TPMCafe
« So What if Mitt Wants A Person of Faith as President? | Home | What Have They Done for Us Lately? 56 Senate Votes Against Escalation »

Washington Post Enables Toensing's Delusions

user-pic

Congratulations to Victoria Toensing, former Reagan Administration Justice Department official, for plumbing new depths of delusion and crazed fantasies in her latest Washington Post op-ed. Ms. Toensing's piece--Trial in Error--should have been titled, "I Am Ignorant of Basic Facts". She offers up two special gems:
  • Valerie Plame was not covert.
  • Ambassador Joseph Wilson (Valerie's husband) misled the public about how he was sent to Niger, about the thrust of his March 2003 oral report of that trip, and about his wife's CIA status

Valerie Plame was undercover until the day she was identified in Robert Novak's column. I entered on duty with Valerie in September of 1985. Every single member of our class--which was comprised of Case Officers, Analysts, Scientists, and Admin folks--were undercover. I was an analyst and Valerie was a case officer. Case officers work in the Directorate of Operations and work overseas recruiting spies and running clandestine operations. Although Valerie started out working under "official cover"--i.e., she declared she worked for the U.S. Government but in something innocuous, like the State Department--she later became a NOC aka non official cover officer. A NOC has no declared relationship with the United States Government. These simple facts apparently are too complicated for someone of Ms. Toensing's limited intellectual abilities.


She also is ignoring the facts introduced at the Libby trial. We have learned that Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, and Richard Armitage told various members of the press that Valerie worked for the CIA. In fact Scooter Libby was the one who told Bush press flack, Ari Fleischer, about Valerie's covert status. Richard Armitage told Robert Novak (who confirmed the story with Karl Rove) and Novak ultimately exposed not just Valerie but her NOC cover company, Brewster Jennings. That leak by the Bush Administration ruined Valerie's ability to continue working as a case officer and destroyed an international intelligence network.

You do not have to take my word alone that Valerie was under cover. Other members of our training class also came forward in 2003 and vouched for Valerie's covert status--Jim Marcinkowski, Brent Cavan, and Mike Grimaldi. We appeared on Nightline three years ago, accompanied by another classmate who remains anonymous, and testified about our personal knowledge of Valerie's status as a covert CIA officer.

Toensing's bill of particulars about Joe Wilson and his mission to Niger is equally bizarre. She recites the usual lies:

  • Joe Wilson said he was sent by Cheney
  • Valerie Plame sent Joe on the boondoggle
  • Joe misrepresented the findings from his trip

Let's take up a collection and get Victoria some help with her obvious reading disability. The whole sordid affair got started in early February 2002. Vice President Cheney asked his briefer about the claim on 12 February 2002 and the CIA convened an interagency meeting with Ambassador Joseph Wilson one week later, February 19, 2002. Joe was a natural choice for the job. He had headed up the Africa desk at the National Security Council, he had served as an Ambassador in West Africa, and had saved American lives from Saddam during the first Gulf War. He was not chosen by his wife, Valerie Plame. She only wrote a memo, at the behest of her boss in the Counter Proliferation Divison of the Directorate of Operations, identifying Joe's qualifications. And she was asked to inform her husband about the CIA's interest in him going to Niger to help answer a request from Vice President Cheney, who wanted to know if there was any truth to reports that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger.

We now know, thanks to the INR memo, that Joe did not want to go to Niger and supported the position of INR analysts who thought the US Ambassador in Niger was quite capable of investigating the matter. Ultimately the CIA prevailed and Joe was sent. Valerie was not in the room when the decision was made nor was she in an administrative position with the clout to send her husband on such a mission.

The INR memo introduced in the Libby trial confirms Joe's account as well about what he told the CIA debriefing team. Too bad Ms. Toensing did not take time to read the CIA report produced from Mr. Wilson's trip. He made it very clear in that report that Iraq had not purchased or negotiated the purchase of uranium.

Fair minded, reasonable people now understand that Vice President Cheney and his bag carriers embarked on a deliberate, organized campaign to smear and discredit Joe Wilson. In the process they ignored their obligation to protect our nation's secrets and told reporters about Valerie's ties to the CIA. It is time for all thinking Americans to ask why the Washington Post editorial page has decided to give a partisan hack like Toensing a platform for jury tampering? Just days before the Libby Jury retires to consider a verdict, why was Toensing allowed to publish an article rife with lies and misstated facts? Why does the paper that played a key role in exposing the tyranny of Richard Nixon now allow this shallow woman to smear prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald?

Thanks to the work of Patrick Fitzgerald and his team of prosecutors, we now know beyond any doubt that the Vice President of the United States and members of his staff ignored intelligence and tried to spin the press away from the truth that Joe Wilson found in Africa--Iraq had not sought uranium. Cheney and Libby feared what the American people might do if they discovered they had been lied to about the case for war in Iraq. Now there is no doubt. They did lie and these lies have been exposed. Unfortunately, the Victoria Toensings of the world seem hell bent on perpetuating the lies and living in the delusional world that it is okay to out an under cover CIA officer during a time of war. While Toensing has the right to be wrong, we ought to ask why a paper with the reputation of the Washington Post is lowering its journalistic standards, ignoring ethics, and enabling the spread of lies. I think the owner of the Washington Post has some "splaining" to do.


56 Comments

| Leave a comment

Washington Post has gone all out in defense of Libby.

They have written several editorials demanding that the investigation end.

Just yesterday they had a piece by a right wing guy defending Libby.

Today they have Toensing defending Libby.

The question is why is the Washington Post trying so hard on Libby's behalf.

After all Washington Post was the house organ for Kenneth Starr and cheered on his witchunt for almost a decade. Toensing herself was a big cheerleader for Starr.

So what is going on with the Washington Post. Why are they now minimizing the evils of lying?

My guess is Libby had been a member of the Establishment for a long time. He was a regular leaker to the Washington Post. He leaked to Bob Woodward for his books. On top of that Libby and the Washington Post were on the same page about the Iraq war. WP editorial page is now neocon. They cheered on the war. They demonized opponents of the war and called them all but traitors. So Washington Post believes lying to launch a war they supported is not a big deal.

It's amusing to see how flagrantly hypocritical Toensig can be. A quick look at her op-eds at http://www.digenovatoensing.com/opEd.html demonstrate her fervid advocacy for charging perjury during the Lewinsky case. Not charging perjury then would be, for her, a blow to the foundations of justice. Now, of course, it's prosecutorial abuse. Toensig is one of the far too common devotees of situational morality where the guiding factor in all choices is whether the defendent is a Democrat or a Republican.

Toensing has always carried water for the right wing so I'm not surprised about her op-ed piece. Thanks Larry for pointing out her mangling of the truth and glaring omissions.

WashPo is a big media empire that has to maintain a friendly relationship with the Feds who have regulatory control over many of its holdings. Don't think of WashPo in liberal terms i.e., the Pentagon Papers or Watergate, those events are old history. It's a different newspaper today.

The one that jumped off the page, for me, was the continuing effort to discredit Wilson because his wife brought his value to the attention of her superiors.

That Valerie suggested him does not contradict that he was sent to satisfy the OVP's interest.

That Wilson was convinced his report reached Cheney does become a lie simply because Cheney denies it. It is only a belief, not an assertion of fact, after all, and it is screamingly obvious that Wilson's belief is probably the truth.

That said, I agree with Toensing's first line: "Could someone please explain to me why Scooter Libby is the only person on trial in the Valerie Plame leak investigation?" Hear, hear.

I keep wondering why they keep trying to make this thing into some nepotistic boondoggle? Everytime I hear the accusation, I think about how Cheney's daughter is in some Iran working group and his son-in-law is in a position where he stonewalls Congressional investigations. I think about that little creep Tucker Carlson who rode daddies coattails to his job where he now opines on the case and convienently ignores the fact his daddy is funding it.
Why do they keep bringing up points that hurt them more than their enemies?

Thanks for the excellent rebuttal, Larry. The WP will surely not print your rebuttal in the name of "balanced reporting".

I agree completely that the WP needs to be taken to task for printing what they know are lies. But until that is directed at a person instead of the institution, it wont go anywhere. We need to attack people like Woodward, Broder, Balz, etc for allowing "their" paper to print what they know are bare-assed lies.

But, there is another dimension to this that is also heartening. They know Fitz is going to get a conviction, and hold a press conference. So, in the interest of "balanced reporting" they gave Toensing space to counter. What's heartening is this is the best shot they have!!!

BTW, do you know if Fitz has actually ended his grand jury? The way I read the Libby indictment was, a conviction will establish the truth of particular matters that prevented Fitz from pursuing further investigation and possible other charges.

Why do they keep bringing up points that hurt them more than their enemies?

Because it doesn't hurt them one iota with their base, which is doing what Rush tells them to do; following the talking points. You have to THINK to make the connections you're talking about.

Does anyone (other than me) feel amazed that the sons of a freaking MONARCHY are serving in the military? Prince Andrew (second in line) was a helicopter pilot in the Falklands War. Now Harry may be off to Iraq. Frankly, I guess we should be glad that no Bushes or Cheneys have the guts to serve. The military has enough problems without those losers adding to it.

Jan Knaus

About 30% of the populus would deny the fact that their hair was on fire, repeatedly,if it was a liberal making the claim.

Larry, You sure are open with all the details of the so called covert operatives at CIA. Aren't you the first person from the agency that divulged with authority the details of Plame's employment.

You claim here that Toesing is lying on the following issues.



* Valerie Plame was not covert.

Was there a law broken here? Why isn't anyone being indicted for breaking the law? Havent you admited in the past that a criminal law was not broken but your personally defined moral law was. Had she been on an international covert mission in the last 5 years? Was her showboating loudmouth husband trying to keep her identity a secret when the two of them met Pincus for breakfast and laid out their pack of lies?

* Ambassador Joseph Wilson (Valerie's husband) misled the public about how he was sent to Niger, about the thrust of his March 2003 oral report of that trip, and about his wife's CIA status.


He did mislead the public repeatedly. Here is his excuses...."I was misquoted,...no i wasn't misquoted, I misspoke, mr. Senator, I never said that.." Hell the crux of his stupid outting oped was a lie. He claimed that the 16 words was about documents that he claimed to have seen and he never had. He claimed the president's 16 words were about the documents. He talked to Nigerians about Documents. It is unanimous from the Nigerians , his CIA debriefing, the President and his own words that Iraq "sought" yellowcake. He lied early on and claimed this was not true, but even he admits that Iraq sought yellowcake. How many more lies you want. I have more.

* Joe Wilson said he was sent by Cheney

He told the reporters as an unnamed source Cheney sent him, later in his oped he recanted, but still implied on several occasions that Cheney sent him, knew he was sending him and you even lied here last month and claimed Cheney was briefed on Wilsons trip on his return. Thats a lie. We now have to debate the meaning of the word "behest" to prance around and pretend Wilson wasn't misleading.


* Valerie Plame sent Joe on the boondoggle

It was a boondoggle and we know now she had sent her "down and out" house husband on other busy work as well. Whether confirmed liar Alan Foley signed the order or not, Plame was the catalyst and the other CIA people that were in the meeting that sent him testifyed that it was obvious Plame was behind it.

And speaking of Lies. Wilson and Foley have both lied about Plame having "Anything to do" with him going. Not having anything to do with it is a lie next to even your misrepresentation that she wrote a memo under duress to go along with the idea. She did have something to do with it. Foley and Wilson lied about that and later had to admit to another lie. It was her that sent him.


* Joe misrepresented the findings from his trip

I've already covered a fragment of the bald faced lies and misrepresentations. He claimed that the President was either not listening to his report or lying. When in fact Wilson knew that what he had reported was that Irag sought yellow cake, which is what the President said. Foley personally signed off on the 16 words. Later the Nigerian official that told Wilson, testified about the Iraqi inquiries and testifyed that Wilson knew and had discussed them. The debriefers report that even you posted here in PDF format says that he claimed that Iraq sought Yellow cake and later Wilson denied this and claimed that the President was using forged documents that Wilson had seen, When in fact they did not exist at that time.

Another reworking of his excuse for lying was that a couple of weeks after his return he was watching El Baradei on TV talking about forgeries and he some how imagined that he had been reading and examining the signatures and dates on the documents HIMSELF just weeks before,...Whoops!!! Faulty memory!!! Where is a special prosecutor?

This whole 5 year waste of time because he had a manufactured memory that he and El Baradei were hanging out in Niger or Italy or where ever, And maybe he had a fantasy that he was with Napolean at waterloo. And best of all,...maybe this showboating "has been" house husband, had a walter mitty moment that he was the hero of a John Kerry campaign presidency thanks to his moment of glory bringing down a sitting President with total lies!

No, that was just a dream. Time to wake up from the dream, Larry. Its over.

British agents have a term for this you may have heard. It's called "drinking your own bath water". When an agent gets so wrapped up in the deception that he starts to confuse himself about what is real and what is the Lie.

Well, we know now. Come back to reality , stop passing the lies and stop drinking your own bath water.

She is right, there are a lot of people that should be brought up on charges on the other side. In the front of the parade should be Joe Wilson being "frog marched" to Prison where he belongs.

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ."

-Judge Susan Webber Wright

Result:

Clinton payed $90,000 and lost his ability to practice law in the state of Arkansas and then was disbarred from the US Supreme court as well.


In your words, it was "a blow to the foundations of justice."

Your words:

"...Toensig is one of the far too common devotees of situational morality where the guiding factor in all choices is whether the defendent is a Democrat or a Republican...."

Hardly. This is projection on your part.

Toensing, the complicit parrots in the socalled MSM, and the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government can dance around the factbasedrealities to the cold dark hearts content, but what they cannot defend, excuse, apologize for, or ignore is that elements of the Bush government intentionally and in concert revenge outed Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings & Associates because her husband, Joseph Wilson, publically debunked one - AND ONLY ONE of the festering litany of hype, exaggerations and patent lies the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government intentionally misused to pimp the bloody, costly, neverendiingwar, horrorshow, and excuse for wanton profiteering ongoing in Iraq.

The fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government cannot dance around this factbasedreality, and pretend or conjure some excuse for this grievous act of treachery and treason. The why's, what for's, hows, involved in this public debunking are irrelevent, and moot. What is relevant and what is the critical issue is the factbasedreality that the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government intentionally misled the American public with regard to the Niger claims and one (AND ONLY ONE) of the festering litany of hype, exaggerations, and patent lies misused to justify the bloody, costly, noendinsight ghoulish horrorshow in Iraq.

Slime Wilson, Plame, Brewster Jennings & Associates, and the CIA all you want - it does not change one single particle of truth or one nanoparticle of fact that the Bush government misused obvious forgeries with regard to the Niger yellow cake claims, (which Bush was forced to publically recant) to decieve the American public into supporting the war. Further, in an act of grievous treachery and treason, the fascist warmongers and profiteers set about the revenge outing of one of our own agency WMD proliferations assets and operations in a craven attempt to countermine the public debunking of this one, (AND ONLY ONE) patently FALSE claim.

The truth will set you free. The complicit parrots in the MSM, and the American people might want to look beyond the obfuscation and nonesense regarding Joseph Wilson's assignment and look at the facts regarding the patently FALSE Niger claim the fascist warmongers and profiteers misused and one (AND ONLY ONE) of a festering litatny of hype, exaggerations, and patent lies intended to deceptively justify the bloody, costly, noendinsight horrorshow, and excuse for wanton profiteering ongoing in Iraq.

Larry -- let's begin with comprehending Brewster Jennings, and firms much like it.

Back in the 60's through the 1980's (and my knowledge does not go beyond that) CIA bought out a number of old line small family owned firms where there was no clear family member who would take over, but where there were people with much expertise in whatever the firm did, who wanted to stay on. CIA supplied some management, sometimes additional capital, and the firms continued, providing places for NOC's who needed a berth, while at the same time allowing expert and sometimes old time employees to stay in job. Eventually the family ownership was paid out, and the older employees properly pensioned, and cover could then be organized around new projects and interests without suspicion.

Larry, the problem is when one of these goes down, many folk feel the impact, and it is not just Plame and her kin, or the immediately involved. People with advanced degrees on which they may still owe loans, suddenly have no useful reference, even if they were not at all witting to some purposes of their employer. Yes, what the operation did may have been useful, but consider the implications? It is not just the foreign agents who may have been connected and have problems, -- it may be others who can never recover through no concious act of their own.

