This is not fraudulent.

The new piece to this story is that the these declassified documents were the basis for the leak campaign against Joe Wilson.

The new twist is that, despite Bush playing dumb when word of the leaks first came out, he infact was the one who authorized them.

For the first time, he admitted he authorized the information that was leaked to be leaked.

"Years later, old news is just recycled as new news...providing an endless cycle of talking points for the MSM and the Democrats to hit on, but no actual information worthy of anyone's further attention.

That is it - there really is nothing more to it."

I'm not surprised that recent revelations are causing some people to hide their head in the sand.

Timeline:
-7/8/03 Libby leaks portions of the NIE to Miller
-7/18/03 Scotty McC the NIE was officially declassified today.
-4/10/06 Prez confirms that the NIE was actually declassified on 7/8 and not 7/18 as publicly announced
-7/20 article above

The Prez ordered Scotty to lie. That is a new story

And the point of the linked post is?

That because the Brits didn't have access to forged documents, their incorrect analysis was fine for Bush to use -- even though he knew (or should have) that the British report was not true?

Whether or not Wilson was the one to definatively show the document to be a forgery -- what part of his assertion regarding Iraq seeking uranium in Niger was not true?

The fact is that Iraq did not "seek" uranium in Niger. If it helps you sleep better to think that Bush chose to believe an errant British report over the CIA's -- in good faith, I'm sure nobody will change your mind.

By the way, didn't Mr. Bush's CIA director take "responsibility" for the "sixteen words"?

No way the administration didn't intentionally lie.

P.s. Speaking of "media bias" what about the source you link to?

"The Prez ordered Scotty to lie. That is a new story" Barney2000

Another news story with the same compeling interest and accuracy:

Rooster crows, sun rises, conclusion...rooster causes sun to rise...

(U) Conclusion 16. The language in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts.

• On October 2, 2002, the Deputy DCI testified before the SSCI. Senator Jon Kyl asked the Deputy DCI whether he had read the British White Paper and whether he disagreed with anything in the report. The Deputy DCI testified that “the one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about where Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. (pg.54)

• On October 6, 2002, the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, “more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points 1) the evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities. 2) the procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq’s nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And 3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this in one of the two issues where we differed with the British.” (Pg 56)

• In August, 2002, a CIA NESA report on Iraq’s weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities did not include the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium information. (pg. 48)
• In September, 2002, during coordination of a speech with an NSC staff member, the CIA analyst suggested the reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa be removed. The CIA analyst said the NSC staff member said that would leave the British “flapping in the wind.” (pg. 50)

There is a lot more in the SSCI report, should I keep going?

With regard to Plame's status as a CIA agent, if divulging her identity was no big deal, why didn't Bush come out and say that early on? Why has he still not said it? Rather, he said he'd fire anyone involved in the Plame revelation. More recently he modified that stand by saying he'd fire anyone who committed a crime. But he has never said that revealing Plame's identity is no big deal. Thus, I am inclined to believe that it was.

Also, if revealing Plame's identity did not affect her capacity to function in the CIA, why did she leave immediately after it happened? That also suggests that the leak was serious.

Would anybody want to see the evidence that the famous 16-words are based on (from the Duelfer report in WMD)?

Duelfer also found no information to support allegations that Iraq sought uranium from Africa or any other country after 1991, as Bush once asserted in a major speech before the invasion. The only two contacts with Niger that were discovered were an invitation to the president of Niger to visit Baghdad, and a visit to Baghdad by a Niger minister in 2001 seeking petroleum products for cash. There was one offer to Iraq of "yellowcake" uranium, and that was from a Ugandan businessman offering uranium from Congo. The deal was turned down, and the Ugandan was told that Baghdad was not interested because of the sanctions.

That is it.

Barney,

Geesh...different world you guys live in. There is nothing to the Plame kerfuffle...except Joe Wilson's lies.

Ricorun,

Because the President wouldn't know all the details of the Plame kerfuffle when it first hit the news...you see, you're working from the presumption that there was a criminal conspiracy to fraudulently ruin the reputation of a selfless and dedicated public servant...when the actual matter is that the Bush Administration were merely trying to show up a liar.

Salve,

The Brits stand by their report that Saddam attempted to obtain uranium in Africa...Saddam definitively sent a trade mission to Niger: Niger exports goats and uranium; what do you think Saddam was trying to buy?

"The only two contacts with Niger that were discovered were an invitation to the president of Niger to visit Baghdad, and a visit to Baghdad by a Niger minister in 2001 seeking petroleum products for cash."

You might want to check out Christopher Hitchens recent post in Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/

Mark,

It's in the Butler report which found and still maintains Iraq sought uranium. The report also sites other intelligence agencies as believing the Niger/Iraq connection... the primary other agency is the French intelligence services... which is critical to the validity of the report..because the French are major investors (Cogéma) in uranium mines in Niger.

oops..forgot to mention..

Niger also exports ..cowpeas

Saddam definitively sent a trade mission to Niger: Niger exports goats and uranium; what do you think Saddam was trying to buy?

Posted by: Mark Noonan

Prove that a trade mission was ever held. I have asked you to produce this evidence time and time again, yet you never do. Why is that Mark?

mark-

how much evidence does barney have to give you before you're willing to lift the blinders? in the face of facts, excerpts from official investigations and reports, and reasoned conjecture, your response is . . . "geesh"? not even any attempt to repudiate or dispute his information?

and i don't know what "kerfuffle" means or where it comes from, but it seems overly derisive to me to use it to describe a potentially treasonous act. just because you're not willing to allow for the possibility that this could be important and relevant, doesn't mean it ain't.

No Mark you forgot that Wilson is now a major "star", with a book and always looking to go on those talk show...

Mark, again from the Duelfer Report:
"The only two contacts with Niger that were discovered were an invitation to the president of Niger to visit Baghdad, and a visit to Baghdad by a Niger minister in 2001 seeking petroleum products for cash. There was one offer to Iraq of "yellowcake" uranium, and that was from a Ugandan businessman offering uranium from Congo. The deal was turned down, and the Ugandan was told that Baghdad was not interested because of the sanctions."

Saddam turned down an offer to buy uranium because of the sanctions!!! The sanctions were working!

Barney, why offer proof? You discount facts with regularity, but here it is; According to the financial Times of London, June27, 2004.

Wilson was critical of the Bush administration's use of secret intelligence, and has since charged that the White House sought to intimidate him by leaking the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA agent.
But Mr Wilson also stated in his account of the visit that Mohamed Sayeed al-Sahaf, Iraq's former information minister, was identified to him by a Niger official as having sought to discuss trade with Niger.

Sanctions were working? Not according to Duelfer; read his testamony when answering questions to McCain.

Please explain why President Bush would use leaking instead of a press conference to give 'unclassified' information to the public.

But Mr Wilson also stated in his account of the visit that Mohamed Sayeed al-Sahaf, Iraq's former information minister, was identified to him by a Niger official as having sought to discuss trade with Niger.
Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence

Bingo! It is about time. That is the smoking gun! That is the best you have. I have reviewed dozens of similar accounts as you refer to. Not one concludes that the purpose of inquiry was to obtain uranium. Not one claims that uranium was ever even mention in any trade discussions. There are conflicting account if any trade mission was even conducted.

So the best you have is conjecture to prove your point. Base that against the mountain of evidence that shows that any relationship or deal would be practically impossible. Wilson’s report was verified by reports from the Department of State and Department of Defense and was supported by the CIA. That is why Bush outsourced the intelligence to Britain (16-words)

BINGO!
I said you'd ignore the facts.

Clifford May, july 12, 2004
"A former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, told Wilson that in June 1999, a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations." Mayaki, knowing how few commodities for export are produced by impoverished Niger, interpreted that to mean that Saddam was seeking uranium. "

Let's not forget the Senate Panel investigating the Wilson claims said this, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

and that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," "The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

Why do you continue to believe a confirmed liar, when the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming?

You believe that British Intelligence is lying, but Wilson is telling the truth?
Pathetic partisan-ism.

Deleted - Off Topic; And might I add that this is a rather pathetic attempt to change the subject when you're being hammered on the facts in debate....

Barney,
Nice, lose the argument, move the goalposts.
why not get back to the subject of the thread?

"Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post…”

Why do you continue to believe a confirmed liar, when the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming? ..Bane

“..overwhelming?” If you bothered to take the time to read the WP story you will see that Wilson never claimed to have known of the forged document prior to his mission to Niger. The SSCI statements are based on verbal exchanges (he said/she said). The SSCI never at any point or in any conclusion claim's that Wilson lied at any time.

you were saying?

So, Wilson lied to Congress about the forged documents but he didn't lie in the WP article about the forged letters ... comforting!

wow... how about getting off track.

