Powered by TypePad

« Open Plame Hearing Thread | Main | No, Christy, It's Just You »

March 17, 2007

Comments

MayBee

One wonders how long she listened to Wilson wax poetic to WaPo reporters Richard Leiby or Dana Priest at the 4th of July bbq at her home.
I wonder if then, too, she particpated only briefly.

p.lukasiak

CIA officers are meant to report contacts with the press, as well as unauthorized disclosures of classified information, but since she was only there "briefly", I guess it is OK.

rather than link to an utterly discredited blogger, why not provide us with a link to the actual policy. Or are you afraid that the "reporting press contacts" requirement is actually not applicable in this instance? I guess we'll never know -- because you won't bother finding real sources for your claims....

(hint -- when a writer asserts that the "additional views" found at the end of the SSCI Report ARE the conclusions of the SSCI, you know you are dealing with someone who isn't to be trusted.)

Or here is a Fox link to a related story from Oct 2003, which includes this "I'll be darned" headscratcher: "Novak said that his source was not in the White House." When did he say that, and how did we all miss it lo these many years? Or did we not miss it - am I having a total Libby moment here?

no, you've having a maguire moment -- Novak's confirming source (Karl Rove) was in the White House. Novak's efforts to cover for Rove (by drawing attention away from WH involvement) is where the real story is.

MORE: Timing is everything - Cecil Turner's timeline is tough on Wilson.

obviously, you weren't paying attention to Valerie's testimony, because it was not a MEMO that was the first notice the CIA received of OVP concern, but a phone call.

In fact, if you bother to read the SSCI, you find out that a new report concerning the Niger/Uranium deal was issued by the CIA's Directorate of Operations on FEBRUARY 5th...eight days before the memo cited by Turner was generated.

In other words, there is no special reason to rely on your notoriously ill-informed commentariate when you can find out at least some factual information from the SSCI.

p.lukasiak

And on the now-burning question of why the White House internal security group did not conduct a leak investigation in parrallel with the FBI, or in place of the FBI, or after the FBI - please. Democrats would have gone ballistic if White House investigators had gotten involved - they were beside themselves that the White House Counsel's office was coordinating compliance with DoJ document requests.

nice try Tom. But perhaps you can find a quote from Democrats who complained about the White House doing what was required by law and executive order (which has the force of law) .... oh, that's right, the White House -- and everyone in the White House involved in the leak -- ignored their obligation to REPORT their own involvment, even inadvertent disclosures to the White House Security Office.

And although the required report was never done by the Bush White House, enough of an "inquiry" was done for the White House to (falsely) deny any involvement by Karl Rove.

Stormy70

P.lukasiak - After the Dan Rather memo debacle, I am surprised you are showing your face here. The Wilson's are lying, partisan hacks. They tried to conduct a "black" op against the administration and were busted on it. John Kerry had to fire Wilson from his campaign.

If I was a covert agent, then I would not hold a breakfast with a NYT reporter, nor waltz through the front door of the CIA to go to my day job. Plus, she did recommend him for the trip. She is a liar. Period.

Gentlemen, I give you the CIA. They couldn't find the truth if it was the prize in a Cracker Jack box.

Stormy70

Armitage being the leaker must have burst all your little bubbles.

lurker

Senator Bond

contradicts what Valerie Plame said regarding that memo.

I don't understand why that "walk-by" employee was crying in front of Plame about a phone call from OVP, especially if it was just a question.

Now that Plame referred to that phone, she had better proffer the name of that employee in her future testimonies.

nice try Tom. But perhaps you can find a quote from Democrats who complained about the White House doing what was required by law and executive order (which has the force of law) .... oh, that's right, the White House -- and everyone in the White House involved in the leak -- ignored their obligation to REPORT their own involvment, even inadvertent disclosures to the White House Security Office.

And although the required report was never done by the Bush White House, enough of an "inquiry" was done for the White House to (falsely) deny any involvement by Karl Rove.

Boy, this is FULL of holes.

Nobody from the WH came forth. Why? Because they were not involved with the leak.

Read Toensing testimony, page 8:

No White House can prudently safeguard classified or otherwise non-disclosable intelligence information unless its own intelligence agency follows the proper procedures to inform it and its Executive branch clients of that classification or status.

CIA did NOT follow proper procedures.

The required report has to be compiled by the CIA in order for the WH to meet its obligation of delivering the required report to Congress annually.

CIA did not compile the report to WH. Did WH ask for it? Probably.

Give it a break.

Jeff

Cecil's timeline is indeed tough on Wilson. Too bad it's also misleading. Cecil makes much of the idea that Cheney inquired about the NIger story, and his briefer wrote up a tasker (and note that it was the briefer, not Cheney, who said a memo for the next day would be good). This is seemingly meant to show Wilson's mission was not responsive to Cheney's question. However, Cecil leaves out the fact that the 2-14-02 memo back for Cheney was explicitly provisional, a promise for more investigation to come. Thus it says

We have tasked out clandestine sources with ties to the Nigerien Government and consortium officials to seek additional information on the contract. We also are working with the Embassy and the defense attache's office in Niamey to verify their reports.

The document also evidently says, in the redacted part (since this is just the VP's modified version of SPWR 21420-05) that the info comes from the Italian report and lacks crucial details, and

we are working to clarify the information and to determine whether it can be corroborated.

So Cheney knew the CIA's answer was provisional and that they were working on a more definitive answer.

And Cheney got the message, since later he asked follow up question(s) of the CIA to see what update they had for him.

(And yes, the reference to clandestine sources refers to Wilson's mission, possibly among others; and yes, that's the case despite the fact that on February 14, CPD had decided on the idea to send him - asking for concurrence on the idea the day before from the Embassy folks - and Wilson himself did not sign on for sure until February 19 or a little later, and had only been asked to come in by his wife by that point. Plame's memo/email to the head of CPD probably played a role in this response to Cheney on February 14.)

(It's interesting to note that the two versions of the 2-14-02 memo form yet another example of how the SSCI report gets things wrong. The SSCI says that the Vice President's version of the assessment "differed only" from SPWR 021402-05 "only in that it named the foreign government service [redacted]." (p. 39) Somehow, curiously, the SSCI seems to have left out the fact that Cheney's version also specified that CIA had tasked its clandestine sources to seek additional information on the contract.)

p.lukasiak

P.lukasiak - After the Dan Rather memo debacle, I am surprised you are showing your face here.

Gosh, Stormy! That was a really insightful rebuttal of the points I made!

(oh, and btw, my "involvement" in the (supposed) memo debacle was marginal at best. But don't let that fact interfere with your inability to form a rational response)

PS...are you the same "Stormy" that used to make an ass of herself over at Balloon Juice?

Cecil Turner

In fact, if you bother to read the SSCI, you find out that a new report concerning the Niger/Uranium deal was issued by the CIA's Directorate of Operations on FEBRUARY 5th...eight days before the memo cited by Turner was generated.

That's funny . . . I seem to recall arguing it was that report (and DIA mangling of it on the 12th) that actually provided the impetus for Wilson's trip, not a question by the VP. Hey, whaddya know:

It's far more likely the ongoing dissension among CIA (and DIA and INR) analysts provided the initial impetus for Wilson's mission (especially since you'd expect a report dated the 12th would normally be briefed on the morning of the 13th).
Wow, and only 10 months before P.luk pointed it out to us . . . I feel so ill-informed.

Jeff

And on the now-burning question of why the White House internal security group did not conduct a leak investigation in parrallel with the FBI, or in place of the FBI, or after the FBI - please.

Two strawmen here. First Rep. Davis tried to deflect this by saying that there was an immediate DoJ investigation launched and any White House investigation would have interfered with it and possibly be seen as obstruction. Only problem with that are the facts; as somebody probably informed Davis, since he had to backtrack, there was no immediate DoJ investigation. It was not launched until two and a half months later.

But the more significant strawman is that, as Waxman and others were clear to point out, the White House could have suspended security clearances for relevant folks without conducting a full-blown investigation that would have interefered with whatever DoJ might have been up to. Obviously there is something a little tricky here, since Rove and Libby and Armitage (Fleischer was already out) were not exactly forthcoming about the fact that they had leaked.

lurker

I'm willing to bet that sweetness & light confirms Cecil Turner's timeline that is tough on Wilson.

So I seriously doubt that Cecil Turner's timeline being misleading other than being accurate.

lurker

"But the more significant strawman is that, as Waxman and others were clear to point out, the White House could have suspended security clearances for relevant folks without conducting a full-blown investigation that would have interfered with whatever DoJ might have been up to. Obviously there is something a little tricky here, since Rove and Libby and Armitage (Fleischer was already out) were not exactly forthcoming about the fact that they had leaked."

I don't think so. Removing security clearance would not interfere with DoJ's investigation at all. In fact, they were told to cooperate to the best of their abilities and recollection. Rove and Libby were forthcoming, IMHO but Armitage was not. Rove and Libby did not leak. Armitage did.

I don't see a problem with WH doing its own investigation but I do have a problem with the Democrats finding a way to attack WH regardless of whether WH did investigate or not. Now they're attacking WH for not doing the investigation. Would they attack WH for doing the investigation a year ago or so? Yes.

Cecil Turner

Cecil leaves out the fact that the 2-14-02 memo back for Cheney was explicitly provisional, a promise for more investigation to come. Thus it says . . .

Having already brought it up a whole day earlier, I didn't feel the need to repeat myself. (Don't remember that? Better not let Fitz get you in front of a grand jury.) Sorry if you found that misleading.

In any event, the question was for analysis, and it was asked and answered. Contra Wilson's claim, the OVP wasn't waiting for his report, and hence didn't notice when it didn't arrive.

Seixon

Valerie was just "briefly" involved all over the place, it seems. Briefly involved in the breakfast. Briefly involved in the meeting at the CIA. Briefly involved in the debriefing of her husband at their home. Yeah. Whisper some more sweet nothings into my ear Mrs. Wilson.

lurker

Anyone remember Waxman "hearsaying" Hayden that Valerie was covert at the time of Novak's article being published versus Valerie saying that she was not covert according to IIPA?

Contradictory, huh?

No matter how briefly it was, all clear violation of the laws for security classification. One does NOT hold a classified briefing at someone's home. For God's Sake, anyone can listen from a van parked out in the street.

All classified briefings must be held at properly classified places.

p.lukasiak

That's funny . . . I seem to recall arguing it was that report (and DIA mangling of it on the 12th) that actually provided the impetus for Wilson's trip, not a question by the VP. Hey, whaddya know:

It's far more likely the ongoing dissension among CIA (and DIA and INR) analysts provided the initial impetus for Wilson's mission (especially since you'd expect a report dated the 12th would normally be briefed on the morning of the 13th).
Wow, and only 10 months before P.luk pointed it out to us . . . I feel so ill-informed.

1) as you are no doubt aware, McGuire cited another one of your "timelines" that made no mention of the February 5 report -- that instead implies that the ONLY time that Cheney's office asked about the Niger Uranium story was on February 13. So blame Maguire for his usual habit of selective quoting to "support" his argument.

2) Based on Plames' testimony, it is safe to assume that the Feb 05 report was the proximate source of the PHONE CALL from the OVP to the CIA -- and that the PHONE CALL was separate and distinct from the request that appears in the February 13 document you cite. Yet nowhere do I see an acknowledgement by you that there is a strong likelihood that Cheney either saw or was briefed on the Feb 5 report -- your "argument" is that the Feb 12 DIA report was generated by the Feb 5 CIA report.


p.lukasiak

No matter how briefly it was, all clear violation of the laws for security classification. One does NOT hold a classified briefing at someone's home. For God's Sake, anyone can listen from a van parked out in the street.

cluetime. Joe Wilson made it clear that he was not going on a "classified" mission.... thus there was no need for the debriefing to be done in a classified setting. (Joe Wilson was not sent as a spy, but as a fact-finding representative of the US government. )

sbw

P.lukasiak, like a moth to a plame only in times of truthy newsiness.

lurker

P.luk, cite the source of the Feb 5 report. I'm willing to bet that it's full of holes.

Doesn't matter what Joe Wilson thinks, CIA made it clear that it was a classified mission. Another one of those things that CIA did not follow procedures by making sure that its officers and agents understand that these were classified missions. Or Joe just simply did not understand. Or Joe was playing p.luk for fools.

lurker

A fact-finding mission can still be classified, especially if it is to find out if an enemy is seeking to buy uranium for his WMDs.

In this case, it should be classified and CIA knew it.

Sue

security clearances for relevant folks

What relevant folks? Was he supposed to just pick a few out of the lineup and suspend them without an investigation into who leaked? 'I pick you and you and you and you. Clearances suspended. Now the democrats and Waxman who will later make a stupid statement should be happy.'

Sue

(Joe Wilson was not sent as a spy, but as a fact-finding representative of the US government. )

Very f**king convenient from Wilson, wouldn't you say? Everyone else involved in Niger was under the umbrella of talking about classified material, leaving Joe baby to run around and spread his lies without fear of being caught in his lies.

Sue

Armitage being the leaker must have burst all your little bubbles.

I'm sure it gave Jeff pause, since even the democrats on the hill managed to forget his name during their truth finding mission yesterday. I don't think Jeff was thinking this is how Armitage would wind up in the Plame game...gone and forgotten.

Sue

no, you've having a maguire moment

By gawd, I wish the swamp would allow posters to have opposing views. I wouldn't even insult them. Maybe you could crawl back over there and request that they open up the swamp to allow for dissenting points of views, maybe even those that insult the host of the blog?

Cecil Turner

as you are no doubt aware, McGuire cited another one of your "timelines" that made no mention of the February 5 report . . .

Got it . . . You think that's important, Jeff thinks the details of the Valentine's Day response are essential, and I thought contrasting Wilson's statements with the actual question were a bit more on point. I suspect the regular readers would prefer trimming the nonessentials.

Based on Plames' testimony, it is safe to assume that the Feb 05 report was the proximate source of the PHONE CALL from the OVP to the CIA . . .

Personally, I thought it was safe to assume Plame was lying on the point. Amazing that we had all that investigation (SSCI, Libby trial) and nobody managed to turn up anything on it before now . . . isn't it?

Yet nowhere do I see an acknowledgement by you that there is a strong likelihood that Cheney either saw or was briefed on the Feb 5 report . . .

What, do you think they lost the briefing entry? One thing that constantly amazes me about the lefties, is that an Administration statement that doesn't match perfectly is damning evidence they must be lying, but a out-of-the-blue contention by Wilson or Plame is treated like a pronouncement from the burning bush. There's another, simpler, explanation here.

. . . your "argument" is that the Feb 12 DIA report was generated by the Feb 5 CIA report.

Gee, wonder where that came from? Oh, maybe here:

Based on information from the CIA report from the foreign service, on February 12, 2002, the DIA wrote a finished intelligence product [emphasis added]
Seriously, if you're going to call others "ill-informed" . . . might want to read the material.

ROA

Isn't Joe Wilson her husband? "She is discussing her presence at an ealry May 2003 breakfast meeting between her husband and Joe Wilson where Joe spilled"

Cecil Turner

cluetime. Joe Wilson made it clear that he was not going on a "classified" mission....

Ah, another in the "burning bush" syndrome. The INR said it was "Secret." The CIA said it was "Secret." The excerpt from his report was "Secret." So who ya gonna believe?

Say it Ain't So, Joe!

Jeff

Cecil, you said,

Yeah, the OVP got an answer . . . it was in the briefing book for Feb 14th--six days before Wilson left on his trip

My response was, the answer OVP got was, in effect, "We're working on it." So your 2-14 briefing book was explicitly not the end of the story or anything like an answer meant to be conclusive, as you suggest. Wilson's mission was in fact part of how the CIA was pursuing an answer to OVP's inquiry. That's what Wilson was also told. So your tough timeline dissipates.

boris

About the "clandestine" followup promised by CIA to Cheney.

They use that word for classified missions.

Sue

That's what Wilson was also told.

Why was he told that? And who told him?

Cecil Turner

My response was, the answer OVP got was, in effect, "We're working on it."

Got it. My response was, in effect, "they didn't ask for them to work on it."

That's what Wilson was also told. So your tough timeline dissipates.

Wilson implies OVP was waiting for his info. They weren't. He mighta been honestly confused. I suspect he wasn't.

boris

So the new theory that's "safe to assume" in order to protect Valerie from the charge of lying is ...

On Feb 5 there was a DIA report before the Feb 12 DIA report that was officially briefed to Cheney on Feb 13th which produced a request for "assessment of that transaction and its implications for Iraq's nuclear program. A memo for tommorrow's book would be great".

Somehow the OVP learned of the Feb 5th with zero official paper trail (probably one of the annoying intrusions to CIA) got worked up in a tizzy made harrassing phone calls directly into CPD and upset the assistants there which resulted in office mates of Val wrangled Joe into a non secret "clandestine" mission.

Possible? Perhaps remotely. Rather far short of "safe to assume" however. When Val speaks of "this crazy report" she want's debunked, that clearly references a DIA "report" and not a Cheney request for "assesment".

Qwinn

Don't mind me much, just passing through...

But couldn't let this go unnoticed:

"oh, and btw, my "involvement" in the (supposed) memo debacle was marginal at best."

p.luk, you do realize that, no matter how utterly "marginal your "involvement" was, the fact that you refer to the memo debacle to this day, to this freaking day as only a "supposed" debacle discredits you far more than if you'd tried to fight that fight back then?

Give it up man. If you still to this day can't abandon that fight, with the weight of a billion suns worth of evidence against you and absolutely nothing whatsoever in your support, why should we ever believe you'd ever concede any point that didn't fit your preferred framework? Please. At this point, it makes me not even want to read your rebuttals, because that "supposed" makes it a given that you'd continue to argue with a snarky self-righteous tone no matter how thoroughly your point of view had already been disgraced.

Qwinn

Jeff

Wilson implies OVP was waiting for his info. They weren't.

Let's see. February 12 someone from OVP inquires about the Niger story to CPD. CPD comes up with the idea of sending Wilson on a mission to Niger. February 13, Cheney's (presumably morning) briefer notes that Cheney had seen, presumably the day before, the DIA report and wanted the CIA's assessment of it and its implications for Iraqi nuclear program. The next day CIA gives Cheney a memo saying they're working to get additional information, through clandestine sources with ties to Nigerien government, among others.

Two weeks later, INR produces a skeptical assessment of the Niger sale notion, which the author had been told was in response to interest from the OVP. Shortly thereafter, Cheney asks his morning briefer for the CIA's update on the Niger uranium issue. Gee, do you think he might have asked for an update a little more than two weeks after the February 14 memo because he expected CIA to produce more information in answer to his initial inquiry, based on his reading of the plain meaning of the February 14 memo?

Of course, Winpac told the briefer about debriefing a relevant source (who was, of course, Wilson) on March 5. The SSCI doesn't tell us whether Cheney's briefer passed that information on to Cheney, though I suspect he did. When the report came in, DO people highlighted it for Winpac because they knew the high priority of the issue - i.e. it was responsive to inquiries from Cheney.

But, mysteriously, Cheney never got word of it.

boris

presumably the day before

IRRC the briefing happened on the 13th.

boris

The next day CIA gives Cheney a memo saying they're working to get additional information, through clandestine

Not exactly. They give Cheney the immediate answer to his request and ADD retrieval of more information from clandestine sources ... as in "Hello 007, what have you heard recently about yellowcake?"

Not ... "We're rounding up an assclown to cause you no end of public grief"

Sue

And what did Wilson's report say? Well, there is no evidence that Cheney saw anything written about Wilson's report but we did learn, though not from Joe, that Wilson's report was good but did nothing to change the analysts opinions, from any agency, one way or the other. Far short of Joe's statements behind the scenes and in public. No matter how you spin it.

clarice feldman

In all the time I've posted here, Cecil has never been misleading. You can bank on his factual presentations and analyses.(His critics? Are you serious?)

MikeS

The untold story is that at the same time Wilson went to Niger, the Brits sent an ex-diplomat to the Congo.

We don't know this man's name, who his wife is, or what he reported back to British Intelligence.

BECAUSE IT'S AN UNTOLD STORY!!

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

You can always tell when the arrow hits home. All of a sudden, the gutters are flowing full with lefty misinformation and the guttersnipes are as thick as flies.

You're a dangerous man to the left, Turner. Telling the truth and backing it up with facts is very disturbing to inhabitants of the Swamp.

clarice feldman

Yes, Rick, it's a telltale sign, isn't it, that the Plame Tabernacle has again sprung a leak.

p.lukasiak

Ah, another in the "burning bush" syndrome. The INR said it was "Secret." The CIA said it was "Secret." The excerpt from his report was "Secret." So who ya gonna believe?

I'm going to believe the CIA, which noted in its report on Wilson's debriefing the following:

Headquarters comment: The subsources of the following information knew their remarks could reach the US government...

While the reports referring to Wilson's trip may have been classified (for various reasons, including the fact that these reports refer to other information that was classified), his trip itself was not.

Its indicative of the general lack of analytical ability on this site that there are people who are incapable of recognizing the distinction between Wilson's trip, which was not "secret", and the reports generated by Wilson's trip, which were secret.

p.lukasiak

Personally, I thought it was safe to assume Plame was lying on the point. Amazing that we had all that investigation (SSCI, Libby trial) and nobody managed to turn up anything on it before now . . . isn't it?

the SSCI was noticably partisan and incomplete on the wilson issue, and insofar as this phone call had no relevance to the question of whether Libby committed perjury, there is no reason for it to have come out in the trial.

There is really no reason to suspect that either Plame or Joe Wilson have lied about how Wilson wound up being sent to Niger -- but every reason for the wingnut right to try and discredit them to divert attention from the manipulation of intelligence in the leadup to the Iraq War.

Cecil Turner

Let's see. February 12 someone from OVP inquires about the Niger story to CPD.

Dubious at best. The Feb 12th report was briefed to the VP on the morning of the 13th and he asked a question. No evidence he saw the Feb 5 report, no evidence he got a sneak preview. The mysterious unlogged phone call requires a time machine or facts not in evidence, and I'm not taking Val's word for it.

Gee, do you think he might have asked for an update a little more than two weeks after the February 14 memo because he expected CIA to produce more information in answer to his initial inquiry, based on his reading of the plain meaning of the February 14 memo?

Think that must be it? Might it possibly be the other Feb 14th document (the Senior Power Executive Intelligence Brief about the Feb 5 report) that said:

Information on the alleged uranium contract between Iraq and Niger comes exclusively from a foreign government service report that lacks crucial details, and we are working to clarify the information and to determine whether it can be corroborated." [emphasis added]
Or perhaps he was recalling the early March DOI analytic update:
The update noted that in this late february 2002 meeting, President Tandja indicated that Niger was making all efforts to ensure that its uranium would be used only for peaceful purposes. [ . . .] Our analytic update also stated that we had requested additional information from the [redacted] service . . . [emphasis added]
There were plenty of discussions on Nigerien uranium over Feb-Mar . . . the contention that OVP was hanging on Wilson's return is not supportable.

The SSCI doesn't tell us whether Cheney's briefer passed that information on to Cheney, though I suspect he did.

If so, this conclusion is more than a bit misleading:

Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings.
But, mysteriously, Cheney never got word of it.

Yeah, mysterious. Not like they didn't have plenty of time to put it in one of the many reports on the subject, if it was so earth-shattering (oh, that's right, it wasn't). The final opportunity was on the 25th:

On March 25, 2002, the DO issued a third and final intelligence report from the same "[foreign] government service."
Guess it wasn't deemed important enough to include. And, shockingly, nobody noticed.

Sue

but every reason for the wingnut right to try and discredit them

I'm with you on that score. Had everyone just sat back and waited, Wilson's lies would have been exposed and no further actions would have been necessary. Wilson discredited himself in short order. And people with your analytical abilities are able to analyze a way around it. Fake but accurate, no?

A.C. McCloud

But, mysteriously, Cheney never got word of it.

If Wilson was acting as a rep of the US Govt with no non-disclosure agreement why didn't Tenet or his subordinates help set up a face-to-face meeting between Wilson and OVP (say Libby) upon his return from Niger? My WAG is because that would have transferred direct ownership of his findings to the WH from that point forward, reducing his utility to later be used as a CYA tool if those slam-dunkin WMDs didn't show up.

sylvia

"My WAG is because that would have transferred direct ownership of his findings to the WH from that point forward, reducing his utility to later be used as a CYA tool if those slam-dunkin WMDs didn't show up. "

I love it. CIA CYA conspiracy theories. I'm with that, something must have been wrong for them to set this whole Wilson thing up to begin with.

T.J. King

Picture this imaginary scenario.

Jane Smith is a CIA analyst at WINPAC in 1998. She has some real concern about Clinton's bombing of the aspirin factory that allegedly makes VX, her specialty (WMD).

Someone has questions about whether it was VX. A mysterious walking by person recomends her husband, who is a former Reagan supporter go on the mission to Africa to figure it out.

John Smith, the husband comes back, starts criticizing Clinton on CNN and public forums about his deceptive policies. He claims when Clinton helped Iran ship arms to Osama bin Ladens network in Bosnia that he found evidence of a coverup by Clinton in Sudan.

John Smith meets Reporter Jones at conference with his wife Jane and they have a sit down. As Jane "briefly sits by" John unloads his classified information to Reporter Jones about Clinton covering up evidence of his assistance to OBL and Iran and using the VX story as cover. John Smith says, when this hits the news stands, if you can keep this leak of classified information quiet, my wife and I can feed you more information, because we are Reaganites and we hate Clinton.

Eventually after weeks of the Clinton war machine claiming it is a right wing conspiracy, John Smith comes out and writes an OP-Ed, saying some of the OBL/Bill stuff was misquoted, but the gist of it is true.

Does anybody have any doubt that the Reagan supporter and his wife would not be dragged through the mud along with the private detectives and Hustler's Larry Flynt offering million dollar bounties for anyone that can supply dirt on him and the woman that accompanied him to that breakfast.

Would anybody doubt that Mrs. Smith brought on the media spotlight on herself when James Carville and Paul Begala are on Crossfire calling her trash and saying she is a Reagan plant in a Clinton agency and funded by big money to discredit Bill for their own political purposes?

By the time the media got done with the Smith's, there wouldn't be any time devoted to the underlying accusation. The story would be how a Reagan partisan tried to hurt a sitting President.

Is it even possible to have a left wing conspiracy?

Patton

Anyone think Valerie told her bosses...by the way, my husband is going public with his CIA missions, and we met with reporters this weekend at a Democrat get together.

Guess that shouldn't affect my position ehh.

She must be the one at the CIA that said WMD were a slam dunk. She can't even see one step ahead of a situation.

sylvia

"And yes, someone had forgotten to ask Joe to sign a non-disclosure agreement, but that does not mean his trip was de-classified". Yes that makes more sense to me that there would have to be some secrecy to this mission. Of course as to this above "that there are people who are incapable of recognizing the distinction between Wilson's trip, which was not "secret", and the reports generated by Wilson's trip, which were secret" that might be true in a technical sense. After all Wilson made a public trip, and that's not secret, but his findings and conclusions about WMD, what was in the report, should have been classified.

So Wilson could I assume talk about his actual trip, what he did in a general sense, what social occasions he had etc, but the actual information about Nigerian WMD and what he concluded about them should be logically classified. I mean do we really want our secret missions blasted all over the NYT? Even if he signed no nondisclosure agreement, talking about his findings and his methods certainly would be bad news for further trips for the CIA by people who wanted to remain anonymous, and it was wrong, if not illegal.


sylvia

"that said WMD were a slam dunk"

You know I think that is a myth. Tenet never said that about WMD I think. I heard him say something about "slam dunk" on air myself but it was about something else. Can't remember what now exactly... Must google.

sylvia

Yes that mysterious guy who walked by and just happened to suggest Wilson- was this a CYA set up by the CIA? I've seen The Bourne Identity (or whatever it was called). I've seen how the CIA sets up their officers! (well at least in the movie anyway). It can happen...

Imust B Crazy

the mystery guy was Libby in his covert disguise as Armitage

Imust B Crazy

or Grossman

scoopa

Mystery guy is really.....Lucy Ramirez

Patton

Valerie and Joe's entire story is fishy, and here is another thought.

I do have many years experienced in government and intelligence, and I have an above Top Secret clearance.

Joe Wilson never made a report back as a person who was SENT by the CIA. It would be very interesting to see the report write up from the agent that came to their house
to take his report.

These are contact reports and their are thousands of them floating around as bits of intelligence.

BY WHY DIDN'T JOE SUBMIT A REPORT?

Could it have been that they were covering for him being sent by Valerie? Did the report treat him as an agent of the CIA on the trip, or as a business man who just happened upon this information.

If the CIA analysts didn't know he was specifically sent by the CIA to dig up information, then certainly his nothing report would have barely registered with anyone. If they thought he was a business
man who just happened upon some information that might be useful, that would explain why his report wass interpreted the way it was.

p.lukasiak

Joe Wilson never made a report back as a person who was SENT by the CIA. It would be very interesting to see the report write up from the agent that came to their house
to take his report.

perhaps you should pay more attention, because that report was one of the exhibits in the Libby trial.

BY WHY DIDN'T JOE SUBMIT A REPORT?

he didn't need to. he was doing the government a favor, and reported to the US ambassador to Niger on his findings as well as being extensively debriefed by the CIA.

Could it have been that they were covering for him being sent by Valerie?

we know Val didn't send Joe. She didn't have the authority. But even assuming she did send him, why would that be a reason for Joe Wilson not to submit a written report --- especially when a report of his CIA debriefing was circulated widely through normal intelligence channels?

I mean, not only is the question based on a faulty premise, it would be a completely asinine question even if the premise were true.

Did the report treat him as an agent of the CIA on the trip, or as a business man who just happened upon this information.

It treated him as "a contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record". But you wouuld know that if you were paying attention, rather than formulating nonsensical questions based on completely false premises....

p.lukasiak

The mysterious unlogged phone call requires a time machine or facts not in evidence, and I'm not taking Val's word for it.

gosh, when were the phone logs for the OVP for the second week of February made available to the public? Or the phone logs for the CIA for that period.

(oh, and here's a clue....not all outgoing phone calls from OVP were logged -- just like not all incoming calls to Karl Rove were logged....)

T.J. King

"...he didn't need to. he was doing the government a favor, and reported to the US ambassador to Niger on his findings as well as being extensively debriefed by the CIA..."

Golly, Joe, Thanks for the favor. We owe you one. The Democrats still owe E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy for doing them a favor and doing some late night janitorial work in their headquarters. The DNC wasn't charged then, but after all, just consider it a favor.

hubel458

Her job as a behind the desk WMD analyst,
that she said she was, would be considered
a 'huge failure' for her and the CIA, in that they didn't find the Saddam/Libya nuke program that was getting yellowcake from Cogema/Niger(Thank God Libya came to us and UN and gave it up.After Saddam captured, they chickened out).
BUT JOE'S COMPANY CONSULTING TO COGEMA
AND NIGER...MIGHT...EXPLAIN...WHY!!!
Keywords- Coverup- Traitors. Ed

clarice feldman

T.J,King--your turn about scenario is so good you'd better copyright it. I am itching to steal it! FAIR WARNING.

sferris

Priceless, Fred Barnes:

"Schumer may be a partisan hack, but as the Democratic point-man on the firings, he is carrying the day. He guided Democrats as they transformed the perfectly legal and quite normal removal of federal prosecutors into a raging scandal. They’ve done this for raw political reasons: to mortify and cripple the president. And Bush, with his timidity in the face of Democratic accusations, has let them. He hasn’t fought back. He’s become an enabler."

...

"Bush needs to fight back, rhetorically and otherwise, without hesitation and without fear that his critics will end up even more opposed to his policies. The way Washington works in 2007, with Democrats in control of Congress, makes this necessary. Being nice and conciliatory, as Bush has been, is counterproductive. It’s never reciprocated. Rather, it encourages his Democratic foes to be even more belligerent and discourages his Republican allies."


Bush Turns the Other Cheeck

Patton

p.lukasiak: ""It treated him as "a contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record". But you wouuld know that if you were paying attention, rather than formulating nonsensical questions based on completely false premises...."""

No, I was just fishing for a fool.

You just admitted that Joe did not return and file a 'report' to the VP on his findings, in fact, he was treated as a 'contact report' not as a CIA sanctioned trip.

I've seen the ""a contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record""" hundreds of times and it is for Joe Schmoes off the street.

And I've seen real reports from real overseas intelligence gatherers and they do not treat them as a contact source.

Thanks for admitting someone at the CIA wanted the fact that Joe was on a CIA mission hidden from even thows cleared to read the report.

Patton

Funny how the CIA claimed Joe had ''excellent access'', even though he admits he didn't interview anyone in the current government. Access to whom? A guy who had been out of office for 11 years....

Patton

Good scenario TJ King, however you left out that Jane was in the pocket of Big Tobacco, Big Oil and Mr. Big Himself, Rush Limbaugh.

Sara (Squiggler)

Bob Novak wrote of his conversation with then CIA spokesperson Bill Harlow:


“Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson “was undercover because that was classified.” What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, “she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause ‘difficulties.’” According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when Agency officials feared she had been “outed” by the traitor Aldrich Ames.

Bob Novak wrote of his conversation with then CIA spokesperson Bill Harlow:

“Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson “was undercover because that was classified.” What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, “she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause ‘difficulties.’” According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when Agency officials feared she had been “outed” by the traitor Aldrich Ames.

I have previously said that I never would have written those sentences if Bill Harlow, then CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the Agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson’s disclosure would endanger herself or anybody.”


T.J. King

Clarice, consider it "open source". If you can add to it and make it better there is plenty of material to do that. Feel free.

I saw Hillary trying to resurrect the "vast right wing conspiracy (vrwc)" this week. It reminds me of the never ending revolution or the never ending campaign war room or in this case the never ending VRWC.

T.J. King

Patton, consider the network of like minded people within Plame's immediate circle of associates at the CIA. I had a deja vu moment yesterday regarding the sobbing Junior analyst that Plame was consoling or "ministering to" or whatever. This seems to be a common reaction at Foggy bottom.

Here are some of the Wilson's known associates: Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson, Alan Foley, VIPS, Fired Mary McCarthy (leaked to Dana Priest secret prison story), Dana Priest (BBQ at Plame's house).

Ray McGovern, founder of VIPS, now works for NION, UFPJ, and ANSWER network. The 3 main umbrella groups for antiwar rallies. Each run by either CPUSA (Communist party USA), RCP (Revolutionary communist party) and open supporters of Hezbollah and in the case of ANSWER, Saddam's attorney, Ramsey Clark.

McGovern claims in interviews that Foley (Plame's boss) would join VIPS after his CIA retirement. Larry Johnson, who will all know is also a member of VIPS. VIPS were the ones that yelled down Cheney at that press conference.

Alan Foley, is one of the CIA people that testified against John Bolton's UN nomination. Foley also characterized Fred Feitz, Bolton's chief of staff, as his spy at Dept. of State, since Feitz had a duel role at the time in WINPAC and at State. Here is KDRUM speculating in 2005 that he was the original source. Notice in KDRUM's article his mention of Judith Miller's name who also practically had a cot and a mini-fridge at WINPAC in 2001 when she was writing her book.

Mary McCarthy you remembered was fired with great media sympathy a couple of years ago. She leaked the CIA secret prison story to Dana Priest. Dana Priest hanging at Wilson's house with BBQ and beers.

Any way, I know I'm all over the place here, and I'm not implying that Feitz and Miller are insiders with Plame's VIPS freindly gang, but I would be interested to try to get an idea of who this little group inside the Agency really is and if her identity is not "widely known" in the Georgetown cocktail circuit, is it known at the Wilson family BBQ and breakfast club.

Here was my deja vu moment yesterday. Just like Mitchell and Russert use similar phrases, this group uses similar phrases. And Media reports from unnamed sources do too. Remember the MSM media reports, Cheney came to CIA and they felt hurt and intimidated. Later this was used to describe Libby coming to CIA, and how CIA veterens felt intimidated, lack of respect, demoralized, unappreciated.

John Bolton nominated to UN post. Plame's boss, Alan Foley who butted heads with Bolton weekly over what he could declassify, testified on behalf of those that opposed Bolton. Bolton was characterized by witnesses as being intimidating, ill tempered, the boss from hell, yelled alot, out of control, mean.

I don't know if he made junior analysts upset, but wait.

Porter Goss, upon appointment to clean up CIA, Media reports he came in and turned over years of work and disrespected senior staffers, people were demoralized, scared, upset, felt unappreciated, intimidated, concerned for the ability of CIA to continue to do its job.

Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson: Plame refered to this crazy story about Niger, felt pressured on intel, Joe concerned why his discoveries not being listened to, felt like I was punched in the gut, my career was ruined, a junior analyst was upset about Cheney's request??

Sounds like a culture of paranoia and disgruntled employees.

I noticed until Valerie's story, they always refered to Alan Foley, 27 years of service. Ray McGovern, 25 years of service. The senior staffers are disheartened and intimidated. It was never a 30 year old. It was always a baby bomber. But when the junior staffer that was cradled in her soothing arms was upset, it was significant because he didn't have the authority to fix the Cheney "intimidation", nor did Valerie, but the mystery man walking by did.

My guess is the junior-ness was only mentioned to enhance the storyline of the helplessness and lack of authority to appoint Joe.

My point is in the past 5 years, everytime I hear about how the Spies at CIA are cowering under their desks everytime the phone rings, I'm blown away. Bill Casey and Wild Bill Donovan would have kicked these guys asses from one end of Langley to the other. They lived a true 007 life. These guys are either wussies or masters of disinformation, and with the actions of the willing media in this debacle I would say its mostly the latter.

I think the leftwing partisan analysts club at CIA have been fighting a paranoid rear guard defensive fight at CIA since 911 and this "we're demoralized, please don't reform us" angle that is lapped up by the MSM is part of that strategy.

Senior staffers=baby boomer bureacrats=liberal club

Intimidated and demoralized=we're not going to cooperate with any 911 reforms, because 911 wasn't our fault...and oh by the way, Neocons at DoD are nuts and Dept. of State are incompetent, so there.

If the 911 commission was supposed to end this interagency back biting, we are getting a proctologist view of it.

I would really like to know who all is in this group. I'm not using the term Leftwing conspiracy, but these guys sure are tight.

boris

They do sound like ninnies and crybabies don't they.

T.J. King

Additional links to above post, regarding Plame coworker suing CIA for kicking him out of Plame's department WINPAC for not doctoring intel.

More about Plame's job responsibility, the people in her department, and Fleitz's dual role in close Proximity to Armitage and Plame. Foley thought Fleitz was his spy, but he might have been spying on them. Who knows?

If he gets payed by a drunk Danny Devito in the movie, we will know how Plame feels about him.

SlimGuy

Gee for weeks now we have been infested here with discountable low level trolls. Now we have a prior debunked higher level troll trying to show everyone the light.

That can only mean someone has struck a target somewhere that had to be reacted to.

Can't wait for Kos himself to come over an straighten us all out.

willem

Who made the decision to exempt Wilson from NDA/secrecy requirements?

Somebody was the decider. Somebody decided how the Wilson relationship would be set-up. Who?

Who decided Wilson would be allowed to continue doing what he's doing without any resistance or response from the CIA?

T.J. King

Willem, I bet its Alan Foley

willem

That certainly crossed my mind. How interesting nobody seems to want to know. The silence is deafening.

Perhaps a case of Treason is indeed percolating within the shadows.

willem

Not to play games with the "T" word, but I really do wonder about the broader confluence of French-Turkish relationships to develop Saddam's northern oilfields, competitive ME pipeline interests, French interests in the UN/OFF fraud, the denial of Turkish transit to the US4ID, French interests in Libya, French uranium mines in Niger, the French political web of Cogema, Cogema's consultants and the usual suspects engaged in a defacto selling of access to the US governement.

Why would there not be efforts to cultivate "friends" of these interests in upper levels of our government?

It seems naive to think they are not there. It seems naive to think there wouldn't also be a few at the CIA.

clarice feldman

Yes, I think the "boondoggle" explanation while possible, is the least probably explanation given all the other perfidious conduct taking place in the agency at the same time, including but not limited to. allowing the publication of Scheuer's book and the Pillar anti-Bush roadshow in the run up to the election.
I've thought that for a long time.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_wilson_gambit.html>The Wilson Gambit

clarice feldman

**probablE*********

drjohn

"Novak said the source was not in the White House."

Isn't this what one could call "conclusive" proof that this investigation was politically motivated to "get" someone in the White House and was enabled by the mindless Democrats?

But I repeat myself. :-)

cj doherty

I am so sick of the "blame Armitage" crowd. Don't you realize Armitage got Plame's info from a State Department memo that Libby ordered to be written about Joe Wilson? Do you ever ask yourselves or do the research on how Armitage got his info on Plame and how it connects to Libby? Here's the cliff notes:

On May 29, 2003, "According to Marc Grossman, a senior State Department official who testified in the first week of the Libby trial, Libby pulled him aside after a meeting on that date and asked him what he knew about a Joe Wilson and his trip to Niger....
First he spoke with...Armitage, who claimed ignorance of the matter, and then he emailed the head of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Carl Ford, and the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs (Kansteiner). Ford and Kansteiner reported back, "yes we knew about it" and provided a summary of the events. Armed with this information Grossman called Libby, summarized his findings, and promised to get him more information when he returned from an overseas trip." (From Larry Johnson, Plame's colleague of many years)

And now this (from Buzzflash): "Libby, if we recall, met with Armitage the week before his meeting with Woodward -- and it was Libby that requested a State Department backgrounder as to how Joe Wilson came to be sent to Niger."

And this: "Libby, Raw Story reports, contacted John Bolton, then Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs for information about the Ambassador's trip to Niger. After receiving it, he asked for a report, and that led to the June 9 State Department Memo. While Marc Grossman's name is on the classified memo identifying Valerie Wilson, Raw Story reports:
... sources say that the memo was written on Libby's behest as part of a work-up order orchestrated out of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which operated out of the Cheney's office and was chaired by Special Advisor to President Bush, Karl Rove."

And as you should all know by now, Grossman orally (by phone or in person) told Libby on June 11 or 12th 2003 about Plame, and Armitage told and showed Woodward the State Department memo with Grossman's and Plame's names on it on June 13, 2003.

thank you and good night.

Cecil Turner

Don't you realize Armitage got Plame's info from a State Department memo that Libby ordered to be written about Joe Wilson?

Oh, nonsense. Plame chaired a meeting at CIA to introduce Joe. The INR analyst took notes. When Wilson went public about his mission, the notes turned into the infamous INR memo. If there was any evidence Libby'd even seen the INR memo (let alone "ordered it written"), that would've figured prominently at trial. He didn't. In any event, he could hardly have been responsible for Armitage reading the Top Secret memo and deciding to share.

Further, using Raw Story's previously leaked version of the evidence is silly. (Nor is Grossman's "by phone or in person" memory a lot better, nor do I believe Armitage showed Woodward the INR memo.) As time goes on, the stories are getting better . . . even if they have to be made up. On that subject, Sen Bond's take on Val's new story (apparently spurred by trial evidence that OVP's question post-dated her recommendation) is hilarious:

If Ms. Wilson’s memory of events has improved and she would now like to change her testimony, I’m sure the committee staff would be happy to re-interview her.

The comments to this entry are closed.