Jan 31 2007

Fitz’s Folly VI – 1999 Wilson Report Caused Iraq Concerns!

Published by at 1:59 pm under All General Discussions,Plame Game

[Note: Updates at the end. Folks, the jem is at the bottom after the fold. To summarize, Wilson went to Niger to debunk his own earlier report from 1999]. Now we have Judith Miller, and the case for the prosecution starts to fall apart more. Key date to hold in your mind while going through all of this is July 8th. On that date the information regarding the NIE (and I believe Wilson’s trip as it related to it) was declassified. So here we go with Miller’s first meeting with Libby on June 23rd and something I noted way back when she first wrote about her meetings – and that is Libby did NOT discuss Wilson by name or occupation at this meeting.

F Did there come a time when you met with Libby

M In OEOB, June 23. (Voice waivers)

M Mr. Libby appeared agitated and frustrated and angry

F HOw could you tell

M He’s a lowkey and controlled guy, what he said made me think I was correct. He was concerned that CIA was beginning to backpdal to distance self from unequivocal estimates it provided before the war through a “perverted war of leaks.”

F Did the topic of Joseph Wilson come up

F What do you recall was said

M His office had learned that he had been sent overseas, initially referred to as clandestine guy. VP had asked about a report in Winter 2002, in Africa, CIA hd sent Mr Wilson out to investigate claim.

F Was Libby saying VP sent WIlson

M the contrary. He said that VP did not know that Mr Wilson had been sent.


F What he said about Winter 2002 and how it related to trip.

M There had been reports, a report had gone up to the Hill indicating that Iraq hunting for uranium in Niger. VP had asked about those reporters, agency had taken upon itself to find out more. In the beginning he referred to Wilson as clandestine guy.

F Mr. Wilson’s wife (voice not in gerat shape)

M Yes, when he was discussing intell reporting, he said his wife (referring to Wilson) worked in the bureau

If Libby did discuss Wilson only in the abstract of “clandestine guy” then he while he was, in essence, discussing Wilson and Plame he was not using their names and therefore not divulging them to the media. This is absolutely critical. Because this is where Fitzgerald’s whole case implodes. If Libby was going to out Plame he would have used the name “Joe Wilson” at least! But if he was being careful and did not let on about Wilson’s identity, then talking about some mystery guy’s wife is clearly not a campaign against any individual. What is interesting, and I understand it is in cross examination later, is Miller knew the name “Joe Wilson” before she met with Libby because she had talked to him! She had his phone number in her notes. The reason Wilson and variants of Plame’s name are in her notes are not because of Libby – he used ‘clandestine guy’. No one can derive “Joe Wilson” from that. So it is clear that while Libby was trying to hide the specifics about who this clandestine guy was, Miller already knew (and clearly did not tell Libby she knew). Or did she? Interesting question from Walton

Walton Was he using Wilson’s name

M First as a clandestine guy, then began talking about Joe Wilson by name

Question is, did she say something to lead him to understand she knew who the clandestine guy was.

Here is a real trip for Plamiacs. We all know Valerie Plame sent Joe Wilson to Niger in 1999 as well, that 2002 was not his first mission for the CIA to that country. It turns out the report that Iraq and Niger were back at the Yellow Cake dance (they had traded in Yellow Cake prior to the first Gulf War – without the knowledge of the French who supposedly oversaw the trade) in 1999 was from a report by one Joe Wilson from his earlier trip to Niger! There were serious concerns at the time that AQ Kahn, father of the Pakistani Nuclear Bomb, was out selling his knowledge to other muslim countries. As we discussed in one of many earlier posts on this site, that earlier trip was during major upheavels in Niger and after a military coup d’etat. News that Iraq had come calling at this pivotal stage was probably very alarming in non-proliferation circles. It has been my suspicion the CIA bribed some key folks to forego the coup and turn the country into a democracy.

But either way, the report that Iraq might have been talking to Niger about yellow cake which hit the Hill and caused the VP to ask questions, and subsequently send Wilson back to Niger in 2003 – was Wilson’s own earlier report!:

F what discussed. [Judy uncomfortable]

M SAid plenty of info before Powell presentation was given, supporting Iraq hunting uranium, it had been shown that IRaq HAD acquired uranium in Africa, prior to 1st gulf war, in 80s IAEA stated taht Iraq had acquired, after that several different reports that Iraq in market again for uranium. 2 reports, for a long-term arrangement for large quantities, and then a shorter term amount, then referred to anohter report, a third report, the arrival of a delegation in 1999 this delegation was seeking a broader trade relationship, since Niger only had one export, officials had concluded that Iraq was interested in uranium, Author of this report was Joe Wilson. The report had gone up to the Hill. Talking about info provided to Hill, which had prompted VP questions.

F Did he indicate who provided this report


How interesting. Wilson went to Niger in 2002 and then came back debunking his own report from 1999? How totally fascinating (and never reported to the American people). So Kristof’s headline should have been “Ex Ambassador changes his mind on Iraq WMD”. Ugh! This is what this was all about? Wilson reported a serious Iraq overture to Niger in 1999 and then goes back in 2002 and debunks his own earlier report? Were they his forgeries as well? More later on Miller if I have time.

Addendum: Just wanted to add some more to the Miller-Libby meeting and whether Libby ever deviated from the “clandestine guy” line in their first meeting:

J Did you say to the GJ:

[GK Transcript]: I really have to rely on my notes because my memory is not good

M Sir, I’d like to see the context of that.

J Were you asked the following question.

Judy swallowing nervously.

[GJ Transcript] And is it fair to say that in describing Wilson’s wife, your best recollection is he did not refer to her by name?

I still think Libby was really cautious but Miller knew about Wilson and actually has no recollection if Libby used their names or not – in her head they names would automatically be associated. More later.

32 responses so far

32 Responses to “Fitz’s Folly VI – 1999 Wilson Report Caused Iraq Concerns!”

  1. Carol_Herman says:

    Geez. In 1999 Clinton was president. And, not only do we have Berg(l)er admitting to removing documents from the national archieves, we also know he didn’t get penalized for doing so.

    So? If you were running a conspiracy, here. You’d see Wilson IS invested with the donks. He goes into Kerry’s campaign, as well.

    And, Judith Miller? She’s asked ONE QUESTION by Fitz, that really annoyed me. She’s asked if “she remembers other reporters,” and given the legal talent “prompting her.” She alludes in her answer that, “ALL THE OTHER REPORTERS were discussing MUCH MORE STUFF. Not covered by Fitz’s indictment. And, she can say she COULD REMEMBER THEIR NAMES. But because of the “other stuff,” she has the First Amendment Rights NOT to disclose them, by name.

    Fitz’ “case” exploded right after he gave his presser.

    Walton must be a deaf, dumb and blind, man.

    But at least, guessing that he was going to hang a “mistrial label” on the case; because of Miller’s First Amendment Rights, seems to have been a bit premature.

    STILL? Let’s say the jury convicts? (And, one juror was dismissed, today, because the boss wouldn’t pay wages for this waste of time.) Then, you’re down to 12 jurors. And, only 1 alternate. No TV. And, the media is still sticking stuff “up on their shows,” that deflects attention away from the fact Fitz has no case at all. Never did. (Heck, Dryfus got OFF, because of Emile Zola.) Here? If there’s a miscarriage of justice? The Zola role will go to Clarice Feldman.

    I wonder if the jurors are impressed that they “lost” one of their own, today?

  2. Carol_Herman says:

    What if, on this road, TWO THINGS converge?

    Po-210? The “trigger?” Wouldn’t that mean somewhere, somehow, there’s enough Yellow Cake out there to PROVE the President’s “16 words?” were right?

    You’ve got proof of enough concern that Sandy Berg(l)er snatches papers from the National Archieves.

    And, the media is just whistling past this grave yard?

    I also wonder, since the CIA knew that Saddam was transporting WMD’s from Iraq, into Syria, wazzup with that?

    We KNOW Litvinenko is deader than a doornail.

    But we don’t know if syria has serious leaks with anything that might be buried in her desert sands. What if the CIA, not being entirely made up of goof-balls, knew enough to “halp” whatever containers contained the WMD’s … to leak?

    Yes. Russia has always suffered from nuclear leaks. They can’t build a sub that doesn’t proliferate life threatening leaks to her sailors. It’s not just rust that does in her fleet. And, both Finland and Poland HATE the access russia has to the Baltic Sea.

