Pat Thurston's Radio Weblog :
Updated: 3/1/06; 10:18:37 AM.

 

Subscribe to "Pat Thurston's Radio Weblog" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

 
 

Friday, February 3, 2006

ADMINISTRATION Iraq, Niger, And The CIA

By Murray Waas, special to National Journal © National Journal Group Inc. Thursday, Feb. 2, 2006

Vice President Cheney and his then-Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were personally informed in June 2003 that the CIA no longer considered credible the allegations that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger, according to government records and interviews with current and former officials. The new CIA assessment came just as Libby and other senior administration officials were embarking on an effort to discredit an administration critic who had also been saying that the allegations were untrue.

The campaign against Joseph Wilson continued even after the CIA concluded that Iraq had not tried to buy uranium from the African nation of Niger.

CIA analysts wrote then-CIA Director George Tenet in a highly classified memo on June 17, 2003, "We no longer believe there is sufficient" credible information to "conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." The memo was titled: "In Response to Your Questions for Our Current Assessment and Additional Details on Iraq's Alleged Pursuits of Uranium From Abroad."

Despite the CIA's findings, Libby attempted to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger the previous year to investigate the claims, which he concluded were baseless.

Previous coverage of the CIA leak investigation from Murray Waas

The campaign against Wilson led to the outing of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as an undercover CIA officer -- less than a month after the CIA assessment was completed. Libby resigned as Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser on October 28, 2005, after he was indicted by a federal grand jury on five counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice for concealing his role in leaking Plame's identity to the media.

Tenet requested the previously undisclosed intelligence assessment in large part because of repeated inquiries from Cheney and Libby regarding the Niger matter and Wilson's mission, although neither Cheney nor Libby specifically asked that the new review be conducted, according to government records and to current and former government officials. Tenet also asked for the assessment because information about Wilson's mission to Niger had begun to appear in the media, and Tenet thought that the press or Capitol Hill might raise additional questions about the matter.

The new disclosures raise questions as to why Libby and other Bush administration officials continued their efforts to discredit Wilson -- even as they were told that claims about Iraq's having procured uranium from Niger were most likely a hoax.

The answer may lie in part with the already well-known misgivings about the CIA by Cheney, Libby, and other senior Bush administration officials. At one point during that period -- the summer of 2003 -- Libby confronted a senior intelligence analyst briefing him and the vice president and accused the CIA of willfully misleading him and the administration on Niger. Libby was said to be upset that the CIA, in his view, had routinely minimized the extent to which Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction and was now prematurely attempting to distance itself from the Niger allegations.

Libby had also complained about the CIA's Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control. WINPAC, as the center is known, scrutinizes unconventional-weapons threats to the United States, including the pursuit by both foreign nations and terrorist groups of nuclear, radiological, chemical, and biological weapons.

Libby, according to people with knowledge of the events, said that he and Cheney had come to believe that WINPAC was presenting Saddam Hussein's pursuit of such weapons in a far more benign light than Iraq's intents and capabilities reflected. Libby cited CIA bureaucratic inertia and caution and his view that many of WINPAC's analysts were aligned with foreign-policy elites who did not support the war with Iraq.

Libby and others in the office of the vice president apparently were even more suspicious because they mistakenly believed that Plame worked for WINPAC, according to these sources. When they also learned that Plame possibly played a role in Wilson's selection for the Niger mission, their suspicions only intensified.

One indication of Cheney's personal interest in the subject was that some of Libby's earliest and most detailed information regarding Plame's CIA employment came directly from the vice president, according to information contained in Libby's grand jury indictment.

"On or about June 12, 2003," the indictment stated, "Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."

It would not have been improper or illegal for Cheney to discuss Plame's CIA employment with Libby or other government officials with high security clearances. No public evidence has emerged during the two-year grand jury probe by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that Libby acted at the vice president's behest in leaking details of Plame's CIA employment to the press, or that Cheney even knew that Libby was doing so.

Contemporaneous notes of Libby's that were obtained by federal investigators in the CIA leak case indicate that Cheney had originally learned about Plame from then-CIA Director Tenet. Tenet has confirmed that Fitzgerald interviewed him, but Tenet has refused to make public any details of what he told investigators. He declined to comment for this story.

Sources said that Tenet may have discussed Plame with Cheney because of requests from Cheney, Libby, and other administration officials for more information about the Niger matter and Wilson's mission. Cheney's and Libby's interest in Niger was apparently rekindled after New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof wrote on May 6, 2003, that the CIA had sent an unnamed former ambassador to the African nation in February 2002 to investigate allegations that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. Kristof wrote that the ex-ambassador reported back to the CIA and the State Department that the allegations were "unequivocally wrong" and "based on forged documents."

The column led Cheney and Libby to inquire about the then-still-unnamed ambassador and his trip to Niger. On May 29, 2003, Libby asked then-Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman for information about the mission. Grossman in turn assigned the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report on the matter. Cheney's and Libby's interest in the issue led Tenet to seek more information as well.

On June 11 or 12, according to the grand jury indictment of Libby, Grossman reported back that "in sum and substance Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and the State Department personnel were saying that Wilson's wife was involved in the planning of his trip."

Also on June 11, 2003, according to the indictment, "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." On the very next day, June 12, the indictment said, Cheney more specifically informed Libby that Plame worked at the CIA's "Counterproliferation Division."

Tenet received the highly classified memo on Niger from his analysts on June 17, 2003, five days after Cheney and Libby spoke with each other about Plame's working for the CIA. Sources familiar with the matter say that both Cheney and Libby were informed of the findings in the June 17 memo only days after Tenet himself read and reviewed it.

In the memo, the CIA analysts wrote: "Since learning that the Iraqi-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq purchased uranium from abroad."

The memo also related that there had been other, earlier claims that Saddam's regime had attempted to purchase uranium from private interests in Somalia and Benin; these claims predated the Niger allegations. It was that past intelligence that had led CIA analysts, in part, to consider the Niger claims as plausible.

But the memo said that after a thorough review of those earlier reports, the CIA had concluded that they were no longer credible. Indeed, the previous intelligence reports citing those claims had long since been "recalled" -- meaning that the CIA had formally repudiated them.

The memo's findings were considered so significant that they were not only quickly shared with Cheney and Libby but also with Congress, albeit on a classified basis, according to government records and interviews.

On June 18, 2003, the day after the new Niger assessment was sent to Tenet, Robert D. Walpole, the national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, briefed members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the findings. And on the following day, June 19, 2003, Walpole briefed members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence as well.

Six days after the memo was sent to Tenet, on June 23, 2003, Libby met with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and -- as part of an effort to discredit Wilson -- passed along to her what prosecutors have said was classified information that Wilson's wife, Plame, worked for the CIA, according to allegations contained in Libby's indictment.

On July 6, 2003, Wilson himself went public with his allegations that the Bush administration had misused the Niger claims to make the case to go to war. Wilson made his arguments in an op-ed in The New York Times and an appearance that same morning on NBC's Meet the Press.

On July 8, 2003, Libby and Miller met again. During a two-hour breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, according to testimony Miller gave to the federal grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case, Libby first told her that Plame worked for the CIA's Weapons, Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Office.

Around the same time, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and at least one other senior Bush administration official leaked information to a number of journalists about Plame's CIA employment and her role in recommending her husband for the Niger mission.

Columnist Robert Novak, on July 14, 2003, published his now-famous column identifying Plame as a CIA "operative" and alleging that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger.

The disclosure did little to discredit Wilson. Instead, it had unintended and unforeseen consequences for Libby and the Bush administration: A special prosecutor would be named to investigate the leak; Judith Miller would spend 85 days in jail for refusing to testify regarding her conversations with Libby before ultimately relenting; and a federal grand jury would indict Libby on charges that he obstructed justice and committed perjury to conceal his own role in the leak of Plame's CIA status to the press.

As Libby awaits trial, one of the unresolved mysteries is why Libby insisted in interviews with the FBI and during his grand jury testimony that he learned about Plame's employment from journalists, when investigators already had Libby's own copious notes indicating that he had first learned many of the details of Plame's CIA employment from Cheney and other senior government officials.

One possibility examined by investigators is that Libby was attempting to cover for Cheney because of the political or legal fallout that might occur if it was determined that the vice president had been involved in the effort to discredit Wilson.

Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, said, "The prosecutor's implicit inference before the jury may well likely be that Libby lied to protect the vice president. Even in a plain vanilla case, a prosecutor always wants to be able to demonstrate a motive."

That Cheney was one of the first people to tell Libby about Plame, and that Libby had written in his notes that Cheney had heard the information from the CIA director, Gillers said, might make it more difficult for Libby to mount a credible defense of a faulty memory. "From a prosecutor's point of view, and perhaps a jury's as well, the conversation [during which Libby learned about Plame] is the more dramatic and the more memorable because the conversation was with the vice president" and because the CIA director's name also came up, Gillers said.

The disclosure that Cheney and Libby were told of a CIA assessment that the agency considered the Niger allegations to be untrue, and that Tenet requested the assessment as a result of the personal interest of Cheney and Libby, would "demonstrate even further that Niger was a central issue for Libby," said Gillers, and would "make it even harder, although not impossible, to claim a faulty memory."

-- Murray Waas is a Washington-based journalist.
3:04:33 PM    comment []


Published on Friday, February 3, 2006 by the Associated Press

Judge Slams Ex-EPA Chief over Sept. 11

by Larry Neumeister

A federal judge blasted former Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman on Thursday for reassuring New Yorkers soon after the Sept. 11 attacks that it was safe to return to their homes and offices while toxic dust was polluting the neighborhood. U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts refused to grant Whitman immunity against a class-action lawsuit brought in 2004 by residents, students and workers in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn who said they were exposed to hazardous materials from the destruction of the World Trade Center.

"No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," the judge said.

She called Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking," saying the EPA chief knew that the collapse of the twin towers released tons of hazardous materials into the air.

Whitman had no comment, according to a spokeswoman. A Justice Department spokesman said the government had no comment.

Spokeswoman Mary Mears said the EPA was reviewing the opinion but was pleased that the court had dismissed two of four civil claims against the agency, including allegations brought under the federal Superfund law.

"The EPA will continue to vigorously defend against the outstanding claims," she said.

The judge let the lawsuit proceed against the EPA and Whitman, permitting the plaintiffs to try to prove that the agency and its administrator endangered their health.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and reimbursement for cleanup costs and asks the court to order that a medical monitoring fund be set up to track the health of those exposed to trade center dust.

In her ruling, Batts noted that the EPA and Whitman said repeatedly [~] beginning just two days after the attack [~] that the air appeared safe to breathe. The EPA's internal watchdog later found that the agency, at the urging of White House officials, gave misleading assurances.

Quoting a ruling in an earlier case, the judge said a public official cannot be held personally liable for putting the public in harm's way unless the conduct was so egregious as "to shock the contemporary conscience." Given her role in protecting the health and environment for Americans, Whitman's reassurances after Sept. 11 were "without question conscience-shocking," Batts said.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said in a statement that New Yorkers are still depending on the federal government to describe any ongoing risk from contaminants.

"I continue to believe that the White House owes New Yorkers an explanation," she said.

U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat whose district includes the trade center site, said the many people who worked at the site and developed respiratory diseases deserve answers.

"It is my assumption that thousands of people [~] workers and residents [~] are being slowly poisoned today because these workplaces and residences were never properly cleaned up," Nadler said in a telephone interview.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press

###
3:03:14 PM    comment []


Michael Vlahos: World War II - GWOT: Not!.

The President's State of the Union message reminds us that war is more than violent activity -- it is also symbolic activity.

But what kind of symbolic activity? War is about meaning: war's symbols celebrate who we are, and wars do this by telling us a sacred story. The best wars moreover become mythic journeys marking society's passage. Through them societies are tested, triumph over adversity, reach cherished goals, and live up to the shadows of old ancestors.

The Global War on Terrorism is all of these things, and it bears out that war makes for grand narrative. The President called on that grand narrative again and again, as he does in almost every speech. It is worth taking a closer look at this generalissimo narrative, because it reveals what is symbolically important in this war -- and to this administration. It also shows us why we continue, however unwillingly, to support this "big story."

The GWOT -- including Iraq -- is all about World War II. For example in his most recent December 7 speech, the President made the tie explicit, when he declared

On December 7, 1941, our peaceful nation awoke to an attack plotted in secret and executed without mercy ... On September 11, 2001, our nation awoke to another sudden attack. In the space of just 102 minutes, more Americans were killed than we lost at Pearl Harbor.

