Richard Keil of Bloomberg’s Washington Bureau (infamous for his “The president of the United States is AWOL, and we’re with him… the ultimate road trip.” line in the story of the President’s Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad) has breaking news on Valerie Plame investigation.
July 22 (Bloomberg) — Two top White House aides have given accounts to a special prosecutor about how reporters first told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to people familiar with the case.
Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, one person said. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn’t tell Libby of Plame’s identity, the person said.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, according a person familiar with the matter. Novak, who was first to report Plame’s name and connection to Wilson, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor, the person said.
These discrepancies may be important because Fitzgerald is investigating whether Libby, Rove or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether any administration officials violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a CIA agent.Keil’s report relies on an anonymous source, so it should be viewed with a health dose of skepticism, but assuming the source is accurate we now have a possible reason why Fitzgerald fought so hard for testimony from Time report Matt Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller. The differing account of Russert, Novak, Libby, and Rove would be hard to make a case for perjury with, as they amount to he said/he said accounts of phone conversations. If Fitzgerald could show a pattern of differing accounts from either Rove or Libby, then perhaps he’d have a case.
The story goes on to recap yesterday’s news of a State Department memo that included Plame’s name in section marked as “secret.”
A memo by the department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) included Plame’s name in a paragraph marked “(S)” for ‘Secret,’ a designation that should have indicated to anyone who read it that the information was classified, the Washington Post reported yesterday.
The memo summarizing the Plame-Wilson connection was provided to Powell as he left with President George W. Bush on a five-day trip to Africa. Fitzgerald is exploring whether other White House officials who accompanied Bush may have gained access to the memo and shared its contents with officials back in Washington. Rove and Libby didn’t accompany Bush to Africa.
One key to the inquiry is when White House aides knew of Wilson’s connection to Plame and whether they learned about it through this memo or other classified information.If either Libby or Rove can be tied to the memo it’s game over for them. I’m still wholly underwhelmed by the story, but given the details that have emerged (and are likely to emerge), it’s just about time that both Rove and Libby take one for the team and step down.
Trojan Horse One – plant it with top WH people, with spurious “S” code in the margin next to the Valerie Wilson paragraph, as part of a “briefing.” Make the INR memo look like just another innocent document in a briefing pack allegedly given to Powell before boarding or on Air Force One right after Wilson’s 7/6/03 op-ed. (But dated 6/10/03 ? Has anyone heard an explanation for this date? I thought the briefing pack was supposed to be in response to Wilson’s op-ed and tv appearances. This date makes it look even more contrived, like someone at the State Dept.’s INR already knew of Wilson’s upcoming op-ed, standing ready to present the Trojan Horse as soon as asked.)
Trojan Horse Two – plant it with conservative news agencies. At the right moment, accuse the WH of leaking the Trojan Horse contents to conservative media. As soon as Novak’s article was published on 7/14/03, Wilson and The Nation’s David Corn, followed by the rest of the MSM, jumped on it, blaming Bush WH for outing Plame.
The current attack line on Ari/Rove/Bush is based on this Trojan Horse document. A “gift” carrying a special paragraph inside it, mentioning Valerie Wilson, with a marking in the margin, allegedly an “S” for Secret. It’s been debated to death by all kinds of experts, ex-State Dept. staff, etc. at JustOneMinute whether the “S” would be an appropriate State Dept. confidentiality code at all. Apparently there’s something wrong with it – not the code one would expect next to that paragraph.
I’d like to see a copy of it too. I’d like to frame the frame-up. The organized internet operatives forwarding the attack line at various sites know it off by heart, down to the State Dept. confidentiality codes in the margin. Link, anyone? Ha, can’t resist… “A link, a link, my kingdom for a link.” 🙂
(Links discussing the WP 12/26/03 article: at Wizbang on 7/17/05, on 7/18/05 and at JustOneMinute on 7/20/05 and 7/21/05 in the main post, with long, dreary discussion of State Dept. secrecy codes in the posts starting the next morning, 7/22/05.)
Something stirs in my memory… margin, margin, wasn’t that a factor in Sandy Berger’s theft of National Archives memos on and after 9/2/03 ? Something about thingamajiggies in margins. Don’t have the exact link for it, but that’s a start.
Excerpt from 12/26/03 WP article:
“Sources said [hmm, who is that, giving details of a classified memo to the MSM?] the CIA is angry [depends which faction in the CIA – the anti-Bush or pro-Bush ones] about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband’s trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.” [Hmmm, if WP doesn’t tell us which faction is speaking to them, the article hides their source’s intent.]
“CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame’s alleged role in arranging Wilson’s trip could not have attended the meeting.”
“It has been circulated around,” one official said. CIA and State Department officials have refused to discuss the document.
On Oct. 28 [2003 ?], Talon News, a news company tied to a group called GOP USA, posted on the Internet an interview with Wilson in which the Talon News questioner asks: “An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?”
***
Gosh, now that I’ve re-read the part:
“CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame’s alleged role in arranging Wilson’s trip could not have attended the meeting.”
– it’s even worse than I first thought! So, the very person whose name got ADDED to the memo, who wasn’t even present at the meeting, is the one who supposedly brought up Plame’s name. Okay… er… so who made that paragraph up? It seems it’s a totally fictitious paragraph, this thing that the left is jumping up and down about. What a circus, at a time when our govt’s attention should be outward, handling real problems, not being distracted by fifth columnists.
BR
My God, you take up so much space, and don’t include a single fact! OK, maybe one, but I’m certainly not going to go back and re-read all of that stuff. It’s time out of my life that I’ll never get back. You can certainly disagree with my post, but I do take pains to list the facts as they’re known. You posted a million paragraphs alleging, as near as I can figure, that Joe Wilson is behind everything because he seems kind of hinky to you. That’s all you got?? And by the way, since time immemorial, it’s been a common tactic to blame the victim in these cases as part of some nefarious plot. It’s the old “They blew up their own headquarters just so they could blame us,” dodge.
And I have to say, your attempts at getting factual are kind of laughable. To you, a news item that says “The Justice Department has added a prosecutor specializing in counterintelligence, joining two other counterintelligence prosecutors and one from Justice’s Public Integrity section.
Agents investigating the matter have been increasingly apparent at CIA headquarters in Langley over the past three weeks, officials said. “They are still active,” a senior official said.”
