I have received, by email, an excerpt from a column which appeared in the Wednesday Wall Street Journal. Gabriel Schoenfeld was reviewing a new book by BBC security reporter Gordon Corera, Shopping For Bombs, which is about the nuclear network put together by Pakistan's A.Q. Khan. The excerpt:
By the close of the 1990s, the CIA started to scrutinize [A. Q.] Khan's activities and travels, still without realizing their full importance. One of the more curious details in Mr. Corera's book is that the agency turned to Joe Wilson, the husband of CIA officer Valerie Plame, to investigate some of Khan's African visits. To this end, Mr. Wilson traveled to uranium-rich Niger in 1999, a full three years before he went there to investigate Saddam Hussein's possible attempts to buy "yellowcake" uranium. Mr. Wilson found nothing worrisome in Niger either time.
There is news here, for me anyway - the SSCI told us that the CIA sent Joe Wilson to Niger in 1999 (at his wife's suggestion) but found nothing to report. This is from p. 49 (of 521) of the .pdf SSCI report, with redactions:
The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf |xxxxxxx|. The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region |^ ^ ^ ^ | . Because the former ambassador did not uncover any information about |xxxxx| during this visit to Niger, CPD did not distribute an intelligence report on the visit.
Christoper Hitchens recently pounded the table with the news that Saddam sent a nuclear ambassador to Niger in 1999. And the story of Khan going to Niger came out in 2000. However, the notion that Wilson was sent to Niger in 1999 to investigate a Khan connection is news to me.
The SSCI is redacted but may have addressed this (p. 48):
Several analysts interviewed by Committee staff also pointed out that information in the second intelligence report matched ^ ^ ^ H ^ ^ m ^ ^ l B H ^ ^ H H I ^ ^ ^ I • m ^ l reporting from 1999 which showed that an Algerian businessman, Baraka, was arranging a trip for the Iraqi Ambassador to the Vatican, Wissam al-Zahawi, to visit Niger and other African countries in early February 1999.
The Baraka visit was in February; Joe Wilson noted a June 1999 contact in his report (p. 53):
[Former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim] Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, | ^ ^ ^ H ^ H | ^ m ^ | ^ | businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."
What does it mean? I would like to start by getting a bootleg copy of the Gabriel Schoenfeld piece before I hazard a guess.
Where else was Wilson sent not to find anything?
Posted by: Dan Collins | August 31, 2006 at 10:55 AM
A British security firm was looking for the London bombing in an exercise the day it happened. What was the name of the British secruity company?
What is S(Sub?)CI?
Is it legal for a CIA employee to send her husband on a contract for the CIA? How much has Joe Wilson been paid, including all the appearances after he made allegations regarding his contract work for CIA?
Posted by: Dan1 | August 31, 2006 at 10:58 AM
topseretk9 had this one last night, natch!
Posted by: JM Hanes | August 31, 2006 at 11:14 AM
Do we know of connections between JW, his spying wives and Armitage? Or are the connections all Grossman?
Posted by: sad | August 31, 2006 at 11:30 AM
This is a most fascinating bombshell -- hard to believe that the Wilson plot could thicken yet again.
The same Deliso article (same caveats apply) I quoted here is interesting on Grossman & Pakistan too:
By way of an aside, I'd forgotten that Mayaki didn't actually claim that yellowcake never came up, but that he "let the matter drop." Not exactly the same thing, is it?Posted by: JM Hanes | August 31, 2006 at 11:43 AM
Although this may be entirely unrelated, I'd just note that Powell's single achievement in his sorry tenure as Secretary of State, was (at least apparently) defusing the tension between Pakistan & India at a critical juncture.
Posted by: JM Hanes | August 31, 2006 at 11:49 AM
TM- send me an email, I'll send you a link to the article
Posted by: paul | August 31, 2006 at 12:01 PM
TM
IIRC Mac or AJ had info along this line a few months ago.
Posted by: sad | August 31, 2006 at 12:05 PM
I suppose the Pottery Barn Rule only applies when Powell is counseling Bush on military matters, but does not apply when it comes to political ones.
Armitage "broke it", but he and Powell were sure as hell not going to "own it".
Posted by: no one of consequence | August 31, 2006 at 12:12 PM
HEH
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 12:17 PM
Turkey was lost before the invasion of Iraq. They demanded money to use their ports under the NATO agreement. They have always wanted Northern Iraq, Kurdistan. They sent operations officers there during the war and they had to be removed. Now, the Kurds are feeling insecure and there is terrorism in Turkey again. It is alot like the bombing of jewish churchs, which was another response from terrorists.
Iraq may fall apart after Isreal's invasion of Lebanon and Palestine. They expect to use the US troops in Iraq, whether it is a nuke in Iran or something else, so, if you look at a map, Kurdistan divides up very nicely for everyone involved: Turkey, Iran, etc.
