Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was it really a secret that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA? (AWESOME Dirt On Joe Wilson!)
National Review ^ | September 29, 2003 | Clifford D. May

Posted on 09/29/2003 11:52:21 AM PDT by Pubbie

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last

The president's critics are lying. Mr. Bush never claimed that Saddam Hussein had purchased uranium from Niger. It is not true — as USA Today reported on page one Friday morning — that "tainted evidence made it into the President's State of the Union address." For the record, here's what President Bush actually said in his SOTU: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Precisely which part of that statement isn't true? The British government did say that it believed Saddam had sought African uranium. Is it possible that the British government was mistaken? Sure. Is it possible that Her Majesty's government came by that belief based on an erroneous American intelligence report about a transaction between Iraq and Niger? Yes — but British Prime Minister Tony Blair and members of his Cabinet say that's not what happened.

They say, according to Britain's liberal Guardian newspaper, that their claim was based on "extra material, separate and independent from that of the US."

I suppose you can make the case that a British-government claim should not have made its way into the president's SOTU without further verification. But why is that the top of the TV news day after day? Why would even the most dyspeptic Bush-basher see in those 16 accurate words of President's Bush's 5,492-word SOTU an opportunity to persuade Americans that there's a scandal in the White House, another Watergate, grounds for impeachment?

Surely, everyone does know by now that Saddam Hussein did have a nuclear-weapons-development program. That program was set back twice: Once by Israeli bombers in 1981, and then a decade later, at the end of the Gulf War when we learned that Saddam's nuclear program was much further along than our intelligence analysts had believed.

As President Bush also said in the SOTU:

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Since Saddam never demonstrated — to the U.S., the U.N., or even to Jacques Chirac — that he had abandoned his nuclear ambitions, one has to conclude that he was still in the market for nuclear materials. And, indeed, many intelligence analysts long believed that he was trying to acquire such material from wherever he could — not just from Niger but also from Gabon, Namibia, Russia, Serbia, and other sources.

Maybe there was no reliable evidence to support the particular intelligence report saying that Saddam had acquired yellowcake (lightly processed uranium ore) from Niger. But the British claim was only that Saddam had sought yellowcake — not that he succeeded in getting a five-pound box Fedexed to his palace on the Tigris.

And is there even one member of the U.S. Congress who would say that it was on the basis of this claim alone that he voted to authorize the president to use military force against Saddam? Is there one such individual anywhere in America?

A big part of the reason this has grown into such a brouhaha is that Joseph C. Wilson IV wrote an op-ed about it in last Sunday's New York Times in which he said: "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Actually, Wilson has plenty of choices — but no basis for his slanderous allegation. A little background: Mr. Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA to verify a U.S. intelligence report about the sale of yellowcake — because Vice President Dick Cheney requested it, because Cheney had doubts about the validity of the intelligence report.

Wilson says he spent eight days in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people" — hardly what a competent spy, detective, or even reporter would call an in-depth investigation. Nevertheless, let's give Wilson the benefit of the doubt and stipulate that he was correct when he reported back to the CIA that he believed it was "highly doubtful that any such transaction ever took place. "

But, again, because it was "doubtful" that Saddam actually acquired yellowcake from Niger, it does not follow that he never sought it there or elsewhere in Africa, which is all the president suggested based on what the British said — and still say.

And how does Wilson leap from there to the conclusion that Vice President Cheney and his boss "twisted" intelligence to "exaggerate the Iraqi threat"? Wilson hasn't the foggiest idea what other intelligence the president and vice president had access to.

It also would have been useful for the New York Times and others seeking Wilson's words of wisdom to have provided a little background on him. For example:

He was an outspoken opponent of U.S. military intervention in Iraq.

He's an "adjunct scholar" at the Middle East Institute — which advocates for Saudi interests. The March 1, 2002 issue of the Saudi government-weekly Ain-Al Yaqeen lists the MEI as an "Islamic research institutes supported by the Kingdom."

He's a vehement opponent of the Bush administration which, he wrote in the March 3, 2003 edition of the left-wing Nation magazine, has "imperial ambitions." Under President Bush, he added, the world worries that "America has entered one of it periods of historical madness."

