Set up? Anatomy of the contrived Wilson "scandal"

Note to Readers
This article uses excerpts from mainstream news sources to establish how former Amb. Joseph C. Wilson IV morphed over months from the anonymous source of a forgotten CIA-requested report, to theself-described outraged husband at the center of Washington's latest political firestorm. The sources these excerpts are drawn from are extensive and easily could make a fair-sized booklet. Therefore, the excerpts are necessarily tightly focused, and the reader is encouraged to:

Takeoff Point for Controversy
"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. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush, 1/28/03

Background
Mar. 31, 2003: In a lengthy New Yorker article (Who lied to whom?) Seymour Hersh writes: "The Bush Administration's reliance on...Niger documents may...have stemmed from more than bureaucratic carelessness or political overreaching. Forged documents and false accusations have been an element in U.S. and British policy toward Iraq at least since the fall of 1997...President Bill Clinton...hinted of renewed bombing, but...the British and...Americans were losing the battle for international public opinion. A former Clinton Administration official told me that London had resorted to...spreading false information about Iraq. The British propaganda program...was known to a few senior officials in Washington. 'I knew that was going on,' the former Clinton Administration official said of the British efforts."

"The chance for American intelligence to challenge the documents came as the Administration debated whether to pass them on to ElBaradei...A former intelligence officer told me that some questions about the authenticity of the Niger documents were raised inside the government by analysts at the Department of Energy and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. However, these warnings were not heeded."

" 'Somebody deliberately let something false get in there,' the former high-level intelligence official added. 'It could not have gotten into the system without the agency being involved. Therefore it was an internal intention. Someone set someone up.' "

Bill Moyers interviews Joseph Wilson
Just one month to the day after the SOUA, on Feb. 28, Bill Moyers conducts a lengthy interview of Joseph Wilson for PBS. (Click for full transcript.) This is a golden opportunity (and contemporaneous to the SOUA), yet at no time does Wilson—who claims to have been immediately concerned about the Iraq-Africa reference in the SOUA—raise his concerns with Moyers. In fact, there is exactly one reference to the SOUA and then only in passing as Wilson and Moyers speculate as to what might be Hussein's reaction to the threats of war.

The first published reference to Wilson
Although it keeps bubbling in Leftist/Democrat circles, the story fades publicly until Walter Pincus of the Washington Post writes an article titled "CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data." Published June 12, Pincus writes:

"Armed with information purportedly showing that Iraqi officials had been seeking to buy uranium in Niger...the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official...The sources spoke on condition of anonymity and on condition that the name of the former ambassador not be disclosed."

"After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said...However, the CIA did not include details of the former ambassador's report and his identity as the source, which would have added to the credibility of his findings, in its intelligence reports that were shared with other government agencies. Instead, the CIA only said that Niger government officials had denied the attempted deal had taken place, a senior administration said."

" 'This gent made a visit to the region and chatted up his friends,' a senior intelligence official said, describing the agency's view of the mission. 'He relayed back to us that they said it was not true and that he believed them.' "

"When the British government published an intelligence document on Iraq in September 2002 claiming that Baghdad had 'sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,' the former ambassador called the CIA officers who sent him to Niger and was told they were looking into new information about the claim, sources said. The former envoy later called the CIA and State Department after Bush's State of the Union speech and was told 'not to worry,' according to one U.S. official."

Who would know of, and want these phone calls made public except Wilson? It's clear that Wilson, himself, was the source who called Pincus' attention to his, by then, all-but-forgotten trip to Africa. So it's fair at this point to ask: Why did Wilson plant this nugget about himself in Pincus' story? Was he ticked because his report was not used? Significantly, this veiled reference to himself provided an excuse for Wilson's subsequent outing of himself as the "retired ambassador." Also significantly, without this Pincus story there would have been no curious reporters like Robert Novak to continue the hunt for additional story material—and no opportunity for Mrs. Plame-Wilson to later also be "outed."

