Powered by TypePad

« What Is Happening At The WaPo? | Main | Libby's Team Replies On Disclosure »

April 10, 2006

Comments

clarice

OT: When I was a kid we had traditional seders which lasted so long that all the kids heads ended up in the wine cups before it was over.Slate has done a lot to put an end to all that--voila, the two minute haggadah and a well-deserved hurrah from a grateful people:http://www.slate.com/id/2139601/?nav=ais

clarice

danking, Comey left DoJ a while ago and is now working for Lockheed. His apparent never commemorated anywhere "intent" was not passed on to the two men who succeeded him in that post nor, apparently to the present AG or we'd have heard of it.

topsecretk9

Top drawer Jeff.

I know hearing it from us isn't exactly what you want to hear (right now), but we owe it to you.

Jason Leopold

Clarice!!!!! Say something crazy about me! I love when you do that. Puh-leez? Make up a lie about me. You so crazy, Clarice!

Jeff

Cecil - Gloat away, I earned it for you today.

Jason Leopold

Oh, Pat Sullivan! Another one of God's great creations! This is better than my high-school reunion! I am going to write another story about the investigation so I can wind you guys up again. I love it when you all get so angry and you try to find things about me that are bad. If you really want to find bad things about me, buy my book, NEWS JUNKIE, available for preorder on Amazon.

Shad

All I can say is, thank goodness Fitzpatrick corrected the error immediately, proving he's a stand-up guy who's not playing politics with this case.

I imagine a lazy or unscrupulous prosecutor might have left the error to fester in the public record for a week or so, allowing it to become the subject of a variety of negative news articles, editorials, talk shows, and blog reactions.

clarice

Jason--Cmon tell us your top flight sources..

MTT

Clarice,

"To dwell on it [The Magid] is considerer praiseworthy."

Just sayin'.

clarice

HEH1

MayBee

Funny.
Remember how Fitzgerald was saying much of what was in the public sphere was wrong? I guess he knew what he was talking about.

clarice

Very good, MayBee..

PeterUK

"Peter, I am saying that invasion worked equally to install communism after the war. The citizens were just worn down, they accepted defeat - for the most part - and got on with their lives. We don't seem to have quite that situation in Iraq, do we?"

Jake you are still completely and utterly wrong,
The war began in 1939,Operation Barbarossa,the German invasion of Russia commenced December the 18 1940,Germany and Japan declared war on the US in 1940,the D Day Invasion was not until June 6 1944.
The Red Army began the final assault on Berlin April 16 1945. The Allies did not enter Berlin until July 1 1945,Hitler was dead.

Now Germany would have fallen whether or not D Day had ever taken place,the difference being it would have been the Red Army occupying the French Channel ports not the Germans.
I am sorry but just any old shit will not do,read the history.

topsecretk9

MayBee

Did he say that, or Libby's attorneys...or did Fitz say it once?

Shad

s/patrick/gerald in my 05:54 PM comment.

PeterUK

"Jason"
"If you really want to find bad things about me, buy my book, NEWS JUNKIE, available for preorder on Amazon."

Nah,we'll wait until it gets remaindered,or read a copy at the dentists.

Val

Jason- are you coming over for dinner tonight? Cause if you are, I need to get Joe to run to the store to get more cigs and bourbon. Right now he's cleaning my glock, then he's gotta mend those jammies the freakin' Time photographer ripped with his tripod. He should have the house clean enough for company by 7:00.

MayBee

MayBee

Did he say that, or Libby's attorneys...or did Fitz say it once?

Am I wrong about who said it? If I am, I'm not going to retract it with grace like Jeff. I'm going to go down kicking and screaming.

Jake - but not the one

Peter, are you intentionally missing my point?

Probably. :)

Russians or Brits and Americans - the populace put the best face on it and got back to their lives. Iraqis are not.

Not that most of them don't want to do just that, but, see, there's this little security problem.

Peter, argue with me all you can stomache. In the meantime, Fukuyama, Buckley, Will - and who knows how many more - are waking up to reality and saying the things I quote. I may never quote another liberal again - the pundits on the right are sayin' it for me.

It's always the same with you true believers, isn't it Peter? These guys I'm quotin', they're your goto guys - until they ain't.

Jake

Spiker555

A good book about the Balkans is written by Robert Kaplan, "Balkan Ghosts : A Journey Through History " and another by Rebecca West, "Black Lamb and the Grey Falcon".

And in spite of a few things that many people do not like about John Lofton, here's something showing a connection between Muslin Brotherhood and the Nazis:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=15344

Joe Wilson

Val,you picking up journalists again?

topsecretk9

Maybee

It really makes no never mind, it something he should know...that's why it isn't such a good idea for his phatom supervisor to use to keep tabs.

Festus

Shad: I dream of an unscroupoulous prosecuter goi'n to the hoosgow. If I'd done that when I was at the bar, I would-a caught hell. Festus

Shad

Jake: It's not the leaning tower of Pizza.

