Asymmetrical Information

Apparently his contact believed that that was the undertone of the request. Mr. Wilson decided that it really wasn't sufficient evidence, though.

Still seems very odd.

Just out of curiosity though, what did Joe Wilson think was a more plausible explanation?

Let's first agree about what Mr. Wilson said that so upset the administration.

Enclosed is a link to what I believe is the text of Mr. Wilson's NYT Op-Ed: http://www.tjm.org/articles/msg00114.html.

The money paragraphs are as follow:

"Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did
so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted."

I don't think anything said above is controversial or contradicted by the new information.

He found out more information and pointed it out, presumably with full knowledge that it will be used against him by the Bush Administration. He (along with his wife) has been through the wringer with the Administration once before, and now he's put himself in play for them again.

Yeah, he's a real lying bastard with no appreciation for facts

It's a terribly written story, and a lot of people are being misled by it. But Wilson's book definitely doesn't say that. Tim Dunlop is reading it and has a large relevant passage here.

Whoops, here.

(I also have to commend you on not phrasing this as "What a big bunch of liars the Democrats are, when it says right here..." Keeps me coming back.)

Tim --

Mr. Wilson, a Democratic partisan, willfully and deceptively conflated Niger (one small country) with Africa (a large continent) in order to attack the Administration as liars.

Having made a deceptive partisan attack on the Administration, he was treated like any other partisan attack dog has been treated by any other modern Administration. See, say, the responses of James Carville to critics during the Clinton Administration.

During this normal response to a partisan attack, persons unknown leaked information of unknown veracity about Mr. Wilson's wife to a columnist who opposed the Administration's Iraq policy. Despite the fact that the only link to the Administration is the word of an anti-war columnist, this is used as "proof" of the Administration's perfidity.

Uh-huh.

Last summer, Mr. Wilson said there was no evidence for the Niger yellowcake story. He insisted that this lack of evidence meant that the White House was dishonestly hyping the Saddam's nuclear intentions, especially in the 2003 State of the Union address.

In his new book, he now mentions that last summer he did find some evidence of Saddam wanting to buy yellowcake in Niger, but that it was too flimsy,in his view, to support the White House's case.

Now, one can still argue that the White House was dishonestly hyping Saddam's nuclear intentions (I wouldn't). But if Mr. Wilson is willing to write that he himself is an unabashed liar, than I think we should take his word for it.

Megan, I have to admit that I was a little surprised that Mr. Wilson chose to unveil his lying by writing about it in a book. But I was not surprised by the relevation of his cynicism and dishonesty.

Last summer I tried to figure out how he was so sure that there was NO evidence based on his one-week fact-finding mission, and I soon concluded, from his own statements, that he hadn't searched very hard. So it's not that surprising that he lied as well.

"persons unknown leaked information of unknown veracity about Mr. Wilson's wife to a columnist who opposed the Administration's Iraq policy. Despite the fact that the only link to the Administration is the word of an anti-war columnist, this is used as "proof" of the Administration's perfidity."

Dream on, WL. If exposing Plame wasn't a crime, why did the CIA insist on a criminal investigation, and why did Justice go along? And who exactly are the culprits unknown to? Not to Mr. Bush, unless he really doesn't want to know.

What would you be saying if Novak had claimed his information came from a Democrat on the intelligence committee?

Not adding more fuel to the fire here, but do we know exactly what Valerie Plame used to do? Was she an agent or an analyst? Do we know which directorate of the CIA she worked for? (DO or DI) Michiko Kakutani's review of the book in the NYT said she was a "Jennifer Garner-like spy."

Not to say that I would surprised if she were a bonafide agent of the CIA (fmr. station chief or the like), but it's all so confusing.

If exposing Plame wasn't a crime, why did the CIA insist on a criminal investigation, and why did Justice go along?

An odd question to ask in this context! If the mere existence of an investigation suffices to prove the reality of whatever the investigators are looking for, then Wilson's trip to Niger proves that Iraq was trying to buy uranium there.

Something like 70% of Niger's export earnings come from uranium. Their only other major export is livestock, which is almost exclusively driven across the border to Nigeria on the hoof.

Now, if an Iraqi trade delegation shows up and wants to discuss expanded trade relations, is it reasonable to infer that they are after anything other than uranium?

Since Wilson has now confirmed that his source (a) admitted there was an Iraqi trade delegation in 1999 and (b) more recently confirmed that the head of the delegation was Mohammad Saeed al-Sahaf, one wonders how he could be so virulently dismissive of the statement contained in the President's State of the Union speech (and, to put it in the idiotic idiom of the day, WHY HASN'T WILSON APOLOGIZED!!) unless his ideological blinders prohibit him from seeing the truth or commently on it honestly.

