the rest of the paper, where liberal opinions are (not so occasionally) found.

That's funny. One of you was telling me on the other thread that the reason the NYT lost its credibility was PaulKrugman and Mo Dowd. Gee, it gets confusing trying to hang onto these partisan barricades, doesn't it?

As for liberal slant in the reporting, how soon we forget the way the Gray Lady laid down for neocon Judy Miller's stenographic retailing of WMD tall tales. No one carried more water for the neocons than the NYTimes, even if unwittingly.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I wonder if JayDee could entertain the idea that Judy Miller's stories read the way they did because of what her sources at the CIA and other intelligence agencies were telling her?

[Gary Maxwell]

Funny I find this at Slate with a date well after the Telgraph article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2091354/

Why would Epstein be traveling to Prague if it was totally debunked? Why would Slate pay for that. Its not like Slate is some rightwing publication.... hmmmm why have another mystery trip to Prague

( and Rick tell how to put in a hyperlink agian duh).

[Creepy Dude]

Sullivan-Miller's "sources" were Libby, Libby, some freak referred by Libby, Libby, Libby, some Iraqi freak referred by Libby, and Libby.

[Rick Ballard]

HTML Link Primer

It took me a moment because I forgot where I bookmarked it.

[allen e.]

In the 1993 world trade center bombing, at least 1 if not more of the bombers went through Baghdad to New York and/or came back to Baghdad after the bombing. Why would they sit out 9/11? What about the report by Con Coughlin on a document he has seen placing Mohammed Atta in Baghdad meeting with Abu Nidal? I think Stephen Hayes, Josef Bodansky and Richard Miniter have more than a few thoughts on Al Qaida/Iraq connections going back a long time.

[Gary Maxwell]

Here is a article that Jay Epstein had put up as an update in 2004 about Atta and Prague. He obviously did not get Geeks memo. I dont believe its as cut and dried as Geek makes it out to be. Read and enjoy.

Question:

More than three years have passed since the putative meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohammed Atta and Iraq Consul al-Ani. What has the CIA, FBI, Czech intelligence (BIS) and other intelligence services established about the activities of the alleged participants at this meeting?

Answer:

1) Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani served as consul at Iraq's embassy in Prague between March 1999 and April 21, 2001 and he was activity involved in agent-handling during this period.
2) Mohammed Atta applied for a visa to visit the Czech Republic on May 26, 2000 in Bonn, Germany. According to Czech visa records, Atta identified himself as being a "Hamburg student." Since a visa was not necessary to catch a Czech plane to the US, Czech intelligence concluded he had business in the Czech Republic.
3) Just prior to leaving for the U.S., Atta made 2 trips to the Czech Republic in 2000. The first was on May 30, where he went without a visa to the transit lounge of Prague International Airport; the second was by bus to Prague on June 2 with visa BONN200005260024.
4) On April 4, 2001, Atta checked out of the Diplomat Inn in Virginia Beach and cashed a check for $8,000 from a SunTrust account, according to the FBI. Atta was not seen again in America by any witness before April 11, 2001.
5) Al-Ani scheduled a meeting in April with a "Hamburg student" according to an appointment calendar subsequently turned up by Czech intelligence in a surreptitious search of the Iraq Embassy (presumably after the defeat of Iraq in April 2003.)
6) Al-Ani was observed meeting a young Arab-speaking man on the outskirts of Prague at about 11 am on April 9th by a watcher for Czech counterintelligence.

7) Al-Ani was expelled from Prague less than 2 weeks after that meeting.

8) After seeing Atta’s picture on September 11th, the Czech watcher identified the Arab-speaking man meeting al-Ani as Mohammed Atta.
9 ) Al-Ani denied that he met Atta , as did the Baghdad government. Al-Ani repeated that denial after he was detained by U.S. forces in July 2003.
10 ) According to George Tenet testimony before a Joint Committee of Congress (June 18, 2002): “Atta allegedly traveled outside the US in early April 2001 to meet with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, we are still working to confirm or deny this allegation. It is possible that Atta traveled under an unknown alias since we have been unable to establish that Atta left the US or entered Europe in April 2001 under his true name or any known aliases.”
11) Subsequently, Spanish intelligence found evidence that Algerians Khaled Madani and Moussa Laouar provided false passports to Mohamed Atta and his associate Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

[SteveMG]

CreepyDude:
Miller's "sources" were Libby, Libby

What about Miller's stories in the nineties about Iraq and WMD issues? In fact, she co-authored a book on the topic (Germs) based, in part, on her reporting during that decade.

