Larry Johnson – Page 25

Iraq Sitrep: One Marine’s View

by Larry C. Johnson (bio below)

I received the following from a retired Army officer who in turn received it from another military buddy. It provides an excellent ground level view of what U.S. Marines are experiencing in Western Iraq.

It accurately reflects the view of our soldiers that they are “winning” the ground game. Unfortunately, they are thinking conventionally about an unconventional war. In a conventional war you degrade an opposing army’s capabilities by killing and wounding the officiers and soldiers. Kill enough and the opposing army will surrender. However, that tactic is not effective against an unconventional insurgent war. A metric such as body counts does not provide a good measure of the decline of insurgent capabilities.

Defeating insurgents also requires a political solution, one that cannot be imposed by force alone unless one is ready to commit mass murder.

I have no doubt our soldiers and marines believe they are winning on the ground. Nonetheless, as is acknowledged in this email, the U.S. does not have enough troops on the ground to deal effectively with the threat.

I disagree with the notion that the media is getting the story wrong or that the media is somehow to blame because things are not going well on the ground. Despite our military’s success in killing and capturing insurgents, we still do not have effective control over key parts of the country.

As I have said many times before, our inability to keep the road from downtown Baghdad to the International Airport open is an unfortunate reminder that we still don’t control Iraq.

Update [2005-11-10 9:9:31 by susanhu]: On his blog, Pat Lang has published a rebuttal to the assessments below, beginning with: “Someone said it upthread that this is a tactical view of the scene lacking in operational/strategic dimension. That is very true. The commentary that the bulk of insurgency is made up of foreign fighters is disturbing. But, it is unrealistic. …”

BEGIN THE MARINE’S ASSESSMENT:

This from a former Marine first sergeant, whose son recently returned from Iraq – (the boy is home from his first tour, going back in early 2006, and early re-enlisted for another 4 years).

Also below: Rating U.S. weapons … Bad guy weapons … Who are the bad guys? … Bad Guy Tactics

Hello to all my fellow gunners, military buffs, veterans and interested guys. A couple of weekends ago I got to spend time with my son Semper Fi, who was on his first leave since returning from Iraq. He is well (a little thin), and already bored. He will be returning to Iraq for a second tour in early ’06 and has already re-enlisted early for 4 more years. He loves the Marine Corps and is actually looking forward to returning to Iraq.

Semper Fi spent 7 months at “Camp Blue Diamond” in Ramada. Aka: Fort Apache. He saw and did a lot and the following is what he told me about weapons, equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous info which may be of interest to you. Nothing is by any means classified. No politics here, just a Marine with a bird’s eye view’s opinions:

The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Semper Fi says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it’s lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.
The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly. (that’s fun in the middle of a firefight).
The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight.
Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing houses to good effect.
The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun, developed to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!). Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts ’em down. Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.
The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. “Ma deuce” is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, puts their dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.
The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put ’em down with a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45’s are being re-issued en masse.
The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round.
The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy. Definitely here to stay.
The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win mag. Heavily modified Remington 700’s. Great performance. Snipers have been used heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock’s record for confirmed kills with OVER 100.
The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as shit to wear, almost
unbearable in the summer heat (which averages over 120 degrees). Also, the enemy now goes for head shots whenever possible. All the bullshit about the “old” body armor making our guys vulnerable to the IED’s was a non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn’t make any difference at all in most cases.
Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more enemy being whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We’ve all seen the videos.
Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon mounted and personal lights are Surefire’s, and the troops love ’em. Invaluable for night urban operations. Semper Fi carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it.

I can’t help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old!!!!!!!!! With all our technology, it’s the WWII and Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!!!! The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.

Bad guy weapons:

Mostly AK47’s The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt fed light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the
enemy mostly shoots like shit. Undisciplined “spray and pray” type fire. However, they are seeing more and more precision weapons, especially sniper rifles. (Iran, again) Fun fact: Captured enemy have
apparently marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told at Jihadi Tech that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let’s just say they know better now.
The RPG: Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys. Simple, reliable and as common as dogshit. The enemy responded to our up-armored humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at point blank range. Still killing a lot of our guys.
The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot found in Semper Fi’s area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155mm artillery shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone, and the explosions are enormous. You’re not safe in any vehicle, even an M1 tank. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately, they are using much more sophisticated “shaped charges”
(Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor. Fact: Most of the ready made IED’s are supplied by Iran, who is also providing terrorists (Hezbollah types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics.
That’s why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are ingenious, the latest being shaped charges in styrofoam containers spray painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all
Iraqi roads. We find about 40% before they detonate, and the bomb disposal guys are unsung heroes of this war.
Mortars and rockets: Very prevalent. The Soviet era 122mm rockets (with an 18km range) are becoming more prevalent. One of Semper Fi’s NCO’s lost a leg to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage “inside the wire”. Semper Fi’s base was hit almost daily his entire time there by mortar and rocket fire, often at night to disrupt sleep patterns and cause fatigue (It did). More of a psychological weapon than anything else. The enemy mortar teams would jump out of vehicles, fire a few rounds, and then haul ass in a matter of seconds.
Bad guy technology: Simple yet effective. Most communication is by cell and satellite phones, and also by email on laptops. They use handheld GPS units for navigation and “Google earth” for overhead views of our positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and easily obtained. Their explosives and bomb technology is TOP OF THE LINE. Night vision technology is rare. They are very careless with their equipment and the captured GPS units and laptops are treasure troves of Intel when captured.

