There is nothing quite so astonishing -- or quite so disgusting, as the glee with which so many of my correspondents are greeting the news of the indictment of Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
That is not to say that perjury is to be ignored or that Scooter Libby, if guilty, shouldn't face the same legal jeopardy as any other American.
Even if it was a set up, which it clearly was. Without rehashing it all again, the central issue began with the question:
"Why send such a rabidly anti-administration partisan as Joe Wilson to investigate the Niger/Yellowcake claim?" Wilson claimed in a New York Times column that he had been sent to Niger at the behest of VP Dick Cheney.
In that same column, he trashed Cheney, the administration, and the accumulated US evidence that mandated the removal of Saddam Hussein.
It is therefore not particularly surprising that reporters would want to know why in the world Cheney sent a guy like Joe Wilson to gather evidence helpful to the administration. It is also not surprising that Cheney, since he hadn't sent Wilson, would deny having dispatched him.
And it is illuminative to learn that Wilson wasn't sent by Cheney, but rather, was dispatched by the CIA, with whom the administration has been involved in a turf war ever since the CIA was called on the carpet for pre-September 11 failures.
The problem is, the CIA doesn't like to get caught playing in domestic politics. So when it was revealed that Wilson's visit was arranged by the CIA without administration approval, it was time for damage control.
So, instead of it being a case of the CIA conducting espionage against the administration, it was soon turned into a case of an administration 'outing' a covert CIA employee.
It doesn't evidently make any difference that Valerie Plame didn't fit the profile of a 'covert' agent under the terms of the statute. The statute defines a covert agent as one who served in a covert status outside the United States within the previous five years.
Plame was a CIA official, not a field agent. And both Plame and Wilson denied Plame's involvement until after a memo surfaced during the 9/11 Commission investigation establishing the link.
Even more revealing, especially since it is being concealed as carefully as possible, is the fact that the 9/11 Commission caught Wilson in so many lies during his testimony that the Commission officially discounted his testimony as unreliable.
None of that is relevant, particularly to those Americans who hate the administration so much that, if in the course of destroying the administration, it causes America years and years of long term damage, it qualifies as acceptable collateral damage.
So, we find the CIA involving itself in domestic politics, in violation of federal law -- and common sense, since the CIA is ostensibly an agent of the United States government, rather than political operatives seeking the destruction of political rivals.
We have both Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame lying about Plame's involvement in undermining America's war effort, under oath, to the federal commission set up to investigate September 11. This might also be a good time to throw in former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger's theft of 9/11-related documents from the National Archives.
Berger's sentence amounted to a slap on the wrist. Valerie Plame still has her government job. Joe Wilson's lies before the 9/11 Commission investigating the intelligence lapses that led to the worst terror attack in US history are largely forgotten.
His reputation is rehabilitated and the only lies history will remember about the whole affair was that Scooter Libby lied about who told him Plame worked for the CIA.
And there are idiots like the correspondent who wrote me this morning demanding that I 'eat crow' because, after all, Scooter Libby was indicted. (For the record, the phrase, 'a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich' exists because an indictment means that a grand jury hears only evidence that supports the prosecutor's case).
But this isn't a defense of Scooter Libby. If he lied, he lied, and he should pay the penalty due the crime, even if Bill Clinton didn't have to. What the case exposes (again) is the irrational, white-hot hatred of the administration shared by so many Americans.
I say irrational, because, after five years of constant scrutiny by a press corps and opposition desperate to find anything negative about the administration, this was the best they could do.
An indictment against an official for lying about a crime that was never committed.
And, to those Americans dedicated to the destruction of the administration, finding out that there are crooked officials in the government is a victory for their side, rather than a black eye on all of America. It isn't a case of America, right or wrong, but rather a case of America, wrong or nothing.
It is difficult to imagine how America can ever hope to defeat its enemies abroad when the most vicious attacks come from within its own ranks. Try, for a second, to imagine a similar situation anywhere else in the world, and you see just how crazy this looks from the outside.
We have American officials seeking the political destruction of other American officials, while America's enemies conduct a pool to see which of their adversaries will fall on his own sword next.
No wonder al-Qaeda believes it is winning. It just might be.
Wilson may not be the paragon of virtue, but he was correct about the lack of evidence to support the claim by the administration about the uranium.
The probe brings up as many questions as it answers. For example, if no crime was committed by Libby or Rove, why did they have to lie and scramble to cover it up? What are they hiding? Inquiring minds and the prosecutor want to know.
The reasons for those in opposition to this administration finding glee when something like these indictments take place are simple to understand. We consider the administration's deceiving the country into war so distasteful on such a grand scale, that when we see pieces of the truth beginning to finally emerge, we celebrate. It's a beginning of the vindication of what we believed right along.
If the administration wants to stop the bleeding from within, maybe they should try shooting straight for change. The American public can be very forgiving for honest mistakes, but they resent when deception is revealed. The majority of the American public now believes we were deceived.
It's the Bush administration that has damaged the integrity of the American system. The system cannot be based on lies and deception. It goes against our American principles. If anyone is weakening us in the eyes of Al-Qaeda, it's the liars.
"I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)
Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case."
It has already been established that Wilson's credibility is zero where Iraq is concerned.
Can anyone tell me why the Bush administration would send an anti-war protestor like Joe Wilson to Iraq to research the claims made by the British intelligence dossier?
Answer.....They wouldn't.
Wilson was sent by his wife because the CIA was still stinging from allegations that it dropped the ball where pre-9/11 intelligence was concerned.
Wilson was a political pawn (much like our dear sweet Cindy Sheehan), and he played his part perfectly right up until he lied to the 9/11 commission about how he got his appointment. Once the memo from Valerie Plame surfaced that proved that she had sent Wilson to Iraq, everything he has ever said becomes tainted and unreliable.
The only ones that buy it are the "Anyone But Bush" crowd, which happen to include most of the major television networks........and Mikey.
Libby was indicted for lying. Nothing more, nothing less. Maybe he believed at the time that he was protecting someone, but the truth of the matter is that no laws were broken and no treason committed. Had he simply told the truth, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Libby deserves his fate for lying. But to say that his actions represent a black eye on this administration, while simultaneously praising Bill Clinton as the greatest President that ever lived is a bit hypocritical, don't ya think?
Wilson was right about Iraq and Niger. Bush and the White House were selling bad info based on shitty quality forged documents after being advised not to do so: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Wilson was right. White House was wrong and got caught being wrong.
Now they got caught trying to punish Wilson for being a detractor.
Me thinks this is just the beginning as the big pack of lies is unraveled. They have a lot to worry about.
Mike - maybe in your fabricated alternative world this is a pack of lies... I don't see it that way - as I am sure a majority in the US do - it isn't all that difficult to see that you had a 2 year investigation that did not net you the guy you wanted - nor was he going to detail anything in his final report in regards to Iraqi Intelligence - with that - a tizzy was had by your side...
I can also imagine your pain - trying so hard and desperately to not believe the facts and the commissions that have already reviewed this... As a matter of fact - the 9/11 commission that you so proudly stood behind to bash this administration - and having the Bush administration address all of their recommendations - not to mention the fact that the leaders on your side of the aisle all believed the same intellegence... Hmm, but yet one more go at it because you didn't manage to get the results you party so desperately needs...
So I do apologize - it has to hurt...
My guess Mikie, since a lot of people on your side live in this alternative reality - is that you are going to try and position these new 'concerns' of yours as a way to have your leaders go on the record as not supporting the war effort - although they are are on the record as approving and making hundreds of statements about wanting GWB to ACT NOW in regards to those WMDs and Saddam - and that will then allow your leaders to appeal to the far left base that has obviously hi-jacked your party...
You just don't learn do you Mikie? And yet you get all pissy when people tell you that you haven't gotten over the whole 'bush stole the election'... Seems to me like you are redoing the 2004 election all over again...
When you get some good ideas lets discuss them... But it is getting a little old by trying to have people step into your conspiracy world and relate facts to you... That is obviously not what you adhere to...
Mike - maybe in your fabricated alternative world this is a pack of lies... I don't see it that way - as I am sure a majority in the US do - it isn't all that difficult to see that you had a 2 year investigation that did not net you the guy you wanted - nor was he going to detail anything in his final report in regards to Iraqi Intelligence - with that - a tizzy was had by your side...
I can also imagine your pain - trying so hard and desperately to not believe the facts and the commissions that have already reviewed this... As a matter of fact - the 9/11 commission that you so proudly stood behind to bash this administration - and having the Bush administration address all of their recommendations - not to mention the fact that the leaders on your side of the aisle all believed the same intellegence... Hmm, but yet one more go at it because you didn't manage to get the results you party so desperately needs...
So I do apologize - it has to hurt...
My guess Mikie, since a lot of people on your side live in this alternative reality - is that you are going to try and position these new 'concerns' of yours as a way to have your leaders go on the record as not supporting the war effort - although they are are on the record as approving and making hundreds of statements about wanting GWB to ACT NOW in regards to those WMDs and Saddam - and that will then allow your leaders to appeal to the far left base that has obviously hi-jacked your party...
You just don't learn do you Mikie? And yet you get all pissy when people tell you that you haven't gotten over the whole 'bush stole the election'... Seems to me like you are redoing the 2004 election all over again...
When you get some good ideas lets discuss them... But it is getting a little old by trying to have people step into your conspiracy world and relate facts to you... That is obviously not what you adhere to...
First of all, like it or not, the only way to show what a majority of Americans believe is to do polls. Polls show that now the majority believe Bush lied us into Iraq. Polls also show that if Bush did indeed lie, that most Americans favor impeachment. Is that why GOP'ers are afraid of the truth? Hmmmmm...
Do you really believe Fitzgerald is done? Check with Rove's lawyers. They don't think so. I don't think so either.
Those Democrats who believed what Bush was selling were wrong just like the Republicans. They too were snowed. Shame on them. They, along with the press, should have been looking more closely and asking more questions. I will make no excuses for them. They fucked up.
That "alternative reality", as you call it, seems to be proving to be closer to the truth than the "Bush-based reality" which is riddled with lies. Which reality was it where the WMD's were stashed? Keep looking.
Face it: The current inhabitants of the White House are on the ropes and it is not the Democrats who are beating them up. They are doing to themselves.
Polls also showed Gore ahead by 6% in the remaining hours... And maybe that is where all your delusion stems from...
Listen Mikie - again, your world is not based on facts. You want to somehow turn the clock back - and debate WMDs again - as if that was the single reason we went to war - yet there were two commissions assigned that came back saying that nobody manipulated - the same commissions you defiantly stood behind.
You also want to turn the clock back on all of remarks made by leading democrats that demanded bush act...
Fritz has been on the case for two years Mikie - two years... Of course he has to come up with some broad charge - how else would he justify his 24 months worth of work? I just don't see it happening Mikie - and all of your posts cannot produce one ounce in regards to any laws that were broken - yet you will burn him prior to knowing - like you have been for months.... Again, your alternative world is void of facts - you want for something to be true so badly - that is has somehow become truth to you and your quest.
I view you as a termite mikie - every so slowly chewing away at the fabric of a great nation...
If I could only get a summary of all the garbage you have spewed on this site over the past couple years - from Haliburton to GWB getting the Saudis out after 9/11... Again, keep spewing your trash, it is fun to read...
Wilson was right about Iraq and Niger. Bush and the White House were selling bad info based on shitty quality forged documents after being advised not to do so: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
It's funny that the British Intelligence Service, as well as the US Senate Intelligence Committee, both agree that the intel was not based on those forgeries, and furthermore both state that Saddam did most likely seek the uranium from Niger (ironically based partly on testimony given by Joe Wilson).
All you are doing is proving your ignorance to the facts.
It's funny that the British Intelligence Service, as well as the US Senate Intelligence Committee, both agree that the intel was not based on those forgeries, and furthermore both state that Saddam did most likely seek the uranium from Niger (ironically based partly on testimony given by Joe Wilson).
All you are doing is proving your ignorance to the facts.
Why don't you explain the facts to me. If the intel was not based on those forgeries, what was it based on?
Hint: "Several other sources" is not an acceptable answer.
Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents2 on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.
Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.
Conclusion 21. When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. A CIA official's original testimony to the Committee that he told an NSC official to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech, is incorrect.
Conclusion 26. To date, the Intelligence Community has not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa as stated in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Likewise, neither the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) nor the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which both published assessments on possible Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium, have ever published assessments outside of their agencies which correct their previous positions.
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD) PRESSURE CONCLUSIONS
(U) Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
(U) Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.
TERRORISM PRESSURE CONCLUSIONS
(U) Conclusion 102. The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq's links to terrorism. After 9/11, however, analysts were under tremendous pressure to make correct assessments, to avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an intelligence failure on the scale of 9/11. As a result, the Intelligence Community's assessments were bold and assertive in pointing out potential terrorist links. For instance, the June 2002 Central Intelligence Agency assessment Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship was, according to its Scope Note, "purposefully aggressive" in drawing connections between Iraq and al-Qaida in an effort to inform policymakers of the potential that such a relationship existed. All of the participants in the August 2002 coordination meeting on the September 2002 version of Iraqi Support/or Terrorism interviewed by the Committee agreed that while some changes were made to the paper as a result of the participation of two Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy staffers, their presence did not result in changes to their analytical judgments.
Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents2 on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal , it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.
Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.
You also never answered my question. What sources did the British intel use besides the forged documents?
While on the topic of those Niger forgeries, let's look into their background.
The Administration asserts that they didn't hear the documents were forgeries until after the "16 words" speech. This is a lie and here's why:
The U.S Embassy in Rome has already had the Niger forgeries for three months.
British intelligence say they passed the documents to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in early 2002. The Vice President subsequently makes several visits to the CIA with "questions" about recent Niger to Iraq uranium sales.
The International Atomic Energy Agency questions the Niger claim in December after the National Security Agency issues a fact sheet on Iraq's weapons omissions to the UN Security Council. As NSA deputy, Hadley may have already had the documents as well.
The IAEA, however, is not given the documents until the end of February 2003, a year after the U.S. first acquires them. (How conveient. Once acquired, they determine the documents are fakes within several hours.
John Pike, director of the Washington military watchdog GlobalSecurity.org, says the Administration's line on the Niger documents raises questions. (That's an understatement)
"The thing that was so embarrassing about the episode was not simply that the documents were forgeries, but that they were clumsy forgeries, as was so quickly determined by the IAEA," he said. "It is one thing to be taken in, but to be so easily taken in, suggested either bewildering incompetence or intentional deception, or possibly both."
And maybe that is where all your delusion stems from...