News Was the Bush White House Really Behind Plamegate?

[Geekster]

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

link

Seems they owe the Bush & Co. a little something...

The overly politicized subject of "Plamegate" now has the truth. The funny thing is that I don't hear any republicans taking this oppertunity to bash the Dems (save for a very few like me)...how odd.

 

[BobG]

The logic doesn't follow. Libby, Rove, et al weren't the first to leak Plame's name, so that means their motivation in leaking her name disappear's up in smoke, as well?

The whole intent of leaking Plame's name to the press was to give the impression Plame and Wilson were abusing Plame's job in the CIA by using it to obtain free trips for Joe Wilson. The White House wanted to portray Wilson as someone who had no qualifications for investigating transactions involving nuclear material and that any investigating he did was merely a cursory going through the motions to ensure he stayed on the proper side of the law on government paid travel in letter, if not in spirit. If they had been successful in that portrayal, how would that not have hurt Plame's career.

In any event, it's not a matter of which government official leaked the info first. Even if classified information is in the press, it's still a crime for someone with access to the info to verify the accuracy or inaccuracies in the story. If White House staff aren't guilty of leaking classified information, then it's because it couldn't be proven that they knew Plame was a covert agent or because the info was hastily declassified by the White House once they realized what they'd done.

 

[BobG]

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.

Quoted text deleted due to P&WA guidelines violation[/color]

You must see something I don't see. How do either one of those relate to why White House staff talked to the press about Plame?

There's two issues: legality and motive. The original article suggests that if Armitage's identity had been known, it could have saved a long investigation. That refers to the legal side of the mess, but Armitage isn't the only piece of the puzzle in the legal issues.

Motive is a different issue. The article doesn't provide any support one way or the other as to the motivation for Libby and Rove discussing Plame with the press. The legality of Rove's and Libby's comments or whether they even knew Plame was a covert agent is irrelevant to their motivation. They intended to discredit Wilson, even if that meant hurting his wife's career. Having an image in the press as abusing her official government position to provide boondoggles for her husband certainly wasn't going to help her career.

 

[GENIERE]

You must see something I don't see. How do either one of those relate to why White House staff talked to the press about Plame?

You may have an interest in the conversations; I could care less because the prosecutor has found that no crimes have been committed.

… That refers to the legal side of the mess, but Armitage isn't the only piece of the puzzle in the legal issues.

What legal mess? There is no mess nor, obviously, did Armitage commit a crime.

Motive is a different issue… They intended to discredit Wilson, even if that meant hurting his wife's career...

You have absolutely no idea of the intent of Rove and others except that which exists in your imagination.

Posts like this are the reason that few on the right side of the political aisle participate in these political forums. It is impossible to counter emotional grievance with fact.

 

[slugcountry]

link

Seems they owe the Bush & Co. a little something...

The overly politicized subject of "Plamegate" now has the truth. The funny thing is that I don't hear any republicans taking this oppertunity to bash the Dems (save for a very few like me)...how odd.

How utterly brilliant of you to omit the following paragraph from your quote:

"That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified."

I'm sure it was an honest mistake.

 

[Gokul43201]

I could care less because the prosecutor has found that no crimes have been committed.

Do you have a source for this finding?

 

[Skyhunter]

Speaking of sources and citations, I wonder where the author found a source to verify this statement:

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Since the only credible sources I can find on the internet are similar to this one, I suspect that you are getting all excited about an op-ed that has no basis in reality.

And Geniere, making ad-hominem attacks against imaginary liberals is counterproductive. If you have some facts to present please do so, and include citations.

 

[BobG]

Speaking of sources and citations, I wonder where the author found a source to verify this statement:


Since the only credible sources I can find on the internet are similar to this one, I suspect that you are getting all excited about an op-ed that has no basis in reality.

And Geniere, making ad-hominem attacks against imaginary liberals is counterproductive. If you have some facts to present please do so, and include citations.

The summary is reasonably fair, plus it does have links and references for the things it says: http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html

 

[edward]

Since the leak can be traced to Armitage. Libbly's motive for liyng before a grand jury would not make sense unless there was a second leak by someone close to him. It is the lie that has become the charge.

And it was the CIA who requested the investigation, not the Democrats.

BTW in case anyone missed it in the other thread. Plame was working classified information involving the IRAN nuclear situation.

There is a video in the link below that sums up the entire situation. The video origianally aired on MSNBC.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/01.html#a8126

And most importantly, Wilson was Right about the yellow cake. Some people just can't seem to accept that fact.

 

[Futobingoro]

And most importantly, Wilson was Right about the yellow cake. Some people just can't seem to accept that fact.

Yes and no.

There is one extremely important distinction that has to be made here.

Bush's claim: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Wilson's finding: that no uranium deal had ever been reached

In other words, the fact that no deal was reached means that "Bush lied" when he said that Saddam Hussein had only sought uranium.

Using this logic, if my wife tells somebody that I went to Sears to look at vacuum cleaners, she is a liar if I come home without having purchased one.

This article clears it all up.

 

[Skyhunter]

Yes and no.

There is one extremely important distinction that has to be made here.

Bush's claim: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Wilson's finding: that no uranium deal had ever been reached

In other words, the fact that no deal was reached means that "Bush lied" when he said that Saddam Hussein had only sought uranium.

Using this logic, if my wife tells somebody that I went to Sears to look at vacuum cleaners, she is a liar if I come home without having purchased one.

This article clears it all up.

You are wordsmithing. Like Bushco have been doing with the reasons for invading Iraq in the first place.

That article does not present any evidence, other than highly circumstantial, ie one 2-day visit by Wissam al-Zahawie, to Niger in February 1999. Even if he did inquire about acquiring yellow cake, not that there is any evidence he did, nothing ever came of it.

Bush's claim that Iraq sought Uranium has never been demonstrated to be true. On the contrary, the fact that the documents and intelligence that the British claim was based on have been demonstrated, quite convincingly to be false.

March 7, 2003 – The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the international body that monitors nuclear proliferation – tells the UN Security Council that, after a “thorough analysis” with “concurrence of outside experts,” that the Italian documents— “which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger—are in fact not authentic.” ( Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq... , March 2003).

October 1, 2002 – The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) – a summary of intelligence assessments for policymakers – says “a foreign government service” reported that Niger planned to send several tons of "pure uranium" to Iraq , possibly up to 500 tons a year. “We do not know the status of this arrangement,” the NIE says, according to a later declassified version released by the White House. In the NIE, State Department intelligence officials caution that African uranium claims are “highly dubious.” ( Background WMD Briefing by Senior Administration Official ).

http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html

Bush lied, he knew the claim was highly dubious, and Wilsons findings were part of the doubt, but he had a war to sell and was not going to let facts or truth stop his war. Why some people insist on defending the guy is beyond me. When someone lies to me I stop trusting or believing them.

I like many, perhaps even a majority of Americans, don't believe or trust the President and that is a sad state of our union.

Like the president, I believe that failure in Iraq is a disaster. Failure in Iraq is what we are currently witnessing. Unlike Bush, I don't believe that the man most responsible for the failure in Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld, can succeed. Nor do I believe that Bush can remedy the disaster which is his ME policy and his handling of the fight against terrorists. The right thing for Bush to do would be to replace Cheney with Colin Powell (if he would accept) and then resign in disgrace. It is the least he could do to repay the loyalty Powell gave him to help sell the war. Powell may not be the best choice, but I think that he would enjoy popular support from Americans, and he still has prestige internationally. I think many nations would be willing to forgive his UN speech and work with him to achieve a stable Iraq.

Another choice that might be acceptable is John M^cCain.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact is far more detailed and includes more information than the one you linked.

 

[Skyhunter]

The summary is reasonably fair, plus it does have links and references for the things it says: http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html

Yes indeed BobG, a very good source.

 

[edward]

Yes and no.

There is one extremely important distinction that has to be made here.

Bush's claim: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Wilson's finding: that no uranium deal had ever been reached

In other words, the fact that no deal was reached means that "Bush lied" when he said that Saddam Hussein had only sought uranium.
This article clears it all up.

I tend to, if possible, use the most credible sources possible. And I find the one below to be much more credible than the soap opera version contained in the SLATE.

