The Wilson-Plame-Novak-Rove Blame Game

FactCheck.org ^ | 7/22/2005 | Kevin Collins and Staff

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

I checked the copyright list and I didn't find this listed so I posted it in entirety.

At least it seems FactCheck kept their opinion out of it but I wonder about Wilson's book.

[tje]

I've heard differing accounts on when Karl Rove gave permission to the reporter give his name. 18 months or 'last minute'; Which is it? Not that it makes that much difference...

[siunevada]

It doesn't mention Intelligence Committee Dem staffers.

I think they are actually the first source to the media.

[Darkwolf377]

I'm burning out on this story. There are only a handful of truly important issues--was she undercover? did Rove do anything illegal?--and 99% of the talk at this point is from media drones trying to make Breaking News! out of the tiniest crumbs.

The one thing i am enjoying from this is how W seems to be letting it roll off his back. When Clinton did that he got books written about his "political survival," even though he got impeached in the process; Bush lets a trivial story roll off as he should and he gets hit with "coverup" smears.

I will probably stop reading these stories until the indictments come in, for whomever.

[Cicero]

This is too dull and boring to read through, deliberately I suspect, but I am much put off by the familiar argument that both sides are to blame. Sure, just like Americans and terrorists are equally to blame, or Israelis and terrorists. I don't think so. This is a typical leftist tactic, so it's not surprising that the agenda of this piece is also leftist.

Contrary to what this piece argues, the lies are entirely on the leftist side, the propaganda originiates entirely from the leftist side, and they are still misrepresenting what Bush said in answer to misleading questions as a change of view, when he has not changed his position at all.

In other words, this is a liberal source pretending to be even-handed but actually trying to damage Bush, yet again.

[Terpfen]

July 18, 2005 – Bush – easing off his earlier promise to fire anyone who leaked – says “if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.”

I fail to see how this is a retreat from an earlier promise.

[Duke Nukum]

That's some pretty poor fact checking.

1. Bush never promised to fire anyone who leaked.

2. Cooper had permission from Rove for over a year release details of their conversaion.

Well, now I know I never need to go to that site when doing research, unless I want to know how to do it wrong.

What idiots they are.

[JustDoItAlways]

I don't think the timeline and factcheck is correct on the fake documents published in the Italian newspaper.

The CIA immediately knew that they were fake and it was other documentation that the Brits used to make the statement that Iraq approached Niger about buying uranium.

It was later proved that a (supposedly gone rogue) French intelligence agent produced the fake documents and sold them to the Italian newspaper (conclude what you want from that.)

The CIA told the State Department not to use the documents or give them to the IAEA but they did anyway.

[Mike Darancette]

May 6, 2003 – A New York Times columnist writes the first account of Wilson’s trip, but not naming him:

They did not mention Wilson and Plame's breakfast with Cristoff at a DNC event in Seattle. This a few days before the above NYT article.

Why no mention of Miller, now residing in the joint for nondisclosure of sources.

[coconutt2000]

What if Kerry's campaign leaked the info and manipulated the story? What if they then blamed the Bush Administration and told Wilson that they had it from inside sources that he and his wife were being targeted?

What if...??? Sounds like a Kerry-esque attempt at intrigue.

[Sam Hill]

