Well well, Wilson lied

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Alex Moon
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 3358
Joined: 2002-08-03 03:34am
Location: Weeeee!
Contact:

Well well, Wilson lied

Post by Alex Moon »

Link
Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.

Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer.

Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name.

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.

Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.

The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa."

So proposing your husbands name for consideration in a diplomatic mission, and then sending a memo to your superiors about how well suited for the job he is shouldn't be seen as a recommendation? :lol:
Warwolves | VRWC | BotM | Writer's Guild | Pie loves Rei
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

And this excuses outing his wife .... how?
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10691
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Post by Elfdart »

I have some advice for you:

Anything written by Sue "Stenographer" Schmidt should be taken with several tons of salt.

Schmidt got her nickname by being a conduit for illegal leaks from Ken Starr's office. Monica Lewinsky's first attorney, Ginsberg related how he was haggling with Starr's deputies over Lewinsky's possible testimony. It was just him and Starr's men in the room. A few hours after the OIC men left, Ginsberg got a call from Schmidt asking about Lewinsky's testimony -and she used the EXACT words of Starr's men. Either she had somehow bugged the room or she was getting illegal leaks from the OIC.

Too bad Media Whores Online is on hiatus for now, because they had so many great articles about what a lying sack of shit The Stenographer is. When one reader e-mailed her from his workplace and criticized her lack of ethics, she e-mailed the office and tried to get him fired. The guy's boss found it amusing and broke the story.

Schmidt is the Typhoid Mary of journalism.

[from Josh Marshall http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archiv ... php#003143 ]
I'll dispense with the literary prologue and get right to the point.

Susan Schmidt is known, happily among DC Republicans and not so happily among DC Democrats, as what you might call the "Mikey" (a la Life Cereal fame) of the DC press corps, especially when the cereal is coming from Republican staffers.

This morning she has an article on the Senate intel report and Joe Wilson, specifically focusing on the relevance of Wilson's reporting on Niger (the report says analysts did not see Wilson's findings as weakening claims that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger) and his wife's role in recommending him for the assignment.

We'll discuss the broader issues of Plame's role in Wilson's assignment and the underlying question of the alleged Iraq-Niger negotiations. A clearer-eyed take on Wilson and report can be found here in this story by Knight Ridder. But for now a few points on Schmidt's treatment.

In her fourth paragraph Schmidt writes that "contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."

This is one of those cases in which it's helpful to actually read the report rather than just run with what you've got from the majority committee staffer who gave you the spin.

The claim with regards to the back-and-forth was always that the CIA struggled to get the uranium references out of the October 2002 Cincinnati speech and then failed to do so -- though why presicely is less clear -- when the same folks at the White House tried again to get it into the 2003 State of the Union address. And indeed on page 56 the report states that ...

Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI drafted a memo for the NSC outlining the facts that the CIA believed needed to be changed, and faxed it to the Deputy Natoinal Security Advisor and the speech writers. Referring to the sentence on uranium from Africa the CIA said, "remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

... Later that day, the NSC staff prepared draft seven of the Cincinnati speech which contained the line, "and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa." Draft seven was sent to CIA for coordination.

... The ADDI told Committee staff he received the new draft on October 6, 2002 and noticed that the uranium information had "not been addressed," so he alerted the DCI. The DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. On July 16, 2003, the DCI testified before the SSCI that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak." The NSC then removed the uranium reference from the draft of the speech.

Although the NSC had already removed the uranium reference from the speech, later on October 6th, 2002 the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine city by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British."



I find it difficult to square that with Schmidt's claim that the report states that the CIA "did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."

Then there's a point with regards to Plame's role in selecting Wilson for the mission. The report includes testimony from those involved saying that Plame did suggest Wilson for the mission -- a point we'll return to. Based on this Schmidt says ...

Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer.
...

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.



Again, a conversation with a lawyer may have been more helpful than one with a staffer.

There's no 'challenging the bona fides of a political opponent' exception to the law in question. While Plame's alleged role may have some political traction, it's legally irrelevant. Government officials are not allowed to disclose the identity of covert intelligence agents, whether they feel like they have a good reason or not.

Finally, down toward the end of Schmidt's article she writes that: "According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998."

I read the report's discussion of the whole Niger business. And I didn't see that reference. However, on page 44 there is a reference to Wilson reporting to the CIA that "an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998 [but that] no contract was ever signed with Iran." (emphasis added).

Perhaps I missed the reference that Schmidt is noting. But it seems awfully similar to the one the report notes about Iran -- same date, same tonnage. Presumably in this case, Schmidt innocently confused the two neighboring and similar-sounding countries, though it's a goof you'd think an editor would have caught.

-- Josh Marshall
User avatar
Alex Moon
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 3358
Joined: 2002-08-03 03:34am
Location: Weeeee!
Contact:

Post by Alex Moon »

Vympel wrote:And this excuses outing his wife .... how?
Legally, it may not. That's for the special prosecutor to decide. However, the heart of this whole 'scandal' has been the accusation by Wilson and his supporters that the Bush administration deliberatly revealed Plame's identity, and thus endangered her life, as a petty act of revenge against Wilson. The Bush Administration and it's supporters have argued that Wilson was a partisan hack who was shouldn't have been trusted with the assignment. If Wilson was in fact given the job because his wife pulled some strings back at the CIA it would be very damaging to his credibility. furthermore, it gives credence to the idea that revealing Plame's identity wasn't deliberate, but instead inadvertant.
Warwolves | VRWC | BotM | Writer's Guild | Pie loves Rei
User avatar
Alex Moon
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 3358
Joined: 2002-08-03 03:34am
Location: Weeeee!
Contact:

Post by Alex Moon »

Elfdart wrote:I have some advice for you:

Anything written by Sue "Stenographer" Schmidt should be taken with several tons of salt.

Schmidt got her nickname by being a conduit for illegal leaks from Ken Starr's office. Monica Lewinsky's first attorney, Ginsberg related how he was haggling with Starr's deputies over Lewinsky's possible testimony. It was just him and Starr's men in the room. A few hours after the OIC men left, Ginsberg got a call from Schmidt asking about Lewinsky's testimony -and she used the EXACT words of Starr's men. Either she had somehow bugged the room or she was getting illegal leaks from the OIC.
So she's got good sources or a tech guy. Neither of this suggests that she's lying.
Too bad Media Whores Online is on hiatus for now, because they had so many great articles about what a lying sack of shit The Stenographer is. When one reader e-mailed her from his workplace and criticized her lack of ethics, she e-mailed the office and tried to get him fired. The guy's boss found it amusing and broke the story.
All you've got is that she's a bitch. Try again.
Schmidt is the Typhoid Mary of journalism.

[from Josh Marshall http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archiv ... php#003143 ]
Josh Marshall is accusing someone of being a political hack?! The man has his lips surgically attached to the DNC's collective ass. :roll:
Warwolves | VRWC | BotM | Writer's Guild | Pie loves Rei
User avatar
LMSx
Jedi Knight
Posts: 880
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:23pm

Post by LMSx »

It's seems almost redundent to claim ad hominem with regards to your "rebuttal" of Josh Marshall's post.
Post Reply