Who are the bad guys?

Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi–Al Qaeda group. They operate mostly in Anbar province (Fallujah and Ramadi). These are mostly “foreigners”, non-Iraqi Sunni Arab Jihadists from all over the
Muslim world (and Europe).

Most enter Iraq through Syria (with, of course, the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian Govt.) , and then travel down the “rat line” which is the trail of towns along the
Euphrates River that we’ve been hitting hard for the last few months. Some are virtually untrained young Jihadists that often end up as suicide bombers or in “sacrifice squads”. Most, however, are hard core terrorists from all the usual suspects (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.) These are the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads off.

The Chechens (many of whom are Caucasian), are supposedly the most ruthless and the best fighters. (they have been fighting the Russians for years).

In the Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired (and led) Iraqi Shiites. The Iranian Shiia have been very adept at infiltrating the Iraqi local govt.’s, the police forces and the Army. The have had a massive spy and agitator network there since the Iran-Iraq war in the early 80’s. Most of the Saddam loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long ago.

Bad Guy Tactics:

When they are engaged on an infantry level they get their asses kicked every time. Brave, but stupid. Suicidal Banzai-type charges were very common earlier in the war and still occur. They will literally
sacrifice 8-10 man teams in suicide squads by sending them screaming and firing Ak’s and RPG’s directly at our bases just to probe the defenses. They get mowed down like grass every time (see the M2 and M240 above). Semper Fi’s base was hit like this often.

When engaged, they have a tendency to flee to the same building, probably for what they think will be a glorious last stand. Instead, we call in air and that’s the end of that more often than not.

These hole-ups are referred to as Alpha Whiskey Romeo’s (Allah’s Waiting Room). We have the laser guided ground-air thing down to a science. The fast movers, mostly Marine F-18’s, are taking an ever increasing toll on the enemy. When caught out in the open, the helicopter gunships and AC-130 Spectre gunships cut them to ribbons with cannon and rocket fire, especially at night. Interestingly, artillery is hardly used at all. Fun fact: The enemy death toll is supposedly between 45-50 thousand. That is why we’re seeing less and less infantry attacks and more IED, suicide bomber shit. The new strategy is simple: attrition.

The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties and therefore schools, hospitals and (especially) Mosques are
locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons and ammo and flee to when engaged.

They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi govt. Kidnapping of family members (especially children) is common to influence people they are trying to influence but can’t reach, such as local govt. officials, clerics, tribal leaders, etc.).

The first thing our guys are told is “don’t get captured”. They know that if captured they will be tortured and beheaded on the internet. Zarqawi openly offers bounties for anyone who brings him a live American serviceman. This motivates the criminal element who otherwise don’t give a shit about the war. A lot of the beheading victims were actually kidnapped by common criminals and sold to Zarqawi. As such, for our guys, every fight is to the death. Surrender is not an option.

The Iraqis are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren’t worth a shit. Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but they are getting better.

It is widely viewed that Zarqawi’s use of
suicide bombers, en masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake. Many Iraqis were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the Army and the police forces went up, along with their
motivation. It also led to an exponential increase in good intel because the Iraqi’s are sick of the insurgent attacks against civilians. The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.

According to the marine, morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them.

The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see shit like “Are we losing in Iraq” on TV and the print media. For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership.

Bottom line though, and they all say this, there are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren’t enough troops in-theater
to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just can’t stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally (with, of course, permanent US bases there).

Conclusion of e-mail from marine.

……………………………………………………..

Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm that helps corporations and governments manage threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism (as a Deputy Director), is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC’s Nightline, NBC’s Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world. Further bio details.

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

Trying to Smear Joe Wilson

by Larry C. Johnson (bio below)

There they go again. Rightwing hacks making up facts. The latest comes from retired Generals and Fox News Contributors Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney who went on John Batchelor’s radio show and claimed:

that Joe Wilson more than once in 2002 in the green room at Fox New Channel in Washington D.C. boasted about his wife the “CIA desk officer.” McInerney has the same memory and more, since both he and Vallely were on FNC between 150 and 200 times in 2002 each…

Well boys and girls, I too was a Fox News Contributor in 2002 and spent a lot of time in the Green Room with both Vallely and McInerney. I saw them but never saw Joe Wilson. What is really curious is that I know I spent more time with Vallely and McInerney than Joe Wilson ever did and the subject of my wife (or their wives) never came up.

I first met Joe Wilson in the Spring of 2003 and he did not mention his wife.

We were at a seminar hosted by the Nixon Center. At the time I did not know that Joe had married the woman I knew as Valerie P. Although Joe knew that I worked at the CIA he did not take that opportunity to unburden himself of protecting his wife’s identity. In fact, he said nothing about his wife. Not even a wink and a nod.

