Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Clare Luce Democrats
How they're lying about "he lied us into war."
Thursday, November 3, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Harry Reid pulled the Senate into closed session Tuesday, claiming that "The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq." But the Minority Leader's statement was as demonstrably false as his stunt was transparently political.
What Mr. Reid's pose is "really all about" is the emergence of the Clare Boothe Luce Democrats. We're referring to the 20th-century playwright, and wife of Time magazine founder Henry Luce, who was most famous for declaring that Franklin D. Roosevelt had "lied us into war" with the Nazis and Tojo. So intense was the hatred of FDR among some Republicans that they held fast to this slander for years, with many taking their paranoia to their graves.
We are now seeing the spectacle of Bush-hating Democrats adopting a similar slander against the current President regarding the Iraq War. The indictment by Patrick Fitzgerald of Vice Presidential aide I. Lewis Libby has become their latest opening to promote this fiction, notwithstanding the mountains of contrary evidence. To wit:
In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," (our emphasis).
The Butler Report, published by the British in July 2004, similarly found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it too found much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.
The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence was equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."
Finally, last Friday, there was Mr. Fitzgerald: "This indictment's not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are--have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel."
In short, everyone who has looked into the question of whether the Bush Administration lied about intelligence, distorted intelligence, or pressured intelligence agencies to produce assessments that would support a supposedly pre-baked decision to invade Iraq has come up with the same answer: No, no, no and no.
Everyone, that is, except Joseph Wilson IV. He first became the Democrats' darling in July 2003, when he published an op-ed claiming he'd debunked Mr. Bush's "16 words" on Iraqi attempts to purchase African yellowcake and that the Administration had distorted the evidence about Saddam's weapons programs to fit its agenda. This Wilson tale fit the "lied us into war" narrative so well that he was adopted by the John Kerry presidential campaign.
Only to be dropped faster than a Paris Hilton boyfriend after the Senate Intelligence and Butler reports were published. Those reports clearly showed that, while Saddam had probably not purchased yellowcake from Niger, the dictator had almost certainly tried--and that Mr. Wilson's own briefing of the CIA after his mission supported that conclusion. Mr. Wilson somehow omitted that fact from his public accounts at the time.
He also omitted to explain why the CIA had sent him to Niger: His wife, who worked at the CIA, had suggested his name for the trip, a fact Mr. Wilson also denied, but which has also since been proven. In other words, the only real support there has ever been for the "Bush lied" storyline came from a man who is himself a demonstrable liar. If we were Nick Kristof and the other writers who reported Mr. Wilson's facts as gospel, we'd be apologizing to our readers.
Yet, incredibly, Mr. Wilson has once again become the Democrats' favorite mascot because they want him as a prop for their "lied us into war" revival campaign. They must think the media are stupid, because so many Democrats are themselves on the record in the pre-Iraq War period as declaring that Saddam had WMD. Here is Al Gore from September 23, 2002, amid the Congressional debate over going to war: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Or Hillary Rodham Clinton, from October 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . ."
Or Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who is now leading the "Bush lied" brigades (from October 10, 2002): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . .We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." If Mr. Bush is a liar, what does the use of the phrase "unmistakable evidence" make Mr. Rockefeller? A fool?
The scandal here isn't what happened before the war. The scandal is that the same Democrats who saw the same intelligence that Mr. Bush saw, who drew the same conclusions, and who voted to go to war are now using the difficulties we've encountered in that conflict as an excuse to rewrite history. Are Republicans really going to let them get away with it?
Answer: In President George W. Bush's January 2003 State of the Union speech, he said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Former ambassador Joe Wilson, who worked under the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, claimed that -- in those 16 words -- the President deliberately misled the nation with what he called a false accusation. Wilson began telling the press that the Bush administration intentionally deceived the nation by falsely asserting that Saddam Hussein tried to acquire processed uranium from Africa.
Question: Why does Wilson claim the President lied?
