Say Anything Blog

Number One: You’re still acting as if the two leaks were completely unrelated.

Number Two: You missed the money quote:

The court documents provide the most concrete evidence to date that the president and vice president were engaged in a campaign to disclose selected snippets of highly classified intelligence, much of it misleading, exaggerated or wrong, to a few trusted journalists in an effort to bolster their case for war.

The Bush regime intentionally mislead the American people. The Bush regime also retaliated against a man who was telling the truth to their lies.

I realize you’re extraordinarily partisan and you need to believe the myth of ‘liberal bias,’ but can we at least agree that intentionally misleading the American people is unethical?

This is all symantics.

The MSM says he "leaked" info.

Rob says he "declassified" it.

Your describing the same action in different terms.

And really, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. 

"...a campaign to disclose selected snippets of highly classified intelligence, much of it misleading, exaggerated or wrong…"

Misleading, exagerated, or wrong?  Whatever basis is there for this assertion?  In whose judgement was this information misleading?  Who says it was exagerated?  What is the basis for Mr. Douglas’ stating that the information in question was wrong?

This is pretty presumptuous stuff.. even for a journalist.   

I still think that the most hilarious—and sad—thing about this whole deal is that the press is rather uncritically accepting the word of a man who is being tried for perjury and lying to investigators.

As such, the fact that one alleged leak is being connnected to another without evidence….well, it just plain fits.  Critical examination of evidence just doesn’t seem to be the strong suit of the MSM these days.

"The Bush regime also retaliated against a man who was telling the truth to their lies."

Don,

You sound more like some DU driveler or a Cindy Sheehan wannabe with each passing day.  Wilson lied.  He lied in his NYT OpEd and lied in his book as well.  Nor is it just those of us on/in the Right who say so.  The unanimous  report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence says so as well.

No doubt you disapprove of the Bush administration releasing classified information… information which the left had been pestering the administration to release in the first place.  I must have missed your indignant diatribe when the information on the NSA surveillance program was leaked to the NYT and published.  I’m sure your concern for national security and the protection of such highly classified information must have had you just livid that the NYT would do such a horrendous thing. 

Bat:

 Every day you sound more and more like a Fox/NewsMax know-nothing. Ambassador Wilson’s claims have been widely verified while the Bush regimes lies have been exposed. If you got your news from outside the right-wing bubble, you’d know that. I have no illusions of getting your head out of your partisan ass, but there it is.

Don, it’s a well known fact that Wilson blatantly lied about using his connections in the CIA to get a job for which he wasn’t qualified, and his report about Niger was found to be inconsistent with the very data he collected. 

Don,

I’d be very much obliged if you could provide a credible, non-partisan source for that "verification" you spoke of.

The report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence of which I spoke is located here (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html), and may be downloaded.  Once you have done so, let me know, and I will give you the specific page citations that demonstrate Wilson’s lies, including his wife’s involvement in sending him on his trip to Niger, his confirmation to CIA of the fact that an Iraqi delegation had made inquiries to Niger, the report to CIA which he never wrote, and the strange case of the missing yellowcake uranium.

When we’re done with that, I’ll be glad to have you share with me your documentation to the contrary… if there really is such.

Incidentally, those signing off on the SSI report include Senators Jay Rockefeller, Richard Durbin, Carl Levin, Barbara Mikulski, and former Senate Democrat leader, Tom Daschle.   

The MSM says he "leaked" info.

Rob says he "declassified" it.

Your describing the same action in different terms.

And really, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Oh baloney, Free.  Words mean things.  You cannot "leak" something that is in your authority to release.  

We don’t call thieves "property liberators" and we don’t call Presidents who have the authority to divulge informaiton "leakers."

Honestly, your push to set yourself up as contrary to certain political conventions is growing tiresome.  You’re not all that original. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Bat:

Well, since the only sources you consider credible are Rush Limbaugh and the Washington Times that’ll be difficult, but what the hell? I’ll give it a try.

Send me the page numbers (there is no way I’m gonna wade through 300+ pages of heavily-censored legalize just for you).

Here is a concise guide to why the David Horowitz bullshit you’re quoting from is…well, bullshit:

The Senate committee also concluded: "The language in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] that ‘Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake’ overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq’s possible procurement attempts." The committee added that while the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research (INR)‘s conclusion that "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are highly dubious" also appeared in the NIE, it "was included in a text box, separated by about 60 pages from the discussion of the uranium issue."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130008

In the meantime, here are a couple of highly-credible references that you will no doubt ignore because they contradict whatever Fox News has fed you:

http://www.sundayherald.com/35264

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

Of course we can call them leakers,when they use tactics that are always used for leaking.  He had all kinds of options available to him but he used a leaking tactic and then says Oh it’s not a real leak becuase I declassified it the minute I had it leaked.  Works for me.