Sadly, Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney have a track record of saying silly things on air and getting their facts flummoxed. Vallely, for example, appeared on the O’Reilly Factor on 8 May, 2003 and offered the following ludicrous claim:

It appears from reports that we are getting now that the mobile vehicles that they had, you know they found one up north that was sanitized. They found all the historic data of a weapons program but haven’t found the actual biological or chemical weapons.

It appears that a lot of those weapons were transited out of Baghdad through Syria and now are buried in the Bekaa Valley as deep as 30 to 40 meters. The Syrians are looking the other way. The only way this is going to be validated, Bill, we are going to have to take on that Bekaa Valley challenge some way or another to validate if this is true or not.

Sorry Paul. You were duped.

What is so pathetic is that both Vallely and McInerney present themselves as military experts on special operations when neither has held any position of any importance with those forces. In fact, neither has ever held compartmented clearances required to know about those special programs. Given their track record of getting military facts wrong there is no doubt they are wrong about Joe Wilson.
……………………………………………………..

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

Man on Fire–Not!

by Larry C. Johnson (bio below)

I think Dick Cheney has been watching too many Hollywood flicks that glorify torture. He needs, instead, to get on the ground and talk to the folks he is ostensibly trying to empower to torture. Unlike Dick I have spoken with three CIA operations officers in the last three months–all who have worked on terrorism at the highest levels–and not one endorses torture or believes it will help us. In fact, they believe it will hurt us on many levels.

Two of my friends served in Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. If the suicide bombing of the World Trade Centers was not enough justification for hooking Haji up to battery cables, I don’t know what is. My friends recognized correctly that their mission was to gather intelligence not create new enemies. If you inflict enough pain on someone they will give you information, but, unless you kill them, they will hold a grudge. As far as the information goes there is no guarantee it will be correct.

What real CIA field officers know from their work with actual sources is that whatever shortterm benefit can be derived from torture will be offset by the new enemy you have created. It is better to build a relationship of trust, no matter how painstaking, rather than gain a short term benefit that puts you on par with a Nazi concentration camp guard.

And that’s the point. … Continued below:
We should never use our own fear of being attacked as justification to dehumanize ourselves and another human being in our pursuit of so-called truth.

Tell that to Alan Dershowitz. He is big on the ticking nuclear bomb scenario–we will torture the suspected terrorist to obtain the necessary info to save lives of innocents.

Of course, we have heard this justification once before at Nuremberg in the aftermath of the Holocaust. What irony that someone known for both his expertise as a lawyer and his faith as a Jew would endorse a practice both illegal and immoral.

Perhaps now we can begin to understand how Adolf Hitler could rally German Christians to do the unthinkable to Jews and Gypsyies in concentration camps. If you convince people that they are at risk unless they move to destroy those who represent a perceived threat, regardless of the methods and means, then you are on your way to atrocities.

Before the CIA gets too much blame for promoting the torture mentality we ought to ask Hollywood, “What the hell are you doing?”

In one of Denzel Washington’s last outings we could watch him give a corrupt Mexican cop a hand grenade enema. He also taped the hands of another errant cop to the steering wheel and began to snip off digits in an effort to find out the whereabouts of a kidnapped child. Is this Cheney’s secret fantasy? To be a rampaging, black super hero?

Thank God that John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other Republicans are standing up to crazy Dick Cheney. Cheney’s plea to allow CIA or other intelligence officers to torture would be the death of the CIA as a professional intelligence service and another stain on the reputation of the United States.

We’re losing our claim to being the City on the Hill as a beacon of light and hope to the world. Instead, we’re morphing into the Dark Tower of Lord Sauron in the land of Mordor. Sauron’s a big believer in torture, just ask Frodo.

……………………………………………………..

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

Secret CIA Prisons: Preemptive Strike or Surprise Attack?

by Larry C. Johnson

Dana Priest’s Wednesday scoop in the Washington Post that the CIA has several secret prisons holding suspected terrorists in “friendly” nations, including some in the former Soviet Union and East Bloc, has folks legitimately outraged and wanting to ask tough questions. Based on preliminary checks I’ve made with folks who “know”, the story is solid. What fascinates me in light of the Libby indictment, however, is who tipped her off? There are two likely scenarios:

Scenario One — Priest was tipped by CIA personnel, most likely recently retired, who think Porter Goss is being far too accommodating of President Bush and Don Rumsfeld. The CIA wants to play tough with terrorists, but does not want to stray into the arena where the Agency can be accused of massive human rights violations. CIA officers who I know personally, who have been on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, are uniformly opposed to torture and alarmed by the push into the twilight zone beyond the Geneva Conventions. Yet, there are some CIA officers who are carrying out these orders without asking too many questions. The few remaining Grey beards who have been through previous scandals (Does the Church Committee ring a bell?) are legitimately worried that the acts committed in the name of fighting the war on terrorism will be used to further discredit what is left of the CIA. In other words, this was a preemptive strike by CIA officers not happy with Goss who want to put the Director on the defensive and stop his ongoing effort to politicize the Directorate of Operations.

