1. Anonymous says:

    emptywheel, I contacted that Independent article author and tried to get him to tell me the name of the ambassador when it came out. He refused, but he put me on the trail… a few days later I contacted someone else who _did_ give me his name. I published Wilson’s name and the next day he wrote his op-ed for the NY Times, so Wilson was right… his name was about to come out. Ask swopa.

  2. Anonymous says:

    These analyses are mind-boggling (in a good way, of course). However, the issue that has impressed me in the last couple of months is the amount of information traded among members of the press that never gets to the common folk.

    I guess I’m slow (gullible, trusting, etc.) that way, but I go back to Lawrence O’Donnell’s piece on Huffington Post on 7/2/05. To wit:

    â€I revealed in yesterday’s taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine’s emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper’s source. I have known this for months but didn’t want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.â€

    How many members of the press â€knew†and why didn’t they publish this information? What do they â€know†now that we don’t know?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Cynthia,

    I’ll warrant the people up in arms over at the NYT know Judy never published what she was talking to Libby about. They probably have some details about her status at the time, too.

  5. Anonymous says:

    emptywheel,

    Have you considered/discussed this scenario:

    The NYTimes Washinton bureau finds the notebook in DC and turns it over to Fitz. Fitz then decides he wants to have another powwow with our beloved St. Judy of the First Amendment about the previously unknown Scooter in June coversation. Voila, the notes of the coversation are miraculously â€discovered†by our dear Saint- probably with more than a little prodding from Fitz.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Roddy,

    Yeah, I think that’s possible. I just think there’s probably a reason WHY the NYT went looking. Perhaps they, too, were encouraged by their lawyer to go back and look again?

  7. Anonymous says:

    Is this a case of Judy’s friends at the Times protecting her (misplacing their memory of the notebook) or Judy’s enemies at the Times setting her up (waitng until she’s testified before they remember their notes)?

    If the Times went looking would this be because Judy discussed her June Libby conversation(s?) in her GJ testimony and (then) with Times lawyers?

  8. Anonymous says:

    Is this a case of Judy’s friends at the Times protecting her (misplacing their memory of the notebook) or Judy’s enemies at the Times setting her up (waitng until she’s testified before they remember their notes)?

    If the Times went looking would this be because Judy discussed her June Libby conversation(s?) in her GJ testimony and (then) with Times lawyers?

  9. Anonymous says:

    EW — Wilson uses â€The Independent†atricle citation in his book, p.332.

    The Context is this. First he discusses Condi Rice’s June 8 appearance on Meet the Press where she introduces the â€in the bowels of the agendy†— but â€not in my circles†construction. Wilson was upset that Rice was not telling the truth, contacted someone in the administration — and someone in the administration suggested he would have to write the story himself. He then contacted David Shipley at NYT Editorial side, and arranged for his article. Wilson observes that in the next two weeks, his name openly circulated within the press.

    Then — the June 22nd Independent.

    â€I Learned that on Sunday, June 22, the London Newspaper â€The Independent†blaired a headline across the top of the front page, just below a banner advertising Hollywood Madam Hedi Fleiss’s new book, that read â€Retired American Diplomat accuses British Ministers of being Liars.†I knew than that the story was spinning out of control and that I had no choice but to write it myself.â€

    It was also about this time that Clifford May’s badly reported material on Wilson began to emerge — I don’t have a specific date or reference.

    I also don’t have a timeline on the Birtish reporting in the BBC and the Guardian and elsewhere that led up to the suicide of David Kelly, who was an apparent close source to Miller, and with whom she was in E-Mail communication on a regular basis.

    But what I do see here, beginning with the Condi quote about bowels on MTP is an effort to force Wilson to surface — maybe so they could get on with the real smear. It should also be noted that Condi used the term â€the agency†— and not what would be more true to Wilson himself, the State Department. On June 8 was she already focused in on the use that was to be made of Valerie?

    I must admit that close reading of this give and take can be amusing. Condi purt Valerie in the â€bowels†— and in his book, Wilson comes back with the front page geographical relationship between a Hollywood whore’s advertisement and a misleading headline. They may well have been sparring as early as June 8th. Anyhow — is this evidence that by June 8th, Condi had already adopted the Conspiracy as her own?

    According to Wilson — David Kelly committed suicide four days after Novak’s article appeared — Kelly had been a BBC source for reports the British Government had exaggerated the Saddam threat. Four days after that, David Corn published his seminal Nation article suggesting that whoever leaked Plame’s identity could well be subject to charges under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. And that act required George Tenet to call for a preliminary investigation at CIA, and make a DOJ referal if appropriate. That changed the dynamics — both for Wilson, and also within the White House.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Yes, Sara, that’s why Judy’s plea bargaining, if that’s what it is, is so dangerous for BushCo.

    Their arguments before were that Wilson was just a nepotist who didn’t like Bush. They’re the whistleblowers, remember, that this guy on a boondoggle was undermining intelligence. But that only works so long as their not attacking Wilson before they learn of Plame’s identity. We’re now in a hunt for who leaked Wilson’s identity, not Plames.

