The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

[corplinx]

Our old thread was getting long in the tooth. I decided it was time to start a new one and to also get everyone on the same page with the current facts/quotes.

To this end I recommend everyone read:
FactCheck.org's Timeline

The only thing missing from this timeline is Joe Wilson's book which containted a blanket denial oh his wife's involvement with his trip to Niger (something FactCheck makes clear in their timeline).

The CIA requested the criminal investigation of the Plame affair. I think its time to drop objections about Plame's status in the CIA (even though she might have blown her cover domestically) and proceed to the next part which is, which is "was there a leaker and how much did he know?"

 

[RandFan]

February 26, 2002 – Wilson arrives in Niger . He concludes, after a few days of interviews, that “it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 42, July 2004).

How could Wilson be so certain based on such little inteligence?

 

[corplinx]

Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

How could Wilson be so certain based on such little inteligence?

Joe Wilson's credibility isn't on the line. Doubts about his partisanship and suggestions that his Niger trip was a boondoggle have nothing to do with the leak of his wife's name.

That said, I found that very interesting as well.

 

[normdoering]

Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

How could Wilson be so certain based on such little inteligence?

That is actually a minor mystery to me and I have a few random thoughts people might build on.

There's no way Wilson could know anything for sure if his sources were lying to him... And that's what the Senate report on Iraq said (Wilson can't prove they didn't lie to him) -- which in context of Wilson's mission sounds just plain paranoid.

I think it's because Wilson had worked in the region before and he knew exactly who he could trust and relied on trusted relationships. His wife probably trusted his sense of talking to people and sensing how trust worthy they were. After all -- all he did was talk to officials. This is in fact what Valerie Wilson wrote: "My husband has good relations with the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." So, it sounds like a rather light-weight mission, just go over there and see if you've got the sense you can still trust these people and if anyone has a sense of anything odd going on.

If the CIA were so paranoid about Niger already then they sent the wrong man on the wrong mission.

They should have sent an undercover team to try and buy yellowcake or secretly bugged some suspects if they were already that paranoid. (If they did, we'll never know.)

But were they ever really paranoid about Niger? Were they really as suspicious as they claim?

Think about this -- If Niger was selling yellowcake to Iraq, then who else would they be willing to sell it to? You've got more of a problem in Niger than Iraq if Niger is selling uranium ore to people they shouldn't be selling it to. Iraq isn't the only country seeking nukes.

Was anything ever done about that Niger problem if there was a problem? I haven't heard of anything. (But would I?)

And this is from a Salon article:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/07/16/wilson_letter/index1.html
My article in the New York Times makes clear that I attributed to myself "a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs." After it became public that there were then-Ambassador to Niger Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick's report and the report from a four-star Marine Corps general, Carleton Fulford, in the files of the U.S. government, I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not occur. I did not speak out on the subject until several months after it became evident that what underpinned the assertion in the State of the Union address were those documents, reports of which had sparked Vice President Cheney's original question that led to my trip. The White House must have agreed. The day after my article appeared in the Times a spokesman for the president told the Washington Post that "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union."

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

There's no way Wilson could know anything for sure if his sources were lying to him... And that's what the Senate report on Iraq said (Wilson can't prove they didn't lie to him) -- which in context of Wilson's mission sounds just plain paranoid. [/COLOR]

I'm sorry but I have a lot more problems with the intelligence than that. Any study into intelligence gathering at all and one learns that it is notoriously unreliable for many reasons. Good intelligence requires multiple sources and corroboration over time. At best intelligence can gauge the likelihood of something to a degree of certainty. The guy goes to Niger, talks to some sources and concludes "no way". Huh? The honesty of the sources is just one concern? How does he know for certain that his sources would know? And I don't actually find it paranoid at all to question whether or not a source is lying. Sadly we have learned by experience that sources lie. It's not paranoia it is reasonable skepticism.

 

[normdoering]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

I'm sorry but I have a lot more problems with the intelligence than that. Any study into intelligence gathering at all and one learns that it is notoriously unreliable for many reasons. Good intelligence requires multiple sources and corroboration over time.

So? Wilson isn't claiming to replace the CIA, just to be a minor official on a light-weight trip offering up his own opinion.

There were other sources on Niger that Wilson wasn't involved with.

At best intelligence can gauge the likelihood of something to a degree of certainty. The guy goes to Niger, talks to some sources and concludes "no way". Huh?

If I told you that your wife or husband were trying to poison you -- what would your reaction be?

The honesty of the sources is just one concern? How does he know for certain that his sources would know?

This is what Joe Wilson wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

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.

He's not inclined to suspect them because of the number of people that would have to be involved.

And I don't actually find it paranoid at all to question whether or not a source is lying. Sadly we have learned by experience that sources lie. It's not paranoia it is reasonable skepticism.

Well, maybe your husband or wife is trying to poison you -- how do you know they're not? If you lived your life suspecting everybody you'd have problems. You can't live your life in a constant state of paranoia. Things have to start with trust and move only toward suspicion when there's good evidence.

So I see Wilson and the adminstration asking different questions about Niger.

This is what Joe Wilson wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

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.

Note that "doubtful." He's not claiming certainty.

Wilson's conclusion isn't really that "They're not doing it" here but more along the lines of "there's no reason to be suspicious. There's no reason to suspect these people I know and have worked with before."

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Note that "doubtful." He's not claiming certainty.

Wilson's conclusion isn't really that "They're not doing it" here but more along the lines of "there's no reason to be suspicious. There's no reason to suspect these people I know and have worked with before."

Back up a second. Wilson is stating here that it is highly unlikely that Iraq actually obtained uranium from Niger, and I'm inclined to believe this. However, these statements do NOT address the possibility that Iraq sought, but did not obtain, uranium from Africa. That was actually the claim made by Bush in his state of the union address which Wilson attacked.

 

[normdoering]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

Back up a second. Wilson is stating here that it is highly unlikely that Iraq actually obtained uranium from Niger, and I'm inclined to believe this. However, these statements do NOT address the possibility that Iraq sought, but did not obtain, uranium from Africa. That was actually the claim made by Bush in his state of the union address which Wilson attacked.

Yes, that's what they said -- but it's not what they implied by saying it. Saying it still implicates Niger because the documents that the statement was based on did say that Niger had sold it. Because that's what their source said -- they say it by implication -- "we believe this source. Not Niger."

So, there's two possibilities. Either we don't trust Niger not to sell yellowcake to Iraq or the statement is an example of Bush fixing intelligence reports to trump up a war on shaky evidence. If we don't trust Niger, then why didn't we do something to lock down that possible source of uranium?

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

One quick note. I find the use of color can be very effective when used on rare occasions. The quote feature seems much more effective for regular use. In any event that is just my opinion.

So? Wilson isn't claiming to replace the CIA, just to be a minor official on a light-weight trip offering up his own opinion.

There were other sources on Niger that Wilson wasn't involved with.

Then my question stands.

If I told you that your wife or husband were trying to poison you -- what would your reaction be?

Not a clue what the relevancy is. Is their a reason why my wife wants to poison me?

This is what Joe Wilson wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

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.

Sounds good and reasonable.

He's not inclined to suspect them because of the number of people that would have to be involved.

This is a good point. Not a great point as we will see. But I like that multiple entities are involved and particularly the Atomic Energy Agency.

On the other hand The UN and the French managed to figure out a way to siphon funds from the oil for food program. I'm not at all willing to assume that it just isn't possible or very unlikely.

Well, maybe your husband or wife is trying to poison you -- how do you know they're not?

I don't. However I understand what the dynamics and motives to poison me would be and frankly my life insurance policy will not make my wife rich and loss of income would be significant. My death would likely cause more problems for her than it is worth. On the other hand we can see via the Oil for food program that there are good reasons to suspect that people will lie for significant sums of money.

If you lived your life suspecting everybody you'd have problems. You can't live your life in a constant state of paranoia. Things have to start with trust and move only toward suspicion when there's good evidence.

When it comes to intelligence I completely disagree. That is where we start to have problems. As someone once said "I'm paid to worry when there is nothing to worry about". Paranoia? I don't think so. It is healthy to be suspicious even when everything is ok. Had someone been a little more suspicious prior to 9/11 then perhaps it wouldn't have happened. Complacency is the problem.

So I see Wilson and the adminstration asking different questions about Niger.

This is what Joe Wilson wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

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.

Note that "doubtful." He's not claiming certainty.

Wilson's conclusion isn't really that "They're not doing it" here but more along the lines of "there's no reason to be suspicious. There's no reason to suspect these people I know and have worked with before."

I'm not an expert and I absolutely lack the ability to assess whether or not Wilson could have been lied to or even if he actually spoke with everyone that could have been involved. You paint a pretty good picture but I'm not convinced.

 

[crimresearch]

I'm inclined to agree with Norm that Wilson probably wasn't going in to conduct a 'real' fact finding or information gathering mission....
he was going in to get an impression, based on whatever sources he had from his previous work in Africa, and whoever he could talk to in a couple of days.

That's not such a far fetched scenario...not the best method in the world, but not unheard of.

 

[normdoering]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

Then my question stands.

And I repeat an answer from Wilson, from a Salon article:

My article in the New York Times makes clear that I attributed to myself "a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs." After it became public that there were then-Ambassador to Niger Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick's report and the report from a four-star Marine Corps general, Carleton Fulford, in the files of the U.S. government, I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not occur. I did not speak out on the subject until several months after it became evident that what underpinned the assertion in the State of the Union address were those documents, reports of which had sparked Vice President Cheney's original question that led to my trip. The White House must have agreed. The day after my article appeared in the Times a spokesman for the president told the Washington Post that "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union."

Wilson names then-Ambassador to Niger Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick's report and the report from a four-star Marine Corps general, Carleton Fulford, and says he went to great lengths to point out that his was but one of three reports on the subject.

None of those reports are conclusive -- but to ignore them without good reason is to openly declare either your distrust of Niger or seem like you're fixing intelligence.

Open shows of distrust like that have political consequences.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

And I repeat an answer from Wilson, from a Salon article:


Wilson names then-Ambassador to Niger Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick's report and the report from a four-star Marine Corps general, Carleton Fulford, and says he went to great lengths to point out that his was but one of three reports on the subject.

None of those reports are conclusive -- but to ignore them without good reason is to openly declare either your distrust of Niger or seem like you're fixing intelligence.

Open shows of distrust like that have political consequences.

"Trust but verify" --Ronald Reagan

That being said you are characterizing my position unfairly. I have only noted that I don't see how Wilson was so certain based on so little intelligence. You argue that the intelligence was sufficient for various reasons and you might be right. I'm just not convinced for the reasons stated.

 

[normdoering]

I'm inclined to agree with Norm that Wilson probably wasn't going in to conduct a 'real' fact finding or information gathering mission....
he was going in to get an impression, based on whatever sources he had from his previous work in Africa, and whoever he could talk to in a couple of days.

That's not such a far fetched scenario...not the best method in the world, but not unheard of.

The funny thing is, if they hadn't outted his wife as a CIA spy and if they just wrote op-eds and challenged Wilson on those political talk shows, Wilson's importance would have evaporated. They could have easily proven how light-weight his mission to Niger was and how little he really knew.

But by outting his wife -- by Rove just confirming it to Novak alone -- they've made Wilson more important than he really is and proven that they do use tactics like threats and intimidation to silence critics.

 

[normdoering]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

I don't see how Wilson was so certain based on so little intelligence.

He wasn't certain. But we are now.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

He wasn't certain. But we are now.

No, I think he was pretty certain. His words would seem to indicate that. I don't know what relevance current understanding is the Plame affar but ok, we know now.

 

[normdoering]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

No, I think he was pretty certain. His words would seem to indicate that.

Maybe he was and can't talk about why -- after all his wife was a CIA operative in the WMD field.

Or maybe it was just the certainty that comes from knowing people well -- like you might know a close friend or your wife and just know they would never do that.

It's not something you can prove to someone else. It comes from lots of little observations about a person's charatcter.

I don't know what relevance current understanding is the Plame affar but ok, we know now.

And we may learn more in a couple months.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

And we may learn more in a couple months.

I'm sorry, and what part of "I wan't the last word" did you not understand?

 

[normdoering]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

I'm sorry, and what part of "I wan't the last word" did you not understand?

The meaning of "wan't" and where you actually used the that phrase in your post.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair Thread

The meaning of "wan't" and where you actually used the that phrase in your post.

Yeah, that is an odd word.

 

[normdoering]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New Valerie Plame Affair

There's another part to this story on Plame. What about arresting reporters who are protecting sources?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...22/AR2005072202222.html?referrer=emailarticle

Should we have sheild laws for reporters?