Otherwise, I can’t understand why they’re so focused on that particular event. From what’s been leaked to the media, the memo itself sounds like it was written for one purpose: to smear Joe Wilson.
Back to Main
July 17, 2005
WB: A Few Nuggets
Comments
But what I really want to know is why Robert Luskin is so determined to make things harder for his client. Is he some kind of Democratic mole?
Yeah, I’ve been wondering how long it will be before all the wing-nuts turn on Luskin, exactly as you suggest. I’m guessing he’s gone by the time the indictments start to fly, if not before. And Karl will say he was totally misrepresented. And Luskin really really can’t say a goddamn thing ….
Posted by: bcf | Jul 17 2005 20:32 utc | 2
So many terra bombs happening now… so little coverage of the power-play.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 17 2005 20:49 utc | 3
after tpm posted a link to the wapo story i sent him the following. apologies for length…
josh-
the vandehai/allen piece you link to is indeed a good
synopsis of what we know, but if i’m not mistaken the
backstory framing they begin with is perhaps fudging
the details in a way favorable to the administration.
i could be wrong but do we, at this point, know the
following is indeed true?
“…Joseph C. Wilson IV, a flamboyant ex-diplomat who
had left government for a more lucrative life of
business consulting. Wilson was a veteran of the
diplomatic wars of Iraq and Africa, so it seemed
logical to some in the CIA, including his wife, Plame,
to send him on a secret mission to Niger…”
first of all, calling him flamboyant is a little
opinionated, but he does have a mullet, so i’ll grant
them that one, but they completely sidestep the fact
that cheney’s office was indeed requesting info about
the yellowcake sales in niger. then, while implying
the cia was acting alone, they conspicuously drop
‘including his wife’ in the claim clearly highlighting
and perhaps overemphasizing her involvement. and
finally, wilson said himself the mission wasn’t
‘secret’ so why do they make this claim as well?
“Wilson spent a week in Niger chatting with locals
about the allegation, coming to the conclusion that
the yellowcake charges were probably unfounded. He
reported his findings to the agency — but they never
made their way to the White House.”
now this is the coffee-sprayer. wilson talked to the
former prime minister who was in charge at the time of
the alleged sale. the first sentence makes it sound
like he was interviewing taxi drivers and people
hanging out in starbucks. wilson did in fact have
great connections, and his finding were indeed
substantive. but the whopper of this piece is the
last sentence above. do we know that the report or
its findings never made their way to cheney? it
stretches logic to think that an administration
feverishly searching for evidence would not follow up
on what would be the clincher in their case for war.
and in fact, this notion is, imo, contradicted in the
next paragraph:
“The story might have ended there, but Bush, Vice
President Cheney and other officials decided to make
the yellowcake charges a central piece of the
administration’s evidence in arguing Hussein had
designs on a dangerous program of weapons of mass
destruction, including nuclear bombs. On the march to
war, Bush officials rebuffed concerns from some at the
CIA and included in his January 2003 State of the
Union the now-famous 16 words: “The British government
has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Wilson
was floored, then furious.”
if the administration was making the niger claim a
central argument in the push to war, do we really
believe at this point they knew nothing about wilson’s
trip? and if the cia expressed ‘concerns’ to the
white house and in fact pulled the claims from the
cincinatti speech, do we still believe they know
nothing of joe wilson?
“…Kristof aired them publicly for the first time in
his May 6, 2003, column but did not name Wilson. This
caught the attention of officials inside Cheney’s
office…”
lastly, do we really know that may, 6 2003 was the
first time cheney’s ‘attention’ was on wilson? seems
the wapo is again, phrasing things with certainty
that, if i’m not mistaken, does not exist, and with
assumptions that help the white house. kewl kids to
the end?
Posted by: travy | Jul 17 2005 20:51 utc | 4
Billmon – something is wrong with your piece.
The original anonymous Wilson tale was public on May 6, 2003 through Kristof’s oped in the NYT – two month before Wilson went public under his own name:
I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.
That was the reason for the White House and State to get nervous.
Newsweek says:
In May, the State Department’s intelligence unit had prepared a secret memorandum about the provenance of Wilson’s journey and its classified results—including the curious fact that Wilson’s wife, a CIA agent then working on weapons of mass destruction issues, had been involved in planning the mission, and had even suggested that her husband undertake it. Still, there had been no cause to criticize Wilson—let alone mention his wife.
Maybe this is a bit contradicting with the next story but a memo can be prepared through May and be signed in June: “The State Department memo was done on June 10, 2003” as says the NYT
The existence of the State Department memorandum has been previously reported by news organizations including The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek and The Daily News. But new details of how it came about and how it circulated within the administration could offer clues into who knew what and when.
The memorandum was dated June 10, 2003, nearly four weeks before Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article for The New York Times in which he recounted his mission and accused the administration of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq. The memorandum was written for Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs, and it referred explicitly to Valerie Wilson as Mr. Wilson’s wife, according to a government official who reread the document on Friday.
When Mr. Wilson’s Op-Ed article appeared on July 6, 2003, a Sunday, Richard L. Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, called Carl W. Ford Jr., the assistant secretary for intelligence and research, at home, a former State Department official said. Mr. Armitage asked Mr. Ford to send a copy of the memorandum to Mr. Powell, who was preparing to leave for Africa with Mr. Bush, the former official said. Mr. Ford sent it to the White House for transmission to Mr. Powell.
July 7-12, 2003 Powell was on travel in Africa together with Bush and Rice, just when Wilson went public with his signed oped.
As Newsweek reports there was a second memo:
But then Wilson went public. Some prominent administration officials scurried for cover. Traveling in Africa, Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had long harbored doubts, disowned the “sixteen words” about Niger that had ended up in Bush’s prewar State of the Union speech. So did CIA Director George Tenet, who said they shouldn’t have been in the text. But Cheney—who tended never to give an inch on any topic—held firm.
…
Meanwhile, in transatlantic secure phone calls, the message machinery focused on a crucial topic: who should carry the freight on the following Sunday’s talk shows? The message: protect Cheney by explaining that he had had nothing to do with sending Wilson to Niger, and dismiss the yellowcake issue. Powell was ruled out. He wasn’t a team player, as he had proved by his dismissive comments about the “sixteen words.” Donald Rumsfeld was pressed into duty, as was Condi Rice, the ultimate good soldier. She was on the Africa trip with the president, though, and wouldn’t be getting back until Saturday night. To allow her to prepare on the long flight home to D.C., White House officials assembled a briefing book, which they faxed to the Bush entourage in Africa. The book was primarily prepared by her National Security Council staff. It contained classified information—perhaps including all or part of the memo from State. The entire binder was labeled TOP SECRET.
So there were two memos. The first, prepared by the State Departments spy unit for Powell, the second prepared by the NSC, i.e. White House, and this one may have included parts of the first.
Check also with Laura Rozen who has also collected some timelining.
(BTW: Luskin is working for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – but this is on double plus super secret deep background – so don´t mention me or my blog when publishing it. Oh, I have probably already said to much..)
MR. RUSSERT: This is the cover of your magazine: “Rove on the Spot,” subtitled “What I Told the Grand Jury,” by Matthew Cooper. And here is an excerpt from your article, which will be available tomorrow in Time magazine.
“So did [Karl] Rove leak Plame’s name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him?”–to Niger. “Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency’ on `WMD’?”–weapons of mass destruction. “Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don’t know.”
For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove?
MR. COOPER: That’s correct.
Ex-CIA guy Pat Lang:
Among the various items brought to mind by present history is the question of the Niger Document. This was the paper which turned up in the hands of Italian intelligence which purports to establish Saddam’s drive to buy semi-refined Uranium ore in Niger. This document seems to be well established as a forgery planted on the Italians. Was the US government involved? I know of nothing at this point that would demonstrate that.
The newsmedia have worked on this story for years now and several have well documented the result. A major TV news magazine hired me last year to help them look for those who knew the truth in this matter. They succeeded. A national wire service did the same thing without my help and has the result. The same is true of two other national news publications.
It is very clear now that this ducument was forged by a couple of the shadowy ex-government characters who dwell in the environs of Washington and was planted in Italy on the basis of the personal contacts of one of them with the intention of influencing the debate over Iraq in this country. How do I know that? Well, I just do in the way that intelligence officers learn things. Good sources, multiple sources, first person accounts, probabilities, that is how one learns things. Could I swear to it in court? No. Intelligence conclusions are not things that can be sworn to in court.
Nevertheless, one must ask why the newsmedia are sitting on this story. The answer seems simple. “Carrots and Sticks, carrots and sticks.” Work it out.
Leeden.
WB: Cooper Speaks
I haven’t read the whole thing yet, which is trapped behind Time’s subscriber firewall. (Looks like the shitheads are going to sell me a subscription today.)
The Times/Cooper story is on Truthout.org
PD
Posted by: PeeDee | Jul 17 2005 21:53 utc | 8
I think Billmon is incorrect about the March 2003 work-up. I think Wilson is correct. In his interview with Raw Story, he says “it is my understanding” twice — suggesting to me that someone else has been providing information to Wilson. Originally, he believed the work-up was requested from the VPs office. He now believes the WHIG commissioned the work- up.
As you recall, the work-up was in response to Wilson’s comments on CNN about the forgeries (backing up El Baradeii’s account). Lot’s of people disputed the reasons for war — but few with official ties to the administration. That would have been viewed as the ultimate slap in the face. Look at how they dealt with Scott Ritter?
In any case, I believe the work- up was done through the state department. If true, the state department would have had two sources of info regarding Wilson, the first, from the Feb/March 2002 notes taken after his return from Niger AND the personal info from the WHIG work up. I believe the AF1 INR is a hybrid of these two sources of info.
Posted by: dekacee | Jul 17 2005 22:08 utc | 9
The, “have you heard about?” or, “Can you confirm?” by Novak or Cooper could plausibly be a way of leaking info to Rove, Scooter, or whomever.
It seems to me that given the effort and crap put into promoting the Iraq Invasion, Cheney et al may indeed have been on the attack as early as March 2003. (I suspect thye knew full well that there were no WMDs and were only seeking plausible excuses.)
If Cheney is included as being in the Whitehouse, I suspect that Wilson’s memo did indeed reach the Whitehouse.
Posted by: ken melvin | Jul 17 2005 23:29 utc | 10
travy- LOL. Wilson with a mullet.
b- Yes!!! Ledeen. Ledeen. and Ghorbanifar. And Franklin. And AIPAC. And Iran. And the Bush loyal CIA covert-ops people and the neocons.
This is Iran-Contra on meth that was produced in Rummy’s OSP.
What I want to know, too, is what bank has been funding and funneling all this private war “contracting” around the world.
Riggs bank, maybe? I know they got busted on Pinochet, the Saudis and African dictators but since Uncle Jonathan Bush’s Co. got gobbled up by them, I can’t help but wonder if they were not somehow involved in the go round for these forgeries..paying Chalabi..Riggs is known as the “diplomat’s bank” I believe.
From Slate in Jan. 05
Citing unnamed U.S. government officials and people familiar with Riggs operations, Simpson reports that the bank has enjoyed a “relationship” with the CIA for some time. “That relationship, which included top current and former Riggs executives receiving U.S. government security clearances, could complicate any prosecution of the bank’s officials, according to private lawyers and former prosecutors,” he writes. By “complicate” one can safely assume that Simpson means “make impossible.” He writes:
The relationship with the CIA could prove problematic because it could cast a different light on the bank’s dealings with two U.S. foreign-policy allies, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi ambassador to Washington.
Given the intelligence connections to Riggs, prosecutors could be faced with proving that the bank’s failure to disclose financial activity by the foreign officials wasn’t implicitly authorized by parts of the U.S. government.
Bandar briefed Treasury Secretary John Snow in early 2003 about the work he’d done for the CIA, Simpson notes. The parapolitical credits on the prince’s resume include funding the Contras at the behest of the White House, supporting the Afghan rebels against the Soviet Union, and serving as a go-between in the mending of the Libya-U.S. relationship. The CIA worked with Pinochet through his secret police chief, Manuel Contreras, Simpson reports, adding that Contreras banked at Riggs as recently as 1979.
…Where is the rest of the press on the Riggs-CIA connection? Spooks, sheiks, dictators, millions in laundered money, and a $766 million merger in the balance! What does it take to entice an assignment editor these days, a tsunami or something?
And this follow up article:
Simpson’s piece also invites speculation that the Justice Department might abort the prosecutions lest courtroom brawls reveal more about Riggs and the CIA than the government wants made public. The Riggs-CIA romance goes back at least to 1961, according to this passage in Thomas Powers’ biography of former CIA head Richard Helms, The Man Who Kept the Secrets (1979): ..and let me add, Leila Helms was supposedly negotiating with the Taliban…
On Friday, April 21, 1961, for example, two days after the surrender of the exile invasion force [in Cuba], two men in workclothes—they might have been taken for window washers, say, if not for their neat Ivy League haircuts—approached a teller in the DuPont [sic] Circle branch of the Riggs National Bank in Washington with an unusual request. They asked the teller for six to eight bank checks totaling well over $100,000 to be made out in the name of Arthur Avignon. The teller was not as surprised as he might have been. Men from the CIA often arrived quietly to inspect the financial records of certain local embassies, and the teller was also familiar with several oddly active accounts in the name of groups like the National Association of Loggers, the Dry Cleaners’ Association, and so on. When he had asked about these strange accounts after first going to work at the branch he had been told frankly, “Oh, those are dummy accounts.”
Powers writes that a week later the teller read an Associated Press story datelined Havana in which Fidel Castro damned the CIA for its plots against Cuba and specifically mentioned funds that had come from Arthur Avignon.
Although the Nexis Way-Back Machine doesn’t cough up many Riggs-CIA stories, the spooky ones it does unearth encourages further research into Simpson’s finding that the relationship between the bank and the agency is “longstanding.”
In 1977, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward tied Riggs Bank to payments in a CIA operation in Iran, where the shah had contracted for a $500 million border surveillance system.
…so who is trying to follow the money on the forgeries, etc. Riggs was purchased by another bank…where did the spooks go? …or are they still there?
Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 18 2005 0:47 utc | 11
And I’ve decided to put on my Sunday tinfoil hat with the rolled brim, to include this bit of info from Isikoff from long ago…as in 2002:
0h, and I forgot to include that in the year 2000, Uncle Jonathan was made CEO of Riggs investments.
The bureau, they say, has uncovered financial records showing a steady stream of payments to the family of one of the students, Omar Al Bayoumi. The money moved into the family’s bank account beginning in early 2000, just a few months after hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi arrived in Los Angeles from an Al Qaeda planning summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, according to the sources. Within days of the terrorists’ arrival in the United State, Al Bayoumi befriended the two men who would eventually hijack American Flight 77, throwing them a welcoming party in San Diego and guaranteeing their lease on an apartment next door to his own. Al Bayoumi also paid $1,500 to cover the first two months of rent for Al Midhar and Alhazmi, although officials said it is possible that the hijackers later repaid the money.
Sources familiar with the evidence say the payments–amounting to about $3,500 a month–came from an account at Washington’s Riggs Bank in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, the wife of Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan…
…and more recently (May 2005) From Financial Watch:
In the wake of the Federal Reserve’s rubber-stamp approval of PNC-Riggs (see Report below), FFW received by regular mail the 17-page approval of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Here’s a paragraph of interest:
“The commenter raised concerns with Riggs Bank’s service as a correspondent baqnk with, among others, Bank of Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone Commercial Bank Ltd; Energobank of Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan; Banco de Cabo Verde; and Banco International SA… Riggs maintained correspondent relationships with each of these banks, except Banco de Cabo Verde; however, two of these four correspondent relationships closed two years ago, and the remaining two closed recently.”
The vague reference to “recently” closed correspondent relationships is why FFW maintains that Riggs is a crime scene, that shouldn’t be sold off and swept under the carpet…
…and there was that little bit about Riggs and Thatcher and an Equitorial Guinea coup plot..(oil, access, location, location, location…
considering that someone had to be paid for those Niger forgeries, and considering so much money disappeared that was pegged for Iraq…and considering SIMSI was involved…
And if you want to put on a really wide-brimmed tin-foil hat, go here
Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 18 2005 1:27 utc | 12
fauxreal,
So NOW I know what I am – a wide brimmed hat.
I’m antiaristo on that thread.
If these things had not happened to me personally I’d never have believed them myself.
Posted by: john | Jul 18 2005 10:46 utc | 13
Yeah, the tin-foil hat vision would help one see
connections with lots of dirty actors including
Viktor Bout’s crowd and the Mossad Kalmanovitch operation in Sierra Leone. It might not just be oil, there are also diamonds, coltan, arms smuggling and “terrorist” financing to be factored into the equation. Although coltan is more relevant to extra-legal trafficking in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it’s still interesting to note that the Cabot Corporation operates a major coltan refining plant in Texas. It’s also of interest how the “terrorist” (i.e. Al Qaeda) funding seems to pass through geographically and temporally proximate channels. The heat on the Bout operation (cf. Chicakli’s site) might explain the recently closed relationships.
This information is, it seems to me, at a more basic and serious level than many other recent “revelations”. Of course, we are still very much in the realm of “plausible conjecture”, but documents like that cited above by fauxreal are precious, and deserve wider publicity.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Jul 18 2005 11:23 utc | 14
What about this idea:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/19/134130/148
Posted by: John Barley | Jul 19 2005 19:08 utc | 15