Seems to me that she had more sources for her stories on Iraqi WMD than Libby or the neocons.

Second, as you know, every major newspaper and new organization was also reporting similar stories on the Iraq WMD issue. Again, both during the Bush Administration and the Clinton W.H.

There were lots of sources, both in the US government and in foreign governments, that provided information on Saddam's arsenal.

And please, Jaydee, the NY Times-as-a-neocon newspaper is a real stretch. Even if Ms. Miller was Irving Kristol's long lost daughter, the paper does cover other issues where, it seems to me, a liberal perspective or worldview filters into their coverage.

SMG

[Marcel]

If Cheney had any proof whatsoever that Atta actually met an al-Queda leader in Prague, do you not think he would have revealed that by now? Either directly (uncharacteristic for him), or leaked through Libby or another staffer to a friendly journalist. That would put the matter to rest. Instead, we get circumstantial evidence (well summarized by Gary) and hints that "the proof exists, we just can't show it to you". Nobody posting here has seen the proof. The Senate Intelligence Committee hasn't seen the proof. There is no proof. It is no wonder that so few Americans trust Cheney.

[Marcel]

Even President Bush has avoided the Atta-Prague canard. That is strictly a Cheney/White House Iraq Group invention.

[SteveMG]

Marcel:
There is no proof. It is no wonder that so few Americans trust Cheney.

Dissuade me of this thought.

Had an equal amount and quality of intelligence locating Atta in Praque had instead indicated that Bush ignored dissenting opinions on, let's say, Iraq's chemical weapons, do you think the left would be so dismissive of it?

My point is that some, repeat some, folks on your side of the aisle seem to be awfully quick to believe sketchy reports alleging W.H. malfeasance but are equally quick to dismiss reports on Iraqi malfeasance.

It's a very disturbing dichotomy.

SMG

[Gary Maxwell]

http://www.slate.com/id/2091354/>slate article by hyperlink

[Gary Maxwell]

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/PragueApril2004.htm>Epstein update by hyperlink

[Marcel]

The last 2 linked articles are interesting. Surely the White House has more than this. What there is here hardly rises to the standard - on it own - of justifying the war.

[Syl]

SADDAM HUSSEIN: "If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you."

Saddam Hussein to envoy April Glaspie as reported by the New York Times International in 1990.

[Syl]

Marcel

Does American presence on Saudi soil rise to the standard of justifying war?

[sonicfrog]

Marcel said:
"The last 2 linked articles are interesting. Surely the White House has more than this. What there is here hardly rises to the standard - on it own - of justifying the war."

Exactly the point. It wasn't JUST the threat of WMD's. It wasn't just the continual flouting of UN resolutions. It wasn't just the fact that Saddam was a despot and a tyrant. It wasn't just Samlan Pak (misspell that and you have a TV dinner). It wasn't just the torture or the rape rooms. It was a combination of everything here, and more, that led us down the path to war.

[Rick Ballard]

"Does American presence on Saudi soil rise to the standard of justifying war?"

Well, if we're there anyway, why not? We might as well withdraw through Riyadh and Jeddah as Damascus.

[sonicfrog]

Funny, I misspelled Salman Pak and didn't end up with a TV dinner - that would be Salmon Pak:-)

[True American]

The WH is fighting back against the Lib's lies!!! ROVE IS BACK!!!! And he's pissed!!! Bring it on, Lib beyotches!!!

[Slick Rick]

The NY Times went all-in, the White House called and now the NY Times is going home a loser!!!!

