
[Preface: This post is the seventh of a series (see Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) focused on offering some observations and analysis on some of the documents released during the Libby trial. Cross-posted at The Left Coaster.]
In Part 4 of this series I wrote about an under-reported aspect of the Bush administration's war on former Ambassador Joseph Wilson – specifically, how the Bush administration used revisionist history about Wilson's Niger trip to falsely claim that his findings supported their uranium from Africa allegation. There's a second, related aspect to this character assassination of Wilson, which I briefly hinted at in Part 4 and which I discuss here – namely, revisionist history about where an Iraqi delegation met with a Nigerien official in mid-1999. This constituted a serious distortion of Wilson's claim that would subsequently serve as another weapon for the Bush administration to repeatedly deceive the public. I first addressed this issue in some detail as part of my interview of Ambassador Wilson in August 2005. Marcy also covered this topic in the context of a broader analysis of the CIA DO report on Wilson's trip in November 2005. New evidence has now emerged from some of the declassified documents from the Libby trial – including the actual CIA DO report on Wilson's trip – that sheds more light on the genesis of this distortion.
For clarity, I've separated this post into the following sections. (All emphasis in quoted portions is mine, unless otherwise stated.)
1. What Wilson stated
2. What the CIA DO report on Wilson's trip said about Wilson's statement
3. What the SSCI report said about the CIA DO report's rendering of Wilson's statement
4. What the CIA DO reports officer and WINPAC/DIA analysts told the SSCI about Wilson's statement
5. What the U.K. Butler report said about Wilson's statement
6. How and when did the incorrect claim about Wilson's statement originate in U.S. IC reporting?
7. Conclusions
1. What Wilson stated
Wilson reported the following in his book "The Politics of Truth" which was first released on April 30, 2004:
Before I left Niger, I provided a member of the American Embassy staff with an extensive briefing….I described a conversation with one of my sources. He had mentioned to me that on the margins of a ministerial meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1999, a Nigerien businessman had asked him to meet with an Iraqi official to discuss trade. My contact said that alarm bells had immediately gone off in his mind. Well aware of United Nations sanctions on Iraq, he met with the Iraqi only briefly and avoided any substantive issues. As he told me this, he hesitated and looked up to the sky as if plumbing the depths of his memory, then offered that perhaps the Iraqi might [emphasis in original - ed.] have wanted to talk about uranium. But since there had been no discussion of uranium – my contact was idly speculating when he mentioned it – there was no story. [page 28]
[...]
Within an hour of my return to Washington in early March 2002, a CIA reports officer, at my request, arrived at my home. Over Chinese takeout, I gave him the same details of my trip and conclusions that I had provided to Owens-Kirkpatrick in Niamey before my departure. These included the account of the meeting between my Nigerien contact and the Iraqi official on the margins of the OAU meeting, as well as my observations about where our government might inquire further if it was not persuaded by my report or those of the ambassador and the general whose inquiries had preceded mine. [page 29]
Wilson also made the same point in some of his interviews.
Bottom line: Wilson has always stated that the Iraqi-Nigerien meeting in question occurred at the margins of an OAU meeting – a meeting that took place in Algiers, not Niger (evidently in July 1999).
2. What the CIA DO report on Wilson's trip said about Wilson's statement
The newly declassified March 8, 2002 CIA DO report on Wilson's trip (DX71, pages 8 and 9) says:
MAYAKI, HOWEVER, DID RELATE THAT IN JUNE 1999 BARKA ((TEFRIDJ)), A NIGERIEN/ALGERIAN BUSINESSMAN, APPROACHED HIM AND INSISTED THAT MAYAKI MEET WITH AN IRAQI DELEGATION TO DISCUSS "EXPANDING COMMERCIAL RELATIONS" BETWEEN NIGER AND IRAQ. ALTHOUGH [THE MEETING TOOK?] PLACE, MAYAKI LET THE MATTER DROP DUE TO THE UNITED NATIONS (UN) SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAQ AND THE FACT THAT HE OPPOSED DOING BUSINESS WITH IRAQ. MAYAKI SAID THAT HE INTERPRETED THE PHRASE "EXPANDING COMMERCIAL RELATIONS" TO MEAN THAT IRAQ WANTED TO DISCUSS URANIUM YELLOWCAKE SALES. MAYAKI SAID HE UNDERSTOOD ROGUE STATES WOULD LIKE TO EXPLOIT NIGER'S RESOURCES, SPECIFICALLY URANIUM, BUT HE BELIEVED THE NIGERIEN GOVERNMENT'S REGARD FOR THE UNITED STATES (U.S.) AS A CLOSE ALLY WOULD PREVENT SALES TO THESE STATES FROM TAKING PLACE DESPITE NIGER'S ECONOMIC WOES.
Bottom line: The CIA DO report does not in any way suggest that an Iraqi delegation traveled to Niger in mid-1999 for the meeting in question. However, the report omitted the fact that this meeting occurred in Algiers.
3. What the SSCI report said about the CIA DO report's rendering of Wilson's statement
The Phase I SSCI report came out in July 2004, roughly a month following the first release of Joseph Wilson's book and well after Wilson's other public statements about the Algiers meeting. One section of the SSCI report says:
The [CIA DO] intelligence report [on Wilson's trip] indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [DELETED] 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." [page 43]
Bottom line: The description in the above section is very similar to that in the CIA DO report (section 2 above) in that there is no claim made that the Iraqi delegation traveled to Niger in mid-1999. However, the SSCI report also omitted the fact that this meeting occurred in Algiers.
4. What the CIA DO reports officer and WINPAC/DIA analysts told the SSCI about Wilson's statement
Interestingly, when the SSCI interviewed the reports officer who wrote the Wilson trip report:
The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting. [page 46]
When some CIA WINPAC and DIA analysts were interviewed by the SSCI, here is what they claimed:
The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales. [page 46]
The pathetic SSCI report made no attempt to correct the record (more on this in section 5 below) and instead, allowed these false claims to bolster the White House's character assassination campaign against Joseph Wilson.
