Take it slow and easy Larry and hang on ... the apologist for the scumbags will be in shortly. The apologist has been kinda tied up ... beating back the brush fires in the box canyons of his own mind.

~OGD~

Libby, clearly aware that Pincus' article would hit the streets the next day, pressed the CIA to go on the record that the CIA, not the Vice President, sent Libby.

Larry, should not the last word in that sentence be "Wilson"?

I remain confused.

Has the Administration ever said that the President was referring to the Niger story in the "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address?

If so how, when, and by whom was that admission first made?

Does anyone know?

The 16 words mentioned specifically that Iraq attempted buy Uranium from Africa, and attributed to British intelligence.
This was a claim widely disputed in the American intelligence community in the months leading up to the State of the Union.

When Wilson's trip becomes public, it was painfully evident that the Administration knew much earlier that the 16 words were not true.

Cheneyites couldn't stop the leaks, but they could discredit the messenger. Lovely bunch.

Really? The "American intelligence community" disputed the Brits' claim "in the months leading up to the State of the Union"?

Do you have any reported support for that assertion? any links, perhaps?

Enlighten me if you will.

And I am definitely not being coy. 

Have you got a reference for or a link to that "article"?

Actually, it looks like the first to make the connection may have been Sy Hersh:

President Bush cited the uranium deal [the Niger story], along with the aluminum tubes, in his State of the Union Message, on January 28th, while crediting Britain as the source of the information: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Although his article does not indicate what caused him to make the connection.

I think you're right (see my comment, below).

But what caused Hersh to link the Niger story to the "16 words"?  The article doesn't seem to explain it. 

See my 'ps' in my reply below... (or above, whichever way you've elected to view the thread) 

~OGD~ 

Yes. Read the CIA memo you obtuse tool.

Ellen: the entire topic of Nigergate is so complicated that I hesitate to wade into the fray, but for an excellent in-depth analysis (and I do mean in depth), you might be interested in reading the Uranium from Africa and Treasongate FAQ compiled by a poster with the name of eriposte at the LeftCoaster site. His/her research on the topic has been cited by LaRepublica, the Italian newspaper that exposed a lot of the forgery side of the story, and even by Wilson, in his CNN interview.

Here's one tidbit that begins to answer your original question (there's lots more at the link):

On October 2, 2002, the Deputy DCI testified before the SSCI. Senator Jon Kyl asked the Deputy DCI whether he had read the British white paper and whether he disagreed with anything in the report. The Deputy DCI testified that "the one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. We've looked at those reports and we don't think they are very credible.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

Ellen:

Really? The "American intelligence community" disputed the Brits' claim "in the months leading up to the State of the Union"? Do you have any reported support for that assertion? any links, perhaps?

Maybe if you had actually read Johnson's previous piece: "Dick Cheney Was Briefed by CIA on Niger" more intently, if at all, and actually noticed what he had written you wouldn't have to ask him for a link. Now try this from his previous piece: "the CIA memo introduced (pdf) during the first week of the Libby trial" ... and get back here with your take on whether it answers your question above. Make sure you read the entire report, very carefully.

In the event you don't return with an answer I'll assume that that report has filled you in.

~OGD~

Why are you re-arguing points that have been discarded years ago?

What are democrats waiting for?

Well, I think we first have to convince Ellen that George W. Bush is actually the President of the United States. She wants to see a record of the transcript from the Electoral College.

Perhaps the link and excerpt below will help Ellen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916_pf.html

Iraq's alleged uranium shopping had been strongly disputed in the intelligence community from the start. In a closed Senate hearing in late September 2002, shortly before the October NIE was completed, then-director of central intelligence George J. Tenet and his top weapons analyst, Robert Walpole, expressed strong doubts about the uranium story, which had recently been unveiled publicly by the British government. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, likewise, called the claim "highly dubious." For those reasons, the uranium story was relegated to a brief inside passage in the October estimate.

But the White House Iraq Group, formed in August 2002 to foster "public education" about Iraq's "grave and gathering danger" to the United States, repeatedly pitched the uranium story. The alleged procurement was a minor issue for most U.S. analysts -- the hard part for Iraq would be enriching uranium, not obtaining the ore, and Niger's controlled market made it an unlikely seller -- but the Niger story proved irresistible to speechwriters. Most nuclear arguments were highly technical, but the public could easily grasp the link between uranium and a bomb.

Tenet interceded to keep the claim out of a speech Bush gave in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, but by Dec. 19 it reappeared in a State Department "fact sheet." After that, the Pentagon asked for an authoritative judgment from the National Intelligence Council, the senior coordinating body for the 15 agencies that then constituted the U.S. intelligence community. Did Iraq and Niger discuss a uranium sale, or not? If they had, the Pentagon would need to reconsider its ties with Niger.

