PDA

View Full Version : Just How Do Bush Supporters Explain



myfiles3000
07-09-2003, 12:57 PM
www.talkingpointsmemo.com

The most interesting bit of reporting I've seen today on the White House's concession about the fraudulence of the Niger-uranium documents comes at the tail end of a wire story from Reuters ...

A U.S. intelligence official said [Joseph] Wilson was sent to investigate the Niger reports by mid-level CIA officers, not by top-level Bush administration officials. There is no record of his report being flagged to top level officials, the intelligence official said.
"He is placing far greater significance on his visit than anyone in the U.S. government at the time it was made," the official said, referring to Wilson's New York Times article.

The message here seems pretty clear: Joseph who? Wilson, this 'intelligence official' is saying, is some small-time operator who got sent to Niger by some mid-level functionaries at the CIA. All the people who counted had no idea he'd even gone on his trip. And they certainly didn't know about his vaunted report.
Now, I wouldn't be being very straight with you if I didn't start by saying that I don't find this claim particularly credible. But could this be true?

Let's run through what we know.

Wilson has said repeatedly that he was sent to Niger because, as he wrote in the Times, "Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report."

Now, note the difference in what's being said here. No one, let alone Wilson, has claimed that any "top-level Bush administration officials" sent him on his investigatory trip. What he and others have said is that CIA officials sent him out, because they were following up on a request from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) to look into the Niger-uranium allegations.

So to start with you can say that the 'intelligence official's' statement amounts to a sort of non-denial denial. But what about the broader question? Was the whole effort triggered by an inquiry from the OVP or not?

Wilson says yes. And presumably he's basing this on some knowledge of the situation. Nick Kristof said the same thing in his June 13th column in the Times, though it's possible that Wilson was his source. But if there's a factual dispute here, let's find out. Is Wilson's description of the OVP's involvement accurate? In particular, did the OVP get Wilson's eventual report? I think this is something a good investigative reporter with juice should be able to resolve for us pretty quickly. So, again, let's find out.

And there's another problem with the 'intelligence official's' angle. Let's say this was just something Joseph Wilson and a few of his buddies at the CIA knew about. And no one at the White House found out about it. Even if that's true, he's not the only person nor is the CIA the only agency, for that matter, that came to this conclusion.

Greg Thielmann recently left the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, State's intelligence bureau. He says that I&R independently came to the same conclusion as Wilson about the Niger story. And he told Kristof -- again in the June 13th column -- that he was "quite confident" that that judgment had been passed all the way up the chain of command at State.

Kristof threw in this line for good measure ...

"It was well known throughout the intelligence community that it was a forgery," said Melvin Goodman, a former C.I.A. analyst who is now at the Center for International Policy.
What I think we can draw from this is that there were multiple agencies in the national security bureaucracy that had judged the Niger information to be bogus. Perhaps none of them were passed on to high-level administration officials. But the more and more widely the documents' bogusity, shall we say, was known throughout the government, the less credible it is that the whole top level of the executive branch was out of the loop on what everyone else seemed to know.
Then you have the biggest problem, as I see it at least, with this argument.

The White House seemed to go to great lengths to find some outside authority to base its uranium sales claims on. The State of the Union speech ended up basing the claim on what the Brits had said.

In fact, according to one report by NPR's Tom Gjelten, this is exactly what happened: they used the Brits as cover because their own intelligence people were telling them the story was bogus. You can hear Gjelten's report here. But here's my summary of it from a recent column in The Hill ...

On June 19th, NPR’s Tom Gjelten added yet another piece to the puzzle. Apparently the intelligence folks even made their concerns known during the writing of the speech. “Earlier versions of the president’s speech did not cite British sources,” a senior intelligence official told Gjelten. “They were more definitive and we objected.”
At that point, according to Gjelten’s source, “White House officials” said “‘Why don’t we say the British say this?’”

The White House disputes Gjelten’s source’s account. But the upshot of the source’s accusation is pretty damning. If true, the White House really wanted to put the Niger uranium story in the speech. But faced with their own intelligence experts telling them the story was probably bogus, they decided to hang their allegation on the dossier the British had released last September.

Now, even if we discount Gjelten's report, it does seem like the White House knew it would be nice to have some other support for their claims about Iraqi uranium purchases and that there were some reasons for concern about their own 'evidence.' Their own actions seems to show they suspected something was wrong.
So I don't think dumping on Wilson, which seems to be the White House's preferred strategy now, is going to cut it. But in each of these cases, let's find out. If Wilson and Thielmann are fibbing let's expose them. And if their superiors are playing fast and loose with the truth, let's find that out too. Let the chips fall where they may.


