Posted on 07/14/2004 2:11:05 PM PDT by Shermy
Below are the "Additional Comments" of Sens. Roberts, Hatch and Bond that were appended at the very long Senate Intelligence report, along with other Senator's comments.
I've excerpted those that deal with the Niger uranium issue because of the popularity of the topic.
________________________________________
...Despite our hard and successful work to deliver a unanimous report, however, there were two issues on which the Republicans and Democrats could not agree: 1) whether the Committee should conclude that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s public statements were not based on knowledge he actually possessed, and 2) whether the Committee should conclude that it was the former ambassador’s wife who recommended him for his trip to Niger.
Niger
The Committee began its review of prewar intelligence on Iraq by examining the Intelligence Community’s sharing of intelligence information with the UNMOVIC inspection teams. (The Committee’s findings on that topic can be found in the section of the report titled, “The Intelligence Community’s Sharing of Intelligence on Iraqi Suspect WMD Sites with UN Inspectors.”) Shortly thereafter, we expanded the review when former Ambassador Joseph Wilson began speaking publicly about his role in exploring the possibility that Iraq was seeking or may have acquired uranium yellowcake from Africa. Ambassador Wilson’s emergence was precipitated by a passage in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address which is now referred to as “the sixteen words.” President Bush stated, “. . . the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The details of the Committee’s findings and conclusions on this issue can be found in the Niger section of the report. What cannot be found, however, are two conclusions upon which the Committee’s Democrats would not agree. While there was no dispute with the underlying facts, my Democrat colleagues refused to allow the following conclusions to appear in the report:
"Conclusion: The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee."
The former ambassador’s wife suggested her husband for the trip to Niger in February 2002. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on behalf of the CIA, also at the suggestion of his wife, to look into another matter not related to Iraq. On February 12, 2002, the former ambassador’s wife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations which said, “[m]y husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” This was just one day before the same Directorate of Operations division sent a cable to one of its overseas stations requesting concurrence with the division’s idea to send the former ambassador to Niger.
"Conclusion: Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided."
At the time the former ambassador traveled to Niger, the Intelligence Community did not have in its possession any actual documents on the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal, only second hand reporting of the deal. The former ambassador’s comments to reporters that the Niger-Iraq uranium documents “may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong,’” could not have been based on the former ambassador’s actual experiences because the Intelligence Community did not have the documents at the time of the ambassador’s trip. In addition, nothing in the report from the former ambassador’s trip said anything about documents having been forged or the names or dates in the reports having been incorrect. The former ambassador told Committee staff that he, in fact, did not have access to any of the names and dates in the CIA’s reports and said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct. Of note, the names and dates in the documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates included in the CIA reports.
Following the Vice President’s review of an intelligence report regarding a possible uranium deal, he asked his briefer for the CIA’s analysis of the issue. It was this request which generated Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger. The former ambassador’s public comments suggesting that the Vice President had been briefed on the information gathered during his trip is not correct, however. While the CIA responded to the Vice President’s request for the Agency’s analysis, they never provided the information gathered by the former Ambassador. The former ambassador, in an NBC Meet the Press interview on July 6, 2003, said, “The office of the Vice President, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there.” The former ambassador was speaking on the basis of what he believed should have happened based on his former government experience, but he had no knowledge that this did happen.
These and other public comments from the former ambassador, such as comments that his report “debunked” the Niger-Iraq uranium story, were incorrect and have led to a distortion in the press and in the public’s understanding of the facts surrounding the Niger-Iraq uranium story. The Committee found that, for most analysts, the former ambassador’s report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal.
During Mr. Wilson’s media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had “debunked” the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT “debunk” the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact.
In an interview with Committee staff, Mr. Wilson was asked how he knew some of the things he was stating publicly with such confidence. On at least two occasions he admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all. For example, when asked how he “knew” that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved “a little literary flair.”
The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading. Surely, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has unique access to all of the facts, should have been able to agree on a conclusion that would correct the public record. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so.
"We'll see.."
I only caught this one because one reporter at Knight-Ritter made a brief reference to it.
No one else has commented on the additional comment ...maybe, like me, they tired out after reading the report text.
Wouldn't that mean we wouldn't have learned about the documentation that supports what we had deduced? We've been vindicated here and it is a matter of record. That the dems want to ignore truth is nothing new. We'd be waiting forever to learn about this if Roberts did as you suggest.
Yes, Roberts and others could have spoken out but big deal. Off into the ether it would have gone. Committing pen to paper as has been done is much more helpful for truth and posterity.
I meant if charges are filed eventually we'd be hearing plenty.
Keep hope alive!
What an evil, immoral scumbag (and Democrat) to represent the United States in any capacity. He should be fed to the pigs with the other garbage.
Take care.
Thank you for posting this! At least Roberts is speaking out on his web site.
Over here
Yes! Part of Wilson's journey to Niger was to forge the Niger-Iraq document. It was designed to be convincing and yet easily debunked. Who did he meet with in Niger? Former Niger government officials. If he forged a document using their real signatures, but they were out of office when the document was dated, it would appear to be authentic, because the signatures would not be forgeries, they would be real and yet the names and dates on the document would be wrong. Someone should examine the signatures to see if the signatures were forged or not. If they were not then those who signed it were involved in forging the document. Did Joe Wilson meet with any of them on his famous spy mission?
bump !
My tagline until the election:
A vote for Kerry-Edwards is a vote for Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Jacques Chirac, the UN, International Criminal Court, and Hollyweirdos.
Failure to vote, or a vote for a minority party, is a vote for Kerry-Edwards (unless you’re a liberal/Leftist who’ll vote Nader, a minority party, or stay home).
It seems if Plame wasn't undercover (and Cliff May outlined why that is unlikely from the available data--right in line with our informed speculation), then my theory about the grand jury not being about the leak would be correct.
Consider that the crime would be disclosure of an undercover agent (knowingly and so on, too). Well, if the agencies could find out more or less immediately that she was not undercover then that was not a crime needing investigating at all
However, the Wilsons' activities and statements have been HIGHLY suspect. I've long been of the opinion (and stated it here on FR) that the direction of the investigation is not the conventional wisdom direction.
Interestingly, today on FR thread about the Bush daughters' treatment at the hands of a reporter at the WaPo, the link takes you to the reporter's q & a page. One reader asked about the grand jury and the reporter said there have been zero leaks and it is one tightlipped investigation. I'll bet it is. (BTW, you can't find one official involved specifically citing the Plame name "leak" as the reason for the investigation.)
Your analysis makes a great deal of sense. Why would a grand jury investigation take so long if it's only about who leaked somebody's name to a reporter. Your point about it being possible to quickly determine if a crime was committed is well taken.
The Republicans should have refused to issue the report without these facts. What is the point of being the majority if you can't reveal the truth?
"Surely, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has unique access to all of the facts, should have been able to agree on a conclusion that would correct the public record. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so."
__________________________
Throughout this whole story, I smelled a hugh rat.
Look at the list of people who had access to this type of information and who could have easily skewed it and placed it in the hands of "agents" for political gain to oust George Bush in 2004 (note especially the 7th name down from the top on the right-hand column):
1. Ms. Plame subsequently had access to the forged documents and shared them with her husband!. One might also reasonably suspect that she may have shared CIA intel documents with Andrea Mitchell.
2. Joseph C. Wilson IV was acting as a Democrat operative from at least the time he wrote the op-ed for the NY Times. And the Democrats are absolutely desperate to avoid that fact becoming public knowledge. They are counting on the mainstream media not to blow their oh-so-transparent cover concerning Wilson.
Further, whether Wilson was acting as a Democrat operative (or on behalf of the Saudis or others) when he actually visited Niger is uncertain -- but a distinct possibility.
In a just world, there would be ample room for prosecution of both Wilsons...and, perhaps, others.
The Pubbies were, in fact, told it was coming. Recall the "draft memo" by Rockefeller's staff...
Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!
Baghdad Bob's...I mean Beltway Bob's (appeaser? co-conspirator? or just another useful idiot?) silence is deafening
In retrospect, two further conclusions might be drawn:
1. Ms. Plame subsequently had access to the forged documents and shared them with her husband!. One might also reasonably suspect that she may have shared CIA intel documents with Andrea Mitchell.
>>.I think Joe was just making some retroactive opinion he learned from elsewhere...then started to talk as if he independently knew this. As for Mitchell, I don't know, but others got documents they weren't supposed to...and that's part of the "leak" investigation ongoing.
2. Joseph C. Wilson IV was acting as a Democrat operative from at least the time he wrote the op-ed for the NY Times. And the Democrats are absolutely desperate to avoid that fact becoming public knowledge. They are counting on the mainstream media not to blow their oh-so-transparent cover concerning Wilson.
Yep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