The council's reply, drafted in a January 2003 memo by the national intelligence officer for Africa, was unequivocal: The Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest. Four U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge said in interviews that the memo, which has not been reported before, arrived at the White House as Bush and his highest-ranking advisers made the uranium story a centerpiece of their case for the rapidly approaching war against Iraq.

Bush put his prestige behind the uranium story in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address. Less than two months later, the International Atomic Energy Agency exposed the principal U.S. evidence as bogus. A Bush-appointed commission later concluded that the evidence, a set of contracts and correspondence sold by an Italian informant, was "transparently forged."

sly

Link correction to article:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/articles/030714fr_archive02?030714fr_archive02

Demand the Truth for America

Calling TJKING, calling TJKING...

Jan Knaus

An awful lot of commenters here seem unable to answer the most interesting question arising out of the Libby trial:

Why did the OVP take the actions it did after the publication of the Kristof, Pincus, and Wilson articles?

Note: That the Administration ginned up support for the war with a bunch of innuendos and half-truths or that it pressured the CIA to see things its way are not issues. We've all known that that's what it was doing since the day Andrew Card told us you don't roll out a marketing campaign in August.

The neo-cons interest in the Niger story is evident in their Fall 2001 Rome meetings; Cheney's interest is apparent in his early 2002 questioning of the CIA. But what is the evidence that either the neo-cons or the OVP continued that interest after Wilson returned from Niamey?

All good liberals -- and aren't we all -- would wish to find Darth Vader's fingerprints on the "16 words" but wishing and hoping don't substitute for evidence, judicial or historical.

Again, other than the obvious answer that the OVP was at war with the CIA which the OVP thought was using Wilson as a stalking horse to deflect attention away from its own incompetent pre-war performance, what is the answer to the question of why Cheney should care what Wilson "found" in Niamey.

I and others (the entire press corps among that others) didn't see the reference to the British as a qualification. 

I know that as I listened to the SOTUS I took Bush's statement to mean that the US Intelligence Community had agreed with the Brits' findings and that in referring to the "British" Bush was merely giving credit where credit was due.

I could not imagine that in so weighty a speech as the SOTUS and in respect to such a highly critical fact the President would state that fact unless our own intelligence agencies agreed that the fact was true.

While waiting, you may enjoy a look at a press release from March 14, 2004, by The LABB.  If you are wondering about attribution,their next listed press release may  provide you with enough data.

 cheers... pdca

I think the real answer to "why" may be as simple as "why not?"

Really, I agree that being found out as having willfully Terrorized the American People with a false "bomb threat" of "Mushroom Clouds!!!" is not something that would ordinarily raise an eyebrow for someone like cheney. One would require a conscience to begin with.

And he wouldn't be the least bit concerned about leaving his fingerprints on the year-old trashbin he fetched the decade-old forgeries out of, to reactive "concern" about the possibility of applying his one-percent doctrine of leaving no fear left unmongered.

After all, the black-letter constitutional law of "Urinary Authoritarian Executive**" dictates that there isn't a damn thing any US Congress, Federal Court, or Sovereign American Public could do about it anyway. It's not like the regime needs any stinking badges.

No, I think it's like mountain climbing. He did it because it was there.

The opportunity to kill a woman -- and perhaps her entire clandestine network -- just doesn't come up that often for a chickenhawk whose ruthlessness has met its bounds. He just couldn't pass that up. That last heart attack could come at anytime.

Why not go for the gusto. Heck, there was even the outside chance for a non-medically-assisted erection that even shooting a guy in the face failed to provide.

I'd say call it a whim, a lark. A zest for living.

A chance to die with the most toyed-with.

-----
**Urinary Executive Theory or Urinary Authoritarian Executive (slang, DCspeak)
n., (en)title -- the "newly-discovered," or "inherent" (i.e., faith-based) Constitutional Authority for an appointed ruler (as opposed to elected leader) to piss down the back of the American People and tell them it's raining.

See also, Trickle-Down Economics

Yes (excellent citation); but what was the "coverage" Libby wanted? Or better, what was the "controversy" he wished to shape?

That Cheney did/didn't send Wilson to Niamey? That the Niger story was/wasn't bogus? That the Niger story was/wasn't the subject matter of the "16 words"? That Wilson was/wasn't a CIA asset?

Was it a WHIG/CIA turf battle? 

Assuming it was worried, what was the OVP worried about?

This is getting old. How can so many here argue that the ends (Proving Bush lied when he stated the 16 words) justifies the means (bush haters lying).

Bush's statement was true. Pincus and Wilson are liars. Since we know Bush told the truth, the means is nothing but a bunch of lying bush haters that failed to prove their original allegation.