Was this about weather Wilson said this or that or is it about the President leaking classified info.... then de-classifying it after the fact?

"The deal was turned down, and the Ugandan was told that Baghdad was not interested because of the sanctions."

Um..yeah..that sure sounds like Saddam H. He is a nice guy and was trying to do the right thing.

Come on...

Barney, you're either a liar or a fool, you wrote, "The SSCI never at any point or in any conclusion claim's that Wilson lied at any time."

“Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador’s Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts’ Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal.”
“For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium.”
“The Former Ambassador Noted That His CIA Contacts Told Him There Were Documents Pertaining To The Alleged Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction And That The Source Of The Information Was The [Redacted] Intelligence Service”
However, “The DO [Director Of Operations At The CIA] Reports Officer Told Committee Staff That He Did Not Provide The Former Ambassador With Any Information About The Source Or Details.

Bane, Joe Wilson was right about Niger and the SSCI agrees:

(U) Conclusion 16. The language in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts.

The issue regarding the WP story was well after the fact, and Joe Wilson has admitted that he MAY have misspoken on when and how he new about the forged document, but the documents were forged, and that is not a lie. Being confused over times and persons and location over a secondary aspect of a report is not a lie. It has to be intentional, and the SSCI never makes that conclusion.

Joe’s conclusion after his mission was that Iraq was not trying to purchase uranium for Niger, and that has been confirmed by the DOD, State Department, CIA, SSCI and Duelfer.

Bane, first of all you are a liar. The complete text of Conclusion 13 is:

(U) Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

There are no references to Joe Wilson and the forged documents as you indicated. Also,
Conclusion 13:
But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium.”

Barney,
"The SSCI never at any point or in any conclusion claim's that Wilson lied at any time."
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

The Senate Panel concluded the assessment "overstates" to their knowledge, it does not comport with Wilson's assessment that it never happened. Senate investigators found that at least some of what Wilson told his CIA briefer not only failed to persuade the agency that there was nothing to reports of Niger-Iraq link — his information actually created additional suspicion. Duelfer testified that the sanctions were breaking down and that Saddam had sought yellowcake in the past. Wilson said one thing to the CIA and another in the press.

And yet, no-one outside of the fever swamp believes Mr. Bush leaked Plame's name or authorized the leak of Plame's name.

And you can't read'
“The Former Ambassador Noted That His CIA Contacts Told Him There Were Documents Pertaining To The Alleged Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction And That The Source Of The Information Was The [Redacted] Intelligence Service.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

However, “The DO [Director Of Operations At The CIA] Reports Officer Told Committee Staff That He Did Not Provide The Former Ambassador With Any Information About The Source Or Details …” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

You're certifiable!
You wrote, Conclusion 13:
But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium.”
But you, dumbass, wrote that Iraq never sought to buy uranium, not that Niger refused to sell it.
Pick a story and stick with it.

Bane, .. “And you can't read'”…

Yes I can. I related that Wilson admitted that he “may have misspoke” regarding how and from whom he received the forged data from, but that the documents were forged, so he was correct on that point.

“…But you, dumbass, wrote that Iraq never sought to buy uranium, not that Niger refused to sell it.
Pick a story and stick with it…”

I wrote:
Mark, again from the Duelfer Report:
"The only two contacts with Niger that were discovered were an invitation to the president of Niger to visit Baghdad, and a visit to Baghdad by a Niger minister in 2001 seeking petroleum products for cash. There was one offer to Iraq of "yellowcake" uranium, and that was from a Ugandan businessman offering uranium from Congo. The deal was turned down, and the Ugandan was told that Baghdad was not interested because of the sanctions."
Saddam turned down an offer to buy uranium because of the sanctions!!! The sanctions were working!
Posted by: Barneyg2000 at April 11, 2006 12:42 PM

The SSCI backs up the Duelfer report that backs up what Joe wrote in his OpEd. Why is that so hard to see?

By the way, you are the only person here that has lied when you attributed text to conclusion 13 that does not belong to conclusion 13.

Really?
You wrote,
"Prove that a trade mission was ever held." Posted by: Barneyg2000 at April 11, 2006 12:20 PM
________________________________________

Now you're claiming that Niger wouldn't sell uranium.
More lies, Barney?

Are you saying the text I provided isn’t in the report? I didn’t think so.
Does the text prove that you are a partisan hack that won’t admit when you’re wrong? Why yes it does. The Senate committee said Wilson was a liar, just like I said, fool!

SSCI never claims that Joe lied and certainly not in conclusion 13 as you indicated.

Did you prove that a trade mission was held between Iraq and Niger where uranium was discussed?

I'm enjoying the exchange Barney and Boon. Either of you catch the Washington National's baseball game.

Uh, enthusiastic crowd to say the least.

How 'bout the ceremonial first pitch?

I am winner, like my team the White Sox.

Don't tell me that, my uncle payed for the Sox!

for th sox

Played for the sox

Barney,

What is amusing is that you have the gall to claim that Bane is taking quotes out of context when every bit of "proof" you've ever offered for any of your positions is an out of context quote.

You can spin it all you want, Barney - but Joe Wilson lied, and all of this is the result of the attempt to expose Wilson as a liar, and the MSM's desperate defense of Joe Wilson.

Govitman,

But don't ya know? Barney has it on no less an authority than Michael Moore that Iraq was an idyllic, kite-flying country under Saddam's benevolent rule...it was only EVIL BUSH and Halliburton, and Likud, and Israel, and Big Oil, and Daffy Duck who conspired to ruin everything and deliberately make the world a HORRIBLE PLACE just becuase they are a bunch of SOB's who just hate everyone...

Condi Rice (7/11/03) on requests’ from reports to view parts of the NIE used to justify the war, “We don’t want to try to get into the kind of selective declassification”

-7/8/03 Bush OK’s the selective declassification of select portions of the NIE
-7/1/03 see quote above
-7/18/03 Scott McClellan, the President officially declassified the NEI today

Barney,
Sit down and take a breath before you hurt yourself.

"-7/1/03 see quote above"

The quotes above are from 7/8/03 and 7/11/03. Are we now to believe that Bush is bad because he couldn't see into the future?
Or you're a dunce because you can't see into the past?

Condi Rice (7/11/03) on requests’ from reports to view parts of the NIE used to justify the war, “We don’t want to try to get into the kind of selective declassification”

-7/8/03 Bush OK’s the selective declassification of select portions of the NIE
-7/11/03 see quote above
-7/18/03 Scott McClellan, the President officially declassified the NEI today

Is this better bane, anything new on the contents of conclusion 13

New? no,
You're still an idiot.

How 'bout the ceremonial first pitch?
Posted by: Ash [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2006 04:23 PM

Good one Ash. I will TIVO that.

New? no,
You're still an idiot.
Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence

Good comeback

I have read the Barney and Bane show and conclude the following. Bane is winning the argument, Barney argues 'weather' (he he he) he has facts or not. That slimeball Wilson is an absolute liar and is shamefully getting his fame from it. So, I view anyone who takes his side without looking at the source, is a hardcore partisan. Barney is not only that, he is also a moonbat liberal of first rank. And I do mean RANK!

Mark,
"Because the President wouldn't know all the details of the Plame kerfuffle when it first hit the news...you see, you're working from the presumption that there was a criminal conspiracy to fraudulently ruin the reputation of a selfless and dedicated public servant...when the actual matter is that the Bush Administration were merely trying to show up a liar."

Actually, all I'm only suggesting that there is reason to believe the revelation of Plame's name is a serious issue. And I offered in support of my contention the fact that (1) the revelation caused Plame to leave the CIA immediately thereafter, and (2) Bush has supported the investigation into the issue right from the start. In fact, just today in a news conference he stated again that it is a serious issue. So if you claim that exposing Plame was no big deal, how do you explain those facts? That's all I'm asking.

Whether or not there was a criminal conspiracy involved is a different question entirely. As I understand it, in order to make that accusation one would have to believe that there was more than one individual involved in exposing Plame, that they knew what Plame's status was, that her status fit into the definition of "covert", and that they knowingly transmitted that information to someone that was not authorized to know. And I have no idea how many of those conditions are true. We might never know.

On the other hand, if Libby's testimony to the grand jury is accurate, it does appear that there was a coordinated effort afoot in the White House to discredit Wilson. But I don't think there is any evidence yet to suggest that exposing his wife's identity was intended to be a part of that. And if it was, I don't think there is evidence yet to suggest that the culprit responsible was aware of the gravity of his action. At present I think it was just another example of incompetence. The person screwed up, and in their attempt to cover up his screw-up he ended up getting himself into trouble. Kinda like Clinton. And Martha Stewart.

I'm not surprised that recent revelations are causing some people to hide their head in the sand.