The Wilson, Grossman, etc. participation in Turkey can only be seem as a failure when Turkey would not honor it's NATO obligation without a bribe.
Afghanistan is under the same pressure under NATO. The NATO countries are not allowed to fight the war because of intelligence agencies and others meddling with what is a war, not Peacekeeping. So, when some countries bail out of Afghanistan, everybody will understand why. Peacekeeping was the goal, instead it's a war; that US persons are making it difficult to fight correctly and get to work building schools, etc.
Powell's diffusing was really not needed. Both have nukes and that was the deal. So, why should we worry about Iran?
Posted by: Bis | August 31, 2006 at 12:23 PM
more from York
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzM3YjhhZGIxZjExNjIxOGU2NTEyZjE0ODFhYmFlNzY=
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 12:29 PM
Based on what York says here, TM...it appears that Christy Hardin Smith got the TownHouse Email --as her response sounds just like Wilson's attorney.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 12:31 PM
I thought it was Rumsfeld that diffused the India-Pakistan situation. Wasn't it Rumsfeld that went to New Dehli and Islamabad during that breakout?
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | August 31, 2006 at 12:45 PM
JMH
I just had that ding dong book from the library, and Wilson does give some details about his 1999 trip...RATs, he does give a JW hint why he was there and said IIRC it had to do with the Niger Economy...
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 12:54 PM
"“I’m not trying to say that what Armitage did was just fine,” Sloan continued. “It is obviously not OK. But it did not have the same level of malevolence as what Rove, Cheney, and Libby were trying to do, which was to out Valerie to punish Joseph.”
He would say that wouldn't he?The language is a giveaway,"Valerie and Joseph" presumably and his "Amazing Technicolour Turncoat"
Posted by: PeterUK | August 31, 2006 at 12:57 PM
CREW is allegedly a liberal version of Judicial Watch. I don't follow them closely, but I cannot recall off the top of my head any complaints they have filed against Democrats.
Sloan would have been privy to a plethora of JW cases while she was an aid to Conyers, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | August 31, 2006 at 01:09 PM
Gabriel:
I wish I could recall the details, but I had the distinct impression that it was Powell who ultimately wrapped it up. I do remember a Rumsfeld trip. I'm not sure there were clear results, though, I could certainly be wrong.
Posted by: JM Hanes | August 31, 2006 at 01:25 PM
The irony here is that it was the Iraq war that scared Libya into coming clean and thus the enormity of the Khan network was exposed.
You'd think that a patriot concerned about what Khan was up to might be happy about that.
Apparently not.
Posted by: Syl | August 31, 2006 at 01:25 PM
BTW: Great title, TM!
Posted by: JM Hanes | August 31, 2006 at 01:30 PM
"“I’m not trying to say that what Armitage did was just fine,” Sloan continued. “It is obviously not OK. But it did not have the same level of malevolence as what Rove, Cheney, and Libby were trying to do, which was to out Valerie to punish Joseph.”
I think it is funny that the entire civil case depends on impugning a motive for which there is no evidence.
Of course this is the motive that has been very succesfully touted by the left, and the media from the start. Given that the civil case begs for a Summary Judgment motion when the time is right.
Posted by: Jane | August 31, 2006 at 01:30 PM
Ironically (or not) Judy Miller has a detailed WSJ piece
"How Gadhafi Lost His Groove
The complex surrender of Libya's WMD. ""
This is a pretty detailed piece, that indicates Khan owned a Hotel in Niger (I guess if you go there a lot), but a lot of detail on alleged trips he made and that the only thing Niger had going was Uranium...(I don't know how accurate, but alot seems to be culled from news reports)
it also says...
Judy Miller was pretty dialed in on this and contacts, having been a U.S. Delegation to Pakistan via the Aspen Strategy Group in October of 2002 and a trip to India in Jan. 2002.... ( A lot more here)
Here is the pre-scrubbed Aspen SG
Anyways, I think it is a safe bet that JMiller had a hint about V.Wilson before June 2003 and even safer bet she had a mainline to Richard Armitage.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 01:31 PM
--The irony here is that it was the Iraq war that scared Libya into coming clean and thus the enormity of the Khan network was exposed.--
Yes Syl
and ironic all this other Wilson business obscured this success that the CIA missed all along.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 01:33 PM
The bloggingheadstv attempted debate by Byron York with David Corn is here.
And it is hilarious.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | August 31, 2006 at 01:38 PM
CREW: We knew actual evidence wouldn't work in our favor when we filed, so we'll stick with the case we've got, thanks.
