This week?
and who are these 2 lawyers that had extensive conversations with the Fitzgerald who don't want to be identified?
I may have missed something, and I'll look again.... but I didn't see a single Judith Miller story in today's New York Times.
What could possibly explain The New York Times not writing about this today?
Several telling things in this article in the way these reporters chose to phrase details.
The first glaringly pro-Wilson version (there is zero doubt Wilson was intimately involved in the spin in this "piece") is this framing:
At the behest of the CIA, he had flown to Niger in February 2002 to investigate the administration's assertion that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium in the African nation for use in its nuclear weapons program. Wilson returned unconvinced the assertion was true. However, Bush himself made the charge in his 2003 State of the Union address, prompting Wilson to spread word throughout the government and eventually make public his rebuttal.
As we know, the CIA sub-group involving Plame sent Wilson on their own initiative. His trip did not have the sanction of "the CIA" as implied here. Further, as we all know, "Bush" did not cite Niger and uranium, he cited British intelligence having information that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa (no nation named).
The next interesting item I found is the bizarre theory that "discrediting" Wilson with facts is a crime:
But a new theory about Fitzgerald's aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.
Let's see, Wilson is misrepresenting his trip, its findings, its scope and who sent him and who knew about it and when reporters ask officials such as Libby and Rove about Wilson's claims and they ask around and then provide reporters with what they've learned---which happens to be the fact that Wilson's wife recommended him and they knew nothing about his trip before or its dubious findings---and this is a "crime"? I think not.
But then we come to this most obvious item of evidence that shows beyond any doubt that Joe Wilson is the main source here:
The Niger claim was central to the White House's rationale for war, and Wilson was on a one-man crusade to disprove it. Early on, his actions caught the eye of the vice president's office, which was often the emotional and intellectual force pushing the United States to war based on fears of potential weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Cheney and Libby were intimately involved in building the case for the war, which included warnings that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing nuclear weapons.
This paragraph above is so obvious. Cheney's office was "the emotional" force pushing the U.S. to war? Spin spin and more spin. The piece goes on with news I am glad to hear as I suspected it but wasn't sure:
Cheney's staff was looking into Wilson as early as May 2003, nearly two months before columnist Robert D. Novak identified Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, according to administration sources familiar with the effort. What stirred the interest of the vice president's office was a May 6 New York Times column by Nicholas D. Kristof in which the mission to Niger was described without using Wilson's name. Kristof's column said Cheney had authorized the trip.
According to former senior CIA officials, the vice president's office pressed the CIA to find out how the trip was arranged, because Cheney did not know that a query he made much earlier to a CIA briefer about a report alleging Iraq was seeking Niger uranium had triggered Wilson's trip. "They were very uptight about the vice president being tagged that way," a former senior CIA official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. "They asked questions that set [off] a chain of inquiries."
Imagine being "uptight" because you are being maligned in the pages of the New York Times. How odd...Not
I am pleased to hear they were asking about the trip as it shows they weren't clueless to these articles, but it does show the WH should have been better prepared to address Wilson's false charges.
And even though the VP's office was rightly asking about a trip he knew nothing about yet was being targeted with accusations due to this trip, still they did not disclose Plame's name (and so what if they had? Respectable reporters acknowledge that much evidence points away from Plame having had a covert status at least for many years, unlike these two who assert it as if established fact) just her role as "his wife" recommending him and rightly saying Wilson was not credible.
Of course I would love to know who the "former CIA official" is. I'd guess Plame herself except the NY Times claims she's back at work in an undisclosed role.