Cheney sued in CIA identity case

[dhaus]

I understand your view.  What does that have to do with whether the basic contention of Wilson's article was wrong and, if so, how did publishing the nature of Plame's employment correct that wrong?

[Krusher]

Good grief, the special prosecuter was trying very hard to prove this case and failed. Why would anyone continue to hang their hat on a case that can't be proven?

[bj229r]

Originally posted by dhaus
I understand your view.  What does that have to do with whether the basic contention of Wilson's article was wrong and, if so, how did publishing the nature of Plame's employment correct that wrong?

We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.

The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger.

Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources, the forgery was planted in order to be discovered — as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm.

But that's not all. The Butler report, yet another British government inquiry, also is expected to conclude this week that British intelligence was correct to say that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.

And in recent days, the Financial Times has reported that illicit sales of uranium from Niger were indeed being negotiated with Iraq, as well as with four other states.

According to the FT: "European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq."

There's still more: As Susan Schmidt reported — back on page A9 of Saturday's Washington Post: "Contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."

The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

Ironically, Senate investigators found that at least some of what Wilson told his CIA briefer not only failed to persuade the agency that there was nothing to reports of Niger-Iraq link — his information actually created additional suspicion.

A former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, told Wilson that in June 1999, a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations." Mayaki, knowing how few commodities for export are produced by impoverished Niger, interpreted that to mean that Saddam was seeking uranium.

Another former government official told Wilson that Iran had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. That's the same year that Saddam forced the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq. Could the former official have meant Iraq rather than Iran? If someone were to try to connect those dots, what picture might emerge?

Schmidt adds that the Senate panel was alarmed to find that the CIA never "fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin."

I was the first to suggest, here on National Review Online a year ago ("Scandal!" and "No Yellowcake Walk"), that Wilson should not have been given this assignment, that he had no training or demonstrated competence as an investigator, that his inquiry had been obviously superficial and that, far from being a "centrist," he was a partisan with an ax to grind.

But my complaint was really less with Wilson than it was with the CIA for sending him, rather than an experienced spy or investigator, to check out such an important and sensitive matter as whether one of the world's most vicious killers had been trying to buy the stuff that nuclear weapons are made of.

For this, I received a couple of dishonorable mentions in Wilson's memoir. He has a chapter called "What I Didn't Find in Africa," which might be used as a case study for CIA trainees and others who need to understand the fundamental principle of logic that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In other words, Wilson fails to grasp that because he didn't find proof that Saddam was seeking African uranium does not mean that proof was not there to be found.

In reaction to his "fearless candor" and "disarming insight" about the "sixteen-word lie," Wilson writes that "right-wing hatchet men were being wheeled out to attack me. More ominously, plots were being hatched in the White House that would betray America's national security.

He writes: "Clifford May was first off the mark, spewing uninformed vitriol in a piece in National Review Online blindly operating on the principle that facts, those pesky facts, just do not matter."

Well, facts, those pesky facts do matter and a bipartisan Senate investigative committee has now established that Wilson has had very few in his possession. And, for the record, I was never advised anything about Wilson by anyone serving in the White House, the administration, or the Republican party. I never even had a discussion about him with such folks.

There is much more that could be said about the Wilson affair, and certainly many questions that ought to be both asked and answered. But in the interest of time and space, let me leave you with just one: Now that we know that Mrs. Wilson did recommend Mr. Wilson for the Niger assignment, can we not infer that she was working at CIA headquarters in Langley rather than as an undercover operative in some front business or organization somewhere?

As I suggested in another NRO piece (Spy Games), if that is the case — if she was not working undercover and if the CIA was not taking measures to protect her cover — no law was broken by columnist Bob Novak in naming her, or by whoever told Novak that she worked for the CIA.

It is against the law to knowingly name an undercover agent. It is not against the law to name a CIA employee who is not an undercover agent. For example, I know the identity of "Anonymous," the CIA employee who has now written a book trashing the Bush administration for its policies. But since he is not — to the best of my knowledge — a covert operative, I would be committing no crime were I to name him in this piece. Nor, I should add, did he attempt to hide his employment when we sat across a dinner table some months ago.

I don't think Joe Wilson is an evil man. I do think he is an angry partisan and an opportunist. According to my sources, during most of his diplomatic career he specialized in general services and administration, which means he was not the political or economic adviser to the ambassador, rather he was the guy who makes sure the embassy plumbing is working and that the commissary is stocked with Oreos and other products the ambassador prefers.

Just prior to the Gulf War, he did serve in Iraq, a hot spot to be sure, but that was under Ambassador April Glaspie, who failed to make it clear to Saddam that invading Kuwait would elicit a robust response from Washington. I doubt that Wilson advised her to do otherwise. I rather doubt she asked. As he says in his book, she was giving him an "on-the-spot education in Middle Eastern diplomacy. It was a part of the world in which I had no experience."

In 1991, Wilson's book jacket boasts, President George H.W. Bush praised Wilson as "a true American hero," and he was made an ambassador. But for some reason, he was assigned not to Cairo, Paris, or Moscow, places where you put the best and the brightest, nor was he sent to Bermuda or Luxembourg, places you send people you want to reward. Instead, he was sent to Gabon, a diplomatic backwater of the first rank.

After that, he says in his memoir, "I had risen about as high as I could in the Foreign Service and decided it was time to retire." Well, that's not exactly accurate either. He could have been given a more important posting, such as Kenya or South Africa, or he could have been promoted higher in the senior Foreign Service (he made only the first of four grades). Instead, he was evidently (according to my sources) forced into involuntary retirement at 48. (The minimum age for voluntary retirement in the Foreign Service is 50.) After that, he seems to have made quite a bit of money — doing what for whom is unclear and I wish the Senate committee had attempted to find out.

But based on one op-ed declaring 16 words spoken by the president a lie, he transformed himself into an instant celebrity and, for a while, it seemed, a contender for power within the chien-mange-le-chien world of foreign policy. That dream has now probably evaporated. It is hard to see how a President John Kerry would now want Wilson in his inner circle. But if he desired to return to Gabon or Niger I, for one, would not be among those opposing him..

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

[Krusher]

Originally posted by dhaus
Oh, was Wilson wrong about the Nigerian documents being forgeries  

He lied when he wrote in the WP that he told the CIA he knew they were forgeries because the signatures and dates were wrong. The only problem with that is he never saw the documents and would have had to get that information from someone who shouldn't have told him. hmmm his wife maybe.

Page 45 of Pre war intelligence assesment

stop the presses!
Joe Wilson and his wife are criminals, they leaked classified information!

I demand an investigation, frog march em !ohh my eeek, eeek squeak, squeak !!!!

[Krusher]

Originally posted by bj229r
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

You beat me too it

[dhaus]

Thanks for the link to the actual committee investigation report.  Will take a look at it when there is time. Might want to check beyond page 45, however.

[bj229r]

There certainly WERE some forged documents (attributed to French intelligence, is one angle I've heard).. but THOSE documents weren't what the MI6 conclusions were based upon

[parker00]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Uh, the CIA says she was covert? Says who? She was riding a desk at HQ in plain public view. There was supposedly a leak. I have yet to see where the CIA specifically states that "at the time Novak published his column, Valerie Plame was a covert agent". Regardless of what the CIA says, or someone there says, if she was assigned to a desk at Langley CIA HQ, she was NOT covert, and couldn't be. And if any person wandering around the gates at Langley could have taken her picture as she drove in with the top down, she was hardly covert.

Since you claim to know what a spy would look like since you say she doesn't fit the image could you give us the exact description of what spies drive, wear or where they work?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Interesting answers from Novak.


Did the Democrats have a hand in getting both Joe Wilson and Valerie to undermine the Iraq WMD claims since many of them, including President Clinton, John Kerry, and Tom Daschle, made regime change in Iraq the policy of the United States in 1998? (Facts that have been conveniently forgotten). — BRIAN (Springfield, IL):

ROBERT NOVAK: That's hard to say, but Wilson was a foreign policy adviser for Gore in 2000, three years before his wife suggested his mission to Niger.

I watched you on “Hannity & Colmes.” Could you please briefly explain who leaked the info and why? I still to this day do not understand! — KEITH

ROBERT NOVAK: A senior administration official disclosed to me Mrs. Wilson's role. In passing, during a long interview and, he said, "inadvertently."

It seems to me that if your primary source were an honorable man, he would have immediately stepped forward to explain himself and clear the record. His failure to do the right thing has created terrible problems for others, injured his party, and his president. I would be interested in your comments.— THOMAS (Jackson, WY)

ROBERT NOVAK: I think you have a good point.

Do you think that this story has been blown out of proportion? In the great scheme of things, with everything that has been going on in the world, how important is this? — TERRY (Cornelius, NC):

ROBERT NOVAK: I believe the importance of this story has been greatly magnified, for political purposes, by Democratic politicians.

Why, as you claim, did Fitzgerald ask to keep your role in the controversy a secret, while others in the media were seemingly free to discuss their roles? — ROBERT

ROBERT NOVAK: The other journalists were resisting Fitzgerald's efforts, so that he hardly could request their silence.

Are any of the material facts for which I. Lewis Libby is under indictment, at odds with any portions of your testimony to the grand jury? And, do you anticipate testifying at his trial, and if so, as witness for the defense or prosecution?— DENNIS (San Diego, CA)

ROBERT NOVAK: I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of the Libby case to answer your first question. I have no reason to believe I will be a witness in his trial.

If you had known the results of your story, that Valerie Plame would be outed, would you have written the story? And why did you write the story in the first place? What was the original reason for the story? — CARLOS

ROBERT NOVAK: I really don't know the answer to your first question. I thought revelation of Mrs. Wilson explained the otherwise inexplicable selection of her husband for the mission to Niger.

I have read and heard on “Hannity & Colmes” that it was well known that Valerie Plame was with the CIA and was a very low-level employee. Could you comment on that? — TOM (Danville, CA)

ROBERT NOVAK: It was not known to me, but it was well known around Washington.

Do you think there will be a special prosecutor assigned to The New York Times leak? Should Congress pursue the Times with the same enthusiasm and vigor as they did your story? — STEPHEN

ROBERT NOVAK: I don't know whether there will be a special prosecutor named in the Times case. As is obvious, the Democrats who wanted to pursue the leak to me are not interested in pursuing the Times leak.

What do you think of the coverage of this story over the last two and a half years? What are some of the stories that were absolutely wrong that you had to stay quiet about? — DON

ROBERT NOVAK: I think the coverage has been erratic and error-filled. The error was the claim that the White House had peddled the story to many journalists and finally settled for me.

Were you threatened in any way by the authorities if you didn't give the names of your sources? — DAVID (Augusta, GA)

ROBERT NOVAK: No.

Can you explain the incident involving Mr. Wilson’s "friend" that happened to run into you on the street. What did you and him discuss? What is your impression of the situation? I appreciate the way you have handled yourself through this whole ordeal. You are a true journalist! — JUDY

ROBERT NOVAK: I foolishly answered questions about the case by a stranger who stopped me on the streets of Washington. He turned out to be a friend of Wilson who immediately went to Wilson's office to report after our conversation. Some people think this was set up by Wilson, but I have no evidence of this. Thanks for the compliment.

Is it true that you made three phone calls and found out that Valerie's cover company was non-existent? If this is true, couldn't the "bad guys" have done the same thing? To me this is basic investigation work! I recall one of her associates was very upset because he used the same cover company and he said now his cover was blown! No wonder the CIA was so inept. — GEORGE (Long Beach, CA)

ROBERT NOVAK: I found that her cover company was nonexistent, which runs counter to CIA procedure. She listed the phony name on her 2000 Federal Election Commission report on her contribution to Al Gore.

From your comments this evening it seems clear that early on in this process it was recognized that no laws had been violated, i.e., revealing Mrs. Wilson's employment was not in violation of the relevant statutes. Surely the CIA would have understood that her status was unclassified. Why then did it make its referral to the Justice Department? Indeed, who might be responsible for that decision? On the surface, politics would seem to explain what happened here - politics at the CIA. Your thoughts, please. — THOMAS (Jackson, WY)

ROBERT NOVAK: The CIA routinely refers all alleged leaks to the Justice Department; averaging about one a week. The difference in this case was the lobbying by CIA employees for an investigation, indicating the anti-Bush hostility at the Agency.

Did Aldrich Ames, the famous double agent, out Valerie in the early 1990's to the Russians? — BRIAN (Springfield, IL)

ROBERT NOVAK: Yes, that is my information.

Was it ever disclosed whether Valerie Plame's capacity with the CIA was clerical or in covert operations that may endanger her life? — NORM (Cornelia, GA)

ROBERT NOVAK: For some years, she had been a desk-bound analyst, facing no physical threat.

Do you think you may have been used to spread this information? — KEN

ROBERT NOVAK: No.

[Nash]

Novak was a shill used by the Government to out a CIA agent and destroy a career.

I'll become interested in what Novak has to say only when it's spoken through the visitor phone behind an inch of plexiglass.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Nash
Novak was a shill used by the Government to out a CIA agent and destroy a career.

I'll become interested in what Novak has to say only when it's spoken through the visitor phone behind an inch of plexiglass.

Not surprising you don't want to hear what a key player in the case has to say. Especially when it doesn't agree with your preconceived opinion. Damn, what a surprise. Not.

[Nash]

Heh.... spare me your whole "Oh what a surprise" act.

"Key player?"

Novak was the very first person to out the chick. Yeah he was a key player.

"Especially when it doesn't agree with your preconceived opinion. "

LOL.... In otherwords.... "My quoting of Novak must not agree with your "preconceived opinion."

There's nothing "preconceived" about it. I watched the minute it went down, and have carefully followed it while it dipped in and out of the radar over the last coupla years. I could write a book on this thing. Seriously.

Don't quote me Novak and consider it some form of interesting. It's not.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Nash
Heh.... spare me your whole "Oh what a surprise" act.

"Key player?"

Novak was the very first person to out the chick. Yeah he was a key player.

"Especially when it doesn't agree with your preconceived opinion. "

LOL.... In otherwords.... "My quoting of Novak must not agree with your "preconceived opinion."

There's nothing "preconceived" about it. I watched the minute it went down, and have carefully followed it while it dipped in and out of the radar over the last coupla years. I could write a book on this thing. Seriously.

Don't quote me Novak and consider it some form of interesting. It's not.

Well, by all means, write your book. I'm sure it'll sell a million, but it'll be in the "fantasy" section.

[Nash]

Prolly not...

I suck at writing... my grammar is messed up, and I have a sort of a dyslexia thing when it comes to recognizing misspelled words.

[john9001]

poor nash, it must be frustrating to be wrong so many times.