Bottom line: Even though Amb. Wilson indicated that the meeting in question occurred in Algiers and even though the CIA DO reports officer's own report said nothing about Iraqi officials making a trip to Niger in mid-1999, the reports officer incorrectly asserted to the SSCI that Wilson somehow claimed that the Iraqi delegation visited Niger (as opposed to Algiers). WINPAC and DIA analysts, likewise, made wrong assertions to the SSCI, despite the contents of the CIA DO report.
5. What the U.K. Butler report said about Wilson's statement
The Butler report also came out in July 2004, around the same time that the Phase I SSCI report came out. However, in contrast to the pathetic SSCI report, the otherwise egregious Butler report managed to accurately reflect Wilson's claim regarding the mid-1999 meeting and even took the surprising step of clearly separating that meeting from a visit by former Iraqi ambassador Wissam Al-Zahawie to Niger and three other non-uranium-producing African countries in Feb 1999:
493. In early 1999, Iraqi officials visited a number of African countries, including Niger. The visit [footnote 2] was detected by intelligence, and some details were subsequently confirmed by Iraq. [page 122]
Here's footnote 2 on the same page:
2 This visit was separate from the Iraqi-Nigerien discussions, in the margins of the mid-1999 Organisation of African Unity meeting in Algiers, attested to by Ambassador Wilson in his book “The Politics of Truth” (Carroll & Graf, NY 2004, p28).
Bottom line: The otherwise egregious Butler report not only accurately reflected this particular claim of Wilson's, it also acknowledged clearly that the Iraqi-Nigerien discussion in Algiers in mid-1999 – the very interaction that Wilson described as having occurred between Mayaki and an Iraqi delegation – had nothing to do with Iraq seeking uranium from Africa. Also, unlike the pathetic SSCI report, the Butler report made it clear that the Feb 1999 Wissam Al-Zahawi visit (introduced into the Niger forgeries with a false allegation regarding uranium) was entirely different from the post-June 1999 Niger-Iraq meeting. (Incidentally, multiple investigations have concluded that the Wissam Al-Zahawie trip had nothing to do with uranium.)
6. How and when did the incorrect claim about Wilson's statement originate in U.S. IC reporting?
Given that the March 2002 CIA DO report on Wilson's trip never claimed that an Iraqi delegation visited Niger in mid-1999, but only that the then-Nigerien PM met an Iraqi delegation sometime after mid-1999, the question is when and how Wilson's claim got distorted? This is important to ascertain for a couple of reasons.
First, there are possible implications surrounding any "secret" Iraqi trip to Niger that was otherwise unknown. The Iraq-Niger meeting in Algiers in mid-1999 was never considered suspicious, as the Butler report pointed out. The Wissam Al-Zahawie trip to Niger in Feb 1999 had always been known to Western intelligence agencies (since 1999) and was never really considered suspicious until Al-Zahawie's name got inserted in the context of uranium into the forged Niger documents. Hence, the notion that there was a separate and secret mid-1999 trip by Iraq to Niger could be easily misused to falsely claim that Iraq was secretly seeking uranium.
Second, those indulging in this distortion of Wilson's claim were able to sow confusion by swapping Wilson's claim about a 1999 Iraq-Niger meeting in Algiers with a 1999 Iraq-Niger meeting in Niger. By taking "mid" out of "mid 1999", it became possible to make Wilson's claim sound a lot like the claim from SISMI (originating from the forged Niger documents) that fraudulently distorted the objective of Wissam Al-Zahawie's visit to Niger in (early) 1999.
It is worth recalling, as I showed in Part 4 of this series, that the first known document subsequent to the CIA DO report on Wilson's trip in which a U.S. intelligence agency dug up and cited Wilson's trip was the communication from WINPAC to the IAEA in Feb 2003. So, let's trace the mentions of Wilson's trip report starting with the WINPAC communication to the IAEA.
6.1 U.S. IC communication to the IAEA accompanying the copies of some of the Niger forgeries
According to the April 3, 2003 likely WINPAC memo (labeled DX64, see page 9) that was forwarded to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) in early June 2003:
25. [DELETED] On 4-5 February 2003, the U.S. briefed INVO in response to Baute's request from 6 January for information on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium agreement. Members of the US Mission to the IAEA in Vienna presented the information and analyses as(?) compiled by CIA. This Intelligence Community-cleared briefing indicated, "Two streams of reporting suggest Iraq has attempted to acquire uranium from Niger. We cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims. Nonetheless, we are concerned that these reports may indicate Baghdad has attempted to secure an unreported source of uranium yellowcake for a nuclear weapons program." The two streams of reporting referred to in this briefing came from the sensitive source described in paragraph six of this notification [SENTENCES DELETED].
I explained in Part 2 of this series that the "sensitive source" being referred to here is former Ambassador Joseph Wilson (and the CIA report of his findings from his 2002 trip to Niger). The Phase I SSCI report explicitly identified the two streams of reporting as being:
… the original CIA intelligence reports from the foreign government service and the CIA intelligence report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger… [page 68]
Bottom line: Neither the April 2003 memo or the Phase I SSCI report mention whether the communication to the IAEA alleged that the Iraqi-Nigerien meeting occurred in Niger (or Algiers).
6.2 March 8, 2003 DIA memo
As I discussed in Part 4, this memo was the first known DIA memo to falsely claim that Wilson's trip supported the Bush administration's uranium from Africa allegation. However, the short extract from this memo that was included in the SSCI report does not indicate whether the memo alleged that the Iraqi delegation traveled to Niger. The SSCI Report says (pages 69-70):
On March 8, 2003, the DIA provided an info memo (TS-99-177-03) to the Secretary of Defense in response to a March 8, 2003 Washington Post article, "Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake." The memo said, "we believe the IAEA is dismissing attempted Iraqi yellowcake purchases, largely based upon a single set of unverified documents concerning a contract between Niger and Iraq for the supply of 'pure uranium.' The [memo added that the] USG ha[d] not shared other [information] with the IAEA that suggested a Nigerien uranium deal with Iraq." The other intelligence referenced in the memo is the CIA intelligence report on the former ambassador's trip, which described the Nigerien Prime Minister's belief that an Iraqi delegation was interested in uranium, the Navy report from November 2002 which said uranium destined for Iraq was being stored in a warehouse in Cotonou, Benin, and a fax from late 2001 found in the possession of a Somali businessman which described arrangements for shipping unidentified commodities in an amount that appeared similar to the amount in the Iraq Niger yellowcake deal. The fax, however, did not mention uranium, Iraq, or Niger.
Bottom line: The specific wording in the paragraph above only states that Mayaki thought an Iraqi delegation was interested in uranium – it does not state that this delegation allegedly traveled to Niger. This, at face value, is consistent with the CIA DO report on Wilson's trip. However, since we don't have the entire DIA memo we can't be sure if the memo mentioned anything about a trip to Niger.
6.3 March 11, 2003 WINPAC SPWR
The WINPAC March 11, 2003 SPWR says:
Washington since last fall also has provided the IAEA with detailed information on the reported Iraqi-Nigerien agreement based on sensitive reporting. Sensitive reporting indicates a delegation of Iraqis around 1999 visited Niger and suggests they were seeking access to uranium yellowcake. The IAEA says Baghdad admits one of its officials in February 1999 visited Niger and several other African countries, but the IAEA has not shared further details with the US. [DELETED]
Bottom line: This memo is a textbook example for how one could be easily fooled – as I noted at the start of this section (6). This memo was NOT talking about the Wilson trip report but rather, about the claim originating from the SISMI reporting based on the forged Niger documents – namely, the false allegation that then-Iraqi ambassador Wissam Al-Zahawi's trip to Niger in Feb 1999 was to seek uranium. There appears to be no mention in this memo that the IAEA was told about the results of Wilson's trip and no mention of any allegation of a mid-1999 Iraqi delegation visiting Niger.
6.4 April 3, 2003 likely WINPAC memo
According to the April 3, 2003 likely WINPAC memo addressed to Congress (labeled DX64, see page 4) that was forwarded to the Office of the Vice President (OVP) in early June 2003:
6. [...] While also asserting there had been no transfers of yellowcake to rogue states, one subsource – a former senior Nigerien official we are confident would have known of uranium sales–also said that he believed Iraq was interested in discussing yellowcake purchases when it sent a delegation to Niamey in mid-1999.
Bottom line: This April 2003 memo used the false allegation that Wilson claimed that the mid-1999 Iraqi-Nigerien meeting occurred in Niger.
6.5 April 5, 2003 NIC SOCM
Per the Phase I SSCI report:
On April 5, 2003, the NIC issued a Sense of the Community Memorandum (SOCM), (Niger: No Recent Uranium Sales to Iraq, NIC SOCM 2001 12.) The SOCM said, "we judge it highly unlikely that Niamey has sold uranium yellowcake to Baghdad in recent years. The IC agrees with the IAEA assessment that key documents purported showing a recent Iraq-Niger sales accord are a fabrication. We judge that other reports from 2002 – one alleging warehousing of yellowcake for shipment to Iraq, a second alleging a 1999 visit by an Iraqi delegation to Niamey – do not constitute credible evidence of a recent or impending sale." The SOCM added, "the current government of Niger [DELETED] and probably would report such an approach by the Iraqis, especially because a sale would violate UN resolution 687." [page 71]
Bottom line: Unfortunately, we are faced with limited and vague wording here. Was this memo talking about the Al-Zahawi trip of Feb 1999 or about the alleged (non-existent) Iraqi meeting with Mayaki in Niger in mid-1999? Either way, this memo made it clear that there was no evidence that any such meetings had anything to do with Iraq seeking uranium.
6.6 June 12, 2003 DIA memo
Unlike the March 8, 2003 DIA memo, the June 12, 2003 memo completely dropped any reference to Wilson's trip as having supported the uranium claim:
On June 12, 2003, the DIA sent an information memorandum to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in response to questions about Iraq's nuclear program. The memo said, "while the Intelligence Committee agrees that documents the IAEA reviewed were likely 'fake,' other unconfirmed reporting suggested that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium and yellowcake from African nations after 1998. " The other reporting mentioned was the Navy report from November 2002, which said uranium destined for Iraq was being stored in a warehouse in Cotonou, Benin. [page 71]
Bottom line: This DIA memo had no reference to Wilson's trip, in contrast to the March 8, 2003 DIA memo.
In summary, a review of these memos unfortunately does not allow us to clearly figure out how and when the story of an Iraqi delegation meeting Mayaki first became the fictitious story of an Iraqi delegation meeting Mayaki in Niger. What we can say is that the Algiers-Niger switch in U.S. IC documents occurred no later than April 3, 2003 and very likely prior to that. A more detailed investigation into this matter would be desirable.
7. Conclusions
When former Ambassador Joseph Wilson returned from Niger in early 2002, he narrated an incident conveyed to him by one of his sources, the former Nigerien PM Ibrahim Mayaki. Wilson told the CIA that Mayaki met an Iraqi delegation at the margins of an Organization for African Unity (OAU) meeting in Algiers in mid-1999. In this post, I showed that the CIA DO report on Wilson's trip did not state the location of this meeting. Yet, the CIA DO reports officer and some WINPAC and DIA analysts later claimed to the SSCI that the meeting occurred in Niger, contradicting Wilson's claim. Surprisingly, the British Butler report accurately reported what Wilson said, even as the Phase I SSCI report that was released around the same time parroted the incorrect claims of the CIA DO reports officer and the WINPAC/DIA analysts without correcting their claims. A review of additional U.S. IC documents suggests that the Algiers-Niger switch in U.S. IC documents occurred no later than April 3, 2003 and very likely prior to that. A more detailed investigation into this matter would be desirable.
The significance of the Algiers-Niger switch – which constituted another piece of deceptive, revisionist history about Joseph Wilson's report – is twofold. First, there are possible implications surrounding any "secret" Iraqi trip to Niger that was otherwise unknown. The Iraq-Niger meeting in Algiers in mid-1999 – narrated by Wilson – was never considered suspicious, as the Butler report pointed out. The Wissam Al-Zahawie trip to Niger in Feb 1999 had always been known to Western intelligence agencies (since 1999) and was never really considered suspicious until Al-Zahawie's name got inserted in the context of uranium into the forged Niger documents. Hence, the notion that there was a separate and secret mid-1999 trip by Iraq to Niger could be easily misused to claim that Iraq was secretly seeking uranium. Second, those indulging in this distortion of Wilson's claim were able to confuse people by swapping Wilson's claim about a 1999 Iraq-Niger meeting in Algiers with a 1999 Iraq-Niger meeting in Niger. By taking "mid" out of "mid 1999", it became possible to make Wilson's claim sound a lot like the claim from SISMI (originating from the forged Niger documents) that fraudulently distorted the objective of Wissam Al-Zahawie's visit to Niger in (early) 1999. The net result is that the distorted narrative about Wilson's trip could be misused by frauds in the Bush White House to further cement their allegation about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger. In a follow-up post I will show examples of how this distortion was misused.
(Thanks to DarkSun, where I found the photo of Amb. Wilson. — CHS)
Related posts:
- Cheney’s Betrayal Made an IIPA Charge for Libby Possible
- Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and the “Unremarkable” Meat Grinder
- SCOTUS Denies Valerie Plame Wilson Her Day in Court
- Video: Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC2) Calls Obama “Liar” During Joint Session
- Joe Wilson: Both Lying and Stupid; Immigrants Buying Insurance Makes Sense





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

ESTEN!
eReposte!
eRiposte, thank you.
OT … But everyone needs to hear this :
This will be up about 1P.M. eastern …. George Washington, Staying in Character
by Robert Krulwich
Weekend Edition Saturday, February 17, 2007 In 1777, Gen. George Washington and his troops faced British and Hessian soldiers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. He issued a firm order that no matter how barbaric enemy armies might be, he would not abide any such behavior in his own troops.
http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..Id=7466065
Byron York has an interesting op-ed in the WaPo today. It’s not as far-fetched as usual. His thesis is that, even now, we still don’t know Valerie Plame’s status at the CIA. The implication is that Plame might have just been a secretary, so this could all still be much ado about nothing.
Newsflash, Byron: Scooter Libby knows exactly what Plame’s status was. If he didn’t look into it before he started blabbing her name to the press, you can bet your ass he checked on it after the investigation started. So if you really want to know what Plame’s status was, why not just ask Scooter?
Great research, thank you.
Am looking forward to it!
So Prince Harry is going to Iraq as a soldier in a few days. But The Twins, the Hillary daughter, the Cheney daughter, and chicken hawk Joe Lieberman’s 19 year old son will be nowhere in sight. At least not in Iraq.
GREETINGS, O BROTHER OR SISTER IN OUR LORD. I AM MR TAIWO BABATUNDE, THE YOUNGEST SON-IN-LAW OF THE LATE NIGERIAN PRIME MINISTER THE HONORABLE IBRAHIM MAYAKI.
BEFORE PERISHING IN A MYSTERIOUS PLANE ACCIDENT LAST YEAR, MY FATHER-IN-LAW TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN CONTACTED BY A CERTAIN MR. BARKA TEFRIDJ, A NIGERIAN/ALGERIAN BUSINESSMAN, WHO APPROACHED HIM AND INSISTED THAT HE (MAYAKI) MEET WITH AN IRAQI DELEGATION TO DISCUSS “EXPANDING COMMERCIAL RELATIONS” BETWEEN NIGER AND IRAQ. ALTHOUGH THE MEETING TOOK PLACE, MAYAKI THOUGHT HE HAD SENT IT DOWN. APPARENTLY SOME DEAL THOUGH WAS BEEN STRUCK BECAUSE SOON THEREAFTER MY DAD-IN-LAW RECEIVED BOXED SHIPPING OF THREE CUBIC FEET OF U.S.$100 BILLS WHICH WERE WRAPPED IN SMALLER BUNDLES OF PLASTIC.
DUE TO CURRENCY RESTRICTIONS IN MY NATIVE COUNTRY (NIGERIA) I CANNOT EASILY EXIT OUR BORDERS WITH IT OR IT SHIP PHYSICALLY TO FOREIGN PERSONAGE. THAT IS WHY I AM WRITING TO YOU DEAR FRIEND. IF YOU WOULD KINDLY REPLY TO THIS WITH YOUR BANK NAME, ACCOUNT NUMBER, AND NUMERO SOCIAL, I WILL DEPOSIT THE COMPLETE PACKAGE OF PAPER MONIES INTO MY OWN ACCOUNT HERE IN ABUJA AND TRANSFER THEM BY ALL INSTANTLY MOST MODERN MEANS TO YOURS ACCOUNT. THEN LATER I REMOVE ELECTRONICALLY. FOR THIS YOUR MINOR TROUBLE I WILL LEAVE IN YOUR ACCOUNT THE MONEY EQUIVALENT OF ONE CUBIC FOOT OF US$100 BILLS.