I'm not surprised that Tommie still has his head up his arse.

I see all the usual idiots--Barney, Tommie, et.al., are back today. How'd the pander protests go, girls?

Well Barney, I guess you and I are the big winners here. I'm a Cardinals fan. While you guys won the last world series, we have a pretty darn good record over the long run.

Just as long as those despised Cubs never win it!

Just as long as those despised Cubs never win it!
Posted by: Ash [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2006 07:22 PM

Got that right.

PS, my sister lives in St Lou and is big Cards fan.

"Just as long as those despised Cubs never win it!"

Was at Saturday's game. Great weekend on the northside!

Ash and Barney,

Well, now we've got a genuine reason to be at each other's throats...I am a Cubs fan by sacred inheritence from my late mother, who was actually there the last time the Cubs won the pennant.

Cubs now, Cubs forever...eventually, they are bound to win.

Ricorun,

Plame didn't immediately leave CIA...I can't recall exactly, but I think she only left last year. Have to look that up.

Anyways - once a position is staked out, it is extraordinarily difficult for a President to change it...it was a mistake to go that far out on a limb in the Plame investigation, just as it was foolish to back off from the "18 words" in the SOTU.

So, the President will keep at it with the "serious business" angle, and let the investigation proceed...and he won't lose any sleep at night, because he knows there's nothing there.

"Cubs now, Cubs forever...eventually, they are bound to win."

Looks like we can finally agree on something, Mark.

These exerpts from Fitzgerald blow the case wide open:

Once again, defendant ignores the fact that he is not charged with participating in any conspiracy, much less one defined as a “White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson.” Thus, putative evidence that such a conspiracy did not exist is not Brady material.

—p. 29

And:
Defendant is not charged with knowingly disclosing classified information, nor is he charged with any conspiracy offense.
–p. 26

Gee - Wilson here is the only proven liar.

Ricorun, Plame's employment ended about six months ago with the CIA. I think it was in October or November of 2005. So, her employment did not end.

"On the other hand, if Libby's testimony to the grand jury is accurate, it does appear that there was a coordinated effort afoot in the White House to discredit Wilson. But I don't think there is any evidence yet to suggest that exposing his wife's identity was intended to be a part of that. And if it was, I don't think there is evidence yet to suggest that the culprit responsible was aware of the gravity of his action. At present I think it was just another example of incompetence. The person screwed up, and in their attempt to cover up his screw-up he ended up getting himself into trouble. Kinda like Clinton. And Martha Stewart."

This is rebutted by Fitzgerald - which I just posted the applicable pages.

Your post

Barney

You still haven't answered the question. You say we must believe everything the CIA states yet the CIA also said Iraq had WMD and it was a "SLAM DUNK"...George Tenet's exact words.

So if we hear you correctly, we need to believe the CIA only when it suits you but do not believe them when it doesn't suit you. Do I have it correct?

You guys are a mystery to me. The best opposition to the majority opinion here was offered by Ricorun, and one person bothers to respond? What of the base notion here - that is, that rather than declassifying information and revealing it in the typical manner, the administration used a method we might call "leaking", a method that have before now condemned.

The information leaked is irrelevant - but you spent most of this post talking about it (while accusing barney of changing the subject). If the leaked info had been a top secret file on Bush's favorite peanut butter, it wouldn't change a thing. In this case, the devil might be in the big picture, not the details.

"...You say we must believe everything the CIA states..."

Would you like to prove that warr.

Barney

Just three days you said that the CIA claims were accurate on another subject and we should believe the CIA. I believe your words were (I'm paraphrasing) that if you can't believe our intelligence agency then who else can you believe.

I immediately asked you that if that is the case, then why are you holding Bush to a different standard since he listened to George Tenet say Iraq had WMD and it was a Slam Dunk.

I'm just asking you why two different standards you have? Pretty simple question Barney, just answer it.

Mark,
"Plame didn't immediately leave CIA...I can't recall exactly, but I think she only left last year. Have to look that up."

You're right. Plame did not resign until Dec 2005. However, whatever her association with the CIA was at the time, it was classified information until she was exposed in July 2003. Then she was declassified.

"Anyways - once a position is staked out, it is extraordinarily difficult for a President to change it...it was a mistake to go that far out on a limb in the Plame investigation, just as it was foolish to back off from the "18 words" in the SOTU."

Well, does seem to have a terrible habit of getting himself out on limbs, that's for sure.

Warrior,
It was this very subject when discussing Plame's status with JPL; Barney said the CIA agreed with Wilson and therefore Wilson must be telling the truth.
Yet, when the CIA reports to Mr. Bush on Saddam's arsenal, the CIA must be lying.

"Cubs now, Cubs forever...eventually, they are bound to win."

LOL: They've been saying that for generations.

Ricorun,

There's classified and then there's classified...technically, even unclassified information (and there is such a thing) can't be released without persmission.

Whatever Plame's status was - and I think it was entirely non-covert at the time Novak wrote is piece - she wasn't this super-spy, defender of all that is good and true that the Wilson cheerleaders make out. She was just a CIA employee of no great distinction...and she managed to get her hubby a little government swag in the form of a ridiculous mission to find out what we already knew.

Tina,

They are right when they say there was a coordinated effort to discredit Wilson...his lies had to be challenged....what is really strange is that three years on, the left is still defending Wilson.

I guess once they get an anti-Bush bone, they just never let it go, even when it turns out to be rubber...

Where was Clinton when Wilson was out of town? Did Valerie have a blue dress? Did she have other reasons to send her husband away on a wild goose chase? These questions have still not been answered, and it makes you wonder why. Are they trying to hide something?

Mark, I'm very comfortable with what Wilson has to say. I'll look over that link you provided and will comment on it later.

"his lies had to be challenged"

The main "lie" (That Wilson claimed that Cheney personally sent him or chose him to go to Niger) that is always cited in defending the attacks on Wilson I already successfully defended on this cite.

Tina,

Fitzgerald did not exonerate Libby from any conspiracy charges or violating the law that makes it illegal to out a CIA agent.

During his press conference he explained the lack of charges by saying that Libby's obstruction made it impossible to get an accurate read on the situation, thus he could not bring charges.

In any case, it's clear that Bush declassified classified material so that it could be leaked in a political attack against Wilson. It's also now being investigated whether that attack outed a covert CIA agent. If Fitzgerald finds that it does, then Bush could be in a lot of trouble.

Tom, your last 2 posts ---

During his press conference he explained the lack of charges by saying that Libby's obstruction made it impossible to get an accurate read on the situation, thus he could not bring charges.

In any case, it's clear that Bush declassified classified material so that it could be leaked in a political attack against Wilson.

Tom, your last 2 posts ---

During his press conference he explained the lack of charges by saying that Libby's obstruction made it impossible to get an accurate read on the situation, thus he could not bring charges.

In any case, it's clear that Bush declassified classified material so that it could be leaked in a political attack against Wilson.

To Warriornation and Bane,

"...You say we must believe everything the CIA states..." Warriornation

“Just three days you said that the CIA claims were accurate…” “(I'm paraphrasing) that if you can't believe our intelligence agency then who else can you believe.” Warriornation

“…status with JPL; Barney said the CIA agreed with Wilson and therefore Wilson must be telling the truth….” Bane of Liberals' Existence

Here is my post:
“The CIA, the Wilson’s, Fitzgerald and federal Judge Tatel all believe that Plame was covert within the last five years. That is my evidence. Now let’s look at yours.” Posted by: Barneyg2000 at April 10, 2006 09:22 AM

How does my comment come anywhere close to a blind blanket endorsement of “everything the CIA states”?

“The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article…which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.”

I believe Wilson has said that a woman in Niger had told him about reports that these documents were forged.

“And media reports to the contrary, Wilson did not "debunk" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium. In fact, most intelligence analysts believed his trip "lent more credibility" to reports that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger”

What happened here is that Wilson went to Niger to find out whether Iraq purchased uranium from them. He found it “highly unlikely” that they did. Now, there were a couple of reports that they sought uranium. From what I’ve read, Wilson didn’t have a definitive answer on whether those envoys did go to seek uranium. The assumption was that they were, but he saw evidence that they may not have been.

So, he gives his report. US intelligence saw his report as supporting the idea that Iraq sought uranium in Iraq. Wilson did not. He felt he didn’t find much to bolster any claims about Iraq and Niger.

So, when Bush used those words in the speech, Wilson wondered why and wrote in his op-ed about his trip and what he (didn’t) find. In that op-ed he wrote:

“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.”

He’s asking the White House to respond, to clear up the what he sees as a discrepency between what he found and what the administration claimed in the state of the union.

Their response was to attack Wilson and to leak to the press that his wife was a CIA, saying she got him the assignment (the part about Plame getting him the Niger assignment now looks to be incorrect). And if she was covert, then was they did was illegal.

I don’t see any lie here.

"Do you see how a professional prosecutor says impossible and you say it's clear How did his impossible turn into your it's clear? Moonbat logic amazing ---"

DL,

It was impossible for Fitzgerald to deem whether Libby knowingly disclosed the indentity of a covert CIA agent, which was the crime Libby was charged with.

It IS clear now that Bush declassified classified material for a political attack on Joe Wilson in the form of a leak campaign.

My use of the words "impossible" and "clear" were in reference to two different situations.

Get it? Or do you want me to go over it again, more slowly this time.

“Do you see how a professional prosecutor says impossible and you say it's clear How did his impossible turn into your it's clear? Moonbat logic amazing ---“

DL,

It was impossible for Fitzgerald to deem whether Libby knowingly disclosed the name of a covert CIA agent – the crime Libby was charged with.

It is now clear that Bush declassified classified information for a leak campaign attacking Joe Wilson.

My uses of “impossible” and “clear” were in references to different situations.

Get it? Or do you want me to go over it again, more slowly this time…

“Do you see how a professional prosecutor says impossible and you say it's clear How did his impossible turn into your it's clear? Moonbat logic amazing ---“

DL,

It was impossible for Fitzgerald to deem whether Libby knowingly disclosed the name of a covert CIA agent – the crime Libby was charged with.

It is now clear that Bush declassified classified information for a leak campaign attacking Joe Wilson.

My uses of “impossible” and “clear” were in references to different situations.

Get it? Or do you want me to go over it again, more slowly this time…

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060411_bush_leak_plame_libby_powell/
THE PRESIDENT played the scoundrel — even the best of his minions went along with the lies — and when a former ambassador dared to tell the truth, the White House initiated what Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald calls “a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson.” That is the important story line.
If not for the whistle-blower, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, President Bush’s falsehoods about the Iraq nuclear threat likely would never have been exposed.
On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department’s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.

You guys might want to check out the piece posted on FactCheck.org about the Niger controversy. It's quite thorough, and they have a good reputation for being objective.

Basically, FactCheck contends that there was good evidence at the time for the intelligence community to believe Saddam did make overtures to Niger, Somalia, and Congo, attempting to purchase yellowcake. What was much less clear at the time was whether any deals had been struck. That part of the controversy centered around the forged documents we have heard so much about, and the bungled handling of them as they made their way through the various branches of the intelligence community.

In his NYT op-ed piece, Wilson focused primarily on the likelihood of a deal between Iraq and Niger, and considered it exceedingly unlikely. But in the mean time he corroborated the evidence suggesting that an Iraq delegation had visited Niger in 1999, and inquired about the purchase of yellowcake.

Following a re-examination of the evidence by the intelligence community Tenet released an internal memo in June of 2003 (but not publicly acknowledged until early July) which backed off all claims that Saddam had even attempted to purchase yellowcake. We don't know the details of that memo, of course, so it's hard to say why. But the Brits still hold that he did.

That was June 2003, a couple of weeks before Wilson published his original op-ed piece. But the administration had known for a while that Wilson was disgruntled and was stepping up his efforts to speak out. That put them in a bit of a bind because they knew it was coming, and they knew the information in Tenet's internal memo would eventually come to light. Thus began their efforts to discredit Wilson.

“…and inquired about the purchase of yellowcake.” And,
“…an internal memo in June of 2003” Posted by: Ricorun [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 12, 2006 10:29 AM

The first is incorrect and the second is misleading.

Factcheck and others assume that the only plausible purpose for an Iraqi trade mission to Niger was to discuss uranium, but the Prime Minister of Niger at the time, has stated that uranium was never discussed with the Iraqi’s. Why does everyone on the right jump to the conclusion that the trade mission was about importing uranium, and not exporting oil to Niger? That is a possibility as well. Duelfer report state's that no inquires were made.

Second, there were several other communications issued by the CIA to the WH prior to the 6/03 date you refer to.

From the SSCI
In September, 2002, during coordination of a speech with an NSC staff member, the CIA analyst suggested the reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa be removed. The CIA analyst said the NSC staff member said that would leave the British “flapping in the wind.” (pg. 50)

On October 6, 2002, the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, “more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points 1) the evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as

Tom, your firmly convinced before any proof comes up. Firmly convinced if the information does not agree with you, and firmly convinced Bush is bad. Couldn't concieve of the fact Bush could ever be right?

This and that are moonbat logic and I know I can't convince you of any difference. There is a slim chance you may agree with Bush some day in the future, but you wouldn't let us know would you?

Moonbats don't change they are consistent, and it's nice to know you will hate Bush in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020 or however far you can hold onto those hates.

That's why you moonbats can't get anybody elected or impeached. It is conforting to know that you moonbats are irrelevant and plan to stay neutered into the future.

Mark,
"Whatever Plame's status was - and I think it was entirely non-covert at the time Novak wrote is piece - she wasn't this super-spy, defender of all that is good and true that the Wilson cheerleaders make out. She was just a CIA employee of no great distinction..."

Do you have any good references to support your claims? I ask because there are many others that support the contrary view. But, I suspect like yours, most of them are open to question, given that they are anonymously sourced or the opinions of people who claim to know what her status was, but probably don't with any level of specificity. Thus on the basis of those sources alone it is hard to say for sure what to believe.

As a result I am inclined to more firmly trust indications of her status provided by official transcripts and the actions of the official players. And in that regard, the fact that the CIA requested, and was granted, an investigation into her exposure also suggests that her exposure was a serious matter. Fitzgerald's briefs also suggest the same. Likewise, the President has maintained from the beginning that her exposure was a serious matter.

None of that information implies that she was some kind of super-spy, whatever that means. But it does strongly imply that she was a CIA resource of serious import. At least that appears to be the official view.

"It is conforting to know that you moonbats are irrelevant and plan to stay neutered into the future."

Whatever gets you through the night!

Have anything of substance to contribute, or did you just want to rant about how much of a moonbat I am?

Tom, you are right and I agree with you on this. For the Valerie/Wilson/Outing, there are more facts to come out and I do not have anything new to contribute.

Just like ranting about you every now and then to keep you on your toes. We love moonbats on B4B, and do not mean to upset you. Just want to point out how your logic works from time to time. Some people may not understand.

DL,

Fair enough. Though, for the record, your rant against me has more to do with reality as you'd like it to be than with reality.

Barney,
Your convoluted logic defies reason.
You wrote,” Factcheck and others assume that the only plausible purpose for an Iraqi trade mission to Niger was to discuss uranium, but the Prime Minister of Niger at the time, has stated that uranium was never discussed with the Iraqi’s. Why does everyone on the right jump to the conclusion that the trade mission was about importing uranium, and not exporting oil to Niger?”
The reason, dear simple Barney that Factcheck and others assume that is legion;
1) Niger has nothing else to offer that Iraq would be interested in,
2) Buying Iraqi oil was a violation of UN sanctions, and Niger buys its oil from France,
3) The French are partners with the Niger Uranium companies; French Intel also concluded that Iraq wanted to open negotiations for the uranium.
Now you’re spending time criticizing Bush’s decision to include a truthful statement in the SOTU speech, because the CIA, to whom you have given blanket trust except when inconvenient to your argument, said he shouldn’t include the truth in his speech.
How much evidence before you admit you’re wrong?

Barney,
Wilson stated that the Iraqis brought the issue up with Niger officials. That fact was consistent with other evidence available at the time from other sources. You are right that Wilson also claimed that Niger rejected the request out of hand and not brought up again. But that fact was not consistent with other evidence available at the time -- at least not all of it. The Brits, as I said, were reasonably sure that he did make a more concerted attempt. And it is still not clear what information they based their assessment on. But I refer you to this tantalizing article. Mark Huband, the author of the piece, is a well-respected investigative reporter, so it's hard to reject him out of hand.

Second point: Referring to your comment, "Second, there were several other communications issued by the CIA to the WH prior to the 6/03 date you refer to." Of that I have no doubt. But the question is what was known at the time of Bush's SOTU speech. And in that regard I believe FactCheck is accurate. But another critical question is what was known by the time of the invasion in March 2003. And in that regard the evidence is more troubling, because by then the European intelligence agencies, as well as El Baradei, had all identified the forgeries as just that. But as I said, there were other pieces of evidence in play.

With regard to your SSCI references, the October 6, 2002 memo was clearly a reference to what was in the forged documents. Even at the time that source was the most controversial, and as the SSCI concluded, should have been more carefully scrutinized by all involved. The "flooded mine" referred to is in Congo, by the way. Interestingly, it was the source of the uranium contained in the Hiroshima bomb. But it had been flooded for at least 50 years. That, among other even more obvious details, should have been a tip-off that the document they were relying on was bogus.
But even so, there were other sources in play, and you have to recognize that.

As far as your Sept 2002 reference is concerned, read the rest of the paragraph (it's on pg. 51). That analyst's statements were in dispute. But even if he said it, it's true -- it would have left the Brits flapping in the wind. They were pretty adamant about the evidence they had in hand.

That FactCheck article I mentioned in a previous post has a link to the Brit's Butler report, which is their analog of the SSCI report. Check out paragraphs 493 - 503. The Butler report is, by the way, generally critical of the level of pre-war intelligence. But on the specific issue of what was known about Saddam's attempts to procure yellowcake from Africa, they feel it was reasonable.

So if you think BushCo "ginned" the pre-war intelligence, I think you're going to have to look elsewhere. Personally, I would like to see a congressional inquiry into the matter. I think it's a mistake to stonewall on the issue because it just adds more fuel to contentions that the intelligence was ginned. If there's nothing to hide, what's the big deal? Let's get it all out in the open.

Bane,
Yellow cake was never mentioned by the Iraqis. Maybe they were trying to work an oil for money deal with Niger? You do not know that. You assume they would violate the UN sanctions for uranium, but not for cash? That makes no sense.

You are correct that France controlled the output of the uranium mines in Niger. If Iraqi wanted uranium from Niger, they should have sent the trade delegation to France, and not Niger.

Rico,
" Let's get it all out in the open.
Unless, of course the President hasn't declassified the information.

For the moonbats here; That's a joke.

Rico,
" Let's get it all out in the open.
Unless, of course the President hasn't declassified the information.

For the moonbats here; That's a joke.

Barney,
Wrong on both counts, Niger buys oil products from France; France bought Iraqi oil in violation of UN sanctions, refined it and sold it to Niger. Niger couldn’t buy Iraqi oil directly as they have no capacity to refine it. Now you’re just guessing without facts.
Gee, why didn’t Saddam just buy uranium from France? Let’s see … because France doesn’t control the exports from Niger? Because they aren’t supposed to be partners in the Niger mines? Because you’re just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks?

“So if you think BushCo "ginned" the pre-war intelligence, I think you're going to have to look elsewhere. Personally, I would like to see a congressional inquiry into the matter.” rico

I am not to sure what your definition of “ginned” is, but I have always claimed that Bushco cherry-picked the Intelligence. The 16-words is one of several examples (aluminum tubes). According the SSCI many analysts from the CIA, DOD and State had serious doubts on the validity of the acquisitions. George Tennet personally warned the WH not to use the claim in there speeches. The Prez decided to use British Intellegence because it supported their case.

I agree that we need congress to look into on how the intelligence was used by the President. The SSCI phase two report has been stalled by Roberts for two years now. I hope that Republicans would want to pressure Roberts to move this investigation forward to settle the debate.

‘because France doesn’t control the exports from Niger? Because they aren’t supposed to be partners in the Niger mines? Because you’re just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks? ‘
Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at April 12, 2006 01:22 PM

From JW OpEd, and I have not found one right winger that has disputed this assertion:

“…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.”

So again you are wrong, and you still have not apologized for misleading the contributors of this blog by appending findings to conclusion 13 that were never included in conclusion 13.

Ricorun,

It is my understanding that any time anything remotely CIA gets in the press before the CIA wants it, it gets referred to Justice...what happened here is that the MSM pumped a minor nothing into something big, and Justice had to take it seriously because of the MSM feeding frenzy over it.

As for her status...I've heard it told on the left that her "exposure" was a severe blow to US national security...I'd like to see how that is. From what I can tell, she was just one of a thousand CIA employees...important as any other, but no more important than most.

" Let's get it all out in the open.
Unless, of course the President hasn't declassified the information.

For the moonbats here; That's a joke."

Empahsis on "all," not just the parts Bush declassifies to back up his case for war.

"It is my understanding that any time anything remotely CIA gets in the press before the CIA wants it, it gets referred to Justice...what happened here is that the MSM pumped a minor nothing into something big, and Justice had to take it seriously because of the MSM feeding frenzy over it."

When in doubt, blame the media.

bane, will you believe Colin Powell?

Colin Powell: “The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,” Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush’s State of the Union speech? “That was a big mistake,” he said. “It should never have been in the speech. I didn’t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn’t a Niger connection. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I never believed it.”

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn’t the president: “That was all Cheney.” A convenient response for a Bush family loyalist, perhaps, but it begs the question of how the president came to be a captive of his vice president’s fantasies.

bane, do you believe Colin Powell?

Colin Powell: “The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,” Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush’s State of the Union speech? “That was a big mistake,” he said. “It should never have been in the speech. I didn’t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn’t a Niger connection. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I never believed it.”

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn’t the president: “That was all Cheney.” A convenient response for a Bush family loyalist, perhaps, but it begs the question of how the president came to be a captive of his vice president’s fantasies.

Not one word of my post was wrong! Iraq can’t negotiate with France for Niger’s uranium, that brain-dead conjecture of yours doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Your contention that Iraq was trying to sell oil to Niger is pathetic. How can you suggest such nonsense with a straight face?
You keep bringing up “conclusion 13” what’s the matter, are you still saying the attributes weren’t in the Senate report?
Well, Barney, was it in the report? Did it say Wilson is a liar and was it in the report? Quit ducking the issue and admit you lied; the Senate clearly, unequivocally, unambiguously and without doubt said that Wilson was a liar.

Mark,

All the evidence points to the contention that Plame's affiliation with the CIA was classified. If her affiliation wasn't classified the CIA wouldn't have filed a crime report with Justice. Likewise, if Justice didn't feel the CIA had grounds, they wouldn't have appointed a general counsel. Likewise, if Fitzgerald didn't believe her identity was classified he would not have stated so in the Libby indictment. You appear to be claiming that the MSM were somehow intimately and integrally involved in each of those decisions. Perhaps it is reasonable to contend that the MSM helped to keep the issue on the front burner, but beyond that I think you're giving the MSM way too much credit.

And to the Talented Mr. Shipley;
You wrote, "What happened here is that Wilson went to Niger to find out whether Iraq purchased uranium from them."
that was never the reason for the trip; he was supposed to find out if Iraq tried to buy uranium" the 16 words were, “"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

bane, "Not one word of my post was wrong!"

"..Because they aren’t supposed to be partners in the Niger mines?.." Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 12, 2006 01:22 PM

Not wrong? How about this...

"Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests"

What was that about "not partners"?

Also, please cut and paste the exact passage from the SSCI report CONCLUSIONS that state: "Joe Wilson is a liar" or "Joe Wilson lied when he stated.."

And, did Colin Powell lie?

Ricorun,

Imagine the explosion if Justice had said, "are you kidding? Her husband's been blabbing her status every chance he gets...round file this complaint"? You and every other leftist out there would have been screaming bloody murder...a lot of things happen in government because of how it will appear...

As for Fitzgerald: he's a man on a mission, and he's absurdly indicted Libby for lying about something Fitzgerald says didn't happen - the release of a covert agent's identity..

Ash,

I mean, you do realise that the statute concerned was designed to protect the identity of agents we had behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War, don't you?

Or do you think the CIA is actually in the business of keeping all of its employees identies secret?

Mark,
Okay, there's also this: that contained key info about Wilson's wife. The memo, dated June 10, 2003, was labeled top secret at the top of the first page; a paragraph referring to "Valerie Wilson" at the CIA had the letters snf in front of it, for "Secret No Foreign," meaning the info is secret and can't be shared with any foreign national, says a government official who reviewed it but asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the material. The memo was taken by Secretary of State Colin Powell aboard Air Force One during a trip to Africa in July 2003.

Note the date of the memo.

Sorry, I screwed that last post up. It meant to read....
Okay, there's also this: that contained key info about Wilson's wife. The memo, dated June 10, 2003, was labeled top secret at the top of the first page; a paragraph referring to "Valerie Wilson" at the CIA had the letters snf in front of it, for "Secret No Foreign," meaning the info is secret and can't be shared with any foreign national, says a government official who reviewed it but asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the material. The memo was taken by Secretary of State Colin Powell aboard Air Force One during a trip to Africa in July 2003.

Rico, you are close, but her status was covert and not classified as indicated by (from earlier posts):

(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the

The operative word here is “served”. According to former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job.

-The opinion of Judge Tatel, of the U.S. Court of Appeals, “…of Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last five years - representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. (8/27/04 Aff. at 28 n.15.)…”

SHEESH!!

One more try...