Can only mean “”There are so many indications that Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury have seriously been investigating a RICO-size cabal, sending counter-intelligence experts into the CIA to conduct their investigations into the anti-Bush faction there. It goes all the way back to the Feb 02 Niger fake docs described by Wilson, then denying he ever saw any fake docs, then caught in the lie by the Senate Committee Investigation on Iraq. Wilson was the weak link that pulled down [the] whole joint-Humpty Dumpty cabal.”
I guess I missed the part in the news article where they mentioned a RICO sized cabal and an anti-Bush faction. Can I borrow the magic glasses you use when you read these articles?
So in your world, a memo that describes a meeting at the CIA and implicates Valerie Plame as sending her husband to Niger, a memo that was circulated to conservative news outlets, is actually a trojan horse designed to make Bush look bad. Huh? I guess Wilson is the crazy man you make him out to be, if he’s distributing to conservative news outlets a memo that makes him out to be a liar. Good one.
By the way, you do know that there’a two different State Department memos in question, don’t you? The one the CIA is mad about was entered as evidence in the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings, and details the meeting in which Wilson was briefed on his trip to Niger. The memo’s author assumed that Plame had arranged for Wilson to go, even though he hadn’t been part of any of the arrangements. The reason the CIA was angry is because the committe took the word of a State Dept. guy about what went on at CIA, instead of asking the CIA. The second memo is the one that was prepared for POwell to take on the plane to Africa, and is an after the fact recounting prepared in response to Wilson’s op-ed, because the White House was freaking out. This is the memo that mentions Plame as a covert agent, and is marked secret. It was immediately leaked that Powell was seen walking around with the memo, and then leaked that Ari Fleisher was seen reading it by a “senior official no longer with the administration” (probably Powell, or as Billmon put it:”Powell: Fuck me? No, fuck you!”)
The existence of the second memo, its contents and who actually read it are all speculation, although as far as I know no administration leaker has tried to deny its existence.
To sum up: first memo: factual, referenced in Senate report. Second memo: pure speculation.
And by the way, I never mentioned the State Department memo that was supposedly read on the trip to Africa. Everything in my post was factual as we know it. That memo sounds like it could be trouble for the White House, but it’s still just speculation, and I recognize that. The fact is that both Rove and Cooper agree that they discussed Plame, and that Rove asserted or confirmed that Plame was at the CIA, a fact that he was not authorized to reveal. Claiming after the fact that Plame shouldn’t really have been classified as covert has no more bearing than liberals saying Bush shouldn’t really have been President because he stole the election.
Hey BR, nice conspiricy theories. And how ironic it is that the left is supposed to be the ones with them….
Wow…. the INR is a trojan horse. The same trojan horse that was released by Talon News. You remember them. The so called news organization that put that GayBoy into the White House Press Corp on a day pass….
Never Knew that Talon News was a CIA Front….
Or is it really that the CIA is a Gay Organization???
Why is it that the VoCHA (Victims Of ChickenHawk Angst) are trying so hard to save Rove? Could it be that they have forgotten that the nation is suppose to be at WAR? And that the unlawful release of classified information is a CAPITAL CRIME called SPYING? Americans do understand that the excuses made for Gitmo and the Whole “military tribunal” gambit rest upon the legal leg work of WWII, and that they did shoot spies during real wars….
So Which is it boys and girls?
Want to back the Troops in a Time of War?
Or has the need for domestic political expediency finally overrun the need for that old saw….
The smearing has begun, thanks AnonymousDrivel, I knew i could count on you.
Joe Mama writes: The smearing has begun…
Indeed, and it makes all these waterheads currently carrying a torch for Rove and Libby complicit in their ongoing crime. What crime is that? Conspiracy to obstruct justice, that’s what crime.
The whole point of maintaining the smear of Joe Wilson, and Valerie Plame (and the whole CIA, it seems) is to soften the battlefield for when they go after the prosecution for handing down an espionage indictment.
Fitzgerald has to know that if they’re willing to burn a CIA asset merely for a little domestic political advantage, then they won’t hesitate in trying to smear a federal prosecutor when it’s their ass on the line. So, it’s clear— they’re not bluffing. They really are preparing to discredit the prosecution with the public. If that doesn’t work, then they’ll go after the judges, then the Supreme Court if necessary.
No one has immunity.
RE: Joe Mama’s post (July 24, 2005 01:48 AM)
The smearing has begun, thanks AnonymousDrivel, I knew i could count on you.
Likewise. I extend my hand in gratitude that your inconsequential reply is as dependable as the rising sun but without any of the illumination. I guess in that regard, you’re more like a giant moon. No wonder we often avert our eyes when we see you on the horizon.
Hee hee, hi AD. The blue streamers’ franticness is reaching 10 on the Richter scale. They can’t even tell the difference between BR and -S- 🙂
Those who commit criminal conspiracies have tried to wipe the word from the dictionary by denigrating anyone who would analyze data, draw rational conclusions and call a spade a spade. I hope Fitzgerald is an expert in RICO prosecution.
RE: s9’s post (July 24, 2005 02:38 AM)
Indeed, and it makes all these waterheads currently carrying a torch for Rove and Libby complicit in their ongoing crime. What crime is that? Conspiracy to obstruct justice, that’s what crime.
To which “waterheads” do you refer? Further, (and I’ll speculate as to whom you are referring) you now tag those who question Plame’s/Wilson’s veracity and don’t reflexively condemn a man who has not been indicted of a crime to be guilty of obstruction of justice?
The whole point of maintaining the smear of Joe Wilson, and Valerie Plame (and the whole CIA, it seems) is to soften the battlefield for when they go after the prosecution for handing down an espionage indictment.
That’s an interesting extrapolation of motive and may be true though that’s not a position I take. Volumes have been referenced as to why Wilson’s “reputation” (my quotes) is more than deserving of a bit of tarnish. Plame’s reputation may be sullied but the publicly available data is limited; so, some assumptions about her possible complicity are based upon that smaller repository of information. Presumably, Fitzgerald has access to such material and is using a fine-toothed comb to review it. Practical application of what many may conclude are reasonable incentives/behaviors and human interaction substitute for limited facts. Just to exemplify what I mean, consider any husband-wife relationship. It is not unreasonable to make certain assumptions about that interaction because it is a marriage. In this particular case, the actors are both in similar business. Further, they both were involved in the subject of yellowcake. Further still? They both have something to gain/lose for their insertion into this matter. To not make educated guesses as to their complimentary involvement on this particular topic would be terribly naive – no, make that stupid. Or maybe some prefer to mime an ostrich. Don’t think they don’t communicate with each other at both a personal as well as professional level.