Scenario Two — Priest was tipped by NSC insiders who, angered over the Libby affair and paranoid that the CIA is trying to weaken the Bush Presidency, decided to drive a stake in the heart of the CIA. With the focus on the CIA trying to fend off Congressional investigators there is a chance that the focus on the outing of CIA officer Valerie Wilson will shift to the misdeeds of the CIA clandestine service.

My money is on Scenario One, but that is just an opinion. Regardless of who leaked this information the story is terrible news for the CIA. It conjures up once again the image of a rogue elephant run amuck. It may even ensnare the current head of the State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, Hank Crumpton, who was working in the Counter Terrorism Center at CIA when these “prisons” were set up. That, in my opinion, would be awful because the early word on Crumpton is that he is the best talent the S/CT shop has had in many years and is making significant strides in trying to coordinate the U.S. Government’s chaotic and disjointed counter terrorism effort. Just some initial thoughts.

……………………………………………………..

Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

Cross-posted at EuroTrib.com.

Is Max Boot Using Oxycontin?

by Larry C. Johnson (bio below)

Help me save the rightwing in America. As they struggle with the aftermath of Scooter Libby’s indictment, they are exhibiting denial and delusional thought patterns. Perhaps their behavior is a consequence of physical disabilities such as hearing loss or attention deficit disorder. How else to account for a rash of bizarre charges offered up to explain away Scooter’s legal troubles?

For starters, why can’t conservative talkers and bloggers accept the fact that Valerie Plame was undercover until exposed in Bob Novak’s column? Patrick Fitzgerald spoke in English and did not stutter when he said very clearly at the start of his press conference last Friday, “Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown”. You can only blow a cover if a cover exists. I can understand why Rush Limbaugh had trouble hearing this (he became deaf because he abused oxycontin). But what excuse does Sean Hannity and Max Boot have? Could it be that the whole right wing also is abusing oxycontin?

Then there is the claim that the law to protect intelligence identities could not have been violated because Valerie Wilson had not lived overseas for six years. Too bad this is not what the law stipulates. The law actually requires that a covered person “served” overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

How about the charge that Joe Wilson lied because he denied that it was his wife who got him sent to Niger in February 2002 to check out claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium?

Ladies and gentlemen, pay close attention—CIA officials in July 2003 and in July 2005 have said on the record that Valerie Wilson played no role in the decision to send Joe Wilson to Niger. Although the Senate Intelligence Committee report from July of 2004 tried to insinuate otherwise, Valerie’s bosses asked her to write a memo outlining her husband’s qualifications for a mission to Niger and she introduced her husband at a meeting (and then left). She was an undercover case officer, not a manager with the authority to make such a decision.

Then there is the claim that Joe Wilson’s op-ed from July of 2003 was a pack of lies and misrepresented the truth. … continued below:
The right wing points to the Senate Intelligence Committee report of July 2004 to prove their point. I don’t dispute that the Senate report makes those claims, but the average reader does not know is that report is filled with critical mistakes and deceptions. For example, the report asserts that Wilson actually provided fresh details about a 1999 meeting between Niger’s prime minister and an Iraqi delegation that bolstered the case for a uranium buy. Not only does Wilson deny this, but the Senate report corroborates his denial by including testimony from the US Ambassador to Niger who states that she and Joe Wilson had reached the same conclusion—the allegation that Iraq was trying to buy uranium was 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. Moreover, the much ballyhooed Senate Intelligence report cites repeated efforts by the intelligence community to warn the President’s advisors not to rely on the various intel reports, including those of the British, because they were not credible.

The right wing—including the Limbaughs, the Boots, and the Hannitys—are having trouble accepting these facts. Some right wing websites, for example, are circulating the claim that the United States actually has discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. These sites list biological agents and chemical weapons supposedly discovered in some squirrel hole in the Iraqi desert. Too bad the Bush Administration did not get the news bulletin. Given the bad news hitting George Bush during the last couple of weeks he could sure use some good news.

Meanwhile, Bush supporters have taken refuge in an Alice in Wonderland World where liars are truth tellers and truth tellers are liars. Unfortunately their venom is directed at Joseph Wilson and his wife, two Americans whose only “crime” is that they have served their country and tried to protect it from harm. If that makes one a criminal, count me in.

……………………………………………………..

No Underlying Crime, Not!

by Larry C. Johnson

The Republican spin machine is fully engaged and the word is out on the indictment of Scooter Libby: NO UNDERLYING CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

In other words, Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not file any charges against Libby for compromising a CIA officer’s cover under the Identities Protection Act. Nope. He just charged Libby with technicalities like perjury and obstruction of justice.

Ignore for a moment that Fitzgerald said at the start of his press conference that Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown. Cover your ears and pretend that he really did not mean to say that prior to Robert Novak’s infamous column her association with the CIA was known only in classified circles.

Here is a novel idea. Fitzgerald is proscecuting Libby because he has obstructed or blocked or hindered (you choose the word) the investigation. He, Libby, has refused to provide the evidence he has of the crime of helping finger Valerie as an intelligence officer. As a result, he gets an obstruction of justice charge and lying to a federal law enforcement officer. Just because Patrick Fitzgerald has not yet collected sufficient evident to charge Libby with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, because Libby has tried to cover up his crime, does not mean a crime was not committed.

