Ben Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 [url="http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839"]http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000972839[/url] Wow! I was just joking before w/ my talk of rove masterminding a conspiracy... [quote]NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove. Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks: "What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is. "And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury." Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 i just did a lot of reading up on this case, b/c i really didn't know much about it... here is a very good [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame"]wikipedia.org/[/url] here is an interesting tidbit, into what they are really talking about [url="http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_07/alia/a3071307.htm"]uranium from africa[/url] [quote]But in the interest of completeness, the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq's significant 550-metric ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began "vigorously trying to procure" more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons. The NIE states: "A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure "uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake." The Estimate also states: "We do not know the status of this arrangement." With regard to reports that Iraq had sought uranium from two other countries, the Estimate says: "We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources." Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: "Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious." An unclassified CIA White Paper in October made no mention of the issue, again because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and because we had questions about some of the reporting. For the same reasons, the subject was not included in many public speeches, Congressional testimony and the Secretary of State's United Nations presentation in early 2003. The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake. Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct -- i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.[/quote] this is from ex CIA director Tenot... this is a pretty big story... i was surprised when he said it in his state of the union, but never heard much more about it, so i definately wasn't using that as evidence myself... if you go back to the [url="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/"]transcript[/url] of powells speech to the UN (which is the formal reasons and arguements that we went to war in iraq), you will see that we were basing everything off of the breach of contract in resolution 1441, the "efforts" to get more wmd's, and a audio tape about how the iraqis were hiding weapons before inspectors got there... he also said "Inspectors are inspectors; they are not detectives." its easy to say that we mislead people but our arguments were there are all backed up... but read this, and then keep in mind the oil for food program, and that is why i'm pissed at what is going on, b/c if we had germany, france, and russia on our side, and not being paid off by saddam, it would probably be a hell of alot easier... [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441"]1441 - wikipedia[/url] [quote]United Nations Security Council 12Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq [b]"a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations"[/b] that had been set out in several previous resolutions [b](11esolution 660, 10Resolution 661, 9Resolution 678, 8Resolution 686, 7Resolution 687, 6Resolution 688, 5Resolution 707, 4Resolution 715, 3Resolution 986, and 2Resolution 1284), notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by 1Resolution 687 (1991)[/b], of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles". Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if these are not met. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance.[/quote] [quote]Of the permanent, veto-holding members of the Security Council, [b]France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China wished the inspection period to be extended, and for no military action to go ahead without a further UN resolution.[/b] On the other hand, the [b]USA and Britain[/b], while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions. Non-permanent Security Council member [b]Spain declared itself with the USA and Britain[/b]. [i](before 4/11, and the election/train bomb disaster)[/i] On March 10, French president Jacques Chirac declared that [b]France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war[/b]. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.[/quote] i've always heard there were 17 resolutions, but this only listing 12 resolutions... why were we never following up w/ these? he would be nice for a minute, then kick us out... he was working towards getting the sanctions taken off, b/c they did suck for the iraqis and wasn't fair... if we would have gone in, as an international community back on any of these previous 11 resolutions that are listed here, we could have saved what we are taking care of now... this is why i think the UN needs some extreme reforms... how come, the US (who is furthest away from iraq, therefore the least likely to get hit hy them) the only one ready to stand up to iraq? b/c we weren't getting paid off (by vetoing in the UN, so they wouldn't go in militarily, to stop them)... we could have saved alot of people, if we went in as an international community, to stop them a long time ago... after 9/11, we were on high alert, and they were scaring the fuck out of us... come to find out, they were weak (militarily), but we didn't know that then, and they weren't going to tell us that... i don't know much about this plame thing, and we'll see if any evidence comes out against rove, or if this is true, but reguardless, i believe that we did what we should have done a long time ago iraq... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest #22 Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 really shallow speculation, if oyu ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 [img]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050701/lane.