    I’d even bet Goldfarb’s success as a PR agent is due to the fact that the media are the shills for the “elites.” Who dance around George Soros. So there’s always enough money. But without the results you’d get if the media wasn’t coming off looking so bad.

    I also don’t understand WHY Walton doesn’t give Miller BLANKET IMMUNITY. He could promise her NO JAIL. Just as what hangs over her head, that brought Bennett’s voice IN, should she happen to “remember” something where Fitz could ask the judge to send her back to jail.

    What a circle jerk.

    And, the entire legal profession has no one to blame but themselves.

  3. Soothsayer says:

    Libby. Still on trial. Still screwed.

    Interestingly enough, one of the highlights of yesterday’s testimony was that Libby told Miller that Wilson had been sent to Niger in response to the VP’s question to the CIA. All Cheney and Libby ever had to do was to admit that it was Cheney’s question that prompted the CIA to send Wilson. Instead, they went batshit about it.

    Again, and minus all spin from either side, the as yet uncontradicted testimony from every witness thus far is Libby learned of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity from government sources – and not from reporters – and that he learned her identity before he spoke with the journalists he had attributed the information to.

    All of which contradict his statements to Federal investigators and his statements under oath to the Grand Jury – the charges upon which he was indicted and is now being tried.

    When you’re trying a bank robbery case – you don’t have to prove WHY the robber wanted the $$$. The idea that you have to prove Libby’s motive for lying is in error. Intent may be an element of a crime – motive never is:

    Intent means conscious objective or purpose. A person commits a criminal act with intent when that person’s conscious objective or purpose is to engage in the act which the law forbids or to bring about an unlawful result.

    Motive, on the other hand, is the reason why a person chooses to engage in criminal conduct.

    If intent is an element of a charged crime, that element must be proved by beyond a reasonable doubt. Motive, however, is not an element of the crimes charged. Therefore, [Fitzgerald] is not required to prove a motive for the commission of the charged crime(s).

  4. The Macker says:

    Isn’t it possible that Libby “learned” from multiple sources and hearing from Russert was the “event” that freed him to tell others?

    Isn’t a motive necessary to prove a conspiracy?

  5. Soothsayer says:

    Motive is not necessary to prove conspiracy – only a common plan – or element of a plan – and some act in furtherance thereof.

    Besides, Libby is not charged with conspiracy. Fitzgerald charged him on the narrowest of issues: false statements. I think Libby’s biggest problem is that his own handwritten notes reflect learning of Plame’s identity BEFORE he claims he learned Plame’s identity FROM the journalists. And so far, the sworn testimony of journalists – either at trial or before the Grand Jury – was that Libby told them Plame’s identity – and not the other way around.

    One of the more troubling bits for Libby yesterday was David Addington’s testimony that Libby expressed concern about a hypothetical CIA agents identity – and Addington gave him a copy of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Concern that he might have breached some statutory duty could be construed by a jury as a motive for lying.

  6. The Macker says:

    Russert undoubtedly knew from his two reporters and mentioning it to Libby would free Libby to speak out, knowing it was then public knowledge. That would be a memorable “learning” event.

  7. Soothsayer says:

    And your point is?

  8. The Macker says:

    Libby told the truth!

  9. Soothsayer says:

    Awwww – more bad news for Scooter as Matt Cooper testifies:

    Friday July 11, I spoke with Karl Rove, a member of WH staff. I put in a call to Rove’s office, I was routed to his office, at first, he wasn’t there, he was busy, but then they put me through, and we talked.

    I said “Ah sure, we’re interested in Wilson story.” And he immediately said, “Don’t get too far out, don’t lionize or idolize him.”

    He said a number of things would be coming out. He said the DCI had not sent him. He said the VP had not been involved. Then he said, it would come out who was involved in sending him. He said his wife.

    I until that point didn’t know Wilson had a wife. I said “the wife?”

    He said she worked in WMD at the Agency, I took the CIA, not the EPA. We talked a bit more, at the end he said, “I’ve already said too much.”

    Yes, indeed, you have Mr. Libby.

  10. AJStrata says:


    Karl is not on trial….


  11. AJStrata says:

    Lot of fantasy lawyers on the post today.