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying

Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address. July 26, 2004 Modified: August 23, 2004 eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version Summary   The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain. Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did. A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.” A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke. Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .  Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium. None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that  US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether  Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech. But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying. Analysis   The "16 words" in Bush's State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003 have been offered as evidence that the President led the US into war using false information intentionally. The new reports show Bush accurately stated what British intelligence was saying, and that CIA analysts believed the same thing.  The "16 Words" During the State the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said: Bush: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.   The Butler Report After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium. The review panel was headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, who had been a cabinet secretary under five different  Prime Ministers and who is currently master of University College, Oxford. The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium: Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible. The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well. Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded. The Senate Intelligence Committee Report The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads. Wilson: Bush's Words "The Lie" (From a web chat sponsored by Kerry for President Oct.  29, 2003) *** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:24:53 AM) I would remind you that had Mr.. Cheney taken into consideration my  report as well as 2 others submitted on this subject, rather than the  forgeries *** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:06 AM) the lie would never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address *** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:14 AM) so when they ask, "Who betrayed the President?" *** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:30 AM) They need to point the finger at the person who inserted the 16 words, not at the person who found the truth of the matter The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal  critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium. Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries. Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal." The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions. According to Wilson, Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade. For that reason, Wilson himself has publicly dismissed the significance of the 1999 meeting. He said on NBC’s Meet the Press May 2, 2004: Wilson: …At that meeting, uranium was not discussed. It would be a tragedy to think that we went to war over a conversation in which uranium was not discussed because the Niger official was sufficiently sophisticated to think that perhaps he might have wanted to discuss uranium at some later date. But that's not the way the CIA saw it at the time. In the CIA's view, Wilson's report  bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa. The Senate report cited an intelligence officer who reviewed Wilson’s report upon his return from Niger: Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting. "Reasonable to Assess" At this point the CIA also had received "several intelligence reports" alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that "it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence." Reasonable, that is, until documents from an Italian magazine journalist showed up that seemed to prove an Iraq-Niger deal had actually been signed. The Intelligence Committee said the CIA should have been quicker to investigate the authenticity of those documents, which had "obvious problems" and were soon exposed as fakes by the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We No Longer Believe" Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports -- based on other sources -- that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA. Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words. Soon after, on July 6, 2003, former ambassador Wilson went public in a New York Times opinion piece with his rebuttal of Bush's 16 words, saying that if the President was referring to Niger "his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them," and that "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."  Wilson has since used much stronger language, calling Bush's 16 words a "lie" in an Internet chat sponsored by the Kerry campaign. On July 7, the day after Wilson's original Times article, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took back the 16 words, calling them "incorrect:" Fleischer: Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect. And soon after, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that the 16 words were, in retrospect, a mistake. She said during a July 11, 2003 White House press briefing : Rice: What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now. That same day, CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech: Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President. Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British. The Senate report doesn't make clear why discovery of the forged documents changed the CIA's thinking. Logically, that discovery should have made little difference since the documents weren't the basis for the CIA's original belief that Saddam was seeking uranium. However, the Senate report did note that even within the CIA the comments and assessments were "inconsistent and at times contradictory" on the Niger story. Even after Tenet tried to take the blame, Bush's critics persisted in saying he lied with his 16 words -- for example, in an opinion column July 16, 2003 by Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post : Kinsley: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush's State of the Union speech? . . .Linguists note that the question "Who lied in George Bush's State of the Union speech" bears a certain resemblance to the famous conundrum "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?"  However, the Senate report confirmed that the CIA had reviewed Bush's State of the Union address, and -- whatever doubts it may have harbored -- cleared it for him. Senate Report: When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. The final word on the 16 words may have to await history's judgment. The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken. Sources   President George W. Bush, “ State of the Union ,” 28 January 2003. Chairman Lord Butler of Brockwell, “Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction,” 14 July 2004. “Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq,” Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate, 7 July 2004. Walter Pincus, “ CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid ,” Washington Post, 12 June 2003. Mohamed ElBaradei, “ The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update ,” Statement to the United Nations Security Council by International Atomic Energy Agency Director General, 7 March 2003. Joseph Wilson, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” New York Times, 6 July 2003. Joseph Wilson,The Official Kerry-Edwards BLOG: "Transcript of Chat with Ambassador Joe Wilson," 29 Oct 2003. Michael Kinsley, "...Or More Lies From The Usual Suspects?," Washington Post, 16 July 2003: A23. Ari Fleischer, “ Press Gaggle ,” 7 July 2003. Ari Fleischer and Dr. Condoleeza Rice, “ Press Gaggle ,” 11 July 2003. George Tenet, "Statement by George J. Tenet Director of Central Intelligence," Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 11 July 2003. Related Articles Bush Contradicted On Iraq & al Qaeda? Or not? Even the 9-11 comissioners don't agree about whether their staff contradicted the Bush administration. What Bush Left Unsaid in State of the Union Address Forget Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now its "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

Read the recent British intelligence review, the "Butler Report" (.pdf - 1014 KB) Read the recent U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report (.pdf - 24002 KB) FactCheck.org will send each new FactCheck and Special Report directly to your mailbox (disable pop-up blocker first). Sign Up Now

Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center

[FlingWingFlyer]

June 1997 – Joseph Wilson returns to Washington DC as Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. At about the same time, Plame also moves back to the United States (Wilson, Politics 240), in part because the CIA suspects her name was leaked to the Russians in 1994. ( Vanity Fair, Jan. ‘04).

It appears to me that this bimbo has never been able to keep her "covertness" secret.

[muawiyah]

Don't get hung up on the so-called "faked documents". What you had there was what is called an holographic copy ~ not a xerox copy.

This used to be a pretty common practice where it was not practical to steal the original.

A trusted agent would, of course, faithfully copy the original right down to the king's privy seal.

I don't know if the content was real, or not, but the press got hung up on the holographic nature as if that meant something in a country like Niger where photocopying is rare.

[Sam Hill]

Which Fact Check page should we believe. The one at the top of the thread:

"February 26, 2002 – Wilson arrives in Niger. He concludes, after a few days of interviews, that “it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 42, July 2004)."

Or the one I posted just above:

"The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.

Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.

Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

[oceanview]

He waived everyone 18 months ago. The "last minute" thing was actually a tactical mistake by Rove's lawyer. He should have hung up on Cooper's lawyer that day, the matter was closed. Instead, he re-affirmed the waiver, and it allowed Cooper to spin it as a "revelation" that Rove was his "source" and he released him at the last minute.

[Anti-Bubba182]

"1. Bush never promised to fire anyone who leaked."

That is the way I read the quotes.

September 30, 2003 The Justice department publicly announces an official criminal investigation. Commenting, Bush says, "And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of"(“President discusses job creation,” U. of Chicago, Sept. 30, 2003).

June 10, 2004 Bush is asked by a reporter, "[D] o you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have [who leaked the agent's name]?" Bush replies, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts." (President Bush Press Conference Following G-8 Summit, Savannah, GA, June 10, 2004).

July 18, 2005 – Bush – easing off his earlier promise to fire anyone who leaked – says “if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.” (Bush Press Conference with Prime Minister of India, July 18, 2005). His press secretary Scott McClellan declines to say whether a firing would be triggered by an indictment or would require a conviction. (White House Press Briefing, July 18, 2005).

These guys are not even clever in their slanting(red). What Bush has said is consistent with his first statement that he would "take care of" a person who violated the law after the US Attorney found the facts.

I wonder why they had to [] the second instance above which was part of a reporters brief inquiry at an unrelated event and not the more formal situation in the first case.

[alnick]

I fail to see how this is a retreat from an earlier promise.

They're falsely claiming that he changed his grounds for firing Rove from simply leaking to committing a crime.

They took the earlier "promise" out of context. The reporter asked one question, and before the president could get his "yes" out, blurted out the question if he would fire anyone who leaked. The president replied "yes," apparently to the first question, and then proceeded to answer the next question. These people take the "yes" and the following words as an answer to the second question.

Furthermore, they neglect to include that the President did say, early on, that he would "take care" of anyone in his administration who "violated the law," so their claim that this is a new stance is false.

Also, they left out Plame's disparaging comments about the idea that Iraq had tried to get uranium from Niger, before Wilson even went over there, indicating a bias.

I suppose these "facts" are mostly taken from media reports, which are more inaccurate than accurate.

[JustDoItAlways]

I don't know what you are saying?

The documents were fake. The CIA knew they were fake. The State department sent them to the IAEA even though they knew they were fake. French intelligence produced the fake documents to discredit the US and the war in Iraq.
Other evidence showed Iraq wanted to buy uranium from Niger (not the fake documents). Libya's illegal uranium came from Niger.

[alnick]

Also missing from their time line is that Wilson admitted on CNN that his wife was not undercover at the time of the "leak."

[muawiyah]

Did I say if I knew if there were "fake"? All I did is say they were allegedly an holographic copy ~ that does not, per se, making something a fake.

The press was busy telling us they were "fake" on that basis alone ~ not their content.

No one in the US was aware that they'd been artfully crafted at the time the press jumped on the story ~

Here's an example the REVERSE of what I'm saying. Remember the Dan Rather story? The documents were fake ~ they were also false. The content was not true and it was easy to prove that with no reference to any other information source than the documents themselves.

In fact, Dan Rather claimed that he believed the content to be true even if the documents had been artfully crafted. That is, with respect to the lies about "W"'s military service, your MSM accepted them as true even if their format was only a reflection of the originals.

Back to the Niger documents ~ at the time the MSM got hold of them, they did not focus on the content but on the format to claim they were "forgeries".

These guys can't have it both ways.

Still, in all cases, you gotta' have more than a "belief" that something is true, or false, to make it so!