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 bengalrick, Personnaly, I take my freedom fries with [u]HUNTS[/u] ketchup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 lawman... i have to admit, i still have mine w/ heinz... its too good to give up here is rove's lawyers side of the story, just to give both sides of the story.. [url="http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm"]drudge report[/url] [quote]Lawyer Says Rove Talked to Reporter, Did Not Leak Name Sat Jul 02 2005 21:05:04 ET Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, spoke with TIME mag's Matthew Cooper during a critical week in July 2003 when Cooper was reporting on a public critic of the Bush administration who was also the husband of a CIA operative. But Rove did not leak the name of the CIA op Plame, Rove's lawyer said again Saturday night. Robert Luskin said Rove never identified Plame to Cooper in those conversations. "Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else,'' Luskin said to the WASHINGTON POST. Luskin said the question remains unanswered: ``Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl.'' NBC's Lawrence O'Donnell claimed this weekend, 'Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover'. "Emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months," O'Donnell said. Developing...[/quote] we'll just have to see what happens in the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubdub Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 Karl Rove is a political "legend"...Anyone that can get someone like Bush elected after all the things he did is a genius. Didn't he say he would get all the Christians (which I am one but a Dem) to vote Republican after the 2000 election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote name='kdubdub' date='Jul 3 2005, 02:09 PM']Karl Rove is a political "legend"...Anyone that can get someone like Bush elected after all the things he did is a genius. [b]Didn't he say he would get all the Christians (which I am one but a Dem) to vote Republican after the 2000 election?[/b] [right][post="110237"][/post][/right][/quote] i guess he did, but he didn't thats about how much your statement makes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted July 6, 2005 Report Share Posted July 6, 2005 [img]http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3205/arrestedrove7ai.jpg[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gonzoid Posted July 6, 2005 Report Share Posted July 6, 2005 [quote name='kdubdub' date='Jul 3 2005, 02:09 PM']Didn't he say he would get all the Christians (which I am one but a Dem) to vote Republican after the 2000 election? [right][post="110237"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] He said there were some 2 million evangelicals that didn't vote in 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted July 6, 2005 Report Share Posted July 6, 2005 Rumors are floating that Rove will be indicted late this week or early next week for perjury to the grand jury. I guess we'll see more on this later.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 6, 2005 Report Share Posted July 6, 2005 [url="http://www.drudgereport.com/"]click here[/url] [img]http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/afp/20050706/capt.sge.jrv90.060705181350.photo01.photo.default-315x384.jpg[/img] [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050706/ap_on_re_us/reporters_contempt_35"]yahoo.com[/url] [quote]I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions' for not testifying, TIME mag reporter Matthew Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, [b]he had received 'in somewhat dramatic fashion' a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret... [/b][/quote] - matthew cooper either rove doesn't care about going to jail, and his getting his name slandered... or he isn't the source... sounds like we'll find out soon enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalSIS Posted July 6, 2005 Report Share Posted July 6, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 6 2005, 03:19 PM'][url="http://www.drudgereport.com/"]click here[/url] [img]http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/afp/20050706/capt.sge.jrv90.060705181350.photo01.photo.default-315x384.jpg[/img] [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050706/ap_on_re_us/reporters_contempt_35"]yahoo.com[/url] - matthew cooper either rove doesn't care about going to jail, and his getting his name slandered... or he isn't the source... sounds like we'll find out soon enough... [right][post="111173"][/post][/right][/quote] Rove paid someone off to take the fall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 6, 2005 Report Share Posted July 6, 2005 [quote name='BengalSIS' date='Jul 6 2005, 03:51 PM']Rove paid someone off to take the fall [right][post="111186"][/post][/right][/quote] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img] i'm afraid that will be the response if it isn't him... funny shit though sis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalSIS Posted July 7, 2005 Report Share Posted July 7, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 6 2005, 04:15 PM'] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img] i'm afraid that will be the response if it isn't him... funny shit though sis [right][post="111205"][/post][/right][/quote] Just for you Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted July 7, 2005 Report Share Posted July 7, 2005 [img]http://www.bigmattress.com/weblog/images/Rove.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengaljet Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 Today was the day. It appears Rove was the informant. To what extent we'll see. I watched the WH Press Briefing-Scott McClellan's only answer was"No comment" about Rove. Reporters were after his fat ass(Scott + Rove),but Mac held to his guns and DIDN'T want to talk about it. 2 yrs ago Mac said that anyone in the WH that was caught in a situation like this one would be asked to leave. He didn't even want to talk about that-No comment. I bet Mac wishes Jeff Gannon(James Guckette) was there to ask some of his "Hard Questions",but Jeff was found out after 1.5 yrs. There is a woman in jail for this deal, Robt Novak(who's his informant) identified the agent-why aren't they going after him? I guess identifying a secret agent is not something that should be done. Why won't McClellan even talk about it-sounds worse than a dirty blue skirt to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 It's quite possible that Rove will walk away from this crime. He may, or may not be indicted for perjury to the grand jury, that depends upon his previous depositions, and Rove is no fool. Bush doesn't call him "Turd Blossom" for nothing. The key issue is this: the attack on Wilson was a political attack, planned before he even wrote his op-ed, and the political attack took precedence over the genuine national security issues involved here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 we'll see... it sounds like the big leaker is the one that judy miller is taking to jail w/ her... it sounds to me, that Rove was steering away a report he didn't said wasn't true, and mentioned that it was Wilson's wife that sent him to Africa... he didn't mention that she was she was a spy or mention her name... i don't think she was a spy at the time, but i don't know... it sounds to me, that they took what he wrote here, and used another source to elaborate from it... there is another source, and he seems to be the big one... we will see though... i'm interested in knowing, b/c reguardless of who it is that leaked info that could have put our guys in a bad position, they definately should pay for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 Just as a side note to this whole affair, it seems as though Luskin, Rove's counsel, once took partial payment of legal fees in gold bars. His client was under indictment for money laundering drug money (and is now serving 600 years in jail.) The sad part is, the fellow is probably considered to be respectable inside the Beltway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 Just as a note from someone who has a secret clearance. In reference to what the data is that he gave up will determine on if what he did was wrong, like I could tell you guys what kind of work I did, but I could never tell you soldiers SSN's or family case data, or about their training, or where they are stationed, all info that I'm privy to but I don't ever really pay attention to it. Regardless though it's pretty stupid to talk to anyone about anyone that works at the CIA, even if its just a office worker. He can say he didnt know, but anyone with any common sence should. Here some good info on the types of clearances. [url="http://www.taonline.com/securityclearances/"]http://www.taonline.com/securityclearances/[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='Jul 12 2005, 05:02 PM']Just as a note from someone who has a secret clearance. In reference to what the data is that he gave up will determine on if what he did was wrong, like I could tell you guys what kind of work I did, but I could never tell you soldiers SSN's or family case data, or about their training, or where they are stationed, all info that I'm privy to but I don't ever really pay attention to it. Regardless though it's pretty stupid to talk to anyone about anyone that works at the CIA, even if its just a office worker. He can say he didnt know, but anyone with any common sence should. [right][post="113670"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Good points, Jamie. The issue in the Wilson/Plame case is the premeditated intent of folks in the admin to engage in a smear campaign, and just how far they were willing to go to do it. Another point worth mentioning here is about Wilson, himself. People should look into his activities as the last diplomat to represent the US in Iraq, just previous to the Gulf War. Decide for yourself if he deserved the Rove treatment. Rick, the press corps is not retarded. The White House Press Corps has caught McClellan in a series of lies and they are holding his feet to the fire. Here's a [url="http://www.thismodernworld.com/"]link to a lefty blog [/url]that documents some of those lies. I'll quote a few of them here: [quote]QUESTION: The Robert Novak column last week . . . has now given rise to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives. Can you respond to that? McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this President or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step. Scott McClellan Press Briefing July 22, 2003 QUESTION: Scott, has there ever been an attempt or effort on the part of anyone here at the White House to discredit the reputations or reporting of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, his wife, or ABC correspondent Jeffrey Kofman? McCLELLAN: John, I think I answered that yesterday. That is not the way that this White House operates. That's not the way the President operates . . . No one would be authorized to do that within this White House. That is simply not the way we operate, and that's simply not the way the President operates. QUESTION: In all of those cases? McCLELLAN: Well, go down -- which two? QUESTION: Joe Wilson and his wife? McCLELLAN: No. Scott McClellan Press Briefing July 23, 2003 QUESTION: Wilson now believes that the person who did this was Karl Rove . . . Did Karl Rove tell that . . . McCLELLAN: I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But we've already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it's totally ridiculous. QUESTION: But did Karl Rove do it? McCLELLAN: I said, it's totally ridiculous. Scott McClellan Press Briefing September 16, 2003 This morning, ABC News producer Andrea Owen happened to find herself near Karl Rove (who was walking to his car), and an ABC camera. Owen: "Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?" Rove: "No." At which point, Mr. Rove shut his car door as Ms. Owen asked, "What is your response to the fact that Justice is looking into the matter?" ABC News The Note September 29, 2003 (courtesy of Think Progress) QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he . . . McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've spoken clearly to this publicly . . . I've just said there's no truth to it. QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this . . . McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved. QUESTION: How does he know that? McCLELLAN: The President knows. Scott McClellan Press Gaggle September 29, 2003 QUESTION: Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous. And I wanted just to make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl? McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct. QUESTION: Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson's wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it? McCLELLAN: I don't know whether or not -- I mean, I'm sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has. QUESTION: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever have this information? McCLELLAN: We're going down a lot of different roads here. I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was. Scott McClellan Press Briefing September 29, 2003 QUESTION: Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it. . . THE PRESIDENT: Yes. QUESTION: Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him . . . THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters September 30, 2003 McCLELLAN: Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he [Karl Rove] was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it. QUESTION: He does not condone people pointing reporters toward classified information that's been released; he would not condone that either? Is that what you're saying? McCLELLAN: The President doesn't condone the activity that you're suggesting, absolutely he does not. Scott McClellan Press Briefing October 1, 2003 QUESTION: Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers . . . Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them? McCLELLAN: They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did. QUESTION: So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying? McCLELLAN: That's correct. Scott McClellan Press Briefing October 7, 2003 QUESTION: Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? McCLELLAN: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands. QUESTION: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this. Scott McClellan Press Briefing October 10, 2003 Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. The American Prospect Plugging Leaks March 8, 2004 I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name. Karl Rove CNN Interview August 31, 2004[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 i trust that he made those comments, but if we are working w/ the case, and they tell you to not talk about the case, you shouldn't do it... but here is the real kicker... but here is a fact that is being looked over... [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html"]washingtonpost.com[/url]... [quote][b]Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission[/b] Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role By Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A09 Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly. Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. [b]He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.[/b] Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report. [b]The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts.[/b] And 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 that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. [b]Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.[/b] [b]The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.[/b] Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer. Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name. The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional. The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said. [b]Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.[/b] [b]"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter,"[/b] Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. [b]"She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."[/b] Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview [b]yesterday[/b], saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me." The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. [b]The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.[/b] [b]The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."[/b] "Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. 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. [b]Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.[/b] [b]Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq[/b] -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq." According to the former [b]Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts,[/b] [b]Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.[/b] Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin. The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa." © 2004 The Washington Post Company[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Jul 12 2005, 06:34 PM']Good points, Jamie. The issue in the Wilson/Plame case is the premeditated intent of folks in the admin to engage in a smear campaign, and just how far they were willing to go to do it. Another point worth mentioning here is about Wilson, himself. People should look into his activities as the last diplomat to represent the US in Iraq, just previous to the Gulf War. Decide for yourself if he deserved the Rove treatment. Rick, the press corps is not retarded. The White House Press Corps has caught McClellan in a series of lies and they are holding his feet to the fire. Here's a [url="http://www.thismodernworld.com/"]link to a lefty blog [/url]that documents some of those lies. I'll quote a few of them here: [right][post="113676"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Thanks Homer, the other thing that bothers me is that the reporter should and probably does know better than to give that info out, you can do a story without telling the name of a CIA person. I don't know what the laws are but it's at the very least irresponsible and the reporter should be held to what the same thing Rove gets. I used to work in the NBC office up here so I have an appreciation for their desire to break a story and how one can get caught up in the excitement of that, but this is inexcusable. Every party responsible for putting that name out there should be punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 Thanks for the tip on the intel report. I downloaded it and read the relevant section on Niger (about 40 pages of a total of 521.) Very interesting stuff. There are a few new twists, but nothing that substantially alters Rove's exposure to potential charges. You know me so I'm rooting for the prosecutor. Rove is a immoral snake and it would be perfectly apt if the dictum were true in this instance: "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.