Smearing the Wilsons and Sliming America

The claim that Joe Wilson’s op-ed from July of 2003 was a pack of lies and
misrepresented the truth is an old rightwing, White House canard.  Here is
what Joe Wilson said in the July 2003 op-ed:
<!–
D(["mb","

n

n

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four n documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The n documents should include the ambassador’s report of my debriefing in Niamey, a n separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my n trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice n president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of n these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is n standard operating procedure.

n

n

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political n leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I n would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was n ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a n legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. n

n

False claim? False claim my ass! There were at least four nreports. We now know that the National Intelligence officer for Africa in nJanuary 2003 briefed the White House that the Iraq/Niger claim was bunk. nEven a partisan Senate Intelligence Committe report cites repeated efforts by nthe intelligence community to warn the President’s advisors that reports nclaiming Iraq was trying to buy uranium, including British reoirts, were not ncredible.

n

What is so bizarre is that the White House did admit that it was wrong to put nthe infamous 16 words into the State of the Union Address (of course, they nblamed the CIA), just days after Wilson’s op-ed appeared. If, as Hiatt nclaims, Wilson’s op-ed was false, then why did the White House correct the nrecord by confirming the substance of his claim?

n

Hiatt also portrays an astonishing ignorance of national security naffairs. He offers up this goofiness referring to Joe Wilson’s n"culpability" for exposing his wife’s job:

n

“,1]
);

//–>

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.

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.

False claim?  False claim my ass!  There were at least four
reports.  We now know that the National Intelligence officer for Africa in
January 2003 briefed the White House that the Iraq/Niger claim was bunk. 
Even a partisan Senate Intelligence Committe report cites repeated efforts by
the intelligence community to warn the President’s advisors that reports
claiming Iraq was trying to buy uranium, including British reoirts, were not
credible.

What is so bizarre is that the White House did admit that it was wrong to put
the infamous 16 words into the State of the Union Address (of course, they
blamed the CIA), just days after Wilson’s op-ed appeared.  If, as Hiatt
claims, Wilson’s op-ed was false, then why did the White House correct the
record by confirming the substance of his claim? 

Hiatt also portrays an astonishing ignorance of national security
affairs.  He offers up this goofiness referring to Joe Wilson’s
“culpability” for exposing his wife’s job:

<!–
D(["mb","n

He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as n Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a n mission and that the answer would point to his wife.

n

Yes, why would the CIA send the former Director of Africa at the National nSecurity Council, a former Ambassador to Gabon, and the last U.S. official to nface down Saddam Hussein to Africa? Because Joe Wilson was uniquely nqualified to do the job. Moreover, this is (or at least was) a common nacitivity by the CIA. My former boss at State Department, Ambassador nMorris D. Busby, made at least two trips I know of at the behest of the CIA nafter leaving government because of his experience in dealing with terrorism, nnarcotics, and Latin America. There are times when the CIA wants ninformation and does not want to expose its own assets.

n

There was nothing on the public record or in any public document identifying nValerie Plame Wilson as a CIA operative. That information was nclassified. Sending Joe on a mission to Africa does not point the finger nat her. Moreover, she did not make the decision to send him. That is nanother of Hiatt’s lies and is routinely echoed by rightwing hacks. As nWalter Pincus reported in the Washington Post in July 2005:

n

n

“They [the White House] said that his 2002 trip to n Niger n was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, but n CIA n officials say that is incorrect. One reason for the confusion about Plame’s n role is that she had arranged a trip for him to n Niger three years n earlier on an unrelated matter, n CIA n officials told The n Washington Post.” n (Washington Post, n 27 July n 2005)

n

Harlow, the former n CIA“,1]
);

//–>

He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as
Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a
mission and that the answer would point to his wife.

Yes, why would the CIA send the former Director of Africa at the National
Security Council, a former Ambassador to Gabon, and the last U.S. official to
face down Saddam Hussein to Africa?  Because Joe Wilson was uniquely
qualified to do the job.  Moreover, this is (or at least was) a common
acitivity by the CIA.  My former boss at State Department, Ambassador
Morris D. Busby, made at least two trips I know of at the behest of the CIA
after leaving government because of his experience in dealing with terrorism,
narcotics, and Latin America.  There are times when the CIA wants
information and does not want to expose its own assets.

There was nothing on the public record or in any public document identifying
Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA operative.  That information was
classified.  Sending Joe on a mission to Africa does not point the finger
at her.  Moreover, she did not make the decision to send him.  That is
another of Hiatt’s lies and is routinely echoed by rightwing hacks.  As
Walter Pincus reported in the Washington Post in July 2005:

“They [the White House] said that his 2002 trip to
Niger
was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, but
CIA
officials say that is incorrect. One reason for the confusion about Plame’s
role is that she had arranged a trip for him to
Niger three years
earlier on an unrelated matter,
CIA
officials told The
Washington Post.”
(Washington Post,
27 July
2005)

Harlow, the former
CIA<!–
D(["mb"," n spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a n grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before n the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he n was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that n Wilson‘s wife had not n authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not n be revealed. n (Washington Post, n 27 July n 2005)

n

We are forced to revisit this nonsense because we have now learned that in naddition to Libby and Rove, Richard Armitage also was shooting off his mouth nabout classified information. Regardless of Armitage’s role as an initial nsource for Novak, we are still left with the fact that Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, nand Scooter Libby abused their power and were actively engaged in a coordinated neffort to discredit Joe Wilson for his behind the scene efforts to alert the npublic to the falsehoods in the President’s State of the Union naddress.

While Richard Armitage may have had no malicious intent, the nsame cannot be said for Cheney, Libby and Rove. They knew exactly what nthey were doing. According to The Washington Post, during the week of July n6, 2003, “two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least nsix Washington journalists.” Sometime after Novak’s column appeared, Rove ncalled Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s “Hardball” and told him that Mr. Wilson’s nwife was “fair game.”

And we have the document released by Special nCounsel Patrick Fitzgerald in United States v. Libby, that provides a copy of nnotes Cheney had written in the margins of Mr. Wilson’s July 6 op-ed. In a court nfiling, Fitzgerald stated that the notes demonstrated that Cheney and Libby were n“acutely focused” on the Wilson column and on rebutting his criticisms of the nWhite House’s handling of the Niger intelligence. Those notes became the nbasis for Republican National Committee talking points circulated and repeated nby Ken Mehlman and others.”,1]
);

//–>
spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a
grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before
the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he
was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that
Wilson‘s wife had not
authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not
be revealed.
(Washington Post,
27 July
2005)

We are forced to revisit this nonsense because we have now learned that in
addition to Libby and Rove, Richard Armitage also was shooting off his mouth
about classified information.  Regardless of Armitage’s role as an initial
source for Novak, we are still left with the fact that Dick Cheney, Karl Rove,
and Scooter Libby abused their power and were actively engaged in a coordinated
effort to discredit Joe Wilson for his behind the scene efforts to alert the
public to the falsehoods in the President’s State of the Union
address.

While Richard Armitage may have had no malicious intent, the
same cannot be said for Cheney, Libby and Rove.  They knew exactly what
they were doing.  According to The Washington Post, during the week of July
6, 2003, “two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least
six Washington journalists.”  Sometime after Novak’s column appeared, Rove
called Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s “Hardball” and told him that Mr. Wilson’s
wife was “fair game.”

And we have the document released by Special
Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in United States v. Libby, that provides a copy of
notes Cheney had written in the margins of Mr. Wilson’s July 6 op-ed. In a court
filing, Fitzgerald stated that the notes demonstrated that Cheney and Libby were
“acutely focused” on the Wilson column and on rebutting his criticisms of the
White House’s handling of the Niger intelligence.  Those notes became the
basis for Republican National Committee talking points circulated and repeated
by Ken Mehlman and others.<!–
D(["mb","

n

Why is this relevant? Today the Bush Administration is once again ntrying to manufacture a case for war. They are calling critics of its npolicies on Iran and Iraq "appeasers" and decrying the lack of intelligence on nIran. It is deja vu all over again to quote Yogi Berra. They nwhine about a lack of intelligence on Iran but refuse to accept responsibility nfor their own role in destroying Valerie Plame’s undercover work, which was nfocused on monitoring the flow of nuclear technology to Iran. They may not nhave fully understood what Val was doing because of her cover status. But nthat’s the point. They don’t think these things true. Their only ngoal is political survival.

n

Perhpas the new attention on the Plame affair will fuel public support for naccountability in government. The gang of political thugs currently in the nWhite House refuse to be held accountable for anything. With the help of nenablers like Fred Hiatt and Christopher Hitchens and others in the main stream nmedia, it is no wonder that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld skate from disaster to ndisaster, oblivious to the field of debris left in their wake.

n

We must also remember that the Government sanctioned attack on the Wilsons is nnot an isolated event. Just ask former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill or nNational Security Advisor Richard Clarke. Add to this list the names of nthe two CIA Baghdad Chiefs of Station who were savaged for their prescient early nwarnings that Iraq was moving into a civil war. The Plame/Wilson affair nstands as a stark reminder that President Bush and his minions prefer destroying nthose who call them to account for failed policies rather than admit error and ntake corrective measures that will serve the longterm interests of the United nStates. As we move towards a new war with Iran, we should not be surprised nthat people who know the truth are reluctant to come forward. If you nchoose to blow the whistle you are choosing career suicide and a full frontal nassault on your character. In smearing the Wilsons, Bush and Cheney also nare sliming America.”,1]
);

//–>

Why is this relevant?  Today the Bush Administration is once again
trying to manufacture a case for war.  They are calling critics of its
policies on Iran and Iraq “appeasers” and decrying the lack of intelligence on
Iran.   It is deja vu all over again to quote Yogi Berra.  They
whine about a lack of intelligence on Iran but refuse to accept responsibility
for their own role in destroying Valerie Plame’s undercover work, which was
focused on monitoring the flow of nuclear technology to Iran.  They may not
have fully understood what Val was doing because of her cover status.  But
that’s the point.  They don’t think these things true.  Their only
goal is political survival. 

Perhpas the new attention on the Plame affair will fuel public support for
accountability in government.  The gang of political thugs currently in the
White House refuse to be held accountable for anything.  With the help of
enablers like Fred Hiatt and Christopher Hitchens and others in the main stream
media, it is no wonder that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld skate from disaster to
disaster, oblivious to the field of debris left in their wake. 

We must also remember that the Government sanctioned attack on the Wilsons is
not an isolated event.  Just ask former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill or
National Security Advisor Richard Clarke.  Add to this list the names of
the two CIA Baghdad Chiefs of Station who were savaged for their prescient early
warnings that Iraq was moving into a civil war.  The Plame/Wilson affair
stands as a stark reminder that President Bush and his minions prefer destroying
those who call them to account for failed policies rather than admit error and
take corrective measures that will serve the longterm interests of the United
States.  As we move towards a new war with Iran, we should not be surprised
that people who know the truth are reluctant to come forward.  If you
choose to blow the whistle you are choosing career suicide and a full frontal
assault on your character.  In smearing the Wilsons, Bush and Cheney also
are sliming America.<!–
D(["mb","