Jan 29 2007
Fitzgerald’s Folly IV
Fitz is having an abysmal time trying to paint a picture of the Office of VP (OVP) and WH (President) on some mission of retribution against Wilson through Plame. Recall, these witnesses on now are the PROSECUTION’s witnesses. So when they get up and say ‘we worked on this matter heavily and had strategies laid out on what to do and – no – never a mention of getting Plame into the media’ you know Fitz is failing miserably. I really enjoy reading the leftwing Firedog Lake because, even as supposed legal experts of some kind, they keep missing the underlying premise of the indictment. If Libby was not part of some nefarious effort to punish Plame, he has no reason to hide his conversations. The fact Plame worked at the CIA is not enough since the indictment doesn’t claim that was the reason. So, while the lefties keep dreaming of Fitzmas treats dancing through their heads, the case for the prosecution lies in shreds.
Wells [W]: I’d like to develop a demonstrative timeline Sunday July 6 until after publication of Novak article.
…
W: July 6, Joe’s article., July 7, you developed talking points–
M I didnt develop them for him, I had them and I just sent them to him.
W Sometime on July 7 WH admitted use of 16 words was a mistake
…
W: July 8, you meet with VP Cheney and others staffers at VP’s office on Hill. At that time Cheney personally dictates the talking points that he wants you to deliver wrt Wilson allegations. And also Andrea Mitchell goes on TV and reports that certain people at WH are saying CIA is at fault. If we go to Wednesday July 9 that is the day Matthews continues to severely criticize VP.
M He was reporting about this. I don’t recall that specifically.
…
W Now, if we go to July 10, you work on draft of Tenet statement, work late into the night. Do you recall what you were doing during the day?
M Following the story.
W July 11, you drafted talking points that would be used by Condi on Sunday shows.
M I assisted the press office to prepare Rice for her appearance on the Sunday shows.
…. (etc, etc)
W You recall that Novak’s article came out in press on Monday July 14. [Places that article up]
W Do you recall reading Mr. Novak’s article when it came out?
M Yes
…
W On July 15 you recall drafting a set of talking points to respond to Chris Matthews.
M I recall that I did it, I don’t recall the date. [Wells gives them to her] Yes, these are the talking points, we already thought the claims he was making had been disproved or rebutted and he wasn’t making any rebuttal.
…
W You’ve testified that you worked on four sets of talking points.
M Four sets, yeah.
Wells is going through to point out that none of the talking points includes a mention of Plame.
10:41
Wells is introducing all the talking points. July 7, July 8, July 12, July 14. [these are just the typed ones]
W to the respect that jurors want to understand in real time, those documents set forth what the talking points were. All those talking points respond to Joseph Wilson’s claims and none of those mention Valerie Wilson. Mr Libby reviewed these talking points with you.
…
W [Goes through Libby’s involvement in the July 12 talking points] Mr. Libby saw all of the talking points.
W From the entire period form July 6 through the conservative columnist luncheon, he never raised it with you and you didn’t raise it with him. You’re not aware of any evidence that the fact that Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA was an important point.
Objection. Overruled.
M I’m not aware of any specific evidence that would suggest that.
…
W I asked you a question last week–I’m almost finished. See if I can find it. I asked you the following question. When you were on a mission to try to get the whole story out, you did not view “the wife” as part of that story. You answered “no,” I believe you meant “correct.” Let me put the question to you fresh. When you were on a mission to try to get the whole story out WRT VP’s response, you did not view “the wife” as part of that story. Correct?
M Correct.
All through this effort to respond to the press and no mention of Plame as part of that response. None. And was it Libby pushing to contact the media to get the goods on Plame out? Nope.
W It was your rec[ommendation] that Libby talk to Cooper.
M It was my recommendation that we a) decide whether we want to be in the story, and I recommended we should be in it.
W Libby followed your rec. Libby had not talked to Cooper in his life.
M Correct
Libby has to nagged, cajoled, pressured to talk to Matt Cooper. And this is the prosecution’s witness! Amazing. No strategy to get Plame – just the opposite. No effort by Libby to push the story – just the opposite. If it keeps going like this Fitz is in for a world of hurt. The left is obsessed with BDS – they have all but forgotten the indictment – intent to mislead the investigation. And that intent is supposedly driven by some conspiracy to out Plame as payback to Wilson. So far just the opposite has been established. Here is Fitz crashing in burning on re-direct:
F Is it fair to say that if anyone in OVP did talk to reporters about Wilson’s wife, they didn’t do it based on your talking points.
Objection sustained, I think.