THE US GOVERNMENT WILL NEVER KNOW OF OR TRACE THESE FUNDS. THEY HAVE A LONG RECORD OF LOSING ALL TRACK OF SUCH AND NOT CARING. EXCUSE PARDON ME I THERE HEARING IS SOMEONE KNOCK AT MY DOOR, HE SAYS EMISSARY HE IS SENT BY U.S. REPRESENTATIVE A MR. HENRY WAXMAN. I QUICK SEND THIS EMAIL YOU AND THEN WILL OP
==================
((((FDL!!)))
[Mod Note; nicely done. You had us going there for a moment.]
Speaking of past presidents and how the present pResindent likes to draw parallels (yeah, right), he’s been jonesing to be the next Truman making the brave decision to use nukes, I bet he will want to be FDR incarnate, too, with 3 terms in office as a war president.
The dead tree Sunday edition of the Washington Post (We get it around here on Saturday and it’s on the stand until about Tuesday.) has a story by Victoria Toensing called “Trial in Error.” She wants to know why Fitz, Joe Wilson, Armitage, Fleischer and others weren’t charged in the Plame case. She’s one of the characters who says Plame didn’t have a cover to blow.
I don’t think the story’s online yet. Get a copy at the newsstand — it’s a dilly.
Also in the WP is a story called “Democrats Run Hill Much as GOP Did.” It’s a real laugh as it’s full of Repugs complaining they’re not being able to add amendments to legislation..
Frank Probst @ 5
I suppose this is obvious to the trained Plame-ologist, but Mr. York also leaves unaddressed the question of why, after this so-called “secretary”’s name was published, along with the name of her “fictitous brass-plate organization,” the CIA damn quick filed a criminal complaint precipitating this entire investigation. It doesn’t pass the credibility test that they would be up in arms if a non-covert secretary who happened to work in Langley was outed. So a big FEH ON YOU! on Byron York.
eReposte – those ’slight modifications’ in Ambassador Wilson’s reports came about during Cheney’s and Libby’s efforts to lean on the
intellegencecommunity?The one question I want answered is why Byron Yorks byline appears in the Washington Post about a topic he knows nothing about.
By teddy94110 | Feb 17, 2007 12:57:01 AM | Request Removal
TSF!
Frank Probst @
5
I think that York peice comes in anticipation of a guilty verdict, and the spin will be jury nullification, arguing that the jury wanted to punish Libby for the perceived leak, the underlying crime, even if the evidence to convict on the immediate charges was insufficient (wingut alternate reality alert).
OT, but I know I am not the only Tom Waits fan lurking around FDL.
Saw this link at onegoodmove to a YouTube of an animated video of sorts, called “Tom Waits for No One”
enjoy
http://syntaxofthings.typepad……for_n.html
BQ @ 15
I’m a big fan. Just got the Orphans album. PLaying discs 1 and 2 a lot in the car.
I’m wondering what will be revealed in Tenet’s upcoming book. If he only skims the surface of this issue (Plame’s status), I’ll be sorely disappointed. Then again, I’m already disappointed in old George.
BQ @ 15
Speaking for me only, to say I am a Waits fan hardly covers it. I like Leonard Cohen too. These two mostly defy description.
If anyone really wants to understand just how underhanded this Administration was in their rush to war, please ignore the Yorkie and go to firedoglake.com
By ifthethunderdontgetya | Feb 17, 2007 12:23:09 PM | Request Removal
Thank you, eRiposte. I’ve been following this trial as best I could, what with the *#&$$(11!* job and all, and I was still confused about how these two different stories were conflated to smear the Wilsons.
Great article!
At least I think it is. This is important stuff – someone or someones in OUR government LIED, by conflating two different contacts between Iraqis and Nigeriens.
But it’s SOOOOO hard to read, because of all the unexpanded acronyms. :^{
Pach,
Just when I thought there was nothing I needed to face post-blizzard conditions to buy. Color me jealous until I can deal with the drive to a decent CD selection.
Frank–
I went back and re-read the
Cousin ItByron York piece and I thought it was a tragic waste of dye.http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01571.html
The whole point of it is to imply, as you say, that we don’t know her status–though of course we do, through the documents and testimony in this trial–by ignoring time and time again the point that this trial IS about perjury and obstruction of justice. He would rather keep pointing to the fact that it IS NOT about an IIPA violation, which he repeatedly and incorrectly suggests is the only possible illegality or impropriety that could be legitimate.
He seems to be saying, with enormous gobs of disingenuity, that it would be better if we actually had her status on record in the trial. Of course, it is the defense that wants that kept out at all cost, since a statement of fact as to her status that the jury could consider would put the nail in the motivation coffin.
I never did understand the whimpering and mumbling going on under the hair of the orignal Cousin It. I don’t fathom this one’s mutterings either.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 7
Don’t forget Rover’s kid, who Karl does not want to pick tomatoes.
S.O.S. in MA @ 11
If she was just a secretary, then why can her status not be revealed?
The odious V. Toensing article:
Trial in Error
If You’re Going to Charge Scooter, Then What About These Guys?
Oklahoma kiddo,
Been entranced with Waits ever since I first heard the “Nighthawks at the Diner” double album. Glad to know others are just as fascinated. Not as familiar with Cohen – I’ve been meaning to get up to speed on him since so many fdl’ers mention him in the same context.
S.O.S. in MA @ 8
How much is one cubic foot of $100 in RUSSERTS?
Effwit @ 25
Thanks, Effwit! Now, why couldn’t I find that??
Moderators: please close an open italics tag that appears to be starting in froggermarch’s 9:30 am comment. Thank you for your help.
[Mod Note; done. Thanks for the heads up.]
I have a bootleg Tom Waits show from 1974 in Denver, that is fabulous! Not sure which one but for folks who have high speed I would suggest this page may be a real gem for Waits fans.