Now, since you have exaggerated that LCJohnson is “the whole CIA”, then a review of that CIA is in order. It seems a bit comical that the traditionally philosophical “Left” is coming to the rescue of the CIA. What strange and convenient times we live in. Black is white. So while you might want to place Johnson on a pedestal because he supports your worldview, I’m for a review of the entire institution if necessary. That would include Plame. However, I don’t need to hear every little tidbit that is discovered though it would be interesting. I have some faith that the SP will release that which it can, safely, and conceal that which it cannot. Let the chips fall where they may.
Fitzgerald has to know that if they’re willing to burn a CIA asset merely for a little domestic political advantage, then they won’t hesitate in trying to smear a federal prosecutor when it’s their ass on the line. So, it’s clear— they’re not bluffing. They really are preparing to discredit the prosecution with the public. If that doesn’t work, then they’ll go after the judges, then the Supreme Court if necessary.
Oh please. What we in the VRWC (or other waterheads?) want is for the normal investigation to occur and to let the SP do his work. Let LAW dictate events and not the moonbat bloodlust for Karl “Evil Genius” Rove. Present data to support your position since what we are privy to is rather limited and secondhand. But this meme that Rove should be frog-marched in “Federal Issue Orange” because you would like him to be is one tired act. Maybe you and others could turn the page and find new material.
No one has immunity.
On this I agree. Wilson and Plame should not have immunity from having their backgrounds closely scrutinized. Neither should Johnson who, as a terrorism expert, has proclaimed his disdain for the perpetuation that “…[Americans] almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.” What the heck was he looking at when he was in the agency? It would seem to me that his mindset of the approach to terrorism contributed the the morass in which we live. Certainly most agreed with him at the time and boy are we regretting it now. I reiterate, I have reason to question his judgement. But I’ll let whoever wants carry his standard and blow their bugle while charging into the fraud that our fears of terrorism are misplaced. I’ll stand back, reload my musket, and wait for the “insurgents” marching over his smoldering carcass.
Hi BR. I’m still wiping the sweat off my brow from earlier. That’s some heavy, um, reading. My stamina is getting tested.
Hee hee, reminds me of this golden oldie at wizbang:
ABC NEWS: Republicans have better sex:
“…When asked whether they had ever faked an orgasm, more Democrats (33 percent) than Republicans (26 percent) said they had.”
Must be true, if ABC said it 🙂
Then again, we know these polls are always screwed up – “33” must have been a typo for “69”.
More sexy links, the plot thickens, France involved:
Forged Niger docs exposed as la grande trappola:
UK Telegraph 9/5/04 and UK Telegraph 9/19/04.
Forged Niger docs – originating from anti-Bush faction of CIA: New Yorker 10/27/03 and VIPS data at JustOneMinute – great sleuthing there – here’s a taste:
“Fox News March 17, 2003
The 25-member group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, composed mostly of former CIA analysts along with a few operational agents, is urging employees inside the intelligence agency to break the law and leak any information they have that could show the Bush administration is engineering the release of evidence to match its penchant for war”.
The JustOneMinute post also ties in the INR memo – wow, they already realized that two years ago! Wonder if J-O-M remembers what gems exist in its archives.
For our friends who like to fake it, here’s the relevant text of the Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker 10/27/03:
“… [a former senior C.I.A. officer]. He had begun talking to me about the Niger papers in March, when I first wrote about the forgery, and said, “Somebody deliberately let something false get in there.” He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents themselves.
“The agency guys were so pissed at Cheney,” the former officer said. “They said, ‘O.K, we’re going to put the bite on these guys.’ ” My source said that he was first told of the fabrication late last year, at one of the many holiday gatherings in the Washington area of past and present C.I.A. officials. “Everyone was bragging about it—‘Here’s what we did. It was cool, cool, cool.’ ” These retirees, he said, had superb contacts among current officers in the agency and were informed in detail of the sismi intelligence.
… “They thought it’d be bought at lower levels—a big bluff.” The thinking, he said, was that the documents would be endorsed by Iraq hawks at the top of the Bush Administration, who would be unable to resist flaunting them at a press conference or an interagency government meeting. They would then look foolish when intelligence officials pointed out that they were obvious fakes. But the tactic backfired, he said, when the papers won widespread acceptance within the Administration. “It got out of control.”
****
Hoist by their own petard (those medieval guys sure had a way with words). When I was a little girl, I thought “petard” meant “turd.”
Triple-cross poker 🙂
I wouldn’t be surprised if both Bush and Blair were aware that some Niger docs were forgeries and set a trap for the culprits in the French govt / Plame/Wilson / INR / UN’s IAEA / MSM by vaguely referring to uranium and Africa in their speeches. Rove’s e-mail to a security official in the WH after a reporter’s call (Cooper, I think it was), saying he [Rove] didn’t take the bait, is a hint the WH knew of the cabal all along. How wonderful that the screams for investigation came from the left. I hope Fitzgerald goes all the way with his counter-intelligence experts’ investigation into the CIA.
BR writes: Oh please. What we in the VRWC (or other waterheads?) want is for the normal investigation to occur and to let the SP do his work.
Uh huh. I’m sure you are all on the same page that if any senior administration officials are found to have been involved in the leaking of national security information to the press for domestic political advantage, and convicted of a crime associated with it, and sentenced to a sufficiently serious length of prison time, and the appeals process runs it course all the way to the Supreme Court without relief, then— and, only then— will it be clear to you that somebody will have to be fired from the White House.
Why are you people carrying a torch for these guys? They are clearly implicated in a conspiracy to burn a CIA non-official cover operative merely for domestic political advantage. What Rove and Libby have already admitted should be enough for you to demand their resignations. Yet, here you are spinning wild conspiracy theories to rationalize their possible innocence. Why is it so important for you to do that?
My apologies for the misattribution. My previous post inaccurately attributed a statement to BR when it should have been correctly attributed to AnonymousDrivel. I was responding to the post by AnonymousDrivel. I’m sorry for the confusion.
Apology accepted, S9. Unlike Chris, you have the decency to admit it. But maybe Chris will realize his mistake too.