Of course we can call them leakers,when they use tactics that are always used for leaking.

Do leakers receive authorization from the proper authority before they release information to the public?

No?

Didn’t think so. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Don, your sources are all columns by people who are activists.  Hopefully you see at least a wee little problem there.

You cannot "leak" something that is in your authority to release. 

Wait a second there.  

I say if the President makes an official release theres nothing wrong.

But if he says "Psst, Scooter over here.  I want you to give this to your New York Times chick."  Thats a leak my friend. 

Oh, and Free, you forgot to add, "Hey Scooter, don’t use your regular source name,‘high administration official’, use the other one, ‘former hill staffer’ that way they won’t know it actually came from the President of the United States.  That way we can screw Wilson and my hands stay clean. After all, I did promise the American people that we bring honesty and integrity back to the White House, so I want to make sure I can continue to say that, Ok Scooter?"

Puzzle,

No need kicking the guy when he’s down.  The point has been made.

Anything outside an official press release, press conference, or even a one-on-one interview is by definition a leak. 

If the source giving the info is not "on-record", its a leak.

Even info given "on-background" is a leak of sorts.

A leak is not always illegal either.  It’s just a mode of getting out information. 

Free, definition?  Did you even bother to look at the definition before you opened your mouth?

1. To permit (a substance) to escape or pass through a breach or flaw: a damaged reactor leaking radioactivity into the atmosphere.
2. Informal.  To disclose without authorization or official sanction: leaked classified information to a reporter.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Free, definition?  Did you even bother to look at the definition before you opened your mouth?

Ever heard of slang definitions.

Find a "Journalistic Ethics" definition and then you may have an argument.

To disclose without authorization or official sanction

Was the authorization written?  If not, theres a case that because there is no trail, there is not authorization.

And we know it wasn’t offically sanctioned or else it would have come from "The Office of the President."

Ever heard of slang definitions.

Find a "Journalistic Ethics" definition and then you may have an argument.

Well I’m not sure where to go from here.  You seem to want to re-define words to fit your agenda.  That doesn’t make sense to me.  I’ll stick with the standard definition and keep knowing that you’re wrong.

 

Was the authorization written?  If not, theres a case that because there is no trail, there is not authorization.

And we know it wasn’t offically sanctioned or else it would have come from "The Office of the President."

The President has the authority to make this information public.  You’ve admitted it yourself.  What else is left other half-truths and innuendo used by the media/left ot manufacture a controversy where one doesn’t exist?

You want to think less of the President for doing this?  Great.  Whatever.  But he didn’t "leak" anything and he certainly didn’t do anything illegal.  That is my point. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

You seem to want to re-define words to fit your agenda.

Oh I’m sorry.  I guess those journalism classes are getting in the way of my being Fiar and Balanced.

You want to think less of the President for doing this?  Great.  Whatever.  But he didn’t "leak" anything and he certainly didn’t do anything illegal.  That is my point.

 I’ve daid all along there ahs likely been nothing illegal here.

Just fishy and stinky. Thats all.

I want a President that’s willing to put his signature to things, thats all. 

Oh I’m sorry.  I guess those journalism classes are getting in the way of my being Fiar and Balanced.

Does journalism class teach you different definitions for words then we in the rest of the world use?  I thought we were all speaking the same language.  I quoted you a definition out of the dictionary.  You are now alluding to some mysterious education in word definitions you received in journalism class.

Color me skeptical. 

I want a President that’s willing to put his signature to things, thats all.

How about a President who isn’t afraid to stand up for his policies in the face of liars like Joe Wilson? 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Does journalism class teach you different definitions for words then we in the rest of the world use?

Look up these words:

   1.  denotation

   2.  connotation

How about a President who isn’t afraid to stand up for his policies in the face of liars like Joe Wilson?  

Then stand up!  Instead he had some lackey like Libby who isn’t good enough to wipe a guy like Oli North’s ass who knew how to take a stand for his country.

Look up these words:

   1.  denotation

   2.  connotation

Did you look them up?  Do you understand that the word "leak" has a connotation of meaning "an unauthorized release of information?"  And because of that conntation is inappropriate to be used in this instance because the release of information was, in fact, authorized?

Then stand up!  Instead he had some lackey like Libby who isn’t good enough to wipe a guy like Oli North’s ass who knew how to take a stand for his country.

What the President did was not illegal.  All you’re arguing here is political tactics.  In fact, I’m still trying to figure out why you’re arguing.  Other than to shore up your "I’m a political outsider" poser image. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

And because of that conntation is inappropriate to be used in this instance because the release of information was, in fact, authorized?

Was that a unilateral decision?

Other than to shore up your "I’m a political outsider" poser image.

"Poser"  would indicate that the truth is otherwise.  Since you’re arguing language today, do you have something that says otherwise?

I’m still trying to figure out why you’re arguing.  Other than to shore up your "I’m a political outsider" poser image.

Actually, that statement is so ludicris that I’m done with this thread. 

Don,

Somehow I knew that your sources “verifying” Wilson’s claims are neither impartial nor objective, particularly as the facts detailed elsewhere show him to have lied, and lied rather blatantly.

SSCI Report, Page 39:

“Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip.  The CPD Reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both the PM 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.’”

Clearly the text of the memo from Valerie to the Deputy Chief of CPD shows that the decision to send her husband had not yet been made, thus reinforcing the notion that, per the quoted memo, it was Valerie who instigated Wilson’s trip to Niger.  Exactly as Wilson denied it had happened.  This is confirmed on the next page of the SSCI Report (Page 40) which details a February 19, 2002 “meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both CIA and INR, and several individuals from the DO’s Africa and CPD Divisions (Valerie).  The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger.”  Obviously, again, no decision had been made on sending Wilson a full week after his wife suggested the trip to her superiors.

Interestingly enough, the Report also mentions that this was not Joe Wilson’s first trip to Niger on behalf of CIA.

“The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA’s behalf.  The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.  Because the former ambassador did not uncover any information about *** during his visit to Niger, CPD did not distribute an intelligence report on the visit.”

So much for Joe Wilson’s claim that his wife “had nothing to do with the trip.”

Now to the substance of Wilson’s “report” to CIA… a report he never made.  Instead, on March 5, 2002. “…two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous  day.  The debriefing took place in the former ambassador’s home…  Based on information provided verbally, by the former ambassador, the DO case officer wrote a draft intelligence report and sent it to the DO reports officer who added additional relevant information from his notes.”

As I said, Wilson submitted no report to CIA.  He was debriefed at home, and the DO case officer wrote the report.

At the heart of Wilson’s NYT OpEd, is the notion that there had been no attempt by Iraq to acquire yellowcake uranium from Niger.  And here again, he lied.  From Page 43 of the SSCI Report:

“(Former Prime Minister and former Foreign Minister) Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it.  Mayaki said however, that in June 1999, *** businessman approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss ‘expanding commercial relations’ between Niger and Iraq.  The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted  ‘expanding commercial relations’ to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.  The intelligence report also said that ‘although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq.”

So, there had been inquiries by Iraq, despite what Wilson later said.  And he (Wilson) was well aware of the disparity.  Again on Page 46 we find that “The reports officer said that a ‘good’ grade (on the intelligence report) was warranted” and that he “judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Primer Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium…” 

Apparently, the Committee staff also noticed the difference between what Wilson said publicly and what he had told his CIA debriefers.  From Page 45:

“When the former ambassador spoke to the Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials’ accounts in several respects…  Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction.  In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal…  Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the (Italian) intelligence service. (But) The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting…”

Well, surprise!  Wilson was sleeping with his “CIA contact” who was illegally feeding him classified information to which he had no documented need to know.

Finally, for Wilson, there’s the question of his leaking information to WaPo columnist Walter Pincus, information which has since been discredited and for which Pincus has had to reluctantly issue an apology. This incident is also covered in the SSCI Report on Page 46.

So, to summarize.  Joe Wilson is a liar.  He lied to CIA, lied to Walter Pincus, and lied to the American public in his infamous OpEd.

Now, Don… about those objective, nonpartisan sources you were going to provide to verify what Wilson wrote.  Any chance we’ll see that material any time soon?

Breakdown of Don Myer’s comments:

Alleges that the "Bush regime" has "intentionally mislead" people. Claims that Joe Wilson was telling the "truth". Furthermore, alleges that Rob is "extraordinarily partisan" and denies the existence of the liberal media.

Insults those who disagree as a "Fox/NewsMax know-nothing". Asserts once again that Joe Wilson debunked "the Bush regimes lies". Offers no proof. Claims that those who disagree are "partisan".

Ignores the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reference that Bat One brought up while ironically claiming that the only sources Bat One considers credible are "Rush Limbaugh and the Washington Times". Links to the highly partisan George Soros funded Media Matters. Brings up an ad hominem attack by saying, "the David Horowitz bullshit". Brings up another ad hominem attack by saying that Bat One will, "no doubt ignore [Don Myer’s sources] because they contradict whatever Fox News has fed you".

Now we have Bat One linking to and quoting extenstively from the source.

No doubt Don Myer’s reply will consist of some mutterings about "the Bush regime lying", Fox News and Newsmax, and that everybody who disagrees with him is "partisan". No attempt will be made to actually respond to what Bat One has written.

Lik, BatOne failed to attach Joe Wilson’s letter to Sens. Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller after the report came out:  Perhaps you should read that as well:  http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/07/ale04018.html. His letter is well documented and rebuts what you have in your post.

Joe Wilson is the Daniel Ellsberg of our time.  Bush couldn’t stand the fact that Joe Wilson told the country that the King wasn’t wearing any clothes and sent his "former hill staffer" out to "leak" information.

Nice Try, though.

Hmm.  Let’s see, now.  Senate Select Committee and staff conduct thousand of hours of interviews, research hundreds of thousands of papers and documents.  And against all this research, the best Wilson can do is a "No, I didn’t" pissing contest?

Sorry, guys.  No sale.  Wilson hasn’t answered one of the charges against him except to deny them.  Not even close.  I’ll take the Senate Select Committee Report every time. 

Bat One…would that be the main report or the pages tacked on by some majority members at the end?

Mike,

I don’t fully understand your question.  Please re-phrase. 

Reading a bit further into the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report one ifnds this on page 74,

"Conclusion 14.   The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policmakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador’s findings."

The White House wasn’t told??? Wilson and the SSCI Report agree that it was an inquiry by VP Cheney that started all this, and in the end buried deep in the report, we find that Cheney, and other "senior policymaker" were never told about Wilson’s trip or briefed on the report written up after the fact?

No wonder the White House was upset when Wilson’s fallacious OpEd appeared in the NYT. 

BatOne, he does answer each allegation in the majority report.  I think Mike’s question was pretty clear.  It is clear that it was the CIA’s responsibility to tell the VEEP, not Wilson’s.  It is also clear that the Veep already had decided what the course of action was going to be in Iraq and wasn’t going to let Wilson’s report get in the way.

Puzzlefeet,

Please read the SSCI Report, at least from Page 33 through Page 75.  I am not suggesting that Wilson should have told Cheney,   He had no means of doing so anyway.  Although  the extent to which Wilson was privvy to classified information to which he had no rights or authority as he was a civilian is still undetermined, it is clear Valerie was bringing home more than bacon.

In his letter, Wilson claims his wife had nothing to do with eitehr of his Niger trips, but the Senate Committee Report makes clear she was behind both trips.

His letter says that his report said no inquiries by the Iraqis concerning uranium, but clearly that wasn’t the case at all.  There had been inquiries as the former PM later detailed.

Wilson claimed that the forrged documents invalidated the President’s "16 words" SOTU claim, but they did not.  The report makes clear that there were several sets of documents floating around and that only those proffered by the Italians were determined to be fraudulent.  And as Rob has pointed out, Britain’s Butler Commission Report to this day support’s the British Intelligence claim and the President’s 16 words.

Wilson claims he was confused about the signatures and stamps on the fraudulent documents, but at the time those documents had not yet reached CIA, so how did he know about them?

Wilson’s attempt at a "cover story" is at best pitiful.   His timeline simply doesn’t work.

More than anything else, what the Report makes clear is that rather than the tiresome meme of "Bush Lied" the truth is that the entire IC has been at best somnambulent for the past three decades and Iraq is but one more example.

One final note: anyone who thinks that the changes recommended by the 9-11 Commission are going to improve any of this, needs something more substantial to keep their ears apart. 

Let’s be clear, George Tenet even said that Valerie Plame was not the one who made the decision to send Joe Wilson to Niger. His background in the foreign service and experience in Niger and Iraq made him uniquely qualified for the trip.  Simply because she suggested him, there is absolutely no evidence that she was in on the decisionmaking.  You can’t point to any specific evidence in any report including the Senate report that says she was the decisionmaker.

And obviously Mrs. Plame didn’t bring home the bacon, since he didn’t get paid to go to Niger.  Joe Wilson had an extensive background in this specific area: http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html.  But leave it to you Bush apologists to keep the smear going.  Nice try, but Bush has much to answer for since he decried leaks and as Jane Harmon says, he is the "leaker-in-chief."

But leave it to you Bush apologists…

Try discussing like an adult for a change.

Puzzlefeet,

Let’s be clear, indeed.  No one has suggested that Valerie Plame decided on behalf of CIA to send her husband to Niger.  So stop trying to pretend that I, or anyone else has made that suggestion.  Valerie was never that high up the food chain to begin with.

The point is that when Wilson claimed that Dame Valerie "had nothing to do" with him going to Niger (either trip), he is lying.  In both instances she suggested him for the trip, and in the most recent instance, 2002, she went so far as to follow up her verbal suggestion with a written memo, the memo quoted in the SSCI Report.

You can try all you want to change the subject, or even the emphasis, on this, but you’re not nearly adept enough to pull it off.  And I am most definitely good enough at this not to let it happen.  Decision making is not the issue.  Wilson’s tattered credibility is.