Answer: Ambassador Wilson himself went to Niger, Africa in February 2002 to investigate the alleged connection between Niger, uranium and Saddam Hussein.
Question: What did Wilson find?
Answer: Here's where things get interesting. Several months after the President's speech, Wilson wrote in a New York Times column called "What I Didn't Find in Africa" that he returned from his trip "highly doubtful" about whether any such connection between Saddam Hussein, Africa and uranium existed, and that intelligence had been "twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."
Question: If Wilson could not find such a connection, why did the President include those words in his speech?
Answer: Wilson now claims no such connection existed. But Robin Butler, head of the British investigation of prewar intelligence, concludes, "It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address was well-founded." Furthermore, the bipartisan U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence, before which Wilson testified, concluded that when Bush spoke those 16 words in his State of the Union speech, his statement was based on credible intelligence -- both then and now. The Senate Committee found that Wilson, upon his return from his Niger trip, gave an oral report to the CIA, which provided "some confirmation" that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger.
Question: So Wilson lies when he now claims he found no such connection?
Answer: It appears Wilson changed his story. He also states, regarding his wife and his Africa trip, " Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter." Turns out, according to the Senate Committee, Wilson's wife -- a CIA agent, known as Valerie Plame or Valerie Wilson -- "suggested his name for the trip."
Question: Why is this relevant?
Answer: Wilson told the New York Times' Nicholas Kristof that the Vice President sent him on the trip. If so, this suggests that the Vice President knew about Wilson's skepticism. But the Senate Committee determined that the CIA sent him, after his wife recommended him for the trip.
Question: Doesn't all this make Wilson a liar, someone not to be believed?
Answer: Yes, but many in the media still believe that Bush did indeed lie to the nation, and consider Wilson a noble "whistle-blower." For example, the Washington Post recently wrote, "Wilson's central assertion -- disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger -- has been validated by postwar inspections." [Emphasis added.] No it hasn't. Again, both the Senate Commission and the Butler report considered the intelligence on which the President based that part of the speech to be credible.
Question: So how did this end up in the hands of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald?
Answer: Wilson claims that after he began talking to the press and after he wrote his op/ed piece, the White House retaliated against him by "outing" his wife to reporters. The Bush administration assigned special prosecutor Fitzgerald to determine whether someone in the administration violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, designed to protect the identities of "covert" agents.
Question: How did the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, get involved?
Answer: According to the special prosecutor, Libby found out about Wilson's wife from various government sources in the administration. He disclosed her CIA identity to reporters. But according to the indictment, Libby lied to federal investigators and to the grand jury by claiming that the information about Wilson's wife came from reporters, rather than from government sources. Fitzgerald charged Libby with obstruction of justice, two counts of false statements and two of perjury, Note, however, Fitzgerald, at least so far, filed no charges under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Question: Why?
Answer: The statute requires that the "outed" agent must be "covert." The law defines "covert" as an agent operating outside the United States in the last five years. Wilson's wife does not meet the requirement, having worked stateside at CIA headquarters in Langley for well over five years.
Question: How serious is lying to a federal investigator?
Answer: Ask Martha Stewart.
Question: How serious is perjury?
Answer: Ask former President Bill Clinton.
Question: Why don't some in the mainstream news media raise stronger questions about Wilson's credibility?
Answer: Ask someone else.
Answer: In President George W. Bush's January 2003 State of the Union speech, he said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Former ambassador Joe Wilson, who worked under the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, claimed that -- in those 16 words -- the President deliberately misled the nation with what he called a false accusation. Wilson began telling the press that the Bush administration intentionally deceived the nation by falsely asserting that Saddam Hussein tried to acquire processed uranium from Africa.
Question: Why does Wilson claim the President lied?
Answer: Ambassador Wilson himself went to Niger, Africa in February 2002 to investigate the alleged connection between Niger, uranium and Saddam Hussein.
Question: What did Wilson find?
