13-07-2005 21:32									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ramo That's assuming anybody would believe any such attempts to recast her as an analyst. If foreign intelligence services have had contacts with Plame's assets during this time, they know that their intelligence is compromised anyways. They're not going to believe any half-assed cleanup operation recasting her as an analyst. Besides, I don't think that the Agency would use rightwing opeds trying to protect the Admin as a vehicle for such a recasting. It's a blatantly ludicrous idea.

There's no need to try to 'recast' her as an analyst. It's already unclear what she was. As I said, I have some doubts about Johnson and Cannistraro's motives in this. They shouldnt have said what they apparently have said. I sure wouldnt have done so. For example, I have seen a authentic codeword used in a fairly recent 'spy movie'. Despite that it was clearly in the open, I wouldnt comment on it nor would I confirm it to anyone who asked. Most people will believe it to be made-up. Some will know it to be fact and some who might want to know will wonder about its authenticity by virtue of the fact that it was 'out in the open'. Intel is a funny business.

	13-07-2005 21:33									#92
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

****

	13-07-2005 21:49									#93
	Put an end to popups!

quote: There's no need to try to 'recast' her as an analyst. It's already unclear what she was. As I said, I have some doubts about Johnson and Cannistraro's motives in this. They shouldnt have said what they apparently have said. I sure wouldnt have done so. For example, I have seen a authentic codeword used in a fairly recent 'spy movie'. Despite that it was clearly in the open, I wouldnt comment on it nor would I confirm it to anyone who asked. Most people will believe it to be made-up. Some will know it to be fact and some who might want to know will wonder about its authenticity by virtue of the fact that it was 'out in the open'. Intel is a funny business.

Again, it's not unclear to any who have dealt with her and her fake company under cover. They wouldn't have dealt with her if she were an analyst. The relevant assets are compromised, period. It makes not a whit of difference what Johnson and Cannistraro (and others) are saying after the fact.

Besides, I don't think we'd have this deluge of information in the first place if Plame's assets weren't already compromised.

	13-07-2005 22:02									#94
	Got spare money?

And there simply is no comparision between outing a CIA operations runner as CIA, and displaying a code word for something in some spy movie.

	13-07-2005 23:29									#95
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: It's already unclear what she was.

It is not in the least unclear what she was. She gathered information for the CIA while working as businesswoman.

All that is happening is that Rove apologists are attempting to spin it as being unclear.

Again, if this is not a crime or an improper action, then why did Rove feel the need to provide the information only on a highly secret basis? Why not have Scott McClellan provide the information straight to everyone?

And why not own up to it immediately when the hunt for the leak began instead of allowing suspicion to fall on innocent people? Why waste millions of taxpayer dollars on the leak investigation? Why didn't Rove simply say that he was the leak, if, as you suggest, Plame was only an analyst?

	14-07-2005 01:22									#96
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly What I really want to know is what kind of genetic technology was used to allow the press corps to grow new spines...

The solid, unmistakeable scent of fresh blood in the water.

It reminds me a lot of Ron Ziegler's press conferences back in the day.

	14-07-2005 14:54									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Vanguard It is not in the least unclear what she was. She gathered information for the CIA while working as businesswoman. All that is happening is that Rove apologists are attempting to spin it as being unclear.

The clarity matters little to me concerning Rove's mistake in mentioning her, but it will matter a great deal when the prosecutor decides whether to charge him. He won't do so. Even if Rove did this with considerable malice aforethough (which from what we've learned so far seems unlikely) it would be very difficult to convict him due to the weak law.

quote: Originally posted by Vanguard Again, if this is not a crime or an improper action, then why did Rove feel the need to provide the information only on a highly secret basis? Why not have Scott McClellan provide the information straight to everyone?

How often does Rove make himself available for attribution about any subject? Rarely.

quote: Originally posted by Vanguard And why not own up to it immediately when the hunt for the leak began instead of allowing suspicion to fall on innocent people? Why waste millions of taxpayer dollars on the leak investigation? Why didn't Rove simply say that he was the leak, if, as you suggest, Plame was only an analyst?

Because Rove isn't the target of this investigation, at least not now. That's clear as he's testified for the grand jury twice and didn't take the fifth, and he released the journalist from Time from his promise of confidentiality. The reason he did this is that he feels that the journalist's testimony will get him off the hook. And he's right about that (legally) if what has been said so far turns out to in fact be true. The real target at this point is whomever Novak's second source was. Why say you are the leak when you were simply an unwitting corroborator?

	14-07-2005 15:24									#98
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Also, Rove told Chris Matthews that Plame was "fair game." And the Washington Post reported in 2003 that two admin officials had shopped the Plame info around to 6 journalists. That, to me, looks very much like their intent wasn't anything so noble as warning a paper, but rather deliberately spreading information to undermine Wilson's credibility.

Because Joe Wilson said Cheney authorised the Niger investigation. They caught him in a mistake (or lie) and used the media to expose it.

Doesn't look like Larry Johnson will be making any more appearances as an expert on Fox. I tend to trust him...

	14-07-2005 16:28									#99
	Increase Your PM Length

But Plame had nothing to do with authorizing the investigation of Niger's uranium industry. She merely pointed out to her superiors that Wilson would be qualified for the (needed) job.

What we have here is Rove dealing in personal attacks against those who disagree, and Plame and her assets got burned as a (perhaps unintended) consequence.

Last edited by Ramo on 14-07-2005 at 16:34

	14-07-2005 17:04									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

What Wilson has to say about this:

quote: First conclusion: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee." That is not true. The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife sent to her superiors that says "my husband has good relations with 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." There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip. Indeed it is little more than a recitation of my contacts and bona fides. The conclusion is reinforced by comments in the body of the report that a CPD reports officer stated the "the former ambassador's wife `offered up his name'" (page 39) and a State Department Intelligence and Research officer that the "meeting was `apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue." In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting at which the subject of my trip was raised. Neither was the CPD Reports officer. After having escorted me into the room, she departed the meeting to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It was at that meeting where the question of my traveling to Niger was broached with me for the first time and came only after a thorough discussion of what the participants did and did not know about the subject. My bona fides justifying the invitation to the meeting were the trip I had previously taken to Niger to look at other uranium related questions as well as 20 years living and working in Africa, and personal contacts throughout the Niger government. Neither the CPD reports officer nor the State analyst were in the chain of command to know who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the Reports Officer has a different conclusion about Valerie's role than the one offered in the "additional comments". I urge the committee to reinterview the officer and publicly publish his statement. It is unfortunate that the report failed to include the CIA's position on this matter. If the staff had done so it would undoubtedly have been given the same evidence as provided to Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce in July, 2003. They reported on July 22 that: "A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked `alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. "But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. `They (the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story) were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,' he said. `There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,' he said. `I can't figure out what it could be.' "We paid his (Wilson's) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there,' the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said. he was reimbursed only for expenses." (Newsday article Columnist blows CIA Agent's cover, dated July 22, 2003). In fact, on July 13 of this year, David Ensor, the CNN correspondent, did call the CIA for a statement of its position and reported that a senior CIA official confirmed my account that Valerie did not propose me for the trip: "'She did not propose me', he [Wilson] said--others at the CIA did so. A senior CIA official said that is his understanding too.'"

	14-07-2005 17:11									#101
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: How often does Rove make himself available for attribution about any subject? Rarely

Cooper called the level of secrecy Rove demanded on this attribution "Double super secret background". Sounds like he really, really didn't want it known where the information was coming from, doesn't it?

Would he do this if he were only providing information available to the general public? Or only providing information that people had a right to know?

You don't leak stuff that is public information. You just give it to people. Rove knows what he is doing. He wasn't trying to "convince reporters not to trust Wilson". He was giving them secret information to attack Wilson on his behalf, information that the reporters could not get in any other way, hoping that they would confirm this information from another source, but, if they couldn't do that, that they would use it as is from "an unnamed source".

Probably what Rove intended was that Cooper and Novak would use the information, then once it was out in the open, Republican attack dogs would use it to discredit Wilson.

quote: being caught in a lie

The person caught in a lie here is Rove. After all the Republican blovination and hypocrisy about Clinton's "equivocation" about "not having sex" and "never inhaled", we now have Bush's right hand man saying that he didn't leak the woman's "name". And that is supposed to be an excuse?

	14-07-2005 18:25									#102
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I wont bother trying to continue explain my doubts about Plames status. I should've known better I guess.

As my final contribution, heres a piece by a reasonably non-partisan reporter (New York Times) that confirms what I guessed, she was not 'a NOC' but merely NOC i.e. not truly covert but with a nominal cover (which many CIA employees have). I agree with his conclusions but not with every detail i.e. Kristof doesnt seem to understand the subtleties of non-official cover; i.e. what covert means and what it doesnt.

quote: NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF The New York Times Oct. 11, 2003 Like any good spy story, the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson is far more complex than it seems on the surface. I know Mrs. Wilson, but I knew nothing about her C.I.A. career and hadn't realized she's "a hell of a shot with an AK-47," as a classmates at the C.I.A. training "farm," Jim Marcinkowski, recalls. I'll be more careful around her, for she also turns out to be skilled in throwing hand grenades and to have lived abroad and run covert operations in some of the world's messier spots. (Mrs. Wilson was not a source for this column or any other that I've written about the intelligence community.) Those operations remain secret, but there are several crucial facts that can be made public without putting anyone at risk — and together, they leave everybody looking bad. The C.I.A. is now conducting a damage assessment, which will determine what networks and operations it will have to close down. But my sense is that Democrats exaggerate the damage to Mrs. Wilson's career and to her personal security, while Republicans vastly play down the enormity of the security breach and the danger to the assets she worked with. And now a few pertinent facts: First, the C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons. Second, as Mrs. Wilson rose in the agency, she was already in transition away from undercover work to management, and to liaison roles with other intelligence agencies. So this year, even before she was outed, she was moving away from "noc" — which means non-official cover, like pretending to be a business executive. After passing as an energy analyst for Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a C.I.A. front company, she was switching to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having "C.I.A." stamped on her forehead. Third, Mrs. Wilson's intelligence connections became known a bit in Washington as she rose in the C.I.A. and moved to State Department cover, but her job remained a closely held secret. Even her classmates in the C.I.A.'s career training program mostly knew her only as Valerie P. That way, if one spook defected, the damage would be limited. All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put Mrs. Wilson's life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over. Moreover, the Democrats cheapen the debate with calls, at the very beginning of the process, for a special counsel to investigate the White House. Hillary Rodham Clinton knows better than anyone how destructive and distracting a special counsel investigation can be, interfering with the basic task of governing, and it's sad to see her display the same pusillanimous partisanship that Republicans showed just a few years ago. If Democrats have politicized the scandal and exaggerated it, Republicans have inexcusably tried to whitewash it. The leak risked the security of all operatives who had used Brewster-Jennings as cover, as well as of all assets ever seen with Mrs. Wilson. Unwitting sources will now realize that they were supplying the C.I.A. with information, and even real agents may fear exposure and vanish. C.I.A. veterans are seething, and rightly so, at the betrayal by their own government. Larry Johnson, who entered the agency at the same time as Mrs. Wilson, is a Republican who voted for President Bush — and he's so enraged that he compares the administration leaker to the spies Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen. "Here's a woman who put her life on the line," Mr. Johnson said. "But unlike a Navy seal or a marine, she didn't have a gun to fight back. All she had to protect her was her cover." We in journalism are also wrong, I think, to extend professional courtesy to Robert Novak, by looking beyond him to the leaker. True, he says he didn't think anyone would be endangered. Working abroad in ugly corners of the world, American journalists often learn the identities of American C.I.A. officers, but we never publish their names. I find Mr. Novak's decision to do so just as inexcusable as the decision of administration officials to leak it. This scandal leaves everybody stinking. © 2003 The New York Times Company

	14-07-2005 20:49									#103
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

From the Kristof article:

quote: We in journalism are also wrong, I think, to extend professional courtesy to Robert Novak, by looking beyond him to the leaker. True, he says he didn't think anyone would be endangered. Working abroad in ugly corners of the world, American journalists often learn the identities of American C.I.A. officers, but we never publish their names. I find Mr. Novak's decision to do so just as inexcusable as the decision of administration officials to leak it.

I've asked before...

Why isn't Novak in big doodoo as well?

	14-07-2005 22:06									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

He squealed.

	14-07-2005 22:10									#105
	Inflate your Upload Space

But didn't he do exactly what the WH is being accused of - knowingly outing an agent?

	14-07-2005 22:38									#106
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Because Joe Wilson said Cheney authorised the Niger investigation. They caught him in a mistake (or lie) and used the media to expose it.

No, he didn't.