-- Josh Marshall

j2k4
07-09-2003, 01:55 PM
Myfiles:

As a mere "Bush Supporter" (is that like a jockstrap, only "emptier"?) I cannot claim to be privy to such information as would explain this dilemma, but as the article you cite indicates, more investigation will be required before it can be defined so concretely as a "lie", yes?

I hate to nit-pick here, but doesn't the title of your topic "jump the gun" a bit?

Yours in unstinting conformity to acceptable forum decorum-

j2

clintonesque
07-09-2003, 02:14 PM
I'm not a real Bush supporter myself, but it looks like someone f*cked-up pure and simple.
...To the delight of many anti-Bush folks I'm sure.

Intelligence gets crossed quite regularly. Sometimes you here about it sometimes you don't.
Fixing these gaffs so that we can reduce the frequency of occurence is the right think to do.

There are STILL some level headed people around, u just gotta have faith.

Neil__
07-09-2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by clintonesque@9 July 2003 - 15:14
I'm not a real Bush supporter myself, but it looks like someone f*cked-up pure and simple.
...To the delight of many anti-Bush folks I'm sure.

Intelligence gets crossed quite regularly. Sometimes you here about it sometimes you don't.
Fixing these gaffs so that we can reduce the frequency of occurence is the right think to do.

There are STILL some level headed people around, u just gotta have faith.


I don't think American Intelligence is as in the dark as your responce suggests
I think most of the information is there.
It's just the agencies don't cooperate.

Neil

clintonesque
07-09-2003, 02:25 PM
. . . Like when you know your kids gettin' his rocks off, but just can't prove it with 100% certainty?

j2k4
07-09-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by clintonesque@9 July 2003 - 09:25
. . . Like when you know your kids gettin' his rocks off, but just can't prove it with 100% certainty?
Exactly.

Kind of.

Somewhat.

:huh:

Neil__
07-09-2003, 02:43 PM
Yep

it's more like the neighbour swears he saw him smoking pot
but until you find a spliff on him.
what can you do

Neil.

j2k4
07-09-2003, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Neil__@9 July 2003 - 09:43


Yep

it's more like the neighbour swears he saw him smoking pot
but until you find a spliff on him.
what can you do

Neil.
Find his stash and smoke it yourself?

Neil__
07-09-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+9 July 2003 - 15:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 9 July 2003 - 15:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Neil__@9 July 2003 - 09:43


Yep

it&#39;s more like the neighbour swears he saw him smoking pot
but until you find a spliff on him.
what can you do

Neil.
Find his stash and smoke it yourself? [/b][/quote]


Remember Son.
Never hide drugs in this house where your father can get his hands on them.
Oh and only smoke pot until you get your own place.
you know how he gets.

Neil

j2k4
07-09-2003, 02:55 PM
LOL

:lol: :lol: B)

clintonesque
07-09-2003, 03:16 PM
I got caught with a quater-ounce bag once by my mother.
Got a damn good four hour lecture about it too. I think she felt good about it.

I think when the rest of the world (or the rest of the anti-American world)
gets over it, they will feel good about it too. . .bitching about it that is.

Neil__
07-09-2003, 03:28 PM
as soon as bush is gone I&#39;ll fell a lot better.
how long for depends on the next President

Neil

j2k4
07-09-2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by clintonesque@9 July 2003 - 10:16
I got caught with a quater-ounce bag once by my mother.

I assume that, unlike your namesake, you had the good sense to inhale?

My Dad found my pipe, but when he asked about the weed, I told him I couldn&#39;t afford that stuff.

clintonesque
07-09-2003, 05:18 PM
I assume that, unlike your namesake, you had the good sense to inhale?

Oh yes, no denials here.

Rat Faced
07-09-2003, 08:32 PM
Dont SPAM it guys, it&#39;ll end up in the lounge. ;)

As to the topic, I think Intelligence Agencies the world over do their job better WITHOUT politicians and other ameteurs getting involved.

The politicians job is to read what is provided and make policy decisions based on these reports.....not suggest what is provided, or worse, tell &#39;em what to say.


There should be full public enquiries BOTH sides of the pond, if only to let us have faith in our security services again......this is assuming that everyone else has lost faith with their politicians like myself ;)

myfiles3000
07-10-2003, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@9 July 2003 - 21:32
Dont SPAM it guys, it&#39;ll end up in the lounge. ;)

As to the topic, I think Intelligence Agencies the world over do their job better WITHOUT politicians and other ameteurs getting involved.