    For perjury intent is the entire point. Without intent to hide something no perjury. Liberals think perjury is being inaccurate. Which would of course make the entire left of the political spectrum perjurists.

    Anyway, perjury is not being in accurate, nor is it being untruthful. You will never see a perjury case about lying about your age or weight. It has to be germaine to the case or investigation.

    Oh, well – I guess that is why we have lawyers.

  12. Soothsayer says:


    Of course Rove’s not on trial —- yet.

    I’m sure you quoted the same for Bill Clinton? Who’s lie was found to be immaterial?

  13. The Macker says:

    Tell Paula Jones.

  14. Carol_Herman says:

    AJ. Yesterday you took a stab at guessing that Walton had in his hand “cause for mistrial.” In that Libby needs access to the names of OTHERS who, like he did, had heard the “plame” rumor. And, had been spreading it.

    Worse for Miller, she was close to Chalabi for a decade. And, WAS THE GOING MOUTH PIECE to PAGE ONE HEADLINES; for not only Chalabi. But the CIA.

    And, Yellow Cake? Iraq was making purchases in the 1980’s. With Joe Wilson HIDING the fact that Niger was making Yellow Cake “sales,” without a word of this whispered to the french.

    AND? In the late 1990’s the CIA could have been responsible for “halping” Niger have a coup de’ tat. Where another form of government “won.”

    It’s entirely possible that Amb. Wilson blew up his own gravy train? Ya know why? HE MADE MONEY ON THE TRANSFERS OF YELLOW CAKE. Did to! (Into 1999.) And, the CIA sent him to Niger at least 3 times.

    So, why would Wilson decide he could work this angle, and not lose income? Ah. Because KERRY was supposed to win in 2004. Didn’t.

    Miller? Came off as looking bad, if credibility were an important item. Didn’t seem to remember much about June 23rd. She had to “find a notebook,” which she retrieved from a paper bag after she got out of prison. “How convenient.”

    It’s still an unraveling story.

    And, I hate ta tell ya. But one juror was lost today; because the employer wouldn’t foot the bill beyond what has already been served. You’re down to 12 jurors. And, one alternate.

    And, it seems that Reggie Walton took a night off, to think about “mistrial.” But insructed Judith Miller to answer. I guess this fools the democraps. But they’re not in the majority in this country. More than 60% of America’s voting public eschew “that” party. And, among those 60%? A large number can read. And, tend to follow THIS NEWS, here. Rather than tuning in anything on TV. Plus others? Don’t watch at all. And, stopped caring long ago. One way. Or the other.

    So, among the possibilities ahead? What if Reggie Walton plays the “mistrial” card? Even though he didn’t do it today. What about when the prosecution rests?

    Did you know the judge could say “sorry, but Fitz hasn’t proven his case.” And, then there’s no need to proceed. And, the case gets dismissed.

    Hang tough. This is a tough road for anyone who wants to see FAIR PLAY within the American justice system prevail.

    Pick a choice: Mistrial, after Fitzgerald rests? Or hung jury? What else is out there? Two more jurors have to return to work? And, can’t be forced to stay?

  15. Jacqui says:

    Ken keeps coming back under different names…like a bad penny you just can’t get rid of….now he’s “southie”. Different name but same bad logic and spouting leftie sound bites.

  16. Carol_Herman says:

    Oy. So they keep coming back under different names? So what? Worry only if it affects your point of view.

    Meanwhile, just you wait! Hillary’s gonna come back as Rodham!

    As a matter of fact, the only reason she hasn’t castrated off her husband’s name? She thinks if she dresses up in pink, we won’t know who she is. Or what she’s really like.

    The other reason for the pink? It’s the color of pigs. So, if I’m wrong about her chances of getting elected? Who knows. Maybe, she’ll flap and fly?

    As to the media? I don’t think they’ve gained an inch. If this were warfare? It would like like Verdun.

    As to Fitz. He had no case! He is in this courtroom now, hoping he can somehow bail out. While the judge should have tossed the case. Didn’t.

    And, didn’t “dismiss” this morning. While if the jury convicts? Who is captaining the ship? The prosecutors, these days, are the bad guys! In a world where hollywood has yet to identify one muslem as “the bad guy!” Even in the Clancy movie!

    You don’t think things are topsy-turvy?