He also wrote that "neoconservatives" have "a stranglehold on the foreign policy of the Republican Party." He said that "the new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our world view are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme."

He was recently the keynote speaker for the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, a far-left group that opposed not only the U.S. military intervention in Iraq but also the sanctions — and even the no-fly zones that protected hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Shias from being slaughtered by Saddam.

And consider this: Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Wilson did believe that Saddam had biological weapons of mass destruction. But he raised that possibility only to argue against toppling Saddam, warning ABC's Dave Marash that if American troops were sent into Iraq, Saddam might "use a biological weapon in a battle that we might have. For example, if we're taking Baghdad or we're trying to take, in ground-to-ground, hand-to-hand combat." He added that Saddam also might attempt to take revenge by unleashing "some sort of a biological assault on an American city, not unlike the anthrax, attacks that we had last year."

In other words, Wilson is no disinterested career diplomat — he's a pro-Saudi, leftist partisan with an ax to grind. And too many in the media are helping him and allies grind it.

Two facts bring perspective to bear on what some are now calling Yellowcakegate.

1) Democrats who are serious about national security — e.g. Joe Biden, Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman — all voted in favor of the use of military force in Iraq, and none is saying he now regrets that vote. They should be commended for courage because, as CNN's Bill Schneider has pointed out, they are all feeling intense heat from the far left of their party, a faction that was vehemently opposed to intervention in Iraq and is highly active during this primary season.

2) Everyone who is serious about national security — British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, even Dominique de Villepin — recognizes that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He used chemical WMDs against his own people; he admitted to having biological WMDs; and he intended to reconstitute his nuclear WMD program. To do that, uranium was required. Where does a rogue dictator shop for uranium? Impoverished African countries are recommended. The British believe that's why Saddam sent a "trade delegation" to Niger in 1999. That may even explain the forged documents: Apparently, an African official understood that there were Europeans and Americans who would pay good money for documentary evidence that Saddam's trade delegation had successfully completed its mission.

One more pertinent fact: Human Rights Watch estimates there are 300,000 people missing in Iraq. New mass graves containing thousands of bodies are being found virtually every day. It is not a misuse of the English language to say that Saddam himself was a WMD.

None of this should imply that President Bush is beyond criticism — by Democrats or even by those who generally support his policies on fighting terrorists and terrorist masters. None of this should imply that there are no questions that deserve inquiry by members of Congress. Let me start with three:

1) The 16 words in Bush's State of the Union speech were hardly "infamous" as so many journalists have been reporting. (Actually, those who use such adjectives are not reporting — they are editorializing.) But Bush should not have said that the British government "has learned" that Saddam sought uranium from Africa. He should have said that the British government "believes" or "strongly suspects" that Saddam sought uranium in Africa. As far as we know, the evidence on which the British relied isn't certain enough to use a word as conclusive as "learned."

I don't really expect Bush to be a wordsmith. That's hardly his strong suit. But there are wordsmiths on the White House staff, and they deserve to be scolded for their imprecision.

2) Bush has said that the intelligence he's been receiving is "darned good." Distressingly, that is not true. It needs to be candidly acknowledged that since the end of the Cold War our intelligence services have not responded effectively to the threat of jihadist terrorism. For example:

We did not have reliable human-intelligence assets inside Saddam's regime, either before the first chapter of the Gulf War or over the past 13 years leading up to the most recent phase of the conflict. Our intelligence has not been able to discover what Saddam did with his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Did he hide them, transfer them, or destroy them? We did not have intelligence assets in the radicalized European mosques where many terrorists were being recruited. In the 1990s, it appears our intelligence analysts didn't grasp how dangerous it was that tens of thousands of terrorists were being trained in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. (I assume they at least knew that such training was taking place.) Our intelligence experts did not know that even as we were paying North Korea billions of dollars in exchange for not building nuclear weapons, they were building them anyway. President Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in the Sudan based on what was apparently faulty intelligence. President Clinton bombed suspected WMD sites in Iraq — did he hit any? Our intelligence services didn't predict or prevent the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania or on the USS Cole. Our intelligence services still haven't been able to determine whether those Iraqis implicated in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center were doing so on Saddam's orders, as researcher and former Clinton adviser Laurie Mylroie has long maintained. Our intelligence services failed to respond to increasing terrorist threats from the Middle East and Central Asia by recruiting and training a sufficient number of agents and analysts fluent in such languages as Arabic, Urdu, and Pashtun. Our intelligence didn't predict or prevent 9/11.

I could go on, but you get the point. It is not President Bush's fault that our intelligence-gathering and clandestine capabilities are today insufficient for the challenges of the 21st century, but it is his responsibility to fix the problem. If he believes George Tenet is the man to accomplish that, fine. But it has to get done and the president is responsible for making sure that happens as quickly and effectively as possible. If not, this will be a legitimate issue for the Democratic presidential candidate.

3) What may be the biggest mystery in this melodrama has been missed by all the major media as far as I'm aware. Early in 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney had questions about reports of Saddam buying uranium from Niger. So he asked the Central Intelligence Agency to find out the truth. Consider: Here's a request from the White House on a vital national-security issue. Does the CIA put their top spies on the case? No. Who do they put on the case? No one. Instead, they apparently decided to give the assignment to a diplomat.

I assume they contacted the State Department. Even so, they didn't get the Foreign Service's most talented ambassador, someone with investigative skills and broad experience in nuclear proliferation and related issues. No, the assignment went to a retiree who is far to the left of the Bush administration. Why?

That retiree was Joseph C. Wilson IV, former ambassador to Gabon, and one-time deputy to ambassador April Glaspie in Iraq. (You'll recall she was the U.S. official who reportedly told Saddam: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.")

Wilson's investigation, according to his recent New York Times op-ed, consisted of his spending "eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people." He added: "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction [sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq] had ever taken place."

Wilson's conclusion was probably correct. It's likely that no such transaction occurred — which begs the question of whether Saddam attempted to complete such a transaction, as the British believe and as Bush said in his SOTU.

But let's imagine for just a moment that one of the officials with whom Wilson met had accepted a million-dollar bribe for facilitating the transfer of uranium to Saddam's agents. What is the likelihood that that information would have been disclosed to Wilson over sips of sweet mint tea? Not huge, I'd wager.

When did the vice president learn that this was the manner in which his orders had been carried out? Is there an explanation for such dereliction of duty by CIA and, possibly, by State as well? Was anyone held accountable?

Inquiring minds should want to know.

1 posted on 09/29/2003 11:52:22 AM PDT by Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pubbie

Joseph C. Wilson IV

2 posted on 09/29/2003 11:56:19 AM PDT by martin_fierro (Prop 53: YES|Prop 54: YES|Recall: YES|Governor: Tom, but will settle for Arnie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
Hmmmmmmmmmm, interesting. Looks like someone's doing some serious CYA, and it ain't Bush or his admin.
3 posted on 09/29/2003 11:59:04 AM PDT by randog (Everything works great 'til the current flows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
Thanks for posting this! This whole deal smells! CIA sending Wilson to investigate -- give me a break! Set-up to trap the Administration by some Clintonites in CIA? More likely!
4 posted on 09/29/2003 11:59:55 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (Alpha Omnicron Pi Mom too! -- Visit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Maybe Wilson wanted his wife killed.

Rest assured that if Novak leaked this (as he admits) -- nothing will happen to him.

5 posted on 09/29/2003 12:02:47 PM PDT by Diogenesis (If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Here's a link to something generated by Chuckie back in July. From Chuckie's letter:

I am writing to request that you launch an immediate criminal investigation into reports that two senior members of the Bush Administration made the identity of an undercover Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative public.

Sounds like this has been brewing for a while. And if Wilson doesn't know who leaked, how does Chuckie know that it was 2 WH aides?

6 posted on 09/29/2003 12:03:57 PM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
Rush just ripped him apart. Wilson intimated that Karl Rove "approved of the leak, and if he didn't, he at least knew". But just before that Wilson had said that HE HAD NO INFORMATION TO LINK KARK ROVE TO THE LEAK.

Rush said that there are a lot of leftover clintonistas in the govt, and Rush believes everybody is going to be surprised and shocked at what this investigation finds out.

Remember .. this is NOT Janet Reno's hide-a-thon kind of group. We now have a serious group of investigators - and I believe what they find will be a whole bunch of people who will end up losing their JOBS over this little fiasco!
7 posted on 09/29/2003 12:05:01 PM PDT by CyberAnt (America - The Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
Saw that Drudge had this posted too.

Also, from Newsmax and another thread going on this topic, Wilson said on ABC this morning:

that he got "carried away" and made up the Rove allegation out of thin air.

"In one speech I gave out in Seattle not too long ago, I mentioned the name Karl Rove," Wilson told GMA. "I think I was probably carried away by the spirit of the moment."

Wilson then confessed, "I don't have any knowledge that Karl Rove himself was either the leaker or the authorizer of the leak."

Sounds like a Wesley Clark wanna-be!
8 posted on 09/29/2003 12:05:01 PM PDT by Republican Red
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
"In one speech I gave out in Seattle not too long ago, I mentioned the name Karl Rove," Wilson told GMA. "I think I was probably carried away by the spirit of the moment."

Yeah, Dem events tend to bring out the liar in everyone...

9 posted on 09/29/2003 12:06:09 PM PDT by dirtboy (CongressmanBillyBob/John Armor for Congress - you can't separate them, so send 'em both to D.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
Here is the link to the story:
10 posted on 09/29/2003 12:07:09 PM PDT by Pubbie ("Last time I checked, he doesn't have a vote" - Tom DeLay on Ari Fleischer's demand for Tax-Rebates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
You might also be interested in why the CIA discounted the Niger story to begin with:

An unsigned CIA memo on Oct. 5 advised that "the CIA had reservations about the British reporting" on Iraq's alleged attempts in Niger, Hadley [No.2 guy on Bush's National Security team] said. A second memo, sent on Oct. 6, elaborated on the CIA's doubts, describing "some weakness in the evidence," such as the fact that Iraq already had a large stock of uranium and probably wouldn't need more, Hadley said.

So the Wilson story really is a moot point if Saddam already had enough uranium and according to the CIA, he did. I can't believe everyone missed this little tidbit.

11 posted on 09/29/2003 12:09:16 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; Diogenesis
Maybe Wilson wanted a funeral-rally for his wife!
12 posted on 09/29/2003 12:09:53 PM PDT by Republican Red
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
Whoever revealed this classified information on which lives depended -- whether it was Wilson himself, somebody in the administration, or somebody else in government -- committed a major crime.
13 posted on 09/29/2003 12:12:17 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
I can't believe everyone missed this little tidbit.

Hmmm - we've only witnessed over the last decade eight years of the media ignoring facts to protect the Clintons and fabricating facts to attack Bush, and you can't believe they missed this? That's like being surprised when Hillary wears a black pantsuit... :^)

14 posted on 09/29/2003 12:12:17 PM PDT by dirtboy (CongressmanBillyBob/John Armor for Congress - you can't separate them, so send 'em both to D.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
Great article full of information correcing LW half truths and outright lies.
15 posted on 09/29/2003 12:13:08 PM PDT by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
Check out this link. From the link:

At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words.

If Wilson said this...

16 posted on 09/29/2003 12:13:13 PM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leadpenny; kristinn
Since you were so interested this A.M., thought I'd ping you.
17 posted on 09/29/2003 12:14:42 PM PDT by Jimmy Valentine's brother (MrConfettiMan was in the streets while I was still yelling at the TV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Why is Novak getting the kid glove treatment?
18 posted on 09/29/2003 12:14:55 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Here's another link.

Wilson did say it.

19 posted on 09/29/2003 12:15:08 PM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Thanks, why don't you post that link on frontpage news, we need to smear this joker as much as possible.
20 posted on 09/29/2003 12:15:24 PM PDT by Pubbie ("Last time I checked, he doesn't have a vote" - Tom DeLay on Ari Fleischer's demand for Tax-Rebates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson