The CIA leak (Latest From Novak)

townhall.com ^ | 10/01/03 | Robert Novak

[CobaltBlue]

you might want to check your talking points. the current administration line

Oh, yeah? And who are you working for? Terry McAuliffe?

[CobaltBlue]

I remember the original "debunking" of the Niger report. Somebody did a google search and turned up the allegation that the letterhead on some letter was all wrong and therefore it was a complete fabrication.

Funny, at the same time I heard rumors that the Brits had surveillance of the Iraqi embassy in the Vatican and were sticking by the story, google search or not.

Now Bush is backing away from the story, but it's not going to go away. If the story is true, why back away from it? And if it's not true, who originated it?

It's like that Czech report of the meeting (or not) between Iraqi intelligence and Atta in Prague. The NY Times said Czech intelligence withdrew it, and Vaclav Havel said it wasn't. It's not going to go away, so flesh it out.

[oceanview]

yes, the brits are sticking by the story because the forged papers were planted by the french as a poison pill to discredit the whole story, the path to niger from iraq likely went through france. the other intel on this subject is solid.

[Catspaw]

Like I said, if you have a hardon for Novak Fine. But you should be upfornt about it.

Do you have to express yourself in such coarse terms?

[hobbes1]

Better than in couched terms.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" Since Wilson was traveling in an official capacity for the CIA, any work product belongs to the U.S. Government. Someone in the CIA would determine the appropriate security classification for the work product - not Wilson. If the work product was classified, Wilson violated the law by going public with the information and should be subject to indictment"

Since everyone is now a suspect, Wilson's behavior also must be scrutinized.It should be interesting to see how cooperative he becomes,when his phone and email records are requested, which they must be,if the investigation is to be thorough.

[CobaltBlue]

I am in the process of reading a 1981 story on yellowcake from Niger, printed in the Christian Science Monitor on December 2, 1981, author David K. Willis.

At that time, Niger was selling yellowcake to Iraq, and a lot of others, including Pakistan, using Libya as middleman.

[ForGod'sSake]

Anyway, I suspect this 'leak' is part of a coordinated effort to discredit Bush.

No doubt, but as a matter of curiosity, I would like to know who fired the first salvo. Political intrigue at its finest. The fact that the Dims/media are squealing like stuck pigs makes me think one of their own has been short-sheeted. Novak may be a pawn, patsy, or part and parcel of this little saga; or maybe he just wasn't looking where he was going and stepped in a pile. I doubt any of us will ever know the whole of this tempest.

As an aside, a claim I find incredible is that Wilson prepared no report of his findings in Niger. Isn't that what these people do?

FGS

[cyncooper]

Consider the timing of Wilsons OpEd.

The SOTU Address, was in Jan. Wilsons OpEd, came (After writing several articles for leftie publications, like The Nation w/out mentioning it) 6 Months Later.

The DAY Bush left for Africa.

This was planned, and by more than Wilson, since it had to get in the Sunday NYTimes.

Just wanted to repeat and highlight your excellent summation of what some of us have said, but more verbosely and clumsily. You distilled it quite nicely.

[CobaltBlue]

OK, just read a story in US Today, November 30, 1990, by Sharen Shaw Johnson, which states that Iraq bought yellowcake from Niger in 1990.

>>HEADLINE: Evidence disputes Iraq claim it's not interested

BYLINE: Sharen Shaw Johnson

BODY:
If Iraqi President Saddam Hussein doesn't have a nuclear bomb, it's not for lack of trying.

Iraq repeatedly has denied it's working on an atomic bomb. But international customs records, court transcripts and news reports sketch a disturbing outline of Saddam's unyielding determination to become a nuclear player.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, says the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Iraq bought 250 tons of uranium-bearing ''yellowcake'' - raw material for nuclear bomb cores - from Brazil, Portugal and Niger.

Baghdad stepped up its clandestine campaign to obtain bomb material only months after ending its eight-year war with Iran in 1988, when British firm Euromac inquired about buying capacitors from CSI Technologies in California.

Euromac's specifications were identical to those used to detonate nuclear bombs. A suspicious CSI called the U.S. government. Result: Those involved in the Iraqi front company were captured March 29, and the nuclear triggers intercepted.
But on May 8, Saddam announced that Iraq had succeeded in getting and duplicating the devices on its own.

Maxwell Laboratories Inc. of San Diego told The New York Times it sold Iraq lower-grade capacitors in 1989 - with U.S. government permission: The devices weren't usable in nuclear weapons. But Iraqi engineers, says the firm, may have been able to upgrade them for military use.

It was only the start:

- Early March: After Canadian artillery genius Gerald Bull was assassinated in Brussels, an Italian engineer testified Bull had been building a ''supergun'' for Iraq that could launch a 1,200-pound payload 600 miles into space.

- April-May: Supergun parts, headed for Iraq, were intercepted in five nations, including Britain and Turkey.

- July 15: Germany seized Iraqi-bound Swiss super-strength steel needed to make bomb-grade uranium.

GRAPHIC: PHOTO; b/w, AP

CUTLINE: GUN OR PIPE: A Forgemasters Engineering worker handles a 95-ton piece of steel. The British firm says it's not a part of a gun. <<

[CobaltBlue]

Here is Wilson's original column, posted for educational purposes only:

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

July 6, 2003, Sunday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section 4; Page 9; Column 1; Editorial Desk

LENGTH: 1454 words

HEADLINE: What I Didn't Find in Africa

BYLINE: By Joseph C. Wilson 4th; Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:
Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, 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.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as charge d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome and Principe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq -- and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors -- they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government -- and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program -- all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com

LOAD-DATE: July 6, 2003

[hobbes1]

That has been my postiion ever since Wilsons OpEd hit the Slimes. This has Bill Clintons fingerprints all over it, at least initially.


And let us not forget that he was telling them Publicly 2 weeks later to let the matter drop.

[Ace Correspondent]

Monday 29th.

An article that appeared on the Time magazine Web site the same week Novak's column was published said that "some government officials have noted to Time in interviews . . . that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." The same article quoted from an interview with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, saying that Cheney did not know about Wilson's mission "until this year when it became public in the last month or so."

Neither the Novak nor the Time account mentioned that Plame had worked as an undercover operative, which indicates those who leaked the information may not have known she was. Novak, co-host of CNN's "Crossfire," said on the program yesterday that he was not called with the leak but got the information during interviews.

[Jeebus..."operative" and "undercover operative" are equivalent.]

The CIA "asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else," he said. "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives." Sources said Wilson's wife is a clandestine operations officer for the CIA, now out of the field and working on weapons of mass destruction.

At a forum held last month by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), Wilson said: "I don't think we're going to let this drop. At the end of the day it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me when I use that name. I measure my words."

Wilson said yesterday that he believes Rove "at a minimum condoned the leak," but said he has no evidence Rove was the original leaker. Wilson said that based on reporters' statements, he believes Rove participated in calls that drew attention to his wife's occupation after Novak's column was published. "My knowledge is based on a reporter who called me right after he had spoken to Rove and said that Rove had said my wife was fair game," Wilson said. He said that conversation occurred on July 21.

Wilson said a producer from another network told him about the same time, "The White House is saying things about you and your wife that are so off the wall that we won't use them." Wilson said the series of similar calls he received, which included four journalists from three networks, stopped on July 22, after he appeared on NBC's "Today" show and said the disclosure of his wife's maiden name could jeopardize the "entire network that she may have established."

NBC anchor Tom Brokaw reported last night that correspondent Andrea Mitchell had such a discussion after the Novak column appeared.



An article that appeared on the Time magazine Web site the same week Novak's column was published said that "some government officials have noted to Time in interviews . . . that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." The same article quoted from an interview with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, saying that Cheney did not know about Wilson's mission "until this year when it became public in the last month or so."

Neither the Novak nor the Time account mentioned that Plame had worked as an undercover operative, which indicates those who leaked the information may not have known she was. Novak, co-host of CNN's "Crossfire," said on the program yesterday that he was not called with the leak but got the information during interviews.

[Jeebus..."operative" and "undercover operative" are equivalent.]

The CIA "asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else," he said. "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives." Sources said Wilson's wife is a clandestine operations officer for the CIA, now out of the field and working on weapons of mass destruction.

At a forum held last month by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), Wilson said: "I don't think we're going to let this drop. At the end of the day it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me when I use that name. I measure my words."

Wilson said yesterday that he believes Rove "at a minimum condoned the leak," but said he has no evidence Rove was the original leaker. Wilson said that based on reporters' statements, he believes Rove participated in calls that drew attention to his wife's occupation after Novak's column was published. "My knowledge is based on a reporter who called me right after he had spoken to Rove and said that Rove had said my wife was fair game," Wilson said. He said that conversation occurred on July 21.

Wilson said a producer from another network told him about the same time, "The White House is saying things about you and your wife that are so off the wall that we won't use them." Wilson said the series of similar calls he received, which included four journalists from three networks, stopped on July 22, after he appeared on NBC's "Today" show and said the disclosure of his wife's maiden name could jeopardize the "entire network that she may have established."

NBC anchor Tom Brokaw reported last night that correspondent Andrea Mitchell had such a discussion after the Novak column appeared.

[Canadian Outrage]

Very good point. I agree with those who say that the Republicans in general and the Bush White House specifically MUST begin to fight the SAME type of fight that Democraps do!! There is absolutely no point whatsoever in trying to win over avowed, moraless enemies!!

[Travis McGee]

Our side is being played, that's for sure.

[cyncooper]

That has been my postiion ever since Wilsons OpEd hit the Slimes. This has Bill Clintons fingerprints all over it, at least initially.

Me, too. I've had Wilson pegged since he has appeared on the scene and totally agree that clintonian machinations are moving this, including planting the June stories that referred to an anonymous "envoy" leading to Wilson's "It was I, the great Joseph Wilson, who went to Niger" op-ed.

And don't forget the helpful anonymous "CIA official" who was chatting up the BBC about how Wilson's trip to Niger was the end-all and be-all to the question of Iraq and uranium.....before Novak outed Wilson's wife as CIA....

[hobbes1]

Yes...It will be very curious indeed to see how this all plays out....

[kattracks]

It is. The Dems start off by stating they're only interested in finding the truth (like they know what truth is) and it shouldn't be politicized. Then they go about politicizing it.

hillary!, who had no use for the Independent Councel in the past, was on MSNBC shooting her mouth off as to how one is needed. She claims it's ridiculous to expect an impartial investigation from the Bush DOJ. Funny, the clintons thought Reno could do the job when it was their WH which was being investigated.

[Ben Hecks]

Appreciate all the research you have done on this subject. We might also consider that fact that Wilson is now a private citizen so I would assume that he has been debriefed and no longer has a clearance.