Toensing and her like need to be held up for precisely what they are -- apologists for discarding human values for political points. But what is not recognized is that there may be many hidden victims.

TJ:

Why do trolls such as yourself think that your bleating is of any value to anyone? It's obvious that the truth means nothing to you. What's your purpose here? One suggestion: give it up. No one gives a damn about your right wing screeds.

The normal federal grand jury is empaneled in the districe. Fitzgerald can bring any new charges directed at Libby, or anybody else, to this grand jury.

~

Dear apologist for the scumbags:

Here ... project this.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Holding a Criminal Term

Grand Jury Sworn in on October 31, 2003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY"

Criminal No.

GRAND JURY ORIGINAL

Count 1: Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. Section 1503)

Counts 2-3: False Statements (18 U.S.C. Section 1001(a)(2))

Counts 4-5: Perjury (18 U.S.C. Section 1623)

INDICTMENT

COUNT ONE (Obstruction of Justice)

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

1. At times material to this indictment:

Defendant's Employment and Responsibilities

a. Beginning on or about January 20, 2001, and continuing through the date of

this indictment, defendant I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY," was employed

as Assistant to the President of the United States, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. In the course of his work, LIBBY had frequent access to classified information and frequently spoke with officials of the U.S. intelligence community, as well as other government officials, regarding sensitive national security matters.

b. In connection with his role as a senior government official with responsibilities for national security matters, LIBBY held security clearances entitling him to access to classified information. As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a written "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," stating in part that "I understand and

accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government," and that "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation."

The Central Intelligence Agency

c. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was an agency of the United States whose mission was to collect, produce, and disseminate intelligence and counterintelligence information to officers and departments of the United States government, including the President, the National Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

d. The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson

e. Joseph Wilson ("Wilson") was a former career State Department official who had held a variety of posts, including United States Ambassador. In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA by the Vice President concerning certain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return.

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.

Events Leading up to July 2003

2. On or about January 28, 2003, President George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union address which included sixteen words asserting that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

3. On May 6, 2003, the New York Times published a column by Nicholas Kristof which disputed the accuracy of the "sixteen words" in the State of the Union address. The column reported that, following a request from the Vice President's office for an investigation of allegations that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger, an unnamed former ambassador was sent on a trip to Niger in 2002 to investigate the allegations. According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based on forged documents.

4. On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary of State ("Under Secretary") for information concerning the unnamed ambassador's travel to Niger to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary thereafter directed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip.

5. On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After receiving these documents, LIBBY and one or more other persons in the Office of the Vice President handwrote the names "Wilson" and "Joe Wilson" on the documents.

6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson's wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

8. Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President in connection with a story he was writing about Wilson's trip. LIBBY participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus.

9. On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

10. On June 12, 2003, the Washington Post published an article by reporter Walter Pincus about Wilson's trip to Niger, which described Wilson as a retired ambassador but not by name, and reported that the CIA had sent him to Niger after an aide to the Vice President raised questions about purported Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. Pincus's article questioned the accuracy of the "sixteen words," and stated that the retired ambassador had reported to the CIA that the uranium purchase story was false.

11. On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President's office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, "Joe Wilson" and his wife "Valerie Wilson," in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger.

12. On or about June 19, 2003, an article appeared in The New Republic magazine online entitled "The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War." Among other things, the article questioned the "sixteen words" and stated that following a request for information from the Vice President, the CIA had asked an unnamed ambassador to travel to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The article included a quotation attributed to the unnamed ambassador alleging that administration officials "knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie." The article also was critical of how the administration, including the Office of the Vice President, portrayed intelligence concerning Iraqi capabilities with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and accused the administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence agencies on this topic.

13. Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.

14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed "selective leaking" by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA's handling of Wilson's trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

The July 6 "Op Ed" Article by Wilson

15. On July 6, 2003, the New York Times published an Op-Ed article by Wilson entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa." Also on July 6, 2003, the Washington Post published an article about Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, which article was based in part upon an interview of Wilson. Also on July 6, Wilson appeared as a guest on the television interview show "Meet the Press." In his Op-Ed article and interviews in print and on television, Wilson asserted, among other things, that he had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought or obtained uranium yellowcake from Niger, and that he doubted Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger recently, for a number of reasons. Wilson stated that he believed, based on his understanding of government procedures, that the Office of the Vice President was advised of the results of his trip.

LIBBY's Actions Following Wilson's July 6 "Op Ed" Column

16. On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY had lunch with the then White House Press Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and noted that such information was not widely known.

17. 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.

18. Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President's Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip.

19. Not earlier than June 2003, but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs learned from another government official that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and advised LIBBY of this information.

20. On or about July 10, 2003, LIBBY spoke to NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert to complain about press coverage of LIBBY by an MSNBC reporter. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with Russert.

21. On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.

22. On or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY flew with the Vice President and others to and from Norfolk, Virginia, on Air Force Two. On his return trip, LIBBY discussed with other officials aboard the plane what LIBBY should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time reporter Matthew Cooper.

23. On or about July 12, 2003, in the afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone to Cooper, who asked whether LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip to Niger. LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification, that he had heard this information too.

24. On or about July 12, 2003, in the late afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone with Judith Miller of the New York Times and discussed Wilson's wife, and that she worked at the CIA.

The Criminal Investigation

25. On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") to commence a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003.

26. As part of the criminal investigation, LIBBY was interviewed by Special Agents of the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel. During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:

a. During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.

b. During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but that LIBBY did not know if this was true; and

c. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with New York Times reporter Judith Miller during a meeting with Miller on or about July 8, 2003.

27. Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation ("the Grand Jury Investigation") into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).

28. A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information.

29. During the course of the Grand Jury Investigation, the following matters, among others, were material to the Grand Jury Investigation:

i. When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;

ii. Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;

iii. The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to the media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information he may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information;

iv. LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was classified at the time he disclosed it; and

v. Whether LIBBY was candid with Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in describing his conversations with the other government officials and the media relating to Valerie Wilson.

LIBBY's Grand Jury Testimony

30. On or about March 5 and March 24, 2004, LIBBY testified before Grand Jury 03-3.

On each occasion of LIBBY's testimony, the foreperson of the Grand Jury administered the oath to LIBBY and LIBBY swore to tell the truth in the testimony he was about to give.

31. In or about March 2004, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.

32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and

representations, in substance, under oath:

a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003:

i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

b. LIBBY advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and further advised him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; and

c. LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.

33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:

a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10, 2003:

i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions:

# In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice President that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division;

# On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior CIA officer that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA and that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her;

# On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the Under Secretary of State that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

# On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY discussed "Joe Wilson" and "Valerie Wilson" with his CIA briefer, in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger;

# On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;

# On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY advised the White House Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

# In or about June or July 2003, and in no case later than on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

# On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and

# On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY had a discussion with the Counsel to the Office of the Vice President concerning the paperwork that would exist if a person who was sent on an overseas trip by the CIA had a spouse who worked at the CIA;

b. LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and

c. LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.

COUNT TWO

(False Statement)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-26 of Count One as though fully set forth herein.

2. During the course of the criminal investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, the following matters, among others, were material to that investigation:

a. When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA; b. Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;

c. The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to the media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information he may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information; and

d. LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was classified at the time he disclosed it.

3. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:

During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.

4. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003:

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

COUNT THREE

(False Statement)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Count Two as though fully set forth herein.

2. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:

During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.

3. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that:

LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

COUNT FOUR

(Perjury)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-30 of Count One as though fully set forth herein.

2. On or about March 5, 2004, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony regarding a conversation that he represented he had with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003 (underlined portions alleged as false):

. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this -- excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said -- he may have said a little more but that was -- he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.

Now, I had said earlier in the conversation, which I omitted to tell you, that this -- you know, as always, Tim, our discussion is off-the-record if that's okay with you, and he said, that's fine. So then he said -- I said -- he said, sorry -- he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he said, yeah -- yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him anymore about it because I didn't want to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the conversation, something like that.

3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that:

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.

COUNT FIVE

(Perjury)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-30 of Count One as though fully set forth herein.