(ok, i'm watching the 2005 World Series of Poker)

[Mescalero]

You can whine all you want about the so-called innocence of the NYT (aka the "ole grey hag") when it comes to reporting the news. The ole hag didn't get it right when reporting about the Ukrainian famine of the early 1930's. What makes you think they've got it right now? Why do the likes of Walter Duranty still occupy a place of honor at the ole hag's headquarters?

[Jimbo]

I'm not sure why it is such a surprise that the Bush administration is reluctant to present the Czech/Atta story as settled fact. There are many things in this world that are not definitively provable. Did OJ Simpson murder his wife and Ron Brown? Of course. Is it provable definitively absent new evidence? No.

Conservatives have been and continue to swim upstream in the media environment of the last 30 years. The strengths of their arguments are diminished or ignored, the weaknesses are blown out of proportion (sound familiar?).

So it is in this case. Were the Bush Administration to try to make this case without ironclad evidence they would be ridiculed in the MSM, making the attempt counter-productive. The ironclad evidence may simply not be available (guess what? CSI isn't a documentary). Making it public might compromise methods or assets. Perhaps in time new evidence will come to light, but the fact that this case is not being strongly advocated or defended isn't a surprise. Just look at the arguments being made now about Iraq. It's ridiculous on it's face to claim that Iraq did not pose a WMD threat before the war, and yet the amount of energy that that the Bush admin. has to expend to remake the case yet again is a joke.

[cathyf]

UPDATE: Well, welcome to the new blog in town - the White House has used its website to factcheck someone for the third day running.

Today's target is the NY Times editorial I took a shot at.

So, d'ya think there are some JOM fans in the White House?

HI!!!! (waves wildly!)

cathy :-)

[Sue]

Cathy,

LOL.

[Sue]

Not sure which thread it was on, but we were discussing what would need to be done to rejuvinate the electorate. Illegal immigration reform was mentioned several times. As an exclamation point on that thought, Dallas lost a police officer this week. Shot to death by an illegal immigrant. Who had been deported once before. Someone needs to shut that damn border down.

[Jim E.]

And just when the Plame news was drying up . . .

Tomorrow's Wash Post is a doozy!

[clarice]

Unless you think it impossible for someone else to have used Atta's cell phone in Fla while he was in Europe, the Atta in Prague story is unrebutted. Epstein is, in fact, the most accurate account of this.

[clarice]

Jim--What is the WaPo story? Inquiring minds....

[Geek, Esq.]

Jim--What is the WaPo story? Inquiring minds....

A senior administration official told Bob Woodward about Plame in mid-June 2003. Woodward didn't tell anyone at the paper until this month.

Apparently, the source remembered the conversation AFTER Libby's indictment and alerted Fitzgerald.

Woodward has spent a great deal of time pontification and punditizing on this subject. If you thought Russert's behavior was shady . . .

[clarice]

Well, Libby's lawyers plan to call a lot of reporters as witnesses and go into more of their notes than Fitz did..http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/16/politics/16libby.html?pagewanted=print

AAnd then there's the Dow Jones suit to get the materials Fitz filed in the Miller case.

And last but not least is the Wen Ho Lee case--

The only people making money in the newspaper business will be the lawyers--

[topsecretk9]

HI!!!! (waves wildly!)

Me too!

But, ... like....I am waiting for (and sorry to tip to it) the inevitable wahh wahh and rolls on the ground with outrage (ie tantrums) that the Admin is doing this. Predictably the dems will wet their pants that this is being done at tax payer dollars and a bunch of other stupid charges. Fill in blanks here_____________________

The Dems have made ANY comment by the Administration criminal. However, if say Clinton or a President Kerry did this it would be considered very globally modern and forward thinking, just brilliant.

They are like step-ford wives. Cynical me waits for the unoriginal drum beat.

[Jim E.]

Yeah, Woodward has been bashing the whole Plame thing from the get-go, and it turns out he is the first known reporter to hear about the story. He makes Russert look like a paragon of journalistic ethics in this episode. The Wash Post story -- but not Woodward's official statement -- says Woodward's original source was NOT Libby, and it quotes Rove's camp saying Rove was not the source.

Given that Woodward really has no peer in terms of connections, and given his history with this administration, I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to guess that Cheney might be his source.

