Oct 23 2005
The Genesis Of Plame Game
As anyone who reads this blog knows, I have had serious doubts about any indictments heading towards high level Bush administration officials since the law and evidence don’t stack up. My assessment was the only indictable offenses supported by law and evidence was all the leaking of details about Wilson’s Niger trip and the peripheral intelligence in Niger, Saddam and nuclear proliferation.
Up until reading Mac Ranger’s posts on the subject, I had no actual connection to the CIA world for the peripheral leaking that was apparent. I think Mac is onto something here, which is a specific political ploy run by rogue CIA and ex-CIA agents to try and damage the Bush WH.
The irony of all this is, when it started way back in the early days of the Iraq invasion, the rogue players truly believed Iraq would be a failure (which was the basis for opposing the war all along). But now, faced with the establishment of a democratic Iraqi government, along with the other changes we have seen in the ME (Libya coming clean, Lebanon breaking free from Syria, etc), the argument that a few forged documents were all this war was about is becoming comical.
But that is where the Plame Game began. And I bet those who started this, with the expectation that we would be on the verge of pulling out due to a whithering insurgency and ME uprising, are wondering what they got themselves into.
What has stumped me for some time has been the role of Matt Cooper and Time in all this. Mac Ranger has been pointing to Cooper for some time. I mentioned his connection via marriage to a Clinton partisan early on. But beyond that there was nothing substantial. And there doesn’t seem to be much of a smoking gun in his first Wilson column in Time – which was the apparent reason for why he was heading to jail on contempt charges before he finally testified. Everything in that column is on the up and up. Wilson had spoken, Novak had spoken, Tenent had spoken…
What could possibly be of interest to a Federal prosecutor in this article? OK, time to run out further on my limb (probably with some pushing by Mac Ranger), but this could be the reason (from Wilson himself):
After he submitted his report in March 2002, Wilson says, his interest in the topic lay dormant until the State of the Union address in January 2003. In his speech, the President cited a British report claiming that Hussein’s government had sought uranium in Africa. Afterward, Wilson says, he called a friend at the Africa bureau of the State Department and asked if the reference had been to Niger. The friend said that he didn’t know but, says Wilson, allowed the possibility that Bush was referring to some other country on the continent. Wilson says he let the matter drop until he saw State Department spokesman Richard Boucher say a few months later that the U.S. had been fooled by bad intelligence. It was then that Wilson says he realized that his report had been overlooked, ignored, or buried.
When I made the case that Kristof and Pincus had obviously talked to the Wilsons (Joe and Valerie) when they wrote about the ‘anonymous ex-ambassador’, I pointed out a few aspects of their articles that proved this theory.
The first was the articles were based on people in attendance at the Wilson debriefing. It would not come out until the Senate investigation months later that the debriefing was at the Wilsons’ home with Valerie, Joe and two DO analysts.
The second aspect was both articles mentioned Wilson debunking the Niger documents as forgeries in his report. Something not possible since the forgeries came to the CIA in October of 2002 (or later) while Wilson’s Niger trip was in February 2002. In fact, the public administration statement on the Niger forgeries happened only months prior to the May and June Kristof and Pincus articles (respectively).
The third aspect was that the DO analysts had reported and stated under oath there was (obviously) no discussion of the Niger documents or forgeries in the debriefing. The articles do. And so does the Cooper article.
The Kristof and Pincus articles had to rely on more than just Joe Wilson’s claims alone, which leaves Valerie as the second source who was there. And that means the press knew of Valerie’s role in all this before they went querying the administration to either confirm this (which was not needed with Larry Johnson available) or trap the administration somehow.
But back to the words highlighted in Cooper’s article. Cooper writes that Wilson’s epiphany comes at the knowledge of the Niger forgeries. I agree, something hit Joe’s warped mind at the time. But it could not have been what he described to Cooper. Wilson had to know the Niger forgeries were identified well after his trip. At least he better have known this! So what did strike his mind at this moment?
We need a bit more of a timeline first. It is not clear when the Niger documents came into the possession of the US. Some say October 2002, but other CIA sources at the time claimed after or around the time of the SOTU speech. What is important is this tipping point for Joe came a few months before the Kristof article at best – probably March-April 2003.
There were some truly interesting questions being posed at the time of the announcement about the Niger forgeries:
The former high-level intelligence official told me that some senior C.I.A. officials were aware that the documents weren’t trustworthy. “It’s not a question as to whether they were marginal. They can’t be ‘sort of’ bad, or ‘sort of’ ambiguous. They knew it was a fraud—it was useless. Everybody bit their tongue and said, ‘Wouldn’t it be great if the Secretary of State said this?’ The Secretary of State never saw the documents.†He added, “He’s absolutely apoplectic about it.†(A State Department spokesman was unable to comment.) A former intelligence officer told me that some questions about the authenticity of the Niger documents were raised inside the government by analysts at the Department of Energy and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. However, these warnings were not heeded.
“Somebody deliberately let something false get in there,†the former high-level intelligence official added. “It could not have gotten into the system without the agency being involved. Therefore it was an internal intention. Someone set someone up.†(The White House declined to comment.)
Yes indeed – someone did set someone up. So was Wilson’s epiphany about Niger forgeries?
Wilson is clear in a statement to Cooper that he says he acted because the Niger forgery news coming out after the SOTU meant his report was ignored – since it must have addressed the Niger forgeries! But this makes no sense whatsoever. A more realistic theory, given all we know now, is this is around the time the Wilson gang decided to try and make the case in the press that Bush knew about the forgeries and used them go to war. This had been the mantra from the leftward fringes for a while now – and they thought they had a perfect series of events to run this con through given Wilson’s trip. What probably really happened was Wilson felt he had conditions he needed to undermine Bush and his march to war.
That’s the keystone cop version. The more sinister version was this was all set up well in advance with Wilson’s trip in the first place. That roque CIA agents were going to exact a price from Bush for going to war. This is harder to square because of all the bungling by Wilson and others.
As Mac Ranger pointed out in this March 2003 PBS interview, Wilson shows no signs of the concerns he is harboring about forged documents supporting the case for war he will hop onto two short months later. The Niger document issue was brewing all over the place. But not a word. I am guessing he could have been trying to establish credibility with the public before making the serious charges.
Anyway, is it any surprise then that Cooper would go to administration officials and discuss forged Niger documents, and the method of their forgery? Is that what Fitzgerald is chasing?
I am still not sure why Cooper is such a large player in this drama. If it was all about his Rove discussions, those seemed to have become irrelevant. Or is there more here Time is not letting on about:
In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson’s criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time’s editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine’s corporate decision not to disclose its contents.)
hmmmm.
Oh great, I guess I am not nuanced. Esplain the hmmmm..I am hanging off the edge of my seat.
It’s always sad to see intelligent people go off the deep end. We now have three retired senior administration officals who have written books noting GW’s constant mantra about finding Iraq connections to 9/11. Even though senior analysts (CIA,DIA,NSA and State Department) told him it didn’t exist. He kept sending everyone back top their offices to “look deeper”. Either you are wilfully blind, and deaf, or you just think your boy in the White House is the most guillible idiot on the planet. BTW, there IS a rogue CIA. Both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration keep running up against facts they don’t want to hear. Last time I looked, this was actually the CIA’s JOB.
MaryMapes
The ‘hmm’ just notes that there was more to the email than provided by Time. It could be nothing, or it could be Cooper, like Miller, knew about Valerie before contacting Rove.
Ah, thanks AJ…sort of what I thought because that portion of the email is always “redacted”, interesting, in the same email Cooper states to not attribute to Rove, and requests someone to independently verify with CIA, did they?, Rove only says, she works at agency.
Mapes,
I would guess they did and that was also discussed with Fitzgerald.
AJSTRATA,
This is too much intrigue for me. Can you dumb it down a little?
Novak’s July 14, 2003 article states Wilson was dispatched to Niger because of the forged documents:
“Wilson’s mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a “con man.” This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government. The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it.”
Let me see if I sort of get this.
Wilson’s Niger trip was in February 2002.
The forgeries came to the CIA in October of 2002 (or later)
Novak’s July 14, 2003 article states Wilson was dispatched to Niger because of the forged documents.
But that couldn’t have been the reason because the CIA didn’t have these forgeries yet.
So who did Novak get his information from?
Keep it simple. I keep re-reading, but it is confusing.
Sorry.
I’m beginning to think there’s a link in this chain that we know nothing about that is highly sensitive from an intel standpoint, so much so that we will struggle through next week at various stages of nervous exhaustion and Friday will come and go and Fitzgerald will say nothing and we’ll never know what happened.
Snapple, it is very confusing and you are not alone trying to get your head around this. Your post is correct. I would have to go back but I believe Novak could be referring to Wilson’s Op-Ed, the two Pincus stories (one the same day as Wilson with his name, one before that as an un-named former ambassador) and the first story by Kristof that also did not name Wilson. They all included references to Wilson finding out the documents were forgeries.
AE, I agree, we may never know what happened from Fitzgerald. However, our chance may come if the Wilson’s go ahead with their threat to sue the Administration.
Hmmm, Lesley, maybe we really do have to do something about those frivolous lawsuits.
AJ…i can’t say i know the facts are there to support the idea
that Kristof and Pincus knew *directly* from (both)the Wilson’s
that early on,but if they are ,
you’re the first to have called attention to it.
what’s Mac’s take on your angle here??
(in the case of a scam being run,
what the journo’s *knew* is a relative term,
but *knew* in the sense of interviewing one or both Wilson’s anonymously,that early on,and then being caught out in an error that exposes the source of their faulty info…ie “forged Niger docs” prior to CIA’s receipt of same 8 to 9 months later…
…if your ideas hold water here,it’s a pretty big deal,imo,
in terms of both chronolgy and story-fabrication).
is the SSCI report really *that* clear on who attended
the de-briefing and what was said,and by whom?
or you gotta wild hair?
maybe you answered my Q here:
“The third aspect was that the DO analysts had reported and stated under oath there was (obviously) no discussion of the Niger documents or forgeries in the debriefing. The articles do.
And so does the Cooper article.”
that would clearly point to the Wilson/Plames creating and
pushing the story on the journos.
and *their* version of the “facts” of the story as well.
would you call this responsible/investigative journalism??:
“The Kristof and Pincus articles had to rely on
more than just Joe Wilson’s claims alone,
which leaves Valerie as the second source who was there.”
…”ask his wife.”???
and doesn’t that go beyond just poor journalism to
the fact that VPlame would be divulging CIA info?
ie directly caught leaking to the press??
and of course,here’s the other reason
it would be a real reversal in the investigation so far:
“And that means the press knew of Valerie’s role in all this before they went querying the administration to either confirm this (which was not needed with Larry Johnson available) or trap the administration somehow.”
the journos(Kristof,Pincus,Cooper),CIA-leakers,
and the Wilson/Plames(Valerie being a CIA-leaker)
would not want this particular version out.
_____________________________
AJ said:
When I made the case that Kristof and Pincus had obviously talked to the Wilsons (Joe and Valerie) when they wrote about the ‘anonymous ex-ambassador’, I pointed out a few aspects of their articles that proved this theory.
The first was the articles were based on people in attendance at the Wilson debriefing. It would not come out until the Senate investigation months later that the debriefing was at the Wilsons’ home with Valerie, Joe and two DO analysts.
The second aspect was both articles mentioned Wilson debunking the Niger documents as forgeries in his report. Something not possible since the forgeries came to the CIA in October of 2002 (or later) while Wilson’s Niger trip was in February 2002. In fact, the public administration statement on the Niger forgeries happened only months prior to the May and June Kristof and Pincus articles (respectively).
The third aspect was that the DO analysts had reported and stated under oath there was (obviously) no discussion of the Niger documents or forgeries in the debriefing. The articles do. And so does the Cooper article.
The Kristof and Pincus articles had to rely on more than just Joe Wilson’s claims alone, which leaves Valerie as the second source who was there. And that means the press knew of Valerie’s role in all this before they went querying the administration to either confirm this (which was not needed with Larry Johnson available) or trap the administration somehow.
______________________________
Gumshoe,
I cannot answer all those questions! Not enough time. But yes, the SCCI report is clear as a bell and if you follow the links I have the actual wording in a previous post.
The rest is deductive reasoning. You need two sources for something like this (Bush lied and used forged documents to go to war?). There were only four people present at the debrief and two are on record and under oath without a single word about the Niger forgeries.
That leaves the Wilsons. And to support her version, being the wife, she would need to expose her bona fides and position at the CIA.
QED: they spilled the beans themselved. No other scenario fits the facts as we know it. None.
AE, I had a really bad, no good, rotten, unladylike thought the other day wrt the Wilson’s suing the administration.
Somewhere, possibly Vanity Fair, Wilson tells the American public that Valerie told him she was a CIA agent between hot kisses on the third date, or some such thing.
Geesh. An undercover agent BLABS ALL while under the covers.
Valerie says, Administration, you ruined my career as a super secret CIA agent!
So, the Administration digs out every man with whom undercover Valerie has ever been under to the covers to ascertain whether she blabbed the same “third date” info to those past, uh, suitors, since (according to her OWN blabbermouth husband) she seems to be susceptible to “blabbaciousness” while in the throes.
Rotten rotten rotten, I know. Nevertheless, that lawsuit, if it ever comes to fruition, ain’t gonna be pretty.