F Did the VP every specifically tell you whether or not the whole truth included Mr Wilson’s wife. Did the VP ever show you copy of op-ed that he marked up personally. Did the VP keep you current on anything they were doing WRT the press–on everything.
M No
No “I have no independent recollection” or “I am not sure” – an unambiguous ‘no’. Fitz is FUBAR’d. All of this focus is well after the Harball episode and Libby’s discussion with Mathews. But even if Libby did misrecollect, everyone is going to wonder what this was all about when EVERYONE else was talking about Wilson and Plame. And Fitz has established Plame was not part of any broad media vendetta. I will glance over the Ari testimony, but he is tainted goods. He DID talk to the media and got a plea agreement. Libby is going to look like a champ in comparison. At no point did he hesitate to talk or try to get immunity or anything. Jurors know the difference between Libby and Fleischer. Fitz brought him on to add one more voice that Libby had discussions about Plame during this period. BFD, he admits as much. But he was not lawyered up like Ari. Fitz got little but paid a huge image price.
What are you smoking, AJ. Come on – you can share with your pals! Fitzgerald’s Folly? More like Libby’s Waterloo!!
Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer confirmed the testimony of other witnesses by stating he learned Valerie Plame’s identify from I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby several days before Libby claimed to have heard about it from a reporter on July 10 or 11, 2003.
[Note: Not just “claimed” – swore under oath!!]
Fleischer said Libby had told him at a lunch meeting on July 7 that ex-ambassador Joe Wilson, Plame’s husband, was “sent to Niger to investigate reports Iraq had tried to buy nuclear material there by Wilson’s wife, not by the vice president, as some news accounts were saying.”
David Shuster of MSNBC remarked on the air during a courtroom break that “the last half an hour of testimony that the jury has heard is by far the most dramatic and compelling testimony they have heard in this trial.”
Apparently you don’t understand that a lie is a lie is a lie. Libby is charged with intentional false statements – and each witness so far has dug his grave a little deeper. I hope Scooter is going to like his cellmate, it’ll make those 30 years pass a lot quicker.
Clarice has a great piece over at AT today about the Libby trial. This would be a jury I’d love to be on.
Libby is not charged with leaking Plame’s name. Fitz knew who the original source of the leak is. I still don’t know exactly what Libby is charged and Fitz is failing at proving those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Is soothie an alias of “Ken”?
Clarice’s piece is wonderful! She hasn’t failed. And, I saw this piece this morning, up at Lucianne. Headlined.
Yes, people who enjoy analysis and can read, come here to find out what’s going on. And, Clarice is an attorney who adds FACTS. So, it’s not just a “press story” anymore.
And, yes. People are worried about the people who live in DC. Wells did not ask for a “change in venue.” So, it’s worth considering he’s not terrified of the word “librul.” And, he knows his own territory. (Fitzgerald comes from Chicago. Not just an “outsider,” but if we’re lucky, he leaves town a broken man. Not Libby!)
The other thing that should be repeated? 2003 was BEFORE the presidential election. And, Wilson was INSIDE Kerry’s camp!
So, this trial? It’s the “covering of asses” stage, because Kerry is not in the white house. (Dan Rather also found his career on the skids, trying to tamper with public opinion.)
I remember reading a piece by Beldar, once. Where he mentioned every lawyer has one of those courtroom moments, when you just know you’ve lost the jury. And, lost your case. Sometimes? It’s one witness where something you didn’t anticipate happens. Yet, you still have to sit there! With your client by your side. And, make it appear that nothing has happened. Does wishful thinking work?
Part of the wishful thinking is that Bush Derangement Syndrom is so bad, Bush is hated. (Where these numbers come from, I do not know. Because the same low numbers showed up in the run up to the 2004 election.
Polls are used by propaganda artists to influence people; yet, by now, they look ridiculous.
The other thing I notice? It’s the “OUT OF ORDER”sign, as Fitzgerald seems to be pulling in someone NEXT, who won’t be Edleman. Why is he gonna go “OUT OF ORDER?” Doesn’t he have to create a time-line by keeping witnesses testimony in “order of appearance?” What does that mean? Will Judge Walton let him “mix things up” so that the jurors throw up their hands in confusion?
Dan Rather’s career went south. I’d bet David Gregory and Tim Russert are hoping they have careers left after this turkey shoot is over.
Especially since to save his reputation in the Nixon fiasco, Woodward’s gotta dump out another book! And, ditto, to Judith Miller. Supposedly she’s coming up “next.”
I can’t believe the ringer Libby’s been through.
Lurker-
This is an incredibly simple case. I. Lewis Libby told FBI investigators that he first learned Valerie Plame Wilson’s indenity from journalists on or about July 10 or 11.