JM Hanes

Jake

"I can't say it more strongly - you can't plant democracy from outside by invading and occupying a country."

You can shout it from the roof tops, but it will still be an assertion without any clothes. What pathway to democracy was ever sure in advance of its achievement? How many similar, yet failed, attempts to impose it can you cite?

Since you defer to Buckley & Fukuyama elsewhere, I'll assume you realize that the left has zero credibility when it comes to declaring failure and defeat -- which commenced with quagmire #1 a couple of weeks into Afghanistan, I believe. Citing the two of them now in the expectation that their recent statements would, or should, be accorded special weight, simply suggests a seriously limited engagement with the thoughtful right. Perhaps your canonical refusal to read certain authors is implicated!

If Buckley had changed his mind about the war, he might have garnered more attention on the right than he did on the left (whose circumstances & arguments only seem more sadly reduced as a result). Since he was never in the neo-con camp to begin with, the fact that he's still not in the neo-con camp is hardly earth shattering news. He's always worth a headline, but the fact that Buckley thinks like Buckley is a one day story.

Fukuyama is more problematic, but the problem is logical not political. If you're to believe he's had a change of heart, you must simultaneously disbelieve his newly launched assertions about his former misgivings. In my personal opinion, this sort of logical leap seems to come more easily to those on the left than those one the right -- which is why I prefer discussions on this side of the blogosphere even though my position on a host of issues, and my voting record, would make most true conservatives blanche.

PeterUK

Jake,
Using the "missing your point" again,your analogy is egregiously wrong,you are trying to compare apples and oranges re invasions.

BTW Take Fukayama,he was wrong about the End of History,pretty damning for a historian.

And don't come the true believer crap with me,I don't know who progams your head,but appart from your whinging Uriah Heap prose,you read like every other lefty troll I have read.
For once lets have an original idea,no "Run Away" is not new.

topsecretk9

So

Has anyone perused Joe Wilson's cable transcripts from last night to see all the proclamations on this subject? Now that will be fun.

Rick Ballard

"would make most true conservatives blanche"

After reading your comments, I've wondered why I felt the desire to depend upon the kindness of strangers. Now the answer is clear.

topsecretk9

FYI

WAPO already has a story up (A-08)

danking70

That was awfully quick of them Top. Wished they would have mentioned the overblown commentary Fitz's original filing caused.

clarice

Fast. And they placed it in a fairly prominent place...Just saying...

danking70

Poor TM. Stuck in 56K-land and missing all the latest fun...

topsecretk9

Dank, yeah...and the "story/correction" was awfully quick and um super smallish...don't you think?

But here is Keith Olberman's very, very tempered and objective BS

Yet the claim still made it into the State of the Union address and into Scooter Libby‘s arsenal. And then, according to the testimony of the former “New York Times” reporter Judith Miller, Mr. Libby exaggerated, if not outright lied, about the importance of the Niger connection in the NIE, telling her it was a key judgment of the document and that Iraq was, quote, “vigorously trying to procure uranium.

In fact, the claim was not a judgment at all, and the NIE contained nothing about Iraq vigorously pursuing uranium.

Also tonight, we know on which donkey special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is intent on pinning this tail. In his court filings, Mr. Fitzgerald says the idea of a campaign to discredit Ambassador Wilson was first floated by Vice President Dick Cheney, that Cheney specifically directed his chief of staff, Mr. Libby, to share information about the NIE uranium claim and Ambassador Wilson‘s trip to Niger, and that it was Mr. Cheney who was the first to insinuate that said trip had been set up by the ambassador‘s wife, the undercover CIA agent, at the time, anyway, Valerie Plame.

As promised, joining us now, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.”

Fitz wants a donkey?

here is the LINK

Barf-o-alert

WILSON: Well, of course, over the weekend, there was a lot of reporting that fleshed out the assessment of the total document, the National Intelligence Estimate. I had known for a long time, since the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report came out, that the Senate was informed in October of 2002, and the White House shortly thereafter, that, in the judgment of the CIA and the intelligence community, the British had stretched and/or exaggerated the case of uranium sales from Africa to Iraq.

The national intelligence officer wrote a piece in the middle of January, again, before the State of the Union address, in which he said, as you pointed out, the charge was baseless.

And all—the president, I think, is laudable in wanting this information to have come out. I would have loved to have had it come out after my opinion piece appeared, because it would, of course, have substantiated what I said in that opinion piece.

Instead, Mr. Libby leaked certain portions of it, which were not sustainable by all the facts. And my wife and I have had to endure a three-year smear campaign, orchestrated, as the filing says, by multiple sources in the White House and elements within the RNC and the right-wing echo chamber...

...Instead, Mr. Libby leaked certain portions of it, which were not sustainable by all the facts. And my wife and I have had to endure a three-year smear campaign, orchestrated, as the filing says, by multiple sources in the White House and elements within the RNC and the right-wing echo chamber.