    Not that his identity was so secret. The second Kristof column makes it pretty clear. But I’m ALMOST to the point where I can prove they knew of his identity before he had become identifiable publicly (that is, before the Independent, et al). And when you prove that, then you prove they knew of his identity via intelligence channels. Which would in turn prove they knew of him–and his refutation of the Niger intelligence–before the SOTU.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Nice post, I’ve been linking k/o readers your way for the last couple weeks.

    Question, I’ve been writing vis a vis a the two interviews. At the time, in 2004 it seemed, because Cheney, and then Bush, â€chatted†separately, and not â€under oath,†to the Special Prosecutor that it was a non-story. Not that big a deal.

    But what if there are indictments that touch their offices, their staffs? Especially if what Bush or Cheney, or both, said in those interviews differs from the facts the special prosecutor establishes? I’m especially interested in the sequence….apparently Cheney, then Bush.

    If Cheney â€tilted†the facts…and then told Bush his â€tilt†in private…and Bush then did the same…that might spell a world of trouble for the executive branch if Fitzegerald comes out with a different story.

    Lots of ifs…..I know. But intrigueing.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Is this helpful?

    Ministers knew war papers were forged, says diplomat
    US official who identified documents incriminating Iraq as fakes says Britain must have been aware of findings
    By Andrew Buncombe in Washington and Raymond Whitaker in London
    29 June 2003

    A high-ranking American official who investigated claims for the CIA that Iraq was seeking uranium to restart its nuclear programme last night accused Britain and the US of deliberately ignoring his findings to make the case for war against Saddam Hussein.

    The retired US ambassador said it was all but impossible that British intelligence had not received his report – drawn up by the CIA – which revealed that documents, purporting to show a deal between Iraq and the west African state of Niger, were forgeries. When he saw similar claims in Britain’s dossier on Iraq last September, he even went as far as telling CIA officials that they needed to alert their British counterparts to his investigation.

    The allegation will add to the suspicions of opponents to the war that last week’s row between the BBC and Tony Blair’s director of communications Alastair Campbell was a sideshow to draw attention away from more serious questions about the justification for the war.

    The comments of the former US diplomat appear to be at odds with those of the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. Appearing before a parliamentary committee last week, Mr Straw said the British intelligence community had not known of the forged documents’ existence â€at the time when [the September dossier] was put togetherâ€.

    But in his first interview on the issue, the former US diplomat told The Independent on Sunday: â€It is hard for me to fathom, that as close as we are and [while] preparing for a war based on [claims about] weapons of mass destruction, that we did not share intelligence of this nature.â€

    Asked if he felt his findings had been ignored for political reasons, he added: â€It’s an easy conclusion to draw.†Though the official’s identity is well-known in Washington – he was on the National Security Council under President Clinton – he asked that his name be withheld at this stage.

    During last week’s hearings by the Foreign Affairs Committee, MPs cited repeated reports that the forged documents – a letter on which the signature of Niger’s president had been faked, and another carrying the signature of a man who had not held office in the country since the 1980s – had originally reached the CIA via British intelligence.

    Mr Straw not only denied that the forged documents came from British sources, but said Britain’s allegations about Iraq’s quest for uranium in Africa came from â€quite separate sourcesâ€. He said he would give further details of these sources for the uranium allegation in a closed session on Friday, during which he was fiercely cross-questioned by Sir John Stanley, the committee’s chief sceptic. After hearing what the Foreign Secretary had to say, the Tory MP is reported to have told Mr Straw he did not believe him.

    The testimony of the former US diplomat further undermines the claims of both the British and US governments that Saddam had developed, or was developing, weapons of mass destruction.

    The Niger connection became one of the most important and most controversial elements in the build-up to war, and both Britain and the US used it to claim that Iraq was â€reconstituting†its nuclear programme. It later emerged that the report was based on forged letters obtained by Italian intelligence from an African diplomat. The Italians were said to have passed the letters to their British counterparts, from where they reached the CIA.

    When the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) finally had the opportunity to inspect the documents, nearly a year later, they were dismissed as fakes in less than a day. Neither the US nor Britain ever gave the IAEA any other information to back up their allegations on Iraq’s uranium-buying activities, despite the â€separate sources†cited by Mr Straw.

    In February 2002, the former diplomat – who had served as an ambassador in Africa – was approached by the CIA to carry out a â€discreet†task: to investigate if it was possible that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger. He said the CIA had been asked to find out in a direct request from the office of the Vice-President, Dick Cheney.

    During eight days in Niger he discovered it was impossible for Iraq to have been buying the quantities of uranium alleged. â€My report was very unequivocal,†he said. He also learnt that the signatures of officials vital to any transaction were missing from the documents.

    On his return he was debriefed by the CIA. One senior CIA official has told reporters the agency’s findings were distributed to the Defence Intelligence Agency, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Justice Department, the FBI and the office of the Vice President on the same day in early March.