Transcript of the CNN Interview from 8/3/03:

quote: BLITZER: I know you were sent to go on this mission long before the State of the Union Address. When Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, was on this program a few weeks ago, on July 13th, I asked her about your mission. Listen to this exchange I had with her. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I didn't know Joe Wilson was going to Niger. And if you look in Director Tenet's statement, it says that counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, sent Joe Wilson. So, I don't know... BLITZER: Who sent him? RICE: Well, it was certainly not at a level that had anything to do with the White House. (END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: Is that true? WILSON: Well, look, it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger. What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself... BLITZER: Scooter Libby is the chief of staff for the vice president. WILSON: Scooter Libby. They asked essentially that we follow up on this report -- that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed.

The RNC talking point that Wilson made such a claim is simply another lie in their obfuscation campaign. To show you what a liar Ken Mehlman, RNC chair is, he has been shopping around only part of this interview ("What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself") as "proof" that Wilson claimed Cheney sent him. Anyone can look at the whole exchange above and see that is categorically not true, and there's no way Mehlman can't know it. So who's lying here again?

	14-07-2005 23:26									#107
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'ld say Wilson, base upon his (Wilson's) claims in the NYT namely:

quote: Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

What experience he had none?

quote: For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council. It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me. In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

Firstly he had NO experience with the administration. His writing in the NYT's leaves one to only be led down the path that he was implying the administration had hand picked him or at the very least been consulting with him throughout the mission.

Regardless of Mehlman's parsing of statements the orginal NYT article clearly implies (and need I remind you it was an OPED written by Wilson so there isn't even NYT's editorial cover) that Wilson claimed to have had intimate workings with the administration that allowed him insight into the supposed insidious doctoring of evidence. A clear and total fabrication.

The reasons for the WH to distance themselves from this complete loser were obvious.

Also if one follws the timeline of the stories above, Wilson realized he was caught in a lie or fabrication from his NYT claims and started back tracking as the 8/03/03 caim out long after the Novak stories started to gain traction.

	15-07-2005 01:34									#108
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe I'ld say Wilson, base upon his (Wilson's) claims in the NYT namely: What experience he had none? Firstly he had NO experience with the administration. His writing in the NYT's leaves one to only be led down the path that he was implying the administration had hand picked him or at the very least been consulting with him throughout the mission. Regardless of Mehlman's parsing of statements the orginal NYT article clearly implies (and need I remind you it was an OPED written by Wilson so there isn't even NYT's editorial cover) that Wilson claimed to have had intimate workings with the administration that allowed him insight into the supposed insidious doctoring of evidence. A clear and total fabrication. The reasons for the WH to distance themselves from this complete loser were obvious. Also if one follws the timeline of the stories above, Wilson realized he was caught in a lie or fabrication from his NYT claims and started back tracking as the 8/03/03 caim out long after the Novak stories started to gain traction.

What are you talking about? first, you can only m,ake suppositions about any dealings prior relating to this or other issues Wilson may have had with the admin. for him to make his statement- for you, lacking any info, to say "HE HAD NO EXPERIENCE" is ludicrous.

Second, where the hell in that article does it show Wilson saying he had anything of a "intimate relationship" with the admin.?

Cheney asks the agency something. The agency (not Cheney) as him to give feedback on the issue and investigate. So Wilson never claims he had direct dealings with Cheney'f office, but with the CIA.

That you want to get in a tizzy vs Wilson (but for some reason, not the lying bastards in the admin. who messed up) by reading into his statements things you want to read into them is silly.

	15-07-2005 01:53									#109
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap Cheney asks the agency something. The agency (not Cheney) as him to give feedback on the issue and investigate. So Wilson never claims he had direct dealings with Cheney'f office, but with the CIA.

Cheney who asked for the clarification via the CIA stated in numerous occasions he had no knowledge of Wilson or that Wilson had been requested by the CIA to go on the trip or for that matter ever have seen the "all important info" Wilson was to deliver.

As this request originated from Cheney AND Wilson claimed to have expereince of the administration one can only conclude that his comments were that someone/anyone within the WH had some dealings with him. That has NEVER been corroborated and further the only logical person that would have had dealings with him would have been Cheney or Cheneys staffers. A claim flatly refuted and further cooroborated in back pedal statements from Wilson.

