Thank you once again. If indeed your strongly weighted premise is correct and the text from the body was niftily moved into the judgments arena, it would be interesting to see whose fingerprints were on that move. If the Bush admin runs true to form, this would not have been the first nor the last time that a report was manipulated. Since it's been noted that the "president is not a fact checker" nor is the Congress for that matter, and they all just read summaries this would certainly provide a productive way to manipulate any paper.
Posted by mainsailset at April 6, 2006 07:44 AMDoes anyone remember what Bush said right after the Plame leak came out in regard to what he would do to the leaker?
Posted by ann at April 6, 2006 07:56 AManyone who is familiar in the least with the personalities of Bush, Cheney and Rove know that the "get Wilson and his wife" idea came from them......and with a lot of expletives attached. The only, and I mean only, question is whether they have covered the tracks back to them sufficiently to escape blame. It appears they have not. The fact that they authorized this, and are slowly but surely being caught should surprise no one. These guys are idiots blinded by ideology and God.
Posted by T2 at April 6, 2006 08:36 AMI've always thought that the reason Fitzgerald wanted to introduce the NIE issue is to demonstrate a pattern of conduct by Libby. That is, he'll show that Libby's meeting with Miller was all about lying to Miller about the contents of the NIE to rebut Wilson's accusations. I think he wants to do this to establish a possible motive for Libby to lie to the FBI and the Grand Jury. Even if Libby didn't think revealing Plame's identity was a crime, he needed to lie about his involvement for political reasons (and to protect his bosses, Cheney and Bush).
Posted by William Ockham at April 6, 2006 08:41 AMAh, found it:
"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."
He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information."
Feb 11, 2004, CNN
Nothing new, just another lie.
anyone who is familiar in the least with the personalities of Bush, Cheney and Rove know that the "get Wilson and his wife" idea came from them......and with a lot of expletives attached. The only, and I mean only, question is whether they have covered the tracks back to them sufficiently to escape blame. It appears they have not. The fact that they authorized this, and are slowly but surely being caught should surprise no one. These guys are idiots blinded by ideology and God.
Posted by T2 at April 6, 2006 08:36 AM
*****
These fucking roaches have nothing to do with God, except blaspheming the hell out of Him. They are evil scum, traitors (literally) to this nation.
They oughta be lined up against a wall with blindfolds and cigarettes.
Posted by God Of War at April 6, 2006 09:48 AMeRiposte,
I have a question about the Fitzgerald filing that you may be able to answer. On page 24, there is a sentence about a discussion of declassifying the NIE and "another classified document dated January 24, 2003". Do you know what the latter document is?
Posted by William Ockham at April 6, 2006 10:04 AMThese guys are idiots blinded by ideology and God.
I would revise this to simply " These guys are idiots blinded by ideology and ham-handedly use God rhetorically to justify their actions."
They are only Christians to the extent that it facilitates their hold on power. The God I know sees right through the veneer they call Christianity.
Posted by Simp at April 6, 2006 10:32 AMthank's Simp, your phrase is better. All these crooks, DeLay, Rove, Ashcroft.....Bush....the whole bunch of them, bend and scrape and blather on about Faith and Morals while committing some of the most heinous crimes our country has seen. Hiding behind God is not a new trick, it's centuries old, but these guys have made it our government.
Posted by T2 at April 6, 2006 11:48 AMthese guys are idiots.
Posted by josh at April 6, 2006 11:55 AMBush, Sept 30 2003:
And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.
As to this from the above post:
Well, because the key judgements of the NIE made no mention of the uranium from Africa claim at all! It was specifically agreed to at the IC coordination meeting on the NIE that the uranium claim should NOT be in the Key Judgments. So, releasing the Key Judgments would have actually made Wilson's case appear stronger!
Good point, but... to say Wilson's case appears stronger depends very much on what we think Wilson's case is.
Even if the NIE did not support the specific uranium allegation, it clearly supported the *point* of the uranium allegation, namely, all the intel agencies thought Saddam was pursuing nukes.
If Wilson's case had been "the uranium allegation was false but the thrust of the Admin warnings about Saddam's nuclear ambitions were plausible", then the NIE would not help Libby.
But I don't think that was Wilson's point.
Posted by Tom Maguire at April 6, 2006 01:59 PMPost at 12:02am. Post at 6:26am. eR, do you ever SLEEP? Thank you on behalf of a grateful nation.
Posted by at April 6, 2006 04:28 PMIt has been reported that the INR memo attached to the 2002 NIE actually contained the details about the Wilson trip to Niger. This may have also contained references to Valerie Plame that have not been released to date. The question is why are these papers being filed now? What has Fitzgerald got up his sleeve? Could this be an offensive action to counter the defences request of classified info that the WH is not likely to hand over without public pressure? Does he need one more piece of the puzzle to indict Rove? Could this be a ploy to force Congress to get involved as the big fish are the P and VP and only Congress can get them? Enguiring minds want to know.
Posted by Happy Camper at April 6, 2006 05:43 PMTom,
This is about Wilson's claim on Saddam seeking uranium from Africa - so let's not change the subject, shall we?
That said, since you want to look at the big picture, unfortunately you're not correct with this point:
"Even if the NIE did not support the specific uranium allegation, it clearly supported the *point* of the uranium allegation, namely, all the intel agencies thought Saddam was pursuing nukes."
The following section was part of the Key Judgments (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006106.php) - not the Annex (emphasis mine):
"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)
...
Most agencies believe that Saddam’s personal interest in and Iraq’s aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors—as well as Iraq’s attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools—provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad’s nuclear weapons program. (DOE [Department of Energy] agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)
...
State/INR Alternative View of Iraq’s Nuclear Program
The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.
In INR’s view Iraq’s efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq’s nuclear weapon program."
Posted by eriposte at April 6, 2006 08:06 PMWilliam,
"On page 24, there is a sentence about a discussion of declassifying the NIE and "another classified document dated January 24, 2003". Do you know what the latter document is?"
This document almost certainly is a DIA report which included a uranium allegation relating to a NCIS report from Paris in Nov 2002. See p.64 of the SSCI Report.
Posted by eriposte at April 6, 2006 08:52 PM"It has been reported that the INR memo attached to the 2002 NIE actually contained the details about the Wilson trip to Niger"
Actually the INR memo was not part of the NIE. They are two separate documents.
Posted by eriposte at April 6, 2006 10:51 PMEven if the NIE did not support the specific uranium allegation, it clearly supported the *point* of the uranium allegation, namely, all the intel agencies thought Saddam was pursuing nukes.
Still beating that rotting corpse, are we? Care to tell us what the heck was left of the laughable nuke claims if you subtracted the deliberate tubes and uranium frauds? Are you pretending that anybody in the intelligence community and Administration actually believed a word of that nuclear programme nonsense? Care to debate the issue?
Posted by KM at April 7, 2006 04:14 AMThis is about Wilson's claim on Saddam seeking uranium from Africa - so let's not change the subject, shall we?
My bad, but you might want to change, oh, the post title, the first few paragraphs, and a few other things. I'm only guessing, but folks reading a title of 'Treasongate: Libby and the NIE "key judgements" ' might get off on the wrong track - evidently I did.
My explanation for the odd puzzle you noted - what did Libby think he was telling Judy to buttress the uranium claim - is much more prosaic.
At their meeting, he apparently discussed both the NIE and the upcoming (July 11) Tenet statement about the Wilson trip. That statement does reinforce the uranium claims, although the NIE does not.
Posted by Tom Maguire at April 7, 2006 08:20 AMActually the INR memo was not part of the NIE. They are two separate documents.
Technically speaking, it is more like a document and an annex to that document. Saying that they are two separate documents is downplaying the significance of the INRs attached memos. I think Dr Rice tell you what it is in this excerpt from a daily briefing:
DR. RICE: As I explained -- well, the INR footnote says, we -- I should actually -- we're dubious about some of these reports about yellow cake. It's also not very specific, by the way.
Tom,
The discussion in this post is about Libby's claim that the NIE's key judgements mentioned the uranium allegation, when it clearly did not. Wilson's trip had nothing whatsoever to do with what was in the NIE's key judgments and your once again bringing something completely unconnected into the picture here is bizarre to say the least.
Further, perhaps we differ greatly in our understanding of the English language, but Tenet's statement does not "reinforce the uranium claims". It does everything but. Any reasonable person reading these sentences from Tenet would infer the opposite.
Tenet says:
------
... Because [the Wilson] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution...
... Also in the fall of 2002, our British colleagues told us they were planning to publish an unclassified dossier that mentioned reports of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion...
In September and October 2002 before Senate Committees, senior intelligence officials in response to questions told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting.
In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE's Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them.
But in the interest of completeness, the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq's significant 550-metric ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began "vigorously trying to procure" more uranium from Niger and two other African countries......Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: "Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."
An unclassified CIA White Paper in October made no mention of the issue, again because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and because we had questions about some of the reporting. For the same reasons, the subject was not included in many public speeches, Congressional testimony and the Secretary of State's United Nations presentation in early 2003.
The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake.
...Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed....
-----------
Not to mention, Tenet's sentence about the reference to the British being "factually correct" was simply factually wrong. Bush did not say that the British "said" Iraq sought uranium. He said the British "learned", which implies that the US had confirmed that the British claim was credible or that the US had faith in the accuracy of what the British were claiming - quite the opposite was true. Further, knowing that the US thought the British claim was crap, it's like saying "I think what Y is claiming is B.S., but I believe what Y is claiming and so should you". Just total nonsense. There is nothing "factually correct" about it.
Posted by eriposte at April 7, 2006 06:02 PMHappy Camper,
It looks like you confused the INR text boxes that were part of the NIE, with the INR memo that discussed the Joseph Wilson debriefing. They were written at two very different times and one had nothing to do with the other.
There were two INR text boxes in the NIE - one in the Key Judgements of the NIE and one in the Annex to the NIE. Neither of these text boxes said anything about Joseph Wilson or his trip.
Posted by eriposte at April 7, 2006 06:06 PMeR,
You are ignoring all the intelligence that started to flow into the intelligence agencies after the NIE was written about Niger and uranium.
Doing so puts a lie to the fact that they had no reason to mention it in the 2003 SOTU. In fact, did the CIA receive the forged documents from the embassy in Rome before or after the NIE was written?
After. Not only that, but if you read the SSCI, there are several other intelligence reports that streamed in from overseas right up until Bush made his SOTU that indicated that the Niger intelligence was credible.
Now, if Libby himself testified that he understood that he was to tell Miller that the uranium claim was a key judgment, and it was not, then that would of course be problematic. Of course, you're just going with Fitzgerald's word here, and not Libby's.
Also, it seems as if I have just caught David Shuster lying his ass off once again. This will be fun!
It seems cherry-picking is perhaps a more common hobby of those who believe in this site than anyone else.
Posted by Seixon at April 11, 2006 12:08 AM