Okay, there's also this: the classified State Department memo that contained key info about Wilson's wife. The memo, dated June 10, 2003, was labeled top secret at the top of the first page; a paragraph referring to "Valerie Wilson" at the CIA had the letters snf in front of it, for "Secret No Foreign," meaning the info is secret and can't be shared with any foreign national, says a government official who reviewed it but asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the material. The memo was taken by Secretary of State Colin Powell aboard Air Force One during a trip to Africa in July 2003.

TAH DAH!! Lol!

Barney,
Let's use Wilson's own words,
"...[I]f there is going to be a sale, the government itself would have to make a decision to authorize the parastatal to act on the government's behalf in this matter. That would require a cabinet-level meeting. And since this purported sale was between two sovereign governments, the minister of foreign affairs would have to be involved. Since this involved the sale of uranium, the minister of mines would have to be involved. Since it involved the government totally, the prime minister would be involved, speaking on behalf of the government in signing any particular document.”

The consortium is made up of companies, not governments. France's government cannot be in partnership with Niger by their constitution.

France doesn't control exports from Niger.

How many times do i need to post this for you, this time print it so you can stop asking for the same set of facts that you conveniently forget as soon as I post it,
The Former Ambassador Noted That His CIA Contacts Told Him There Were Documents Pertaining To The Alleged Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction And That The Source Of The Information Was The [Redacted] Intelligence Service.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

However, “The DO [Director Of Operations At The CIA] Reports Officer Told Committee Staff That He Did Not Provide The Former Ambassador With Any Information About The Source Or Details …” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

bane, are calling yourself a Liar?
3) The French are partners with the Niger Uranium companies; French Intel also concluded that Iraq wanted to open negotiations for the uranium.
Now you’re spending time criticizing Bush’s decision to include a truthful statement in the SOTU speech, because the CIA, to whom you have given blanket trust except when inconvenient to your argument, said he shouldn’t include the truth in his speech.
How much evidence before you admit you’re wrong?
Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence

Barney,
Are you now saying there are no French partners?
Fer gosh' sakes, make up your mind!

bane, "..However, “The DO [Director Of Operations At The CIA] Reports Officer Told Committee Staff That He Did Not Provide The Former Ambassador With Any Information About The Source Or Details.."

1) That is one persons word vs someone else’s (not conclusive)
2) That is not one of the SSCI conclusions
3) For it to be a lie, Joe Wilson would had to have intentional and with malice mislead the SSCI
4) Not one conclusion, you know the final analysis of all the documentation in the body of the report, states that Joe Wilson lied

I have acknowledge that JW told the SSCI that he misspoke on whom he received the information from. That is not a lie. He’s information was correct the documents were forged, and the WH did redacted the 16-words.

But the "proof" that Wilson offered was that he spotted the "forged documents." Without this, he is just an incompetent, low level, relative of a civil servant that got his “assignment” through nepotism, and screwed up his mission. With his lie, he can claim he proved the Bush administration wrong.

Like you, he sticks to his delusions far too long.

"That is one persons word vs someone else’s "

Barney, it goes to credibility; Wilson has a reason to lie, and the director has no reason to lie about the documents.

the report is clear in this, Wilson lied or they wouldn't have mentioned the episode.

This argument is getting silly, and you will stick by your arguments, regardless of the fact that WH redacted the 16-words, but I do want to correct you on the ownership of the Niger mines. There is a partnership, among others, with Niger and the French government.

COGEMA is owned by The AREVA Group and The French Atomic Energy Commission owns 79% of AVERA, so the French government is the majority ownership.

Since the 1970’s, Cogéma has participated in two companies in Niger that mine seams opened to Cogéma by the government of Niger. In 1999 the two companies produced a total of at least 3000 tons of uranium [CogRa 99].

The AREVA Group brings vertical integration into the nuclear age. The company is involved in every step of nuclear power production. AREVA mines uranium and enriches it (under the trade name COGEMA). It builds nuclear reactors and services them (through Framatome ANP, a joint venture with Siemens). AREVA also treats and recycles used fuel. AREVA T&D (for Transmission & Distribution) is the company's electricity transmission and distribution equipment business and its largest unit. Framatome also manufactures electrical connectors, and subsidiary Canberra makes radiation detection equipment. The CEA (Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique, or French Atomic Energy Commission) owns 79% of AREVA

Barney

And that's entirely the point...the CIA, the British, the French, the Russians also said Iraq had WMD. Yet you make it sound daily like Bush lied.

If you and others aren't the biggest hypocrites on the planet I'd like to know who is!

Mark,
"Imagine the explosion if Justice had said, "are you kidding? Her husband's been blabbing her status every chance he gets...round file this complaint"?"

I'm not saying the MSM can't help to stimulate a criminal inquiry, especially one that is tied to politics. What I'm saying is that once it begins the inquiry proceeds through judicial channels which, one would hope, are significantly less influenced by MSM squawking. If not then our country is in a very sorry state. Imagine if one's criminal guilt or innocence depended upon which media outlets shouted louder.

In this particular case the CIA contacted AG Ashcroft on July 24, 2003 informing him of "possible violations of criminal law". At the time the MSM was just beginning to catch on about the potential significance of the Plame revelation. They were still chattering on about whether Wilson was a flake or not. So it's hard to blame them even for getting the ball rolling.

"You and every other leftist out there would have been screaming bloody murder..."

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not a screamer. I argue issues on the basis of the evidence as I see it to be, and logic appropriately applied to them. We may disagree, but I would hope that it's not on the basis of the ideological labels we choose to apply to each other. You can claim I am a leftie if you want, but I'm not sure many of the lefties around here would agree with you. For example, earlier in this same thread, I took Barney to task on the uranium controversy. I'm not sure I'm done yet, either, lol!

"As for Fitzgerald: he's a man on a mission, and he's absurdly indicted Libby for lying about something Fitzgerald says didn't happen - the release of a covert agent's identity.."

Actually, he indicted Libby for lying under oath. He hasn't accused him of outing a covert agent's identity and has not speculated on any other charge but that to which Libby is accused. As far as Plame herself goes, I am arguing that there is abundant evidence available pointing to the fact that her association with the CIA was classified, and that makes it a serious matter. I am also arguing that Bush has always maintained the same thing.

My own personal opinion of Joe Wilson is that he's a gas bag with a very high opinion of himself and an axe to grind. More to the point, I fully understand why the CIA didn't consider the info he provided about Niger more highly. But none of that matters with respect to whether or not the outing of his wife is a serious issue. His antics may have motivated the incident, but it does not justify it.

Ricorun,

That someone's name appears in a classified document doesn't indicate that said person is classified. I also find it amusing that an anonymously leaked document - leaked in violation of the law - is your proof. You do realise that the President and Vice President can'd actually leak anything, right? They decide when something is to remain classified, and when not...GW could wake up tomorrow and decide to declassify everything we've got and it would be entirely within the law.

Fitzgerald has, indeed, accused Libby of lying under oath - but if no underlying crime was committed, what possible reason would Libby have for lying? Unless someone, some where is eventually indicted AND CONVICTED for releasing Plame's name, then the whole thing is bogus, even if Libby were to be convicted.

The whole thing is political - and there is nothing to it...but a lot of people are now invested in the story, including Fitzgerald, who is by reason of that no longer an entirely reliable person - meaning that we can't take what he says as gospel.

The only person who has absolutely no dog in this hunt is President Bush; who could not have committed a crime even if he ordered Libby to release Plame's name...he's allowed to do that.

Apparently in Barney's world and Tom's and the crazies at DailyKos when the CIA, the French, the Russians, the British, the Israelis, Saddam's OWN WORDS, etc all say he has WMD then that should be discarded as a lie by Bush.

But when the CIA says something about Valerie Plame then hold the horses gentlemen, we have a conspiracy on our hands.

These liberals, you wonder why they haven't garnered 50% of the popular vote in 30 years for Presidency. They truly live in an altered state of reality where the rules change by the minute.

Mark,
"That someone's name appears in a classified document doesn't indicate that said person is classified. I also find it amusing that an anonymously leaked document - leaked in violation of the law - is your proof."

Perhaps I should have mentioned this article instead. The existence of the memo was widely known as it became of great interest in the course of the Plame investigation. And the paragraph that mentioned Plame was specificially identified with the standard marking indicating that the information in it was secret. Now, given that the paragraph was discussed in grand jury hearings, and given that Plame was no longer classified at that time, I think it's fair to assume that the information in the paragraph was no longer considered classified either. But I don't know. Perhaps you can tell me. At any rate I think it's a moot point. The leaker may be subject to prosecution, not me because I heard about it. But it is widely known and its content is not disputed. And that's why I mentioned it.

"You do realise that the President and Vice President can'd actually leak anything, right? They decide when something is to remain classified, and when not...GW could wake up tomorrow and decide to declassify everything we've got and it would be entirely within the law."

