Claim Karl Rove was leak in CIA outing

[sweetkidsmom]

<p>Funding Father your statement about Wilson being discreditied implies it was a unanimous discrediting of Wilson. It was not. And it wasn’t even in the original report. Instead three republican Senators (party line vote)wrote an SSCI addendum after the final report had already been approved by the committee and over the objections and outrage of democrats on the committee. This after the fact add on by republicans triesd to assert Wilson’s report confirmed Bush’s desired intell. It was an out and out lie of the facts as we know them today. The Niger claim by Blair and Bush was false and likely planted via forged docs.</p>

<p><a href=“politicsoftruth.com”>politicsoftruth.com;

<p>This is the misleading Wash. Post Article that leaves out some significant and carifying points for the reader who is unaware of the SSCI final repo0rt and the l;ater add on by republicans as though it was a unanimous addendum. I assure you it was not.
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39834-2004Jul9[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39834-2004Jul9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This is a comment which spells out the truth, left out of the WASH Post Article and what really went on with the addendum(smear Wilson campaign)
“Schmidt calls Wilson ‘a partisan critic of Bush’s foreign policy’ (not even of the war, his whole foreign policy) and she also calls the Senate report ‘a bi-partisan report’, never mentioning that the committee took great care to point out there were 2 issues on which they could not reach bi-partisan agreement - the two issues involving Wilson, and which are the focus of her article. Unbelievable.
When you compare the report with what Schmidt writes, it in no way matches. From reading her article, one would also believe the panel was convened for the sole purpose of investigating Wilson, as she doesn’t even mention the real mission of the Senate Commission; to assess the failures of intelligence leading up to the war.
There is no doubt, reading the article, and then reading the actual report, that Susan Schmidt should be fired.
This is a deliberate partisan attack, not a news story. I considered making a diary calling for the resignation of Schmidt, but thought it would be a distraction.
And now, two years after this article was posted, suddenly there is a correction posted above it to one of the most egregious errors in it. It was not there two days ago,”
<a href=“http://jimstaro.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/13/93855/0369[/url]”>http://jimstaro.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/13/93855/0369&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Strick11]

<p>sweetkidsmom, even the French thought Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. One document, a contract for such a purchase, was found to be fradulant. The rest of the evidence has never been refuted.</p>

<p>Consider these links (read all of each, of course):</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2003/intell-030711-cia01.htm[/url]”>http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2003/intell-030711-cia01.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

[quote]
He [Wilson] reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official 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. There was no mention in the report of forged documents – or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.</p>

<p>Because this 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, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said… </p>

<p>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, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons…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.”<a href=“Note%20that%20Seymour%20Hersh’s%20article%20quotes%20the%20NIE%20report%20out%20of%20context.%20%20This%20account%20is%20consisent%20with%20the%20Senate%20Intelligence%20report%20which%20contradicts%20conclusion%20in%20his%20NY%20Times%20op-ed.%20%20The%20Administration%20never%20saw%20his%20report.%20%20That’s%20why%20they%20ignored%20it%20as%20hard%20as%20that%20was%20for%20his%20ego%20to%20absorb.%20%20He%20had%20no%20basis%20for%20arguing%20that%20the%20Administration%20was%20picking%20and%20choosing%20intel%20to%20make%20their%20case%20for%20war.%20%20His%20report%20just%20wasn’t%20considered%20much%20use.”>/quote</a></p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/international/middleeast/18URAN.html?ex=1247889600&en=4e094bfef713559a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/international/middleeast/18URAN.html?ex=1247889600&en=4e094bfef713559a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

But it also contained some information that tended to bolster the view that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger and possibly one or two other African nations. It cited a statement by a French official to the State Department in late 2002 that France, which was resisting Mr. Bush’s efforts to make an urgent case for war, “believed the reporting was true that Iraq had made a procurement attempt for uranium from Niger.” Neither report, however, found evidence that Iraq had actually purchased any uranium from Niger.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF[/url]”>http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>And this beauty of an amicus brief in support of Cooper and Miller submitted by 36 of the most influential news organizations in the US. The best part starts about page 27. You’ll recognize it. It’s what some people have claimed are the “Republican talking points”. Only it’s the media making the all the points you’ve pooh poohed. I love the bit where they explain that the CIA request for an investigation did not meet the criteria for showing that a crime had been committed, it was just a routine form. Oh, and all the evidence they offer that Plame was not a covert operative and hadn’t been one for years. Brings tears to my eyes. </p>