So far ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down. In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters related to an offer to sell yellowcake to Iraq. The document reveals that a Ugandan businessman approached the Iraqis with an offer to sell uranium, reportedly from the Congo. The Iraqi Embassy in Nairobi—in reporting this matter back to Baghdad on 20 May 2001—indicated it told the Ugandan that Iraq does not deal with these materials, explained the circumstances of sanctions, and said that Baghdad was not concerned about these matters right now. Figure 1 is the translation of this document.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html

This reprot was as of 2004. If the CIA has anything more recent on this issue , I'd be glad to read it.

There was no yellow cake sought There were no viable WMD found.

 

[Futobingoro]

Yes indeed BobG, a very good source. (factcheck website)

How can you claim that Bush lied about the Niger uranium issue when the factcheck site (which you say is 'a very good source') makes the important distinction between the interest in uranium by the 1999 Iraqi delegation and the uranium deal which never materialized?

George Bush echoed the British intelligence finding that Iraq was seeking uranium - a point which is verified by your 'http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html .'

Joseph Wilson concluded that Iraq had never managed to purchase uranium from Niger - a point which also is verified by your 'http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html .'

Bush never claimed that a sale had taken place, but the fact that some documents were fake was used to shoot down the legitimate reports that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger.

seek v.

1. to go in search or quest of
3. to try to obtain

purchase v.

1. to acquire by the payment of money or its equivalent; buy

Two very different words.

Wilson may have debunked the false reports of a uranium purchase but it still escapes me how this was interpreted as proof that "Bush lied" about Iraq's seeking of uranium.

 

[slugcountry]

The fact that fake reports were used to ultimately mislead the public undermines any credibility, obviously.

 

[Futobingoro]

This is the greatest extent of Bush's claim regarding the Niger uranium issue:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

If, at any point, the Bush administration trusted the fake documents which "showed" an actual transaction, it is not borne out in any statement or claim that I can find.

Stop pretending that Bush claimed a transaction had taken place.

He never did so.

 

[edward]

This is the greatest extent of Bush's claim regarding the Niger uranium issue:If, at any point, the Bush administration trusted the fake documents which "showed" an actual transaction, it is not borne out in any statement or claim that I can find.
Stop pretending that Bush claimed a transaction had taken place.
He never did so.

You are desperately spliting verbal hairs. I don't think anyone has suggested that a transaction took place. But the Administration did falsely and repeatedly insist that Iraq had sought a transaction.
Bushco used those 16 words and a lot of other totally untrue tripe about WMD to mislead the American people. None of them were true.

Whether Bush trusted words provided by the British, or Curveball's description of imaginary mobile bioweapons labs is not relevant. They were not true, they were cherry picked , fictionalized, and enhanced. Yet Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice knowingly used them to instill fear in the American people.

 

[Skyhunter]

How can you claim that Bush lied about the Niger uranium issue when the factcheck site (which you say is 'a very good source') makes the important distinction between the interest in uranium by the 1999 Iraqi delegation and the uranium deal which never materialized?

Read my post again.

He knew the claim was dubious, unless he either never read or was never briefed on the October 2002 NIE. (which is plausible since he is IMO an idiot) Even though the claim was doubtful he went ahead and included the assertion in his SOTU address in January 2001. Add this to the statements by other administration officials about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud and it becomes obvious that they were manipulating the intelligence to exploit our fear after 9-11 in order to sell a war. Anyone who cannot see this is either intellectually challenged, self-deluded, or complicit.

Bush lied to sell the war. It doesn't matter if technically he didn't lie because he never said there was a connection, he deliberately misled the American people, by misrepresenting the facts.

[edit] BTW the factcheck site does not offer any evidence that the Iraqi delegation sought uranium. Read it again.

June 1999 – Niger ’s former prime minister Ibrahim Mayaki meets with an Iraqi delegation wanting to discuss “expanding commercial relations.” Mayaki interprets this as an interest in uranium, Niger ’s main export, and later tells Wilson that he did not discuss it because Iraq remained under UN trade sanctions. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43-44, July 2004).

Mayaki interprets, that means he thinks they want to discuss uranium but they did not actually discuss uranium. Is that all the evidence you have that they were trying to acquire uranium? Is that all the evidence you need to justify the consequences of the invasion?
[/edit]

 

[Futobingoro]

Well, Skyhunter, your stance is directly contrary to the findings of the Butler Report and the Senate Intelligence Committee Report.

 

[edward]

Well, Skyhunter, your stance is directly contrary to the findings of the Butler Report and the Senate Intelligence Committee Report.