Face it Wilson tried (unsuccessfully I might add) to imply some carnal knowledge of the inner workings of the administration, a point the administration was clearly in the right to point out never existed.

If Wilson meant his dealing with the CIA were the same as first hand expereince with the administration that would be a stretch far in excess of poetic license.

	15-07-2005 02:00									#110
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap What are you talking about? first, you can only m,ake suppositions about any dealings prior relating to this or other issues Wilson may have had with the admin. for him to make his statement- for you, lacking any info, to say "HE HAD NO EXPERIENCE" is ludicrous.

Dealings prior to or after are not germane to the NYT article as his frame of reference and topic matter is exclusively talking towards the Niger info he supposedly gathred. Being that is the topic at hand, this is further supporting evidence that expereince he would have of the administration would be limitted to the office of the VP who made the request to the CIA, which clearly was not the case.

	15-07-2005 07:41									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Cheney who asked for the clarification via the CIA stated in numerous occasions he had no knowledge of Wilson or that Wilson had been requested by the CIA to go on the trip or for that matter ever have seen the "all important info" Wilson was to deliver.

Which in no way contradicts what Wilson says since Wilson deals with the agency, NOT Cheney.

quote: As this request originated from Cheney AND Wilson claimed to have expereince of the administration one can only conclude that his comments were that someone/anyone within the WH had some dealings with him.

False. Cheney makes a request of the CIA. The CIA makes a request of Wilson. Is that so difficult to understand?

quote: That has NEVER been corroborated and further the only logical person that would have had dealings with him would have been Cheney or Cheneys staffers. A claim flatly refuted and further cooroborated in back pedal statements from Wilson.

And yet Wilson in his article you quoted does hnot speak about briefing anyone in Cheney's office, does he?

quote: Face it Wilson tried (unsuccessfully I might add) to imply some carnal knowledge of the inner workings of the administration, a point the administration was clearly in the right to point out never existed.

Face your grand delusion? The very thing you quoted does not have Wiulson ever saying he spoke with Cheney or anyone in hsi staff. He states to work for the CIA in getting the info. Where the **** are you reading what you claim? Please, either find a writen piece were Wilson says he met with Cheney or anyone in his staff because otherwise you look like Ned.

quote: If Wilson meant his dealing with the CIA were the same as first hand expereince with the administration that would be a stretch far in excess of poetic license.

You seem to be the only one reading such a message into it here, you and republican hacks.

	15-07-2005 07:46									#112
	Once more, with feeling... Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Republican hacks...

	15-07-2005 07:51									#113
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe I'ld say Wilson, base upon his (Wilson's) claims in the NYT namely:

Disengenuous quote mining. Let's look at the whole article, and the parts you omitted:

quote: Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times What I Didn't Find in Africa by Joseph C. Wilson 4th Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council. It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me. In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office. After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government. In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible. The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival. I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place. Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired. (As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.) Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip. [b]Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure. I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country. Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa. The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case. Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government. The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted. I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed. But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons. Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.

Wilson's "experience" with the administration was referring to his interaction with the State Department and that his conclusions--conclusions that were substantiated by the U.S. ambassador to Nigeria and many others--were ignored. Wilson is very clearly laying out his experience in the matter, and nothing there says that he in any way received direct marching orders from the VP. State Department officials were involved throughout this (even being present at the initial meeting at the CIA discussing the trip).

Find me a quote wherein Wilson claimed that Cheney had sent him on the mission, and you have a point. Otherwise, we have weak claims that Wilson was "implying" as such, in spite of his very clear statements that he meant no such thing. I certainly don't see anything indicating he was deliberately lying. At worst, he was too vague in his wording. But the first time anyone asks him about the connection, he clearly says: No, the VP didn't send me.

quote: Regardless of Mehlman's parsing of statements

Mehlman is lying, there's no way around it. If you look at the true transcript of what Wilson said in the 8/03 interview, it says exactly the opposite of what Mehlman claims. There's no way anyone could read that whole transcript and think Wilson was saying what Mehlman claims. It's patent bullshit.

	15-07-2005 08:15									#114
	Re: Once more, with feeling... Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Republican hacks...

Its turlly sad that you think and old blog somehow actually means anything to anyone.

	15-07-2005 08:23									#115
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The point Drum makes, ie. that Wilson is full of ****, is still a valuable one.