<p>

The public record provides ample evidence the CIA was at leat cavalier if not complicit in releasing Plame’s name

Poetry, shear poetry. Not to mention they way the lay it on Wilson for his contribution to the leak.</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>There are Republican Takling Points- it is amazing how many of the media say exactly the same thing…</p>

<p><a href=“http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html[/url]”>http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[xiggi]

<p>DS, I forget to thank you for the link about the first Barton Evans and H. Andrea Neves Chair in Literature. I first thought it would link to the bio of Robert Faggen and did not check it immediately. It is very nice for CMC. </p>

<p>I have read several works of Professor Faggen and found the way he approaches Robert Frost’s poems to be fascinating. While the task of deciphering the true meaning of Frost’s words remains herculean, Faggen added another dimension. The opportunity I had to study both of these authors in our Lit classes was priceless and a true eye opener for a non-literature major.</p>

[driver]

<p>Yes, do read the amicus brief, CGM, before making more specious comments. Funny how when it’s their own t*t caught in the wringer they all of a sudden notice that “there exists ample evidence on the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act…” Would have been nice if they had noticed that when it was only the Bush Administration being falsely sullied. Oh well, that’s politics.</p>

[sweetkidsmom]

<p>Hello Strict11 here we are again,
on edit: Look up COGEMA(French company). They have the control of the Nigerian mines. Wouldn’t the French know if one of its own was selling ore to the Iraqi’s.</p>

<p>This source is considered very good, very thorough and absent Righty or Lefty bias so I post segments here. <a href=“Scottish Sunday - Scotland's Independent Sunday”>Scottish Sunday - Scotland's Independent Sunday;

<p>Also significant was the refusal by Colin Powell to use the uranium claim when he addressed the UN on February 5 calling for war. On Thursday, Powell said it was not ‘sufficiently reliable’. With Bush trying to get off the hook, Blair looks as if he could be twisting in the wind – unless he has this ‘other evidence’ to back up the Niger connection. It should be pointed out that it would be extremely difficult for Niger to sell uranium in quantities large enough to be weaponised as its mines are controlled by France and its entire output goes to France, Japan and Spain. E xperts say it couldn’t be smuggled out unnoticed. One western diplomat said: ‘As far as I know, the only other evidence Britain has about the Niger connection is based on intelligence coming from other western countries which saw the same forgeries. Blair’s claim that he has other evidence is nonsense. These foreign intelligence agencies are basing their claims on the same forgeries as the Brits.’</p>

<p>The diplomat’s accusations tally with a letter sent in April, before the White House climbdown, by the State Department to Democrat House of Representative’s member Henry Waxman, who has been demanding answers on the deception carried out against the American and British people. In it, the State Department admits that it received intelligence from the UK and another ‘western European ally’ – which many believe to be Italy – that Iraq was trying to buy Niger uranium. But it adds: ‘not until March 4 did we learn that, in fact, the second western European government had based its assessment on the evidence already available to the US that was subsequently discredited’. In other words, as one intelligence source said: ‘It was based on the same crap the British used’. Given the letter is dated April 29, this information invites the question: why did it take until last week for the White House to admit the Niger connection was rubbish?</p>

<p>Another State Department letter to Waxman makes the astonishing admission that when America handed the Niger documents to the IAEA they included the qualification ‘we cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims’ – hardly the same tune that Bush and Blair were singing with their claims that Saddam was chasing down Niger uranium.</p>

<p>We know that Blair’s ‘other’ evidence backing the Niger connection includes second-hand or even third-hand intelligence – and that it doesn’t come from the UK. Nor has this intelligence been passed to the IAEA (in accordance with UN resolution 1414). The Foreign Office says: ‘In the case of uranium from Niger, we did not have any UK-originated intelligence to pass on.’>>>></p>

<p>Foreign Office minister Mike O’Brien said on June 10 that all relevant information on Iraqi WMDs had been sent to weapons inspectors – but less than a month later he was contradicted by another Foreign Office minister, Denis MacShane, saying the UK didn’t give the IAEA any information on Iraq seeking uranium. One senior western diplomat told the Sunday Herald: 'There were more than 20 anomalies in the Niger documents – it is staggering any intelligence service could have believed they were genuine for a moment.>>>>>>></p>