I don't know to what degree your statement extends to human intelligence resources. I would think that if it does it would really put the kibosh on their recruitment efforts. But assuming the Prez or VP could do that any time they wanted to, then GW or DC should come out and say they did it if they did. If they declassified the information, what's the big deal? Why all the secrecy? If what you say is true, by keeping it secret he's digging himself and even bigger hole.

"Fitzgerald has, indeed, accused Libby of lying under oath - but if no underlying crime was committed, what possible reason would Libby have for lying?"

I guess you're going to have to ask him that. But that's what he's charged with. And lying under oath is a crime, regardless of whether what he lied about is also a crime. And unless Bush can, in fact, declassify human intelligence resources and actually did, then it appears a crime was committed. Exactly which statute applies is hard to say, but a bunch of them may pertain depending upon what Plame's specific status was and depending upon the facts surrounding her exposure.

"Unless someone, some where is eventually indicted AND CONVICTED for releasing Plame's name, then the whole thing is bogus, even if Libby were to be convicted."

Do you really think a person should be acquitted of obstructing justice merely because their actions successfully blocked prosecution of another crime? Do you realize how destabilizing that position is?

Mark, one more thing. In your last message you indicated, "GW could wake up tomorrow and decide to declassify everything we've got and it would be entirely within the law."

Even if you never respond to any other question I ever ask, please respond to this one... If GW did declassify everything we've got, how fine would you be with that?

"[Plame's] status was covert...as indicated by [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which provides, in relevant part]:

(4) The term 'covert agent' means—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the [United States]....

"The operative word here is 'served'. According to former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson 'The law actually requires that a covered person "served" overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job.'"

This is garbage for several reasons, Barney, including:

1.) First, it's shocking that you'd cite LARRY C. JOHNSON as an authority on ANYTHING. This is the same Larry C. Johnson who wrote an op-ed piece only 2 months before 9/11 (published in the July 10, 2001 NY Times), in which he argued that Americans are OVERLY fearful of Islamic terrorism. The piece was entitled "The DECLINING Terrorist Threat". After that article, Johnson's credibility is zero.

2.) Even more shocking is the fact that you'd cite Larry C. Johnson as an authority on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Johnson had absolutely nothing to do with drafting that statute, and isn't even a lawyer. He's no more qualified to interpret the statute than Bozo the Clown. As for the individuals who really ARE qualified to interpet the IIPA -- e.g., the lawyers who actually drafted it -- here's what they have to say about Plame:

"'Unless [Plame] was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage,' she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities....Like Sanford, [Victoria Toensing] [another attorney who helped draft the 1982 statute], doubts Valerie Wilson...qualified as a 'covert agent' under that law." SOURCE: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm

So as you can see, Barney, a few trips to Europe aren't enough to qualify as "serving" overseas. An agent actually has to be "stationed" there, and clearly Plame was not "stationed" overseas in an undercover capacity at any time during the 5 years before her outing -- when she was raising her twins in suburban Virginia. Hence, she was not "covert" within the meaning of the IIPA as of July 13, 2003.

3.) Finally, Johnson's claim that Plame "traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001 as part of her cover job" is in itself EXTREMELY suspicious. How could Johnson possibly know these alleged facts??? Johnson hasn't been in the CIA since 1989 [SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C._Johnson]. How, therefore, could he possibly know details of Plame's overseas undercover assignments 12, 13, and 14 year AFTER he left the CIA? If Johnson learned these alleged facts after Plame's outing, then why doesn't he simply identify his sources? And if he learned them before her outing, then obviously Plame wasn't undercover at all, was she?

"[Another reason Plame was 'covert' at the time of her outing is the] opinion of Judge Tatel, of the U.S. Court of Appeals...."

Nonsense. The opinion you're referring to is Judge Tatel's February 15, 2005 decision in the case of In re Grand Jury Subpeona, U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (though the part you're referring to was only made public in February 2006). That part of Judge Tatel's opinion reads as follows:

"As to the leaks' harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame's work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as 'a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years' — representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support."

Contrary to your breathless claim, Judge Tatel's comment is NOT a judicial "finding" that Plame was covert on July 13, 2003. In fact, it's not a finding of anything. All it is is Judge Tatel's HOPE that Fitzgerald isn't lying when Fitzgerald says Plame was covert. But Judge Tatel's comment is itself a misunderstanding of what Fitzgerald actually represented to the court. The ONLY representation about Plame's status contained in Fitzgerald's affidavit to the court was the following statement:

“In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421, it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson’s wife was engaged in covert work.”
SOURCE: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/libby-fitzgerald-affidavit-20060203.pdf

That's IT. That's the ENTIRE discussion in Fitzgerald's affidavit on whether Plame was covert as of the date of her outing. NOWHERE did he represent that Plame was covert. ALL he did was state the requirements of the Intelligence Information Protection Act. Judge Tatel may have assumed Fitzgerald was making a representation about Plame's covert status, but a plain reading of the affidavit shows Fitzgerald wasn't doing that.

In addition, such a representation by Fitzgerald would contradict all other public statements Fitzgerald has ever made on Plame's status. For example, at his October 28, 2005 press conference, Fitzgerald said, "Let me say two things. I am not speaking [in this indictment] to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert . . . And we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent."

More recently, in a letter dated January 23, 2006, Fitzgerald refused to say whether Plame had been covert during the five years before her outing. Referring to the Supreme Court's Brady decision (which requires prosecutors to turn over evidence showing the defendant's innocence), Fitzgerald wrote, "[I]f there were any documents indicating that Ms. Wilson [was not undercover] in the five years prior to July 2003 (which we neither confirm nor deny), [then we do not agree] that any such documents would constitute Brady material [because] Mr. Libby is not charged with [outing a covert agent]." See http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602060919.asp

Thus, contrary to your breathless claims, Barney, ALL the evidence to date shows that Plame was NOT stationed overseas at any time within the 5 years before her July 13, 2003 outing (meaning that she wasn't legally "covert" at the time of her outing); there's been NO judicial finding that she was covert at that time, by Judge Tatel or anyone else; AT NO TIME has Fitzgerald ever claimed that Plame was covert during the 5 years prior to her outing; and Larry C. Johnson's unsourced claims that Plame travelled overseas in an undercover capacity in the 5-year period before her outing -- something Johnson couldn't even know without a breach of Plame's cover -- are legally irrelevant since Plame wasn't stationed overseas at any time during that period.

If you have actual evidence that Plame was stationed overseas in an undercover capacity at some point during the 5 years prior to July 13, 2003 -- i.e., while she was raising young twins in the Virginia suburbs -- please produce it now.

Ricorun,

Forgive Mark if he doesn't respond in a timely matter. I'm sure he's busy drafting treason charges against Newt Gingrich.

Ricorun,

Forgive Mark if he doesn't respond in a timely manner. I'm sure he's busy drafting treason charges against Newt Gingrich.

Ricorun,

You can't, in my view, obstruct justice when no underlying crime was committed. This, of course is a debatable matter...but I've long been opposed to things like police sting operations and attempts to trip up a person in a grand jury just to get SOMETHING to indict them on. I don't like police tricks...nab 'em for a crime, or leave 'em alone (and, yeah, I'm in the clear on Clinton because his lying under oath was supported by his also suborning perjury).

And of course I'd be outraged if GW were to declassify everything tomorrow - but that wouldn't change the fact that he wouldn't have broken the law if he did so.

We elect people into office in order for them to use their best judgement in carrying out the duties of their office. Once a person is in office, you and I don't get to decide - we aren't a direct democracy. We can punish the person at the polls, or punish their Party if they are not up for re-election, but we can't step in and say "I don't like your decision, don't do it".

President Bush and Administration apparantly felt, in the face of the media feeding-frenzy sustained by Joe Wilson telling lie after lie, that the truth needed to come out, even though classified info was needed to demonstrate what a dishonest man Wilson truly is...you on the left call this a "leak" designed to destroy a hero...more evidence that we talk right past each other...but reality is reality, and there is nothing to the Plame kerfuffle...so don't actually expect further indictments, and I'll assure you that Libby's indictment will either be tossed out in the by and by, or he'll be acquitted in open court.

Tom,

Why should I do that? It is the position held by Gingrich since 2003 - this is just more news recycling by the MSM. His goal, by the way, is US victory...he thinks that victory can best be obtained by shrinking the American footprint...this is debatable, and I think he's wrong.

This is a far cry, however, from leftwing rants about how we did it all for oil and that we're out there torturing the innocent and that we've already lost so we might as well pull out....treason, as I've said, isn't just disagreeing...it is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. A reasonable, even if wrong, position doesn't do that...MoveOn, Moore, ANSWER....they have positions that are not only wrong, but unreasonable slanders against the United States and the US military...and that just feeds in to enemy propaganda.

You Mark that Gingrich is suggesting exactly what Murtha suggested. Take our troops out while leaving a small amount for specific missions inside Iraq when the need arises?

You also said it gives aid and comfort to the enemy to say we are occupying Iraq same with saying we were wrong to be there.

In case you missed it, Ginrich said it was a MISTAKE to OCCUPY Iraq.

He's clearly giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Hang him from the highest tree.

Shipley,
In case you missed it, Gingrich said the same thing in December 2003.

What you are failing to realize (because you are taking the quote out of context) is that the subject was Bremer’s decision to release all Iraqi civil servants and try to occupy the government infra-structure. Gingrich said Monday that Bremer should have used Afghanistan as an example; by setting up a cooperative with an existing government infrastructure the military would be used to keep the peace not run the post office.
Gingrich was right then, he’s right now, and conservatives have agreed all along.

As far as pulling the troops out, well duh! Name me one person that thinks that the entire troop strength needs to be in Iraq through eternity. The plan to train the Iraqis then pull back has been expressed by this administration since 2003.

Gingrich has called for reasonable withdrawal, not cut and run, consider Kerry’s statement from this week; the junior dipstick from Massachusetts advised that we should tell the Iraqis that if they don’t have a functioning government in place by May 15, we’ll withdraw our troops. This is liberal international deplomacy at work.

JPL,
After spending countless hours pouring over documents (not related to this subject) in the law library, it's refreshing to see your argument presented so well and in vernacular Barney could understand (should he ever bother read it.)
Thank you for the time you spent on this. I read Ms. Toensing’s prose on the subject, and found your’s to be epigrammatic by comparison. I can safely say I learned a thing or two from your post.

Mark,
"You can't, in my view, obstruct justice when no underlying crime was committed. This, of course is a debatable matter..."

I'm with you on this point. There are certainly exceptions, but in general I'm not in favor of prosecuting someone for lying under oath, or obstructing "justice" on a matter that is not at its base a crime. But, unfortunately, that's not the way the law works. If you lie under oath and you could be prosecuted.

However, it seems to me that outing the name of a classified intelligence agent IS a crime. So it all boils down to whether Plame had classified status. On that score it appears that the CIA considered her as such, as did the State Department and the Justice Department. And since Bush has never indicated anything to the contrary, it appears he thought so too, and still does.

It thus goes without saying that I don't think Bush declassified her status even if he could. As to whether he could or not appears to depend upon whether her status rises to the level of "covert" as opposed to "classified". But that's a separate question and one not worth getting into.

As far as Bush declassifying the other info involved in the episode, I don't have much of a problem with that. It was a tough time for the war effort and they needed to set the record straight. I suppose one could argue that they didn't go about it in the greatest way, but hindsight is always better than foresight. Nonetheless, a boundary was crossed when Plame's name was dragged into it. The sad part is that her involvement was so very ancillary. There were plenty of other reasons to question the credence of the information Wilson came back with. Whether or not his wife was involved in the decision to send him always seemed beside the point to me.

Barney,
Stick to the subject,
If you want to discuss the French Atomic Energy Commission (Commissariat à l'énergie atomique), a public company in France, that is a partnership with EU energy companies, that receives some funding from the French government for such things as decommissioning civilian nuclear waste projects we can do that another time.

Whoops! Wrong thread, carry on...

"JPL, [I]t's refreshing to see your argument presented so well....Thank you for the time you spent on this. I read Ms. Toensing’s prose on the subject, and found your’s to be epigrammatic by comparison. I can safely say I learned a thing or two from your post."

I'm practically speechless. This has never happened before. I'm so used to coming back to a forum after having posted a comment earlier, only to find that while I was away, I was tarred, feathered, mischaracterized, and hung in effigy by a swarm of leftie trolls. Just let me say thank-you, Bane, I really appreciate your comment. I've been following your posts as well, and find them always highly logical, well-supported, clear, concise, and devastating to the leftie talking points you're responding to. Thanks for hanging out here at B4B.

Ricorun,

Not exactly.

You see, what happened was that back in the 80's the names of several covert American agents were revealed and some of our people actually got killed over it - the law being used here was designed to punish people for doing that...and it is a very narrowly drawn law, with a specific purpose in mind...and that purpose was not to keep covert the name of someone who (a) wasn't covert by the definition of the law and (b) who's name was already well into the public domain due to her own and her husband's statements and actions.

This is why, in my view, Fitzgerals didn't indict anyone over the revelation of Plame's name - and, futther more, that Fitzgerald doesn't say that Libby was the person who revealed Plame's name: there was no covert status protected under US law.

A referral is just that - a referral. Lots of thigns get referred to Justice all the time and I wish to God that Ashcroft had just round filed this one...we would have got a week of screams from the left about it, but it now would be so long in the past that only Kossacks would be talking about it.

It should also be noted that once upon a time I had Top Secret clearance - there were things that I saw and knew that I could not reveal to anyone. My father, also, dealt with this sort of thing - we never knew he was working on the F-117A (the "stealth fighter") until long after he was done with it...and there are still things he did vis a vis that project that he is not free to talk about. I keep my nation's secrets, so does my father...I recognise the vital necessity of keeping sensitive national security information only in the hands of those who need to know it...but Plame? She got herself out in to the public square...and her lying husband is to blame for this whole mess.

Mark,
"the law being used here was designed to punish people for doing that...and it is a very narrowly drawn law, with a specific purpose in mind...and that purpose was not to keep covert the name of someone who (a) wasn't covert by the definition of the law and (b) who's name was already well into the public domain due to her own and her husband's statements and actions."

First of all, you're talking about the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. But what about the Official Secrets Act? That one covers unauthorized release of classified information. And as I have indicated, it appears that Plame's status at the CIA was indeed classified information. And even unintended release of classified information is a crime under that law.

So why hasn't Fitzgerald charged someone under one or the other law? I don't know. But the investigation isn't over yet. Perhaps he will. Then again, perhaps he will never gather enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt exactly who outed Plame. But not knowing for certain who did it is not the same as saying it didn't happen.

As far as Plame's name being "well into the public domain due to her own and her husband's statements and actions", that's a very important point. And if it was true it should have been very easy to verify. And it appears that Fitzgerald made many attempts to do just that. Had he been successful then he wouldn't have stated in the Libby indictment that "Prior to July 14 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community." In light of that, I have to ask, what do you know that he doesn't (or is ignoring)? And if he's ignoring someone, why aren't they shouting it from the rooftops? I certainly would. I would hope that most people would feel an obligation to do so. As far as I can tell, most claims are of the nature of "I've heard people say they were told such and such". And as far as I know, only two people have claimed that they were personally told of Plame's CIA affiliation. One is Clifford May and the other was Gen. Paul Vallely. Both of whom have significantly modified their claims over time.

For these reasons it appears to me that SOMEONE outed Plame. And whoever it was, their reluctance to come forward has kept the story in the public view, and has caused serious damage to President Bush. That's a travesty. This whole issue could have been put to bed so easily if whoever did it came forward and said, "I believe I am the source of the leak. I screwed up. It wasn't intentional, and I apologize to Ms. Plame, President Bush, and everyone else involved." So often the thing that gets people in trouble is not the crime but the cover-up. And whoever it is, they have themselves to blame for it. Joe Wilson may be a jerk, but it appears to me that he's not the only one.

Ricorun,

I agree that Plame's name became well known due to someone talking about her when perhaps they shouldn't...but the most promising culprit on that is Wilson (who may, even, have told Novak about his wife's status in order to burnis his own credibility...and it should be kept in mind that while Novak is a staunch conservative, he is also a very sharp critic of Bush Administration policy...if you wanted to get your word out on the right in an anti-Bush manner, Novak is the man to see, as it were).

Also, I don't think we have an Official Secrets Act...I think the Brits do...

Mark,
I have been repeatedly misspeaking myself! Sorry. When I mentioned the Official Secrets Act (which is indeed a British law) I meant the Espionage Act. It probably would be good to include as well Executive Orders 12958 and 13292, which sort of piggyback on each other.

With regard to Plame and what people knew when, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Is it possible you misunderstood what I wrote? Or are you saying that maybe it was Wilson that was leaking her name to reporters? As far as I know, he only talked to Novak before Novak's piece -- with regard to his wife, that is. And they seem to pretty much agree on what they said to each other.

With regard to Novak's ideology, yes I was aware of it. But I don't pay much attention to the approach a person takes to an issue so long as they can support their contentions with demonstrable facts and logic properly applied. I'll listen to anyone, and judge what they say on the basis of the strength of their argument, not who they are. It might make for a great love-fest, but if one only listens to those you agree with, you can't learn much. That's how I see it anyway. That's what I like about this site -- you get all points of view.