9-11 thus authorizes us to symbolically configure the GWOT as "our generation's" World War II. Thus it must be made to fulfill almost sacred requirements. Hence Iraq: an experience that the administration assumed would resemble World War II. But more pointedly, once the initial invasion was over, the administration strove to make the aftermath still fit this World War II-like story.

Since about mid-summer 2003, when Iraqi insurgency could no longer be ignored, this has meant pushing three themes. Think of them as three World War II vignette narratives in the larger story line.

The first is "the nemesis." There is a great evil abroad in the world. Will be rise to meet it, or will we shirk it like cowards? The model evil of course is Hitler. Thus Saddam was another Hitler. After he was gone, "Islamofascism" (whatever that is) must carry the Nazi torch.

The second is "the world's liberator." Downtrodden by dictators, the wretched of the earth will be freed from tyranny and uplifted by us. We all remember how Chalabi among others promised flowers and sweets on Liberation Day in Baghdad.

The third is "selfless rebuilder." We also should remember how the administration promised us yet a satisfying sequel to the reconstruction of Germany and Japan. America knows how to do these things, we were assured, especially an administration under "adult supervision."

But each of these stories has failed. Moreover the failure is failure on the administration's own terms. This presents a rhetorical and symbolic problem, which the administration has met by simply altering its own terms.

"The nemesis" failed. The Iraq insurgency is an establishment Sunni opposition to American occupation. Furthermore the majority of all Iraqis say they want the US out in the wake of the December 15 elections. There is no evil content in Iraq save a few hundred Jihadists, now the process it seems of being rejected by Sunni insurgents who apparently despise them.

"The world's liberator" failed. Afghanistan was liberated back to its forever future of warlord gangs. Iraq was liberated into nascent Shi'a theocracy. Lebanon's "Cedar Revolution" pushed Hezbollah revival. Semi-real elections in Egypt empowered the Muslim Brotherhood. In spite of American bucks backing a corrupt Fatah, Hamas is the victor in newfound Palestinian democracy. We are the bringer of change to the Muslim world alright, but it is not change that fits this administration's story.

"Selfless rebuilder" has failed most of all. The promised dollar bounty has dried up, and what is there to show for it? The critical infrastructure -- oil refining, electrical grid, and sewage treatment -- was neither properly repaired nor replaced. The result? Mile-long lines at every gas pump, power out much of the day in Baghdad, and filthy streets that prolong Iraq's worst public health problem. No one is comparing Iraq anymore to the reconstruction of Germany and Japan.

But for the administration failure has merely been a rhetorical and symbolic problem, which was for several years successfully addressed by aggressive propaganda and a constantly redefined definition of victory.

However, time is running out on "good news" news stories and endless spin. The truth is that Iraq is a mess, a divided sectarian society. Indeed civil strife's ultimate resolution is only being postponed by US occupation. The narrative sub-stories from Iraq can no longer be made to fit their World War II counterparts.

A bigger problem now looms. For the GWOT to continue, it must continue to advance the sacred narrative laid down by World War II. Therefore a new enemy and a new theater of struggle and transcendence must arise, or the entire enterprise is at risk.

The already anointed candidate as successor evil is Iran. But war with Iran, rather than renewing and extending World War II-like narrative, would most likely completely explode it. But then again, World War II ended on apocalyptic terms, with the atomic bomb. Surely an Iranian war has apocalyptic potential aplenty; so from this standpoint fighting Persia would be a satisfying way to finish up a GWOT framed to fit the World War II story. But no matter how horrifying this "fit" sounds, this administration will never give up the World War II story of its war.

Then who will make the case that "World War" is not only a bad fit, but an absurd fit for the situation we face in the Muslim world? To make this case, certain realities must of course be addressed. Certainly there are criminal Islamists -- aka, terrorists -- that we must track down. But the majority of Islamist groups are political in nature -- the Islamic Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, and our Shi'a government of Iraq. Certainly we need to help resolve national-sectarian strife in Iraq, and there are many ideas here on our best course. Perhaps the biggest problem we face over the long term is what to do about the really big tyrannies, like Pakistan and Egypt and Saudi Arabia, that we still call "our friends and allies."

These are particular problems. They are not the subsidiary problems of a Great War, let alone a World War. Our big problem right now as a nation is that we still let the President and his circle get away sternly asserting the rhetoric of World War. Even worse we give the President and his circle all the political perks and bonuses that traditionally go hand-in-hand with a nation in grand struggle mode: lots of money, control over domestic society, choice of strategy and weapons, etc. But this is not that war. This is not World War II or World War III or IV.

It is not even a war.

Why are we so afraid of telling our elected Commander-in-Chief the news?

[The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
9:42:51 AM    comment []

Kathleen Reardon: Congressional Wiretap Briefing Scenarios.

So how did those briefings go? Don't you wonder? Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan said, "Congressional leaders at a minimum tacitly supported the program." What does that mean? Sociologist Erving Goffman wrote about a means of achieving "tacit" agreement. The strategy is called "tact" (not to be confused with politeness); it involves saying something in a manner that allows, should the true offensive intention be discovered, deniability of that intention. In a business meeting conversation it might work like this.

(Looking at the clock) "Time flies, doesn't it?"
"Am I boring you?"
"Don't be silly."
"Are you in a hurry?"
"Not at all. By my estimation we're making superb progress. (Looks again at his watch) So much so that we'll likely be done in, I don't know, ten minutes?"
(Looks at his watch) "You're right. We have accomplished a lot in a short time. We're almost done."
"My sentiments exactly."

A gesture made, offensive implications of its meanings denied and skillfully redefined as a compliment, the desired meeting end thereby achieved - and without having to specifically request or suggest it.

Now apply this tactic to the reported Congressional briefings. Was the "tacit agreement" accomplished through "tact"? If so, could it have been of type (A) or (B)?


(A)
President Bush: "There are few people in whom I can confide."
Senator Surething: "I'm confident that's true, Mr. President."
President Bush: (winking) "In Texas we find the snakes in the grass before they bite us."
Senator Surething: "That must be helpful."
President Bush: So you see what I'm saying here?"
Senator Surething: "I know little about snakes in Texas, Mr. President."
President Bush: "And yet, I see you have no questions."
Senator Surething: "About what, Mr. President?"
President Bush: (Jovially patting the senator's back as the two move toward the Oval Office Door) "Precisely."


(B)
President Bush: "I need to talk turkey with you, Congressman."
Congressman Nononsense: "Of course, Sir."
President Bush: "I'm going to eavesdrop on Americans without FISA warrants."
Congressman Nononsense: "Not really I hope."
President Bush: "I'm also dying my hair blue this afternoon and getting an eagle tattoo on my forehead."
Congressman Nononsense: "Really?"
President Bush: "Just a little Presidential humor, but I see you catch my drift."
Congressman Nononsense: "I'm a bit in the dark."
President Bush: "That works for me."

Or, were Democrats complicit in explicit conversations about wiretaps without warrants - scenario C? They should be asking themselves if they were duped, made vitims of "tact" -- told little, yet accused of a lot. Maybe there's a scenario D. In any case, the Democrats do seem to be losing momentum on this one, perhaps allowing themselves to feel cornered -- again, which may explain the last-ditch, futile feather flying on the Judge Alito vote. "We're mad as hell and we're thinking perhaps of not taking at least some of this, for a while anyway, anymore!"


It's All Politics

[The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
9:39:34 AM    comment []

Ari Berman: Can DOJ Be Trusted with Abramoff?.

Now that Jack Abramoff's dealings with members of Congress have drawn criminal indictments, the disgraced lobbyist's ties to the Bush Administration are starting to get attention. Little notice has been paid, however, to the Justice Department, charged with prosecuting Abramoff. Evidence has emerged that the department played an active role in shutting down an investigation of Abramoff's dubious lobbying activities in Guam in November 2002. The story raises questions about whether Justice can be trusted with this historic investigation--and whether top White House officials actively abetted Abramoff's shady dealings as early as 2001.

For the full story, read my new Nation article Can Justice Be Trusted?

[The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
9:32:54 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2006 Patricia Thurston.



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website.
 


February 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28        
Jan   Mar