I find it hard to believe that when Pincus met Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame for breakfast to discuss Wilson's Niger work for CIA, that Plame sat silent and didn't add a comment or two here and there. I also remember your remark, Larry, that you referred to the Wilson's in the plural when you said they exposed Bush's lies with their OP-ED.

But wait, Maybe if you guys keep lying and spinning, something might come up.

Larry is casting Pincus as a Saint and Wilson as a hero, but both of them alternately call the other one a liar over who said that Wilson saw and debunked the forged documents. Even if Wilson is hoping Pincus will fall on his sword for his pusher, why would Wilson (under oath) tell the Senate that he had misspoken to Pincus regarding the documents.

Larry still hasn't addressed the Primary premise of his last article that Cheney was briefed by CIA upon the return of Wilson from Niger. Where is the proof? Says who? just one link maybe?

There seems to be a lot of people here saying the British based their intel on US information, or that it is based solely on the Forged documents, or that the US didn't agree with the Brits and Bush used it as a semantical trick (the clever mastermind Bush).

The British empaneled commision after commision including the Butler report and all agreed that their assertion tht Iraq had "sought" yellowcake was true.

Bush would not have cited the British if he was not asserting that he agreed with the British on this. He was mentioning it to show that the US believed the assertion and in addition, the British believed the assertion.

The Liberal Guardian, said of Tony Blair and his government:

"... that their claim was based on "extra material, separate and independent from that of the US." ..."

Larry, your attempts to beatify Wilson and Pincus based on flimsy and conflicting information is nothing more than a vain attempt to take a bad investment in a bunch of liars and throw good money after bad.

They lied. Period.

what?

TJK, we almost always do not agree, but you are too smart to believe what you wrote in this post. Facts are always welcome but the comments you made above belong in a washing machine on the spin cycle, followed by a thorough rinse down the drain.

We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Molly Ivins (1944-2007)

Seashell, if facts are welcome then let me know which part you think I would not believe in and maybe we can wash the topic with some facts.

While we are discussing liberal reporters falsely attributing sources, Molly Ivins is a plagerist too. I do believe that and it has the added advantage of being a fact.

I thinks it's due time for someone to get up off their butt and go enlighten their own world ... there's a whole world at their finger-tips through a myriad of search engines...

Someone else can play this game if they wish...

adios.... apura

~OGD~

... when and how.

~OGD~

Folks...

refer: this comment....

~OGD~

There has been a great deal of spin that the CIA did not want the 16 words in. They posit the idea that the US government used the British remark as a way to get around the allegation that the US did not believe the "Iraq SOUGHT" argument.

The "British said" angle was meant to imply that we believe the "Iraq sought" intel and ALSO the British independently believe it. It was clearly not a duck, it was an enhancement.

And regarding the CIA thoughts on the issue. It was because of requests from and the concurrence of, Alan Foley, Plame's boss that the British remark was included in the 16 words.

I think you let the Bush/Cheney war machine off WAY too EASY! Next time add some more adjectives that get to their rotten core (LOL)! Jan Knaus

Tony, I was excited to see one of your delightful responses for the first time. Really.

How entertaining.

I especially love your metaphors and adjectives. Does your mouth start to foam up when you say sexed-up, dodgy, rabid, perverted contamination of your intelligence levels caused by the constant repitition of the cut and pasted phrase "fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government rabid desire".

Really, I had this great image of you with foam and suds oozing out of your mouth as you banged on the keyboard.

You first sentance:

"...Your twisting twirling mangling of facts TJK is beyond the scope of any single thread to unravel or repair...."

Yes, its true, the facts that I introduced you to are capable of twisting, twirling and mangling your "corrupted intelligence" to the point where you can not provide even the most basic rational argument to refute even a single fact. You have proven that quite effectively.

You might want to clean the foam off your keyboard.

Folks like TJ are what makes this country what it is today....a country that has made a very:

..bad investment in a bunch of liars and (is) throw(ing) good money after bad.

Folks...

refer: this comment....

~OGD~

Seashell, I would very much like to see a link to this reference to Bolton. Bolton and WINPAC had almost daily contact in the early stages of this story. I would be very interested to hear more about what you know.

Discarded by whom? Ellen is only asking a question about allegations Larry made recently regarding this memo. So apparently Larry hasn't discarded it. He is trying to convince everyone that the memo has a hidden message that describes a yet unknown briefing Cheney received about Niger upon Wilson's return. No One has been able to find the part that he based last weeks article on. Its a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

More clues that Andrea Mitchell helped tip off the whole NBC crew (Russert, Gregory, Matthews, etc.) of Plame's involvement early on. This interview was 72 hours after the Wilson OP-ED came out.

As you know, not long after this Mitchell said in an interview, that Mr. Wilson's wife's employmnt at the CIA had been well known by most of the reporters that worked her beat well before this all started.