Posted by: JM Hanes | August 31, 2006 at 01:39 PM
I made a half-hearted attempt last night in the other thread to put forth a theory concerning the 1999 trip and the connection with Khan that perhaps this explains two things. First, why the wagons were circled around Joe Wilson in 2002-2003 by CIA when you would think everyone would be trying to put as much distance as possible between them and the blabbermouth Joe. Second, based on the info that his wife had something to do with this trip as well, and given the info that CIA was tracking re: WMD technology being brokered by Khan with Iran and others, that this may explain where the info on Val comes from linking her to the Iran desk and/or the nuclear proliferation division.
It also raises questions of Joe Wilson's own status. Why is the CIA calling on him and what are/were his clearances? And now we have Grossman with long ties to Pakistan. Dots people, more dots.
Valerie Plame Wilson is a complete red hearring in this Plamegate affair. There is someone else being protected here, and for reasons far more substantive than the silly gossipy junk this CABAL has been feeding us with for years now. Are they using Val as willing scapegoat?
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | August 31, 2006 at 02:01 PM
But it did not have the same level of malevolence as what Rove, Cheney, and Libby were trying to do, which was to out Valerie to punish Joseph.
So someone who actually accomplished this outing is off the hook, but those who didn't are the guilty ones.
Guilty of what? Guilty of a hate crime.
It doesn't matter what they did, or even what they were or were not planning to do. It's only the thought that counts.
I call 'em the Hallmark Lefties.
Posted by: Syl | August 31, 2006 at 02:06 PM
According to the SSCI Report, Joe Wilson did not sign a formal security clearance for this 2002 trip to Niger.
He was given something called an "operational clearance."
(U) The INR analyst's notes also indicate that specific details of the classified report on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal were discussed at the meeting, as well as whether analysts believed it was plausible that Niger would be capable of delivering such a large quantity of uranium to Iraq. The CIA has told Committee staff that the former ambassador did not have a "formal" security clearance but had been given an "operational clearance" up to the Secret level for the purposes of his potential visit to Niger.
Posted by: Chants | August 31, 2006 at 02:09 PM
The CPS has offices in Washington, Brussels and Istanbul. Several of "the team" are in Istanbul.
http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | August 31, 2006 at 02:13 PM
I seem to recall a lefty talking point along the lines that Rove and Libby were extra evil and bad because in taking out Val because she was doing important work on non-proliferation in Iran.
I think we can assume Joe was sent to Niger on the Khan case at the behest of Val,clearly we are no worse off now that Val is on the sidelines.
Joe Wilson, the Sgt.Schulz of Nuclear proliferation, he sees nothing...
Posted by: Thomas Morrissey | August 31, 2006 at 02:34 PM
Joe Wilson, the Sgt.Schulz of Nuclear proliferation, he sees nothing...
I love this...
Posted by: Jane | August 31, 2006 at 02:36 PM
If nobody else has given the link, it's here. It's at http://www.opinionjournal.com , which everyone should add to their bookmarks right now. This is their free site, and most interesting things get there sooner or later.
I've also noticed that instapundit will sometimes have links to articles that are on the pay side of the wall which have some complicated url that includes "blog" in it. I speculate that if you are a blogger and want to comment on something on their pay site, they will set up a free link to it. I have no idea who to ask about that though.
Posted by: cathyf | August 31, 2006 at 03:08 PM
Chants -- I think you are correct about the 2002 trip but this is the 1999 trip. The 1999 trip apparently was also one arranged by "his wife" who I assume is Val.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | August 31, 2006 at 03:11 PM
Sara:
"There is someone else being protected here, and for reasons far more substantive than the silly gossipy junk this CABAL has been feeding us with for years now."
I couldn't agree more, but I end up going in circles. Is Wilson himself involved in something larger, or does he have the goods on someone else? He clearly wants to be a player, but it sure looks like he's not. Why the determined to attract attention? Does he realize that no Prez in his right mind, regardless of party, would ever appoint him Ambassador to anywhere at this point?
There's certainly another big Turkish angle at the CPS outfit you linked to. I wish we had more than a putative long term friendship nailed down on the link between Grossman & Wilson. It seems clear that Wilson has desperately wanted in at the State Dept., but it's State that's been giving him the brush off all along.
Looks sort of like he's been trying to construct his own mini-State from the only base left, his wife & the CIA. Given his willingness/effort to exploit Val's position there, I 'd still really like to know what that largely unremarked item about Val "transitioning" to State was all about. I've just had a surfeit of googling lately and can't seem to apply myself again just yet!
Posted by: JM Hanes | August 31, 2006 at 03:19 PM
Posted by: cathyf | August 31, 2006 at 03:21 PM
Sara, I can't believe that these people are hiding something, at least if they are not totally freaking nuts. They have done nothing but draw attention to themselves for over 3 years now. Why would people with stuff to hide keep drawing attention to themselves? The natural inclination (outside of us nutty plameaholics) is to ignore this whole kefuffle as a huge waste of time. If you had something to hide, wouldn't you want to exploit people's natural desire to ignore you by silently slinking off?
