Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Blowing Cheney's Cover
Common Ground Common Sense > Old Forums Archive > Plamegate Forum > Plamegate Archive
rox63
http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8837

QUOTE
April 11, 2006 

Blowing Cheney's Cover

by Ray McGovern

When you invest so much effort into tangling the web – in this case, corrupting intelligence analysis in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq – it becomes hard to know when to stop. Vice President Dick Cheney went to inordinate lengths, including 10 visits to CIA headquarters, to ensure that that crucial NIE on weapons of mass destruction was alarmist enough to scare Congress into authorizing war. And when the evidence turned out to be flimsy, Cheney had a back-up plan: The CIA made me do it.

Ever since their exaggerated claims about Iraq's possession of WMD turned out to be baseless, the Bush administration's defense has rested on blaming the government's intelligence analysts. But one of the great revelations from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's court filing last week is more evidence that the White House – not the CIA – distorted intelligence on Iraq. It was then-chief of staff I. Lewis Libby, acting on orders from Cheney, who presented evidence of Iraq seeking nuclear weapons material to reporters as a "key judgment" from the NIE, when in fact it was a subject of debate in the intelligence community.

The White House plan to scapegoat the intelligence community about Iraq – aided by eager-to-please CIA Director George Tenet – worked beautifully. But only for a while. The plan faltered once it became clear there were no WMD and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson blew the whistle on the centerpiece report used to deceive Congress and conjure up the specter of a mushroom cloud. That report conveyed the cockamamie story about Iraq seeking uranium in the African country of Niger, in which Cheney took uncommon interest.

Cockamamie? Easy to say in retrospect, you say. No, it was easy to say from the outset. And that is why CIA analysts in early 2002 threw it into the circular file, where it deserved to be – for several good reasons. For starters, the government of Niger does not control the uranium mined there. Rather, it is tightly controlled and monitored by an international consortium led by the French. CIA analysts all agreed that the notion that Baghdad could somehow siphon off some of that uranium and spirit it back to Iraq was preposterous.

The Pentagon's own intelligence-gathering unit – the Defense Intelligence Agency – however, immediately recognized the report for its huge potential to please Vice President Cheney, not to mention its direct boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and wrote it up in a DIA publication. The various investigations of intelligence performance on Iraq show that Cheney took a real shine to the report. Never mind its dubious provenance, or that it could be shown to be false on its face; it served his goal of portraying Iraq as a threat.

The DIA report was on Cheney's desk one morning in February 2002, when the CIA briefer arrived with the the president's Daily Brief. I'll bet Cheney rues that day, for he made the mistake of asking the briefer to find out what CIA analysts thought of the Iraq-Niger report. CIA managers decided to send Joe Wilson to Niger to seek more information on the report. Who better? Wilson, fluent in French, had served in Niger, and had been our last acting ambassador in Baghdad. And he had been asked by the CIA to perform similar special assignments since his retirement from the Department of State.

Wilson went to Niger, found the story baseless – as had previous investigations by the U.S. embassy in Niger and a U.S. general dispatched from Heidelberg – and reported this promptly to the CIA officials who had sent him, who in turn advised the office of the vice president.

No matter. Cheney and Libby put the report on life support and eventually insisted that it be included in the (in)famous NIE prepared in the fall of 2002. The malleable Tenet acquiesced to leaving the DIA-crafted language in the NIE that he signed and released on Oct. 1, 2002. Yet, a day or two later, Tenet seems to have had a pang of conscience; he successfully pleaded with the White House to excise the Iraq-Niger story from a key presidential speech – but the train had left the station. On Oct. 7, President Bush warned the nation that the first sign that Iraq has a nuclear weapon "could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" – a formula repeated by Condoleezza Rice on Oct. 8 and then-Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clark on Oct. 9. On Oct. 10 and 11, the Senate and House voted for war.

Fast forward to January 2003, when President Bush's State of the Union address pulled out all stops in beating the drums for war. As Joe Wilson watched the speech, he found it puzzling to hear the president repeat the story about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa. There must be new intelligence on this, thought Wilson, but he quickly learned it was the same sorry story. He quietly sought to persuade the White House to issue a correction, but was given the brush off. Wilson persisted, and in the end warned then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that, as a matter of conscience, he would be forced to tell the American people that the uranium story was bogus. The reply, through a Rice intermediary: "Go ahead! Who will believe you?"

Six months later, in early July 2003 – more than three months into the war in Iraq – the administration's claims of "Mission Accomplished" proved to be premature. And, worse still, no WMD were anywhere to be found. Even the domesticated U.S. press that led the cheerleading for war seemed a bit unnerved at the discovery that there were no discoveries. (This was before outrage fatigue set in.) Things at the White House were growing very tense.

It is now abundantly clear – thanks to the release of Fitzgerald's court papers – how the White House chose to counter Wilson's charge that the administration had "twisted" intelligence to justify war. Adding insult to injury, not only did Wilson author the July 6 New York Times op-ed titled "What I Did Not Find in Africa;" he also chose to forgo diplomatic parlance in telling Washington Post reporters, "This begs the question regarding what else they are lying about." Wilson had thrown down the gauntlet.