<p>‘The IAEA had said it would follow up any other evidence pointing towards a Niger connection . If the UK and US had had such evidence they could have forwarded it and shut the IAEA up – El Baradei would never have gone public if that had happened. My analysis is that Britain has no other credible evidence.’ The source added: 'The weapons inspectors have friends in the CIA and the State Department . They made sure the documents made their way to the IAEA as they knew fine well they’d be exposed as forgeries.>></p>

<p>I would also point this out>
"These White House hatchet men say the administration did not manipulate or cherry-pick intelligence. They also tout the recent British report (a.k.a. The Butler Report) as defending the president’s uranium claim. Yet, if the White House did not cherry-pick or manipulate intelligence, why did the president trumpet U.S. intelligence from a foreign government while ignoring explicit warnings not to do so from his own? The record shows U.S. intelligence officials explicitly warned the White House that “the Brits have exaggerated this issue.” Yet, the administration refused to listen. Even The Butler Report itself acknowledges the evidence is cloudy. As nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently pointed out, “The claim appears shaky at best—hardly the stuff that should make up presidential decisions.”</p>

<p>But now, instead of contrition, Republicans are insisting the White House’s uranium charge was accurate. Indeed, these apologists have no option but to try to distract public attention from the simple truth that not a shred of solid evidence exists to substantiate this key charge that fueled the push for war."</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm[/url]”>http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[sweetkidsmom]

<p>Driver, Have you forgotten the 8 year vendetta against Clinton, were you complaining when it was the other party’s guy. It all depends on the party you belong to now. As opposed to loyalty to the country, not the person.</p>

<p>There’s right and wrong and shades of gray in between, but when the oath is to a person and not the wellfare of the country you have to wonder.</p>

[driver]

<p>I thought we were supposed to be able to discuss current politics without mentioning Clinton. FWIW, SKM, I was like you, a Perotian in '92. The fact remains, the current “analysis” you’re buying into bites the big one, to quote Roseanne Roseannadanna. Passion is a good thing, but it doesn’t trump reality.</p>

[sweetkidsmom]

<p>So the world is wrong, and you are right. If you must fall on Bush’s sword so be it. The emperor has no clothes.</p>

[driver]

<p>It’s just your little world that’s wrong. The emperor looks appropriately dressed to me. Quasi-related update: Looks like John Roberts to replace O’Connor on the Supreme Court. God, I love this president.</p>

[sweetkidsmom]

<p>driver, go look up Chuck Colson</p>

<p>Here’s some help.<a href=“http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-colson[/url]”>http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-colson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It isn’t fun to go from victory(however Diebold and it optical scanners did it) to where Bush stands now. It is of his making. Halderman and Erlichman thought it was ‘tem against us’ too. All the way to the Eglin AFB Fed prison. At least one was serving time there while my dad served his country honorably at that base.</p>

[susu]

<p>The moderator removed my earlier post, apparently because I called Rove a Skunk. (I guess it’s OK to attack other CCers, but not Rove.) </p>

<p>First warning should have sufficed. Also, please read the TOS regarding publicly discussing the moderation of our boards. Thank you for your contributions to this site. </p>

[driver]

<p>Thank you for the Colson link. I know that’s what you want Plame-Rovegate to be…but it’s not going to happen. And I know I can count on you to not be bitter, and to move on, when it becomes even more evident than it already is.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>A word of caution for those who love their editorialists and the veracity of their prescient judgments: </p>

<p>“Several months before his plea, Colson became an evangelical Christian. Editorial comics in several U. S. newspapers, as well as Newsweek and Time, ridiculed the conversion, claiming that it was a ploy to reduce his sentence.
After his release from prison, Colson founded Prison Fellowship. Colson has worked to promote prisoner rehabilitation and reform of the prison system in the United States. He disdains the “lock 'em and leave 'em” warehousing approach to criminal justice. He led the effort that liberated Elizabeth Morgan from prison.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-colson[/url]”>http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-colson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[sweetkidsmom]

<p>And you have the inside scoop direct to Fitzgerald any more than the rest of us? </p>

<p>Being a loyal foot soldier to a person like Bush and company has its risks. Good luck! Judith Miller will get hers as well from the direction Fitz is heading in. The military in the 75th, the unit she hijacked, hated her as did the higher ups. Rove and cheney are sacrificing her to save themselve and Bush. Why be a loyal foot soldier for them, who needs enemies…</p>

[driver]

<p>

And you have the inside scoop direct to Fitzgerald any more than the rest of us?

No, but I do seem to have a better grasp of the facts that are out there than many of “the rest of you.” A foot soldier? Eh. This case isn’t that hard, unless you’re looking at it through rose-colored Democrat/Michael Moore/MoveOn.org foot soldier glasses. The spin must be making you dizzy.</p>

[sweetkidsmom]

<p>Driver your points only work when you twist and spin, dizzy???</p>

<p>You could be just as wrong as you accuse others of being. Unless you are a key player, like in Millers camp, or Libby’s,unless your Marc Grossman, you know no more than anyone else. Superiority is a mind deception that only works with those willing to suck up to you.</p>

<p>WSJ article today:The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson’s involvement in her husband’s trip is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brackets to indicate the information shouldn’t be shared, according to the person familiar with the memo. Such a designation would indicate to a reader that the information was sensitive. The memo, though, doesn’t specifically describe Ms. Wilson as an undercover agent, the person familiar with the memo said.</p>

<p>Generally, the federal government has three levels of classified information – top secret, secret and confidential – all indicating various levels of “damage” to national security if disclosed. There also is an unclassified designation – indicating information that wouldn’t harm national security if shared with the public – but that wasn’t the case for the material on the Wilsons prepared by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. It isn’t known what level of classification was assigned to the information in the memo.</p>

<p>Who received the memo, which was prepared for Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs, and how widely it was circulated are issues as Mr. Fitzgerald tries to pinpoint the origin of the leak of Ms. Wilson’s identity. According to the person familiar with the document, it didn’t include a distribution list. It isn’t known if President Bush has seen the memo.</p>

[dstark]

<p>Xiggi, you are well ahead of the game. I am jealous. :)</p>

<p>What’s your major?</p>

[Strick11]

<p>“They have the control of the Nigerian mines. Wouldn’t the French know if one of its own was selling ore to the Iraqi’s.”</p>

<p>So why did the French say that Iraq had made an attempt to buy uranium?</p>

<p>“On Thursday, Powell said it was not ‘sufficiently reliable’.”</p>

<p>As did Tenet. Not that it had been debunked (most certainly not by Wilson’s wasted trip), but that there wasn’t enough corroboration for it to be in a State of the Union address. That’s hardly the equivalent of Wilson’s claim that, if they ignored his opinion, they were fixing the evidence. As said in several places, Wilson’s opinion was spiked on its own merits and never figured into any intelligence analysis. Do remember that Wilson admits to never having seen the documents you keep referring to. The US didn’t have them in our possesion until 8 months or so after Wilson’s trip.</p>

<p>“Yet, if the White House did not cherry-pick or manipulate intelligence, why did the president trumpet U.S. intelligence from a foreign government while ignoring explicit warnings not to do so from his own?”</p>

<p>Again, the wrong question based on a disproven assumption. Those explicit warnings (which can’t describe Wilson’s report) never made to the President or any high level Administration official, not until after the speech. Powell’s State Department memo, Tenet and the Senate Intelligence Committee report agree on this. If you don’t see those warnings because the intelligence organizations didn’t consider things like Wilson’s opinion worth considering, the question falls apart.</p>

<p>So, you haven’t in the slightest shown that the Administration lied or cherry picked the intelligence. They might have been wrong, but you can’t say it cherry picked what it never saw.</p>

<p>“Karl Rove was willing to let reporters go to JAIL to protect his identity, instead of stepping forward and saying, ‘Yup, it was me, I did it.’”</p>

<p>susu, I’m confused. Rove signed a waiver that would allow any reporter who spoke to him testify a year ago. Cooper asked for verification that he meant it and in the end accepted Rove’s lawyer’s assurance that he did, the story about there being something more apparently is either garbled or not true. </p>

<p>Miller could have accepted that waiver any time she wanted. And btw, you’re assuming Rove was her source when most things I’ve read are guessing it was Lewis Libby, who signed the same waiver Rove did. Truth is, no one really knows who she talked to, but most guess it wasn’t Rove.</p>

<p>Miller’s in jail because she doesn’t consider the waivers adequate proof that her source, who ever it is, is willing for her to testify.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF[/url]”>http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Please read this pdf, starting about page 27 of the pdf, not the document. It’s a hoot. It shreds the notion that anyone was concerned with the fact that Plame worked for the CIA. And it’s not by any Republican or blog, it was written by the 36 most important news organizations in the US who were trying were supporting Cooper and Miller’s attempts not to testify.</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>So why did the CIA want this investigated?</p>