So, let’s keep a list of all those who repeat this mantra, but especially keep track of the media luminaries who say it. At a mnimum we will see the names of William Safire, Andrea Mitchell, Pete Williams, David Brooks, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and Bob Woodward. Then, one day (hopefully sooner rather than later), Patrick Fitzgerald will file charges. At that point, all of these Administration apologists will have to come to grips with the fact that senior Bush Administration officials engaged in a conspiracy to expose the identity of an undercover CIA officer. Looks like the term “journalism” is in jeopardy of becoming a synonym for “administration cheerleader.”

……………………………………………………..

by Larry C. Johnson

The Republican spin machine is fully engaged and the word is out on the indictment of Scooter Libby: NO UNDERLYING CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

……………………………………………………..

Larry C. Johnson
Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts

Bob Woodward, Lost in Cronyism?

by Larry C. Johnson (bio below)

How is it that one of the most revered investigative reporters of our generation is such a dunce when it comes to outing a CIA officer? If you had a chance to watch Woodward’s “dazzling” performance on Larry King Live this past Thursday, you would have been treated to the spectacle of incurious Bob dismissing the leaking of a CIA officer’s identity as gossip run amuck. Nothing more, nothing less. Yep, nothing to report here, move along.

Yet, for those more in touch with the inner workings of Washington, Woodward’s vain attempt to downplay this matter sure smacks of someone trying to protect his sources. In a recent Washington Post puff piece on Lewis “Scooter” Libby we are told that Scooter:

attends the weekly gathering of Bush’s top economic advisers and — according to Bob Woodward’s book “Plan of Attack,” about the Bush administration’s run-up to the Iraq war — was one of two non-principals who attended National Security Council meetings with the president after Sept. 11, 2001 (the other was Condoleezza Rice’s then-deputy, Stephen Hadley).

Isn’t that special? Is it possible that Scooter has been a source that helped Bob Woodward get his inside scoops?

Nah, I am sure it is a coincidence. A few years back our intrepid investigative reporter Bob Woodward was on the cutting edge of information about the Clinton Administration and China. In the spring of 1998 Bob broke the story that China was trying to influence the U.S. election through carefully placed campaign contributions. Don Lambro of the Washington Times said:

Continued below:

by Larry C. Johnson (bio below)

attends the weekly gathering of Bush’s top economic advisers and — according to Bob Woodward’s book “Plan of Attack,” about the Bush administration’s run-up to the Iraq war — was one of two non-principals who attended National Security Council meetings with the president after Sept. 11, 2001 (the other was Condoleezza Rice’s then-deputy, Stephen Hadley).

Isn’t that special? Is it possible that Scooter has been a source that helped Bob Woodward get his inside scoops?

Continued below:

The disclosure is a big breakthrough in the 18-month-old investigation, because for the first time someone has shown a paper trail of illegal campaign money from China to the United States that was intended to influence our elections. This was the story that Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward first broke and that Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson dug into before he was forced to end his hearings in December because of a one-year deadline that recalcitrant Democrats had demanded.

So, which now infamous chief of staff to a Vice President was working as a counsel to a Hill committee that happened to be investigating this story? Gee, does Scooter Libby sound familiar?

With that background let us consider some of Bob’s “investigatory” insight into the outing of a clandestine CIA officer. Here’s a doozy:

WOODWARD: . . .Now there are a couple of things that I think are true. First of all this began not as somebody launching a smear campaign that it actually — when the story comes out I’m quite confident we’re going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter and that somebody learned that Joe Wilson’s wife had worked at the CIA and helped him get this job going to Niger to see if there was an Iraq/Niger uranium deal.

And, there’s a lot of innocent actions in all of this but what has happened this prosecutor, I mean I used to call Mike Isikoff when he worked at the “Washington Post” the junkyard dog. Well this is a junkyard dog prosecutor and he goes everywhere and asks every question and turns over rocks and rocks under rocks and so forth.

Let’s see. Curious Bob is no longer curious. Nope. Nothing to report here. In fact, his remarks parrot Republican talking points. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

Of course, maybe Bob just is not paying attention to what is going on at the Washington Post or has abidicated his duty to break news in the paper. While on the Larry King show this week, Woodward announced:

They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson’s wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn’t have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger of any kind and there was just some embarrassment.

Great news Bob, except there was this other little headline in Saturday’s Washington Post:

CIA Yet to Assess Harm From Plame’s Exposure

So, either you had real news and didn’t share it with your reporters or you are just making this up? I personally suspect the latter. I have spoken to some people who are in a position to know. There has been damage. My source, however, declined to share classified information.

Let’s face it. It is a sickening sight when a man who got his start in Washington as a take-no-prisoners investigative journalist has decided to join the prisoners and excuse their conduct as they destroy national security assets and lie, bald face lie, to the American people. Heck of a job, Bobby!

……………………………………………………..

Update on the Lies of Ambassador Wilson

by Larry C. Johnson

The level of disinformation being put out against Joe Wilson is amazing and appalling. What is really remarkable are the number of prominent journalists (Andrea Mitchell, Dana Milbank spring to mind) who are repeating conventional wisdom as truth without taking time to check out the facts.

The radical right is desperate and grasping at straws in the wake of Scooter Libby’s indictment. They are carrying copies to most TV interviews of the report by the Senate Intelligence Committee from July 2004 regarding what the intelligence community knew and reported on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. One poor soul on Wolf Blitzer the other day tried reading from it in a desperate bid to try to make Joe Wilson the focus of the story. Sorry guys, Joe didn’t get indicted for perjury, Scooter did. Let’s keep our liars list up to date. Okay?

That said, it is also worth noting that the Senate Intel report is an abomination. It is full of misleading information and was deliberately crafted to shield Vice President Cheney and his staff from scrutiny. Unfortunately, the Democrats rolled over and signed off on the report.

Despite the flaws in the report there are key tidbits that help blow the cover off of the White House scheme to cook the intel books. I am going to post up a couple of items on this matter in the next couple of days. For starters I wanted to ensure that everyone has had a chance to read Joe Wilson’s letter to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller.

One thing is clear–it ain’t Joe Wilson that’s doing the lying.

Joseph C. Wilson, IV

July 15, 2004

The Honorable Pat Roberts

Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

The Honorable Jay Rockefeller

Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Dear Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller,

I read with great surprise and consternation the Niger portion of Senators Roberts, Bond and Hatch “additional comments to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee’s Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessment on Iraq. I am taking this opportunity to clarify some of the issues raised in these comments.

First conclusion: “The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee.”

That is not true. The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife sent to her superiors that says “my husband has good relations with the PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines, (not to mention lots of French contacts) both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip. Indeed it is little more than a recitation of my contacts and bona fides. The conclusion is reinforced by comments in the body of the report that a CPD reports officer stated the “the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’” (page 39) and a State Department Intelligence and Research officer that the “meeting was ‘apparently convened by [the former ambassador’s] wife who had the idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.”

In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting …

Continued below:

by Larry C. Johnson

One thing is clear–it ain’t Joe Wilson that’s doing the lying.

Joseph C. Wilson, IV

July 15, 2004

The Honorable Pat Roberts

Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

The Honorable Jay Rockefeller

Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Dear Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller,

I read with great surprise and consternation the Niger portion of Senators Roberts, Bond and Hatch “additional comments to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee’s Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessment on Iraq. I am taking this opportunity to clarify some of the issues raised in these comments.

First conclusion: “The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee.”

That is not true. The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife sent to her superiors that says “my husband has good relations with the PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines, (not to mention lots of French contacts) both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip. Indeed it is little more than a recitation of my contacts and bona fides. The conclusion is reinforced by comments in the body of the report that a CPD reports officer stated the “the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’” (page 39) and a State Department Intelligence and Research officer that the “meeting was ‘apparently convened by [the former ambassador’s] wife who had the idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.”

In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting …

Continued below:

In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting at which the subject of my trip was raised. Neither was the CPD Reports officer. After having escorted me into the room, she departed the meeting to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It was at that meeting where the question of my traveling to Niger was broached with me for the first time and came only after a thorough discussion of what the participants did and did not know about the subject. My bona fides justifying the invitation to the meeting were the trip I had previously taken to Niger to look at other uranium related questions as well as 20 years living and working in Africa, and personal contacts throughout the Niger government. Neither the CPD reports officer nor the State analyst were in the chain of command to know who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the Reports Officer has a different conclusion about Valerie’s role than the one offered in the “additional comments”. I urge the committee to reinterview the officer and publicly publish his statement.

It is unfortunate that the report failed to include the CIA’s position on this matter. If the staff had done so it would undoubtedly have been given the same evidence as provided to Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce in July, 2003. They reported on July 22 that:

“A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked ‘alongside’ the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. “But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. ‘They (the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story) were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,’ he said. ‘There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,’ he said. ‘I can’t figure out what it could be.’ “We paid his (Wilson’s) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you’d have to pay big bucks to go there,’ the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said. he was reimbursed only for expenses.” (Newsday article Columnist blows CIA Agent’s cover, dated July 22, 2003).

In fact, on July 13 of this year, David Ensor, the CNN correspondent, did call the CIA for a statement of its position and reported that a senior CIA official confirmed my account that Valerie did not propose me for the trip:

“’She did not propose me’, he [Wilson] said–others at the CIA did so. A senior CIA official said that is his understanding too.’”

Second conclusion: “Rather that speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.”

This conclusion states that I told the committee staff that I “may have become confused about my own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that the names and dates on the documents were not correct.” At the time that I was asked that question, I was not afforded the opportunity to review the articles to which the staff was referring. I have now done so.

On March 7, 2003 the Director General of the IAEA reported to the United Nations Security Council that the documents that had been given to him were “not authentic”. His deputy, Jacques Baute, was even more direct, pointing out that the forgeries were so obvious that a quick Google search would have exposed their flaws. A State Department spokesman was quoted the next day as saying about the forgeries “We fell for it.” From that time on the details surrounding the documents became public knowledge and were widely reported. I was not the source of information regarding the forensic analysis of the documents in question; the IAEA was.

The first time I spoke publicly about the Niger issue was in response to the State Department’s disclaimer. On CNN a few days later, in response to a question, I replied that I believed the US government knew more about the issue than the State Department spokesman had let on and that he had misspoken. I did not speak of my trip.

My first public statement was in my article of July 6 published in the New York Times, written only after it became apparent that the administration was not going to deal with the Niger question unless it was forced to. I wrote the article because I believed then, and I believe now, that it was important to correct the record on the statement in the President’s State of the Union address which lent credence to the charge that Iraq was actively reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. I believed that the record should reflect the facts as the US government had known them for over a year. The contents of my article do not appear in the body of the report and is not quoted in the “additional comments.” In that article, I state clearly that “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.)”

The first time I actually saw what were represented as the documents was when Andrea Mitchell, the NBC correspondent handed them to me in an interview on July 21. I was not wearing my glasses and could not read them. I have to this day not read them. I would have absolutely no reason to claim to have done so. My mission was to look into whether such a transaction took place or could take place. It had not and could not. By definition that makes the documents bogus.

The text of the “additional comments” also asserts that “during Mr. Wilson’s media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had “debunked” the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.”

My article in the New York Times makes clear that I attributed to myself “a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa’s suspected link to Iraq’s nonconventional weapons programs.” After it became public that there were then Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick’s report and the report from a four star Marine Corps General, Carleton Fulford in the files of the U. S. government, I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have and did not occur. I did not speak out on the subject until several months after it became evident that what underpinned the assertion in the State of the Union address were those documents, reports of which had sparked Vice President Cheney’s original question that led to my trip. The White House must have agreed. The day after my article appeared in the Times a spokesman for the President told the Washington Post that “the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union.”

I have been very careful to say that while I believe that the use of the sixteen words in the State of the Union address was a deliberate attempt to deceive the Congress of the United States, I do not know what role the President may have had other than he has accepted responsibility for the words he spoke. I have also said on many occasions that I believe the President has proven to be far more protective of his senior staff than they have been to him.

The “additional comments” also assert: “The Committee found that, for most analysts the former ambassador’s report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal.” In fact, the body of the Senate report suggests the exact opposite:

In August, 2002, a CIA NESA report on Iraq’s weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities did not include the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium information. (pg. 48)
In September, 2002, during coordination of a speech with an NSC staff member, the CIA analyst suggested the reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa be removed. The CIA analyst said the NSC staff member said that would leave the British “flapping in the wind.” (pg. 50)
The uranium text was included in the body of the NIE but not in the key judgments. When someone suggested that the uranium information be included as another sign of reconstitution, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst spoke up and said the he did not agree with the uranium reporting and that INR would be including text indicating their disagreement in their footnote on nuclear reconstitution. The NIO said he did not recall anyone really supporting including the uranium issue as part of the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, so he suggested that the uranium information did not need to be part of the key judgments. He told Committee staff he suggested that “We’ll leave it in the paper for completeness. Nobody can say we didn’t connect the dots. But we don’t have to put that dot in the key judgments.” (pg. 53)
On October 2, 2002, the Deputy DCI testified before the SSCI. Senator Jon Kyl asked the Deputy DCI whether he had read the British White Paper and whether he disagreed with anything in the report. The Deputy DCI testified that “the one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about where Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. (pg.54)
On October 4, 2002 the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs testified that “there is some information on attempts ….there’s a question about those attempts because of the control of the material in those countries…For us it’s more the concern that they (Iraq) uranium in country now. (pg. 54)
On October 5, 2002, the ADDI said an Iraq nuclear analyst – he could not remember who – raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting, specifically that the control of the mines in Niger would have made it very difficult to get yellowcake to Iraq. (pg. 55)
Based on the analyst’s comments, the ADDI faxed a memo to the Deputy National Security Advisor that said, “remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from this source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory. (pg. 56)
On October 6, 2002, the DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA’s concerns. The DCI testified to the SSCI on July 16, 2003, that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the “President should not be a fact witness on this issue,” because his analysts had told him the “reporting was weak.” (pg. 56)
On October 6, 2002, the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, “more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points 1) the evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities. 2) the procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq’s nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And 3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this in one of the two issues where we differed with the British.” (Pg 56)
On March 8, 2003, the intelligence report on my trip was disseminated within the U.S. Government according the Senate report (pg. 43). Further, the Senate report states that “in early March, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for an update on the Niger uranium issue.” That update from the CIA “also noted that the CIA would be debriefing a source who may have information related to the alleged sale on March 5.” The report then states the “DO officials also said they alerted WINPAC analysts when the report was being disseminated because they knew the high priority of the issue.” The report notes that the CIA briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report. (Pg. 46)

It is clear from the body of the Senate report that the Intelligence Community, including the DCI himself, made several attempts to ensure that the President not become a “fact witness” on an allegation that was so weak. A thorough reading of the report substantiates the claim made in my opinion piece in the New York Times and in subsequent interviews I have given on the subject. The sixteen words should never have been in the State of the Union address as the White House now acknowledges.

I undertook this mission at the request of my government in response to a legitimate concern that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. This was a national security issue that has concerned me since I was the Deputy Chief of Mission in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq before and during the first Gulf War.

At the time of my trip I was in private business and had not offered my views publicly on the policy we should adopt towards Iraq. Indeed, throughout the debate in the runup to the war, I took the position that the U.S. be firm with Saddam Hussein on the question of weapons of mass destruction programs including backing tough diplomacy with the credible threat of force. In that debate I never mentioned my trip to Niger. I did not share the details of my trip until May, 2003, after the war was over, and then only when it became clear that the administration was not going to address the issue of the State of the Union statement.

It is essential that the errors and distortions in the additional comments be corrected for the public record. Nothing could be more important for the American people than to have an accurate picture of the events that led to the decision to bring the United States into war in Iraq. The Senate Intelligence Committee has an obligation to present to the American people the factual basis of that process. I hope that this letter is helpful in that effort. I look forward to your further “additional comments.”

Sincerely,

Joseph C. Wilson, IV

Washington, D.C

……………………………………………………..

A Good Start

by Larry C. Johnson

What do you call a thousand lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean? A good start! That old joke is apropos in light of today’s indictment of Lewis “Scooter” Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice. The indictment makes clear, with no shadow of a doubt, that Valerie Wilson was an undercover officer until exposed by Robert Novak’s column.

According to the indictment, “Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.”

As the prosecutor said at today’s press conference, this ain’t over.

Some interesting tidbits that will need to be clarified:

On page 4 we read:

On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary of State (“Under Secretary”) for information concerning the unnamed ambassador’s travel to Niger to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary thereafter directed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip.

If you’re looking to guess who this is your likely choices are Marc Grossman and John Bolton. My money is on Bolton.

Also on page 4:

On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name.

Somebody asked for these documents. Who? Probably Libby but not necessarily. Clearly the CIA person who sent the fax is cooperating.

From paragraph 7 on page 4:

On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

Now it gets interesting.

Who is the senior CIA officer? There are several possibilities. For example, John Bolton’s Chief of Staff, Fred Fleitz is a CIA officer (no longer undercover) who was in a position to get information about Valerie. At the NSC there were several CIA personnel, including David Shedd, who is now on the staff of John Negroponte. It could also be someone from CIA Headquarters. We will probably have to wait for the trial to get some insight on this front.

A careful reading of the indictment shows beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an organized effort in the White House to go after Joe and Valerie Wilson. At a minimum, Vice President Cheney was witting of this effort. Too bad these guys did not work as feverishly in tracking down Osama Bin Laden. They only had time to attack two American citizens who were serving their country.

Finally, Patrick Fitzgerald, what a class act!

……………………………………………………..

by Larry C. Johnson

According to the indictment, “Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.”

As the prosecutor said at today’s press conference, this ain’t over.

Some interesting tidbits that will need to be clarified:

On page 4 we read:

On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary of State (“Under Secretary”) for information concerning the unnamed ambassador’s travel to Niger to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary thereafter directed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip.

If you’re looking to guess who this is your likely choices are Marc Grossman and John Bolton. My money is on Bolton.

Also on page 4:

On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name.

Somebody asked for these documents. Who? Probably Libby but not necessarily. Clearly the CIA person who sent the fax is cooperating.

From paragraph 7 on page 4:

On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

Now it gets interesting.

Finally, Patrick Fitzgerald, what a class act!

……………………………………………………..

The Marriage Canard and Valerie Plame

by Larry C. Johnson

Today on Wolf Blitzer’s show, The Situation Room, correspondent David Ensor brought up the criticism that has been circulated by folks like Cliff May saying that Valerie Plame compromised her cover by marrying a high profile diplomat like Joe Wilson.

I called David afterwards and had a pleasant conversation to clarify that this is a red herring. As I told David, I know of several CIA undercover officers who are married to so-called high profile people. The reality is that their identity is not known to the public and could only be made known to the public if they revealed their identity or someone else familiar with them did. One of these people is a friend of mine, happily married, and serving the United States as a spymaster overseas.

There is another reason to shoot down the silly and specious claim that Val essentially outed herself by marrying Joe. At no point prior to Bob Novak’s column is there a public reference to Valerie as a CIA officer. Moreover, Joe Wilson did not advertise the fact that he had done contracting work for the CIA (i.e., he had been sent on previous missions overseas). Val’s cover, while not heavily backstopped, was adequate to allow her to work overseas on sensitive missions.

It is slowly dawning on the American people that the Bush Administration attack on Valerie and Joe Wilson was part of a broader conspiracy to hide the fact that our political leaders fabricated a case for war in Iraq. Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and Karl Rove, among others, apparently preferred to destroy a valuable intelligence asset rather than expose the truth the United States went to war in Iraq based on misinformation and deception. That is a crime deserving the most serious punishment.

……………………………………………………..

by Larry C. Johnson

……………………………………………………..