RE: s9’s post (July 24, 2005 02:04 PM)
Regarding the first paragraph and [w]hy are you people carrying a torch for these guys? They are clearly implicated in a conspiracy to burn a CIA non-official cover operative merely for domestic political advantage. What Rove and Libby have already admitted should be enough for you to demand their resignations.
s9 – I have written extensively and repeatedly at Wizbang what my position is. I’m not going to resummarize it again. I’ve provided links and discussion as to the rationale for my position. Others have too. Feel free to act like it is all new to you but don’t expect me to give a Cliff’s Notes version at every point. I tire of typing it and I’m sure others tire of reading it.
Yet, here you are spinning wild conspiracy theories to rationalize their possible innocence. Why is it so important for you to do that?
The theories are speculation and judgements as to motivations of the actors. We have disclosed as much and provided what documentation we have (or are inclined to research and present) to support those positions. Take it or leave it; but when you present the conflicting view that Wilson/Plame are innocent dupes, it insults our intelligence. This is an intertwined event that is actively promoted to lede by the Left and is utterly political itself. It is not because of a concern for “national security”. If it was, we’d have heard a hell of a lot more whining from these concerned Democrats about Sandy Burglar. The importance, for the umpteenth time, is to reveal the entire story and not one snippet of it. Moral relativism is in play, as I have said. Law is the equalizer that we rely on to quantify it in our society. Repeated declarations of “Liar, liar, pants on fire” doesn’t hold up in criminal court and it barely holds up here.
Looks like the strategy here was to blame the whole thing on a couple of reporters, safe in the knowledge that those reporters would never do something as unethical as revealing the names of their sources, let alone what was discussed with them. How ingeniously evil!
Too bad it didn’t work.
My thoughts on Karl Rove:
Karl Rove is a slug. A big, fat slug that leaves a trail of slime wherever he goes. I’m a republican, and I admit this.
But you wanna know the thing about slugs? You wanna know their one true amazing power?
They can crawl across the edge of a razor without cutting themselves.
That’s what Karl does. That’s ALL he does. And while the left-wing media and the Democrat party’s got its panties in a twist over this, I’m sure Karl’s having the time of his life.
Living on the edge. And not getting cut.
Why should a genius have to obey laws written by morons?
You said it… “written by morons” 🙂
AnonymousDrivel writes: It is not because of a concern for “national security”. If it was, we’d have heard a hell of a lot more whining from these concerned Democrats about Sandy Burglar.
Did Sandy Berger burn a non-official cover operative? Did an expensive CIA operation to run a front company— for the purposes of recruiting foreign agents to help America further its efforts in nuclear non-proliferation— go up in smoke because Sandy Berger and his corrupt circle of toadies repeatedly and deliberately leaked the contents of the documents in his control to the press?
I’m sorry if you don’t think the distinction here is important, but I’m a lot less worried about the message the case of Sandy Berger sends to the people we have asked to risk their lives— and the lives of their families— than I am about what it says to them that Rove and Libby can be permitted to get away clean with what they have clearly done.
Again, I ask the question to which nobody here seems to want to answer: why should any sane and rational person volunteer to work under non-official cover for a U.S. intelligence agency when senior administration officials will not be held accountable for burning them over nothing more important than a chance to get a little domestic political advantage?
It’s nice to see that all these pro-War™ types are so obviously unconcerned about that. It reveals the essential character of their arguments: they thank their lucky stars each and every day that somebody is stupid enough to “hear the call” and take the big risks that they’re just too, too, too precious to take themselves. I’m quite serious. If you’re not willing to condemn Rove and Libby for doing what they have already admitted they did, then you are implying that the answer to my question above is basically the same as Jay Tea’s answer in the comment I linked above. “Either you ‘hear the call’ or you don’t.”
Sane and rational people are supposed to volunteer for extremely dangerous work as non-official cover operatives because they “hear the call?” And when they and their families are put at risk merely for domestic political advantage, this is supposed to make them proud to have served a grateful nation?
You have got to be kidding me. How can anybody really think like that?
“Apology accepted, S9. Unlike Chris, you have the decency to admit it. But maybe Chris will realize his mistake too.”
Huh? Perthaps if I knew what you were talking about I would apologize, if I thought I was wrong. There’s so many posts containing quotes from other posts that perhaps I misattributed something to somebody, but it’s a little hard for me to know what you’re talking about if that’s all you give me to work with.
Chris – kindly link to the copies of the two State Dept. memos you appear to have seen since you are so familiar with their details. If they’re not on the internet, can you type them out here for us? Where does your first- or second- or third-hand knowledge come from? Did you help in drafting them yourself? Are you in the INR?
To S9 – have you read the two UK Telegraph articles linked in an earlier post above? Does it not make you think something may be amiss regarding the attacks on Bush and Blair based on deliberately forged – then planted by a French agent – Niger uranium docs?
Hey BR
It seems you really don’t process information well. First of all, you seemed to indicate that I had somehow misattributed one poster’s comments for another’s. When I asked what you were talking about, you responded by challenging me to provide evidence of the two memos I had written about. There’s some kind of total disconnect there. But since you asked, if you go to http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf and check out page 40 of the report,(which is also page 50 of the pdf) you’ll see in section U that an INR analyst present at the CIA meeting was the source of the report that Valerie Plame had first suggested sending her husband to Niger. I’ve since read quotes from her supervisor at CIA who disputed that report and was angry that he wasn’t asked about the issue (and no, I’m not going to search the web for you to find the quote. You asked about the memos so I’m answering you.)
The second memo, the one that was allegedly on Air Force One, is supposed to be the memo that revealed Plame’s identity. And if you read my post (here’s the part where you don’t process so well) you would see that I said:
“The existence of the second memo, its contents and who actually read it are all speculation, although as far as I know no administration leaker has tried to deny its existence.
To sum up: first memo: factual, referenced in Senate report. Second memo: pure speculation.”
Please tell me how that implies that I am claiming to have seen the second memo?
I clearly draw a different conclusion from the evidence and speculation that’s all over the net, than that drawn by most of the posters on this board. However, I do take pains to only claim as fact what seems to have been established as fact.
Now back to the question at hand. When one poster apologized for attributing a quote to you that was actually from another poster, you said
“Apology accepted, S9. Unlike Chris, you have the decency to admit it. But maybe Chris will realize his mistake too.”
Now what the hell were you talking about? The reason I harp on this is because I’ve noticed that whenever I post something factual on this board, it just goes into the ether, and people start up all of the suppositions and ad hominem remarks. So instead of changing the subject every time you’re called on to support your staements, why don’t you just answer the question? You know, kind of like the way I answered your misguided question about the memos.
BR writes: have you read the two UK Telegraph articles linked in an earlier post above?
Not until now. The UK Telegraph is a Murdoch paper, i.e. it’s published by Telegraph Group Ltd., and as such, I tend to discount its content until I see confirmation in other sources.
BR continues: Does it not make you think something may be amiss regarding the attacks on Bush and Blair based on deliberately forged – then planted by a French agent – Niger uranium docs?
I don’t see how any of it would be relevant to the matter under discussion. Yes, the memoranda that drove the Vice President’s office to ask the CIA to send somebody to Niger to check into the yellowcake story were obvious forgeries. Yes, there is rampant speculation about who made the forgeries and what their motivations might have been to introduce them into circulation. I’m aware of several competing theories, including the one Seymour Hersh reported about a cabal of disgruntled ex-CIA officers getting ticked off enough to set a trap.
But here’s the point: what possible excuse can the White House offer for falling into this supposed trap? By what reasonable justification can you excuse burning a non-official cover operative here? Were Karl and Scooter really just doing their patriotic duty until those evil traitors at State and the Agency put them into the kind of terrible squeeze where burning an operative was the least damaging thing they could do to national security? How would that be a reasonable thing to say?
Please, this is just a silly diversion. Let me know when you want to take the matter seriously.
BR
OK, I couldn’t help myself. Here’s a link to the same Washington Post story that you speculated means Fitzgerald is looking into a RICO-style anti-Bush cabal at the CIA. Of course, the article says nothing of the kind. But if you read down further (instead of just stopping at the parts you like) you’ll see it all spelled out about the INR memo about the meeting at the CIA, and the CIA’s alleged objections to it. So you challenge me to produce information for you, and it turns out the information is in an article you linked to in this same goddamned thread. Jesus, get your head in the game.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A30842-2003Dec25¬Found=true
S9 and Chris, I gave you a chance, but you have both showed yourself to be insincere by pushing false data. Look through the fog and ask yourself why are you even posting at this site. And will you come back to apologize for assisting the treasonous attack on the US President and his staff once the indictments on its sources are issued. Food for thought, here, American Hiroshima.
RE: s9’s post (July 24, 2005 05:30 PM)
Did Sandy Berger burn a non-official cover operative? Did an expensive CIA operation to run a front company— for the purposes of recruiting foreign agents to help America further its efforts in nuclear non-proliferation— go up in smoke because Sandy Berger and his corrupt circle of toadies repeatedly and deliberately leaked the contents of the documents in his control to the press?
No. Sandy Berger stole numerous top secret documents with lots of names, dates, places, and/or who knows what else which could have compromised any number of secret programs or people. That material could have been shared with any number of other people and not just one particular individual of which there is a record. If that deliberate act wasn’t enough, he did it to interfere with an investigation regarding terrorism (the most immediate security issue of the day), the nation’s policy toward it and the record of action taken against it. There may be more but that is not, as far as I know, public record.
How many people could have gotten burned (or were burned but we just don’t know about it) for the intentional theft of top secret documents? Why would anyone ever do anything in government if it was known that their supposedly concealed plans etc. could be perused by partisans and either studied, discussed, copied, or disseminated to anyone on the planet? See, the extrapolation works wonders no matter where applied. Both have the potential to severely compromise national security. I don’t hear you complain about Berger and his “corrupt circle of toadies” and his repeated and deliberate stealing of actual documents under his temporary control and doing who knows what with them.
But my argument is not whether what Rove has done (alleged at this point) is legal or not, ethical or not. My argument is to a) let the investigation complete to the fullest extent possible and catch all actors on all sides who have done things to compromise the security of our country, b) let the investigation complete to the fullest extent possible and catch all actors on all sides who have done things to compromise the security of our country, and c) let the investigation complete to the fullest extent possible and catch all actors on all sides who have done things to compromise the security of our country. Have I made myself clear?
Research Rove and follow the law. Research Libby and follow the law. Research Wilson and follow the law. Research Plame and follow the law. Research Miller and follow the law. Research Cooper and follow the law. Have I made myself clear?
See, the press is quite interested in placing the microscope on Karl Rove because of visions of Watergate dancing in their heads. I’m interested in the operatives leaking information, scheming to undermine a government, politicking in the most abhorrent ways, concealing a questionable agenda, and possibly profitting from illegal action domestically and abroad. But everyone is free to research that which they find more damning to their hearts delight. The feigned concern that only Rove’s action, whatever it was, merits scrutiny is disingenous. Should Rove be indicted, arrested, and ultimately convicted, I’ll accept the SP’s work. My greater fear is that the investigation will not capture all of the actors and you already know which ones I believe to be the most dangerous. If Rove’s disclosure does yield a “cabal” (to borrow BR’s word), I’ll consider his action patriotic. If it doesn’t, then he’ll be punished according to statute. He may still be punished even if that cabal is unearthed, but that won’t tarnish his patriotism. I’ve presented this opinion before and I stand my ground.
If you cannot grasp my position at this point, then I give up. Your hearing may be fine but you just aren’t listening.
Hi AD, I was just writing to you and haven’t read yours at 08:30 AM yet. Amazing synchronicity! So many worms, too little time!
I’ll post, then read yours
To AD – I’m catching up with your great work (more like play, for us), and just saw your reference in regard to Johnson, linking to: Selective Security Outrage. (Sorry, I had missed that thread before, so it’s become #9B” on my list of wizbang threads. Will go do some “heavy reading” there asap 🙂 )
You are so right when you said before that many people on parallel lines of research are coming up with the same discoveries. Since CBSgate I had recognized there were a flock of ex-CIA whiners always running to Hersh with their anonymous sourced leaks. Three weeks ago I first read about the VIPS group of ex-CIA whiners – in an Oct 2003 thread at J-O-M, and more recently, here”>http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/07/circling_back_t.html#comment-7525146″>here and lower down in that thread, here – where the “Johnson” character was mentioned recently. It seems he is a member of the VIPS group.
