A Bad Day to Be Scott McClellan

[Berzerker]

But I thought Wilson went public shortly after the SotU address Bush gave in Jan 2003. I forget when the war started. Yup, just googled it, March-April of 2003. Maybe 2 months before is when Bush made the Niger claim.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
The wife outing defintiely happened after the NYT's article whihc essentially precipitated the whole affair.

Baiscally if Wilson had not been an over reaching Megalomianiac who attempted to oversell his credentials the admin would not have been forced to distance themselves from him and ultimately leak Plames wife.

War happened before the articles came out.

Oh, of course it's Wilson;s fault that his wife's identity was revealed..shame on Wilson...

Jesus, you are starting to sound like Ned in this thread....

[Boris Godunov]

The administration was "forced" to leak Plame's identity?

I suppose next we'll hear that Mehlman was "forced" to peddle his lie on CNN because the media is being such big meanies for daring to question the administration.

[Ramo]

Republican hacks...

Yes, Republican hacks.

Again:

First conclusion: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."

That is not true. The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife sent to her superiors that says "my husband has good relations with the PM (prime minister) 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." There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip. Indeed it is little more than a recitation of my contacts and bona fides. The conclusion is reinforced by comments in the body of the report that a CPD reports officer stated the "the former ambassador's wife `offered up his name'" (page 39) and a State Department Intelligence and Research officer that the "meeting was `apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue."

In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting at which the subject of my trip was raised. Neither was the CPD Reports officer. After having escorted me into the room, she departed the meeting to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It was at that meeting where the question of my traveling to Niger was broached with me for the first time and came only after a thorough discussion of what the participants did and did not know about the subject. My bona fides justifying the invitation to the meeting were the trip I had previously taken to Niger to look at other uranium related questions as well as 20 years living and working in Africa, and personal contacts throughout the Niger government. Neither the CPD reports officer nor the State analyst were in the chain of command to know who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the Reports Officer has a different conclusion about Valerie's role than the one offered in the "additional comments". I urge the committee to reinterview the officer and publicly publish his statement.

It is unfortunate that the report failed to include the CIA's position on this matter. If the staff had done so it would undoubtedly have been given the same evidence as provided to Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce in July, 2003. They reported on July 22 that:

"A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked `alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.

"But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. `They (the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story) were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,' he said. `There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,' he said. `I can't figure out what it could be.'
"We paid his (Wilson's) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there,' the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said. he was reimbursed only for expenses." (Newsday article Columnist blows CIA Agent's cover, dated July 22, 2003).

In fact, on July 13 of this year, David Ensor, the CNN correspondent, did call the CIA for a statement of its position and reported that a senior CIA official confirmed my account that Valerie did not propose me for the trip:

"'She did not propose me', he [Wilson] said--others at the CIA did so. A senior CIA official said that is his understanding too.'"

As for the charge about the CIA not telling the WH about their qualms, Marshall conclusively rebuts that in the post Drum links to (demonstrating that the Post reporter is a Republican hack).

[Drake Tungsten]

I'll trust Drum over Marshall any day of the week. Then again, I've never really had much interest in this tempest in a teapot, so maybe I'm mistaken...

[Ramo]

In the update, Drum actually agreed with Marshall... Actually reading the post helps.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall has more about whether the CIA had qualms about the Africa intelligence that ended up in the State of the Union address. Short answer: yes they did.

[Drake Tungsten]

Continuing to read helps even more...

On the Plame thing, he agrees that it's probably irrelevant legally. However, he doesn't mention whether he thinks it hurts Wilson's overall credibility. Seems like it does to me.

Seems Marshall's "conclusive rebuttal" didn't change Drum's mind on whether Wilson was trustworthy or not...

[Ramo]

I did read that. That's what the big quote right before my comment is for.

And Marshall's "conclusive rebuttal" specified the stated charge. Nothing else.

There seems to be a general illiteracy problem going around.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't get what your point is. Drum found Wilson to be untrustworthy to begin with and stuck by that view even after reading a Marshall post that expanded on some of the misgivings Drum originally had and mentioned in his original post. What difference did his agreeing with Marshall in the update make?

[Ramo]

Christ. You really are illiterate.

Schmidt made two charges that hurt Wilson's credibility. Marshall rebutted one of them (and Drum agreed). And the big quote above rebuts the other.

[Drake Tungsten]

If I trust Drum over Marshall, I'm certainly going to trust Drum over Wilson.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, btw. I thought the big quote was from Marshall as well, not Wilson...

[Ramo]

I wonder why I even bothered being polite towards you...

Deliberately ignoring important parts of my posts doesn't strike me as polite.

I already told you that I trust Drum's judgement on the matter more than Marshall's. Drum thinks the Plame matter reflects badly on Wilson. Marshall doesn't. I agree with Drum. You agree with Marshall. C'est la vie...

Drum's judgement is based on faulty information provided by proven hack, Schmidt. Once more, see big quote above.

To the extent that I'm agreeing with Marshall, I'm agreeing with Drum. What I'm saying is in no way depending on what he wrote in that post.

[Drake Tungsten]

DanSed you...

[Ramo]

If I trust Drum over Marshall, I'm certainly going to trust Drum over Wilson.

You're not trusting Drum. You're trusting some Republican hack who has demonstratably been smearing Wilson (given the other charge). Please look at what they have to say.

[Ramo]

To summarize, Plame points out that her husband is qualified for the job. Then she leaves the decision making process to avoid any conflict of interest. Wilson doesn't consider this a "recommendation," and neither do the CIA sources Newsday and CNN contacted. Schmidt doesn't point out any of that, and says that Wilson's lying. Schmidt smears Wilson in another respect in the article (and Drum agrees).