I suppose one possibility is that there is some group desperately trying to hide stuff, and desperately trying to get Joe Wilson to STFU. And that all the noise and attention seeking comes either from him or from his assembled chorus of new-media and old-media whores. Who know nothing of whatever Joe was involved in that the secret group is trying to keep quiet.
But basically, none of this makes sense. There are all sorts of things around Wilson and Plame that we've found out that a reasonable person should want to hide. If it were not for Joe and his media whores, this would have all died down 3 years ago.
Posted by: cathyf | August 31, 2006 at 03:35 PM
I don't know anything about this site, but there is an interesting blurb about Marc Grossman:
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | August 31, 2006 at 03:45 PM
-- I wish we had more than a putative long term friendship nailed down on the link between Grossman & Wilson. It seems clear that Wilson has desperately wanted in at the State Dept., but it's State that's been giving him the brush off all along.--
A little OT for this thread...but this is where and why I believe that Grossman was the "confirmer" of Wilson's 1x2x6...if you recall all reporting on the INR was that
A- it wasn't a Wilson/Wilson wife memo it addressed the Niger issue and DoS concurrence (sorta true)
B - it didn't name Plame, was vague to her but it was marked secret (turns out that is only partially true)
It was only this APRIL, that the NYSun">http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=31062">NYSun obtained that INR, and when it did come to light...alas, Wilson didn't like what it said
"The intelligence bureau at Foggy Bottom "was not Ambassador Wilson's point of contact in either the department or the intelligence community," the memo addressed to Mr. Powell reads. It notes that Mr. Wilson's report was "disseminated throughout the intelligence and policy communities by CIA."
Anyhow, my point is...that Grossman asked for the memo about his friend, that basically belittled the CIA and by proxy Wilson and confirmed Valerie did have a role , and I am sure it was a tricky navigation for Grossman to placate his friend while screwing him to help his bosses. Playing 2 sides kinda thing...(it's one theory)
Is it odd that JLeopolds (whose main source is?) fingering of Grossman as 1x2x6 came out 3 days before the sun article?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 03:47 PM
****"I’m not trying to say that what Armitage did was just fine,” Sloan continued. “It is obviously not OK. But it did not have the same level of malevolence as what Rove, Cheney, and Libby were trying to do, which was to out Valerie to punish Joseph.”****
How much does Armitage know about Grossman and Joe and Val? What monkey wrench could he throw into their plans if they were to sue him? What does he know and when did he know it?
Posted by: sad | August 31, 2006 at 03:47 PM
ts sent me the links late last night and I did a short blog.
Niamey: see no evil
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5989
Mac has dropped not very subtle hints for a long time that a rogue element in the CIA was making money off uranium trading and further that Joe was the one sent to cover it up. I have no proof of this and he's cited none.He has also suggested that the VIPS are involved which is why they've been fighting so hard to protect Joe.
Posted by: clarice | August 31, 2006 at 03:48 PM
Hmm, was Scowcroft ever used as a source by Kristof for one of his columns?
Scowcroft is another US player with tons of links to Turkish interests.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | August 31, 2006 at 03:52 PM
CathyF
My reaction to trip 1 mirrors trip 2. That while embarrassing the CIA would have a guy so unqualified to accomplish what was need, they placated an employee's urging of using her husband...consequently Wilson's finding mirrored (or achieved - who knows) exactly what the expert Val and Joe believed it would when they would tell each other at home all the time how smart they were about all the intel at the time?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 03:56 PM
cathyf --- I don't think it is something about Joe or Val necessarily being hidden, as I think the whole Plamegate thing is a red herring to deflect attention away from whatever it is we aren't seeing or that no one is delving into. This appears to be a State Department operation and Marc Grossman is in the middle of it somehow. Marc Grossman in Turkey, Marc Grossman in Pakistan, Marc Grrossman working against Kurds, was he working to facilitate Khan?, how 'bout Saddam getting some of that nuclear material?, the Brussels/Turkish/African/Pakistan connections for all of them ... Joe's apparent incompetence on both his trips to Niger, Val's role in both trips and her prior association with Grossman ... I don't know where I'm going with this. Consider it a gut feeling that something is there, some connection, some dot either not identified or not connected correctly. ????????
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | August 31, 2006 at 04:01 PM
Lots of people in the foreign policy establishment get involved in business in Turkey after they leave. I wouldn't make a great deal of that any more than I'd suggest that DoS was more than incompetent in dealing with the transition of power in Turkey as we needed their ports for the invasion.