When I first read Seymour Hersh’s article of 10/20/03, I was skeptical, knowing the kind of slanted sources he had been quoting. That date of creation of the forgeries as “late summer” 02 didn’t sit right. It didn’t match the Feb 02 date of Wilson’s descriptions of fake Niger docs. Then I realized: the article itself contained disinfo cloaked in truth. It was an attempt to distance Wilson/Plame and the rest of the fake doc cabal from the Feb 02 tea-sipping trip. (Trolls unwittingly assisted me) when I re-read Hersh’s piece and saw that ex-CIA source told him “…were informed in detail of the SISMI intelligence” – that’s back in 2002 – this is very telling. Because, it turns out a year later, SISMI had no part in the operation.
So the CIA-cabal forgers in 2002 must have planned to make it look as if the fake docs were sourced by SISMI, Italy’s intell agency. Discredit 3 allies all with one stone – Italy, UK and US. They used an Italian-born go-between “Giacomo” aka Rocco Martino. BUT HE WAS EXPOSED in Sept. 04 by SISMI, as being a French agency asset… and Giacomo was reported to be in the US when the Telegraph reporters were looking to interview him for their 9/5/04 article.
So Giacomo may have direct connections to the CIA-cabal, or they used him via the French.
And if Johnson and the VIPS group is the group described to Hersh in that article, then we have the arsonists cheering on the fire right now.
AD, Bravo, Bravo, Bravo!
I sense that both Samuel Berger and John W. Dean will yet surface in this play.
The Force is with us.
BR
You’re right, I give up. The question isn’t why am I posting at this site (I actually find some of the posters are interested in engaging in a dialogue, even though they don’t agree with a single word I say. And I’m not sure what purpose is served by continually posting only to boards where everyone agrees with you.) The question is, why do I keep going back and forth with you? You keep asking me questions and challenging my facts, and I keep digging up sources to back up everything I say. And you’re response is “I gave you a chance, but you have…showed yourself to be insincere by pushing false data.” That’s it? I have to believe that even the people on this board who share your views find that a little weak. You gave me a chance? WTF.
And AnonymousDrivel, all I can say is, nice try. You try to portray yourself as evenhanded, let’s see what the investigation says about everyone involved, etc. There’s just one problem. The investigation was convened to determine if anyone outed a covert agent. And try as the Republicans might to obfuscate and throw up smokescreens, there’s absolutely no indication that it is any more than that. The only ones who seem to think that Wilson and Plame are being investigated for their truthfulness are Republican true believers. I’d be interested to see a single credible assertion that indicates that Fitzgerald is in any way investigationg Plame and Wilson. This is entirely a Republican fever dream. So this whole notion of “Research Rove and follow the law. Research Libby and follow the law. Research Wilson and follow the law. Research Plame and follow the law. Research Miller and follow the law. Research Cooper and follow the law.” is just wishful thinking on the part of the Republicans. There is no indication whatsoever, either in established fact or rumor, that Wilson and Plame are being investigated. The Republicans are hoping mightily to make this whole thing about Wilson and Plame, but even Republican lapdogs like Russert aren’t buying it.
“The investigation was convened to determine if anyone outed a covert agent…”
Dream on. Schumer took the bait, hee hee.
RE Chris’s post (July 25, 2005 09:45 AM)
So this whole notion of “Research [various actors and] follow the law.” is just wishful thinking on the part of the Republicans.
Then I take it that you aren’t interested in getting the whole story but only seek that which convicts one man – the Democratic party’s most revered nemesis – and coincides with your point of view. Fine, keep the blinders on and focus straight ahead. Hopefully, for everyone’s sake, there won’t be any missed turns along the way which, had we taken them, would have directed us to the proper conclusion and not kept us lost.
The investigation was convened to determine if anyone outed a covert agent. And try as the Republicans might to obfuscate and throw up smokescreens, there’s absolutely no indication that it is any more than that.
Whatever the reason for its initiation, the SP is not restrained to conclude one preconceived notion, that of the Democrat’s preconceived belief of and predetermind conclusion of “leaking” by Rove alone. He is given authority to investigate and expose what he finds. Have you forgotten Clinton’s impeachment already? The souffle that came out was not of the ingredients initially put in. I support legal investigations where wrongs are righted… keyword “legal”.
As of yet there has not been disclosure of other findings yet the search continues. I advocate the non-disclosure of information rather than perpetual dripping of select discoveries. I prefer the report be comprehensive, be released at the appropriate time, and be final. That the extent of any peripheral investigation has not yet been disclosed, or discovered, does not mean that it is non-existent. I don’t mind being kept in the dark about it at this time though transparency mandates that the full investigation (the portions that do not compromise security) be disclosed to the public eventually.
The Republicans are hoping mightily to make this whole thing about Wilson and Plame, but even Republican lapdogs like Russert aren’t buying it.
No doubt and just as strident as Democrats are in seeing that Rove get crucified, but I am not a Republican. Having said that, I’m of the opinion that pigs will grow wings before I vote Democratic again. The leadership of the party is taking it over the cliff and fewer of the middle are willing to follow lemming-like inclinations. That’s a good sign that the species might be saved. Now, Tim Russert a “Republican lapdog”? How far over the cliff are you?
Hey AD
You can spin theories without end, but they remain nothing more than that. Saying portetously that we don’t know where the investigation will lead doesn’t mean there’s a shred of evidence that Wilson and/or Plame are being investigated, or that they ever will be. What you’re basically saying is that we haven’t yet proved the negative, that until it’s shown otherwise, we can assume that Wilson and Plame may be investigated. Well we can assume that Bush is having sex with monkeys, too, since there’s been no indication that he’s not. The fact remains, that try as I might, I can’t get any of you guys to provide even a single credible source that says the investigation in any way — any way– focuses on Plame and Wilson. And when anyone points that out to you, you accuse them of not wanting to know the whole truth. How specious! This is so clearly an attempt by the Republicans to take the focus off of the White House by pretending that all of the actors are under investigation. Show me one source! Of course we all have to wait until the invetigation concludes, and of course the chips will fall where they may. But you keep throwing this completely unsupported blather against the wall to see what sticks, then wrap yourself in the mantle of the wise observer who only wants the truth. One source! Let’s go.
And by the way, while I don’t condone what Berger did, he was taking papers that he had already seen, based on his security clearance. There’s no indication that he ever let anyone outside of intelligence circles have access to the information. I’m not defending him, but the fact is he didn’t publish the information in a newspaper, or give it to a reporter. And if you can’t see the difference, you’re the one with the partisan blinders on.
Well we can assume that Bush is having sex with monkeys, too,
ROFLMAO
RE: Chris post (July 25, 2005 03:32 PM)
You can spin theories without end, but they remain nothing more than that…
I’ve said they were speculations long ago. Perhaps you missed that. I’ve presented links and rationale to provide a basis for that speculation. Perhaps you missed them. Common sense dictates that more is going on than is being disclosed otherwise this “obvious” crime that Rove has “certainly” committed would have already terminated. Remember that this has been going on for well over a year.
Saying portetously that we don’t know where the investigation will lead doesn’t mean there’s a shred of evidence that Wilson and/or Plame are being investigated, or that they ever will be.
I suggested it to be a possibility and that I hope the investigation is thorough and that it will include Wilson and Plame for the reasons I have previously disclosed. Perhaps you missed that.
What you’re basically saying is that we haven’t yet proved the negative, that until it’s shown otherwise, we can assume that Wilson and Plame may be investigated.
You may interpret or misinterpret to your heart’s delight, however, please don’t misrepresent what I have said. I’ve asked for no proof of a negative. I’ve asked, repeatedly, that all actors be investigated and that would be the most helpful review of the entire episode. I just don’t know how many times I must type this or its myriad permutations. Are you using unicode, iso-8859-1, or iso-8859-15 in your browser? Something is getting lost in the translation.
Well we can assume that Bush is having sex with monkeys, too, since there’s been no indication that he’s not.
Yes, the comparisons to what I have posted and your monkey-fetish are like two peas of the same pod. Good grief. I better put up the glass shield because I know the excrement will be flying shortly.
The fact remains, that try as I might, I can’t get any of you guys to provide even a single credible source that says the investigation in any way — any way– focuses on Plame and Wilson.
I don’t have any. Is that clear enough? I don’t recall typing I had any. Perhaps you missed that. Common sense indicates that the investigation reaches further than the obvious. I applaud such an extension if it exists. I hope it does.
And when anyone points that out to you, you accuse them of not wanting to know the whole truth. How specious! This is so clearly an attempt by the Republicans to take the focus off of the White House by pretending that all of the actors are under investigation.
Do you not want to know if Wilson and Plame colluded? Or anyone else? Wilson is verifiably untrustworthy (recall the Senate report linked numerous times). The focus on Rove is so clearly an attempt by the Democrats to take the focus off of the Wilsons by pretending that all of Joe Wilson’s involvement is honorable and straightforward.
And by the way, while I don’t condone what Berger did, he was taking papers that he had already seen, based on his security clearance. There’s no indication that he ever let anyone outside of intelligence circles have access to the information. I’m not defending him, but the fact is he didn’t publish the information in a newspaper, or give it to a reporter. And if you can’t see the difference, you’re the one with the partisan blinders on.
Ah, yes. The man who stuffed papers in his socks! and pants! and then said he didn’t mean to or that is was an accident. Yes, I trust him when he says he didn’t let anyone outside of intelligence circles see them. Or that he cannot recall what he did with some of the ones that were not retrieved. I’m guessing that you still believe that Mr. Clinton did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, because he said he didn’t. Incidently, Rove didn’t print information in the newspaper. No matter. I’m obviously the blinded partisan trying to find my way.
Come to think of it, I do have information proving Wilson’s conspiracy. Let me check my socks and shorts for the most damning. Drat. I seem to have misplaced them. Surely you trust me…
So you come home, and you’re front doors broken in and there’s a stranger standing in your living room holding your television. You call the cops, who immediately start checking the guy out. Then your neighbor shows up. “Hey, AD borrowed my lawnmower two weeks ago and hasn’t returned it. I think that makes him a thief, too.”
“By Jove, you’re right,” the policeman says. “I think we need to investigate him, too.”
“Wait a minute,” you say. “I’m the victim here. The guy’s holding my television. Why investigate me?”
“What, you’ve got something against us knowing the truth? What if you invited him in to your house, then put the TV in his hands to set him up?”
“Yeah, but why would I do that?”
“Hey, I admitted it’s just speculation, but I still think we should treat you as just as much of a suspect as he is.”
“That’s crazy. You just made that up. There’s absolutely no evidence to support anything you’re saying!”
“Or what if he bought you that television as a present, and was just dropping it off? Gosh, there’s so many credible possibilities.”
“Then why would I be having him arrested?”
“Are you using unicode, iso-8859-1, or iso-8859-15 in your browser? I said it was speculation. Now turn around so I can cuff you.”
“But I’m the victim here. Why are you treating me the same as him?”
“You really have no interest in us finding out the truth, do you? You must be a liberal.”
The policeman turns to the thief.
“Although we haven’t concluded our investigation, I’d like to thank you for helping us catch this possible thief. Clearly you’re a whistleblower, and you deserve a medal. And by the way, you can keep the television.”
Well, if that’s the story you’d like to present, by all means provide the links and any forensic documentation and I’ll check ’em out. I may either support them, refute them, or reanalyze them based on new data.
But I hope you’ll answer one of my questions that you dodged earlier since I addressed your points. Do you not want to know if Wilson (and/or Plame) colluded with anyone? Regardless of what happens to Rove, does this not interest you in the least? I would think that might concern you given Wilson’s history.
Hi AD, I’ve been off loafing. I’m lazy tonight and wondered if you had the date of Wilson’s testimony to the Senate handy anywhere? Haven’t checked the July 04 Senate report yet, but I want to see the actual dates and text of Wilson’s testimony. Something hot was going on around Sept. 03 that would prompt Josh Marshall to give Wilson that leading question in the 9/18/03 interview:
“TPM: And, just to be clear, at this time, you hadn’t seen these documents that turned out to be forgeries?
WILSON: No, I hadn’t. I had just been briefed on a memorandum of agreement covering the sale. Now, my understanding is that there are all sorts of other documents that have since come to light and Andrea Mitchell showed me some documents which I had not seen and frankly, I did not have my glasses, so I didn’t even get a chance to read them, and I have not seen them since.“
****
Berger’s thefts occurred starting 9/2/03, just two weeks before the above interview.
What was the date(s) of Wilson’s testimony to the Senate, do you know?