Answer: Here's where things get interesting. Several months after the President's speech, Wilson wrote in a New York Times column called "What I Didn't Find in Africa" that he returned from his trip "highly doubtful" about whether any such connection between Saddam Hussein, Africa and uranium existed, and that intelligence had been "twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."
Question: If Wilson could not find such a connection, why did the President include those words in his speech?
Answer: Wilson now claims no such connection existed. But Robin Butler, head of the British investigation of prewar intelligence, concludes, "It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address was well-founded." Furthermore, the bipartisan U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence, before which Wilson testified, concluded that when Bush spoke those 16 words in his State of the Union speech, his statement was based on credible intelligence -- both then and now. The Senate Committee found that Wilson, upon his return from his Niger trip, gave an oral report to the CIA, which provided "some confirmation" that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger.
Question: So Wilson lies when he now claims he found no such connection?
Answer: It appears Wilson changed his story. He also states, regarding his wife and his Africa trip, " Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter." Turns out, according to the Senate Committee, Wilson's wife -- a CIA agent, known as Valerie Plame or Valerie Wilson -- "suggested his name for the trip."
Question: Why is this relevant?
Answer: Wilson told the New York Times' Nicholas Kristof that the Vice President sent him on the trip. If so, this suggests that the Vice President knew about Wilson's skepticism. But the Senate Committee determined that the CIA sent him, after his wife recommended him for the trip.
Question: Doesn't all this make Wilson a liar, someone not to be believed?
Answer: Yes, but many in the media still believe that Bush did indeed lie to the nation, and consider Wilson a noble "whistle-blower." For example, the Washington Post recently wrote, "Wilson's central assertion -- disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger -- has been validated by postwar inspections." [Emphasis added.] No it hasn't. Again, both the Senate Commission and the Butler report considered the intelligence on which the President based that part of the speech to be credible.
Question: So how did this end up in the hands of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald?
Answer: Wilson claims that after he began talking to the press and after he wrote his op/ed piece, the White House retaliated against him by "outing" his wife to reporters. The Bush administration assigned special prosecutor Fitzgerald to determine whether someone in the administration violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, designed to protect the identities of "covert" agents.
Question: How did the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, get involved?
Answer: According to the special prosecutor, Libby found out about Wilson's wife from various government sources in the administration. He disclosed her CIA identity to reporters. But according to the indictment, Libby lied to federal investigators and to the grand jury by claiming that the information about Wilson's wife came from reporters, rather than from government sources. Fitzgerald charged Libby with obstruction of justice, two counts of false statements and two of perjury, Note, however, Fitzgerald, at least so far, filed no charges under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Question: Why?
Answer: The statute requires that the "outed" agent must be "covert." The law defines "covert" as an agent operating outside the United States in the last five years. Wilson's wife does not meet the requirement, having worked stateside at CIA headquarters in Langley for well over five years.
Question: How serious is lying to a federal investigator?
Answer: Ask Martha Stewart.
Question: How serious is perjury?
Answer: Ask former President Bill Clinton.
Question: Why don't some in the mainstream news media raise stronger questions about Wilson's credibility?
Answer: Ask someone else.
We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."
John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."
Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."
Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."
Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."
Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
John Kerry > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn't vote for me."
Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002
"I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
John Kerry > October 9, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."
Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."
Jane Harman > August 27, 2002
"I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."
Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."
Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
"[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously."
Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002
"I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."
Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."
Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
theHawk said:I don't know that thats proof that some WMD was found. There are some that believe the weapons were moved into Syria or Bekaa Valley of Lebanon (ever wonder why they refused to withdraw from there?). Its not like Saddam didn't have enough time to move/hide them or even destroy them.
whole article on the Times websiteTHE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: THE LOOTING; Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says
*. March 13, 2005, Sunday
By JAMES GLANZ AND WILLIAM J. BROAD; JAMES GLANZ REPORTED FROM BAGHDAD FOR THIS ARTICLE, AND WILLIAM J. BROAD FROM NEW YORK. DAVID E. SANGER CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM WASHINGTON. (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section 1, Page 1, Column 5, 2628 words
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 2628 WORDS -In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments...
theHawk said:I don't know that thats proof that some WMD was found. There are some that believe the weapons were moved into Syria or Bekaa Valley of Lebanon (ever wonder why they refused to withdraw from there?). Its not like Saddam didn't have enough time to move/hide them or even destroy them.
