Byron York: There's a lot we don't know yet about the CIA flap

Please allow me to share with you some of the things I don’t know.

I don’t know what Valerie Plame’s status with the CIA was in July 2003 when Robert Novak wrote his column mentioning that she was an “agency operative” and had recommended her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for a fact-finding trip to Niger. Was Plame a covert agent then? If not, how recently had she been a covert agent?

I don’t know.

I also don’t know what’s going on with The New York Times’ Judith Miller.

Since top presidential adviser Karl Rove and top vice-presidential adviser Lewis Libby signed strongly worded waivers releasing all reporters from any pledges of confidentiality, why hasn’t Miller testified? Does that mean her source was someone else who has not signed a confidentiality waiver?

I don’t know.

I also don’t know why Miller is involved in all this at all, since she never wrote a story about it. Was she some sort of “carrier,” as is now being theorized, and actually helped spread word of Plame’s identity?

I don’t know.

For that matter, I don’t know what Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper was doing either. Rove’s lawyer says Rove signed the waiver about a year and a half ago and has never changed it. Why was that waiver not acceptable to Cooper for 18 months and then, on the brink of going to jail, Cooper agreed to testify?

I don’t know.

I don’t know anything about the role the other journalists caught up in the case — Tim Russert, Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler — played. Apparently on the basis of waivers signed by sources, they all gave information to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. What did they say?

I don’t know.

And of course I also don’t know what is happening with Novak. Given Fitzgerald’s aggressiveness in dealing with all figures in this case, Novak must have made some sort of accommodation. Did he testify? Refuse to testify?

I don’t know.

I also don’t know why many in the press, most notably The New York Times, were once so enthusiastic about the Fitzgerald investigation. On Dec. 30, 2003, the Times published an editorial headlined “The Right Thing, At Last,” which said, “After an egregiously long delay, Attorney General John Ashcroft finally did the right thing yesterday when he recused himself from the investigation into who gave the name of a CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak.” Why did the Times do that?

I don’t know.

And then, why did the Times change its position and condemn Fitzgerald who, the paper said, “can’t even say whether a crime has been committed.” Why would the Times say that, when it had once been so sure that a crime had been committed?

I don’t know.

I also don’t know about the actions of Joseph Wilson. For example, in his book, The Politics of Truth, he wrote, “The assertion that Valerie had played any substantive role in the decision to ask me to go to Niger was false on the face of it. ...Valerie could not — and would not if she could — have had anything to do with the CIA decision to ask me to travel to [Niger].” But later, the Senate Intelligence Committee, in its bipartisan report, said that “interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that [Wilson’s] wife, a CPD employee [a reference to the CIA’s Counterproliferation Division], suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the deputy chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from [Wilson’s] wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both [Niger’s 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.’” So why did Wilson say his wife played no “substantive role” in it?

I don’t know.

I also don’t know why Wilson’s defenders accuse the White House of “smearing” him. What was the smear? Was it a smear to say that Wilson got the Niger assignment, at least in part, because his wife recommended him? If so, then the Senate committee “smeared” him, too. If not, what is the smear?

I don’t know.

And finally, I don’t know about Karl Rove’s public statements on the case. Last year on CNN, he said of Plame, “I didn’t know her name and didn’t leak her name.” Even if he hadn’t passed on Plame’s name — just mentioned her as Wilson’s wife — why not just say nothing, especially since the whole thing is under criminal investigation?

I don’t know.

The bottom line is, some of the most critical facts in the whole Wilson/Plame/CIA matter are just not known, at least not known by anyone outside of the Fitzgerald investigation.

But don’t worry. At least we can be sure that we will someday know them, right?

I don’t know.

York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week.
E-mail: byork@thehill.com

Interesting chronological correlation. Kelly went missing on July 17, 2003 right?

Yes...

JULY 17, 2003 3PM : (UK : DAVID KELLY IS MISSING AFTER TELLING HIS WIFE HE WAS GOING FOR A WALK) - "Man named as BBC source reported missing," by Ciar Byrne, The Guardian UK, Friday July 18, 2003 Speaking of July 17, 2003 ... who leaked the copies of the Niger docs that were in IAEA hands to the Italian paper and are the copies really accurate copies? Someone at State? Or CIA? The French? Or ?

JULY 17, 2003 : (TIME MAGAZINE JULY 21 STORY BY MATTHEW COOPER APPEARS ON TIME'S WEBSITE; )-- "Reporters Subpoenaed in CIA Leak," By Susan Schmidt, Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, May 22, 2004; Page A11, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46823-2004May21.html

JULY 17, 2003 : (THE IAEA HAS STILL NOT RELEASED THE FORGED NIGER DOCUMENTS, THOUGH THE ITALIAN LEFTWING PAPER LA REPUBBLICA CLAIMS IT HAS OBTAINED THEM THROUGH A LEAK - * PRESUMABLY COPIES OF THEM, ANYWAY) The forged documents were passed in February this year by the US to the IAEA, which a month later declared them to be forgeries. The IAEA has not released the documents. But it is understood the documents are the same as those leaked to La Repubblica. The paper [left-of-centre daily La Repubblica] claimed the forged documents were passed to British intelligence in Rome and their contents given to the CIA. -- "Iraq uranium forgeries crudely done, newspaper reveals," By Sophie Arie, Rome, The Guardian, July 18 2003 via TheAge.com.au, http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/07/17/1058035132835.html

Let me try that again- my formatting was gone, gone, gone.

Interesting chronological correlation. Kelly went missing on July 17, 2003 right?

Yes...

JULY 17, 2003 3PM : (UK : DAVID KELLY IS MISSING AFTER TELLING HIS WIFE HE WAS GOING FOR A WALK) - "Man named as BBC source reported missing," by Ciar Byrne, The Guardian UK, Friday July 18, 2003

Speaking of July 17, 2003 ... who leaked the copies of the Niger docs that were in IAEA hands to the Italian paper and are the copies really accurate copies? Someone at State? Or CIA? The French? Or ?

I think on July 16, 2003 Senator Durbin left the intelligence committee closed door meeting to go leak something untrue about Tenet's testimony, where Tenet had taken responsibility for the SOTU speech comment on uranium from Africa. Anyone remember what Durbin said?

More July 17, 2003 items :

JULY 17, 2003 : (SOUTHAMPTON, LONG ISLAND, NY : "SHADOW PARTY" GATHERING - SEE SOROS) To the extent that the Shadow Party can be said to have an official launch date, July 17, 2003 probably fits the bill.[10] On that day, a team of political strategists, wealthy donors, leftwing labor leaders and other Democrat activists gathered at Soros’ Southampton beach house on Long Island. Aside from Soros, the most noteworthy attendee was Morton H. Halperin. Soros had hired Halperin in February 2002, to head the Washington office of his tax-exempt Open Society Institute – part of Soros’ global network of Open Society institutes and foundations located in more than 50 countries around the world. Given Halperin’s history, the appointment revealed much about Soros’ political goals. ----The Shadow Party: Part I FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 10/06/04 | David Horowitz and Richard Poe http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1236609/posts?page=9

JULY 17, 2003 : (FREEPERS NOTE THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN AUDIO TAPE INCLUDES DEMOCRAT SENATORS' SPIN) To: Right_in_Virginia : Are others in America noting Saddam's latest audio tape basically quotes dimm US Senators? Yes. The Baathists are obviously feverishly reading our press and the statements of our pro-Saddam Democrats and probably jumping for joy - it's sort of like show prep for Saddam. Even considering their long and undistinguished history, the Dems have never yet given as much aid and comfort to the enemy as they are now. They are traitors and they don't care what happens to this country. This should be made to blow up in their faces. I don't think I've ever been so disgusted with them. 42 posted on 07/17/2003 5:26:05 PM PDT by livius

It's a short leap if you take it in steps. The key link is the forged documents you're asking about in #206, which lead back to French intelligence. France had an interest in Oil-for-Food due to Saddam's bribes to French businessmen and officials. When the UN was debating war with Iraq, French intelligence was trying to pass the forgeries off as genuine to British and US intelligence in order to embarrass the pro-war case. Wilson allegedly was sent to check the documents' validity, which was the ostensible purpose of his trip to Africa, where he was supposed to investigate whether Saddam had tried to buy uranium from a French-controlled uranium mine. His investigation, which was arranged by Plame and lasted a total of 8 days, concluded that Saddam could not have smuggled uranium out of Niger without the complicity of the French-controlled company, and therefore, Wilson argued, it was inconceivable. After thus clearing the French, he wrote an article trying to discredit Bush's case for war by falsely claiming Bush's case was based on misleading the public by portraying the forged documents as real. This all preceded Plame's "outing".

Anyone remember what Durbin said?

Would that be this?

CIA Lacked Key Documents

Tenet made a 4½-hour closed-door appearance Wednesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, again accepting responsibility for the lapse. But that did not satisfy Democrats.

"All roads still lead back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said, referring to the White House address. "The question is, who in the White House was so determined to put information in the State of the Union which had been discounted so dramatically by American intelligence sources?"

That skepticism will likely be fueled by claims of some U.S. officials that the CIA didn't receive the Niger documents until February 2003, nearly a year after the agency first began investigating the alleged Iraq-Africa connection.

Even as the CIA found little to verify the reports, Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to put them into public statements. Sometimes the CIA succeeded in getting the information removed.

Without the source documents, the CIA could investigate only their substance, which it had learned from a foreign government around the beginning of 2002. One of the key allegations was that Iraq was soliciting uranium from the African country of Niger.

When the Niger claim first arose, the CIA sent a retired diplomat to Africa to investigate in February 2002. The diplomat, Joseph Wilson, reported finding no credible evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.

Tenet said the CIA was unaware of any documents purporting to show such transactions at the time, and it is unclear when the U.S. government learned that the documents existed and were the source of the Niger claim.

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

Q Scott, this morning when Senator Durbin's statement was read to you, you said, that characterization is "nonsense." Just to cross a t, dot an i, were you saying that Director Tenet did not say this, or were you saying that there is no such White House official?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think what he was suggesting -- again, this goes to -- I'm very glad you pointed out Senator Durbin, because he was one of the few in the minority who opposed the steps that we took. Again, an overwhelming, bipartisan Congress voted to support the action that we took. And the United Nations Security Council made it very clear this was a final opportunity for Saddam Hussein to comply. If we had waited, who knows what position we'd be in now. But the Iraqi people are better off for this. And I'm sorry, I'm not -- the first part of your question?

Q Just the grammar of it. When you said, that's "nonsense," were you saying --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's nonsense to suggest that someone was pressuring to put this in there, or anything of that nature.

Q Okay, so are you also saying that Director Tenet did not say that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I can't -- Director Tenet did not say what? I mean, I think you have to ask Director Tenet what he said.

Q Senator Durbin said --

MR. McCLELLAN: Senator Durbin is putting words in someone else's mouth and trying to characterize it in a way that I think is just nonsense. It's absolute nonsense. And I think you have to look at the reason why he was making those comments. I mean, maybe he's going back, trying to justify his own vote against taking action, against addressing the threats that we face. And now look at Iraq, look at the people of Iraq. The people of Iraq are liberated from a brutal, oppressive regime. Look at Saddam Hussein. He is gone from power. He is no longer a threat to the region, to his people, or to the world. And he is no longer a threat to America. His weapons of mass destruction, he cannot use his weapons of mass destruction.

And it's very important to point out that when we talk about this, we're talking about a region of instability and a region that has led to terrorism, the Middle East. And a peaceful and secure and democratic Iraq is going to help bring about a peaceful and stable Middle East. And that's very important.

Sources said the CIA is angry 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.
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.
-------Washington Post, Dec 25, 2003 hmmm.
Now look here:
* Ann Pincus : Timmerman said that after several years at the U.S. Information Agency, Ann Pincus was transferred in the late 1990s to the Office of Research and Media Reaction at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research... ------- http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2003/08/28.html

So put this in context for me. Are you suggesting that Wilson's " fact finding " mission was a deliberate attempt to shield a French company from inquiry?

I'd suggest it as a possibility, not a fact--we'd need more evidence to assert something like that as a fact, and I think there are still too many unanswered questions in this investigation to reach any conclusions. But sticking to the facts, the reason for Wilson's trip remains an unanswered question in need of a satisfactory explanation. Wilson wrote in his April 2004 book, "Apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about Niger’s uranium industry, Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip. The suggestion that Valerie might have improperly influenced the decision to send me to Niger was easy to disprove." But that July the Senate's investigation into the matter found, as The Washington Post reported, "Wilson. . .was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has stated publicly. . .[A] CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame ‘offered up’ Wilson’s name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her 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.’" The conflict between Wilson's explanation for his wife's role in his trip and the Senate's findings makes me wonder just what the motive for Wilson's trip was. When I look to other clues to try to answer that question, one thing I have to wonder is if the French interest in the company Wilson was investigating played a role, especially considering that Wilson's attack on Bush coincided with French foreign policy aims and pivoted around the same documents the French had tried to push on Bush earlier.

Because his article about Bush was not until the debate was at a fever pitch....if his info was so daming to Bush you would think it would have been pronounced post-haste.

By the time Wilson's own article came out in July 2003 it was too late to influence the decision to go to war. But Wilson had been trying to influence the debate before that by leaking information to a number of reporters--Walter Pincus, Richard Leiby, and David Shipley are three known ones, there may have been more. And even after it was too late for him to influence the decision to go to war, there was still an opportunity to influence the course of the war and the reconstruction, and to influence the domestic politics of the upcoming election. Before Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, the Democratic National Committee was circulating a memo planning a public relations strategy for the 2004 campaign which would include “[c]laiming the Bush administration has ‘manufactured’ evidence against Saddam Hussein and used that evidence to encourage Britain and other allies to join the American fight against Iraq."

Also are you intermingling oil for food= oil for nukes?

I'm not sure what you mean there--maybe if you put it another way I can answer better.

I need to log off soon, so if I don't get your reply tonight I'll check back with the thread tomorrow.

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.