In short, remember that Wilson's piece carefully, or coyly as some might think, only danced around the issue of the forged documents. Novak himself, though, directly mentions them. Here's the story:
Mission to Niger (Novak/Wilson July 14, 2003)
WASHINGTON -- The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. Remarkably, this produced a political firestorm that has not yet subsided.I don't think it's just "purchases." contrary to what I might have said before, the Novak statement about "low level" was nothing special, Tenet's apologia was released before this article.
Wilson's report that an Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger was highly unlikely was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. Certainly, President Bush did not, prior to his 2003 State of the Union address, when he attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government. That the British relied on forged documents made Wilson's mission, nearly a year earlier, the basis of furious Democratic accusations of burying intelligence though the report was forgotten by the time the president spoke.But the British intel was not based on the forged documents, and those, reportedly, only came to light months after Wilson went to Niger...and Wilson always avoids saying those were the documents that compelled his visit. Which raises the question, just what other "Memorandum of Sale" was Wilson talking about in his TalkingPointsMemo interview?
Reluctance at the White House to admit a mistake has led Democrats ever closer to saying the president lied the country into war. Even after a belated admission of error last Monday, (Condi Rice's confused apology?) finger-pointing between Bush administration agencies continued. Messages between Washington and the presidential entourage traveling in Africa hashed over the mission to Niger.I suppose the "finger-pointing" includes leaking stuff to Novak in CYA, maybe frame job-engendering factional fighting. Notice the "traveling in Africa". That recalls the supenas for ARi Fleischer's comments and such. Did the investigators get this angle of pursuit via Novak??? BTW, did the factions themselves not understand very well the whole British intel issue, and perhaps like reporters, confused the whole thing too?
Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government. The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it.I'm stumped. I thought the forged documents came to light only in late 2002. Perhaps it wasn't the forged documents themselves, but an Italian report addressing them, passed to CIA in early 2002?
And Wilson said to Talking Points Memo:
“...TPM: And, just to be clear, at this time (--when he traveled to Niger in 2002--), you hadn't seen these documents that turned out to be forgeries?Was there another "memorandum of agreement?" Or maybe the Italian report was received, and related to Wilson in part?WILSON: No, I hadn't. I had just been briefed on a memorandum of agreement covering the sale....
Back to Novak. Maybe the White house asked the CIA to look into the forged documents/Italian issue. But, if true, we know via Tenet the White House had nothing to do with the sending of Wilson to Niger. So perhaps later, when these documents showed up (and in the press), the White house asked - in late 2002. Namely, such actions had nothing to do with the earlier intelligence that sent Wilson to Niger. Novak is mixing up the issue...or even his leakers didn't understand it. Why not? Condi didn't too.
That's where Joe Wilson came in. ... Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.Well, maybe it was the "report" from Italy, specifically documents aren't mentioned,...and those documents apparently were only turned over in later 2002 to the US. Or the "senior administration officials" didn't completely understand all the details, and were reacting to the same mistakes published in the press. (For one, I determined that after Tenet's July 11, 2003 apologia, the weekend's press was full of reports saying "Niger" was "debunked" and such...overlooking Tenet's other statements about African countries.) (Also, I saw in other earlier Novak reports he use the term "White house officials"- intrestingly, he does not here-so maybe they're not White House.)
After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 (sic,, 1998) Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances.Yes, the "purchase" was unlikely, but did they seek it? As for the observation that the Nigeriens would have denied it anyway, I'm happy we have some common sense-thinking people in our govt!
The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified. All this was forgotten until reporter Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post June 12 that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report. Yada, yada, yada... The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest.So, maybe the "White House" did tell Novak something...like they wanted the info released? Other things? Or is Novak just embellishing, adding, opiniong?
Anyway, Novak's article, and lesser known articles between it's publication and Tenet's earlier statement added to the confusion between Niger and Africa, Italian intelligence and British INtelligence, all reminiscent of the "dodgy dossier" scandal with the BBC and David Kelly. David Kelly, remember, was portrayed as the insider showing that Blair lied about the "45 minute" loading of weapons, which was portrayed as a utter disavowal of Blair's position. Turns out, Kelly only thought the "loading" would take longer. Not that there were no weapons.
Details on Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger September 16, 2003 08:12 AM
There seems to be some confusion surrounding Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger. [--That's for sure!] I've talked to him in detail about the trip, so hopefully this will clear things up. Here's how he explained it.Presumes, again, the "documents" are those supposedly that came from the Italians later to be proven to be forgeries. Gilliam mentions Andrea Mitchell. I think Gilliam is confused (who isn't) - Wilson's own words indicate the documents Andrea Mitchell has are different than the forged documents. Again, Bush never said a sale occurred, but that Iraq "sought" uranium in Africa per British Intelligence. The Brits said it wasn't based on the forged documents, Tenet indicated there was information about two other African countries other than NigerWilson never saw the documents before the trip. It was only in the last few months that Andrea Mitchell showed them to him. His goal was to understand the process and determine whether such a sale could have occurred.
The Niger uranium business is a consortium with several international partners - France, Germany, Spain, Japan and Niger. France is the operating partner, and is the only member that handles the uranium itself. The uranium is produced at a loss - the mine is maintained to 1) supply a steady, secure supply to the consortium members and 2) provide development assistance to Niger.Why people feel secure "France" is involved is beyond me...
It's impossible for Wilson to go to Niger without causing a bit of a ruckus. Everyone there knows him, and his arrival was widely known. This was not a clandestine operation, and he made sure the CIA knew this when they asked him to investigate the documents.Well, if a cabinet meeting was "required" that ends that! BTW, as noted by Ari Fleischer, it was Wilson's info that an Iraqi, later identified as Baghdad Bob, sought commercial contacts, which raised new suspicions.He met with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, another diplomat in the region, who was surprised to find out what Wilson was investigating, because she had already determined it was bogus (Carlton Fulford also came to the same conclusion). [--exactly what was "bogus" is unclear] Nevertheless he met with the appropriate government officials to determine what the process would be for a sale of uranium between two sovereign countries.
Such a sale would require a cabinet level meeting and a minimum of three signatures: the Minister of Mines, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Prime Minister. He also investigated a couple other minor leads related to possible meetings between Iraqi officials and the Niger government and quickly determined there was even less there.
Now it gets weird:
The first flight back was 8 days after he arrived, and he had a business trip the following day. He met with a CIA report officer and gave him a full debriefing with the understanding that the report officer would file a written report in "CIA-speak" about his trip.CIA-speak? Would that be his wife?
Wilson deliberately avoided writing a report in Niger because he didn't want it to inadvertently fall into the wrong hands.Does this make sense? Who are the wrong hands? He's telling the CIA when back home, why not write a memo? Is this some kind of Novak-like lame excuse to flit around the criticism he wrote no report?
His concern about the sensitivity of this information extended to his note taking, which was indecipherable to anyone but himself.OK, so maybe he wrote notes in his own top secret language...maybe worried the Nigeriens would take it from his hotel? I don't think Gilliam could make up something like this. So Wilson he did write something - did he give them to the CIA?
He reported back that unless the documents had those three signatures, it was a fake, and if the CIA wanted to pursue this any further they would have to contact the French uranium company and look at their production and transport records to determine if there was a spike in activity at the mine. He didn't think this was necessary, since there "was just nothing to this story."Shucks, with that attitude Enron's good-looking books are clean.
I recently re-read Novak's piece myself and was struck by the similarites between it and Tenet's subsequent statement.
You do point to an interesting possible confusion amongst officials in the WH, when reacting to the story, about their knowledge of the surfacing of forged documents and how they did or did not play in reality to Wilson's Niger trip.
I know you've seen me often point to the fact that David Kelly was meeting with the BBC around the time Wilson was getting his ball rolling. I remain pretty sure the two plots to accuse Bush and Blair of "lying" to their respective countries about the WMD situation was coordinated.
And this part has never caught my attention before:
The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest.
Interesting...