The politicians job is to read what is provided and make policy decisions based on these reports.....not suggest what is provided, or worse, tell &#39;em what to say.


There should be full public enquiries BOTH sides of the pond, if only to let us have faith in our security services again......this is assuming that everyone else has lost faith with their politicians like myself ;)
i think all y&#39;all who think a. its too early to pass judgement; and b. the wires got crossed, it happens sometimes, need to wake up and smell the wilfull blindness of yourselves and the folks running the worlds only superpower. you think that level of incompetence, in preparation for war, happens by accident?

j2k4
07-10-2003, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+9 July 2003 - 21:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 9 July 2003 - 21:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@9 July 2003 - 21:32
Dont SPAM it guys, it&#39;ll end up in the lounge. ;)

As to the topic, I think Intelligence Agencies the world over do their job better WITHOUT politicians and other ameteurs getting involved.

The politicians job is to read what is provided and make policy decisions based on these reports.....not suggest what is provided, or worse, tell &#39;em what to say.


There should be full public enquiries BOTH sides of the pond, if only to let us have faith in our security services again......this is assuming that everyone else has lost faith with their politicians like myself ;)
i think all y&#39;all who think a. its too early to pass judgement; and b. the wires got crossed, it happens sometimes, need to wake up and smell the wilfull blindness of yourselves and the folks running the worlds only superpower. you think that level of incompetence, in preparation for war, happens by accident? [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a case of simply "too early" or crossed wires; I think there are too many fingers in the pie, i.e., too many agencies, and too many potentially conflicting points of view-our intelligence services are gaining ground on the gathering of info, but their abilities as to dissemination of same are way behind the curve.

I find this regretful and counterproductive, but a certain amount of this is to be expected; how long the "growing pains" will last is an entirely different consideration-we may have to do a bit of institutional blood-letting.

kAb
07-10-2003, 04:53 AM
the CIA is not to blame, they said the report was false. maybe if ur gonna blame the CIA, is the people who allowed it to get to Bush without telling him that it was false <_<

myfiles3000
07-10-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@10 July 2003 - 05:32
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a case of simply "too early" or crossed wires; I think there are too many fingers in the pie, i.e., too many agencies, and too many potentially conflicting points of view-our intelligence services are gaining ground on the gathering of info, but their abilities as to dissemination of same are way behind the curve.

I find this regretful and counterproductive, but a certain amount of this is to be expected; how long the "growing pains" will last is an entirely different consideration-we may have to do a bit of institutional blood-letting.
j2k4, you&#39;re denying the theory that the system was intentionally manipulated in order to bolster the case for war? You think this was a case of too many fingers in spy pie?

Have you read the media reports on just exactly what the forged documents looked like?&#33; they were preposterous forgeries, that any intelligent person, let alone an intelligence officer, could have probably spotted as fakes.

Open your eyes my friend, this was NOT an accident.

j2k4
07-10-2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+10 July 2003 - 06:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 &#064; 10 July 2003 - 06:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@10 July 2003 - 05:32
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a case of simply "too early" or crossed wires; I think there are too many fingers in the pie, i.e., too many agencies, and too many potentially conflicting points of view-our intelligence services are gaining ground on the gathering of info, but their abilities as to dissemination of same are way behind the curve.

I find this regretful and counterproductive, but a certain amount of this is to be expected; how long the "growing pains" will last is an entirely different consideration-we may have to do a bit of institutional blood-letting.
j2k4, you&#39;re denying the theory that the system was intentionally manipulated in order to bolster the case for war? You think this was a case of too many fingers in spy pie?

Have you read the media reports on just exactly what the forged documents looked like?&#33; they were preposterous forgeries, that any intelligent person, let alone an intelligence officer, could have probably spotted as fakes.

Open your eyes my friend, this was NOT an accident.[/b][/quote]
You and I have different views on this; of that I am positive.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I fear there are personnel in the intelligence game who are.

There are glory hounds who would enjoy nothing more than to lead the administration and armed forces in a raffish snakedance in pursuit of the Saddams of the world.

Your article commented repeatedly on the need to run to ground those armed with the "facts" of the case-if the author is not "sure", merely suspicious enough to write his article, why do you feel compelled to express even greater cynicism?

I also must point out that you have recently been observed (I saw you&#33;) blasting the media for a variety of reasons, yet you point me to "media reports" in order that you might convince me of your suppositions.

Media reports? I&#39;ll take them with the same grain of salt I take everything else.

If there is truly anything to this, we will know soon enough.

Hell, as opposite sides of the same coin, you and I will suss this before the gov., right?