In something of a panic, Cheney picked it up. First, he and Libby tried to get the CIA to support the story about Iraq and Niger. The answer was no. So the administration conceded publicly on July 7 that the information should not have been included in the State Of The Union address. On July 8, Cheney's counteroffensive began. According to Libby, he was dispatched to Bush administration darling Judy Miller of The New York Times to explain why Wilson's charges were wrong. The White House did not twist the intelligence to justify invading Iraq: "The CIA made us do it."

Toward this end, Libby claims he was given permission by Cheney and Bush to release information from the NIE, which, as noted above, had already been cooked to Cheney's recipe. The passage chosen for highlighting? A paragraph buried on page 24 of the 90-page NIE:

"Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake. … A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of 'pure uranium' (probably yellowcake) to Iraq."

I can safely assume that Libby did not tell Miller of the official position of state department intelligence analysts that the uranium allegation was "highly dubious." For once, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell listened to them and faced down Libby. Indeed, Powell deliberately excluded this particular canard in preparing his Feb. 5, 2003, UN speech, into which he threw everything else but the kitchen sink. That's how bad it was.

With the help of this "declassified" passage, Libby could show Judy Miller that the White House had been badly misled. The blame was placed on the intelligence gatherers, not on the White House. In mid-February 2003, when the International Atomic Energy Agency was given the documents upon which the Iraq-Niger story was based, they were immediately found to be forgeries. Congressman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., wrote a blistering letter to President Bush before the attack on Iraq, claiming that he had been deceived into voting for war on the basis of forged documents. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., refused to ask the FBI to investigate who was responsible.

Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, however, has an independent bent – plus the authority to look at these aspects of the litany of leaks. I'll bet he has a good idea of who orchestrated the forgery. Indeed, I will not be surprised if the operation is eventually traced back to the office of the vice president.
rox63
A timely editorial from the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...1,2886841.story

QUOTE
Answers, Mr. Cheney

Published April 11, 2006

Vice President Dick Cheney is among the most secretive members of the Bush administration. But he's been in his bunker long enough. It's time for him to answer some questions--and not in the friendly venue of Fox News.

Given the allegations about his role in the surreptitious disclosure of classified information related to the war in Iraq, Americans have a right to hear his story. The best way to get it is by an unscripted news conference in which the vice president confronts all the questions that have been raised. For him to remain silent amid the current turmoil suggests that he--or the president--has something to hide.

Cheney has long been suspected of involvement in revealing the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame--whose husband, Joseph Wilson, had publicly disputed the Bush administration on Saddam Hussein's supposed attempts to obtain uranium for nuclear weapons. The vice president's former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, has been indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges over conversations he had with reporters about Plame.

Last week, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald filed a brief that says Libby also leaked secret information from a CIA report on Iraq. According to this account, Libby says the vice president instructed him to tell a reporter that a key finding of a 2002 intelligence assessment was that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium from Africa. The brief also says Libby was told by Cheney that President Bush had personally authorized the disclosure of this classified material.

The White House has not denied that allegation. In fact, it turns out that the president had ordered the intelligence estimate to be declassified. But whether the facts support what Libby reportedly says--or what Cheney purportedly told him--is yet to be established. A senior administration official told The New York Times that though Bush declassified the report, he did not tell anyone to discuss it with journalists.

So someone is lying. It could be that Libby acted on his own in leaking the information. It could be that Cheney told him to do so without the president's approval. Or it could be that Bush was behind the leak. Those are questions that the Cheney ought to step forward and answer, along with questions about the unmasking of Plame.

Another issue worth scrutiny goes to the accuracy of, and motive for, the leak. It came in July 2003, when the administration was being faulted for its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq--which sparked claims that it dissembled in the runup to war. The leak was meant to show that the president had solid grounds to think Hussein might acquire nuclear weapons.

We now know, however, that the leak itself was anything but solid. In the first place, the charge about Hussein's quest for uranium was not among the four "key judgments" of the assessment. In the second place, far from confirming that allegation, the report said the evidence was "inconclusive."

Why would someone in the White House want to perpetrate this sort of deception? Excusing the failure to find the forbidden weapons is one explanation. Another, offered by prosecutor Fitzgerald, is that it was part of a "concerted action" to "discredit, punish or seek revenge" against Wilson.

Bush was well within his authority to declassify the report. But for anyone in the administration to misrepresent its conclusions, particularly if the motive was to punish a critic, is an abuse of the public trust on a subject of the gravest urgency--the decision to go to war.

Who was responsible for that apparent misconduct? We don't know. But the American people deserve an answer. And a no-holds-barred news conference with the vice president would go a long way toward providing one.
winston smith
QUOTE(rox63 @ Apr 11 2006, 08:24 AM)
A timely editorial from the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...1,2886841.story
*

How nice it would have been for all parties concerned if he and Bush had just gotten blowjobs. Then there would be reasons to impeach them both... doh.gif

eatthebunny.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.