Posted on 07/17/2004 7:13:44 AM PDT by Paul_B
(Excerpts only:) For the second time in a year, your paper has published an article [news story, July 10] falsely suggesting that my wife, Valerie Plame, was responsible for the trip I took to Niger on behalf of the U.S. government...
But that is not the only inaccurate assertion or conclusion in the Senate report uncritically parroted in the article. Other inaccuracies and distortions include the suggestion that my findings "bolstered" the case that Niger was engaged in illegal sales of uranium to Iraq. In fact, the Senate report is clear that the intelligence community attempted to keep the claim out of presidential documents because of the weakness of the evidence...
Between March 2003 and July 2003, the administration refused to acknowledge that it had known for more than a year that the claim on uranium sales from Niger had been discredited, until the day after my article in the New York Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Read the article. that would help you find your answer.
~snip~
Reams of documents were given over to the Senate committee, but the only quotation attributed to my wife on this subject was the anodyne "my 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."
Whoops. In the first WaPo article about this matter, there is also a quote from Ms. Plame about the matter in addition to the memo:
The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.
***
back to Wilson's CYA letter this thread is based on:
In fact, with 2-year-old twins at home, Valerie did not relish my absence for a two-week period. But she acquiesced because, in the zeal to be responsive to the legitimate concerns raised by the vice president, officials of her agency turned to a known functionary who had previously checked out uranium-related questions for them.
Does this sound like a covert agent? Not to me, either.
You make a good point. The response needs to be as concise as possible. It gets fuzzy pretty quickly, which is what Wilson wants - 'I didn't say I debunked this, only that I debunked this part of this' (which was never held in the first place).
The briefest I can put it is:
Wilson lied when he said Bush lied.
"It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war," he said. … "What else are they lying about?"
When all the smoke clears, Wilson took the lead in creating and maintaining that the president lied in order to go to war.
That was a lie - the foundation upon which Wilson built it has been shown to be his lie.
Could you please clarify, in simple wordage what J. Wilson supposedly lied about?
Not just Wilson, but before he wrote his op-ed his story was being pushed by an anonymous CIA official in newspaper stories.
Wilson stated he was sent at the request of the VP: False
Wilson stated the President and VP were briefed on Wilson's trip to Niger: False
Wilson stated he was sent by the CIA, implying from the highest levels: False (the counter-proliferation group--his wife's group--sent him at their own initiative)
Wilson stated he found Iraq had not bought yellowcake from Niger, proving the "16 words" were wrong: False (He continues even in this letter to ignore the attribution in the SOTU to "British Intelligence")
Wilson states his wife's name was given to reporters as retribution for his writing his op-ed in the New York Times: False
There's more, but that's for starters.
What a great question.
A day or two ago, NBC Evening News (Andrea Mitchell) blasted Wilson for his lies. A Bunch of lies, but she just had to end her piece with a hit to the White House. She couldn't help herself. She ended with "there is still the leak investigation.......and it has now reached ALL THE WAY TO THE OVAL OFFICE." Pure insinuation and propaganda to leave in the minds of listeners that the Prez had something to do with it. Typical.
My only quibble with your post is the above. Novak says when he was going to press with his column he was given a pro forma request not to use her name, but when pressed they did not discourage him. Similarly, Cliff May recounts how a person friendly to Wilson told him of Plame's role in the "mission" by way of explanation, certainly not retaliation. It doesn't appear the CIA made much if any effort to keep her "identity" covert.
I'm thinking he was paid by the Nigerian officials to say it wasn't true.
Wilson stated he was sent by the CIA, implying from the highest levels: False
How do these two statemnts jive?
This is exactly what I mean...does he STATE both the VP and CIA sent him?
Cheney had been apprised of some intelligence regarding the idea that Iraq had tried to procure uranium from Niger and asked his briefer for more information on the matter. That has been taken by Wilson and presented as a direct request from Cheney for Wilson to sally forth on his quest. (It was not--Cheney never knew about Wilson's trip.)
When Wilson returned he gave an oral report that was deemed pretty much useless by the CIA and so it was *never briefed* to the president, veep, or WH staff at all--or Congress.
Wilson did find out. A nigerien official told him flat out the Iraqis had sought to meet with them about trade which the Nigeriens understood to be about uranium. But Wilson told the world something else because he's a partisan hack.
It wasn't just Timmy Russert and Chrissy Mathews, it was ALL the of them, not sure if Fox put on or not, probably did?
I'm not so sure it's "the CIA." It's more likely some "progressive elements" who have worked their way into it over the years. Helped along with the group associated with Ray McGovern- former Intelligence Professionals for Sanity or whatever it's called. These are probably the folks playing the role of anonymous CIA source.
When the man files an affidavit [legally binding] then I'll read it.
He's paid off, that's for sure. He received a book deal. That is one of the left's favored ways of paying off someone without directly greasing the palms. Just as Iraq handed out money to Ritter to make a "documentary." remember congressman/speaker Jim Wright's book deal? The book with virtually no content and was practically nothing but blank pages whose sales were primarily to Teamsters union? Should have been called a sketch book with all those clean white pages thirsting for ink, but it was a way to transfer money without messing with campaign finance laws and so forth. These days the left is smarter than that and they at least fill the pages up with ghostwritten pap.
It seems that Plame's job at the CIA is to analyze WND--and she and her bosses should be frog marched out of Langley. http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/013619.html
The exaggerations and falsehoods continued on that day's Meet the Press. His trip, Wilson told guest host Andrea Mitchell, "effectively debunked the Niger arms uranium sale." In fact, as the report details, it did no such thing. In his addendum to the Intelligence Committee report, Pat Roberts regrets that, while not disputing the facts, his "Democratic colleagues refused to allow" several "conclusions" about Wilson to appear in the report. Among them: "The Committee found that, for most analysts, the former ambassador's report lent more credibility, not less to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal."
Along with her husband...I agree!
To: Shermy...Wilson deliberately avoided writing a report in Niger because he didn't want it to inadvertently fall into the wrong hands. His concern about the sensitivity of this information extended to his note taking, which was indecipherable to anyone but himself.
Is this information on the notes commonly known? I was wondering where this Jim Gilliam guy came up with this? Anyway, it's very interesting and I don't believe for a second that Wilson was afraid that his report would get into the wrong hands. After all, he originally portrayed his trip as coming as almost a direct request from Cheney. Why wouldn't he want the Vice President to have the benefit of his benevolent trip (expense only)? Isn't this almost an admission that the Bush administration was the "wrong hands?"
85 posted on 06/14/2004 8:45:55 PM PDT by Dolphy
Given that Wilson's report came up with nothing other than the comment from the Nigerien official about a businessman trying to arrange a meeting between some of Niger's officials and an Iraqi trade delegation about striking up a trade, what info was in danger of falling into the wrong hands? Obviously both the officials in Niger and the Iraqis in the delegation are already aware of this info so they must not be what is meant by the wrong hands. So was there some additional info he found but never revealed, or is he just admitting that this info concerning the arrangement of a meeting for the purposes of discussing a trade, meaning a trade in uranium- is info he didn't want to fall into the hands of the administration? If so, was it because it does reinforce the case for war against Iraq, it does back up earlier intel from human sources from not just our country but also from other country's intel services that indicated Iraq and other nations were seeking uranium in Africa, even in Niger?
Did Wilson deliberately set up his report so as to ensure it didn't get to the top? I think so. By making a report, the lower level office of his wife in the CIA could say even under oath that they looked into the matter. But by making only an oral report, he gave certain people in the CIA an excuse not to forward the info to higher offices. The info would be disregarded because it wasn't signed and wasn't important enough for a formal paper. A typical bureaucrat wouldn't pass it on because he wouldn't want to become accountable for it. Wilson would be covered by not actually having a signed, physical report either he or they could be held accountable for, and if only light inquiries were made everyone would superficially look good.
Remember Scott Ritter? He discovered a children's prison in Iraq but by his own admission he didn't report his findings. He used an excuse not unlike that of Wilson- where Wilson apparently didn't want the info from the official in Niger to justify war on Iraq, Ritter didn't want the knowledge of a horrific prison in Iraq- designed to imprison the offspring of dissidents- to be added to the just causes for war. So Ritter says he kept his mouth shut and didn't report what he saw for the sake of peace and internation law or some such thing.
(* Now for some speculation- Or maybe it was because he only got to see the place because some Iraqis knew of his tendencies and this was their way of offering him anything he wanted as a bribe- and naturally he wouldn't want to explain why the Iraqis would have offered him such a bribe.)
Whatever the reason, it just so happens that the Iraqi Baathist regime benefitted from these things going unreported- whether it was their activities in Africa or their treatment of their own people.
This isn't the only case- CNN also hid information about Iraqi human rights abuses and who knows what else just in order to keep their offices open in Iraq.
(* And maybe here too, they had other reasons than insuring newsies' access to do so.)
But back to Wilson. There was additional intel on Niger that preceded Wilson's trip. It was not the much later forged docs nor reports of Iraq just seeking to trade for uranium- it was a human intel report given to the US Navy that indicated Iraq may have actually succeeded in buying uranium and that it was being stored or had been stored in a warehouse in Benin, a country neighboring Niger through which country's port the French shipped uranium from Niger's mines to France. The intel even included contact information - a phone number where the CIA could follow up with an interview of the source. But the source was never contacted.
What happened to this report? It was never investigated by the CIA, not even by "James Bond" Joseph Wilson.
Did this report get conveniently buried by the individuals in the CIA who received it from the Navy? which office of the CIA would have received such a tip from Navy intelligence? Was it included in yet another oral report that never saw the light of day? Or was it simply filed and not revisited? Who received that report? At what point and by whom was it decided to file it away and not check into it? What reasons did they use? Was it thought to be too "crazy" or was it thought to be potentially damning and not worth the risk of investigating for fear it should prove true that someone in Niger successfully managed to divert uranium- and this then would justify the war that some in the CIA apparently were trying to prevent?
You see, there are some disturbing issues here. The reason the deal with Niger was thought by the 'experts' like Plame to be crazy is because one mine in Niger was flooded and the other controlled by the French. At least that's what we are told. It couldn't happen because French wouldn't allow it and their security was assumed to be perfect by our 'experts.' But since some intel is said to come from the French themselves, perhaps the CIA had more faith in the secuirty than French intelligence did.
But now as it turns out, Libya did obtain its uranium from Niger and Libya's WMD program is undeniably proven. That leaves us with this question - did the Libyans obtain it from the flooded mine, or from the one with what we were assured was perfect French security?
Was vital intel on Libya's programs also dissed all these years by folks like Wilson's wife Plame and whoever decided not to investigate the benin warehouse intel, for fear it would expose Iraq and thereby increase the liklihood of war? (Or for other selfish reasons?)
And because this ties into China and North Korea and even Syria as well, was intel deliberately supressed or left uninvestigated or improperly investigated about these countries' efforts as well?
I don't doubt it, do you?
As a sidenote I will mention this bit of trivia: that there was a Korean American businessman named Chang who was even in the Clinton admin meddling in our Iraq policy. He had tried to bribe his way into influencing both parties but met with particular success with Clinton's administration. So did the Chinese. And at least one of the reporters who has been pushing this Wilson to fame is also one who spent much time dissing the Cox report on China.
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.