The FM radio shows from that time are usually pretty good recording quality.
pol @
10
Trial in Error
I would definitely invite all firepups to leave a comment for Victoria (at the bottom of the article.) The wingers are showing up in surprisingly large numbers to
advertise their ignoranceshow their approval.Effwit @ 25
Looks like Fred Hiatt wanted to take a break from his penchant for fraud and give Toensing the opportunity to display her skills at defrauding the public.
1. – eRiposte! Can’t the so-called journalists with day jobs ever get this kind of stuff right anymore?
2. – Pach @ # 14: “wingut alternate reality alert”
my letter to Rep. Don Young (R – alternate reality):
Dear Rep. Young,
On Thursday, February 15 you made a speech on the floor of the United States House of Representatives during which you claimed to be quoting the greatest president in our history. You made the speech in defense of the continuously failing policies of the worst president in our history.
I’ve been told you were supplied the erroneous quote of a statement Lincoln never made by a staff member. As a constituent and past supporter I expect you to reprimand the staff member and apologize to the people of Alaska, the United States of America and Iraq.
I am thoroughly disgusted that while several U.S. House members from both parties who are Veterans of the Gulf Wars spoke out against our current president’s total inadequacy, you chose to once again make my state a national and international laughingstock by calling these honorable men traitors. It must take enormous gall for one who has failed to visit most of our wounded Alaska Veterans while recovering within a brisk walk of your office to slap our servicemen and veterans in yet a new way.
Shame on you, sir!
Effwit @ 25
She may eat more than a few of those words. Can’t happen soon enough.
Pectopah @ 23
I picked tomatoes and wine grapes in the Sacramento Valley as a boy shortly after me and my mother moved there from Oklahoma in the early ’50’s. We rode the migrant buses to the field about 5:30 am with mostly Mexican people. It was hard work. But I wouldn’t trade those memories for anything. And Karl Rove thinks those who picked tomatoes were somehow sub-human. Shame on you Mr. Rove.
Pectopah @ 27
Least I could do given all the amazing blogging I’ve been reading (and PayPalling) lo these many weex. It pales by comparison to “Cheney at the Bat” or Punaise’s consistent excellence (”infidel fly rule” is my fave) but we each have our strenghs — mine’s parody. You made my day! :)
She’s enever eaten the shit she’s dished out before. And neither has her noxious hubster, Joseph DiGenova.
Fantastic post!
Re the Her Odiousness, she has been diligently working the npr talk show circut of late with her newspeak.
But with the realization that I may be dipping into tin foil hat territory, it is interesting that this article is appearing in the Washington [DC] Post on this particular long weekend before the LIbby jury gets to deliberate. It makes one wonder whether there isn’t just a little bit of hope alive that at least one jury will not resist the temptation to ignore the Judge’s instructions to avoid all media and thus contaminate the deliberations….
After watching the recent Frontline Show on “The News” and seeing how virtually all the major news media stars are pushing the the idea (both Woodward and Pincus seem to agree here) that this trial is not about anything, one wonders. My sense is that they badly want an aquittal in this case as they must think that such an aquittal would help sheild them from future leak investigations.
My fave Tom Waits song (from One From the Heart )
“Old Boyfriends,
Lost in the pocket of your overcoat,
Like burned out lite bulbs on a Ferris Wheel.
Old Boyfriends,
You remember the kinds of cars they drove,
Parking in an orange grove.
He fell in love you see,
With someone that I used to be.
Tho I very seldom think of him,
Nevertheless sometimes a mannequin’s
Blue satin dress can make the window
Like a dream
Ah but now those dreams belong to someone else,
Now they talk endlessly
In a drawer where I keep
All my
Old Boyfriends
Remember when you were burning for them?
Why do you keep turning them into
Old Boyfriends?
They look you up when they’re in town
To see if they can still burn you down
You fell in love you see
With someone that I used to be
Old Boyfriends
Turn up every time it rains,
Fall out of the pages in a magazine
Old Boyfriends.
Girls fill up the bars every spring,
Not places for remembering.
Old boyfriends
All my old boyfriends
Old boyfriends”
Douglas Feith on Charlie Rose last night.
Sorry if redundant, but just in case not:
Two men enter, one man leave.
It’s the Sunday Morning Smackdown:
Tony Snowjob on MTP with Tim the Tooljob Russert.
Who will emerge with fewer sludgy lies covering their post 9/11, post 11/7 frames?
And what, Chee-knee wasn’t available?
Let’s keep our eye on the ball here. Whatever that carbon-based lower life-form Toesing has to say is a distraction of no probative value. Our ire should instead be directed at the editor who gave this operative an opportunity to spread BushCo propaganda on the pages and pixels of the Washington Post — rather than the Washington Times where they belong.
COLORADO BOB @
4
George W. Bush. The Anti-Washington, the Anti-Truman.
I read where our President and Poppy are pressuring Jeb to run for prez in ‘08.
OT – Byrd speech on CSPAN2
Oklahoma kiddo @
35
Karl Rove is a self-loathing Republibum.
When Hollywood gets around to making a movie about the treason on the Plame business, I’d like to see Dustin Hoffman cast in the role of Ambassador Wilson.
As much as I like him as an actor…Phillip Seymour Hoffman would make a fabulous Rove. He had me at Boogie Nights.
eRiposte @ 32
You mean this Fred Hiatt? Teh Good Leak. At least, Fred knows quality cocktail weenies.
Oklahoma kiddo @
47
Jeff Bridges
OT — Senate Session on CSpan2
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs…..p;Code=CS2
David Ehrenstein @ 37
“
Singeat out,LouiseVictoria”?Byrd! Wow.
“…home…home…home.”
after Stevens grasps around…
Then, Teddy slams it. [I heart my Sen.] Tommorrow’s headlines should be interesting.
here’s something very simple to point out to anyone that wants to claim Wilsons’s report said there were attempts to buy yellowcake;
tenet made it clear the uranium claims should have been taken OUT of the presidents sotu
rice said the claims should have been taken OUT of the sotu
the president said the claims should have been taken OUT of the sotu
they ALL based that position on the report from joe wilson
every one of them were saying that joe wilson’s report said the claims were FALSE
Prairie Sunshine @ 50
Jeff Bridges? For my money you can put Mr. Bridges in any role. This man is top notch. A favorite in this house.
Ed*ard Teller @ 33
I would remind him that we are in the Iraq mess because people like him failed to check their facts in the first place. He has obviously not learned anything.
Curious in Central Texas @ 51
I just got a little break from work, turned on the TV just in time to hear “Senator Lieberman – NO, Senator Lieberman votes NO” on the proceudral vote to end the blockage preventing a vote on the anti-escalation effort.
And yes, I immediately yelled “you a**hole” at my tv.
Now, to digest eRiposte’s fantastic post. It’s gonna take me a couple passes to get it all to sink in.
Blue America is available upstairs.
Senate vote 56 yeas 34 nays…motion failed to pass. The war continues with escalation,
unabatedundebated.mattes @ 40
he’s one of the pod people
Ed*ard Teller @ 52
I wonder what Fitz thinks about this article? I have been waiting for her next lashing of Fitz. Hey Christy, don’t you think she should form her own grand jury (linch mob) in a court of law or STFU. I hope Jane or Christy will write a post about this.
Great investigation you’re running eriposte. I am in awe. I hope Fitz reads this one. What a bunch of traitors.
Since Bush claims Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger, why didn’t he bomb Niger?
Every time I see a picture of Amb. Wilson or Ms. Plame I just want to give them a big hug. I would go off a cliff in a rowboat for either of them.
File under very basic question:
So what if Wilson’s wife was CIA?
What impact does that have on his report? I understand how outing Plame was damaging to both of them and that Cheney would do it for revenge for the story. But other than the revenge factor… how does Plame’s status effect the relevance of his report?
thx
What is it that Byron York does not get about the seriousness of outing a NOC? Is he supporting this kind of criminal activity by saying that it is not serious or of consequence ot our nation?
His integrity and commitment to the security of this nation falls into question when he continues to look for technicalities (loops) for those who outed Plame to slip through.
In case anyone missed “The Plame Affair” as part of Frontline’s “News War” piece:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…..swar/view/
- Tom
#55 Oklahoma Kiddo….Harrison Ford/George Clooney play Wilson. Who plays Valerie? A young Meryl Streep would have done Valerie justice. Who plays Fitz?
Elmer Fudd for Cheney (the gun and all) or how about Anthony Hopkins )he could do the frozen face really well).
Actors for the dead Iraqi people and American soldiers. Oh that’s right you do not need actors for them they’re dead due to the lies of the Bush administration.
Frank Probst @ 5
I would also point out tht the CIA has been mum on Byron York’s relationship at the CIA…which could mean that Byron York is merely performing a mime act of being a journalist.
Even more sinister, York might be using that tried-and-true method of the double diversion. But acting like a White House clacquer/shill while pretending to be a “journalist” it could really deflect from the fact that he’s actually a double agent for the Israeli Mossad.
Toensing makes one really good point. The trial has made is crystal clear that the Bush administration made a concerted effort to take out Wilson and Plame. Does that qualify as a conspiracy. She just fails to mention in her article that Libby lied to the GJ.
One has to really wonder about Victoria Toensing’s agenda with the Libby trial. She has made every effort to undermine the process. I guess Toensing is not concerned when national security(Plame’s work following WMD’s )issues have been seriously undermined/destroyed! This just does not seem important to Toensing.
“According to former federal prosecutor Victoria Toensing – who helped craft the specific law in question that protects covert CIA agents – Karl Rove did not violate the statute. John Gibson of the Fox News Channel asked her the following: “Did Rove — if he said to Matt Cooper what he is reported to have said, did that constitute breaking this law?” And Toensing replied: “No. If he just said to Matt Cooper that the wife is CIA, that doesn’t give any fact to provide the prosecutor with the element that he has to prove Karl Rove intentionally gave up a covert agent with the knowledge that she was deep undercover. And this is very important — the CIA had to be taking the affirmative measures to keep her identity secret. They (the CIA) flunk that on about three counts.” Toensing further noted that, “they weren’t taking affirmative measures to protect that identity. They gave her a desk job in Langley. You don’t really have somebody deep undercover going back and forth to Langley, where people can see them… But probably the worst thing that they did, John, was that, when Bob Novak called and said, well, I have got the name and isn’t she working for the CIA, they just kind of shrugged and said, well, you know, she probably isn’t going to have another overseas assignment anyway. Nobody from the top part of the agency called and said, you cannot print this name. They didn’t threaten him with criminal prosecution, as they have done with other reporters on matters that I’ve worked on. There was nothing to signal that this was important to the CIA.”
I thought you might find this Frontline Series tid-bit interesting (and I put it together in this post) about the “11 Questions” answered by the Victim Agency when making a complaint for an FBI investigation into the leaking of classified information.
Hmmm…would like to see the answer to #11 one day!
P.s. – it answers ONCE and FOR all the issue of Plame’s classified Status!
froggermarch @ 22
Indeed! If Plame’s position at the CIA were simply that of some unclassified Secretary or Analyst bothe the defense and the media would have had access to that information…
just as they do when they requested that several NAMED CIA agents and their jobs be presented in the trial.
Libby himself pointed out that many CIA employees are in unclassified positions…but he knew this because they had told him (Plame did NOT…and “perhaps” he never bothered to check…AT BEST negligence relating to material that bore Secret/SCI on documents he received (and even stamped and secreted himself. But if he really knew…it’s an egregious breach of National Security.
