The Cellar - It depends on what the meaning of "name" is...

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - It depends on what the meaning of "name" is... (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=8703)

The CIA thinks she was.

Getting closer. Fitzgerald opens an Official Website.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Rather did screw up, and thereby corroded his credibility, and fatally impugned his own judgement. WRT whether Valerie Plame was actually undercover or not, National Review Online thinks she was not, and had not been for some years' time.

National Review Online -- McCarthy, July 19

Read the article and the article that it linked to and found this quote.

Quote:

Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Ok, so because the Russians think they have identified her, she is no longer undercover? That's not what the law says. Next.

Was Libby or Rove the anonymous sorce for that one Rich? :right:

We know, however, based upon what we have read and seen and heard that someone created fake documents related to Niger and Iraq and used them as a false pretense to launch America into an invasion of Iraq. And when a former diplomat made an honest effort to find out the facts, a plan was hatched to both discredit and punish him by revealing the identity of his undercover CIA agent wife. TomPaine

So far the Republican line on this is bad intel. If Fitzgerald proves the conspiracy we should throw a neck tie party for the whole bunch, but I'll settle for impeachment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff

Senate Intelligence Report, Niger section, page 11:

Quote:

The reports officer [of Wilson's report on Niger] said that ... he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed that the Iraqis were interested in purchasing Uranium,...

Oops

There's still the fishy documents, weird timing, and even an Italian connection. How very Rovian!

Found it! David Corn taking on the interpretation of an Iraqi visit in the big scheme of things. Oops to you?

Quote:

Now on to the claim that Wilson's report to the CIA actually provided more reason to believe Iraq had been seeking yellowcake uranium. In his debriefing Wilson reported that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had told him that in 1999 he had been asked to meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. Mayaki said he assumed the delegation wanted to discuss uranium sales. But he said that although he had met with the delegation he had not been interested in pursuing any commercial dealings with Iraq. The intelligence report based on Wilson's debriefing also noted that the former minister of mines explained to Wilson that given the tight controls maintained by the French consortium in charge of uranium mining in Niger, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a shipment of uranium to a pariah state.

What did this report mean to the intelligence community? A CIA reports officer told the Senate intelligence committee that he took it as indirect confirmation of the allegation since Nigerian officials had admitted that an Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999 and since the former prime minister had said he believed Iraq was interested in purchasing uranium. But an INR analyst said that he considered the report to be corroboration of INR's position, which was that the allegation was "highly suspect" because Niger would be unlikely to engage in such a transaction and unable to transfer uranium to Iraq due to the strict controls maintained by the French consortium. But the INR analyst added, the "report could be read in different ways."

Wilson's work was thrown into the stew. The CIA continued to disseminate a report noting that a foreign intelligence service had told U.S. intelligence that Niger had agreed to supply Iraq with hundreds of tons of uranium. And in the National Intelligence Estimate produced in October 2002, the intelligence community reported that Iraq had been trying to strike a uranium deal with Niger in 2001. But the NIE noted that INR strongly disagreed with this assessment. And when the National Security Council drafted a speech for Bush in October 2002 the CIA recommended the address not include the Niger allegation because it was "debatable" whether the yellowcake could be obtained from Niger. In a follow-up fax to the NSC, the CIA said "the evidence is weak" and "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." Still, in late January 2003 -- after the INR's Iraq analyst had concluded that papers recently obtained by U.S. intelligence related to the supposed Iraqi-Niger uranium deal were "clearly a forgery" -- Bush went ahead and accused Iraq of seeking uranium in Africa.

Another angle here. (And a Daily Kos thread discussing it)

There's also this Post story: Check the correction box on the side.

I'm just glad we could get to the right part of the debate. Now we have everyone (except for the Post correction, which is a non-entity IMO) agreeing that:

1. Iraqi went to Niger.

2. They wanted uranium. (It's the only meaningful export Niger has.)

3. They were turned back.

The Crooks and Liars take, which I have seen before, concludes that (and I quote) the intelligence community discounted the notion that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger; but this is Monday morning, and given the 1-2-3 facts on the table, do you come to that conclusion? Isn't it a direct contradiction to #2? Why would Crooks and Liars do that?

It gets hard to follow; but how did Wilson get those 1-2-3 facts?

4. He was a former ambassador, and highly regarded, but not an ambassador to Niger. He was ambassador to Gabon. It was 10 years ago.

5. When he went to Niger, he was told not to speak with anyone currently in the government because it could hurt further negotiations about the restrictions of yellowcake sale.

6. He was only there a week, and all he did was talk with people; they assured him that all was well and even though the Iraqis had been there, no transfer could have happened because of those restrictions.

Here are the hard questions.

Given 4-5-6, and the 1-2-3 already established, do YOU believe that Wilson could come to a very complete and total conclusion that Iraq was not seeking uranium?

When Brit intelligence comes to the conclusion that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Niger, does Wilson's trip negate that intelligence?

If you're Wilson, and the Pres makes his S.O.T.U. speech saying that Brit intel finds Iraq seeking uranium from Africa, do you then write to the New York Times about what you've found? Or do you wait six months until the war starts, the first invasion is over, and no stockpiles are found?

When you write to the Times, do you omit fact #2? How about #4? How about #5?

And finally, the biggest question for y'all: Is it OK that Iraq went to Niger in 1998 seeking uranium even though they were prohibited from having it? Are you copasetic with that because they did apparently get turned down? Do you think they wanted it for peaceful purposes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

(except for the Post correction, which is a non-entity IMO)

What does that mean?

It's a correction, there's no by-line, and it contradicts everything in the Senate Intel Report specifically mentioned in the story. I'm saying it's flat-out wrong.

Update on that: a poster in the dkos thread says that Iran has its own uranium mines. Some Googling around shows that to be true.

Do I want Iraq to buy uranium, make bombs and kill me? no.
Do I want the US to create manipulative intelligence to support their deadly move for regime change when they can't make a real case to put before the American people with fact? no.
Why is Colin Powell so ashamed of it all?

Why were these forgeries that supported the incorrect claim so ellusive, essential and crude? Would the British spread false intel, even for a little while? Would we? Why?

Why not make a real case for war? Who would think of such a thing? How about Michael "Iran-Contra" Ledeenor one of his crowd? There's a track record of traitorous wheeling and dealing with national security secrets.

Upon his return, talking with whoever and for however long, Wilson's intel was deemed good by the CIA who sent him.
As the case for war was built, Wilson smelled a rat, and who knows what else he learned. That he came forward at all, well, that has proven to be a bold move.

I will be very interested to see what Fitzgerald make of all of this mess.

Here's a juicier link onLedeen. Who knows what's true? hmmm.