Oh. Answered my own question, I did.

Well another lie Wilson is getting away with is: "the inclusion of the Niger claim in the State of the Union speech". Because that isn't what Bush said. He stated that "British intelligence", recently found evidence that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Africa. Which, the last time I checked British intelligence was standing by.

Also, there is a line in Wilson's book--written with no self-awareness whatsoever--to the effect that the CIA people who recruited him to go to Niger were obviously committed to secrecy and discretion. Guess they didn't count on his penchant for seeking publicity for himself.

Equally self-unaware is Wilson's whining about Bush operatives challenging him. Apparently Wilson thinks it obvious that he should be taken at face value, just because he's...who he is.

(Pssst. It's perfidy.)

Anywho, I'm not surprised.

I don't get it. This has been public knowledge since at least last July, when it was included as part of George Tenet's statement about why the 16 words shouldn't have been in the SOTU address.

The Iraqi "businessman" who approached Nigerian officials was originally identified (I think) as the Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican, and apparently Wilson now knows that it was actually Baghdad Bob. Other than that, there's nothing new here. Wilson told CIA about this when he returned from Niger, and they eventually concluded there was nothing to it.

My point is, knowing that Iraqis were in Niger, and that they were trying to put together closer trade relations, one could not objectively conclude anything other than that the 16 words in the SOTU speech were factually correct. Note that Bush didn't say that they had succeeded in buying uranium, only that they tried. Even if they had to abandon the attempt (for whatever reason), the effort is significantly revealing of the Iraqi mindset.

For Wilson to be as hysterically and arrogantly dismissive of this point as he has been, he must be blinded by his own prejudices.

Mr. Wilson, a Democratic partisan, willfully and deceptively conflated Niger (one small country) with Africa (a large continent) in order to attack the Administration as liars.

It's not an important distinction, as there are only three or four countries in the entire continent that export uranium, and one of them is South Africa.

To put it another way, he agrees that there was some intelligence and clues that supported the idea that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium-- however his investigation led him to believe that no attempt, or at the very least, no actual buy occurred. Going against his conclusion counts as lying and misleading in his book... a POV I do somewhat understand.

Clever, Paul, but not clever enough.

It's one thing to investigate whether something has happened. "Did Iraq try to buy uranium from Niger?"

It's another to know that something happened and investigate to find out who did it. "Who blew Plame's cover?" The CIA knew what her job was. They knew someone had revealed it. The Investigation is to find out who.

It's not hard to know the bank has been robbed. The point of the investigation is to find the robber.

I am in agreement with Kevin Drum's central point, which is that this has mostly been hashed over before.

However, a detail which had eluded me (but not Joe Wilson!) was that there seem to have been *two* Iraqi overtures.

From the IAEA March 7, 2003 report to the Security Council:

Uranium Acquisition

...For its part, Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger, and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries, including Niger, in February 1999, which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports.

From Tenet's statement, July 11, 2003:

...The same former official [this was Wilson] also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger's processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted.

We note a discrepancy in dates - Feb '99, and June '99. Fortunately, Joe Wilson himself cleared this up when he talked to Josh Marshall last fall:

...The Iraqis had sent an emissary there, a guy by the name of Wisam al Zahawi, a fellow that I actually knew pretty well. American-educated, he was ambassador to the Vatican, ... it was either '98 or '99.

and a bit later:

There was one other report. One of my interlocutors said that on the fringes of an international conference he was attending, he was approached by a Niger businessman who asked him to meet with an Iraqi delegation. He said that because of alarm bells going off in his mind about UN sanctions and everything else, he declined to take the meeting, and then, rather pensively, he looked up--and sort of plumbing the depths of his mind--

TPM: This when he's talking to you?

WILSON: This is when he was talking to me. He said, "Gee, maybe he would have wanted to talk about uranium." Now, I reported all of that because it seemed to me that I'd been asked to report on everything I'd found out, and that this was just sort of one of these other little tidbits.

And why does Wilson think that the Bush folks were lying? Basically, because Iraqi intentions don't matter; it is enough to know that they weren't able to complete a purchase. Or, in his words:

Again, it comes down to, the question was, Could Iraq purchase significant quantities--a quantity, 500 tons--of uranium from Niger without anybody knowing about it? Was it feasible?

Of course, the sixteen words were very different, but so what.

Thank you Kevin and Tom for explaining the facts so I don't have to. I couldn't understand what the fuss was about now given what Wilson and Tenet said last summer. Now I know: most people just don't pay attention.