Futhermore Fitz announced to Libby at his Grand Jury testimony that he was investigating a possible breach of the IAIP Act…a request forwarded to him by the CIA. If Plame’s status at the time have not qualified as “covert” they would not have requested investigation under that statute. Only AFTER Fitz’s investigation could the other elements of the IAPA be ascertained: intent, knowledge of her status by the leaker, conspiracy, etc.
Notice how the Defense even tried to exclude any statement that she worked within the CPD from being allowed as evidence…when they argued that the WINPAC association had not been shown by EVIDENCE and statements by the CIA to be shown false. Fitz showed the judge the CIA documents showing that “Wilson’s wife” was an employee of the CPD…and that Judith Miller’s notes, not the CIA’s, had this misattribution.
#42 Mattes. When the Penatgons Inspector General calls Feith and the rwr(right wing radicals) creation , cherry picking and dessiminating of intelligence “inappropriate” instead of “criminal”. That leaves plenty of room for Feith to continue spinning(lying) the mis-use of intelligence as we were just “challenging”, “questioning” the appropriate intelligence organizations.
this group simply set up an “alternative” intelligence agency in the Pentagon and trumped the CIA. That was “inappropriate”
Lying about Intelligence = “inappropriate”
Lying about a blow job under oath = Impeachment
We wonder why we have become the laughing stock of the world. And why people fear and hate us
Since Feith is not in jail along with Ledeen and the rest of the rwr (right wing radicals) they are free to repeat endless claims about Iran’s “alleged” nuclear weapons, feeding a potential confrontation with Iran.
All in the “Clean (bloody) Break Plans”
KarenMcL @ 70
I thought that the wording of the referral should be posted for all to read…
Unauthorized Disclosure of
Classified Information
“11 Questions”
“1) Give the date and identity of the article disclosing the CLASSIFIED information?
2) Give specific statements in the article which are considered CLASSIFIED and whether the data was properly CLASSIFIED?
3) State whether the CLASSIFIED data is disclosed ACCURATELY?
4) State whether the data came from a specific document and, if so, the origin of the document and the name of the individual responsible for the security of the CLASSIFIED data?
5) Give the extent of official dissemination of the data?
6) State whether the data has been the subject of prior official releases?
7) State whether prior clearances for the publication or release of the information was sought from proper authorities?
8) State whether the material, or portions thereof, or enough background data has been published officially or in the press to make an educated speculation on the matter possible?
9) State whether the data can be declassified for the purpose of prosecution, and, if so, the names of the person competent to testify concerning the classification.
10) State whether declassification has been decided upon prior to the publication of the release of the data?
11) What effect does the disclosure of CLASSIFIED material have on the NATIONAL DEFENSE?”
I recall that the New York Times and Toensing (as well as the DEFENSE) have all attempted to obtain specific information about Plame’s employment and “Classification” status at the CIA to no avail.
If Plame was NOT in a classified position then all of the above could have simply obtained this information directly from the Public Information Office of the CIA.
Why can’t they tell us what Plame’s job actually was?
I think that they NYT is being utterly disengenous about this! They know that they were rebuffed decisively in a lawsuit to obtain this information. They know that Toensing was unable to obtain that information as well.
Yet they persist in publishing her utter nonsense that they know is false and devoid of factual content!
Why is the NY Times and Toensing so fixated on impairing this countries ability to protect those agents and sources involved in Counterproliferation Operations?
Great work eRiposte.
Cheney and Bush established their own SAVAK/STASI/KGB branch in the White House, separate from the congressionally-authorized and funded intelligence branches.
The DOD’s Inspector General called this “inappropriate,” but some White House flunky (Gonzales?) got the DOD’s Inspector General to insert into his report that what Cheney and Bush had done wasn’t illegal because it was authorized (presumbaly by a Cheney and Bush “secret” executive order?).
Congress did not (at least not to my knowledge) establish or authorize Cheney’s and Bush’s SAVAK/STASI/KGB White House branch that was setup solely to “fix” the intelligence around Cheney’s and Bush’s highly partisan political (warmongering) agenda.
This utter disdain and lack of respect shown our congressionally-authorized intelligence branches by Cheney, Bush, and their SAVAK/STASI/KGB-like agents in the White House is what led directly to the outing of a covert CIA agent in 2003 and is ultimately behind the current Libby trial (and hopefully many more trials to come).
Thus, I don’t buy the idea presented in the Libby trial that the top-secret, classified information was declassified prior to when the White House SAVAK/STASI/KGB-like officials started blabbing about Joe Wilson’s wife to reporters.
In other words, evidence has emerged in Libby’s trial that these officials were already blabbing about Valerie Plame to reporters in June 2003 prior to the mid-July declassification of this information, in an apparent attempt to make the declassification retroactive to any earlier conversations these officials had with reporters…i.e. CYA by these officials.
And they’ve used the same rationale that appears in the DOD’s Inspector General’s report pertaining to this SAVAK/STASI/KGB-like intelligence operation in the White House, that although it may have been inappropriate to out a top-secret, covert CIA agent, it was legal because it was authorized (presumably through an executive order by Cheney and Bush).
And if one thinks about it, this is the entire basis and rationale of the Bush administration on one issue after another (Iraq, torture and renditions, diverting military resources from Afghanistan to prepare for war with Iraq, SCOTUS getting involved in 2000 presidential elections, the assault on U.S. citizens’ civil liberties, faith-based initiatives that violate the U.S. Constitution, etc.): it may seem inappropriate, but it is entirely legal (in their warped minds) because it was authorized (through an executive order)…by the worst and most corrupt administration in American history.
IMPEACH all the SAVAK/STASI/KGB-type officials out our our government NOW…especially Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales.
Send this analysis to Christopher Hitchens.