Read the whole thing...

topsecretk9

sorry for the dupe

maryrose

Will, Buckley and Fukayama have gone "WOBBLY" Keep the faith Jake!

danking70

I wonder how Libby's lawyers will use this latest example of the press reporting on this story as flat-out wrong?

Will this make Judge Walton more apt to rule in Libby's favor re: discovery?

topsecretk9

Can someone tell me if Wilson just stepped in it when he says:

WILSON: No. Mr. Al-Zahawi, Wisam al-Zahawi, who is a man that I know from my time as the acting ambassador in Baghdad during the first Gulf War, in the first Bush administration. He was ambassador to the Vatican, and he made a trip in 1999 to several West and Central African countries for the express purpose of inviting chiefs of state to violate the ban on travel to Iraq.

or the bit about the National Intel Officer?

I'd like to know how Wilson knows for a fact the "express purpose" of Zahawi.

MayBee

Olbermann:In fact, the claim was not a judgment at all, and the NIE contained nothing about Iraq vigorously pursuing uranium.

This is not a fact at all, Keith.

From the NIE:
Iraq has about 500 metric tons of yellowcake and low enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by the IAEA.Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons.
---
The words 'in fact' are becoming like the word 'literally'. Used only to draw attention to what you are saying, not to point out a fact, or something literal.

Thomas Esmond Knox

Clarice, thank you for answering my previous question. Here is another. Could the present Supreme Court be persuaded that Joe Wilson is a "political partisan"? "Political fanatic", maybe no, maybe yes. "Political partisan" seems reasonable given his recent statements. Agree?

topsecretk9

Dank

Will this make Judge Walton more apt to rule in Libby's favor re: discovery?

You have a point, I mean the Judge might just consider Libby can interpret it a bit better than Fitz can, after this.

I said many, many threads ago (at least I think I did, thought it --MJW and then Cecil said it best *right* before -- you rock MJW and Cecil) that I 1- I thought this filing strayed beyond the guidelines that Fitz is self-supervising and 2- In no way would impress the Judge whether or not the merits, particularly after his bits about everything you need to know is in the "public record"

Judge knows this was 1- taken and run in circles in the public record and 2- unnecessary to boot

Rick Ballard

DanKing70,

Who can know? We have reached the point

"When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead,
And the White Knight is talking backwards"

I still maintain that this was a polemic badly disguised as legal argument. If at oral argument, Judge Walton looks at Fitz and says 'Feed your head', I will be remarkably unsurprised.

We're through the looking glass.

It seems a small error doesn't it? It's really not.

topsecretk9

I think JMH made the point too. And really, I am just doing a blanket here...you know who you are.

MayBee

for the express purpose of inviting chiefs of state to violate the ban on travel to Iraq.

To:African Uranium Producing Companies
From:Wisam al-Zahawi
Re: Iraq "Time Share" Special offer

Here is your chance to visit Iraq by owning your share of the country.
You will be able to stay in Palaces, see the ancient gardens of Babylon, enjoy the cuisine, take a night cruise on the mighty Tigris.

Please remember to pick up your oil vouchers on the way out, and feel free to leave your personal business card in the bowl***, we're having a lucky drawing!!


***contest entrants may be contacted at home for special offers regarding trade.

topsecretk9

It seems a small error doesn't it? It's really not.

No you said this earlier. Think Frank Cowles.


MayBee

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT! perhaps, this is the person whose home chilled to freezing that Wilson attended dinner --( the guy who bought French arms 9in Vanity Fair) or how he know his "expressed purpose"

clarice

You're on a roll tonight, Mabe.
**********
Could the present Supreme Court be persuaded that Joe Wilson is a "political partisan"? "Political fanatic", maybe no, maybe yes. "Political partisan" seems reasonable given his recent statements. Agree? . The SCOTUS rarely is charged with making factual determinations. It is a court which reviews the legal determinations made by that court and its factual findings, but as to the latter, it is bound to give considerable weight to the factual findings of the trial court as a genera rule.

JM Hanes

tops

You are soooo fast tops! Does this article look like a command performance to anyone else? I note that it does not carry a byline, but at the end of the piece, we find Dafna Linzer signing off. She's one of the two Post reporters responsible for the egregious story that Tom pointed out in Loosening Noose II, and which Wilson crowed about over at KosCo.

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall over at the Post when the Fitz disclaimer came in. I'm sure that WaPo's editors were aware, or were certainly made aware, of the disconnect between editorial & news here, at a moment when the paper itself is negotiating a thorny path. Maybe when Tom gets back to civilization he can query Jay Rosen about the politics of what is floated as a story about a Prosecutor correcting the legal record, without any reference to one of the Post's own stories which surely played a noteworthy part in eliciting that correction.

Not only are there no quotes from the Post's original article, Linzer chooses not to quote the single (short!) crystal clear paragraph from Fitzgerald in favor of chopping it into pieces which are distributed into multiple paraphrasing paragraphs. Is this a way of bulking up to story length in order to finesse the explicit retraction ("Fitzgerald fingered Cheney" among other whoppers!) really called for here?

MayBee

Poor TM. Stuck in 56K-land and missing all the latest fun..

I want TM to come back and do his ISP thing to see if that was really Jason Leopold, or at least if it could be.

PeterUK

Joe should never have mentioned;-
"Zahawie's name and IAEA connection were never mentioned by ElBaradei in his report to the United Nations, and his past career has never surfaced in print. Looking up the press of the time causes one's jaw to slump in sheer astonishment. Here, typically, is a Time magazine "exclusive" about Zahawie, written by Hassan Fattah on Oct. 1, 2003:

The veteran diplomat has spent the eight months since President Bush's speech trying to set the record straight and clear his name. In a rare interview with Time, al-Zahawie outlined how forgery and circumstantial evidence was used to talk up Iraq's nuclear weapons threat, and leave him holding the smoking gun.

A few paragraphs later appear, the wonderful and unchallenged words from Zahawie: "Frankly, I didn't know that Niger produced uranium at all." Well, sorry for the inconvenience of the questions, then, my old IAEA and NPT "veteran" (whose nuclear qualifications go unmentioned in the Time article).

Zawhawie was up to his neck in nuclear.

clarice

Macranger has some interesting theories about this and Wilson's first trip which I have never written up because he might be right but there's nothing much in the public record to hang it on..That Zawahawie was being so disingenuous as to hide his background might be an indicia that the British report is correct.
Knox, escuse me (terrible sinus headache)Let me correct this typo"It is a court which reviews the legal determinations made by that[the lower, trial] court

hcowagain

Zawhawie was up to his neck in nuclear.

Posted by: PeterUK | April 11, 2006 at 07:51 PM

Sorry, knocked down.
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/

But don't worry ... will uncover those WMD any minute now.

Rick Ballard

BS Brahma,

Larry Johnson? Sure. Right, Larry is a paragon of truth - why didn't you cite Leopold & Waas to boot?

PeterUK

Zawhawie worked for the IAEA,how nuclear can you get.
You still don't get it do you HolyCow? Saddam Hussein was required to show that he had forsworn all nuclear ambitions.Sending officials to Niger,a country whose main industry is the production of uranium ore, is a bit like you hanging out with your dealer whilst you are on probation.

hcowagain

Waas is the new Woodward, baby. I reserve him for special occasions.

MJW

I hope the correction by Fitzgerald doesn't affect the time at which Libby's attorneys file their response -- which, if I recall correctly, is currently scheduled for tomorrow. I think Libby's team would have good cause to ask for an extension, but I looking forward to having some new legal stuff to read and discuss.

clarice

No wonder my head is splitting.

MayBee

Larry-
I might be blind today, but where is the Zawhawie stuff mentioned on your blog?

hcowagain

Peter, the WH disagrees with you.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s897935.htm

Don't question our leader, buddy.

boris

Back grazing on the loco weed again.

clarice

Which response it that MJW?

MJW

PeterUK, about Leopold's book: Nah,we'll wait until it gets remaindered,or read a copy at the dentists.
The dentist's office is a good suggestion. I'm sure the tooth-drilling will be pleasant by comparison.

MJW

Clarice, I believe (am I wrong?) that Libby is supposed to file a response to Fitzgerald's response to the motion to compel discovery.

topsecretk9

MJW

I think you are right, something is April 12.

topsecretk9

Maybe when Tom gets back to civilization he can query Jay Rosen about the politics of what is floated as a story about a Prosecutor correcting the legal record, without any reference to one of the Post's own stories which surely played a noteworthy part in eliciting that correction.

Objectivity is, of course, his thing.

topsecretk9

In fact JMHanes

I'm certain he's mediating in favor of righty blogs, a WAPO blog comment jihad, this very moment. ::sarcasm off::

Didn't you note the oddity of "Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer", as possible new hires?

clarice

Thanks, MJW.That should be something1 IMO Fitz left a number of doors wide open for the defense to walk thru in that pleading..

PeterUK

HolyCow,Are you saying that Zawhawie was not the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency—Iraq's senior public envoy for nuclear matters?
Are you saying Joe Wilson is lying when he said the same Zawhawie made a trip to Niger?
Niger the oddly popular location for senior Ba'athist officials,Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information went there.
The only other alternative I can come up with is,they have a weakness for a pretty goat,or they are mainlining chickpeas.This is something I'm sure you are familiar with.

clarice

Thank you MJW.

MayBee

Dafna Linzer wrote this one:
Iran's Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb
Washingtonpost.com, August 2, 2005 by Dafna Linzer

Byline: Dafna Linzer

A recent U.S. intelligence report, the National Intelligence Estimate, puts Iran about ten years away from having a key component needed for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. This estimate doubles the previous timetable of approximately five years, and broadens options for assessing Iran's motives and pursuing diplomatic avenues.
---

JM Hanes

Tops -- Close. I suggested that they weren't the WaPo's Plamegate regulars. The article seemed so over the top compared to their usual, steadier, fare. It's certainly turned out to be an embarassment, hasn't it? The name "Barton Gellman" strikes a familiar chord, but then the older you get, the more often that happens. Just haven't been able to work up the enthusiasm to google either one of 'em yet.

Rick -- on kind strangers -- and to think somebody in here was claiming a shortage of humor! Maybe it's just too hard to recognize sans smut. OTOH, Blanche et al didn't exactly come smut free....

PeterUK

HolyCow,
Are you saying that al Zawhawie was not he Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency—Iraq's senior public envoy for nuclear matters, in effect—was a man named Wissam al-Zahawie. After the Kuwait war in 1991, when Rolf Ekeus arrived in Baghdad to begin the inspection and disarmament work of UNSCOM, he was greeted by Zahawie, who told him in a bitter manner that "now that you have come to take away our assets,"
Are you also saying that a number of Iraqi functioaries visted Niger a uranmiun producing country,as well as al Zawhawie, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information.Perhaps they had a keen eye for a pretty goat,or even mainlining chick peas.You would understand woud you not?

topsecretk9

Sweet huh? Maybee

There's that NIE everyone knows and loves. Sheesh.

hcowagain

Oh dear ....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html

MayBee

OK,I found this fascinating (perhaps I'm easily fascinated) chat with Ms. Linzer:

Wheaton, Md.: Had it not been for the heroic actions of our Israeli allies, Iraq would today be a nuclear power. Should we expect the same from Israel if Iran's nuclear threat becomes more likely?

Dafna Linzer: On the eve of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, conventional wisdom in Washington was that Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear plant rolled back a weapons program by many years and made the world safer. But since the invasion and the US investigation into Iraq's real programs, that belief has changed. Some inside the intelligence community now believe that Iraq wasn't trying to build nuclear weapons at that time but that they decided to do so only after Israel's attack.

JM Hanes

MayBee

Fascinating. So Dafna Linzer works the WMD beat, eh? You don't suppose she's got any analyst buddies over at the C.I.A., do you?

Thomas Esmond Knox

Clarice, could the courts find that Valerie Plame's actions were political acts?

clarice

Here's an earlier Barton Gellman special:
"A Leak, Then a Deluge
Did a Bush loyalist, trying to protect the case for war in Iraq, obstruct an investigation into who blew the cover of a covert CIA operative?

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page A01

Air Force Two arrived in Norfolk on Saturday morning, July 12, 2003, with Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff aboard. They had come "to send forth a great American ship bearing a great American name," as Cheney said from the flag-draped flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan.(snip)Wilson was a former ambassador who traveled to Niger in February 2002 after Cheney requested elaboration on a Defense Department report -- based on erroneous information originating from the Italian security service -- that Iraq had an agreement to buy processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." Upon his return, Wilson reported to CIA and State Department analysts that he had found no support for the allegation and had reasons to believe it was untrue. When the Bush administration nonetheless launched a public relations campaign that highlighted the uranium report -- most prominently in the president's State of the Union speech on Jan. 28, 2003 -- Wilson began raising questions among friends in government. In March, when the International Atomic Energy Agency exposed the documents as forged, a fact Wilson had not discovered, he began telling journalists in not-for-quotation interviews that the White House propounded a deliberate lie.

Wilson pressed himself fully into the spotlight in the late spring and early summer, a vulnerable moment for the president. The occupation of Iraq had turned unpredictably perilous, with casualties rising in an as-yet-unacknowledged insurgency and strong signs emerging that search teams were at a loss to discover evidence of "weapons of mass destruction."

The uranium claims had never been significant to career analysts -- Iraq had plenty already and lacked the means to enrich it. But the allegations proved irresistible to the White House Iraq Group, which devised the war's communications strategy and included Libby among its members. Every layman understood the connection between uranium and the bomb, participants in the group said in interviews at the time, and it was the easiest way for the Bush administration to raise alarms."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/29/AR2005102901478.html

clarice

TEK; I'm not sure how that issue would arise in the context of this case. To allow Libby to argue that he had no motive to lie and that he was, in fact, replying to lies he might draw well draw Wilson and his lies into the matter. Unless, something more clear about her role comes up, I don't see how it would arise.

clarice

TEK; I'm not sure how that issue would arise in the context of this case. To allow Libby to argue that he had no motive to lie and that he was, in fact, replying to lies he might draw well draw Wilson and his lies into the matter. Unless, something more clear about her role comes up, I don't see how it would arise.

topsecretk9

JMH
Funny you should say

A Leak, Then a Deluge

Did a Bush loyalist, trying to protect the case for war in Iraq, obstruct an investigation into who blew the cover of a covert CIA operative?
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page A01

Barton Gellman: A reporter for the Washington Post, he covered from the beginning and, more recently, wrote several in-depth articles on Scott Ritter and UNSCOMS involvement with western intelligence agencies.

Google Scott Ritter and "stake through the heart"

topsecretk9

I mucked that one up

Fixed, Barton interview on Ritter.