Alas for your analogy, Bernard, but the claim in whose support you pointed to the DOJ investigation was not merely that Plame's cover was blown (known), but that a crime was committed in the process (unknown)-- and that by someone in the Administration (unknown, a fortiori). We may suspect that the bank was robbed, but all we know as of yet is that a sum of money is missing from it.

To extend Paul's responser to Bernard: Under the law, it is only a crime to out "covered" CIA agents IF the CIA is making an ACTIVE attempt to maintain the agent's covert identity AND if the person outing the agent is aware of the fact the agent is covered and that the CIA is trying to maintain a covert identity for the agent. If the person who told Novak that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent was unaware that Plame was covered and that the CIA was trying to maintain a covert identity for her, revealing her status as a CIA agent was NOT a crime.

So, the fact the CIA insisted on a criminal investigation only shows that the CIA thinks Plame was a covered agent and that it was trying to maintain a covert identity for her. (It is far from clear that Plame was covered by the law. The law only applies to agents stationed overseas and Plame and Wilson have been in the US for years.) At best, the investigation indicates that the CIA thinks a crime MAY have been committed. Until we know who told Novak, we cannot know what he or she knew and until we know that, we CANNOT know a crime was committed.

One last point, it is very probable no crime was committed. The CIA told the Whitehouse that Wilson had been used because Plame had suggested her husband, a former diplomat, be used for the investigation. So, the CIA told the Whitehouse that Plame was a CIA agent and that Wilson was her husband. A staffer learning of Plame's identity as a CIA agent would not unreasonably assume she was NOT a covert agent -- because if she were the CIA should not have identified her as such! Such information is strictly on a need-to-know basis.

As an add-on to the previous post, Novak contacted the CIA prior to publication. There is some confusion about who said what to whom, but it seemed quite likely that they did not emphasize to him their sense of urgency about refraining from publication. Quite possibly, the CIA was also confused about her status - she had been transitioning from covert assignments to a fairly obvious liason role.

Bernard,

On your "crime" point. Try to understand this in a context you should be familiar with. When the Clinton White House illegally obtained over 900 FBI files on political enemies, an investigation was clearly necessary to determine criminality. Illegality was clear. The criminal question was whether the White House counsel intentionally signed the requests for the files knowing he had no right to them OR whether he was merely the most negligent WH counsel in history. The Clintons and their defenders were adamant that they were only guilty of brain-dead stupidity, but not criminality.

Result -- thousands of illegal actions, but no "crime."

Plame revealed her CIA job to Joe between their first and second kiss. Is Joe the only man she ever kissed?
Saddam did have a nuclear program, Saddam did buy yellow cake, this is beyond denial. To parse a single statement in a form of gotcha "Simon Says" is a pathetic ploy by an issueless party to strike gold where there is nothing but sand.
There is really just one issue in this election - is terror best treated as a war or as a crime?

Ted, that cite to Tim Dunlop doesn't seem to address the issue in question: did Wilson receive information that an Iraqi official made overtures which the official from Niger interpreted as being about uranium?

This isn't the passage where Wilson tells us that person was in fact Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, so I suspect this is not the proper passage.

BTW the fact that this person was Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf suggests that Iraq really was seeking uranium. Unless you would care to suggest one or more of the following: Officials in Niger are horrible at negotiations and therefore were stupid to think that uranium had anything to with it, AND/OR Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf led a trade delegation which was horrifically misinterpreted by Niger yet for some reason didn't try to correct the silly misimpression that they wanted uranium by say persuing trade negotiations in other areas later...

Isn't this how trade negotiations for illegal goods would work? Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf hints with deniable language that he want uranium. The offical in Niger (or at least the one who talked to Wilson) refuses to respond positively. Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf then leaves and hopes that the offical doesn't tell anyone, or at least only tells people like Wilson who will dismiss it. No further trade is negotiated because what Iraq wanted isn't on the table.

Might that go to the question of whether or not Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa? Just a little bit?

In February 2002, Mr. Wilson went to the capital of Niger for eight days to find out if Saddam had obtained or tried to obtain any yellowcake from the Niger mines.

He spoke to a few dozen people - officials, former officials, and others. He concluded that it would be hard, if not impossible, for Saddam to get uranium secretly, because both Niger government ministers and managers from European mining companies would need to sign off on it. The only evidence he found indicating an attempt by Saddam to get yellowcake was one former Niger official's recollection of a trade discussion with an Iraqi government visitor in 1999.

The CIA decided that Mr. Wilson's report was inconclusive. Pres. Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union that the British said that Saddam was trying to get uranium. When the speech was being vetted beforehand, the CIA told the speechwriters to cut that line. The White House replied: but it's true that the British said it. The CIA replied: yes, but we can't verify or vouch for the British claim. When the White House still insisted, the CIA relented and approved the line.