I am far more concerned about Grossman/Wilson and yellowgate, about why the Agency twice sent this bum to check out something of substantial significance to our national interests and why he once missed what had to be obvious (the AQ Khan network) and why the second time he misrepresented what he found even when not looking hard (Iraqi contacts in Niger). The latter is well-dcoumented by Hitchens.
I think mac has been right. I just can't put it together yet, and I hope someone in the government with far greater resources than I have at my disposal can and has.
Posted by: clarice | August 31, 2006 at 04:01 PM
Clarice -- did you see my note on the other thread that I found the formatting problem showing up in I/E and fixed it. The Squiggler is displaying okay now.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | August 31, 2006 at 04:04 PM
Jane--I always get impleader and interpleader mixed up..but it seems to me if the civil suit proceeds and Armitage is not named by the plaintiffs, the defendants should plead him into the case and argue your complaint is not with us, it's with him.If you can prove damages of any sort, get them from Armitage.
Posted by: clarice | August 31, 2006 at 04:04 PM
--How much does Armitage know about Grossman and Joe and Val? What monkey wrench could he throw into their plans if they were to sue him? What does he know and when did he know it?--
Don't you think Armitgae is falling back on this to Fitz now?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 04:04 PM
Hmmmm.
Personally I vote we send Wilson to Tehran and Pyonyang.
Such investigative excellence should be used.
I think I'm going to be sick.
Posted by: ed | August 31, 2006 at 04:04 PM
Sara, I;m out of town with limited time and access to the IT and haven't seen it, but I'm glad to hear that.
Posted by: clarice | August 31, 2006 at 04:05 PM
clarice: The line is long and wide with people in Central Asia that have human rights issues with Ankara. From the Kurds to the Armenian Massacre, Turkey gets the royal treatment from the United States because we have bases there.
I'm just posturing that shielding Turkey from democrats(not the US political party) is part and parcel to US-Turkish Commercial relations.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | August 31, 2006 at 04:09 PM
For what it's worth, the same article [insert caveat] I cited earlier also had this to say:
Sooo, what does Val know, and when did she know it?
Posted by: JM Hanes | August 31, 2006 at 04:11 PM
Hmmm...that is interesting. Grossman was being watched by Plame. Plame's name is included in a memo, which is given to Armitage by Grossman. I'm not thinking conspiracy or anything... ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | August 31, 2006 at 04:18 PM
JM Hanes: Which article talks about the "Brewster Jennings Team" and Sibel Edmonds?
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | August 31, 2006 at 04:19 PM
BTW, Sibel Edmonds claims that translators in the FBI Translations Dept were trying to recruit her to spy on behalf of the US-Turkish Business Council. She also claims that when she brought the issue to her superiors at FBI and the FBI Inspector General's office she was marginalised and ultimately terminated.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | August 31, 2006 at 04:21 PM
I think Sibek is wrong about what Feith and Perle were doing in Turkey. I'd venture to say if Perle had been tasked to negotiate out use of the ports for the invasion we would have had them.
Posted by: clarice | August 31, 2006 at 04:22 PM
Clarice:
"I am far more concerned about Grossman/Wilson and yellowgate..."
I think it's all connected.
Gabriel:
Sorry, linked it in my second post and got lazy:
Lesser Neocons of l'Affaire Plame.
Posted by: JM Hanes | August 31, 2006 at 04:23 PM
Hello,
This is a great blog. I'm going to be sure to link yours to mine. Would you mind doing the same for me?
Thank you very much.
My site:
www.americanlegends.blogspot.com
Take care,
Mark
Posted by: J. Mark English | August 31, 2006 at 04:25 PM
**SibeL** ouR not ouT use of the ports****
Posted by: clarice | August 31, 2006 at 04:25 PM
BTW, in the Franklin case, the FBI tried to set up Perle. They had a tap on his line when Franklin called with some cockamamie thing he wanted Perle to tell Chalabi. Perle asked Franklin if he was nuts and hung up.
It seems increasingly clear to me that the resources of the government were being employed in an effort to damage all those who visibly supported the Bush doctine on Iraq and protect his detractors.
It is my understanding that Eckenrode who headed the Plame investigation is a snake who lied to and bullied at least one high Administration official supportive of the Iraq invasion in an effort to make a case against the Administration.
Posted by: clarice | August 31, 2006 at 04:31 PM
According to the links available at this site, Brewster Jennings was in existence long before the published start up date of 1994. This article talks about spying on Iran's nuclear meetings by someone named Jean C. Edwards.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | August 31, 2006 at 04:34 PM
Clarice:
"I think Sibek is wrong about what Feith and Perle were doing in Turkey."
Hence the caveats as to source. Deliso is definitely an Edmonds believer. I do think he adds some details worth checking out, though, like the possible domestic side of Val's mandate. I wish I could remember (& credit) whoever it was yesterday who floated the significance of Judge Walton's rulings on keeping the CIA's documents secret. Something of this ilk this could conceivably be an (ongoing?) factor.
Posted by: JM Hanes | August 31, 2006 at 04:36 PM
temporary custody to the Boston Red Sox
LOL.
Posted by: Sue | August 31, 2006 at 04:40 PM
One of the links at the above site is this one:
http://cryptome.org/cia-edwards.htm
and I'm not exactly sure what to make of it. Is it claiming the whole Brewster-Jennings claim is bogus, or that it is all part of the front or what? Someone smarter about this stuff than I am, I leave it to you.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | August 31, 2006 at 04:41 PM
I'll check in later. Have to run.
Posted by: clarice | August 31, 2006 at 04:42 PM
Did J.C. Wilson and Associates ever contract with Brewster Jennings and Associates?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 04:48 PM
My question about Brewster Jennings...
http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html
http://www.cpsag.com/services/default.htm
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 04:57 PM
The Neocon article cited above by JMH appears to be a hatchet job on Bolton primarily, but it does contain this little tidbit:
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | August 31, 2006 at 04:59 PM
but it seems to me if the civil suit proceeds and Armitage is not named by the plaintiffs, the defendants should plead him into the case and argue your complaint is not with us, it's with him.If you can prove damages of any sort, get them from Armitage.
The could implead Armitage, but frankly I'd wait on that. I have high hopes that this lawsuit will be disposed of early on. There just is no claim here. If they bring Armitage in they are pretty much saying that if there is a claim, Armitage is the correct defendant. So until the initial motions are fought out, I'd leave it alone.
Posted by: Jane | August 31, 2006 at 05:24 PM
Iran's nuclear meetings by someone named Jean C. Edwards.
Jean C. is the resume (who looked remarkably young!) that was unearthed a while back
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 05:35 PM
Posted by: cathyf | August 31, 2006 at 05:35 PM
Nah, don't implead Armitage, implead Powell.
(This is why I'm such a lousy poker player. I go straight for the nuclear weapons...)
Posted by: cathyf | August 31, 2006 at 05:37 PM
Gee...I guess I "topped the thread"
mea culpa
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 05:38 PM
Sara....this thread has stuff about Jean C. Edwards
starting here
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/03/libby_the_cia_a.html#comment-14862263
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 05:42 PM
Do we have any real evidence that she is not just some fruitcake?
No.
Posted by: Sue | August 31, 2006 at 05:43 PM
From her first appearance, Jean Edwards didn't pass the smell test. That resume smells of something cooked up by someone who wants to be SOMEBODY using the news of the day. So I'm with Cathy. Until the real Jean Edwards can show any proof of being integrally connected to every activity mentioned in the Great Plame Story, I'd put little trust in her pronouncements.
Posted by: Lew Clark | August 31, 2006 at 05:48 PM
I agree with the remarks made about Jean Edwards and thought that is what the resume article was saying until I read the part about earlier versions of the resume being online long before the Plame affair. Then I didn't know what to make of it all. For a moment, I was thinking this was one of Val's covers, but that doesn't seem to hold.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | August 31, 2006 at 05:55 PM
In reading through the other JOM thread cited above about Jean Edwards and Brewster Jennings, I find it all interesting, although I think one mistake is being made ... everyone seems to assume that the person put the resume out there or made the subsequent deletions removing the Brewster Jennings reference. I would be more apt to think that the CIA is responsible and that it is all part of a establishing some kind of paper cover.
The one conclusion I've come to in all of this is that nothing that is in the public domain is entirely reliable if the CIA is connectd.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | August 31, 2006 at 06:14 PM
CathyF
I be interested in your opinion on the idea that maybe Brewster Jennings threw JCWIlson Assoc. or other outfits he was associated with a few bones for some time?
cpsag, especially
Their main operations in Brussels, Istanbul, and DC
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 06:21 PM
cathyf: I do admit to buying into Sibel's claims. However, I still refer to them as "claims" or "allegations" against specific individuals.
I do recall her dismissal from the FBI led to Senator Grassley writing a letter on her behalf to the FBI OIG and Director's office requesting more information for her dismissal.
Initially I came across Sibel when I was following leads of investigations conducted by John O'Neill. O'Neill faced major obstructions in investigating Al Qaida by the brass at FBI. The ascension of FBI personnel has shown to have been a major stumbling block in truly investigating terrorism from the mid 90s to now.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | August 31, 2006 at 06:31 PM
Violent deaths in Iraq dropped in August
Be sure to point this out to spamming sam.
Posted by: lurker | August 31, 2006 at 06:41 PM
You really have to wonder just how much other CIA business was outsourced to people like Joe Wilson.
I would think George Tenet and many others down the chain, simply didn't want the Plame info out not because she was a NOC, but because it showed the CIA was slouching in its job. No wonder they did such a bad job on WMDs.
You can see why these ops guys didn't brief the plan to send Joe Wilson up the chain of Command.
Posted by: Patton | August 31, 2006 at 06:56 PM
If I was George Bush, and I am not, I would shake things up a bit differently.
First, I would pardon Richard Armitage for outing Valerie Plame and I would base my pardon letter on the fact that Joe Wilson had already outed her in a disgusting political attack to get in bed with the Kerry campaign.
Let the press try to explain that to the public given their meme'.
Then I would apologize to Mr Libby and tell him if I had known what Armitage, Powell and the rest of the cabal at State knew, I would have killed this investigation which was a gross miscarriage of justice.
Then I would pardon Sam, just based on pure stupidity.
Posted by: Patton | August 31, 2006 at 07:02 PM
ODE TO SAM:
Sam says"I wonder how the US troops would feel about your dismissal of their deaths."
(I wonder how they would feel about you using them as props for a political argument most of them disagree with, why don’t you post what the families say their loved ones believed in?)
"I wonder how the Iraqi people would feel about how insignificant you think their lives are."
(Over 100 Iraqis per day were dying under the Sam/Clinton policy of sanctions/bombings. I am sure the Iraqi people think much better of our country actually making the sacrifice to rescue and liberate the innocent and terminate the guilty rather then the collective punishment of innocent Iraqis Clinton and the UN engaged in for 8 years).
"There are about 100 deaths in Iraq per day as result of our occupation of their country." (NO, over 100 per day were dying between your sanctions and your insistence that Saddam remain in power. Iraqis are dying today due to the remains of the terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein and the war with Al Queda. If you really believe that deaths in Iraq would end with our leaving, I suggest you read up on Cambodia. Your thinking is exactly the problem…you think America is the problem and if they leave everyone will love and embrace each other. When the fact is the terrorists will slaughter the innocent as they have always done. That was happening every day in Iraq under Clinton Sam, where was your outrage?)
You're children.
(So tell us grown-up Sam, what other countries do you believe should not have been liberated from tyranny? Japan? Germany? The United States? A lot of deaths in those wars Sam…did you oppose them? The liberation of the Iraqi Shiite and Kurds is NO different then the liberation of the Holocaust Sam. If you think I am wrong…please explain?)
A few facts Sam:
By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed mass graves climbed to fifty-three. Mass graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies. We’ve already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves. “Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been ‘disappeared’ by the Iraqi government over the past two decades. This represents a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot’s Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.
Would you have stopped the Rwandan genocide Sam? The Cabodian killing fields Sam? The Holocaust Sam??
At Halabja Sam, Saddam killed 5,000 people in one day. ONE DAY Sam.
The American soldiers of WWII would not have liked you using their deaths in order to oppose the ending of the Holocaust; just as the soldiers today don't want you to use their deaths for your support of genocide
of the Iraqi people.
So Sam, how long would you have allowed the genocide in Iraq to continue Sam? Until Saddam died in his seventies? his eighties?, until Uday and Qusays reigns ended in what Sam, 2064? How many more decades would you have supported the Clinton policy of sanctions/bribes and Hussein regime prop-up, giving Saddam billions to run a concentration camp of a country??
Posted by: Patton | August 31, 2006 at 07:08 PM
2001 Document: Manufacturing of Chemical Warfare Decontamination Trailers (Translation)
Further proof of Saddam as an increasing threat to the world.
Posted by: lurker | August 31, 2006 at 07:19 PM
"Then I would pardon Sam, just based on pure stupidity."
ROTFLMAO!
Posted by: danking70 | August 31, 2006 at 07:35 PM
Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been ‘disappeared’ by the Iraqi government over the past two decades. This represents a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot’s Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.
Say what? It is indeed bad but off the top of my head I can think of about fifteen or twenty crimes against humanity which surpass it.
Posted by: Barney Frank | August 31, 2006 at 07:35 PM
I think Tenet pushed this because the revelation was embarrassing to the Agency, not because Plame was covert or there was any pressing truly classified information involved in the disclosure of her name.
Jane--yes, of course, don't draw him in until it's clear that the case will proceed, which I also doubt it will.
Posted by: clarice | August 31, 2006 at 08:48 PM
"jerry- you posted here as kim earlier, and you said you post as 'kim' at other sites.
Are you kim at empty wheel?"
Well, maybee... I have noticed kim's compelling commentary on TheNextHurrah. But I'll caution you in thinking that I "am" kim. I do, however, enthusiastically endorse all of kim's ingenious insights.
=============================================
Posted by: jerry | August 31, 2006 at 09:04 PM
i know there is more...but this is what Wilson said about the 1999 trip in his book
"we discussed the uranium mining sector of the national economy, but had not talked specifically about any sales to countries to outside the consortium of companies from four nations – France, Germany, Spain, and Japan – that, with Niger, own the concessions."
Posted by: topsecretk9 | August 31, 2006 at 09:20 PM
So, TS, according to him, he didn't even ask about Pakistan or Khan or attempt to find out what he supposedly was sent to find out in the first place. What a putz!
From an article quoted earlier:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,1195608,00.html
Joe Wilson would have to be blind and deaf not to have heard about Khan and his entourage touring around Wilson's Africa he was so knowledgeable about and such an expert on.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | August 31, 2006 at 09:50 PM
Why? If he was sent to sniff out the Khan network reports?
Posted by: clarice | August 31, 2006 at 09:51 PM
The State Department Used that Ford Memo in tandem with Wilson's op-ed to reinforce Operation Liar. When Grossman asked Ford to draft the memo, the memo stated INR dissented about the purported deal because our ambassador spoke with Tandja and we trust the French! The memo also states INR disseneted 16 days before the SOTU. The left could then claim since Bush used the intel anyway, he must be a liar. Wilson made the accusation, the INR provided the so called proof in a memo, a day later!
What good is Khan's technology without the yellowcake to begin the process? He sold them a lawnmower and then he sold them the grass seed for the lawn! What a salesman!
And if all this illegal nuke stuff was being sold around the world, there would have been a bit of shipping traffic I would imagine. But then again, a four star general in charge of EUCOM, didn't know anything about an Iraq-Niger deal!
Posted by: Rocco | August 31, 2006 at 09:55 PM
It is hard to imagine one could miss all this to-ing and fro-ing. And it's not as if AQ wouldn't have been on the radar. He was fired from his position in Europe because they suspected him of stealing the plans, as he did.
One of these reports said Khan even owned a hotel in Niamey. Is it the one Wilson sipped tea at? How many comfortable hotels are there in Niamey anyway?
Posted by: clarice | August 31, 2006 at 10:03 PM
I do, however, enthusiastically endorse all of kim's ingenious insights.
Including apologizing for the paid GOP shrill trolls that dared to disagree with her?
Posted by: MayBee | August 31, 2006 at 10:07 PM
I mean her, EW?
Posted by: MayBee | August 31, 2006 at 10:07 PM
TS9
So he saw nothing other than what he decided to focus on,tailored to fit an outcome he deemed appropriate.
Sounds like Fitz and he investigate matters in a similar fashion.
Posted by: Thomas Morrissey | August 31, 2006 at 10:12 PM
Posted by: cathyf | August 31, 2006 at 10:17 PM
Why did Clinton flood the market with Yellowcake and pull the rug out from under the poorest countries on earth who depended on the legal sale of yellowcake?
Posted by: Rocco | August 31, 2006 at 10:22 PM
One interview with Sibel Edmunds I read, which seems pretty non-controversial to me, was about the FBI offering to send people on official business when they wanted to visit their home countries. So she (or other employees) could fly to Turkey or Iran on the FBI's dime and they'd think of business for her to do.
Which reminded me of Joe Wilson International getting paid for transportation to Africa to do some "official" CIA business. It seems to me it was just a way for a CIA family member to get his airfare paid for while he made a business trip.
Posted by: MayBee | August 31, 2006 at 10:28 PM
He made another trip to Africa in 1999 ----with Alamoudi:
[quote]According to the SSCI Wilson made at least one other trip to Africa That was made at his wife’s suggestion for the CIA in 1999. He made the second trip there that year as part of a trade delegation. As Just One Minute poster Rocco found these tidbits:
Mima Nedelcovych, Vice President for International Operations, F. C. Schaffer and Associates, Inc traveled with Wilson, Alamoudi and others in Nov. 99, for a trade delegation.
Nedelcovych gave Jefferson campaign donations in 01, 02, and 05.
F. C. Schaffer and Associates is a small Louisiana based sugar company but the curious thing is, the donations aren’t from Schaffer, they’re from AFRKA GLOBAL/PARTNER
As for the Alamoudis, a substantial amount of information about the family and their links can be found here (see comment 7)[/quote]
http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&fr=slv1-mdp&p=Joseph+Wilson+William+Jefferson+Clarice+feldman&u=www.americanthinker.com/articles.php%3Farticle_id%3D5702&w=joseph+wilson+william+jefferson+clarice+feldman&d=Po-P3yQ8NX2-&icp=1&.intl=us>Niamey Niamey Niamey
Posted by: clarice | August 31, 2006 at 10:31 PM