P.S. When I spoke of you as being "rarer" I meant as a non-conservative who distrusts the media.

myfiles3000
07-10-2003, 01:51 PM
formatting at bottom of post has been used for the benefit of the reader, to highlight the salient passage....from talkingpointsmemo.com

I guess I have to give Dan Bartlett some measure of credit. He seems to have removed all the squishiness from the story of how that Niger-uranium malarkey got into the State of the Union address.

Read these clips from this article in Thursday&#39;s Post ...

White House officials said the uranium claim was included in the president&#39;s Jan. 28 address only after the wording had been approved by the CIA, Pentagon and State Department. In his remarks, Bush declared, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Bartlett said the passage was included in drafts of the speech for at least 10 days before Bush delivered it. Bartlett said he knew of no objections to including the charge or debate over the wording.

"We wouldn&#39;t lead with something that we thought could be refuted," Bartlett said. "There was no debate or questions with regard to that line when it was signed off on. This was not a last-minute addition."

...

A senior administration official said that numerous officials at the CIA had the chance to object to the line about Hussein&#39;s quest for uranium. "If [CIA Director George J.] Tenet had called up and said, &#39;Take it out,&#39; we would have taken it out," the official said. "When it was signed off on at highest level, it was not brought into question by those who would know or those who were tasked to know at the agency."

The official said the claim was tied to British officials because they had included it in a government intelligence dossier last September. "When given a choice, why not cite a public document?" the official said.

Up until now the line has been that this was some sort of snafu. People at the CIA or State may have known the Niger story was bogus. But the word hadn&#39;t filtered up to the White House. Or the speech didn&#39;t get shown to the people who knew the details. As Ken Pollack noted in this portion of TPM&#39;s interview with him posted on Wednesday, this is what they have been telling him.
But now the story is quite different. It was in the speech for at least ten days prior to its delivery. And the appropriate people from all the key national security agencies and departments signed off on it.

Bartlett&#39;s drawn the line pretty clearly, leaving only two real possibilities. Either the speech was intentionally deceptive or folks at the State Department and the CIA were guilty of some mixture of gross negligence and incompetence. The &#39;senior administration official&#39; quoted in the second passage doesn&#39;t even want to leave it that ambiguous. It&#39;s George Tenet&#39;s fault, he says.

Who falls on his sword here?

EDIT: i&#39;ve said it before, i&#39;ll keep saying it: wilfull blindness. And the CIA was involved, contrary to an earlier poster

j2k4
07-10-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@10 July 2003 - 08:51
Bartlett&#39;s drawn the line pretty clearly, leaving only two real possibilities. Either the speech was intentionally deceptive or folks at the State Department and the CIA were guilty of some mixture of gross negligence and incompetence. The &#39;senior administration official&#39; quoted in the second passage doesn&#39;t even want to leave it that ambiguous. It&#39;s George Tenet&#39;s fault, he says.


Much better, thank you.

I will, in light of this, choose "...folks at the State Department and the CIA were guilty of some mixture of gross negligence and incompetence."

Couldn&#39;t have said it better myself.

It is an open secret many of the underlings at State are careerists who are hostile to Bush&#39;s policies and handle intelligence accordingly.

I&#39;ve always been astounded at the egregious abuse of the "armor" of civil servitude.

I say, GET A FUCKING BROOM AND DO SOME HOUSECLEANING&#33;

Neil__
07-10-2003, 03:49 PM
j2k4

Who in government is finally responsible for the state department
Start sweeping there

And replace the CIA
there too dirty to stay.

Neil

j2k4
07-10-2003, 03:56 PM
I thank you for your kind advice.

I would favor giving Dubya the broom so he could do his own sweeping, but alas, you are apparently unaware of the difficulty of dislodging faceless, nameless cubicle dwellers.

Thats a whole different deal, there.

Do you ever wonder how we became the world&#39;s behemoth when we are beset by such inanity?

I do.

Constantly.

Neil__
07-10-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@10 July 2003 - 16:56
I thank you for your kind advice.

I would favor giving Dubya the broom so he could do his own sweeping, but alas, you are apparently unaware of the difficulty of dislodging faceless, nameless cubicle dwellers.

Thats a whole different deal, there.

Do you ever wonder how we became the world&#39;s behemoth when we are beset by such inanity?

I do.

Constantly.



Not as unaware as you think
Thatcher was furmly intrenched in her bunker on Mars for 16 years
I don&#39;t even think she bothered turning on the T.V. let alone concider our opinions.

All I know some bugger voted for her and we were buggered.

I didn&#39;t suggest you do the sweeping just hand him a broom.

As to your question

Me too

far too often

Neil