    I think they are! And, I also think to get Amb. Munchausen to cooperate, his wife had to convince him it PAID to burn the “pocket money” he kept getting from Niger! Now, what did Kerry offer him, to do that?

    Does the media think that even though Kerry didn’t win in 2004; the donks are gonna do well in 2008?


    Did you know that in 1862, the “midterm” election for Lincoln, republicans in congress (who had won on Lincoln’s coat tails in 1860) were tossed from office. Because the UNION was doing so badly out in the battlefield.

    Lincoln still PERSERVERED. And, if you notice a quality of this President’s? If he says something, his words mean something. The other thing to notice? In his day, Lincoln was called an ape. And, to add insult to injury, he was also called stupid. Uneducated. And, unable to write a coherent English sentence.

    Good that we have history. Because books tell ya Lincoln won. And, if you’ve seen pictures of the Lincoln Memorial, out on the Mall. In DC. Lincoln doesn’t look like an ape! Yes. The statue is bearded. Lincoln only grew it at some point in 1859. He had been cleanshaven. And, a school kid wrote him a letter and told him he looked so gaunt, he order have whiskers.

    One of the nice things about seeing a broad range of opinions? You know you’re in a free country, where people can think and say anything they like. It’s free.

    And, even nicer. We are not in a bar. Where some inebriated idiot, looking for a fight, can actually start one.

    I hope Libby gets a fair trial.

    And, no matter what else happens, I think Fitzgerald will go down in history as a prosecutor who committed crimes. Who used his office to railroad an innocent guy. And, it’s a political witch hunt.

    I remember watching Mort Sahl come out on stage. And, he’d just read from the newspaper. Hysterical stuff. Then, he began reading from the Warren Commission Report. Well, it’s premise was funny. And, phoney. A work of fiction trying to sell itself as fact. (In those days? The IRS had instructions to go after the owner of the Hungry I. And, Mort Sahl was denied access to his livelihood. The stage. Except on college campuses.) He earned, and probably still earns, enough. Showing ya that the tenured professors aren’t the ones who make college students laugh.

    Do I worry about censorship? You’re kidding me, RIIGHT? Because Lenny Bruce did pay with his life for opening up comedy to the “F” word. Ya know who won? Not the censors. Lots of stuff has blown out the showroom doors. Just as pelosi’s driving skills got her going in her new speaker’s chair, but she entered through the plateglass window. (The doorknob didn’t work?)

    Keep the faith. Every gain you think Fitzgerald has? Just prolongs the disservice to justice. No matter how Judge Walton wants to parse words.

  17. Retired Spook says:


    You seem like a regular guy, so how about the place that food critic Calvin Trillen described in Playboy Magazine as:

    …the single best restaurant in the world is Arthur Bryant’s Barbeque at 18th & Brooklyn in Kansas City.

    Pork ribs . . . burnt ends . . . beer mugs from a freezer case with Boulevard on tap . . . plenty of pickles . . . beans . . . fries . . . and Arthur Bryant’s original sauce.

    You’re on, Soothie; I’m familiar with Arthur Bryant’s. I’m in KC at least twice a year. My oldest daughter works on the Kansas side and lives in Lawrence.

    Sorry, I didn’t catch your reponse in the previous thread.

  18. Everson says:

    I wish that the original CIA referral to the DOJ could be made available, regarding the ‘outing’ of Mrs. Wilson/Plame.

  19. Carol_Herman says:

    RULE 29.

    Just before signing off for the day, Walton was asking Fitz when he’d be finished. And, between the back and forth for when Wells will put on the defense; Wells asked for a DEFINITE for his being able to begin on MONDAY.

    He said he wants to call Jill Ambramson of the NY Times. He said it’s a RULE 29. And, I gather it would impeach one prong of Judith Miller’s testimony. And, speculators?

  20. wiley says:

    It’s a shame this charade has made it to trial, but now that it’s underway, it’s good to see that there is no chance Libby will be convicted. And it’s pleasing to see the smug reporters squirm under cross examination in their own hypocricy. Miller got pummelled — she was obviously lying about not knowing about Wilson before meeting with Libby. All the so-called journalists are getting exposed for their selective memories. A case of perjury could just as well be made for each of the witnesses so far than for Libby.