Note how her inside CIA contacts were already telling her that Cheney did not order the trip, that "covert operatives" (funny words) at CIA were freelancing when they sent him.

July 8, 2003

"...

BORGER: Andrea, this being Washington, somebody's going to have to take the fall for this. The president giving faulty information in a State of the Union address is not something that makes the president very happy. So who is going to end up taking the fall?

MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that it's not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

So one of Wilson's assumptions, which is that Dick Cheney asked the CIA about this allegation from a foreign intelligence service and that he was sent as a result of that, may not, in fact, be true. It could very well be that the vice president is correct, that he never asked for Joe Wilson to be sent, that it was a much lower level. And Condi Rice may, in fact, have been accurate when she said very recently to Russert on "Meet the Press" that this was buried deep in the bowels of the CIA...."

I have been reliably informed by Ellen and TJKING (who sure sound like Sue and Seixon from Tom Maguire's site) that the sun rises in the west, the moon is made of green cheese, and being sodomized by an elephant is actually a spiritual high.

I applaud the kind souls who wasted reason, kindness, and logic on these troll turds. I come back to one simple question, if George Bush actually spoke the truth (i.e., the 16 words) in the State of the Union in January 2003, then why did the White House release a statement in July saying they shouldn't have included it? Sure, they blamed it on the CIA, but as we see now in multiple intelligence community documents, Bush and Cheney just would not take no for an answer. Small wonder then that ass-clowns like Ellen and TJKING act like their masters.

And now my friends, you understand the frustration felt by CIA analysts who kept telling Bush and Cheney the truth and they kept denying it. With big difference, Bush and Cheney were their bosses. I guess we owe Ellen and TJKING thanks for demonstrating what the intelligence community was up against.

Larry still hasn't addressed the Primary premise of his last article that Cheney was briefed by CIA upon the return of Wilson from Niger. Where is the proof? Says who? just one link maybe?

TJK, OK, here's a couple of links. The first one is from the June 9, 2003 CIA 'urgent' memo sent to Libby and Hannah. The memo was a time-line that includes this March 8th entry which starts out with:

March 8 2002 The Directorate of Operations disseminated information...

Go to the link because the pdf won't allow copying to read the rest (p.3). You will notice that the receivers of the information is not made known.

Now follow this link to another timeline and scroll down to March 8, 2002, which reads in part:

March 8, 2002

The CIA sends a 1 1/2-page cable to the White House, the FBI, the Justice Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, with news that a CIA source (Joseph Wilson) sent to Niger has failed to find any evidence to back claims that Iraq sought uranium from that country. [Knight Ridder, 6/12/2003; ABC News, 6/12/2003; Knight Ridder, 6/13/2003; Washington Post, 6/13/2003; BBC, 7/8/2003; BBC, 7/8/2003; US Congress, 7/7/2004 Sources: senior CIA official] [emphasis mine]

Now notice the final two attributions, which come from the Senate Select Intelligence Committee's report. I'm way beyond finding it in that report, but you can if you really want to.

Also, and don't hold me to this yet, but I think one of the OVP's CIA briefers testified in Libby's trial last week that he was one of the disseminators.

Links? We got 'em.

We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Molly Ivins (1944-2007)

I come back to one simple question, if George Bush actually spoke the truth (i.e., the 16 words) in the State of the Union in January 2003, then why did the White House release a statement in July saying they shouldn't have included it? ljohnson

If you knew anything about the duties and responsibilities inter sese the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency in connection with the drafting and approval of a State of the Union speech, you'd know the answer.

The "16 words" should not have been included because they gave the impression that the US Intelligence Community had the means to check the British assessment (it didn't), had done so (it hadn't because it couldn't), and agreed with that assessment.

Note well my potty-mouthed friend: The "16 words" did not meet the stringent procedural test applied to intelligence statements to be included in a State of the Union speech; and therefore, the "16 words" should not have been included. The person admitting as much (here, Ari Fleischer on behalf of the White House) is saying nothing whatever concerning his or her belief as to the truth or falsity of the words themselves.

I'm not sure what your point is, OGD. I was directed to this CIA memo which was said to prove that the "American intelligence community" disputed the British claim "in the months leading up to the State of the Union."

You cite paragraphs (I did read them) in which the writer says that 11 months before the CIA was working to determine whether a "contract" had been entered into (not a British claim), that CIA was not given access to the raw intelligence the Brits claimed supported their assessment, and that in secret testimony before Congress CIA officials said they couldn't go as far as the Brits had.

As the paragraph I cited makes clear the matter was still open even after the SOTUS.

Quaere: You know this flapdoodle a whole lot better than I. Is there evidence that the CIA's reservations as set forth in the paragraphs you cite (or elsewhere) were communicated to Rice and Hadley before the SOTUS was delivered?

Since learning that the CIA hadn't corroborated the Brits' assessment, I have never thought for a moment that the "16 words" should have been included in the SOTUS. But then, neither did the White House.

When you catch up on your reading, if you come across it, I'd appreciate hearing from you on it.

Should be a big day today. Russert takes the stand in a few minutes.

Sounds like a fair deal to me. I hope that goes both ways.

Sue and Seixon from Tom Maguire's site...

Yup!

~OGD~

Larry, I see how this works. You rattle off a bunch of unsubstantiated pablum for your minions to lap up, and then when someone asks a question, you resort to name calling and run and hide, rather than respond to legitimate questions. Now even worse yet, you don't answer questions, you repeat the same lame questions back at us that are repeated here each day and shot down.

As Ellen said here, if someone at the White house said they shouldn't have included the 16 words, there could be a myriad of reasons for that, all having nothing to do with the truth of the words. At the risk of sending you into the ozone, maybe you can link us on the authoritative source of the earth shattering remark. Your lil' buddies here have referred to Tenet as "the white house" when he said he regretted their inclusion in the SOTU. In the statement that Tenet made that they are quoting from he goes into great detail why he thought that, but goes on to say that the 16 words are true. It just so happens your soulmate Joe Wilson also has admitted that the 16 words are true.

If that is the best you've got then you're more pathetic than I thought. Why did Alan Foley personally sign off on the 16 words? He's the partisan hack that sent the lying house husband to Niger in the first place.

Your article from last week claimed in the headline that Cheney had been briefed on Wilson upon his return from Niger. The premise of the entire article!! Then you don't provide any links, any proof, any facts what so ever to back it up. Then when asked to back up your slop, you run and hide. The whole article was based on a farce and lie. If you don't like that, then prove it.

If as you say this interchange (Ellen and I)demonstrates what the intelligence community is up against, and if this gets your short and curlies fluttering then is it any wonder that you bumblers shut the lights out on America's eyes and ears long enough for our country to suffer the worst attack since Pearl Harbor. Isn't that what your leftist mentor Ray McGovern said was the reason the CIA was founded, to avoid any more Pearl Harbors. Well, nice job! Maybe some finger pointing will make you feel better,...oh, I see you've already been busy doing that.

As I said last week, Is your argument so weak that it can not withstand a debate? You might be able to dribble out your butt-eaten swill to these lapdogs, but if anybody asks you to back up anything you squeal like a pig in heat.

Your vivid recollections of being sodomized by an elephant sounds like something you relate as a personal memory, so if an ass clown like you can't defend his position, it must be because you are sensing that a debate on facts will be reminiscent of your ankle grabbing date with the Pachyderm.

You'd be right!

Maybe you should put some ice on that

Seashell, you said you hadn't had a chance to check your links and i said I would patiently wait. I respond when ever i see your requests. If there are any I have missed, please let me know. As of now, Larry has responded to a total of zero, other than his name calling.

Are you referring to CIA briefer Craig Schmall, who briefed the OVP in 2003?

If so, I don't think he testified to disseminating information in reference to Wilson's 2002 trip to Niamey.

Reading the reports of the trial (David Corn, why not?), it looks like Fitzgerald's got Libby dead to rights.  But what was Libby covering up?

Certainly, not the outing of Plame.  His attorneys must have told him that getting a conviction on that old Philip Agee statute would be nigh impossible. 

Cool it, TonyF. You don't want to join the rest of the readerly-challenged commenters to this thread.

Nothing I've said excuses the White House for having included the "16 words" in the State of the Union speech. And frankly, that controversy has been settled and is of little interest except to historians. This thread is supposed to be about Libby and the Plame outing.

My interest is in trying to figure out what Libby was trying to keep hidden in June-July 2003* and what he was covering up when the FBI later interviewed him.

Got any ideas?

* Note: It certainly wasn't Wilson's findings in Niamey in 2002.

Did I hear the word ideas ?

Question:

"Was that usual for you to have the national security adviser, the Director of Central Intelligence, the White House chief of staff among others in the dark as to something you had done regarding declassification?"

Answer:

"It is not unusual for the vice president to tell me something which I am not allowed to share with others."

From the grand jury transcripts of Fitzgerald querying the Scooter -- as part of Scooter describing, "...how he was instructed to leak intelligence secrets to select reporters, even as other White House officials were expressing concern over the leaks and debating whether the administration should formally declassify intelligence reports on Iraq to combat the criticism of the case for war." (LAT pg A-10; 03/07/2006)

In addition: "Libby can be heard describing in a low voice how Cheney was 'upset' when Wilson went public with allegations that the White House had twisted intelligence to make the case for war." (Ibid)

"Libby said that, Cheney 'thought we should get some of these facts out to the press. He [Cheney] then undertook to get permission from the president to talk about this' to reporters." (Ibid)

Links? Try www.alltheweb.com ...

~OGD~

On the night of the SOTU Bush could not claim that WE had evidence. Our "evidence" was missing and had been missing for 3 months. After a meeting in a conference room in the WH on Oct 19, none of the 6 participants claim they remember who had possession of the forgeries, but they were "missing" after that meeting. It took an internal audit ordered by the Inspector General to find them in a safe in the CounterProliferation Section at the CIA - after the SOTU. Bush had no evidence that night, but he knew the Brits still had their copies.

Ellen, I get your point about what else was (and is) Libby holding back because I remember thinking it seemed like a major overreaction on Libby's part, too.

And I have found a credible theory on what it might be. Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, laid most of it out in Nov. 2005. Read the whole thing.

Information developed by Italian investigators indicates that the documents were produced in Italy with the connivance of the Italian intelligence service. It also reveals that the introduction of the documents into the American intelligence stream was facilitated by Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans (OSP), a parallel intelligence center set up in the Pentagon to develop alternative sources of information in support of war against Iraq.

On Oct. 9, the documents were taken from the magazine to the U.S. Embassy, where they were apparently expected. Instead of going to the CIA Station, which would have been the normal procedure, they were sent straight to Washington where they bypassed the agency’s analysts and went directly to the NSC and the Vice President’s Office.

The possible forgery of the information by Defense Department employees would explain the viciousness of the attack on Valerie Plame and her husband. Wilson, when he denounced the forgeries in the New York Times in July 2003, turned an issue in which there was little public interest into something much bigger. The investigation continues, but the campaign against this lone detractor suggests that the administration was concerned about something far weightier than his critical op-ed.

But here is what Philip doesn't have in his theory. According to Knight-Ridder in an article dated June 12, 2003,

It wasn't until February 2003 that the CIA obtained the original Iraq-Niger documents on which the uranium story was based...

So where were the forged documents from October 2002 till February 2003. One good hiding spot might have been the OVP.

In THE STOVEPIPE, which was another heavily annotated article by Libby, et al, Hersh gives the next part of the story (but does not mention the CIA's short tenure as keepers of the forgeries.)

The I.A.E.A. had been asking Washington and London for their evidence of Iraq’s pursuit of African uranium, without receiving any response, ever since the previous September, when word of it turned up in the British dossier. After Niger was specified in the State Department’s fact sheet of December 19, 2002, the I.A.E.A. became more insistent. “I started to harass the United States,” recalled Jacques Baute, a Frenchman who, as director of the I.A.E.A.’s Iraq Nuclear Verification Office, often harassed Washington. Mark Gwozdecky, the I.A.E.A.’s spokesman, added, “We were asking for actionable evidence, and Jacques was getting almost nothing. ”

On February 4, 2003, while Baute was on a plane bound for New York to attend a United Nations Security Council meeting on the Iraqi weapons dispute, the U.S. Mission in Vienna suddenly briefed members of Baute’s team on the Niger papers, but still declined to hand over the documents. “I insisted on seeing the documents myself,” Baute said, “and was provided with them upon my arrival in New York.” The next day, Secretary Powell made his case for going to war against Iraq before the U.N. Security Council. The presentation did not mention Niger—a fact that did not escape Baute. I.A.E.A. officials told me that they were puzzled by the timing of the American decision to provide the documents. Baute quickly concluded that they were fake.

Also remember that Wilson had originally told Kristoff that the documents were fake. He later said that he had mispoken, but such a statement in the context of the above possible scenario, would be a reason to 'overreact'. And it was right around June 12th when the OVP went from overdrive on the subject to rocket blast off.

So that's where I am now. Do you have anything better?

We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Molly Ivins (1944-2007)

Kache, approx 31 mins after you posted your take, I posted mine here.They differ somewhat, especially towards the end, but they are also remarkably similar. I find yours (almost) as persuasive as my own. :-)

I hadn't seen yours before posting mine, so they are independent of each other.

We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Molly Ivins (1944-2007)

seashell, I read your comment above pointing to this comment - thanks!

More info on this line (based mostly on the La Repubblica article):

1) Italian intelligence has video of Roco Martino selling the forgeries to a British agent in a parking lot. No explaination made public as to why they filmed that encounter.

2) When Martino sold them to Elisabetta Burba (reporter for Panorama) she figured they were forgeries. She called some of the principals in Niger as followup. She prepared to travel to Niger to interview the principals. Her storyline - Who was trying to frame Saddam? Panorama's publisher prevented that and ordered her to instead deliver the documents to the U.S. embassy. The publisher of Panorama - Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Joe Wilson claims that he had not been told about the forgeries when he went to Niger, but he actually did interview the same people Burba had spoken to. ????

3) The yellowcake forgeries were not the only "evidence" supplied by Berlusconi. The "aluminum tubes" were actually artillery casing for manufacturing rockets on Italian helicopters, which the Iraqi army had bought from Italy years before. Italy turned down an order for rockets but provided the military specs to the company that sold the tubing to Iraq. When Berlusconi personally handed the "aluminum tube" documentation to George Bush he knew it was a set up.

4) Baute's account is interesting. It takes place in Feb 2003. But in Dec 2002 IAEA chief ElBaradei sent 7 diplomatic telegrams through the U.S. embassy in Vienna (IAEA's headquartes) addressed to POTUS. They were warning Bush that the yellowcake documents possessed by the U.S. were the same as the ones sold to the British - and they were phonies. ElBaradei was not basing that conclusion on having seen the British copies (he hadn't) or on interviews with Niger principals (he hadn't), but on evidence on the ground in Iraq where he and Hans Blix and inspection teams were at the time. Cheney has admitted to those telegrams, claiming that he ignored them because, in Dick Cheney's mind, ElBaradei could not be trusted.

5) Roco Martino claims that he did not do the forgery, that he was given the forgeries. He's declined to say who "gave" him the forgeries. But, Marino has a shady past that does include forgeries. A past that also includes having been on Manucher Ghorbanifar's payroll. For those who don't remember Manucher, he's the guy who handed a suitcase full of  millions of dollars to Elliot Abrams in a hotel room in London back during the Iran-Contra scandal (Abrams, who was convicted for lying to Congress about that meeting, was GWB's NSC senior director of Near East and North African Affairs while Martino was peddling his yellowcake).

The idea that the forgeries may have been in the possession of OVP those 3 months is a new one for me. If so, then the reference in the SOTU to the British evidence was done because OVP KNEW how bad their evidence was and were hoping Tony could keep the press from seeing his copies. That's plausible. It's also treasonous.

Thanks for your brief history of the growth of the Conservative movement.

From what I can read of the March 8 document on pdf, the cover page shows it went to Jenny Mayfield in the OVP. It also has a note to forward to Hannah and Libby, ASAP.

This is the document that Larry linked that he claimed said "widely diseminated", which it didn't. If he were to ever respond, and by the way Ellen tried to defend him on this point before he called her an obtuse tool, he might try to argue that his magical knowledge of procedures can allow him to say that "diseminate" means that Cheney gets an automatic briefing. I don't think so. The pdf also retells the now well known story that Wilson claimed that an "attempt" had been made to acquire yellowcake.

I followed the other link you gave and found in the conclusion of the senate commitee some key points.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-k.htm

"...Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal,..."

They still thought that Iraq was in breach here.

"...Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings...."

They claim that the VP was in the dark about Wilson's trip and should have been briefed upon his return, but he was not.

The closest thing I find attributed to the VP, and I can't believe I have to do footwork for a writer that can't source his own articles, is a reference to VP "requesting" an update. Here is the link:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm

If you scroll down to "early March", you will find the VP request Niger update, then it says the CIA briefer was given info relating to Niger government officials, but not Wilson. It then says they plan to debrief a source.

Next paragraph explains that Wilson was debriefed and the following paragraph mentions "disseminating" and "distrubuting" of a report. This is most probably the Jenny Mayfield pdf. Still no proof that the VP was briefed on Wilson.

About 6 paragraphs down, a paragraph beginning with, "When the former ambassador.." describes some of Wilson's testimony. He is asked why he claimed in his article that he had seen the forgeries, and he replies that he had misspoken. (lied). He should have shut his mouth here but he digs himself in deeper. Wilson tries to backfill his bogus forged document story by claiming he spoke to Nigerians about hypothetical documents (forgeries did not exist yet) if ones would exist and what they would look like.

"...The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction...."

So Wilson admits to Senators Yellowcake was sought by Iraq.

It goes on to explain how Wilson claims he brought up the idea of signatures on documents, and that the CIA briefers told him they could not supply him with any documents. So later he explains to Walter Pincus that he has debunked the forgeries and clearly expressing that he has seen the forgeries. Then he later claims he misspoke, confused them with IAEA and also that Pincus misquoted him.

What can we gather from this:

CIA analysts at Wilson's pre-trip meeting clearly believed that Plame setup Wilson's trip since she had sent him to Niger before.

Wilson claims to debriefers that he was interested in signatures on documents when in fact this is at best a manufactured memory.

VP asked for and may have received a Niger update focusing on Nigerian officials beahavior not relating to Wilsons info. Later same day Wilson debriefs.

Wilson claims again to be focused on signatures and dates but briefers blow him off? Another bogus recollection intended to pretend like he knew forged documents would someday magically appear.

Report about Wilson goes to Jenny Mayfield at OVP. No record of VP receiving.

Senators make note of Wilsons Pincus claim of seeing documents and under oath he says he misspoke (lied).

"...He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents...."

I love that part. We are dealing with a perjury case where everybody has bad memories about calls that are months and years old. Wilson is sent by the CIA to another continent on a mission for information on Nuclear technology and within days, he watches El Baradei on CNN and magically imagines that a couple of weeks before he was with El Baradei, reading the documents. This is too good.

I still don't see the VP wilson brief. Even if he did, I'm not sure what we are supposed to glean from that. I have done a lot of footwork to find what Larry should be explaining because he made the claim. The reason I have looked for this infois that if I see a new fact, I want to verify it. His statement still remains unverified.

Thanks Ellen, I am not as bothered by a person who posts with a bias, as I am with someone who reacts to a legitimate request for elaboration or explanation with a defensive fit of name calling. I think you have seen times when I have admitted my side of the spectrum has made mistakes, but I am offended by blatant disregard for facts. A bias might be a person whose focus naturally leads them to be interested in certain facts, but still they are facts.

There are times when either side will characterize their opponent in one way or another, thats politics. The entire Wilson Plame story was a fairly effective political hit on the Republicans. But it has run its course.

British spies had a term for agencies that began to believe the elements of their own disinformation campaign. They called it "drinking your own bath water".

I am disturbed when people aren't able to take their winnings from the table and move on rather than delude themselves into drinking their own bath water.

The Mainstream media dropped the Wilson part of the story as soon as Armitage came forward, because they realized that the jig was up on the big scam.

I have heard you and seashell ponder why the VP an or the White house would become so upset by the Pincus/Wilson articles. If you assume that this president doesn't sincerely believe his policies are right and good, then I can see why one might wonder.

But if you assume that at the time he was sincerely concerned about the then 3 month old war and the lives at risk and that he and Mr. Cheney were offended that someone who claimed to be from within the administration was lying about the President and trying to throw stumbling blocks in front of his ability to effectively wage war on an enemy that had battled with 3 Presidents in a region that had become the cradle of our enemies. At the very least, even if one can not attribute good intentions to the president, any person's sense of justice would be offended by an apparent inside betrayal by secretly lying about your biggest challenge you had ever faced. You would feel strongly about having the lies exposed for what they are. To now have it all exposed as lies and a partisan attack in the end has a sense of justice delayed, but it is clear on "this" point the President was redeemed.

I appreciate your efforts to stick to the facts. You didn't deserve those remarks either.

Are you basing your information about the Niger documents being locked up in the CIA from the Intelligence Committee Report?

No, I'm basing it mostly on the La Repubblica articles.

The timeline in those articles are somewhat different than the one's you've seen.  Their timeline is based substantially on interviews with Antonio Nucera, a SISMI Division chief who was part of the attempt to push the forgeries into the SOTU, and admission by Nicolò  Pollari, the cheif of SISMI. The tales Nucera and Pollari tell is one of utter incompetance and frustration. Everyone who sees the forgeries knows they are forgeries, no one is fooled. Only a report about the forgeries gets taken seriously.

IIRC, The original breakin at the Niger embassy happens 20 some days before GWB is inaugurated in 2001. Stationary and government seals are among the items stolen. Later that year Rocco Martino sells forgeries to the French Ministries of Mines (who are investigating rumors of internal theft at a mine they operate in Niger). Those forgeries are consistent with trying to establish a motive for such a theft. The MoM agent who bought those forgeries in a parking lot exchange threw them into a trash bin before re-entering his office building - they were that bad. A year goes by. Someone having access to the stolen stationary now decides to frame Saddam. Adding new documents to the ones Martino earlier sold, and dramatically adjusting in the quantities, a new set of documents are now sold by Martino to the British, another parking lot exchange that is filmed by SISMI agents.  British agents alert U.S. counterparts.  Nothing happens. Frustrated, the forgers now add two more documents and make other adjustments to the package. Martino attempts to sell Panorama's Burba a package that he claims are the contents stolen from the Niger embassy. Burba refuses to pay Martino and he relents and lets her have them - no charge. Panorama delivers them to the U.S. embassy. Here's Burba's account. But the embassy does not forward them to Langley. Instead, a report about them is sent to the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence. That sketchy report is what prompts Cheney's query that leads to Wilson's trip. The actual forgeries do not arrive in Washington until 8 months after Wilson's trip. They are not delivered through regular channels, Pollari hands them to Hadley during a visit between Berlusconi and Bush in Sept 2002. In Nov they are reported "missing".

In Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald claims that his investigation was thwarted by Libby's lies. Once he has a conviction and has therefore legally established the true sequence pf events, will Fitzgerald's investigation continue?