[Rick Ballard]

WaPo Woodward Story

[Geek, Esq.]

What's puzzling is why the official would tell Fitzgerald about this now

Very strange. Very, very, very strange.

[Rick Ballard]

Jim E.,

I don't have Woodwards book but didn't he have long interviews with Powell and Tenet as well as Cheney?

Sounds like Pincus is a little edgy - wonder why?

[clarice]

Whoever it was alerted the SP about the conversation after which Woodward was contacted and testified before the grand jury..

Jim E--Woodward talks to lots of people, it's a leap to say Cheney.

[clarice]

Isn't the Pincus thing funny, Rick? He doesn't remember the conversation--Well, indict him..LOL

[Jim E.]

And to think folks 'round here thought this would be a "one day story." Doesn't look like Libby's indictment ended the investigation after all.

[clarice]

Maybe it was Casey--Woodward can communicate with the comatose, remember? How big a jump is it to communicate with the dead after that?

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

He was interrogated wasn't he? You know, making a false statement to investigators is a felony and - say, did he testify before the grand jury? Or was he covered by the WaPo's grand smoke screen? And if he was covered, does it mean that Fitz really got stung by the agreement?

Bring in the clowns.

[Jim E.]

Woodward talks to everybody. Obvously, I am only guessing about Cheney being his source. Still, I can't think of any reporter other than Woodward that would have access to Cheney. Doesn't mean that Cheney is his source, merely that it's not an unreasonable speculation.

In any case, Fitz knows who it is.

[Rick Ballard]

The WaPo has been having Milbank write Pincus' articles for a bit and now Woodward throws him under a train.

Could it be our boy done somethin' rash?

[DougJ]

This exonerates Libby. Fitz is a decent guy and I think he'll pack up and go home now. No shame there -- he had no way of knowing what a hoax this whole thing is.

Give 'em hell, T-Mag. This is a sad day for "this is treason" crowd.

[DougJ]

And don't be surprised if one of Woodward's sources turns out to be Richard Clarke.

[Chants]

Woodward's Statement

[Jim E.]

"This exonerates Libby."

Oh sure. Since Woodward had a conversation about Plame with someone else, that means Libby had the green light to commit perjury. Makes sense. Yep. Perfect sense. I see no flaw on your analysis.

[Geek, Esq.]

DougJ snags his first fish here.

[clarice]

Pincus didn't testify as I recall--he answered questions which he'd pre- agreed to.

IIRC he's about to be in the middle of the Wen Ho Lee case, too.

Woodward's notes say he had a meeting with Libby a few days before Miller's meeting with him. His notes indicate he was going to ask about Wilson/Plame but he doesn't think he did.
But maybe he did..and Maybe when Libby thought he'd first heard it from Miller, he was wrong--he heard it from Woodward..

What a crock this is --and Fitz made a fair investigation impossible by the limits imposed on reporters' testimony in the face of Libby's testimony that he believed he'd heard it first from reporters.

[clarice]

Rick, I agree with you on Pincus..Do you suppose they are pissed that he got them involved in this whole mess by an article that was entirely crap.

[DougJ]

Woodward's testimony proves conclusively that there was no underlying crime. End of story.

Now, why don't all you liberals go out and try to invent another scandal? I'm sure you can find something. Maybe Karl Rove walked out on check at Jack Abramoff's restaurant or something.

[Geek, Esq.]

I love snark.

[topsecretk9]

Well Wait

Sounds like Pincus is a little edgy - wonder why?

Yes, his obsessive compulsion on the story is a little sick, sad and I feel like I understood Cybils story better than Picus and Kristof. Staving off the inevitable Dan Ratherness with 2 entirely different approaches.

BUT, ...IFC Woodward went on record on CNN the night before the indictments as stating there was NO coordinated "Smear Campaign" and that while he was in the WH working on his book he saw none of this AND that he viewed most of this as a misunderstanding.

So unless he suddenly views what he forgot as a coordinated smear campaign (well Andrea is having memory revision!) then well I guess this is a net net. No?

[Geek, Esq.]

If this is so damn exculpatory for Scooter, why didn't this official talk about this while Scooter was still trying to avoid indictment?

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

I believe that there is a relationship between the NYT drawing a discreet veil over their uberlibs, the Trib pink slipping Scheer (LAT) and the rosy pink Pincus being but under custodial care. They all share a world view that is not drawing customers at the moment. Perhaps because it involves a vision dead lo these many years.

Perhaps his fabricated fantasy was the last straw. Maybe they are being kind as they usher him from the scene. I'm sure someone will miss him. I don't know why but I'm sure it's true.

I'm just hoping that an emanation will be found sleeping in the penumbra of the Sixth Amendment. This prosecution is approaching the land of the Red Queen.

[clarice]

I think it's interesting that he says his source did not consider the information classified..I don't either--nor does anyone who pays attention to Plame's history..I expect the source will also testify and if he says so and puts in reasons for that belief, Fitz may be in trouble--My theory all along has been that (a) She wasn't undercover(b) if the CIA said so , it was a lie or she was overclassified-(c)and Fitz made that representation in the Miller case (see p. 29 of Tatel's opinion).

[topsecretk9]

I love snark.

whoops, on first blush i thought this read SHARK and for once I agreed Geek.

[clarice]

Woodward's not naming his source, but he is the reporter who keeps saying the case is a joke--so I figure he knows his source had good reason for not believing Plame was an undercover agent.

Woodward has also said the informal survey taken by the agency showed no damage to national security by her being outed. And that, too (see Tatel) conflicts with Fitz's representations to the Court.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Woodward's testimony that he told Pincus and that he "doesn't recall' if he told Libby but he is sure that Libby did not tell him seems to leave a double trailer full of reasonable doubt in front of the jury concerning Libby's statement about where he heard it first. The June 16th date is interesting also. I'm going to have to read that damned poorly crafted indictment once more.

[topsecretk9]

Woodward also got slammed (like 2 weeks late?) in the village voice today...and LCJ reserved a whole blog post for a Woodward smear and Wilson himself went to after Woodward for saying what he said on CNN. My guess, Wilson is cry-babying to Picus about Woodward and Woodward was pressured by the obsessive Pincus...which makes me think...what happened to Wilson's suit against Vallely?

[clarice]

I think Pincus is in trouble. I think Woodward is hanging him out to dry. I think Milbanks baby sitting Pincus was just the beginning and this is the second shot.

Maybe the WaPo has picked up something about the Pincus-Wilson fandango they are not happy about or maybe they think he's hurt the paper's reputation and getting it into legal pickles by his sloppy partisanship..Can't tell what's behind this.

[clarice]

Think about it..There's no reason why Woodward had to mention his conversation with Pincus for this article, was there?

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

We can tell that Milbank is being rehabilitated after being fired from the WH beat. He hasn't been so obviously struck with BDS since then. Now, if someone would sit an elephant on Moran...

[clarice]

Heh..
I think all it would take with Moran is for McClellan to take him on the next time he gets way out of line again--He's as dumb as he is obnoxious..

The WaPo was more supportive of the war than the NYT was.This may be a recognition that Pincus et all are harming something they believe in.

OTOH it may be a business decision--the NYT is doing poorly and perhaps the WaPo thinks a more moderate position will allow it to take over as the national paper..

[topsecretk9]

I think Pincus is in trouble.

double ditto. Clarice...I only skimmed through, but when I read the Pincus part it did come to mind the Wilson dis of Woodward was BEFORE Woodward was on CNN.

Also, this took place yesterday, or in the last few days? One wonders if eventually now Vallely and Muffin might or should be called as well...and Simmons(?) too, no?

[clarice]

He testified on Monday according to the article.

I expect he told the GJ about his conversation with Pincus--Now I don't give a damn what agreement Pincus had with the SP, now that his own editor says something utterly at odds with wht Pincus obviously told the SP, he should be forced to testify about this.

And, yes, Valleley and Cliff May and everyone who has publicly said Wilson told them or it was common knowledge should be called..BUT,

If Woodward's source was in a position to know that Plame was not a covert agent,he should be called first..and if he has credible information that that is the case and Fitz has said otherwise to the Court in the Miller case and elsewise, he'd better correct the record and drop the case...I think Woodward's source and his beliefs add more than just another he said to the matter..

[Lesley]

I'm having a blank brain moment. Was Pincus interviewed by Fitzgerald?

[topsecretk9]

Lesley

Yes after 6 weeks of haggling over the questions here is a quick on that...Clarice had a recent link on further parameters on the questions here

[clarice]

My written deposition to pre-agreed upon questions as I recall.

Woodward didn't testify before the gj, but by deposition in a lawyer's office.

He says he learned Plame was "an analyst" and he didn't regard that as a covert position.He says he told Pincus before Pincus wrote his June 22 story.

[clarice]

By written deposition..sorry about the typo.

[topsecretk9]

By written deposition

HuH

you mean he didn't have to go to the GJ? Oh, well I my mind at least this is even more crazy, I know Fitz's job is to investigate WH officials, but of Pincus knew BEFORE he talked to them this should be of interest to Fitz too...tell me why he had the men in black go to the neighbors again??? someone???

[Lesley]

Thanks, Tops. I should have consulted Tom's Russian Novel timeline.

Pincus

[Danking70]

This story blows up in the face of Democrats/MSM or the Bush Administration.

And it all depends on who's telling the truth. Woodward of Pincus, that is.

I know where I'm placing my bet.

Karl Rove (evil super-duper secret genius)

[clarice]

Testimony taken by written deposition can be read to the GJ as if the witness were appearing in person.

Rick is right--Woodward testifying that he spoke to Libby on 6/23--the very same day Libby spoke to Miller remember--and he may have mentioned Wilson/Plame to Libby but Libby did NOT say anything to him about them--opens up a world of reasonable doubt for Libby..

[topsecretk9]

Woodward did not share the information with Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. until last month, and the only Post reporter whom Woodward said he remembers telling in the summer of 2003 does not recall the conversation taking place.

oh Pincus...who has amnesia now???

[clarice]

Pincus indicated in October of 2003:
[quote]Pincus wrote last October that on July 12, 2003, "an administration official" told a Post reporter that Wilson, a critic of the Bush administration's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of his wife, a CIA analyst looking into weapons of mass destruction, to investigate alleged efforts by Iraq to purchase uranium. Pincus later publicly revealed that he was the Post reporter. [/quote] but according to Woodward--he gave this information ot Pincus a month earlier than that--in mid-June..

[topsecretk9]

hahaha ha.

See. as per READ testimony....who has a better memory? And who has more credibility...the person WHO WENT before the GJ or the one (who is not on record recalling, but will be with defense lawyers ) whose testimony was READ!

[clarice]

I suppose Pincus repeated the July 12 disclosure to the SP..but not the mid-June conversation with Woodward which he denied occurred.

[topsecretk9]

Pincus has just become the defense dream witness...Pincus tried hard to limit his role and therefore the possibilty to be questioned (his Admin Source HE said told of a boondoggle and Pincus felt his source was not divulging classified---he tried to keep himself out of this)

Well no more. Pincus just became the first witness I suppose. Now tell us Mr. Pincus, did you know BEFORE you spoke to Admin? And how was that BBQ?

[clarice]

Yup.

Let's see Fitz invent himself out of that one--And out of the testimony of Woodward's source that Plame was an analyst and the information wasn't classified..and that Pincus never told anyone what he knew of Plame and her job..

[topsecretk9]

Downie said he could not explain why Woodward provided a tip about Wilson's wife to Walter Pincus, a Post reporter writing about the subject, but did not pursue the matter when the CIA leak investigation began. He said Woodward has often worked under ground rules while doing research for his books that prevent him from naming sources or even using the information they provide until much later.

Woodward's statement said he testified: "I told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source, that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst."

This would to me explain Pincus's call to Wilson...."they're coming after you"

NO wonder Pincus "does not recall THIS conversation" HAHAHA.

[JM Hanes]

Woodward.... Are we having fun yet or what!

[topsecretk9]

I forgot to say to the "they're coming after you" ...to the TOO involved invested paranoid Wilson cheerleader reporter, that is!

[clarice]

Do you recall, ts, when Pincus told that to Wilson? Was it about the time that Woodward says he told Pincus?

[topsecretk9]

He said/ she said? between reporters? where have I heard that before? they needed to take TM's ( parsing disguised as help) advice and answer to this nonsense and file for a Wilson DIVORCE long before (they were hesitant because the truth might F-up the indictments they wanted) but can you say..."big mouth" and "bite you in the ass" in the same sentence?

[topsecretk9]

Clarice,

We only have Wilson's word for that in his book, but he said (grain of salt time) sometime starting between the stranger bumping into Novak on the street (July 6th???) to Novaks article (july 14th)--- and it the way he told it --in other-words to me when I read it, I thought, GEE Joe, you have every single conversation pinned down except for this one Pincus call had this WIDW window.

[topsecretk9]

WIDE

[clarice]

Niters--thanks TS..

[topsecretk9]

In this interview in August 2005, this is what Wilson said about Woodward (well before Woodward on CNN)---alert Wilson over use of irony

WAAS: ...but also Bob Woodward has been on all -- a bunch of TV shows saying that there's no story here, that this is a lot of hype, and we're seeing an iceberg with a tip of -- some reporter is just seeing an iceberg because they see a tip of an iceberg, but there might not be anything beyond that. And so, the Post has been extraordinarily quiet over the last several months or the year and has only began to recently re-report the story because the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, even the American Prospect, have begun to aggressively report the story.

WILSON: (answering a Q from Goodman, following up on WAAS)

...Now with respect to the Post, you know, I -- Susan Schmidt's article was a terrible article. It was full of falsehoods. It quoted a partisan letter as being the authoritative committee resolutions. It took out of context something out of my book. In my book, I had said my wife had nothing to do with this, other than to serve as a conduit. She dropped that really important phrase and said that I had written that my wife had nothing to do with it. It was a real -- just a fundamentally bad article.

Now, with respect to Woodward, the great irony in all of this is that, of course, Woodward was hanging around the White House and dealing with the most senior officials of our government for several years while he was writing his two books, the second of which was Plan of Attack, and you know, I think the question for Woodward once all is said and done is, ‘you were sniffing around there. You were talking to all of these people on a daily basis. You were basically taking their dictation, and you didn't sniff out a story? You didn't sniff out a story that might actually be rather important.’

[topsecretk9]

May prove to be a question Wilson will wish he could retract, no?

[R FLANAGAN]

Prior to calling Russert , Libby had been told by 4 sources that Valerie was in the CIA. And had himself told Miller and Ari.
But he testified that , when calling Rus , he "forgot" about her CIA connection. That sounds like perjury to me . What am I missing ?

Elsewhere TM asks what motive W
had for lying about wny he went to war.

What motive might Libby have had for lying about what he knew about Valerie when he called Rus ? For example could he
have thought that would shield him from
prosecution under the IIPA ? And
can we think of reasons he might have thought he'd be better off
defending against perjury rather than violating the IIPA ?

[Kate]

Well, does this mean we have a perjurer at the WAPO.: Pincus or Woodward? Matthews must have been given a heads up by his pal Jim VandeiHei. He didn't look as gleeful when he said CIA Leak.

And the WAPO looks really unprofessional and unethical for having Wilson's friend Pincus cover this story for so long.

[p.lukasiak]

lets see now....

Three White House officials talk about Valerie Plame with Woodward well before Plame is outed by Novak.

None of these officials report this to Fitzgerald.

Suddenly, the guy who makes Sue Schmidt and Judy Miller look like virgins when it comes to being a whore for Bush White House "spin" remembers all these conversations in detail, and tells his editors. He also remembers telling another White House reporter -- a reporter who insists that particular conversation never happened.

BTW, the Libby indictment still stands. He specifically remembers being surprised by what he claims he was told by Russert.

oh, and for those who are speculating that its Cheney..... if, it is Cheney, and Cheney told Woodward that she worked as an "analyst", Cheney's goose is cooked, because Cheney knew she was covert (word in "operations")