On July 6, 2003, the New York Times published an op-ed by Mr. Wilson:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.html

He describes how he concluded that Iraq could not make any secret purchases of yellowcake. He writes, "I thought the Niger matter was settled ...", and "These are the facts surrounding my efforts". But in this essay of 1,000 words, he does not mention that an Iraqi agent and a Niger official had discussed establishing trade. He leaves that fact out, and then says "[t]hese are the facts".

He then goes on to accuse the White House of "the selective use of intelligence", of twisting intelligence to mislead the country about invading Iraq. He implies that there is no evidence, and no evidence that he found, that showed Saddam trying to get uranium from Niger. But those were not the facts: Mr. Wilson knew about that Iraqi/Niger meeting, and he does not mention it.

The New York Times op-ed set off a storm of partisan cricism. Over the next several months, Mr. Wilson had many opportunities to correct the record, for he gave many interviews in many media outlets, including PBS Frontline (10/9/03) and even several political weblogs.

Yet he stuck to the same formula: I disproved the uranium purchases, there was no evidence for them, and if you don't mention any Iraqi/Niger meetings, I certainly won't.
So why does Mr. Wilson mention the meeting now in his book? He has to, because as Kevin Drum points out above, George Tenet made the meeting part of the public record in his press release of July 11, 2003.
[Sorry for the typos in my other post. I also said that Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger was in the summer of 2003, but it was actually February 2002.]

Also, there is a line in Wilson's book--written with no self-awareness whatsoever--to the effect that the CIA people who recruited him to go to Niger were obviously committed to secrecy and discretion. Guess they didn't count on his penchant for seeking publicity for himself.

I have been wondering about this. I think "the fact of" his trip being at the behest of the CIA would be classified. Now every former diplomat on a trip will be viewed as a CIA stooge. I don't see any of the folks concerned about Plame being concerned about that.

I made a mistake in the web address for the op-ed. It should be:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

David Walser,

The Plame investigation has progressed to the point of enpaneling a grand jury. That's pretty far down the road.

If Plame weren't covered by the law, that could be quickly and easily determined.

The law is that she would have to have been outside the US, under cover, within five years. That's entirely possible based on what I've read about her. A weeklong undercover trip overseas to debrief her contacts before moving to a stateside assignment would suffice. It would be easy enough for the CIA to provide the DOJ with her travel records or other documentation. There simply is no difficulty for the CIA to prove it; they have all the information they need to do so.

If the DOJ is running a grand jury, to indict people in the administration, without making a simple check of Plame's status under the law, and it later comes out that she isn't covered, a whole lot of people will find their careers coming to a screeching halt. I don't think they'd take that risk. Ashcroft certainly wouldn't have let it get to the point of investigating the White House if he didn't have to. If Plame wasn't covered under the relevant law, the whole thing would have been dismissed last fall.

So the fact that it's gotten this far, and people are giving testimony to a grand jury, means that Plame is covered by the law, and that portion of the statute's conditions are fulfilled.

It still remains to be seen if perpetrators can be identified, indicted, and convicted.

Jon H. - I don't disagree that it appears that Plame was "covered" under the law in that she well may have served outside the country within the required five year time frame. What is unclear is that the person divulging Plame's identity (and status as a CIA agent) would have known that she was covered (since she lived in the US) and that the CIA was trying to maintain her covert identity. A prior poster suggested that the mere fact a criminal investigation was being conducted was proof positive that a crime had been committed. A crime may have been committed, but until we know who talked to Novak and can determine what he or she knew, it is unclear whether a crime was committed.

You know, "Wilson received information that an Iraqi official was looking to buy uranium" and "that information was deemed totally unreliable" aren't incompatible statements.

Looks to me like Bush made a statement that was true but misleading (it sounded like the British analysis wasn't disputed).
Then antiwar people folks tried to make Bush pay for being misleading but didn't succeed as much as they'd hoped, because people don't care as much about somewhat misleading statements as they do about actual lies.
Then the antiwar people tried to imply Bush lied, which he didn't, so it's misleading if you think they IMPLIED Bush lied, and it's a lie if they SAID Bush lied.
Then nobody cared anymore.

I still say the only reason Bush said "Africa" in the speech instead of "Niger" was because the speechwriters were afraid he'd slip and add a second "g" to "Niger."

Jason:

Mr. Wilson may have thought the Iraqi official wasn't interested in buying uranium (if he did think the official was uninterested, then Mr. Wilson was very likely wrong.).

But Mr. Wilson did know that the Iraqi and Niger officials had met, and when he should have mentioned this fact, he remained silent or said this fact did not in fact exist.

He lied, and played games with the credibility of our country. He should be ashamed, he should not be celebrated as a political celebrity.

Comments are Closed.