Investigate the CIA
An "outing" was the result of either incompetence or an effort to undermine the White House.
BY VICTORIA TOENSING
Sunday, November 6, 2005 12:01 a.m.
In a surprise, closed-door debate, Senate Democrats last week demanded an investigation of pre-Iraq War intelligence. Here's an issue for them: Assess the validity of the claim that Valerie Plame's status was "covert," or even properly classified, given the wretched tradecraft by the Central Intelligence Agency throughout the entire episode. It was, after all, the CIA that requested the "leak" investigation, alleging that one of its agents had been outed in Bob Novak's July 14, 2003, column. Yet it was the CIA's bizarre conduct that led inexorably to Ms. Plame's unveiling.
When the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was being negotiated, Senate Select Committee Chairman Barry Goldwater was adamant: If the CIA desired a law making it illegal to expose one of its deep cover employees, then the agency must do a much better job of protecting their cover. That is why a criterion for any prosecution under the act is that the government was taking "affirmative measures" to conceal the protected person's relationship to the intelligence agency. Two decades later, the CIA, either purposely or with gross negligence, made a series of decisions that led to Ms. Plame becoming a household name:
The CIA sent her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger on a sensitive mission regarding WMD. He was to determine whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake, an essential ingredient for unconventional weapons. However, it was Ms. Plame, not Mr. Wilson, who was the WMD expert. Moreover, Mr. Wilson had no intelligence background, was never a senior person in Niger when he was in the State Department, and was opposed to the administration's Iraq policy. The assignment was given, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, at Ms. Plame's suggestion.
Mr. Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement, a mandatory act for the rest of us who either carry out any similar CIA assignment or represent CIA clients.
When he returned from Niger, Mr. Wilson was not required to write a report, but rather merely to provide an oral briefing. That information was not sent to the White House. If this mission to Niger were so important, wouldn't a competent intelligence agency want a thoughtful written assessment from the "missionary," if for no other reason than to establish a record to refute any subsequent misrepresentation of that assessment? Because it was the vice president who initially inquired about Niger and the yellowcake (although he had nothing to do with Mr. Wilson being sent), it is curious that neither his office nor the president's were privy to the fruits of Mr. Wilson's oral report.
Although Mr. Wilson did not have to write even one word for the agency that sent him on the mission at taxpayer's expense, over a year later he was permitted to tell all about this sensitive assignment in the New York Times. For the rest of us, writing about such an assignment would mean we'd have to bring our proposed op-ed before the CIA's Prepublication Review Board and spend countless hours arguing over every word to be published. Congressional oversight committees should want to know who at the CIA permitted the publication of the article, which, it has been reported, did not jibe with the thrust of Mr. Wilson's oral briefing. For starters, if the piece had been properly vetted at the CIA, someone should have known that the agency never briefed the vice president on the trip, as claimed by Mr. Wilson in his op-ed.
More important than the inaccuracies is that, if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame's identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after "Why did the CIA send Wilson?" was "Who is Wilson?" After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's "wife" suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals "Valerie Plame" as Mr. Wilson's spouse.
CIA incompetence did not end there. When Mr. Novak called the agency to verify Ms. Plame's employment, it not only did so, but failed to go beyond the perfunctory request not to publish. Every experienced Washington journalist knows that when the CIA really does not want something public, there are serious requests from the top, usually the director. Only the press office talked to Mr. Novak.
Although high-ranking Justice Department officials are prohibited from political activity, the CIA had no problem permitting its deep cover or classified employee from making political contributions under the name "Wilson, Valerie E.," information publicly available at the Federal Elections Commission.
The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft. It is up to Congress to decide which.
AT WAR
An Incomplete Investigation
Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore "Able Danger"?
BY LOUIS FREEH
Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:01 a.m.
It was interesting to hear from the 9/11 Commission again on Tuesday. This self-perpetuating and privately funded group of lobbyists and lawyers has recently opined on hurricanes, nuclear weapons, the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and even the New York subway system. Now it offers yet another "report card" on the progress of the FBI and CIA in the war against terrorism, along with its "back-seat" take and some further unsolicited narrative about how things ought to be on the "front lines."
Yet this is also a good time for the country to make some assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself. Recent revelations from the military intelligence operation code-named "Able Danger" have cast light on a missed opportunity that could have potentially prevented 9/11. Specifically, Able Danger concluded in February 2000 that military experts had identified Mohamed Atta by name (and maybe photograph) as an al Qaeda agent operating in the U.S. Subsequently, military officers assigned to Able Danger were prevented from sharing this critical information with FBI agents, even though appointments had been made to do so. Why?
There are other questions that need answers. Was Able Danger intelligence provided to the 9/11 Commission prior to the finalization of its report, and, if so, why was it not explored? In sum, what did the 9/11 commissioners and their staff know about Able Danger and when did they know it?
The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry. Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically significant." This astounding conclusion--in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself.
The facts relating to Able Danger finally started to be reported in mid-August. U.S. Army Col. Anthony Shaffer, a veteran intelligence officer, publicly revealed that the Able Danger team had identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers by mid-2000 but were prevented by military lawyers from giving this information to the FBI. One week later, Navy Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate who managed the program for the Pentagon's Special Operations Command, confirmed "Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000."
On Aug. 18, 2005, the Pentagon initially stated that "a probe" had found nothing to back up Col. Shaffer's claims. Two weeks later, however, Defense Department officials acknowledged that its "inquiry" had found "three more people who recall seeing an intelligence briefing slide that identified the ringleader of the 9/11 attacks a year before the hijackings and terrorist strikes." These same officials also stated that "documents and electronic files created by . . . Able Danger were destroyed under standing orders that limit the military's use of intelligence gathered about people in the United States." Then in September 2005, the Pentagon doubled back and blocked several military officers from testifying at an open Congressional hearing about the Able Danger program.
Two members of Congress, Curt Weldon and Dan Burton, have also publicly stated that shortly after the 9/11 attacks they provided then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley with a "chart" containing preattack information collected by Able Danger about al Qaeda. A spokesperson for the White House has confirmed that Mr. Hadley "recalled seeing such a chart in that time period but . . . did not recall whether he saw it during a meeting . . . and that a search of National Security Council files had failed to produce such a chart."
Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, reacted to Able Danger with the standard Washington PR approach. He lashed out at the Bush administration and demanded that the Pentagon conduct an "investigation" to evaluate the "credibility" of Col. Shaffer and Capt. Phillpott--rather than demand a substantive investigation into what failed in the first place. This from a former New Jersey governor who, along with other commissioners, routinely appeared in public espousing his own conclusions about 9/11 long before the commission's inquiry was completed and long before all the facts were in! This while dismissing out of hand the major conflicts of interest on the commission itself about obstructions to information-sharing within the intelligence community!
Nevertheless, the final 9/11 Commission report, released on July 22, 2004, concluded that "American intelligence agencies were unaware of Mr. Atta until the day of the attacks." This now looks to be embarrassingly wrong. Yet amazingly, commission leaders acknowledged on Aug. 12 that their staff in fact met with a Navy officer 10 days before releasing the report, who "asserted that a highly classified intelligence operation, Able Danger, had identified Mohammed Atta to be a member of an al Qaeda cell located in Brooklyn." (Capt. Phillpott says he briefed them in July 2004.) The commission's statement goes on to say that the staff determined that "the officer's account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation," and that the intelligence operation "did not turn out to be historically significant," despite substantial corroboration from other seasoned intelligence officers.