Deja vu all over again – Watergate’s “third rate burglaries to get info on DNC” – which I believe were actually cover for a different search into Larry O’Brien’s desk, possilby re Hughes, since O’Brien’s firm used to have the Hughes account before the Mullen Co. took it over. (One of the Plumbers was CIA’s Hunt, who was employed by the Mullen Co.)
Oh my, some great news! It seems Republicans in both houses will have hearings related to the CIA. And the left is cheering”>http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/valerie_plame_/2005/07/hearings_at_long_last.php”>cheering, thinking it will focus on Rove 🙂
7/25/05 article: Congress Plans to Scrutinize Plame-related Issues”:
“The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans hearings on potential national security threats posed by leaks, including leaks to the media, and will aim to toughen legislation barring the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
“[Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the panel’s Republican chairman] said his committee would begin hearings as early as September that would include testimony from CIA, Pentagon and Justice Department witnesses. He said he would also hope to invite witnesses representing the news media.“
Hmmm, and let it include all of Seymour Hersh’s sources from the CIA Whiners-Failures Club too!
I hope the House and Senate do a better job than the mid-70s hearings, when CIA atrocities were swept under the rug thanks to Nelson Rockefeller. One of the tactics used by the corrupt faction of the CIA during those hearings were to throw out red herring stories of schoolboyish prankishness (like unsuccessfully trying to put something in Castro’s toothpaste). Things the public would laugh at, while the serious stuff was heard behind closed doors (e.g., Terry Lenzner arranging for MKUltra proponent Sidney Gottlieb to testify secretly and under another name). No follow-up criminal prosecutions of note, just a little slap on the hand for Helms. (Described in the book “Acid Dreams, The CIA, LSD and the Sixties Rebellion.”)
Good grief, I just realized – that same “we’re just clowns” tactic was used in the 10/27/03 Hersh article, where his CIA source attempts to make the Niger docs forgery crime sound like a naughty prank.
Some serious “damage control” signs flashing in that Sept-Oct 03 period. Wonder why. AD, does your time line of that period shed any light on it? Did something happen shortly before September 03 to set off such acts of desperation as sending Berger (who then was or later became Kerry’s Senior Foreign Policy Advisor) into the National Archives to commit a crime and having Kerry’s other Foreign Policy Advisor (since May 03), Wilson, vehemently deny to the press that he had seen the forged docs?
****
Oh, irony of ironies from the past: Kerry Camp Accuses White House of Berger Leak (!!) The theft was in Sept. 03. The “leak” accusation in July 04. And Berger’s conviction on April Fool’s Day 2005.
It’s the weirdest thing; trying to ascertain when exactly Sandy Berger began working for the Kerry campaign, is not easy. Rush Limbaugh’s page containing the transcript of his 7/21/04 show is blacked out. I don’t know if that is usual, since I’ve never been to his site before. But I copied it into a doc and can now read it. None of the articles he linked gave an exact date for Berger’s appointment to the Kerry campaign. The earliest is a Jan/Feb 04 link.
If that page was deliberately blacked out, it may be because of this paragraph:
“
And this is another area that people are interested in. Could it be that the documents that Berger took out were shared with Kerry? And that’s what makes this relevant to the presidential campaign. It’s one thing to take ’em out of there. It’s another thing to start sharing them with people. Now, we know that Clinton knew what was in the documents. So Berger wasn’t going in there to find out something for Clinton, and when he went in there he was “informal.” We now know that’s not true. He was a foreign policy advisor to Kerry, and he went ahead and testified before the 9/11 Commission knowing full well what he had done. So there are a lot of people wondering now if what was in the documents that Berger saw and in perhaps the documents that now cannot be found, if some of that information made its way to the Kerry campaign to give him some leg up on things. That would be another criminal violation. It’s one thing to take it out of there. It’s another thing to disseminate it. I think that’s what’s got Gordon Smith. Gordon Smith does not join these frays, but he did yesterday, along with Saxby Chambliss, the Republican senator from Georgia.“
***
But I’m wondering with all the attention on Clinton-era docs in the National Archives, whether Berger did not also get access to 2002-03 docs. Would that be possible? Does the NA get current docs from the WH or only after a President leaves office? Wouldn’t it be funny if the forged Niger docs had made their way to the WH and were sitting in the National Archives – BEFORE they supposedly “first” appeared in Italy in Oct. 02 ?
BR – No, I’ve not been able to find any extended documentation of Wilson’s testimony or an exact date. I don’t have time at the moment to search more intently. One thing I ran across which is noteworthy, and not at all surprising, is the reference to leaks from some time ago:
JULY 11, 2003 – U.S. SSCoI
Senator Roberts’ Statement on the Niger Documents
“So far, I am very disturbed by what appears to be extremely sloppy handling of the issue from the outset by the CIA.”
“What now concerns me most, however, is what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the CIA in an effort to discredit the President.”
Roberts long ago noticed the intentional leaking from the CIA. This provides support for the idea that some disgruntled CIA personnel had, at a minimum, political motives. Not surprising since everyone has a political bias of some sort. However, to leak with motive to undermine the government? Treason… isn’t it?
For convenience I’m relinking to the SSCoI report:
Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq
Warning – Large PDF file
Also, to search the Congressional Record:
Congressional Record
108th Congress (2003-2004)
Use “Joseph Wilson” as the query terms.
Finally, the documentation from the SSCoI is rather limited (not surprising) since most of it is closed:
SSCoI Hearings: 108th Congress
I thought Wilson testified in front of them but I don’t recall. At least there is a dateline of sessions to coordinate with other releases.
I know you probably use these already, BR. If anything, you are tenacious.
Yes, the new hearings on leaks is welcome news. I’m just surprised the action is so delayed considering this is in response to the sideshow of a “super-duper-double-secret-covert-operative”.
You’re precious, AD! Thanks for the links. I only had the big report and the smaller Niger section on my link list. (In that section Wilson’s name is hidden – only referred to as “former ambassador.” There might be dates of his testimony in it – I’ve just been too lazy to look 🙂
Re political and other motive$$$$: new film deal for Richard Clarke, wine-drinking buddy of Rand Beers. At least they sip Russian”>http://wizbangblog.com/archives/006388.php#079182″>Russian River Pinot Noir, not Timbuktu-tea.
Whee, what fun, now I’ve learned how to link single comments from past threads when the original MSM articles are no longer there 🙂