2. On or about March 5, 2004 and March 24, 2004, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony regarding his conversations with reporters concerning the employment of Joseph Wilson's wife by the CIA (underlined portions alleged as false):

a. Testimony Given on or about March 5, 2004 Regarding a Conversation With Matthew Cooper on or About July 12, 2003:

Q. And it's your specific recollection that when you told Cooper about Wilson's wife working at the CIA, you attributed that fact to what reporters --

A. Yes.

Q. -- plural, were saying. Correct?

A. I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was -- all I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters.

. . . .

Q. And at the same time you have a specific recollection of telling him, you don't know whether it's true or not, you're just telling him what reporters are saying?

A. Yes, that's correct, sir. And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don't know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know -- I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing.

b. Testimony Given on or about March 24, 2004 Regarding Conversations With Reporters:

Q. And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that you knew that the law could turn, the law as to whether a crime was committed, could turn on where you learned the information from, affect your account for the FBI when you told them that you were telling reporters Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather than the Vice-President?

A. No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters.

Q. And you're, you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to other reporters?

A. Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because it was -- that's what -- that's how I did it.

. . . .

Q. The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are -- concern this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?

A. I want -- I didn't want to -- I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people -- I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said it. I -- all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr. Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report. Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.

. . . .

Well, talking to the other reporters about it, I don't see as a crime. What I said to the other reporters is what, you know -- I told a couple reporters what other reporters had told us, and I don't see that as a crime.

3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.

A TRUE BILL:

FOREPERSON

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD

Special Counsel


~OGD~

~

Dear apologist for the scumbags:

Here ... Come back to this reality.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Holding a Criminal Term

Grand Jury Sworn in on October 31, 2003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY"

Criminal No.

GRAND JURY ORIGINAL

Count 1: Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. Section 1503)

Counts 2-3: False Statements (18 U.S.C. Section 1001(a)(2))

Counts 4-5: Perjury (18 U.S.C. Section 1623)

INDICTMENT

COUNT ONE (Obstruction of Justice)

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

1. At times material to this indictment:

Defendant's Employment and Responsibilities

a. Beginning on or about January 20, 2001, and continuing through the date of

this indictment, defendant I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY," was employed

as Assistant to the President of the United States, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. In the course of his work, LIBBY had frequent access to classified information and frequently spoke with officials of the U.S. intelligence community, as well as other government officials, regarding sensitive national security matters.

b. In connection with his role as a senior government official with responsibilities for national security matters, LIBBY held security clearances entitling him to access to classified information. As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a written "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," stating in part that "I understand and

accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government," and that "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation."

The Central Intelligence Agency

c. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was an agency of the United States whose mission was to collect, produce, and disseminate intelligence and counterintelligence information to officers and departments of the United States government, including the President, the National Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

d. The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson

e. Joseph Wilson ("Wilson") was a former career State Department official who had held a variety of posts, including United States Ambassador. In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA by the Vice President concerning certain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return.

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.

Events Leading up to July 2003

2. On or about January 28, 2003, President George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union address which included sixteen words asserting that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

3. On May 6, 2003, the New York Times published a column by Nicholas Kristof which disputed the accuracy of the "sixteen words" in the State of the Union address. The column reported that, following a request from the Vice President's office for an investigation of allegations that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger, an unnamed former ambassador was sent on a trip to Niger in 2002 to investigate the allegations. According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based on forged documents.

4. On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary of State ("Under Secretary") for information concerning the unnamed ambassador's travel to Niger to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary thereafter directed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip.

5. On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After receiving these documents, LIBBY and one or more other persons in the Office of the Vice President handwrote the names "Wilson" and "Joe Wilson" on the documents.

6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson's wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

8. Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President in connection with a story he was writing about Wilson's trip. LIBBY participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus.

9. On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

10. On June 12, 2003, the Washington Post published an article by reporter Walter Pincus about Wilson's trip to Niger, which described Wilson as a retired ambassador but not by name, and reported that the CIA had sent him to Niger after an aide to the Vice President raised questions about purported Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. Pincus's article questioned the accuracy of the "sixteen words," and stated that the retired ambassador had reported to the CIA that the uranium purchase story was false.

11. On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President's office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, "Joe Wilson" and his wife "Valerie Wilson," in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger.

12. On or about June 19, 2003, an article appeared in The New Republic magazine online entitled "The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War." Among other things, the article questioned the "sixteen words" and stated that following a request for information from the Vice President, the CIA had asked an unnamed ambassador to travel to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The article included a quotation attributed to the unnamed ambassador alleging that administration officials "knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie." The article also was critical of how the administration, including the Office of the Vice President, portrayed intelligence concerning Iraqi capabilities with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and accused the administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence agencies on this topic.

13. Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.

14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed "selective leaking" by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA's handling of Wilson's trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

The July 6 "Op Ed" Article by Wilson

15. On July 6, 2003, the New York Times published an Op-Ed article by Wilson entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa." Also on July 6, 2003, the Washington Post published an article about Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, which article was based in part upon an interview of Wilson. Also on July 6, Wilson appeared as a guest on the television interview show "Meet the Press." In his Op-Ed article and interviews in print and on television, Wilson asserted, among other things, that he had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought or obtained uranium yellowcake from Niger, and that he doubted Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger recently, for a number of reasons. Wilson stated that he believed, based on his understanding of government procedures, that the Office of the Vice President was advised of the results of his trip.

LIBBY's Actions Following Wilson's July 6 "Op Ed" Column

16. On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY had lunch with the then White House Press Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and noted that such information was not widely known.

17. 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.

18. Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President's Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip.

19. Not earlier than June 2003, but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs learned from another government official that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and advised LIBBY of this information.

20. On or about July 10, 2003, LIBBY spoke to NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert to complain about press coverage of LIBBY by an MSNBC reporter. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with Russert.

21. On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.

22. On or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY flew with the Vice President and others to and from Norfolk, Virginia, on Air Force Two. On his return trip, LIBBY discussed with other officials aboard the plane what LIBBY should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time reporter Matthew Cooper.

23. On or about July 12, 2003, in the afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone to Cooper, who asked whether LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip to Niger. LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification, that he had heard this information too.

24. On or about July 12, 2003, in the late afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone with Judith Miller of the New York Times and discussed Wilson's wife, and that she worked at the CIA.

The Criminal Investigation

25. On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") to commence a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003.

26. As part of the criminal investigation, LIBBY was interviewed by Special Agents of the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel. During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:

a. During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.

b. During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but that LIBBY did not know if this was true; and

c. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with New York Times reporter Judith Miller during a meeting with Miller on or about July 8, 2003.

27. Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation ("the Grand Jury Investigation") into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).

28. A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information.

29. During the course of the Grand Jury Investigation, the following matters, among others, were material to the Grand Jury Investigation:

i. When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;

ii. Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;

iii. The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to the media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information he may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information;

iv. LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was classified at the time he disclosed it; and

v. Whether LIBBY was candid with Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in describing his conversations with the other government officials and the media relating to Valerie Wilson.

LIBBY's Grand Jury Testimony

30. On or about March 5 and March 24, 2004, LIBBY testified before Grand Jury 03-3.

On each occasion of LIBBY's testimony, the foreperson of the Grand Jury administered the oath to LIBBY and LIBBY swore to tell the truth in the testimony he was about to give.

31. In or about March 2004, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.

32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and

representations, in substance, under oath:

a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003:

i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

b. LIBBY advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and further advised him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; and

c. LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.

33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:

a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10, 2003:

i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions:

# In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice President that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division;

# On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior CIA officer that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA and that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her;

# On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the Under Secretary of State that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

# On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY discussed "Joe Wilson" and "Valerie Wilson" with his CIA briefer, in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger;

# On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;

# On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY advised the White House Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

# In or about June or July 2003, and in no case later than on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

# On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and

# On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY had a discussion with the Counsel to the Office of the Vice President concerning the paperwork that would exist if a person who was sent on an overseas trip by the CIA had a spouse who worked at the CIA;

b. LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and

c. LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.

COUNT TWO

(False Statement)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-26 of Count One as though fully set forth herein.

2. During the course of the criminal investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, the following matters, among others, were material to that investigation:

a. When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA; b. Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;

c. The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to the media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information he may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information; and

d. LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was classified at the time he disclosed it.

3. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:

During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.

4. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003:

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

COUNT THREE

(False Statement)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Count Two as though fully set forth herein.

2. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:

During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.

3. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that:

LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

COUNT FOUR

(Perjury)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-30 of Count One as though fully set forth herein.

2. On or about March 5, 2004, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony regarding a conversation that he represented he had with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003 (underlined portions alleged as false):

. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this -- excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said -- he may have said a little more but that was -- he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.

Now, I had said earlier in the conversation, which I omitted to tell you, that this -- you know, as always, Tim, our discussion is off-the-record if that's okay with you, and he said, that's fine. So then he said -- I said -- he said, sorry -- he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he said, yeah -- yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him anymore about it because I didn't want to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the conversation, something like that.

3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that:

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.

COUNT FIVE

(Perjury)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-30 of Count One as though fully set forth herein.

2. On or about March 5, 2004 and March 24, 2004, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony regarding his conversations with reporters concerning the employment of Joseph Wilson's wife by the CIA (underlined portions alleged as false):

a. Testimony Given on or about March 5, 2004 Regarding a Conversation With Matthew Cooper on or About July 12, 2003:

Q. And it's your specific recollection that when you told Cooper about Wilson's wife working at the CIA, you attributed that fact to what reporters --

A. Yes.

Q. -- plural, were saying. Correct?

A. I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was -- all I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters.

. . . .

Q. And at the same time you have a specific recollection of telling him, you don't know whether it's true or not, you're just telling him what reporters are saying?

A. Yes, that's correct, sir. And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don't know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know -- I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing.

b. Testimony Given on or about March 24, 2004 Regarding Conversations With Reporters:

Q. And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that you knew that the law could turn, the law as to whether a crime was committed, could turn on where you learned the information from, affect your account for the FBI when you told them that you were telling reporters Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather than the Vice-President?

A. No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters.

Q. And you're, you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to other reporters?

A. Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because it was -- that's what -- that's how I did it.

. . . .

Q. The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are -- concern this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?

A. I want -- I didn't want to -- I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people -- I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said it. I -- all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr. Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report. Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.

. . . .

Well, talking to the other reporters about it, I don't see as a crime. What I said to the other reporters is what, you know -- I told a couple reporters what other reporters had told us, and I don't see that as a crime.

3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.

A TRUE BILL:

FOREPERSON

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD

Special Counsel

 


~OGD~

Larry, thanks for bringing up this "attack" on the facts and your synopsis and background. On another level the Plame outing was business as usual for the present administration. How many people who spoke out against the President or administration were threatened into submission? Even before September 11th the media seemed cowed by this administration. They play real hardball and just don't seem to care about other peoples lives, only their agenda.

The thing about Valerie and Joe, is they went too far in attacking two people that would not back down and in this case the administration broke the law (and got caught) by how they did it. I see those two as real American Heros.

I find it odd that you do not fault the CIA for taking advantage of innocent employees of these firms (I gather they are not offered "informed consent" disclosures) and putting those employees and their careers at risk solely for the benefit of the CIA.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave . . . ."

I guess the CIA never thought they'd be ratted out by a sitting Vice President and his many puppets. By the way, how would you imagine the "informed consent" to be worded? Just curious.

Jan Knaus

Dear Troll:

If your unsupported assertions (no links or sources were given in your rant) are true, how would you respond to the following?

1. Who asked for a Justice Department investigation? (the CIA)

2. Why did the Justice Department appoint a special prosecutor? (Cheney was involved and could bring political pressure on the DOJ?)

3. Why did a Grand Jury bring a variety of indictments against Scooter Libby? (cause he's guilty as hell?)

Yes, a covert agent was outed (for political ends, as has come out in the trial). If it was easier to prove that people knew in advance of her covert status, half of the Bush Whitehouse would be on trial right now.

"I agree to work for the XYZ Corp. knowing that it is a CIA front and knowingly accept the fact that for many reasons including without limitation changes in the needs of the CIA or in its ability to keep its relationship with this firm secret (see, Aldrich Ames & co.), the CIA may, at any time and without any warning, close the firm down. I understand that the CIA will never admit that it had any relationship with the firm and that to the extent that any officer of the firm was CIA or knew of the CIA's involvement, I cannot expect him or her to recommend me to future employers."

That would be a start.

Note: When the firm shuts down, "Mr. John Smith", its president, who was never anything but an alias, ceases, along with the other officers, to exist.

I guess that would be why there was no "informed consent" proposed, or signed.

Jan Knaus

I did not say failing to indict Clinton was a blow to justice. Toensig was the one who argued in her op-ed that by not indicting Clinton for perjury, Ray was undermining our judicial system. How then, can she argue against a perjury indictment against Libby for lying to the grand jury? If she believes Clinton's lying grand jury perjury was indictable, then Libby's must be also. Even more so, since Clinton lied in a civil case and Libby lied in a criminal case.

Yup.

And the question for those not ethically challenged is whether we want a governmental agency acting in that way. 

I'm not sure you remember. One of the favorite responses at the time was that Clinton could not have committed perjury because it did not refer to a material fact because the case had been "thrown out" (temporarily). Using that logic and assuming Libby intentionally committed perjury, the investigation of Leaking was solved by Fisk before it started when he discovered Armitage, which he mysteriously concealed and asked Armitage and others to conceal. Fitz knew there was no criminal case, he had solved the mystery, yet he continued his fishing trip in pursuit of an AG spot in a Kerry White house.

Using the Clintonites defense, this criminal case was not just "thrown out", it was laughed out of court. Even apologist Larry admits that no crime was committed regarding the so-called outting.

When Paula Jones case got started up again, the relevence of a material fact was on the table again and could only be removed by Clinton winning. He did not. He lost and was punished by the court for lying. His punishment is still in effect to this day.

Maybe his wife can pardon him? No, she can't. If the SCOTUS says they disbar someone, there is no veto or pardon.

The truth does mean a lot to me. Please address my points and enlighten me of the truth you so treasure.

The INR memo introduced in the Libby trial confirms Joe's account as well about what he told the CIA debriefing team. Too bad Ms. Toensing did not take time to read the CIA report produced from Mr. Wilson's trip. He made it very clear in that report that Iraq had not purchased or negotiated the purchase of uranium.

********************************************
SSCI

With data quoted from the INR memo which says a Nigerien official was approached by Iraqis for trade discussions which he felt certain meant uranium.

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

(U) Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day. The debriefing took place in the former ambassador's home and although his wife was there, according to the reports officer, she acted as a hostess and did not participate in the debrief. Based on information provided verbally by the former ambassador, the DO case officer wrote a draft intelligence report and sent it to the DO reports officer who added additional relevant information from his notes.

(U) The intelligence report based on the former ambassador's trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002. The report did not identify the former ambassador by name or as a former ambassador, but described him as "a contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record." The report also indicted that the "subsources of the following information knew their remarks could reach the U.S. government and may have intended to influence as well as inform." DO officials told Committee staff that this type of description was routine and was done in order to protect the former ambassador as the source of the information, which they had told him they would do. DO officials also said they alerted WINPAC analysts when the report was being disseminated because they knew the "high priority of the issue." The report was widely distributed in routine channels.

( ) The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,( ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

confirmed which of Joe's many accounts?

~

El Campesino:

I seem to have misplaced a response to your comment. It's down here . . .

~OGD~

~

Dear apologist for the scumbags:

Here ... This is the account that counts.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Holding a Criminal Term

Grand Jury Sworn in on October 31, 2003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY"

Criminal No.

GRAND JURY ORIGINAL

Count 1: Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. Section 1503)

Counts 2-3: False Statements (18 U.S.C. Section 1001(a)(2))

Counts 4-5: Perjury (18 U.S.C. Section 1623)

INDICTMENT

COUNT ONE (Obstruction of Justice)

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

1. At times material to this indictment:

Defendant's Employment and Responsibilities

a. Beginning on or about January 20, 2001, and continuing through the date of

this indictment, defendant I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY," was employed

as Assistant to the President of the United States, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. In the course of his work, LIBBY had frequent access to classified information and frequently spoke with officials of the U.S. intelligence community, as well as other government officials, regarding sensitive national security matters.

b. In connection with his role as a senior government official with responsibilities for national security matters, LIBBY held security clearances entitling him to access to classified information. As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a written "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," stating in part that "I understand and

accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government," and that "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation."

The Central Intelligence Agency

c. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was an agency of the United States whose mission was to collect, produce, and disseminate intelligence and counterintelligence information to officers and departments of the United States government, including the President, the National Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

d. The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson

e. Joseph Wilson ("Wilson") was a former career State Department official who had held a variety of posts, including United States Ambassador. In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA by the Vice President concerning certain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return.

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.

Events Leading up to July 2003

2. On or about January 28, 2003, President George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union address which included sixteen words asserting that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

3. On May 6, 2003, the New York Times published a column by Nicholas Kristof which disputed the accuracy of the "sixteen words" in the State of the Union address. The column reported that, following a request from the Vice President's office for an investigation of allegations that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger, an unnamed former ambassador was sent on a trip to Niger in 2002 to investigate the allegations. According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based on forged documents.

4. On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary of State ("Under Secretary") for information concerning the unnamed ambassador's travel to Niger to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary thereafter directed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip.

5. On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After receiving these documents, LIBBY and one or more other persons in the Office of the Vice President handwrote the names "Wilson" and "Joe Wilson" on the documents.

6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson's wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

8. Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President in connection with a story he was writing about Wilson's trip. LIBBY participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus.

9. On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

10. On June 12, 2003, the Washington Post published an article by reporter Walter Pincus about Wilson's trip to Niger, which described Wilson as a retired ambassador but not by name, and reported that the CIA had sent him to Niger after an aide to the Vice President raised questions about purported Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. Pincus's article questioned the accuracy of the "sixteen words," and stated that the retired ambassador had reported to the CIA that the uranium purchase story was false.

11. On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President's office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, "Joe Wilson" and his wife "Valerie Wilson," in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger.

12. On or about June 19, 2003, an article appeared in The New Republic magazine online entitled "The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War." Among other things, the article questioned the "sixteen words" and stated that following a request for information from the Vice President, the CIA had asked an unnamed ambassador to travel to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The article included a quotation attributed to the unnamed ambassador alleging that administration officials "knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie." The article also was critical of how the administration, including the Office of the Vice President, portrayed intelligence concerning Iraqi capabilities with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and accused the administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence agencies on this topic.

13. Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.

14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed "selective leaking" by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA's handling of Wilson's trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

The July 6 "Op Ed" Article by Wilson

15. On July 6, 2003, the New York Times published an Op-Ed article by Wilson entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa." Also on July 6, 2003, the Washington Post published an article about Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, which article was based in part upon an interview of Wilson. Also on July 6, Wilson appeared as a guest on the television interview show "Meet the Press." In his Op-Ed article and interviews in print and on television, Wilson asserted, among other things, that he had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought or obtained uranium yellowcake from Niger, and that he doubted Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger recently, for a number of reasons. Wilson stated that he believed, based on his understanding of government procedures, that the Office of the Vice President was advised of the results of his trip.

LIBBY's Actions Following Wilson's July 6 "Op Ed" Column

16. On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY had lunch with the then White House Press Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and noted that such information was not widely known.

17. 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.

18. Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President's Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip.

19. Not earlier than June 2003, but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs learned from another government official that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and advised LIBBY of this information.

20. On or about July 10, 2003, LIBBY spoke to NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert to complain about press coverage of LIBBY by an MSNBC reporter. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with Russert.

21. On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.

22. On or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY flew with the Vice President and others to and from Norfolk, Virginia, on Air Force Two. On his return trip, LIBBY discussed with other officials aboard the plane what LIBBY should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time reporter Matthew Cooper.

23. On or about July 12, 2003, in the afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone to Cooper, who asked whether LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip to Niger. LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification, that he had heard this information too.

24. On or about July 12, 2003, in the late afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone with Judith Miller of the New York Times and discussed Wilson's wife, and that she worked at the CIA.

The Criminal Investigation

25. On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") to commence a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003.

26. As part of the criminal investigation, LIBBY was interviewed by Special Agents of the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel. During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:

a. During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.

b. During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but that LIBBY did not know if this was true; and

c. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with New York Times reporter Judith Miller during a meeting with Miller on or about July 8, 2003.

27. Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation ("the Grand Jury Investigation") into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).

28. A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information.

29. During the course of the Grand Jury Investigation, the following matters, among others, were material to the Grand Jury Investigation:

i. When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;

ii. Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;

iii. The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to the media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information he may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information;

iv. LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was classified at the time he disclosed it; and

v. Whether LIBBY was candid with Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in describing his conversations with the other government officials and the media relating to Valerie Wilson.

LIBBY's Grand Jury Testimony

30. On or about March 5 and March 24, 2004, LIBBY testified before Grand Jury 03-3.

On each occasion of LIBBY's testimony, the foreperson of the Grand Jury administered the oath to LIBBY and LIBBY swore to tell the truth in the testimony he was about to give.

31. In or about March 2004, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.

32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and

representations, in substance, under oath:

a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003:

i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

b. LIBBY advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and further advised him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; and

c. LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.

33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:

a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10, 2003:

i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions:

# In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice President that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division;

# On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior CIA officer that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA and that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her;

# On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the Under Secretary of State that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

# On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY discussed "Joe Wilson" and "Valerie Wilson" with his CIA briefer, in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger;

# On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;

# On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY advised the White House Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

# In or about June or July 2003, and in no case later than on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

# On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and

# On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY had a discussion with the Counsel to the Office of the Vice President concerning the paperwork that would exist if a person who was sent on an overseas trip by the CIA had a spouse who worked at the CIA;

b. LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and

c. LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.

COUNT TWO

(False Statement)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-26 of Count One as though fully set forth herein.

2. During the course of the criminal investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, the following matters, among others, were material to that investigation:

a. When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA; b. Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;

c. The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to the media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information he may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information; and

d. LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was classified at the time he disclosed it.

3. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:

During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.

4. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003:

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

COUNT THREE

(False Statement)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Count Two as though fully set forth herein.

2. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:

During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.

3. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that:

LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

COUNT FOUR

(Perjury)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-30 of Count One as though fully set forth herein.

2. On or about March 5, 2004, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony regarding a conversation that he represented he had with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003 (underlined portions alleged as false):

. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this -- excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said -- he may have said a little more but that was -- he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.

Now, I had said earlier in the conversation, which I omitted to tell you, that this -- you know, as always, Tim, our discussion is off-the-record if that's okay with you, and he said, that's fine. So then he said -- I said -- he said, sorry -- he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he said, yeah -- yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him anymore about it because I didn't want to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the conversation, something like that.

3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that:

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.

COUNT FIVE

(Perjury)

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-30 of Count One as though fully set forth herein.

2. On or about March 5, 2004 and March 24, 2004, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony regarding his conversations with reporters concerning the employment of Joseph Wilson's wife by the CIA (underlined portions alleged as false):

a. Testimony Given on or about March 5, 2004 Regarding a Conversation With Matthew Cooper on or About July 12, 2003:

Q. And it's your specific recollection that when you told Cooper about Wilson's wife working at the CIA, you attributed that fact to what reporters --

A. Yes.

Q. -- plural, were saying. Correct?

A. I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was -- all I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters.

. . . .

Q. And at the same time you have a specific recollection of telling him, you don't know whether it's true or not, you're just telling him what reporters are saying?

A. Yes, that's correct, sir. And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don't know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know -- I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing.

b. Testimony Given on or about March 24, 2004 Regarding Conversations With Reporters:

Q. And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that you knew that the law could turn, the law as to whether a crime was committed, could turn on where you learned the information from, affect your account for the FBI when you told them that you were telling reporters Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather than the Vice-President?

A. No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters.

Q. And you're, you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to other reporters?

A. Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because it was -- that's what -- that's how I did it.

. . . .

Q. The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are -- concern this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?

A. I want -- I didn't want to -- I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people -- I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said it. I -- all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr. Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report. Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.

. . . .

Well, talking to the other reporters about it, I don't see as a crime. What I said to the other reporters is what, you know -- I told a couple reporters what other reporters had told us, and I don't see that as a crime.

3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.

A TRUE BILL:

FOREPERSON

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD

Special Counsel

 


~OGD~

~

....which he felt certain meant uranium

So the Niger official had an impression and "interpreted" his impression to be a certainty of, " 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." (?)

 

And this perception (the Niger official's) establishes as a fact that Iraq had come to negotiate the purchase of uranium and thereby somehow impeaches the word of Wilson?

Someone's busy picking nits...

~OGD~

 

And this perception (the Niger official's) establishes as a fact that Iraq had come to negotiate the purchase of uranium and thereby somehow impeaches the word of Wilson?

Someone's busy picking nits...

********************************************

Funny how Wilson somehow forgot to point this out in his op-ed article - what do YOU think Iraqis wanted to buy in Niger?

Enough with your tiresome multiple postings of the indictment, it serves no purpose

Garbanzo beans, onions, garlic, peppers, gum arabic, sesame seeds, livestock, gold....there are plenty of reasons to discuss trade with Niger other than uranium.  But why assume Iraq wanted to buy something from Niger?  They were probably more interested in selling, I would think. 

Neoboho

It's just too much work to address your points, TJ.  Not only in terms of magnitude, but also ferreting out all the half-truths, distortions, semantic conundrums and false conclusions.  But you already knew that, right?  I mean you don't actually expect anyone to submit to that great an exercise in futility.

Example: I recieved a letter from Lyndon Baines Johnson once ordering me to report for duty to the US Army.  So I can say honestly that "LBJ sent me on a mission to Viet Nam" even though he didn't even know I existed and the only real thing was that someone down the chain of command did the actual dirty work.  That's about the strength of your "point" about Wilson's statement that "Cheney sent me to Niger."  We all know, clear as can be, that Cheney requested the Niger mission.  To harp on this spurious "point" is almost comical!  Sure, it's obvious you want to use it to paint Wilson as a liar, but it should be obvious to you that no one who isn't a putty-head will buy that line of illogic.  

Neoboho

Ask Ibrahim Mayaki - he was there and he thought it was yellowcake

In retrospect, it is more than possible Mayaki was offering what he thought we wanted to hear. There was a fair amount of that going around.

If you were a 4 star general and claimed in an op-ed that LBJ sent you on a specific mission to bomb 2 NVA air bases north of Hanoi and you claimed to have returned and submitted a report that LBJ requested from you and you claimed to have submitted the report for him and then further claimed that LBJ was ignoring the report that you submitted, you are clearly trying to convey that LBJ personally directed you.

You are fudging around the deception to whatever whim of the moment suits you. You liked the fact that Wilson implied that his direct connection to Cheney when he wrote the OP-ED and now you want to pretend that Wilson was just claiming that he was a low ranking foot soldier whose work was not intended for high level consideration. You can't have it both ways. Wilson has tried to have it both ways and three ways and a hundred ways. Your metaphor is flawed even as you explain it. You claimed that LBJ sent a letter to report for duty to the US Army. If after this request you were ordered to clean out the Latrine, what would your CO say if you told him that you were cleaning a latrine at the "behest" of LBJ. You'd be section 8!


Putty heads not withstanding, Wilson lied numerous times and he continues to lie today. In addition, Check the date of Plame's memo, Feb. 12, 2002. The VP was briefed on Feb. 13. Surprise!

If it takes too much time to address my points, then I take it you mean that you expect to not derive the satisfaction of presenting a convincing argument to disprove my factual arguments. It is true you have failed to make a convincing argument.

Tom, I don't think so, but if I was bending over backwards to see it your way, At each step along the way regarding reports...beginning with Wilson's it was stated that Nigerian officials were aware that higher ups in US government would see their (Niger) comments and could be conveying their comments with that in mind. That was in Wilson's verbal comments, in the CIA briefers report and repeated again later in subsequent repetitions. Although this type of remark is standard operating procedure.

On the other hand, Iraq had previously negotiated Uranium and this was considered a follow up by Mayaki. The exports are Yellowcake and Goat hair, which Iraq had no need for and had never had an interest for. Wilson considered it significant enough to pass it on.

In retrospect, it is more than possible Mayaki was offering what he thought we wanted to hear. There was a fair amount of that going around.
*******************************************

Could be. Wilson dutifully grabbed it and brought it home to report.

Would it be fair to summarize by saying Wilson was right for the wrong reasons (re WMD/nuclear efforts) and the administration wrong for the right reasons?

I don't look at it that way, but it seems the only defense left to the debacle that is Iraq.

In any case, the crucial issue is not (or should not have been) that Iraq was trying to acquire yellowcake. It should have been that they could not, given the established constraints. If a convicted felon on parole asks somebody if he can acquire a firearm, that's not a parole violation. If he does get one, that is a jailing offense.

Since Saddam did of course hold ambitions for the future, it's easy to argue he wanted all the proscribed weapons. So? The fact was he did not have weapons or functioning programs.This was what Wilson's visit showed. There has been this emphasis on whether Saddam tried, but that is not relevant.

So can we lay off Wilson and get back to what got us into this mess, and what to do about it? And I would say hearings to unpack the the internal process of this administration are in order. And if they show that laws were broken, impeachment should follow.

Would it be fair to summarize by saying Wilson was right for the wrong reasons (re WMD/nuclear efforts) and the administration wrong for the right reasons?

I don't look at it that way, but it seems the only defense left to the debacle that is Iraq.
********************************************

I think that is probably the most fair thing I have heard written about the whole Wilson/Plame episode on this site.

When you read the declassified CIA memo LJ links to and the SSCI report that I link to above, it becomes obvious that the single original piece of intelligence Wilson brought back from Niger was the report by Mayaki that he thought Iraqis who were chatting him up were interested in yellowcake, the rest was just confirming what the ambassador had reported earlier. I find it highly ironic that it was the only thing in his oral report that gave any support to Bush's SOTU speech.

Of course, he left it out of his op-ed piece. You can see why the Administration went berserk - from their perspective, he was using cherry-picked intelligence to accuse them of cherry-picking intelligence.

I understand what you are saying. I wouldn't characterize it that way. First of all regarding Wilson. I believe its pretty clear his main motivation whether one believes he was sincere, was to discredit the President and prove he was lying. I think its clear he failed to prove his case. I think its also clear that he mischaracterized certain facts in his attempt. Does that mean Bush was not wrong about other things? no. It only clears up the details on a narrow issue.

I mention that because Wilson was not trying to prove that Saddam did not have WMDs. He like most people believed Iraq had WMDs. He even mentions in the final paragraph of his OPED that he believed Saddam had WMDs and possibly a Nuclear program. Before the War, Wilson argued vigorously on TV as an expert on Iraq, that Saddam had WMDs in an apparent attempt to warn of huge casualties as a plea to not invade. So Wilson was trying to stop the war and damage the popularity of the President, so he saw himself as the initiator of the "Bush lied, People died" meme. His attempts in that regard, with the willing assisstance of the media, succeeded to a certain extent. Many here would consider that good, even though the momentum he created was based on a farce. Again you may take issue with other mistakes, but this one was a hoax.

Regarding your issue of intent to acquire. Arms experts consider intent to acquire WMD more dangerous than the mere possession of the materials for WMD. Example would be South Africa possessing a nuclear bomb, but not being considered a threat and even the good result of voluntarily disarming, which they did. Compare that to Al Qaeda or Iran not possessing WMD but exerting as much energy as possible to acquire WMD. South Africa is not considered a threat anytime soon, where as in a Nuclear world, any nation that exerts enough energy will "Eventually" acquire them if left unchecked, whether it be 10 years or 80 years.

Tariq Aziz and other Iraqis explained in testimony for the Duelfer report their startegy. Bribe the UN, turn the West against each other (especially the UNSC), acquire long term delivery systems such as the missiles acquired from China in violation of sanctions, hide biochem warheads and minimize their storage, keep in reserve small amounts of cultures and dual use materials that can be quickly turned from biological cultures to large quantities to load on warheads. He is quoted as saying Long range missiles are hard to acquire and hide, but the manufacturing of toxins to fill the warheads can be done quickly. He said they could easily produce toxins in months if not weeks. So waiting out the West until pressure for sanctions has disappeared, then they are free to bust out in full production.

With the Oil for food program and the window of opportunity in 2002, if action had not been taken, Saddam would have succeeded and his desire to wait out sanctions would have come true. So the constraints you mention would not have lasted forever. Even if Saddam had died in 5 years Uday and Qusay were waiting in the wings. So intent is very important.

So, your remark that we should lay off Wilson, I don't think so. Even if you believe that his attempt to mislead and the media's complicity stirred momentum for the story line that you like, without my debating the broader story, He and the media perpetrated a fraud on the American people that included fraud, slander, and libel. Thats not Truth to power, that's lies to the "We the people".

Your example of a convict, if we were to take it a step further, could be considered conspiracy which is a crime. If he further more discussed with the person supplying him with the weapon that he was going to use it on someone, it could be conspiracy to commit murder. In a criminal sense intent is important.

Saddam was not someone that should be treated with the tools of a criminal justice system. Many here would argue that Milosevic did not deserve those protections either.

We do not owe mass murdering dictators who we are in a suspended state of war with us, with any miranda protections or due process. He was a growing and impending threat and we followed through on 12 years of threats while we still had the means to do it. I have no regrets on the decision to invade.

Anyone that believes impeachment would succeed in a foreign policy decision based on a Presidents interpretation of a threat, backed by congress underestimates the congress' awe regarding the pandora's box of removing an elected President.

You'll notice if you look again that I said "if laws were broken". I don't think Iraq by itself is a violation of procedure, although it was arguably stretched a bit. What I would perhaps bring charges on, even though there was no broken law involved, would be the weakening of the Afghanistan operation and the subsequent failure to roll up Al Qaeda. The charge would be reckless endangerment of national security.

If one is going to act on instinct regarding a threat one had better deliver. While numerous non-executive intel types were saying there was no weapons threat, I understand most department heads and public figures agreed there was in fact some threat. Still, people like Wilson were not arguing for invasion, and Bush was. Those that wanted to invade got it wrong. Those that were cautious won the bet.

Shall we reward failure? Lots of dead people and other unwanted results lack an accounting.

"If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs." - Mark Twain

Neoboho

Asked and answered a few years ago.  Mayaki met with an Iraqi delegation in Algiers and the Iraqis said they wanted to expand commercial relations with Niger.  Mayaki assumed it was about uranium.  "Assumed" is the key word here - uranium was not discussed. For all we know the Iraqi delegates were looking for new markets for the country's date exports - top quality dates, I understand.

Neoboho

~

Dear apologist for the scumbags...

Here ... derive your own satisfaction ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What I Didn't Find in Africa
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.

New York Times | What I Didn't Find in Africa | July 6, 2003

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~OGD~

Bingo!

~OGD~

I agree and I was aware that you said, "if laws were broken", and I did not include you in that group. As you know, a president can be removed from office for anything as long as the congress says so. That doesn't make it right. He can also be acquitted by congress and that does not mean he is innocent.

I think if a hypothetical president was reckless for some sort of selfish reason or a reason he knowingly acted in a way he could be proven he knew would be harmful in the long run, It is possible your "reckless" criteria may be considered, but it would have to be accompanied with numerous counts.

There were not many in the Republican leadership that went along with the media's "thinking out loud" about Wag the dog during the Kosovo war and the few conservatives that did were roundly criticized, but I remember hearing some conservative hot heads claiming that if it could be proven was manufacturing a war to serve his own personal benefit, he could be punished. At least in the case of Desert Fox, I think any conservative that supports the Iraq war today and uttered that kind of criticism against Clinton should be commending him for sticking his neck out politically to keep the threat of force hanging over Saddam's consideration of sanction busting.

My point is 9 years after, conservatives should see Clinton's decision differently. History appears different from a distance. I think Bush is convinced February 2007 will look much different in the history books from what the headlines read today.

I also believe that if a Democrat wins in 2008, our foreign policy in the region will not change dramatically. It will change,...but not dramatically. Even with a democrat, I believe we will still have "some" forces on Iraqi soil, in 2012, at the end of that term. I also believe programs like the international wiretap program will still be pretty much intact. And Guantanamo will still be in operation in 2012.

Two years is a long campaign. It is going to be a winding road for Democrats. Thanks for your post. Some very interesting hypotheticals.

It may not serve your purpose... too bad!

I'm going to say this once, and once only.

Boss:

I ain't your peon... If you had prefaced your request with a please, I would have seriously thought about it. But, being that you didn't, as one old sailor boy would say ... if you don't like it, stick it in your poop chute where the sun don't shine ...

I'll do whatever I god damn well please! Whatta ya' gonna do about it anyways, report me to my Admiral?

Now why don't you run out a get me a hunnert yards of waterline...

Sheesh...

~OGD~

ps: And related to your, "...what do YOU think Iraqis wanted to buy in Niger?" Knowing Saddam, his sons and their ilk, 13 year old Nubian virgins.

He also claims in his OPED the 16 words were based on Bush's obtaining forged documents, when his own report could independently be the source of the "sought Uranium" claim in the original 16 words. Wilson compounds his bizarre allegation about the documents by claiming to have seen them, later claiming to have been misquoted on that, then later under oath changing that to "he mispoke" and finally that he had a fantasy based on a faulty memory.

When I say Fantasy, I can't think of it any other way. He claims that weeks after Niger, he saw IAEA's El Baredei on TV announcing the forgeries, and Wilson later claims, he must have imagined that he had previously been examining the dates and signatures on those same documents. If he recognized as he said that the dates and signatures were wrong, he would have lit up like a Christmas tree and remembered that moment and that document like it was a lottery ticket.

It is either a ridiculously poor effort at lying or he has had a mentally unstable Walter Mitty moment.

Probably both. I think its clear he was trying to weave stories together for maximum effect, never realizing the degree to which the detail his actions would be scrutinized, and he got greedy, oversold it, and messed up.

The President called.

He ordered you to stop cleaning the latrines.

~

Had the "impression" and "assumed" and "felt" ... There's some great intel to hang your hat on to spend $750 billion playing shock and awe" ...

BTW -- Some of the finest dates I ever purchased were imports from Iraq before the invasion. I'd buy 10lbs. at a whack every time we traveled through Dateland, Arizona. If you're ever heading east or west along I-8 it's 65 mi due east of Yuma. We used to fly training rocket runs 10 miles south of Dateland in our OV-10s, when flying out of Yuma.

It's hard to get through Dateland w/o at least a date shake.  I wonder if they still sell Iraqi dates.  I must investigate (about a 2 hour drive from home here in Imperial Valley.)  If I find any Iraqi businessmen there, I'll report to Homeland Security that there are Iraqis shopping for atomic bombs in Arizona.

The other part of the story I find pretty interesting: African businessmen who allegedly "set-up" the meeting between Iraq and Niger.  The Algerian "Baraka" - oops, the source of this story turns out to be from the forged documents, but exercepted ver batim by SISMI. (foreign source)

Redacted businessman: probably not Baraka - source of "expanded commercial relations" story, and Mayaki's speculations.  This is interesting because Mayaki claims the meeting took place, but he wouldn't allow uranium sales on the agenda.  So what did they meet about?  Is this where the bales of cotton came from?  Was Iraq planning to sell chocolate covered cotton balls to US troops?

West African Businessman: Source that large quantities of Iraq-bound uranium was stored in a warehouse in Benin.  But the warehouse actually contained bales of cotton.  But this businessman was never interviewed by any of our competing intelligence agencies. 

<>The Somali businessman: source of a fax said to outline the uranium deal, but the fax failed to mention Iraq, Niger or uranium in its text.  [source]

<>These four examples seem to constitute the "other sources" of the yellowcake deal.   Pretty thin, and not worth the $750 billion you mention.

<>It reminds me of the Bermuda Triangle story.  I saw a story about one investigator who set out to trace down the sources of all the incidents that collectively constituted the "mystery" and discovered that all the lines of evidence circulated from one publication to the next, but ultimately derived from an unsubstantiated story published in Argosy in 1964.  That's Argosy : Magazine of Masterpiece Fiction.

Neoboho

~

For some jackass apologist for the scumbags who hasn't even a clue relating to what is and what is not the military oath -- this frickin' freeper keyboard-warrior sure has room to talk.

Oh please, just one night in the barracks and a short-sheet excercise... or a long walk in the dark on short deck of a carrier...

~OGD~

~

Although I did not request it, I must thank you for leaving us with your IQ (or was it your hatsize?) in my previous missive to you...

Anchors aweigh . . .

And remember to salute the ensign smartly, and don't trip on the way down the gangplank...

~OGD~

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address