Last edited by Drake Tungsten on 15-07-2005 at 08:28

	15-07-2005 08:34									#116
	Remove this text

quote: Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON WASHINGTON, July 14 - Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said Thursday. Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said. After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too." The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said. Six days later, Mr. Novak's syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Mr. Wilson's "wife had suggested sending him" to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Ms. Wilson was publicly identified as a C.I.A. operative. The column provoked angry demands for an investigation into who disclosed Ms. Wilson's name to Mr. Novak. The Justice Department appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a top federal prosecutor in Chicago, to lead the inquiry. Mr. Rove said in an interview last year that he did not know the C.I.A. officer's name and did not leak it. The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying he did not disclose Ms. Wilson's identity. On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials. The first source, who is unknown, was described by Mr. Novak as "no partisan gunslinger" who provided the outlines of the story. The second, confirming source, Mr. Novak wrote, responded, "Oh, you know about it." That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said, although Mr. Rove's account to investigators about what he told Mr. Novak was slightly different. Mr. Rove recalled telling Mr. Novak: "I heard that, too." Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he heard portions of the story from other journalists, but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name. Robert D. Luskin, Mr. Rove's lawyer, said Thursday, "Any pertinent information has been provided to the prosecutor." Mr. Luskin has previously said that prosecutors have advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target in the case, which means he is not likely to be charged with a crime. In a brief conversation on Thursday, Mr. Novak declined to discuss the matter. The conversation between Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove seemed almost certain to intensify the question about whether one of Mr. Bush's closest political advisers played a role in what appeared to be an effort to undermine Mr. Wilson's credibility after he challenged the veracity of a key point in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, alleging that Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear fuel in Africa. The conversation with Mr. Novak took place three days before Mr. Rove spoke with Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, whose e-mail message about their conversation reignited the issue. In the message, whose contents were reported by Newsweek this week, Mr. Cooper said to his editors that Mr. Rove had talked about Ms. Wilson, although not by name. After saying in 2003 that it was "ridiculous" to suggest that Mr. Rove had any role in the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's name, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, has refused in recent days to discuss any specifics of the case. But he has suggested that President Bush continues to support Mr. Rove. On Thursday Mr. Rove was at Mr. Bush's side on a trip to Indianapolis. As the political debate about Mr. Rove grows more heated, Mr. Fitzgerald is in what he has said are the final stages of his investigation into whether anyone at the White House violated a criminal statute that, under certain circumstances, makes it a crime for a government official to disclose the names of covert operatives like Ms. Wilson. The law requires that the official knowingly identify an officer serving in a covert position. The person who has been briefed on the matter said that Mr. Rove neither knew Ms. Wilson's name nor that she was a covert officer. The revelation of Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak raises a question the White House has never addressed: whether Mr. Rove ever described that conversation, or his conversation with Mr. Cooper, with the president. Mr. Bush has said several times that he wants all members of the White House staff to cooperate fully with Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation. In June 2004, at Sea Island, Ga., soon after Vice President Dick Cheney met with investigators in the case, Mr. Bush was asked at a news conference whether "you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found" to have leaked the agent's name. "Yes," Mr. Bush said. "And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts." White House officials may argue that Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak did not amount to leaking the name of the agent. But to critics of Mr. Bush - including the Democrats who have called for Mr. Rove's resignation - that is splitting hairs, and Mr. Rove in effect confirmed her identity, even if he did not name her. Mr. Novak began his conversation with Mr. Rove by asking about the promotion of Frances Fragos Townsend, who had been a close aide to Janet Reno when she was attorney general, to a senior counterterrorism job at the White House, the person who was briefed on the matter said. Mr. Novak then turned to the subject of Ms. Wilson, identifying her by name, the person said. Mr. Novak said he knew that in contrast to Mr. Wilson's suggestion in his Op-Ed article that he had been sent to Niger because of Mr. Cheney's interest in the matter, Mr. Wilson had been sent at the urging of his wife. Mr. Rove's allies have stressed that he did not call reporters with information