He then repeated that lie under oath before the Grand Jury.
According to the testimony of Ari Fleischer and Libby’s own hand-written notes – he learned Plame’s identity from inside the government on an earlier date(s).
Every witness thus far has provided testimony that contradicts Libby;’s version of events; and confirms the indictments framed by Fitzgerald and issued by the Grand Jury, who found probable cause that Libby made false statements to Federal investigations, made false statements under oath before the Grand Jury, and obstructed justice.
That is the entire case against Libby. And so far Fitzgerald is marching through the case like Sherman marched thru Georgia.
AJ –
Motive is not an element of the crime. Fizgerald does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby had any particular motive for lying.
Lurker – I think you are right “southie” is Ken. He keeps coming back under different names. You can change your name but not your style.
Actually, Fitzgerald’s case is not going as well as I expected. I’m anxious to see what happens when the defense takes over – especially would like to hear, and probably will never hear, why Judith Miller was put in jail when Fitz already knew Armitage was the leaker.
That is the entire case against Libby. And so far Fitzgerald is marching through the case like Sherman marched thru Georgia.
Either wishful thinking on your part, or you’re tracking a different case than I am. Unless, of course, your reference to Sherman and Georgia relates to the crashing and burning part and not the marching part.
Every witness thus far has provided testimony that contradicts Libby;’s version of events;
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), most, if not all of them have also contradicted previous statements that they themselves have made.
I hope you don’t have a lot of money riding on this, “Soothie”.
1. Armitage was not the person who told Judith Miller; Libby was.
2. There can be more than one (1) leaker. Prior to Novak’s article, there were apparently a number of Bush Adminsitration employees who were playing fast and loose with the identity of a CIA agent; and
3. It is the offical position of the USA that Plame’s employment was classified.
4. Would you care to make a dinner bet, Spook?
WOW! The only thing that makes sense to me regarding Soothsayer, he must be reading all the press acounts of the case. I compare what the N.Y. Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. say about this, vs. Just One Minute, American Thinker, National Review, Mac Mind, and the Strata Sphere, and they are worlds apart. I’d suggest, trying both the MSM, and the Alternative Media, read both with an open mind, and see which you think is providing good honest coverage of this case. In the end, I think Soothsayer will have a change of heart.
Soothie
Armitage was the leak – everyone knows it to be a fact…and Fitz knew it right at the beginning of his investigation but it seems he had other ‘fish to fry’ and did a “Nifong”
and Plame’s job was not classified ….. she may have been at one time but she was not at the time this occurred….and had not been for at least 5 years at that point
If she was then Armitage and Powell (who was aware of his friend’s leaking), would have been charged…
Jacqui-
What’s your source on this? This is merely a repetition of talking points promulgated by conservative pundits – and the government of the United States disagrees with you:
The CIA filed a criminal complaint launching the entire investigation; the Department of Justice, speaking on behalf of the Bush Administration, stated IN the indictment of I. Lewis Libby )http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf):
You are TOTALLY WRONG in your claim that her employment was not classified. It is the official position of the government of the United States of America that her employment WAS classified. You lose.
Would you care to make a dinner bet, Spook?
Sure, why not. You got someplace in mind?
There are several classifications at the CIA, from what I understand. Plame may have been classified, but classified is not the same as COVERT, which I think many are mistakenly thinking. Plame was not Covert, which is the important issue.
Stevvs:
Again – upon what source do you base your claim that Plame was not “covert”. She worked under “non-official cover” – NOC – which means that when she traveled abroad she traveled as a representative of Brewster-Jennings – her front company. She did not have diplomatic immunity.
There has never been any credible evidence that Plame was not “covert” – only opinion from the usual conservative sources. The CIA – quite understandably – refuses to comment upon her status as “covert”.
It is instructive to note that the CIA has refused to allow her to publish a book based upon her experiences as a NOC. It is further instructive to note that at the time she was outed – she was working on high-level assessment of the weapons capabilities of Iran.
Spook:
You seem like a regular guy, so how about the place that food critic Calvin Trillen described in Playboy Magazine as:
Pork ribs . . . burnt ends . . . beer mugs from a freezer case with Boulevard on tap . . . plenty of pickles . . . beans . . . fries . . . and Arthur Bryant’s original sauce.
Soothsayer,
She was not “Covert” because she was not serving overseas within the 5 year time period required by the statue. I have had several sources to this. Clarice Feldman, Victoria Tounsing, her husband, Mark R. Levin, etc. All are attorneys, and all served in government as attorneys. In fact, Tounsing was a Co-Author of the statue. You’d think she would know about it, NO?
She had been off overseas duties for over 5 years.
The CIA is the one, along with her husband, who actually outed her. Just read the trial transcripts or press acounts so far for that info.
It’s also interesting to know that according to Plame?Wilson, they don’t want to be in the spotlight. They value their privacy. But then, he makes up his claims, just as he joins the Kerry Campaign. All his interviews and op eds prior to that supported Bush. Then of course came his book, Vanity Fair, her book desires, etc. She can write about her Foreign service, but I’m sure she could write about her time spent at a desk at Langly.
Here is an example of Honest Joe early on:
A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose
Source: The LA Times
Byline: Joseph C. Wilson
Date: Feburary 6, 2003
Joseph C. Wilson, chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad from 1988 to 1991 and acting ambassador during Operation Desert Shield, is an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington
Saddam Hussein is a murderous sociopath whose departure from this Earth would be welcomed everywhere.
I met with Hussein for the last time in a heavily curtained room in the Foreign Ministry late in the morning of Aug. 6, 1990, four days after his invasion of Kuwait. As the senior diplomat in charge of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad at the time, it was my responsibility to tell him to get out of Kuwait and to let the several thousand Americans, including 150 so-called “human shields,” leave the region.
I knew from previous meetings that he always stacked the deck to give himself every advantage, and this session was no different.
I was accompanied by a single embassy note taker, while Hussein had eight senior foreign policy officials with him. But only Tarik Aziz, then the foreign minister, dared speak in his presence. The others were as silent as furniture.
Hussein joined me in the middle of the room with the Iraqi news cameras whirring. Typically, when it came time to shake hands, he deliberately held his low so that to take it I would have to lean over. The cameras would then capture for posterity that his visitor had bowed to the potentate. I kept my back straight.
Later in the meeting, when he turned to others in the room to elicit a reaction, the discomfort was palpable. At one point, he made a move to his ever-present gun. My immediate thought was that I had said the wrong thing. To my relief he took it off, telling me that it hurt his back when he sat. I looked at his people, who were also on edge, watching his every move. He reminded me of a big cat at a watering hole, with the zebra and antelope wondering whether he is there to drink or to eat.
During our session — the last he had with any American official before the war — I listened as he offered his deal through a translator: In exchange for keeping Kuwait, he would give the U.S. oil at a good price and would not invade Saudi Arabia. In a matter-of-fact manner, he dismissed the Kuwaiti government as “history” and scoffed at President Bush’s condemnation of him.
He mocked American will and courage, telling me that my country would run rather than face the prospect of spilling the blood of our soldiers in the Arabian Desert.
I was never prouder than when the American response was to confront Hussein and ultimately force him from Kuwait.
Desert Storm was a just war, sanctioned by the international community and supported by a broad multilateral coalition. Today we are on the verge of another conflict with Iraq, but unlike Desert Storm, the goals are not clear — despite Secretary of State Colin Powell’s eloquent argument for war in his address Wednesday to the United Nations Security Council.
Is it a war to liberate the people of Iraq, oppressed all these years? Is it a battle in the war on terrorism? Or is it, as President Bush often says, all about disarmament?
Clarity matters, because our goals will determine how Hussein reacts.
By all indications, Hussein is clear in his own mind about our intentions: He believes we are going to war to kill him, whether he disarms or not.
This is a major problem for us. My judgment was — and is — that only power will make him yield, but there also has to be some incentive for him to comply.
During the Gulf War, we were always acutely aware of the need to be confrontational on the issues at hand but to leave Hussein, a proud and vain man, a way to save face.
When he released the women and children hostages, Hussein initially threatened to keep dual Kuwaiti-American citizens. I told his underling that unless all Americans were put on the evacuation flight within half an hour, I would inform the American TV networks that Hussein had again reneged on his promises and was toying with the lives of children.
Hussein relented, and our official statements acknowledged Iraqi cooperation.
There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.
And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.
Hussein and Aziz both told me directly that Iraq reserved the right to use every weapon in its arsenal if invaded, just as it had against Iran and later the Kurds.
The fact that thousands of men, women and children had died in these attacks fazed them not one bit. In fact, Aziz could barely be bothered to stop puffing on his Cuban cigar as he made these comments, of so little importance was the use of chemicals to kill people.
It is probably too late to change Hussein’s assessment, and that will make any ensuing battle for Iraq that much more dangerous for our troops and for the Iraqis who find themselves in the battlefield.
The assertion that Hussein might share weapons of mass destruction with a terrorist group, however, is counterintuitive to everything I and others know about him. The Iraqi leader is above all a consummate survivalist.
He acts as if he expects the people around him to die for him, but he has long known that every terrorist act, and particularly a sophisticated one, raises the question of his involvement and invites blame. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose. In his mind he is Iraq, Iraq is Hussein, and as long as he survives, Iraq survives.
After then-Secretary of State Jim Baker made it clear to Aziz on the eve of the Gulf War that the United States would destroy Iraq if weapons of mass destruction were used, Hussein did not use them. He is not stupid, and for him living is better than dying in vain.
Now, however, if he feels his death is inevitable, he may well arm extremist groups in an attempt to have a last, posthumous laugh.
Along with our drive toward war, it should also be made clear to Hussein that — in the little time remaining — he still has a choice.
We should do everything possible to avoid the understandable temptation to send American troops to fight a war of “liberation” that can be waged only by the Iraqis themselves. The projection of power need not equate with the projection of force.
My, how his tune changed, NO?
Sooth,
Nor does whether she was covert or not having anything to do with this case:
Fitz to press:
“I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward . . . We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I’m not making that assertion.”
Fitz doesn’t even use the word “agent”.
Judge Walton will not allow her status to be revealed in this trial. I wish he would. Here are a few things for Sooth to ponder:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007508
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2509
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008948
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTcxZjIwZjNmMzZiZmQyYzJkODVlMmU5YTBiYTNhNWM=
Toensing graduated from Indiana University (where she was a member of Alpha Chi Omega sorority) in 1962 with an education degree; she taught high-school English until she entered law school. She graduated from the University of Detroit School of Law in 1975, embarking on a career in the U. S. Attorney’s office. In 1981, she became Chief Counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where she helped draft the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.
And per Bill Gertz of the Wash Times, the CIA accidentally outed Ms. Plame themselves:
In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.
The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said.
The Senate report said the CIA then asked a “former ambassador” to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson — who later became a vocal critic of the President’s 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn’t likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well — evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.
Wilson reported that he had met with Niger’s former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki “interpreted ‘expanding commercial relations’ to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.” In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that “for most analysts” Wilson’s trip to Niger “lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2305-2005Jan11
I must get ready for work now. BYE!
1. It doesn’t matter if she was covert or not, however, none of the people you say have said she was not covert speak with ANY AUTHORITY whatsoever. Even Toensing, who may have helped draft ONE of the statutes that govern agent identity, speaks only as to her opinion THAT statute may or may not have been breached.
What there is NO doubt about whatsoever, is that it is the official positon of the US government that her employment was classified.
2. The rest of your rant is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of Libby – and as a matter of fact – whether or not Plame was covert is irrelevant to the charges against Libby.
3. Along those lines, in his indictment of Scooter Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald alleged that on or about June 12, 2003, Dick Cheney informed Libby that Joseph Wilson’s wife worked in the counterproliferation division of the CIA.
What appears to support that allegation — are Libby’s notes of a June 12, 2003, telephone conversation with the vice president about a Nicholas Kristof column that had called into question the accuracy of the president’s State of the Union claim that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium in Africa. Among other things, the notes say: “CP/ — his wife works in that division.”
David Addington, Cheney’s former counsel and Libby’s replacement as chief of staff, said he believes the letters “CP” are a reference to the CIA’s counterproliferation division.
On the witness stand this morning, Addington described a meeting he had with Libby as the criminal investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson began.
Addington says Libby asked him how you would know, if you met someone who worked at the CIA, whether that person was “undercover” or not. Addington told him that you might not know, then offered to provide him a copy of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which spells out how it is a crime to intentionally reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent. Keep in mind also that Libby also signed documents swearaing not to reveal classified information.
Hmmm… where did my post go? I’ll try again:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007508
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2509
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008948
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTcxZjIwZjNmMzZiZmQyYzJkODVlMmU5YTBiYTNhNWM=
Toensing graduated from Indiana University (where she was a member of Alpha Chi Omega sorority) in 1962 with an education degree; she taught high-school English until she entered law school. She graduated from the University of Detroit School of Law in 1975, embarking on a career in the U. S. Attorney’s office. In 1981, she became Chief Counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where she helped draft the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.
And per Bill Gertz of the Wash Times, the CIA accidentally outed Ms. Plame themselves:
In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.
The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said.
The Senate report said the CIA then asked a “former ambassador” to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson — who later became a vocal critic of the President’s 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn’t likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well — evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.
Wilson reported that he had met with Niger’s former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki “interpreted ‘expanding commercial relations’ to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.” In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that “for most analysts” Wilson’s trip to Niger “lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2305-2005Jan11
I must get ready for work now. BYE!