Washington Post Enables Toensing's Delusions
- 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.












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.
February 18, 2007 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 18, 2007 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 18, 2007 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 18, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
February 18, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 18, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
February 18, 2007 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
About 30% of the populus would deny the fact that their hair was on fire, repeatedly,if it was a liberal making the claim.
February 18, 2007 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 18, 2007 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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.
February 18, 2007 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 18, 2007 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 19, 2007 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 19, 2007 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 19, 2007 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
Dear apologist for the scumbags:
Here ... project this.
~OGD~
February 19, 2007 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
Dear apologist for the scumbags:
Here ... Come back to this reality.
~OGD~
February 19, 2007 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 19, 2007 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
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 . . . ."
February 19, 2007 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
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
February 19, 2007 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 19, 2007 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"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.
February 19, 2007 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that would be why there was no "informed consent" proposed, or signed.
Jan Knaus
February 19, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 19, 2007 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup.
And the question for those not ethically challenged is whether we want a governmental agency acting in that way.
February 19, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 19, 2007 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The truth does mean a lot to me. Please address my points and enlighten me of the truth you so treasure.
February 19, 2007 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
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."
February 19, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
confirmed which of Joe's many accounts?
February 19, 2007 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
El Campesino:
I seem to have misplaced a response to your comment. It's down here . . .
~OGD~
February 19, 2007 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
Dear apologist for the scumbags:
Here ... This is the account that counts.
~OGD~
February 19, 2007 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
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~
February 19, 2007 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
February 20, 2007 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Enough with your tiresome multiple postings of the indictment, it serves no purpose
February 20, 2007 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
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
February 20, 2007 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
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
February 20, 2007 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ask Ibrahim Mayaki - he was there and he thought it was yellowcake
February 20, 2007 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 20, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 20, 2007 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 20, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 20, 2007 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 20, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 20, 2007 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 20, 2007 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 20, 2007 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs." - Mark Twain
Neoboho
February 20, 2007 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
February 20, 2007 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
Dear apologist for the scumbags...
Here ... derive your own satisfaction ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~OGD~
February 20, 2007 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
~OGD~
February 20, 2007 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 20, 2007 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 20, 2007 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
February 20, 2007 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The President called.
He ordered you to stop cleaning the latrines.
February 20, 2007 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
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.
February 20, 2007 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
February 21, 2007 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
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~
February 22, 2007 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
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~
February 22, 2007 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink