0
votes

A review Of The Libby, Wilson, Plame Case, Including Wilson's NY Times Publication.

posted February 28, 2007 - 4:41pm
A review Of The Libby, Wilson, Plame Case, Including Wilson's NY Times Publication.


Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame

With the jurors in the Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial in the sixth day of negotiations, this is a good time to review some of the facts of this important case. Following the concise review, I have for your convience, the complete text of the Joseph Wilson letter, published in the New York Times, which is so substantial to this case.
The President believed weapon grade Uranium was being purchased by Iraq from Africa. An investigation, by Joseph Wilson, a CIA operative, proved this was false. Joseph Wilson was sent to Africa at the order of Valerie Plame, his wife, apparently a high ranking CIA official. When the President sought to suppress the indications of the investigation, that Iraq indeed had no nuclear capacity, or interest, career diplomat Joseph Wilson came forward bringing the results of the investigation directly to the American people. Infuriated, G W Bush sought to punish Wilson by exposing and endangering Wilson's wife, Valerie Plume.

Here is the statement that Joseph Wilson made on July 6, 2003 to the New York Times regarding the Bush reasons for going to war with Iraq.

"The President believed weapon grade Uranium was being purchased by Iraq from Africa. An investigation proved this was false. When the President sought to suppress the indications of the investigation, career diplomat Joseph Wilson came forward bringing the results of the investigation directly to the American people. Infuriated, G W Bush sought to punish Wilson by exposing and endangering Wilson's wife, Valerie Plume. Iraq had no nuclear capacity, weapon oriented or otherwise. " BBJ

Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times
What I Didn't Find in Africa
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.
It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.
The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, 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. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)
Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.
Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.
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. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.
I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.
But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.
Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.
Copyright 2003



Comments

This is a matter of

This is a matter of perception, and your perception is flawed. Answer this for me: How can a jury convict someone of exposing a "covert agent" if nobody involved in the trial is allowed to know whether that agent is or was covert? And if the intention was to never reveal whether she was covert or not, how could you seek prosecution? If the truth was never going to be revealed, there could not have been a legitimate investigation in order to prosecute someone. That's why Fitzgerald was given the authority to find anything he could along the way...maybe a slip up from a man who underwent many hours of questioning and happened to commit a process crime in a case where no conviction could ever be made for any real crime. Do you not understand how the law works? Furthermore, I know the entire CIA is not out to get the current administration, but there are elements in it that share differing opinions - just like you and me - who are fully capable of releasing "information" whether it is true or not in order to make Bush look bad. It happens all the time in Washington. Also, if everyone in the world is saying that Plame was covert, why will they not tell ANYONE involved in the trial whether she was or not and provide documentation of this? And don't give me the "it's classified" excuse because trials involving highly sensitive and classified information take place quite often. It makes no difference anyway now that she's already been "exposed." If there is no intention of sharing this information with the people who are supposed to convict the guilty party of leaking her identity, then how can you proceed with any sort of prosecution? It defies logic. Finally...if it was an investigation into who leaked this information, it was Richard Armitage and he admitted it himself at the beginning of this investigation. Fitzgerald knew it and said nothing hoping to trap somebody within the administration. These are facts you're going to have to deal with. Libby isn't being tried for leaking Plame's identity. He's being tried for a process crime...don't forget that.

a matter of perception

Sir, you have adequately stated the administration case. Evidently you believe that the CIA operates for the purpose of embarassing the administration. Wilson is an agent, an operative. Since his wife suggested, or authorized he be sent there, we must assume she is a high ranking agent. Some assume she is a poor clerk in an office somewhere, but the press and the court system just can't reveal her true position, because, ironic, that is classified information! The blame in this important violation of law goes beyond Armitage; it goes through Cheney, right to the top. You say the president can declassify information.. can he do so with impunity, in idle conversation, for self serving measures, which include ther intentional endangerment of CIA agents? I don't think so. Watch for the outcome of this case.

Wow...where to begin. First

Wow...where to begin. First of all, your "facts" that you conveniently reviewed for us are wrong. Joseph Wilson was not a "CIA operative," he was only an ambassador and a businessman. He was not "ordered" by his wife to go to Africa, he was recommended by her to her superiors. She was not "high ranking" either, just an operative. Joe Wilson's trip to Africa was an attempt by workers in the CIA to make this administration look bad. There are even questions about George Tenet's involvement in this, who was pretty much fired by Bush. It was not Bush who sought to "expose" Valerie Plame, supposedly seeking revenge for what Wilson's "report" said. When his name surfaced and his finding's were made public, the Bush Administration didn't know who the guy was. They found out about who sent him and why, and wanted to let people know that it was not done by their hand and they knew nothing about it. Where does Libby come into this? He was asking the administration's lawyers whether or not the President had the authority to declassify information, and whether Plame was a covert agent or not. Apparently she was not and the President does have authority to declassify information. This doesn't matter however, because her identity was already given by Richard Armitage before anyone in the administration supposedly "leaked" it with malicious intent. The entire investigation afterwards was a sham since Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald already knew who the leaker was...Armitage. The Department of Justice was apparently working with these political hacks in the CIA to try to embarrass the office of the president by giving Fitzgerald the authority to start an open-ended investigation into anyone who may commit a process crime or what have you during the entire debacle. The judge in this trial has even told the jury, in reference to Plame's status (covert or not), "I don't know, based on what has been presented to me in this case, what her status was," and it seems the jurors will never know either. So, it is obvious that you can now be charged with a process crime in a case where there may not have even been a crime to warrant an investigation to begin with. And if the investigation was necessary, the guilty party was known from the beginning. His name is Richard Armitage. Just wanted to correct the record, Johnny.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text. URLs will automatically be converted to links.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <br> <b> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <span> <object> <param> <embed> <table> <tr> <td> <div>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

Join Xomba Today

Do you like to write? Would you like to make a little extra money on the side? These people do. Join the Xomba community today.
Become a Member