The Butler report was meaningless fim flam. It wasn't even mentioned in the ISG report. Click the link below and do a word search of the document for Niger or any other term you wish. . You will not find anything to supports your claims.

ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html

 

[Futobingoro]

The Butler report was meaningless fim flam.

After reading that, I don't think your post deserves a response.

You could "prove" that 1+1=3 if all your sources were golden and all others were "meaningless fim flam."

 

[edward]

After reading that, I don't think your post deserves a response.

You could "prove" that 1+1=3 if all your sources were golden and all others were "meaningless fim flam."

I find the CIA to be a quite reliable source for this type of information.

The Butler report, simply put, was wrong. Sorry for the typo the expression was supposed to be flim flam.

 

[slugcountry]

After reading that, I don't think your post deserves a response.

You could "prove" that 1+1=3 if all your sources were golden and all others were "meaningless fim flam."

So what makes the Butler report a golden source as opposed to the CIA?

 

[Skyhunter]

Well, Skyhunter, your stance is directly contrary to the findings of the Butler Report and the Senate Intelligence Committee Report.

It is not really a stance, it is just my assessment of the limited facts as I have seen. The Senate intelligence report does not disagree with my assessment, and the more information that has come to light in the 2 years since that report only serves to reinforce my assessment.

I have the Senate intelligence report and just re-read pages 36-55. Unfortunately the Senate intelligence committee has refused to fulfil the multiple promises made to investigate the administrations handling and use of pre-war intel, so all we have are some unconfirmed reports that Iraq may have been trying to acquire uranium from Africa. Add this to the aluminum tubes (that were the wrong size and shape for centrifuging uranium, as well as being anodized, meaning that even if they were going to try and use them they would need to be milled first.) and you could I suppose make the argument that Bush didn't know any better. But whether he deliberately lied or was just incompetent the results are the same. Fiasco in Iraq.

Since Pat Roberts is complicit with the administration and refuses to allow an investigation into how the administration fixed the facts and intelligence to suit the policy, we may never know if Bush meant to deceive us or is just a goofy gullible moron who was played for a sucker by the smartest guys in the room.

The quote in my last post is a summary of Mayaki's statements from the factcheck.org site. I am not interested in reading the entire Butler report. If you would be so kind as to find the quotes that support your assertions. (Like all the emotional liberals here do.) It would be most welcome.

 

[Futobingoro]

http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/hc/hc898/898.pdf

 

[Skyhunter]

Even though they conclude, just like in the Senate intelligence committee findings that their was some evidence that Iraq may have attempted to acquire uranium from Africa, there is no proof.

I stand by my assessment that Bushco grabbed onto any shred of evidence they could to ratchet up the rhetoric to sell a war. Just like the current speeches trying to paint anyone who criticizes the Iraq fiasco as Nazi sympathizers or pro-slavery as Rice recently alluded to in an interview in Essence magazine.

"I'm sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold," Rice tells Essence. "I know there were people who said, 'Why don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves?'"

http://salon.com/politics/war_room/

He had no evidence, whether he technically lied is irrelevant to the fact that he deliberately misrepresented the intelligence to start a war. He definitely lied when he said he would go as a last resort. We know from the downing street memo and General Shinseki that Bushco had planned to go to war with Iraq before the WTC attack.

If the Congress had done it's job and provided some oversight, and carried out the promise made to look into the handling of the pre-war intel, we would have a much better picture. Because they have not, Bush supporters can cling to the belief that perhaps he is just an incompetent boob and not a treasonous liar!

[edit] A good book to read on how the intel was used is the 1% solution. The title refers to Cheney's directive to treat a 1% possibility as a certainty.

 

[edward]

http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/hc/hc898/898.pdf

This has all been totally debunked by the CIA, including Iraq's infamous 45 minute WMD attack capablility. Page 139.

 

[Futobingoro]

The conclusions of the CIA are mysterious: for some reason, they backed off any claim that Saddam sought uranium when the papers alleging a purchase were exposed as forgeries. This was echoed by Condoleezza Rice:

What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.

The British, on the other hand, agree that no purchase was made but did not think the forgeries discredited the evidence of Saddam's seeking of uranium. This is due to the fact that the British intelligence (the basis for the "16 words") was not even based upon the forged documents.