This dismissive and apparently unsupported conclusion would have us believe that a key piece of evidence was summarily rejected in less than 10 days without serious investigation. The commission, at the very least, should have interviewed the 80 members of Able Danger, as the Pentagon did, five of whom say they saw "the chart." But this would have required admitting that the late-breaking news was inconveniently raised. So it was grossly neglected and branded as insignificant. Such a half-baked conclusion, drawn in only 10 days without any real investigation, simply ignores what looks like substantial direct evidence to the contrary coming from our own trained military intelligence officers.
No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a "new" commission to investigate. "I'm angry that my son's death could have been prevented," seethed Diane Horning, whose son Matthew was killed at the World Trade Center. On Aug. 17, 2005, a coalition of family members known as the September 11 Advocates rightly blasted 9/11 Commission leaders Mr. Kean and Lee Hamilton for pooh-poohing Able Danger's findings as not "historically significant." Advocate Mindy Kleinberg aptly notes, "They [the 9/11 Commission] somehow made a determination that this was not important enough. To me, that says somebody there is not using good judgment. And if I'm questioning the judgment of this one case, what other things might they have missed?" This is a stinging indictment of the commission by the 9/11 families.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, has led the way in cleaning up the 9/11 Commission's unfinished business. Amid a very full plate of responsibilities, he conducted a hearing after noting that Col. Shaffer and Capt. Phillpott "appear to have credibility." Himself a former prosecutor, Mr. Specter noted: "If Mr. Atta and other 9/11 terrorists were identified before the attacks, it would be a very serious breach not to have that information passed along . . . we ought to get to the bottom of it." Indeed we should. The 9/11 Commission gets an "I" grade--incomplete--for its dereliction regarding Able Danger. The Joint Intelligence Committees should reconvene and, in addition to Able Danger team members, we should have the 9/11 commissioners appear as witnesses so the families can hear their explanation why this doesn't matter.
Mr. Freeh, a former FBI director, is the author of "My FBI" (St. Martin's, 2005).
TheEnemyWithin said:You know...I just had a thought. Since liberals like to shout "NO WMDS!!!" :funnyface triumphantly in Bush's face, I wondered, would these gloating blowhards ever admit it if the WMDs WERE found??!!?!? I asked my uncle about that, and he said that the weapons have been found, but it got buried so deep by the alphabet-networks that it never got reported. He said it was Sarin and VX nerve gas and although it was not as big a find as some people had expected, the weapons found were more than enough to do serious damage. Ever notice that the libs went from saying "No weapons of mass destruction," to "No STOCKPILES of WMDs"????!?!?!??!!?
So they have been found, and all you libs can shut the f**k up now.
Cabernet said:LMAO WMDs have been found? You would think that if that was the case that the Bush administration would be all over it.
Sarin gas has a shelf life of something like three months. I cannot remember what the shelf life of nerve gas is, but it is not long.
Do you all have any understanding of what the liberals are saying? They acknowledge that people thought that Bush had WMDs, including themselves (most of them). The problem is that there were reports that indicated that Saddam was not reconstituting nuclear weapons, and no one from the Bush administration informed Congress of such. In fact, both Bush and Cheney were essentially saying it was unquestionable that Saddam was reconsituting nuclear weapons.
Cheney was saying that it was "well confirmed" that Atta met with top Iraqi officials, but there was a report that said it was very likely that the detainee making that allegation was lying. It's one thing if Cheney said that there are allegations of a connection, but to say "well confirmed" when there were serious doubts is dishonest.
Subsequently, when a reporter mentioned to Cheney that he had used the terminology of "well confirmed," he denied ever having said that. She then told him when he said it, and he repeated that denial 4 times knowing that there was a recording of the show and people had already seen it. He could have said that he did not remember saying that; rather, he adamantly denied having said it. That is dishonest.
That is the liberals'/democrats' complaints about what led us into this war.
Cabernet said:LMAO WMDs have been found? You would think that if that was the case that the Bush administration would be all over it.
Sarin gas has a shelf life of something like three months. I cannot remember what the shelf life of nerve gas is, but it is not long.
Do you all have any understanding of what the liberals are saying? They acknowledge that people thought that Bush had WMDs, including themselves (most of them). The problem is that there were reports that indicated that Saddam was not reconstituting nuclear weapons, and no one from the Bush administration informed Congress of such. In fact, both Bush and Cheney were essentially saying it was unquestionable that Saddam was reconsituting nuclear weapons.
Cheney was saying that it was "well confirmed" that Atta met with top Iraqi officials, but there was a report that said it was very likely that the detainee making that allegation was lying. It's one thing if Cheney said that there are allegations of a connection, but to say "well confirmed" when there were serious doubts is dishonest.
Subsequently, when a reporter mentioned to Cheney that he had used the terminology of "well confirmed," he denied ever having said that. She then told him when he said it, and he repeated that denial 4 times knowing that there was a recording of the show and people had already seen it. He could have said that he did not remember saying that; rather, he adamantly denied having said it. That is dishonest.
That is the liberals'/democrats' complaints about what led us into this war.
rtwngAvngr said:The fact you're mentioning the shelf life of sarin means you know it was there too. We win.
CSM said:Obviously, you have no idea how chemical weapons are made or stored. There are tons of the stuff left over from WW I and II still around. Shelf life has little meaning until the components are mixed. Chemical weapons have all the components available and they dont mix until they are used.
as for nuclear weapons, Iran's status regarding that is a perfect example of what Saddam was trying to do. He would most certainly have succeeded (with a little help from the French and Germans) had the US not interrupted that little cabal.
The liberals/Democrats REAL complaint about this war is that Bush is president. It is abundantly clear to me that the libs/Dems could give a rats ass about the war; they just hate Bush and will do or say ANYTHING to get at Bush.
Cabernet said:Shelf life has little meaning? I took Chemistry and Organic Chemistry and know that you clearly do not know what you are talking about. LOL
Really? Interesting.
LMAO Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
CSM said:I dont care if you are a brain surgeon and self lobotomized. High school chemistry doesn't make you a chemical weapons expert by a long shot.
The fact that you try to take stuff out of context to make twist what I stated just proves my point.
In the end I see that you agree with me that people like you will do and say anything to get at the President.
Sarin is similar in structure and biological activity to some commonly used insecticides, such as Malathion, and is similar in biological activity to carbamates used as insecticides such as Sevin, and medicines such as Mestinon, Neostigmine, and Antilirium .
At room temperature, sarin is a colourless, odorless liquid. Its relatively high vapor pressure means that it evaporates quickly (about 36 times as quickly as tabun, another common chemical nerve agent). Its vapor is also colorless and odorless. It can be made more persistent through the addition of certain oils or petroleum products.
Sarin can be used as a binary chemical weapon; its two precursors are methylphosphonyl difluoride and a mixture of isopropyl alcohol and isopropyl amine . The isopropyl amine binds the hydrogen fluoride generated during the chemical reaction.
Shelf Life
Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several months to several weeks. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurites in precursor materials. According to the CIA [1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors.
Efforts to Lengthen Shelf Life
According to the CIA, nations such as Iraq have tried to overcome the problem of sarin's short self life in two ways:
* The shelf life of unitary (i.e., pure) sarin may be lengthened by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and refining the production process.
* Developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored seperately in the same round, and mixed to form the agent immediate before or when the round is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions.
Did you also take weapons development 101? No.Cabernet said:Shelf life has little meaning? I took Chemistry and Organic Chemistry and know that you clearly do not know what you are talking about. LOL