Colicky How aka Larry

If it is you...would you ask yoursource what he was talking about? And who picked up the tab?

hcowagain

Do you want a political act? Page one, WP tomorrow ....

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

U.S. officials asserted that Iraq had biological weapons factories in trailers, even after a Pentagon mission found them unsuited for that role.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

....

The technical team was assembled in Kuwait and then flown to Baghdad to begin their work early on May 25, 2003. By that date, the two trailers had been moved to a military base on the grounds of one of deposed president Saddam Hussein's Baghdad palaces. When members of the technical team arrived, they found the trailers parked in an open lot, covered with camouflage netting. ...


By the end of their first day, team members still had differing views about what the trailers were. But they agreed about what the trailers were not.

"Within the first four hours," said one team member, who like the others spoke on the condition he not be named, "it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs."

News of the team's early impressions leaped across the Atlantic well ahead of the technical report. Over the next two days, a stream of anxious e-mails and phone calls from Washington pressed for details and clarifications.

The reason for the nervousness was soon obvious: In Washington, a CIA analyst had written a draft white paper on the trailers, an official assessment that would also reflect the views of the DIA. The white paper described the trailers as "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program." It also explicitly rejected an explanation by Iraqi officials, described in a New York Times article a few days earlier, that the trailers might be mobile units for producing hydrogen.

But the technical team's preliminary report, written in a tent in Baghdad and approved by each team member, reached a conclusion opposite from that of the white paper.

....

After team members returned to Washington, they began work on a final report. At several points, members were questioned about revising their conclusions, according to sources knowledgeable about the conversations. The questioners generally wanted to know the same thing: Could the report's conclusions be softened, to leave open a possibility that the trailers might have been intended for weapons?

In the end, the final report -- 19 pages plus a 103-page appendix -- remained unequivocal in declaring the trailers unsuitable for weapons production.

"It was very assertive," said one weapons expert familiar with the report's contents.

Then, their mission completed, the team members returned to their jobs and watched as their work appeared to vanish.

"I went home and fully expected that our findings would be publicly stated," one member recalled. "It never happened. And I just had to live with it."


MayBee

Oh dear.
I had assumed Jason was a joke post, like Joe and Val, but I wandered over to Right Wing Nuthouse. What a creep! What an absolute pig.

topsecretk9

Well Nathan Goulding is going to have some...anyways he (and Seixon) nailed David Shuster--on what else? Keith Olberman immediately after Wilson, SHOCK (see the trany) pretty good here and here


Holy Bovine x 2

Linky? Helps.

JM Hanes

tops & Clarice

My favorite part of the Gellman article is the little correction box at the top -- it appears he was none too swift when it came to kicking dates and taking names.

Note to humor challenged drop-ins: after midnight the snark is just for fun.

clarice

Well, lots of people confuse Eric Edelman, with John Hannah. *teasing*..TS--they did nail Schuster, didn't they?

I do so hope DoJ isn't getting its info from the press as Libby said they ought to.

topsecretk9

Oops, Maureen didn't hit the delete button...lucky for her though!

It's under Time">http://select.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/opinion/12dowd.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=3c931156Q2FQ27UMFQ27o65Q3AQ3AoQ27Q2FSSgQ27S1Q27cQ2FQ27Q3Am3u3Q3AuQ27cQ2F9Q3AU9r7oaX">Time Select protection!

clarice

Unbelievable--and Fitz only had to leave it standing for a week to reap the whirlwind..

topsecretk9

"Wag that Red Head"

Thomas Esmond Knox

Clarice, when does the public's right to know trump Plame's right to privacy? If I revisit Niccolo's tomb in San Croce I will commence by saying "Let me tell you a story..." I expect to get a few chuckles out of the old fellow, or perhaps echoes. Plame and Wilson concocted a good plan between them. So far it's working; but Wilson has a big mouth.

Joe said it was on their third date that Valerie told him of her top-secret status.

clarice

I don't deny that she may be intricately involved in this black op.It's just that at the moment all we know is that she played a role in his being selected for the Mission and seems to have been by his side for the first media salvo--the interviw with Kristof.

larwyn

Clarice,
What is up with Rick Moran and Leopold post. I read yesterday's AT post. Is he just really his brother's brother.

Any explanation?

clarice

No. He's a great guy and a good writer. I think he got snookered.
*******************************
Here's more from the captured secret docs:
"
In pages 63 and 64 of document Document CMPC-2003-002284 , there is secret and confidential memo dated September 16 1998 concerning a meeting of the National Monitoring Department to discuss how to destroy some “non necessary documents” and keep the necessary one in a safe place according to the memo but the most important part of the memo is a pareagraph on how to handle “The Researches That Cannot Be Declared and that is related with the previous Prohibited Programs of WMD and how to make sure that information about these researches will not leak to the outside because it will be too dangerous if this happened”. Yet another document that proves without any doubt that Saddam Regime never stopped working in his WMD programs and Research and they were just waiting for the opportune moment to produce these WMD again on a large scale. Also remember that in September 1998 the UN inspectors were still in Iraq and they were kicked later on that year after some US air and missile strikes. So most definitely these Secret Research Programs related to WMD were still in existence and may have reached a more advanced stage from late 1998 to late 2002 where during this period of time there were no UN inspectors in Iraq. This document is another proof that we could have never trusted Saddam and that we had all the right to remove his brutal and terrorist regime after 9/11/2001.

Partial translations of Pages 63 and 64.(more)"http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1613509/posts

clarice

We need to be on red alert tomorrow for Libby's response. Here's the Motion to compel if you want to do your homework.http://www.scooterlibby.com/news/Read.aspx?ID=98

MayBee

clarice- thanks for that. Astounding. In the end, for me, it does always come down to the idea that we could never have trusted Saddam.

larwyn- Rick Moran updated today.

topsecretk9

Smearing Joe Wilson's critics

Some old canards just never die. New information from special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation about whether former CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity was leaked by the White House as part of a campaign to "discredit" her husband has spurred new efforts to depict him as an innocent victim targeted by a Bush administration smear campaign for telling the truth. Joseph Wilson, a retired Foreign Service officer, was dispatched to Iraq in February 2002 by the CIA, at his wife's suggestion, to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase "yellowcake" uranium from Niger. In July 2003, Mr. Wilson accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence in order to make a case for war with Iraq. He claimed that his investigation 17 months earlier should have debunked the notion that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. But the case against the White House, as represented by some in the mainstream media, is based on sloppy, tendentious reporting. On Monday night's "Hardball" program on MSNBC, reporter David Shuster asserted that "much" of what Scooter Libby told New York Times reporter Judith Miller about the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate report on Iraq in an effort to rebut Mr. Wilson was untrue. But Nathan Goulding, who blogs on National Review Online, found three significant facts that Mr. Shuster appears to have missed in whole or in part: Perhaps the most egregious was when Mr. Shuster asserted that language stating that Iraq was "vigorously trying" to procure uranium did not appear in the National Intelligence Estimate report at all. Mr. Golding found the phrase on page 24 of the document. The truth is that the assertions of Mr. Wilson and his partisans that Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Niger are a Bush administration fantasy do not stand up to serious scrutiny. Writing in Slate magazine on Monday, Christopher Hitchens describes a February 1999 official visit to Niger -- a desperately poor country "known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore"-- by Wissam al-Zahawie, Saddam's ambassador to the Vatican and longtime senior public envoy for nuclear matters. Noting that Iraq had acquired uranium from Niger in 1981, Mr. Hitchens comes to a commonsense conclusion about Mr. Wilson's critique of the Bush administration: "In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious." Given the extensive record of Iraqi cheating and deception prior to the war, the Bush administration would have been derelict in its duty if it had given Iraq the benefit of the doubt as to the purpose of al-Zahawies's visit to Niger. But the fact is that Mr. Wilson has little credibility left, as his charges against the Bush administration were eviscerated by the Senate Intelligence Committee in its July 2004 report on prewar intelligence. Here's the way Susan Schmidt of The Washington Post (in a story buried on page A9) described the report on July 10, 2004: "Wilson's assertions -- both about what he did in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report. The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts." In the same story, Miss Schmidt added that Mr. Wilson "provided misleading information" to her newspaper claiming that certain documents had been forged. Both Miss Schmidt, and even more so NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell, have been harshly attacked by the Huffington Post and other liberal blogs, for challenging parts of Mr. Wilson's version of reality. It is no exaggeration to say that Miss Mitchell -- often described using unprintable epithets -- has become a hate figure with some of the left-wing bloggers for daring to question Joseph Wilson's story.

Shoot, since it's tangentially about JOM'ers I pasted the whole thing...it's a romp.

Bush's 'leaks'

Political season has arrivedIs the president within his right to allow reporters privileged information about his own foreign policy in order for them to understand it better? It will be a difficult case to make that he is not, which is why the president's Democratic critics have to put the worst possible spin on the latest round of Scooter Libby revelations in order to hit the headlines at all. Once again, the slenderest of scandalous threads is becoming a distraction from real issues and political fodder for the media to take up the front pages in the run-up to the November election. In spite of the findings of Special Council Patrick J. Fitzgerald that President Bush had nothing to do with the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's
topsecretk9

I'm out of commission tomorrow so I'm OT now

Stephen Spruiell goes off:

"...An embarrassing move this afternoon from CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald...

Even if Fitzgerald had never corrected the record, the reporting was wrong. The key judgments section of the NIE may not have included the specific words, "vigorously trying to procure uranium," but they did include the sentence, "Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them," and as Bob Somerby has pointed out, if "sufficient material" means "uranium," then one of the key judgments was that Saddam was hellbent to get his hands on some.

But now that Fitzgerald has gone and made it official, let's see some corrections. The Washington Post can start with this article. The New York Times can do this one. And Knight Ridder can start with this story, which might as well have Joseph Wilson as a co-byline....

and that's not all.

topsecretk9

From the media aspect, I think they left out Judy here, but..

Both Miss Schmidt, and even more so NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell, have been harshly attacked by the Huffington Post and other liberal blogs, for challenging parts of Mr. Wilson's version of reality. It is no exaggeration to say that Miss Mitchell -- often described using unprintable epithets -- has become a hate figure with some of the left-wing bloggers for daring to question Joseph Wilson's story.

those champions of chilly wind free speech!

clarice

NY Sun is at the atarting gate for tomorrow's filing:
"The special prosecutor is trying, in other words, to have it both ways. When it suits his interests to pump up his importance and explain why he'd prosecute a White House official or throw a journalist in jail, he cites national security and Valerie Wilson. When the prosecutor wants to limit Mr. Libby's access to the documents he needs to defend himself, Mr. Fitzgerald all of a sudden magically turns the matter into a run-of-the-mill perjury case.

The prosecutor also contradicts himself on whether the case relates to the war. "This indictment is not about the war," the prosecutor said in his press conference on October 28. What a contrast with the court papers filed by Mr. Fitzgerald on Wednesday, which claim, "The evidence will show that the July 6, 2003, Op Ed by Mr. Wilson was viewed in the Office of Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq. Defendant undertook vigorous efforts to rebut this attack during the week following July 7, 2003."

Why this - vigorously defending the president on the rationale for the war - should be a crime is good question in itself and says much about how far Mr. Fitzgerald has traveled down the road of criminalizing policy differences. Just as strange is Mr. Fitzgerald's claim that "neither the OVP, the White House Office, the NSC, nor the State Department are aligned with the prosecution, and documents in the physical possession of those entities are not within the government's possession, custody or control." Here is underscored the unconstitutional flaw with the office of the special prosecutor.

Mr. Fitzgerald declares himself "the government" and claims he is not aligned with the White House, so much so that he claims that documents held by the State Department and the White House "are not within the government's possession." Here the illogic of the special prosecutor is laid bare. While Democrats are complaining that Mr. Bush is arrogating power to himself by declassifying information, the person declaring himself the state is Mr. Fitzgerald. He is proceeding on the basis that the White House is not the government. The State Department is not the government. Perhaps to underscore this, the brief misspells Secretary Rice's name. President Bush himself, who Mr. Libby apparently told a grand jury authorized him, through the vice president, to speak to reporters in defense of the war, is not the government. Only Patrick Fitzgerald is the government, in the strange legal world of the special prosecutor."
http://www.nysun.com/article/30644

larwyn

Clarice and Maybee,
Tired, should have made clear I read both of Moran's posts at RWNH and the AT piece before I asked the questions.
A few days ago JOM had a post up on Leopold's shoddy reporting, so as I held Rick in some esteem based on Thomas Lifson's including him at AT, I am rather dissapointed and confused that he would have missed TM's post and just ran with a story from a LEFTY
site.
Those are the reasons I asked, and I rather think it will be awhile before he has my complete trust back. That once burned thingy.

We must have a ton of comments on thread - taking forever to reload and came up all bright green background on my Old Betsy last round.

I bring this back from Dr. Sanity:
FIXED DELUSIONS - Dr. Sanity IS IN

--


...."Hitchen's column in particular had a detailed summary of the events regarding Niger and Iraq--events that have been so distorted by our own media that it is no wonder that Americans are confused.

Of course, it is too much to hope for that the left will finally cease to exploit that confusion. What seems to be the pattern is that the leftist media simply resurrect the old disproved arguments after waiting a suitable period of time to give the public a chance to forget. They couch the "new" allegations in brand new phrases (e.g., in 2003, the headlines were that Bush "released" some intelligence to counteract the lies of Joe Wilson and others; today they breathlessly inform us that Bush "leaked" that intelligence)."

Ledeen:
Linzer and Gellman say, referring to the phony documents, that "the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before." And they add, in a triumphant tone reserved for the announcement of a knockout punch, that "the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair's role in promoting the story."

But Linzer and Gellman are wrong, indeed so clearly wrong that it takes one’s breath away. The British government did indeed have information about Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium in Africa, and it wasn’t connected to the forgeries. And the definitive British parliamentary inquiry — the Butler Commission Report of July, 2004 — not only did not deliver "a scathing critique," but totally endorsed the position of British intelligence.

"If the truth matters to anyone anymore--and that seems to be a big issue in all this--then both of these columns are a must read. If you enjoy being manipulated by those whose only agenda appears to be to destroy Bush at any price, then go ahead and keep believing anything and everything promulgated by the left, the MSM, and Joe Wilson.

There are treatments available for fixed delusions. I have some appointments open later this week."

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity

topsecretk9

Clarice - yowza -- stinging points

This obviously is the most insignificantly significant point to be re-pasted

Perhaps to underscore this, the brief misspells Secretary Rice's name.

especially when a certain lefty poster here, noted with amusement that Libby's team had referred to an incorrect page number in Tatel's opinion in their dismissal response.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame