Skip to comments.
In July Time Magazine Interview, Joe Wilson Said His Wife Had Nothing To Do With Niger Trip
Time Magazine ^
| Thursday, Jul. 17, 2003
| By MATTHEW COOPER, MASSIMO CALABRESI AND JOHN F. DICKERSON
Posted on 09/30/2003 12:38:37 PM PDT by Pubbie
Has the Bush Administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps.
Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson raised the Administration's ire with an op-ed piece in The New York Times on July 6 saying that the Administration had "twisted" intelligence to "exaggerate" the Iraqi threat. Since then Administration officials have taken public and private whacks at Wilson, charging that his 2002 report, made at the behest of U.S. intelligence, was faulty and that his mission was a scheme cooked up by mid-level operatives. George Tenet, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, took a shot at Wilson last week as did ex-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Both contended that Wilson's report on an alleged Iraqi effort to purchase uranium from Niger, far from undermining the president's claim in his State of the Union address that Iraq sought uranium in Africa, as Wilson had said, actually strengthened it. And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.
In an interview with TIME, Wilson, who served as an ambassador to Gabon and as a senior American diplomat in Baghdad under the current president's father, angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case," Wilson told TIME. "I met with between six and eight analysts and operators from CIA and elsewhere [before the Feb 2002 trip]. None of the people in that meeting did I know, and they took the decision to send me. This is a smear job."
Government officials are not only privately disputing the genesis of Wilson's trip, but publicly contesting what he found. Last week Bush Administration officials said that Wilson's report reinforced the president's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. They say that when Wilson returned from Africa in Feb. 2002, he included in his report to the CIA an encounter with a former Nigerien government official who told him that Iraq had approached him in June 1999, expressing interest in expanding commercial relations between Iraq and Niger. The Administration claims Wilson reported that the former Nigerien official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.
"This is in Wilson's report back to the CIA," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters last week, a few days before he left his post to join the private sector. "Wilson's own report, the very man who was on television saying Niger denies it...reports himself that officials in Niger said that Iraq was seeking to contact officials in Niger about sales."
Wilson tells the story differently and in a crucial respect. He says the official in question was contacted by an Algerian-Nigerien intermediary who inquired if the official would meet with an Iraqi about "commercial" sales an offer he declined. Wilson dismisses CIA Director George Tenet's suggestion in his own mea culpa last week that the meeting validates the President's State of the Union claim: "That then translates into an Iraqi effort to import a significant quantity of uranium as the president alleged? These guys really need to get serious."
Government officials also chide Wilson for not delving into the details of the now infamous forged papers that pointed to a sale of uranium to Iraq. When Tenet issued his I-take-the-blame statement on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium connection last week, he took a none-too-subtle jab at Wilson's report. "There was no mention in the report of forged documents or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all," Tenet wrote. For his part Wilson says he did not deal with the forgeries explicitly in his report because he never saw them. However, Wilson says he refuted the forgeries' central allegation that Niger had been negotiating a sale of uranium to Iraq. Wilson says he explained in the report that several Nigerien government signatures would be required to permit such a sale signatures that were either absent or clearly botched in the forged documents.
Administration officials also claim that Wilson took at face value the claims of Nigerien officials that they had not sold uranium ore to Saddam Hussein. (Such sales would have been forbidden under then-existing United Nations sanctions on Iraq.) "He spent eight days in Niger and he concluded that Niger denied the allegation." Fleischer told reporters last week. "Well, typically nations don't admit to going around nuclear nonproliferation,"
For his part, Wilson says that the Administration conflated the prior report of the American ambassador to Niger with his own. Wilson says a report by Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the American ambassador to Niger, addresses the issue of Nigerien government officials disputing the allegation. Wilson says that he never made the naïve argument that if Nigerien officials denied the sales, then their claims must be believed.
A source close to the matter says that Wilson was dispatched to Niger because Vice President Dick Cheney had questions about an intelligence report about Iraq seeking uranium and that he asked that the CIA get back to him with answers. Cheney's staff has adamantly denied and Tenet has reinforced the claim that the Vice President had anything to do with initiating the Wilson mission. They say the Vice President merely asked routine questions at an intelligence briefing and that mid-level CIA officials, on their own, chose to dispatch Wilson.
In an exclusive interview Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, told TIME: "The Vice President heard about the possibility of Iraq trying to acquire uranium from Niger in February 2002. As part of his regular intelligence briefing, the Vice President asked a question about the implication of the report. During the course of a year, the Vice President asked many such questions and the agency responded within a day or two saying that they had reporting suggesting the possibility of such a transaction. But the agency noted that the reporting lacked detail. The agency pointed out that Iraq already had 500 tons of uranium, portions of which came from Niger, according to the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA). The Vice President was unaware of the trip by Ambassador Wilson and didn't know about it until this year when it became public in the last month or so. " Other senior Administration officials, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, have also claimed that they had not heard of Wilson's report until recently.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cialeak; joewilson; josephwilson; niger; wilson; yellowcake
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-113 next last
To: txlurker; William McKinley; Pubbie
The July 21st Time issue has the article "A Question of Trust"..does that answer everyone's question? Does it read like the article posted at the top of this thread?
61
posted on
09/30/2003 3:22:41 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
To: Pubbie
"
CIA refers crimes report over about once a week to the Department of Justice whenever there's a leak or any other potential violation of law that they come across."
James Woolsey
Woolsey served from 1993 to 1995 as President Clinton's first CIA director (when the CIA was reporting leaks about once a week to the Justice Department)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/992522/posts
To: Mo1
No, not at all....Starts out "The CIA's Tenet takes the fall for a flawed claim in the SOTU, but has Bush's credibility taken an even greater hit?"
63
posted on
09/30/2003 3:31:22 PM PDT
by
txlurker
To: William McKinley
"If it was in either the 14th or 21st edition, then they did not get it from Novak."
If the article is dated July 17, wouldn't it probably be in the 21st edition?
A War on Wilson?
Inside the Bush Administration's feud with the diplomat who poured cold water on the Iraq-uranium connection
By MATTHEW COOPER, MASSIMO CALABRESI AND JOHN F. DICKERSON
Thursday, Jul. 17, 2003
64
posted on
09/30/2003 3:47:27 PM PDT
by
Maria S
(“I know a little bit about how White Houses work.” Hillary Clinton, 8/26/03)
To: txlurker
No, not at all....Starts out "The CIA's Tenet takes the fall for a flawed claim in the SOTU No that wouldn't be it .. we are looking for the one about Joe Wilson and his wife
Thank you for you're help;0)
65
posted on
09/30/2003 3:50:40 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
To: Maria S
It is possible that it was never in the magazine but just a Time.com article.
To: My2Cents
CIA official who monitors I am beginning to doubt, she is even an anaylyst.
To: michigander
WOW ... now the New York Times is involved in this??
Interesting stuff there
68
posted on
09/30/2003 4:10:16 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
To: William McKinley; Mo1
O========
69
posted on
09/30/2003 4:10:34 PM PDT
by
michigander
(I can't see, Doh da doh doh doh doh. The doggie wee wee has blinded me and I can't see. Temporarily!)
To: William McKinley
Check out Post #60 ASAP
70
posted on
09/30/2003 4:10:51 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
To: Pubbie
I'm so used to pseudo-scandals being fabricated by the unAmerican 'Rats that it's hard to pay attention any more. Is there any substance to this one?
To: ravingnutter
This is driving me crazy.... I know. They focus on the stupidest things, while this bombshell is right under their noses and nobody seems to notice it.
72
posted on
09/30/2003 4:16:37 PM PDT
by
alnick
To: michigander; William McKinley; Pubbie
73
posted on
09/30/2003 4:20:03 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
Well, IF Wilson's wife is an UNDERCOVER CIA Operative, then this is bad, however If she isn't then this is an enormous NONStory (I don't think she is undercover).
74
posted on
09/30/2003 4:21:37 PM PDT
by
Pubbie
("Last time I checked, he doesn't have a vote" - Tom DeLay on Ari Fleischer's demand for Tax-Rebates)
To: Pubbie
Well, IF Wilson's wife is an UNDERCOVER CIA Operative, then this is bad, however If she isn't then this is an enormous NONStory (I don't think she is undercover). I thought I've heard that she is an analyst--a desk jockey with no cover. Would I get into trouble if I were to identify George Tenant as a CIA employee?
To: razorback-bert
Good point. She probably cut out articles from the NY Times.
76
posted on
09/30/2003 4:25:06 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
(Well...there you go again.)
To: Pubbie
angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case," Wilson told TIME. "I met with between six and eight analysts and operators from CIA and elsewhere [before the Feb 2002 trip]. None of the people in that meeting did I know, and they took the decision to send me. This is a smear job." Government officials are not only privately disputing the genesis of Wilson's trip, but publicly contesting what he found.
WHO are the eight analyst he met with who didn't KNOW him and SENT him?? I thought Cheney sent him...</sarcasm.
To: Pubbie
Any public library will have at least a couple of years of back issues of Time.
78
posted on
09/30/2003 4:35:35 PM PDT
by
alnick
To: michigander
OK .. here is the Krugman story that the NRO article refers to
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/072203.html Who's Unpatriotic Now?
SYNOPSIS:
Some nonrevisionist history: On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder newspapers reported on intelligence officials who "charge that the administration squelches dissenting views, and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary." One official accused the administration of pressuring analysts to "cook the intelligence books"; none of the dozen other officials the reporters spoke to disagreed.
The skepticism of these officials has been vindicated. So have the concerns expressed before the war by military professionals like Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, about the resources required for postwar occupation. But as the bad news comes in, those who promoted this war have responded with a concerted effort to smear the messengers.
Issues of principle aside, the invasion of a country that hadn't attacked us and didn't pose an imminent threat has seriously weakened our military position. Of the Army's 33 combat brigades, 16 are in Iraq; this leaves us ill prepared to cope with genuine threats. Moreover, military experts say that with almost two-thirds of its brigades deployed overseas, mainly in Iraq, the Army's readiness is eroding: normal doctrine calls for only one brigade in three to be deployed abroad, while the other two retrain and refit.
And the war will have devastating effects on future recruiting by the reserves. A widely circulated photo from Iraq shows a sign in the windshield of a military truck that reads, "One weekend a month, my ass."
To top it all off, our insistence on launching a war without U.N. approval has deprived us of useful allies. George Bush claims to have a "huge coalition," but only 7 percent of the coalition soldiers in Iraq are non-American and administration pleas for more help are sounding increasingly plaintive.
How serious is the strain on our military? The Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon, who describes our volunteer military as "one of the best military institutions in human history," warns that "the Bush administration will risk destroying that accomplishment if they keep on the current path."
But instead of explaining what happened to the Al Qaeda link and the nuclear program, in the last few days a series of hawkish pundits have accused those who ask such questions of aiding the enemy. Here's Frank Gaffney Jr. in The National Post: "Somewhere, probably in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is gloating. He can only be gratified by the feeding frenzy of recriminations, second-guessing and political power plays. . . . Signs of declining popular appreciation of the legitimacy and necessity of the efforts of America's armed forces will erode their morale. Similarly, the enemy will be encouraged."
Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden who really did attack America and Kim Jong Il who really is building nukes.
And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.
Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic.
So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson, but also to send a message.
And that should alarm us. We've just seen how politicized, cooked intelligence can damage our national interest. Yet the Wilson affair suggests that the administration intends to continue pressuring analysts to tell it what it wants to hear.
Originally published in The New York Times, 7.22.03
79
posted on
09/30/2003 4:43:13 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
To: William McKinley; Pubbie
80
posted on
09/30/2003 4:51:06 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-113 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson