Glenn Reynolds declares that the big loser in the Leakgate case is the CIA, and not the White House leaking classified national security information to the press and lying about it under oath.
And this guy is a law professor?
» Breaking News
Jamie Lynn Spears Does Wal-Mart
More Pictures Of Lisa Ann As Sarah Palin Leak
Daisy De La Hoya To Star In ?Daisy Of Love? Reality Show
Bobby Bowden Quits As Clemson Tigers Head Coach
Considering that it’s the CIA’s job to keep a secret. and nearly all of Wash, D.C. does business by leaks, I would have to agree.
If the CIA can influence politics by manipulating intelligence, if that is what they have done (and it seems they have), then how does that make them different from the old Soviets’ KGB?
Although Reynolds is refining the gold of pure speculation, I think there is the possibility this was payback. It’s hard to imagine how such a complex operation could occur without the complete unwitting participation by BushCo
and minions, resulting in their own demise.
If it was a trap, it certainly wasn’t the humane Hav-A-Heart variety which avoids unnecessary injury.
The genius behind the these guys has been dieseled with the high octane fuel of Hubris. There are none so blind, as those who cannot see their own tragic flaw.
BTW;
Reynolds; Prove it.
So how do you explain the facts presented? Why would the CIA allow a NYT oped to be published by the husband of a “covert agent” who recommended him for the mission?
Instead of ad hominem attacks, try debunking the “facts”.
Oliver obviously doesn’t have a problem with a spy agency engaging in partisan politics.
When was the exact point when the Republicans decided they would turn more firepower against the CIA than terrorists?
Oh, and a Cheney/Rice/Bush supporter acting aghast and agog about “manipulating intelligence” goes into the hall of fame.
Are you claiming that Wilson’s wife did not suggest him for the trip? (Who’s saying she made the decision? She was simply involved.)
A secrecy agreement? If his wife is a covert agent, why wouldn’t the CIA ensure his involvement remained secret? Why wouldn’t he make sure he didn’t start discussing CIA missions? Was his wife unaware that he was writing this article?
His wife travels to and from Langley for years. He writes an article for the NYT about his CIA mission. The CIA was really working hard to keep Plame’s status a secret.
Does this make what the WH did alright? Nope.
Reynolds is pointing out that the CIA is either sloppy or was allowing Wilson to help them attack Bush.
If you disagree, then explain how the argument fails. It shouldn’t be difficult.
C’mon, you don’t take this guy seriously, do you? I just watched him on Howard Kurtz’s show (with Jeralyn Merritt) asserting that “most newspapers were against the war.” Most newspapers in what country, Iraq? Are you KIDDING me?
The funny part is they think Joe Wilson had no qualifications that would recommend him for the job. Ambassador to Iraq and Security Council expert on Africa. Nope. Nothing there. Now let’s turn the logic back. YES!!! The CIA must have been playing partisan politics! They must have been quite upset that the intelligence they were providing the Bush Administration was being misused. Only being asked for the pro-War intel that was all pure bunk and ignoring the part that says “Hey! We think this intelligence is crap!” They knew if it ever got called the WHite House would point fingers at them. I guess it must have been more CYA than Partisan Politics if they were setting Bush & Co. up though.
A spy agency engaging in partisan politics… by saying that the leaker of classified information should be investigated? Up is down in GOP land, as usual.
JWG has no facts. Jay C. has no brain.
Why would the CIA allow a NYT oped to be published by the husband of a covert agent who recommended him for the mission?
And they’d stop this how? Death ray?
This is the big Repug talking point; that Plame cut the orders for her hubby. The problem is it’s demonstrably false.
Oliver obviously doesn t have a problem with a spy agency engaging in partisan politics.
Most any agency in the federal govt. would have a serious problem if some politicos opted to compromise its personnel. Did the CIA leak? Not unless ‘leaking’ means referring a case to the DoJ.
Yes, the CIA made Scooter, et. al. leak the name of Valerie Plame. It was some sort of evil mind ray they had focused on the White House.
Does this make what the WH did alright? Nope.
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuut…
Reynolds is pointing out that the CIA is either sloppy or was allowing Wilson to help them attack Bush.
Not that either of these is true, but let’s just entertain this notion:
Attack? It is an ‘attack’ on Bush when you confront him with the truth? (Faulty Intel, No attempted yellowcake purchase, No WMD in Iraq). You do know that everything Wilson said turned out to be true, don’t you? Or are you not even ready to admit that?
Sadly, your argument doesn’t just fail, it’s warped at the core.
The argument fails because the CIA doesn’t own Wilson.
He is a private citizen they contracted to investigate a claim within his area of expertise.
And who says the CIA was attacking Bush? They were checking a claim Cheney’s office wanted verifed.
Sure the CIA has its problems, but the real losers in this case will always be those now facing indictment.
I don’t think they really cared about the trip. They already knew the claims were bunk, but had to do something when Cheney kept asking for more information. Bush did the same thing after 9-11, constantly asking Clarke and others to keep looking for a Hussein connection that didn’t exist.
Yes, the CIA was sloppy…
The CIA should have realized that if Wilson didn’t discover what the White House wanted him to discover, the White House would continually act in public as if it had never seen Wilson’s report. They should have realized that this would so incense Wilson that he would write an op-ed article telling the world what he found out. They should have realized that in response the White House, rather than admitting the facts, would try to smear Wilson by telling reporters that he was an unqualified hack whose wife got him the job, hence outing an undercover agent.
Very sloppy. Bad, bad, CIA.
To answer your question, JWG, if by “suggest him for the job” you mean “responded in a positive way when asked about her husband’s qualifications” then yes, Valerie Plame did do that. If you mean “came up with the idea of sending him” then no, there’s no compelling evidence for that. Wilson’s trip was not covert, not secret. The CIA had no power and no reason, at the time, to prevent him from writing about it. No reason to believe that publication of Wilson’s activities would focus any attention whatosever on his wife’s role.
I suspect that in the future, now that they know what faithless guardians of the public trust work at the White House, they’ll be doubly cautious.
Can I get a witness…that Glenn Reynolds is not only an idiot seeking self-salvation through auto-publicization (and in less than a less than robust discursive manner), but also maintains a creepily Reichstag-favoring taste in art?
Just look at the advertising artist inhabiting the sidecolumn at RedState.
Neo-Fascist-”Realism” at the height of self-necrotizing banality.
Viva so-called “degenerate art”!
Long live the resistance!
(We need a new Jean-Michel.)
I guess you haven’t read the indictment, Wilbur:
Ramirez (you do dishonor to my family name), you Rat:
Context is EVERYTHING.
Viz (to wit, and prior to the portion/’potion’ you try to cite authoritatively):
“in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions…”
That’s why it may be PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION, hijo.
Methinks Wilbur may have read the indictment closely, Nu-Skool Paco, and simply doesn’t buy your avant-dissimulation technique.
That’s ‘dissimulation’, chico, not ‘disassembling’ (a note for the rest of you post-Kool-Aid & now Evian-drinking folk).
Wilson confirmed Iraqi officials met with Niger s former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki in 1999 to discuss “expanding commercial relations.” Wilson said Iraq didn t buy any uranium from Niger. Please point out where the Bush administration claimed Iraq succeeded in purchasing uranium.
Furthurmore, Wison also said:
So he was not entirely correct…or was he?
Wilson only verified that no uranium was purchased from Niger. Period.
From WaPo (10/25/05):
Tuco: the indictment does not make clear where that information comes from: is it what Libby claims the CIA told him? In that case it is worthless. Did the CIA official testify to this before the grand jury? If so, who is this CIA official and was he involved in the decision-making process?
JWG, imporant words in what you quoted are “the Senate committee found”. That’s the Republicans on the Senate intelligence committee who, I’m sure, were quite happy to find some evidence to discredit Wilson. Not exactly the bests judges of the matter, are they? Most of their “findings” are under dispute.
But let’s not get sidetracked: even IF Valerie suggested Joe for the job, the CIA had no reason to suspect that Joe’s activities would lead to Valerie’s outing — unless they had reason to suspect that someone - in the White House, say - would have an interest in leaking the connection between the two.
Come to think of it, I suppose you’re right - they should have suspected that the White House would do that. Because the White House is full of political criminals, and everybody knows it.
So if Wilson lied, as some of the twisted cons here say, why does Fitzgerald not go after him. Could it be that Fitzgerald knows the difference from fact and GOP talking points in the echo chamber?
From the Internets:
“George W. Bush will repair what has been damaged . . . On the first hour of the first day, he will restore decency and integrity to the Oval Office.”
Dick Cheney
Speech to the 2000 Republican Convention
August 2, 2000
“My fellow citizens, we can begin again. After all of the shouting, and all of the scandal. After all of the bitterness and broken faith. We can begin again.”
George W. Bush
Speech to the 2000 Republican Convention
August 3, 2000
“Barely a third of Americans — 34 percent — think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Bill Clinton’s standing on this issue when he left office.”
Washington Post
White House Ethics, Honesty Questioned
October 30, 2005
Posted by billmon
then how difficult would it be for them to notice his wife works for the CIA?
If the White House is using her identity for cheap political smearage, then not difficult at all. As I said, given what we know about this WhiteHouse, you’re right about the CIA’s sloppiness.
SaveFarris: Nobody was indicted for leaking classified national security information to the press. They were indicted for lying about leaking classified national security information to the press.
Wilbur,
I don’t believe even this is true. If you had said “lying in an investigation of etc.” would be more correct.
“They were indicted for lying about leaking classified national security information to the press.”
Dugger, I went to the Special Prosecutor’s Republican Massacre Investigapalooza and All I Got was this Scooter Libby Perjury T-shirt.
Oliver, Remind us again which WH official was charged with leaking classifield information…
What law did he break?
By the way, I’m not arguing that Wilson lied. I’m showing that Reynolds asked a legitimate question that can’t be dismissed with ad hominem attacks. Debunk them using facts that can be cited.
As far as the CIA being sloppy, if some foreign agency becomes interested in Wilson because he talks about his CIA mission in public, then how difficult would it be for them to notice his wife works for the CIA?
Dugger, I’ll admit that Clinton committed perjury (for which he was never indicted) if you’ll admit that Libby pretty obviously leaked classified information.
Whether Libby knew the information was classified when he leaked it is more arguable.
Yeah, yeah…we get it. The WH leaked classified information. They suck.
Now, quit avoiding the point…Did the CIA and/or Wilson really try to protect Plame’s status? Didn’t they make it easier for foreign agents to discover Plame’s status (even if the WH hadn’t leaked)?
That is the point of Reynold’s post and the point of this thread.
Wilbur,
No offense, but what you or I think about Bubba has zilch to do with Plame. It is not at all obvious to me that Scooter Libby leaked classified information - if , by leak, we mean the first person to make it public or to reveal it privately to unauthorized individuals. After all, we have and the entire media have been talking about Plame publicly every since Novak. Were all of those columns/remarks a crime? No. Evidently even Novak’s wasn’t. So if I, you, the NY Times and Novak aren’t leakers, why is Libby? Was he the first to blow Plame’s cover? If so, why wouldn’t Fitzgerald have charged him? I suggest a couple of factors. One, the last minute full court press interview by the Prosecutor of Plame’s neighbors - where, according to some reports, it was common pre-Novak knowledge she was CIA. Two, multiple reports that Plame had already had her cover blown in the 1990’s (first via the Russians and then via a glitch in Switzerland with the Cubans). On the contrary, it seems obvious that Plame’s cover was clearly not blown by Libby. Hence, as I said long ago, what we have here is a person snared on a technicality in the investigation of a non-crime. As with Bubba, no serious harm done. IMO the big to-do re Plame is all political: get Bush. Has been since day one.
Dugger
Look, by saying that Wilson may have been less than truthful in talking about it came to be that he was chosen for the Niger trip, I’m not suggesting that he should be indicted. (That’s one of the left’s criteria for indicting someone, not mine.)
I’m merely pointing out is that some pundits have been saying that consistently, based on the SSIC report, that Plame did play a role in Wilson’s selection, only to be ridiculed as “right wing talking points.”
Fitzgerald is a precise and meticulous person. I think that if he put the following into the indictment,
it means that the senior CIA officer confirmed it. If this was not the truth, it would have been included in the perjury charges in the indictment.
Just stop with the Wilson lied line already. Wilson has repeatedly challenged the findings of the Senate intelligence report cited above.
JWG wrote this:
“Wilson confirmed Iraqi officials met with Niger s former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki in 1999 to discuss expanding commercial relations. Wilson said Iraq didn t buy any uranium from Niger. Please point out where the Bush administration claimed Iraq succeeded in purchasing uranium.”
Nice obfuscation there. Wilson did indeed confirm that Iraqi officials met with Niger’s former Prime Minister to discuss “expanding commercial relations” but he also said that there was no evidence that uranium WAS EVER DISCUSSED at that meeting.
Wilson told Wolf Blitzer: “There is nobody who has suggested that there is credible evidence that uranium was under discussion there.”
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/29/112057/87
Bush said in the State of the Union that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. And yet at the meeting where this was supposed to have occurred, there is no evidence that uranium was even discussed. The Bush administration (along withJWG) took the fact of the meeting and added their own assumption about what was discussed and used the combination to scare us into war. That’s manipulating intelligence my friend. Wilson simply stated that there was no basis for the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium. None what so ever. It was the seeking, not the buying, that Wilson was refuting or at the very least downplaying because there was no credible evidence for it.
Wilson sent a letter to the Senate Committee explaining this and asked it to re-interview the CIA reports officer who testified that Wilson said the opposite. Wilson has contested the suggestion that he was the anonymous source for the WaPo article on the forged documents. He has contested the report’s conclusion that he said he “misspoke” about the forgeries because he says he wasn’t the source being cited. He has contested the report’s conclusion that his wife suggested or sent him on the trip. Every talking point that begins with “Wilson lied…” is just that because Wilson has refuted every charge.
Thanks for doing that legwork, frameone, but let’s not let the wingers’ distraction techniques works.
Knock yourself out 20-20-hindsighting the CIA, guys, you’re not convincing anyone that that’s the real issue.
The real issue is that a responsible and non-partisan independent prosecutor thinks he has a very strong case that at least one high-ranking White House official engaged in coverup. He apparently doesn’t think he has enough to prosecute what they’re covering up, but we all know that coverups generally occur when someone has something to hide.
frame,
Read all 22 pages and they do NOT make your point. Five indictments, none citing unauthorized disclosure of classified information as the specific motivating factor (perjury, ostruction, false statements) . Why do you suppose Fitzgerald missed such an obvious point - if, IF, what you are saying is true? To help you a little, perhaps you mean, despite what Fitzgerald decided, that you THINK Libby did disclose classified. But then we get back to the wisdom of my original thought and perhaps, part of Fitzgerald’s problem. Was he-Libby- the first? After all, after a while, we were all talking about Valerie and the CIA. Why are we not guilty? Why was Novak not guilty? If Valerie’s cover was already blown and if it was known in certain areas that she was, pre Libby-pre Novak, CIA (note that the indictment provides the curious description that her affilation with the CIA was not common knowledge - that hardly conveys that it was a closely held secret). Could it be a little more complex than you think? Just possibly? I mean the indictment refutes your point.
Dugger
Wrongo!
“It is not at all obvious to me that Scooter Libby leaked classified information - if , by leak, we mean the first person to make it public or to reveal it privately to unauthorized individuals.”
Read the indictment Dugger. It’s clear as day:
“On or about the morning of July 8,2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller … LIBBY thereafter discussed with
Miller Wilson s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson s trip. During this discussion, LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson s wife worked for the CIA.”
As the indictment asserts through out, Wilson’s CIA status was classified. Is Judith Miller authorized to receive classified information? No.
Wilson said the Prime Minister steered the conversation away from trade discussions because Iraq had sanctions. The Prime Minister knew what Iraq wanted. What does “expanding commercial relations” mean?
Wilson stated on Meet The Press: “NBC s Meet the Press May 2, 2004:
Wilson: & At that meeting, uranium was not discussed. It would be a tragedy to think that we went to war over a conversation in which uranium was not discussed because the Niger official was sufficiently sophisticated to think that perhaps he might have wanted to discuss uranium at some later date.
What would happen once sanctions were lifted?
Why do you think Iraqi representatives went to Niger? To enjoy the sweet mint tea?
I’m not saying this justifies war. I’m saying Wilson’s trip did not debunk the Iraqi desire to aquire uranium.
So the WaPo reporters are lying when they say Wilson was their original source? You’ve got an awful lot of people lying (with several fabricated documents) in your paragraph with Wilson refuting all those charges from the CIA, the WaPo, the State Dept, and Senators.
Would you accept that from a Republican?
Why do you suppose Fitzgerald missed such an obvious point.
He didn’t. He alleged several instances where Libby made disclosures of information that was classified, then lied about those disclosures. He didn’t indict Libby for making those disclosures, presumably because he thought it would be too hard to prove in court that those disclosures were intentional.
But humor me, Dugger: let’s assume that Fitzgerald is correct and that Libby intentionally perjured himself about those disclosures. What motive do you imagine that he had for doing so, if it wasn’t to cover up something he knew was illegal, or at least immoral?
“IF Libby intentionally perjured himself … ”
This is redundant. Intent is part of the definition of perjury.
Dugger –
What Wilbur said. Fitzgerald time and time again in the indictments and in his press conference made the point that Libby leaked classified information. But the statutes he was looking at, in his determination, demanded that to bring those charges intent has to be a major factor. His entire baseball analogy speaks to the difficulty of proving intent. What you’re doing is assuming that just because Libby wasn’t charged with any crime in the handling of classified information that he didn’t still grossly mishandle said information. The indictments clearly suggest not only that Libby leaked the information to Miller, but that he was wrong in doing so.
As for JWG, Wilson reported that there was no evidence that uranium was discussed, meaning there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium. Everything else is based on assumption and speculation. Note that Bush didn’t say British intelligence are assuming, or surmising, or are make a good guess that Iraq thought about seeking uranium in a meeting. He said Iraq sought uranium. It never happened. You origanally asserted that Wilson reported that Iraq never acquired uranium and so was not contradicting Bush. That’s outright dishonesty on your part and your response to me proves you knew you were being dishonest when you wrote your initial post. The bottom line is Iraq may have wanted to seek uranium but wanting to and acitively seeking it are two very different things when you are making a case for Iraq as an imminent threat. Bush manipulated the intelligence to make the case for an immediate, preemptive war. In short, he fucking lied.
frame,
But Fitz certainly would have prosecuted for disclosure if he could have - and he didn’t.
OK. To humor you, though I don’t for one second buy the premise. IF Libby intentionally perjured himself, off the top of my keyboard, I could see no other reason than to protect himself from a greater crime, or to protect a higher up.
My take is that Libby was careless and got a little to loose in fighting back against Wilson’s hatchet job. I also believe, based partially on personal experience wherein someone being employed by the CIA is not that big of a secret and knowing how inteeligence services catalog and cross refernce the activities and movements of VIPs, that Valerie’s cover was blown way before Novak, Libby etc. I also believe Libby will not get convicted. I also believe if I’m wrong and he really did do some cheap shot political payback on Wilson and cavalielry tossed about Val’s CIA affiliation when it wasn’t known at all, then he should pay some legal price. But the wording of the indictment suggests this is not the case.
Dugger
“But Fitz certainly would have prosecuted for disclosure if he could have - and he didn t.”
That’s exaclty what I said. He would have but didn’t because he didn’t feel he could make the case for intent. It’s clear from reading the indictments that Fitzgerald believes Libby did indeed share classified information with unauthorized people. Namely, Miller. It’s intent that he couldn’t prove.
On yoru other point, read the indictment again, Dugger. It’s on page three:
“f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson ( Valerie Wilson ). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.”
What does this say? Her status was classified and it was not common knowledge outside people who are authorized to know it. You can cling to your personal experience all you want but it doesn’t mean a damn thing in this case. It’s right there in the indictment.
Save –
“Ms. Miller’s revelation that she was granted a DoD security clearance while embedded with the WMD search team in Iraq in 2003.”
Ya, right. First) a fucking total violation of all journalistic ethics and second) officials deny it:
WASHINGTON Officials from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon say they have no idea what New York Times reporter Judith Miller was talking about when she claimed to have been given a “security clearance” while she was embedded with a U.S. Army unit in Iraq in 2003.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9730308/
“There are no other reasons for Libby s perjury.”
Not if you talk to Frank. Frank seems to think there’s some scenario by which Libby had no choice but to perjure himself in order to avoid being wrongly charged with leaking classified information. In other words, Libby had to commit a crime in order to avoid being wrongly charged with a crime. I’m sure Frank will be along shortly to explain his theory in lucid (or semi-lucid) detail. I’ll leave him to it.
I could see no other reason than to protect himself from a greater crime, or to protect a higher up.
Dugger;
There are no other reasons for Libby’s perjury
And to think that Libby was acting autonomously; on this team? Surely you jest. Cheney and Libby are tied at the hip. He does nothing without running it past the VEEP.
But Fitz certainly would have prosecuted for disclosure if he could have - and he didn t.
Which doesn’t mean for a second that Libby wasn’t guilty of improper disclosure. Unfortunately, not all crimes are ones that can be prosecuted. As you yourself admit, if Fitz’ perjury case is valid, it’s hard to imagine that a larger crime isn’t behind the perjury. This isn’t like Clinton’s perjury or Cisneros’ lying where there’s an obvious non-criminal motive to the prevarication.
My take is that Libby was careless and got a little to loose in fighting back against Wilson s hatchet job.
Opinions are like nipple hairs: you’re entitled to yours just like everyone else. All I can say is that a non-partisan prosecutor who impressed everyone last friday with his professionalism and competence, and who knows a heck of a lot more about the facts of the case than either of us, seems to have a different opinion. With any luck we’ll see whose turns out to be closer to the truth.
Are classified and covert the same designation ?
Frameone : You leave off a specific clause in that quote about how Iraq had sought yellowcake, and that is that the British intelligence had learned of this. They continue to stand by their position. Are they lying, or is Wilson ?
Nope. Everything I said is 100% accurate. Wilson verified that an Iraqi representative traveled to Niger in 1999 for the purpose of “expanding commercial relations.” Wilson verified that the Nigerian Prime Minister knew this meant uranium.
If you don’t think traveling to Niger to discuss trade is “actively seeking” then you are being willfully obtuse. The fact that Niger did not want to illegally trade with Iraq has no bearing on Iraqi intent. Therefore, I repeat: Wilson’s mission confirmed that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger but was unsuccessful.
Bush clearly stated in his 2003 SOTU, “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.” Obviously, Bush made the opposite claim that you just applied to him.
JD –
It isn’t British intelligence versus Wilson. It’s British intelligence versus everybody, including the Bush administration which retracted its assertion after even George Tenet called foul.
Bullshit JWG. You wrote:
“Wilson said Iraq didn t buy any uranium from Niger. Please point out where the Bush administration claimed Iraq succeeded in purchasing uranium.
This is not accurate by a long shot and you know it because Wilson’s central problem with Bush was precisely that he could find no evidence that Iraq SOUGHT uranium. You were spinning shit in your first post and your still spinning shit. (BTW, I note you have not returned to defend your original point about what Wilson was talking about.)
Wilson said that there was no credible evidence that uranium was ever discussed at the meeting in question. It simply never came up. Even if everybody in the room knew that Iraq might want uranium, they never mentioned it and neither did the the Niger officials. If there was no evidence that uranium was even discussed how does that become “Iraq sought uranium in Africa.” Only if you manipulate the intelligence. Only if you simply make shit up.
You just wrote:
“If you don t think traveling to Niger to discuss trade is actively seeking then you are being willfully obtuse. The fact that Niger did not want to illegally trade with Iraq has no bearing on Iraqi intent. Therefore, I repeat: Wilson s mission confirmed that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger but was unsuccessful.”
In order to get to the last sentence you have to deliberately bend and twist the actual facts that Wilson reported. In your mind Iraq wanting to “discuss trade” becomes “was actively seeking uranium.” This even though the subject of uranium was never broached by either side at the meeting? How could Iraq be unsuccessful in purchasing uranium if the never asked if they could buy any?
Wislon told Wolf Blitzer this:
“The second meeting was between the [Niger] prime minister and an Iraqi, who turned out to be the minister of information in the second Iraq war, on the margins of an international organization meeting in Algiers. And during the course of that meeting, actually before the meeting, the prime minister who took the meeting because a constituent asked him to, pondered whether or not uranium might be something to discuss…”
Before the meeting the prime minister of Niger spoke to his aides about whether or not to bring up uranium during the discussion and he decided against it. And then the Iraqis didn’t bring it up either.
Wilson goes on to say this:
“BLITZER: But is there any other export that Niger has?
WILSON: But it was not raised as a subject, so it is hard to get from there to saying that we have learned or the British government has learned that Iraq has attempted to purchase significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Exactly. Which is what Wilson reported and what got twisted around by the Committee. You are doing the same thing Wilson accussed the Bush administration of doing. Twisting intelligence to make a case for war based on assumptions and bullshit.
But now if you’re argument now rests on the Bush administration not claiming Iraq was an imminent threat, good fucking luck with that. Bush was taking a wait and see attitude? Bush was talking about waiting until the sanctions were lifted to see what Iraq would do? Ya right. More dishonesty on your part.
WTF was Iraq doing in Niger, then? You leep avaoiding this point. You’re the one twisting the facts.
There’s nothing to defend. Wilson stated in his NYT article, “It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place,” and “In short, there’s simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.”
This proves how poorly you comprehend what is in front of you. Bush argued that we should NOT wait until the threat was imminent. The quote was clear. You mistake ignorance on your part as deception on my part.
FU Karl: You Can’t Change the Subject on ME!
by mbair
Well said.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/1/73636/9854
Too late.
Dugger –
I should add that you are completely ignoring the fact that Fitzgerald suggested that the reason he did not bring a charge of revealing classified information was only because the statutes he was looking at required, in his estimation, that he prove intent. He said clealry that he did not have the evidence needed to prove intent, in part, because Libby lied to the grand jury. Again, the fact that Fitzgerald didn’t bring a charge for leaking classified information, does not mean that classified information was not leaked and the Wilson’s cover was not blown. He says, emphatically, her status was classified and that he cover was blown. What exaclty are you arguing? That Fitzgerald doesn’t mean it? You seem to think that we still living in a pre-indictment world where you’re bullshit speculation means something. It doesn’t. It got you by in every other thread before Friday because no one knew that much. But now we know a hell of a lot more. We have Fitzgerald’s own words and they don’t support your idle speculation. Not one bit.
“WTF was Iraq doing in Niger, then? You leep avaoiding this point. You re the one twisting the facts.”
Jesus, JWG. I’m not avoiding this point and neither was Wilson. Read his exchange with Blitzer again:
BLITZER: But is there any other export that Niger has?
WILSON: But it was not raised as a subject, so it is hard to get from there to saying that we have learned or the British government has learned that Iraq has attempted to purchase significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Look at the dance you have to do to assert that Iraq was seeking uranium and that Wilson confirmed it.
Facts:
1. Wilson confirmed that Iraqi and Niger officials met to discuss trade.
2. Wilson reported that there was no credible evidence that uranium was dicussed during the meeting, in part, because, Niger officials decided not to bring it up.
From these two facts, first you got: Wilson supports the claim that Iraq failed to purchase uranium from Niger.
Then you switched to: Wilson confirmed that Iraq sought uranium from Niger.
If you stick with what Wilson actually reported you would realize that Iraq failed to purchase uranium because THEY NEVER EVEN DISCUSSED IT. That’s a pretty odd way of actively seeking something, isn’t it? I already said that it doesn’t matter what Niger officials thought Iraq’s intent was, the subject of uranium never came up so prove for a fact that they were seeking it. Wilson reported that there is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. None. Zero. Zip. All you have is the assumption that they wanted uranium, afterall, “What else were they there to talk about?” It’s a reasonable assumption but are we now justifying pre-emptive wars on assumptions? Damn what a high fucking standard we’ve set. But then again, was Bush arguing we should invade Iraq based on assumptions? No. Because Bush didn’t say that British intelligence “assumed” Iraq was seeking uranium. He said we knew for a fact that Iraq was seeking it. As Wilson has argued repeatedly: There is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. Again: Zip. Zero. Zilch.
Bush made that case that we had to go to war because Iraq was actively engaging in a WMD programs that included nuclear weapons. So we had to go to war right then and there. Bush and his team played it real smooth moving back and forth between accusations of “actively seeking uranium” and “we can’t wait until the threat is imminent.” What a bunch of double speak bullshit. Imminent or not, Bush was arguing for war right then because Iraq was actively seeking the means to build a bomb. You’re only perpetuating the same lies and distortions to turn around say that Bush wasn’t trying to convicne the American people that we needed to invade Iraq ASAP. I will direct you to other administration statements that further the idea that we had to invade Iraq sooner rather than later because they posed an immediate threat to the United States:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970
Dugger — Are you and JWG dyslexic or something? I never said there was a charge for disclosing classified information but that doesn’t mean that Wilson’s status at the CIA wasn’t classified. Fitzgerald clearly, plainly asserts that her status was indeed classified. Read the passage I quoted again:
From the INDICTMENT:
f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson ( Valerie Wilson ). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.
Here’s this from his press conference:
“Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security.
Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.”
Now tell me that Fiztgerald has doubts about whether or not Wilson’s status at the CIA was classified and that her cover was blown. Tell me he doesn’t think it was a serious breach of security. Remember, you’re not arguing with me now. You’re arguing with the man who knows more than anyone about the investigation.
frame,
it clearly is NOT there in the indictment. No charge for disclosing classified. None. Nada. Zilch. Fitzgerald who knows more about this than any man in the world, said no. Think just a second. The Plame information could have been originally classified, but if it was in the public arena, it all became meaningless. Again, why was Novak’s article not a crime? Why is our discussion not a crime? Because the information is in the public arena. So when did this happen? Obviously Novak is not going to jail. And they are not knocking on your and my door. How do we all differ from Libby? Do you assume Libby was the first to blow Val’s cover. I don’t, because I think Fitzgerald would have ben all over him if that were the case. If you want to make a cheap rhetorical point that that Libby may have disussed classified, fine. But so did you and I. So did Novak. So did every paper in the world. Common sense tells us that she must have been blown (there is some evidence to this effect) well before any of this.
And think about this wording: “was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Why didn’t he say was a secret outside the intelligence community or was unknown. You know what ‘not commonly known’ is? Known!
Dugger
Yeah, traveling to Niger is an odd way to try “expanding commercial relations.”
Yes. I even provided quotes from Wilson’s NYT article.
Not quite: if you look back I actually stated “Wilson’s trip” or “Wilson’s mission.” Wilson confirmed an Iraqi official traveled to Niger for the purpose of “expanding commercial relations.” I did not claim that Wilson himself argued that Iraq sought uranium. I claimed that the facts that he reported support the Iraqi intention.
Except for the fact that an Iraqi representative traveled to Niger for the sole purpose of drinking tea.
There were more justifications. If this was the only one, then I would agree with you completely. This was one piece in a bigger puzzle.
These are the same. Seeking means they don’t have it yet.
I said the exact opposite. Bush WAS trying to convince people we needed to invade Iraq as soon as possible — before Iraq had the capacity to employ WMD. I’ve said this three times now.
that should read: “… sent them home without* the uranium they had sought.”
Because Wilson isn’t the sole authority on interpreting the evidence that he reported. (When a scientist reports evidence to support or refute an hypothesis, that person is not the only one who possesses the right to interpret what it means.)
Are you willing to let the collectors of evidence be the only ones to interpret those facts in a court of law? I doubt it.
One piece in a bigger puzzle that included aluminum tubes and massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons? That’s some big picture there.
“I did not claim that Wilson himself argued that Iraq sought uranium. I claimed that the facts that he reported support the Iraqi intention.”
No they don’t. He said that the Niger officials questioned whether they should discuss uranium with the Iraqis but then decided against it:
The second meeting was between the [Niger] prime minister and an Iraqi, who turned out to be the minister of information in the second Iraq war, on the margins of an international organization meeting in Algiers. And during the course of that meeting, actually before the meeting, the prime minister who took the meeting because a constituent asked him to, pondered whether or not uranium might be something to discuss&
How can you prove for a fact that the Iraqi’s were there to seek uranium is uranium was never discussed? You have to assume that the only reason Iraq would want to discuss trade with Niger was to discuss uranium. I said that’s reasonable but there’s no evidence supporting that they indeed were seeking uranium. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Everytime I quote you Wilson directly on this point you come back with, well why else would they be there? Wilson addresses with the Blitzer:
BLITZER: But is there any other export that Niger has?
WILSON: But it was not raised as a subject, so it is hard to get from there to saying that we have learned or the British government has learned that Iraq has attempted to purchase significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Bush said that British intelligence said Iraq sought uranium in Africa. Re-read the quote above. Wilson reported nothing that supports this claim. Nothing at all. But you keep saying he did because we have to assume that’s why Iraq went. Well Wilson himself rejects that reading of his report. But you keep right on reading it that way. Why?
Let me phrase my other point: Bush made the case that Iraq was actively seeking uranium because it bolstered the case that we had to strike Iraq immediately. It’s really splitting hairs to say that Iraq wasn’t an imminent threat but that we nevertheless have to act imminently, isn’t it, because either way — Iraq is an imminent threat, Iraq isn’t an imminent threat — we have to attack now. The point is that Iraq wasn’t a threat at all to the United States at the time of the 2003 SOTU, in part, because everything Bush said to argue that it was, wasn’t true.
Here’s another way of looking at it:
You wrote this:
“Wilson s mission confirmed that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger but was unsuccessful.”
When you say that Wilson confirmed Iraq failed to purchase uranium you are implying that he believed Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium and failed. This is straight up not true. Wilson wrote: “It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.”
Why? You attempt to suggest that Wilson found this to be the case because Iraq tried to purchase uranium but because Niger officials keep such a close eye on uranium sales they rebuffed the Iraqis and sent them home with the uranium they had sought. This is a totally misleading reading of what Wilson says he reported to the CIA. Wilson said that it was highly doubtful the transaction had ever taken place because there is no evidence that Iraq had ever actually tried to purchase uranium. To arrive at what your conclusion above you have to ignore what Wilson reported about what Iraq tried and didn’t try to do and jump to what he reported the Niger official assumed Iraq wanted to talk about, but never actually did. So again, you’re back to assumptions. But Wilson never confirmed anything that the Bush administration said about Iraq seeking uranium. So you’re whole line that Wilson is a liar is a bullshit diversionary tactic.
Otherwise, find me the direct quote where Wilson himself says “It’s clear that Iraq sought uranium in Niger.” Give me that quote and you will have proved your point. Without it, you got nothing.
Nope…you just have trouble separating what you want to believe with what you actually read which has led to your reading comprhension problems. Your mind mixes your view of Republican talking points with what other people who disagree with you write.
I do not admit this. I am arguing based on what I have read for myself. I read what Wilson wrote. I have only quoted from what he has explicitly stated. The fact that Wilson may interpret his evidence a certain way does not require everyone else to do the same. I never claimed Wilson supported anything he hasn’t stated. “Wilson’s mission” clearly refers to the evidence he reported. It does not reference Wilson’s own thoughts. There is nothing slippery about it.
The fact that you can’t separate a person’s beliefs from the evidence they collect is your problem…not mine.
JWG you so fuckig slippery. That’s not the argument you made? Then why has taken all this time for to admit that you are not talking about what Wilson reported but rather how others have interpreted that report? Damn, that’s some disingenous shit. How else is anyone supposed to read this comment:
“Wilson s mission confirmed that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger but was unsuccessful.”
Wilson did not confirm this. Oh, wait, but his mission did. Ya, that’s the ticket.
That kind of flies in the face of your direct statement that “Wilson s mission confirmed that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger but was unsuccessful.” What you really meant to say was “Certain readings of Wilson’s mission, which Wilson himself rejects, confirm that Iraq sought to purchase uranium.” Isn’t this what you really should have said then? But then again, that would sort of wreck the right’s “Wilson confirmed what the president said” line, wouldn’t it?
Considering this is not the argument I made…I don’t really care.
Okay. Here’s where the problem lies. You seem to think that Wilson’s evidence demonstrated Iraq sought uranium. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wilson reported that he could find no credible evidence whatsoever that Iraq sought uranium. You are basing your comments on what others think Wilson’s evidence said. So I would ask that in the future you make this clear: “Wilson says he did not find any crddible evidence that Iraq sought uranium in Niger but others have interpreted his findings differently.” That’s a whole lot different than where you originally started asserting the Wilson never contradicted anyting Bush said in the SOTU. Granted you were not arguing that Wilson lied — although other righties have used the same argument you’re making to say that he did (http://tinyurl.com/akw7c) — you were just twisting his findings to argue that he never contradicted the president and, indeed, confirmed what the president said. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.
Nope. That’s what you may infer, but that’s not what I argued. I made two clear points: 1) Wilson directly claimed Iraq did not purchase uranium, and 2) Wilson’s evidence demonstrated Iraq sought uranium. I did not argue that Wilson believed anything he did not explicitly state.
Hmmm…where did I do this?
Please point out where I argued that Wilson was a liar. You have ONCE AGAIN misrepresented what I have written. You’ve done this in several comments. It’s quite a habit — is it due to a lack of reading comprehension or is it a deliberate tactic?
God. Fuck. Dugger. Give me a break. Have you even read the indictments?
I’m only telling what’s in the indictments and what Fitzgerald said at the press conference. I know you haven’t actually understood the indictments because of how completely foolish your hypotheticals are.
Libby was just repeating what was already in the public arena? That’s what Libby said he was doing. And that’s why HE’S BEING CHARGED WITH PERJURY!!!!! Get it straight. Libby said he heard about Wilson from other reporters, that it was something he just heard on the wind, that everyone was talking about it. But that’s not true, says Ftizgerald. Libby was at the beginning of chain of information, not the end. So why didn’t Fitzgerald bring charges for leaking classified information? It isn’t because the information wasn’t classified. Fitzgerald says repeatedly that Wilson’s status at the CIA was classified. You’re the one arguing that Fitzgerald means something other than classified when he says classified. So, again, why no charges?
“Well, could that be because [intent] didn t appear to be there?” DUH. YES. That’s what Fitzgerald is saying. He couldn’t prove intent so he didn’t bring charges on leaking classified information. Does Fitzgerlad say anything about Libby’s intent to leak? No except to say he couldn’t prove Libby’s state of mind when he leaked the information. But it’s pretty clear that Fitzgerald believes Libby leaked classified information. He says several times that Wilson’s status was classified and that her cover was blown. The first sign of her cover being blown was Novak’s column, Fitzgerald says this directly, explicity in his press conference: “The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.” But the first time in the indictments that Fitzgerald reports a transfer of information from Libby to a reporter was when Libby spoke to Miller in June. It’s there in the inictment:
“On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a former Hill staffer rather than to a senior administration official, as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson s trip. During this discussion, LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson s wife worked for the CIA.”
Previously Fitzgerald states in the indictment that Wilson’s status at the CIA was classified at every point leading up to Novak’s column. Of course when in doubt argue that perjury is no big deal. Great. Hell of a case you got there Dugger.
frame,
You’re having to write too much. But nevertheless, you are ignoring certain key points in your counter argument. You stated passive voice that Val’s cover was blown. Well of course, but when and by whom? And if by Libby, why wouldn’t Fitzgerald have done something? You weasel on this point by saying Fitzgerald says he could not prove intent. Well, could that be because