    Six months later the former diplomat read in a newspaper that Britain had issued a dossier claiming Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa. He contacted officials at CIA headquarters and said they needed to clarify whether the British were referring to Niger. If so, the record needed to be corrected. He heard nothing, and in January President Bush said in his State of the Union speech that the â€British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africaâ€.

    The ex-diplomat says he is outraged by the way evidence gathered by the intelligence community was selectively used in Washington to support pre-determined policies and bolster a case for war.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Speaking of sources, Waas credits â€sources with firsthand knowledge of his sworn testimony.†I.e., Fitzgerald. Fun speculation: why’s he want to telegraph this to Libby? Is he looking for leverage to flip Scooter? Flip him on who? Or what?

    And why did he wait to leak this (if he did) until after his talk with Judy?

    Gosh this is fun.

  15. Anonymous says:

    â€The NYT is trying very hard to hide their complicity and possible implication in this conspiracy.†YESS!
    As long Judy was willing to go to jail, NYT said the notes belong to the reporter so they couldn’t turn them over like TIME. That was also a way to protect from exposing evidence of their complicity w/Judy in whatever she was doing. Now that she’s cooperating, (and NYT cannot claim any more privileged interest in their reporter’s notes if she’s come off that privilege claim), they have to turn them all over. I think once Judy started cooperating, the NYT started cooperating too(IF they weren’t already cooperating before)and at their lawyers’ command they are just starting to clean out their closets and desks. By the time the lawyers review what is produced and discuss it w/Fitz, before we hear about it, it takes a few days. I don’t think there’s anything significant in the timing of the new notes in the time since Judy’s release.

    But, it wouldn’t surprise me if there wasn’t some sealed agreement or at least some memo of understanding w/Fitz protecting the NYT at this point too.The NYT is totally and completely wrapped up in conflict here, not just the conflict between their legal posture and their posture as journalists, but also between their legal position and Judy’s. If she’s got a deal, they’ve got some kind of a deal, even if it is just a letter from Fitz saying that they are just records custodians and not subjects nor targets and have no 5th amendment privlege to withhold the any notes now.

  18. Anonymous says:

    antiaristo

    Yes, that’s quite interesting.

    And thanks for the head’s up, DrBB. I’m most curious by the timing. Waas says Fitz just learned about this earlier meeting. But he says he’s wrapping up. Seems to me if he just discovered of an earlier meeting, then he might need a little more time.

    But then, maybe not.

  19. Anonymous says:

    I published Wilson’s name and the next day he wrote his op-ed for the NY Times, so Wilson was right… his name was about to come out. Ask swopa.

    Yep, manyoso is right — I remember that blog post.

    Then again, maybe that means Fitzgerald should have a chat with him.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Joe Wilson’s speech

    A month before Robert Novak wrote his column supposedly outing Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson gave a speech in which he talks in the third person about a person who is obviously himself, allows Valerie Plame to be identified as his wife, and discloses his intense opposition to the war in Iraq, as well as his anti-Israel sentiments. He makes clear that he is the source of the Kristoff/Pincus leaks about his mission. He even says that “this thing has legs,†that it will take two or three months, but it has legs – implying, perhaps, that he had already been working with the Kerry campaign to make this issue big – attacking the President’s credibility on the war.
    http://www.epic-usa.org/Defaul…..howlogin=1

  21. Anonymous says:

    Windansee — you make the mistake of not understanding the nature of Cover — particularly Non Official Cover. A successful NOC llives their cover, and in Valerie’s case she was a new mom with twins, and a professional energy consultant. Of course she would attend meetings with her Husband, She was Mrs Joe Wilson and with her husband she was raising kids and working part time. Cover is that you seem to be as you present yourself —

    I see nothing in everything available about Joe Wilson to suggest he is anti-Sematic, his first wife was Jewish, and his children (another set of twins) were raised as Jews. His book does contain a strong indictment of the neo-Con’s, particularly those such as Richard Perle who work for the Likud party. It is quite a stretch to mistake the two.

  22. Anonymous says:

    â€Their arguments before were that Wilson was just a nepotist who didn’t like Bush. They’re the whistleblowers, remember, that this guy on a boondoggle was undermining intelligence. But that only works so long as their not attacking Wilson before they learn of Plame’s identity. We’re now in a hunt for who leaked Wilson’s identity, not Plames.†from upthread

    my point is that he outed himself in the EPIC speech June 14…up thread somebody wrote that we are now trying to find out who leaked Wilson.

    And the Epic website says â€he is married to the former Valerie Plame….her NOC name right??

    this speech was given June 14, 2003… a month before Novak article

  23. Anonymous says:

    Sara said:

    It was also about this time that Clifford May’s badly reported material on Wilson began to emerge — I don’t have a specific date or reference.

    How exactly did Cliff May get this information? Who was circulating it to him? It’s clear the neo-cons went to their favored sources – Novak, Miller, the National Review. Has May been subpoenaed?