about the case, rebutting the theory that the White House was actively seeking to intimidate or punish Mr. Wilson by harming his wife's career. They have also emphasized that Mr. Rove appeared not to know anything about Ms. Wilson other than that she worked at the C.I.A. and was married to Mr. Wilson. Mr. Fitzgerald has indicated that his investigation is winding down, but many aspects of it remain shrouded in secrecy. It is unknown who Mr. Novak's other source might be or how that source learned of Ms. Wilson's identity as a C.I.A. official. By itself, the revelation that Mr. Rove had spoken to a second journalist about Ms. Wilson may not necessarily have a bearing on his exposure to any criminal charge in the case. But it seems certain to add substantially to the political maelstrom that has engulfed the White House this week after the disclosure that Mr. Rove had discussed the matter with Mr. Cooper of Time magazine. Mr. Cooper's e-mail message to his editors, in which he described his discussion with Mr. Rove, was among documents that were turned over by Time Inc. executives recently to comply with a subpoena from Mr. Fitzgerald. A reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, who never wrote about the Plame case, refused to cooperate with the investigation and was jailed last week. In addition to focusing new attention on Mr. Rove and whether he can survive the political fallout, the revelation is sure to create new partisan pressure on Mr. Bush. Already, Democrats have been pressing the president either to live up to his pledges to rid his administration of anyone found to have leaked the name of a covert operative, or to explain why he does not believe Mr. Rove's actions subject him to dismissal. The new revelation also leaves Mr. McClellan, the White House spokesman, in an increasingly awkward situation. Two years ago repeatedly assured reporters that neither Mr. Rove nor several other administration officials were responsible for the leak. The case has also threatened to become a distraction to the White House and Republicans as Mr. Bush struggles to keep his second-term agenda on track and as he prepares for one of the most pivotal battles of his presidency, over the nomination of a Supreme Court justice. All week, as Democrats have been demanding that Mr. Rove resign or provide a public explanation, the political machine that Mr. Rove built to bolster Mr. Bush and advance his agenda has risen up to defend its creator. The Republican National Committee has mounted an aggressive campaign to cast Mr. Rove as blameless and to paint the matter as a partisan dispute driven not by legality, ethics or national security concerns, but by a penchant among Democrats to resort to harsh personal attacks. But Mr. Bush said Wednesday that he would not prejudge Mr. Rove's role, and Mr. Rove was seated conspicuously just behind the president at a cabinet meeting, an image of business as usual. On Thursday, on the trip with Mr. Bush to Indiana, Mr. Rove grinned his way through a brief encounter with reporters after getting off Air Force One. Mr. Bush's White House has been characterized by loyalty and long tenures, but no one has been at Mr. Bush's side in his journey through politics longer than Mr. Rove, who has been his strategist, enforcer, policy guru, ambassador to social and religious conservatives and friend since they met in Washington in the early 1970's. People who know Mr. Bush said it was unlikely if not unthinkable that he would seek Mr. Rove's departure barring a criminal indictment. After his re-election last November, Mr. Bush thanked Mr. Rove, calling him "the architect" of the victory. Mr. Rove subsequently added to his role as senior adviser the title of deputy chief of staff for policy, a job that formally gave him broad authority over much of Mr. Bush's second-term agenda, including his call for an overhaul of Social Security. Most recently, Mr. Rove has been at the center of the White House's deliberations over the choice of a nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor at the Supreme Court.

	15-07-2005 08:44									#117
	Put an end to popups!

So, if Rove wasn't the leaker, who was? It'll be interesting to see if all the speculation on Miller's role pans out...

	15-07-2005 09:28									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Boris

quote: The RNC talking point that Wilson made such a claim is simply another lie in their obfuscation campaign. To show you what a liar Ken Mehlman, RNC chair is, he has been shopping around only part of this interview ("What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself") as "proof" that Wilson claimed Cheney sent him. Anyone can look at the whole exchange above and see that is categorically not true, and there's no way Mehlman can't know it. So who's lying here again?

I gotta agree with that. Damn parties are corrupt

Ogie - When Wilson is talking about his experience with the administration in this quote,

quote: Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war

He had plenty of experience in the months running up to the war. They outed his wife and started smearing him.

	15-07-2005 09:51									#119
	Got spare money?

Was the war after that all started happening? My timeline ain't up to snuff...

	15-07-2005 10:34									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The wife outing defintiely happened after the NYT's article whihc essentially precipitated the whole affair.

Baiscally if Wilson had not been an over reaching Megalomianiac who attempted to oversell his credentials the admin would not have been forced to distance themselves from him and ultimately leak Plames wife.

War happened before the articles came out.