Wilson "outs" himself
Note that Pincus reports "the sources" had asked him to keep the name of the "former ambassador" secret, and Pincus complied. Yet just three weeks later, Wilson "outs" himself in his July 6 New York Times article entitled What I Didn't Find in Africa. He begins with the following provocative claim:

"Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?...Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, 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."

His experience with the administration? Huh?! Some CIA mid-level officials asked him to look into the Iraq-Niger connection a year earlier. He made a report and they filed it. End of his "experience with the administration."

In this NYT article, Wilson goes on to say—with no small touch of conceit: "It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me...In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the [CIA] that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake...by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Note that Wilson does not say what prompted the CIA to select him for this mission beyond his "experience in Africa." Who called his experience to the CIA officials' attention in February 2002? This is a very legitimate question, so Robert Novak was quite right when he tried to find out how a long-time Democrat, former member of Bill Clinton's National Security staff, and contributor to the Al Gore and John Kerry presidential campaigns, was chosen to conduct this mission. And why did the CIA even need to turn to a retired ambassador in the first place? The then-current U.S. ambassador to Niger had also looked into the matter and had come to the same conclusions.

Before he left Niger, Wilson said he briefed the ambassador on his findings. After returning to Washington...he provided "a detailed briefing to the CIA [and]...the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip...Though I did not file a written report..."

Wilson then claims he "thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a 'white paper' asserting that...Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country."

If, in 2002, Wilson was so concerned, as he professes today, he could have written an article immediately after the British dossier was published. The subject was the hottest one on the media radar, and he would have had no trouble getting it published that September. Yet he waited about 10 months before writing this NYT piece. Why? In it he tacks on the fresh concern about the President's SOUA (remember, he hadn't said a word about it to Moyers in February). Why?

Wilson continued, "Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa...The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them."

Wilson concludes his NYT piece with the following paragraph. By the way, note how the tenor of his commentary is becoming more harsh. Also note his subtle pique about—from his point of view—the CIA's failure to give his report the weight he expected.

"The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses."

Wilson ratchets up his charges and rhetoric
In a July 6 Washington Post piece titled, "Ex-Envoy: Nuclear Report Ignored," Richard Leiby and Walter Pincus help Wilson get up a head of steam on this story.

(A couple of curiosities: What is the connection between Pincus and Wilson? How is it that Leiby and Pincus have this article all ready to go—complete with harsh quotes from Wilson—ON THE SAME DAY Wilson's article appears in the New York Times?)

The Leiby-Pincus article begins: "Joseph C. Wilson, the retired United States ambassador whose CIA-directed mission to Niger in early 2002 helped debunk claims that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium there for nuclear weapons, has said for the first time publicly that U.S. And British officials ignored his findings and exaggerated the public case for invading Iraq...'It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war,' Wilson said yesterday. 'It begs the question, what else are they lying about?' "

Again note the ratcheting up of tone—in his own NYT article on the same day, Wilson says IF his report was deemed inaccurate; IF it was ignored then a legitimate argument can be made. In contrast, here it's a declarative statement that the administration misrepresented the facts, and Wilson introduces the entirely unsupported notion that the administration is "lying."

Leiby and Pincus also put this nugget in their piece: "After Bush's speech, Wilson said he contacted the State Department, noted that the Niger story had been debunked and said, 'You might want to make sure the facts are straight.' " Note the similarity and—more importantly—the difference in what Wilson wrote in his own NYT piece:

"The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them."

In concluding their article, Leiby and Pincus write, "Last week, Wilson said of Hussein: 'I'm glad the tyrant is gone.' But he does not believe the war was ever about eliminating Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. It was, he said, a political push to 'redraw the map of the Middle East.' While his family prepared for a Fourth of July dinner, he proudly showed a reporter photos of himself with Bush's parents."

So at least one reporter knew Mrs. Plame-Wilson personally—not only knew her, but shared Fourth of July dinner with her and the Wilson family BEFORE THE NOVAK PIECE. Who in their right mind would take bets at this point that the reporter in question was NOT Pincus?! In fact, the dual statements about the State Department phone call clearly demonstrate that Leiby and Pincus had an advance copy of Wilson's NYT article.

Robert Novak steps into it
Prompted by Wilson's NYT piece and curiosity as to why Wilson was selected for the Niger trip, Robert Novak writes, "Mission to Niger" on July 14. He begins: "The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. Remarkably, this produced a political firestorm that has not yet subsided."

"Wilson's report that an Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger was highly unlikely was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. Certainly, President Bush did not, prior to his 2003 State of the Union address, when he attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government."

Novak briefly discusses background to the Wilson mission, then writes: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. 'I will not answer any question about my wife,' Wilson told me."

Novak also notes: "All this [the Niger trip and Wilson's report] was forgotten until reporter Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post...that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report. Not until Wilson went public...however, did his finding ignite the firestorm...During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Wilson had taken a measured public position—viewing weapons of mass destruction as a danger but considering military action as a last resort. He has seemed much more critical of the administration since revealing his role in Niger," Novak observes.

In his conclusion, Novak quotes Wilson: "After the White House admitted error, Wilson declined all television and radio interviews. 'The story was never me,' he told me, 'it was always the statement in (Bush's) speech.' " (Note in the David Corn piece below how this morphs also.)

Oh, really. Never about him, but always about the SOUA statement. This is the same Joseph Wilson who, at the beginning of this saga, said he first became concerned when the British government released its dossier in September 2002. So which is it, Joe?

Hungry for a Bush scandal, the Left leaps
The first charge that the Bush administration "outed" Wilson's wife in order to "punish" him comes in a piece by David Corn in The Nation on July 16—a scant two days after Novak's piece appeared. Titled, "A White House Smear," the piece begins with a suitably inflammatory Leftist spin:

"Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security-and break the law-in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?...It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted."

Of course, Novak neither said nor implied any such thing, but pointing that out wouldn't suit Corn's purpose. Instead, without a shred of evidence, Corn claims, "Wilson caused problems for the White House, and his wife was outed as an undercover CIA officer." Corn then takes the Wilson statement about it "not being about me," and turns it into, "I will not answer questions about my wife. This is not about me and less so about my wife. It has always been about the facts underpinning the President's statement in the state of the union speech." In quotes, no less. So was this a new quote directly from Wilson to Corn, or did Corn deliberately rephrase the original quote in Novak's piece to make it stronger from Corn's point of view? In other words, is Wilson embellishing his tale, or is Corn lying?

In a presumed attempt to write sympathetically of Mrs. Plame-Wilson, Corn then goes on to add insult to a presumed injury by bringing the couple's children into the story: "So he will neither confirm nor deny that his wife—who is the mother of three-year-old twins—works for the CIA. But let's assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson or to send a message to others who might challenge it."

Corn goes on to say, "The sources for Novak's assertion about Wilson's wife appear to be 'two senior administration officials.' If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilson's wife is such a person—and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her—her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, 'Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of...Aldrich Ames.' If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer."

Corn "assumes" that she did not tell friends and family about her real job, so how does Corn know that she worked under "nonofficial cover?" How does he know what mission she had been assigned? If even the mention of her name and employment with the CIA is so damaging, why did Corn go further than Novak and reveal her cover type and mission? And good heavens, but he now has Wilson saying this is the stuff of Aldrich Ames!

Corn goes on: "Novak tells me that he was indeed tipped off by government officials about Wilson's wife and had no reluctance about naming her. 'I figured if they gave it to me,' he says. 'They'd give it to others....I'm a reporter. Somebody gives me information and it's accurate. I generally use it.' And Wilson says Novak told him that his sources were administration officials."

So yet another curiosity pops up in this saga: In the 10/1/03 article discussing his role, Bob Novak's description of what happened contradicts what, in July, Corn said Novak told him. Was Corn lying then, or was Novak bragging to him then, or is Novak lying now?

In any case, Corn quotes Wilson again: " 'Stories like this,' Wilson says, 'are not intended to intimidate me, since I've already told my story. But it's pretty clear it is intended to intimidate others who might come forward. You need only look at the stories of intelligence analysts who say they have been pressured. They may have kids in college, they may be vulnerable to these types of smears.' "

Note how, between February and July, Wilson's story morphs from no mention during the Moyers interview, to a phone call to State to voice concern, then a statement indicating that he's OK with everything as long as the Administration admitted its SOUA mistake, to the above quote with its suggestion of danger to kids, to where we are today.

Corn ends with the theme we've heard from the Left ever since his article appeared: "The Wilson smear was a thuggish act. Bush and his crew abused and misused intelligence to make their case for war. Now there is evidence Bushies used classified information and put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score. It is a sign that with this gang politics trumps national security."

"A thuggish act?" Evidence? "Put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk to settle a score?" Quite list of assertions, based as they are on zero evidence of any such thing. In fact, when looked at in the sequence above, Wilson seems to have been the person who set up the whole story.

This is an attempt to unravel the ball of yarn that's rolling around in my mind.

First, let's identify a couple of seminal threads on the Wilson/Plame/Novak (and now /Rove) affair:

Set up? Anatomy of the contrived Wilson "scandal", Wolfstar, October 2, 2003. I.e., the thread you're on.

Joseph Wilson, Niger, Uranium and Bush’s Famous Sixteen Words: Evolution of a Confused Story, Shermy, April 16, 2004

Plus a third thread that appears related...

Democrats to raise doubts about America: Strategy memo calls for undermining public confidence, Jon Dougherty on World Net Daily.com, sourced from Capitol Hill Blue and posted by John Huang2 on January 8, 2003.

In addition, there are two other threads which are intimately related with this subject -- and, as I can't find them, I ask for your assistance.

1. A report in the MSM that references the meeting cited above, ostensibly of the Democrat Senate Policy Committee, where the decision was made to attack the President's credibility. It took place in early January, 2003 and the report I'm seeking specifically mentions that among the invited guests were Amb. Joseph C. Wilson IV (ret), Nicholas Kristof of the NYTimes and, I believe, a WaPo reporter (probably Walter Pincus). This report would've appeared sometime after Wilson gained prominence because I seem to recall that it was a "puff piece" about him. So, we're probably talking July-Oct, 2004. Nick Danger has asked for a link to this story, but all I have is a memory...

2. A Capitol Hill Blue rant by Doug Thompson, based on a "source" named Terrance J. Wilkinson -- who came "out of the closet" before Joe Wilson's op-ed and told a story very much like the story Joe Wilson told. My strong suspicion is that Terrance J. Wilkinson, who turned out to be vaporware, was in fact Amb. Joseph C. Wilson IV (ret.).

The point being is that there is linkage between all these events. Wilson, Schumer, et al hatched this scheme in January, 2003 -- twisting Wilson's Niger trip to their purposes. Or Wilson/Plame may have hatched it in Spring, 2002, when he went to Niger, then Joe retailed it to the Democrat Senate Policy Committee as the answer to their prayers in January, 2003.

Whatever... Here's another pair of items that may be linked:

1. Once Novak published the name -- Valerie Plame is a CIA agent -- Joe Wilson immediately identifies Karl Rove as the leaker, soon to be frog-marched from the White House. Evidently without any aforethought, and with stupefying certainty. He proclaims this version loudly, to anybody who will give him a forum, for a couple of weeks -- then begins to backtrack.

2. Judith Miller refuses to reveal her source and goes to jail.

Now, consider that:

a. Judith Miller is a Washington-based reporter for the NYTimes, who specializes in WMD.

b. Valerie Plame is a Washington-based employee of the CIA who, likewise, specializes in WMD. Plus, she and her husband are known to travel in circles frequented by the media.

Is it not likely that Miller knew Plame...and knew what she did? Is it not likely that she had cultivated Plame as a source? Indeed, perhaps, received some story guidance in the past from Plame?

What if Plame (or Wilson) were to purposefully let Miller in on a little secret about ol' Joe's trip to Niger? What if it was suggested (or planned or hoped) that she pass this word along to Rove once the balloon went up with Wilson's op-ed?

It makes sense, doesn't it? The pieces fit, don't they? There is certainly no shortage of motivation (or ambition), is there?

All along, the main objective of this little scheme is to "damage the President's credibility" by attacking the SOTU message and the underlying premise for an Iraq war. But if Karl Rove should end up being "collateral damage", what would be wrong with that?

Thoughts, everybody? And can anybody find those two missing threads -- Wilson at the Democrat Senate Policy Conference and Doug Thompson's report (and following mea culpa) on Terrance J. Wilkinson. Both of these fit in the timeline...

Oh! One other question. Was Chuckie Schumer, Joe Wilson's "handler" at today's press conference a member of the Democrat Senate Policy Committee and/or was he in attendance at their January, 2003 meeting?

2. Judith Miller refuses to reveal her source and goes to jail.

Now, consider that:

a. Judith Miller is a Washington-based reporter for the NYTimes, who specializes in WMD.

Another consideration on Miller I'd like to suggest may be linked:

BBC reporter who claimed "sexed" up Intelligence accused of changing his story.

The BBC journalist who claimed that Alastair Campbell had "sexed up" intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was tonight accused of changing his evidence by MPs. Andrew Gilligan, the defence correspondent on Radio 4's Today programme, was described as an "unsatisfactory witness" by the Commons foreign affairs select committee following his second appearance before it today.

He had been recalled to give further evidence after a senior Ministry of Defence official, Dr David Kelly, denied suggestions that he was the possible source of Gilligan's story.

"Kelly's last cry for help: I'm haunted by 'many dark actors playing games'", July 20, 2003

A former Labour minister called for Mr Blair to resign, as the mystery of Dr Kelly's death deepened, with the revelation that he sent friends emails hours before his death, talking of being haunted by "many dark actors playing games". Dr Kelly's claim, sent to Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter, is certain to be key evidence in the judicial inquiry into the affair - announced by Mr Blair - to be chaired by Lord Hutton, a law lord.

More About Judith Miller

In fact, Judith Miller apparently knew David Kelly rather well. She had quoted him in several of her earlier articles going back to 1998, and according to the Globe article referenced above, Kelly had helped her write her book about Weapons of Mass Destruction published several years before.

Piasa, I'm relating this to the timeline on July 2003 you posted last night in Posts 179 and 204 here:

Byron York: There's a lot we don't know yet about the CIA flap

It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began....

It was July 9, 2003, less than 48 hrs after the bogus "CIA agent T J Wilkinson" popped up as a named source in a Capital Hill Blue article that, through a Truthout.org submission to "Japan Today," propelled the Wilson story back into the lime light and into the MSM when CNN picked up the scent of the disredited story, edited it, and ran with it.

July 9 was the date that Greg Thielman came out with his rant against colin Powell and Bush.

Remember this apology from CHB on that TJ Wilkinson story?

"Recently, this web site [Capitol Hill Blue] discovered it has been played as a sucker by a source that was used in seven stories that ran in Capitol Hill Blue from September 2002 until July of 2003. The person in question was quoted as an unnamed source in six of the seven articles and by name (Terrance J. Wilkinson) in the seventh. We later learned the name was bogus even though I had known (or thought I knew) the person by that name for more than 20 years.

"We have turned all our information on this source over to the appropriate law enforcement agencies and, at their instruction, will not discuss the matter publicly until they have concluded their investigations. When those investigations are complete, we will publish a full accounting with every piece of detail that we can produce or uncover about the individual involved. We owe that to our readers....

"...But we live in a different era now. Technology makes it easier for people to pull together enough information to create a story that sounds credible on the surface but still have hidden agendas underneath.

"Many journalists have told me they cannot do their job without unnamed sources. I used to agree with them but events of this past week have caused me to rethink that philosophy."

---- - "A message from Capitol Hill Blue. . .No more "unnamed sources," DOUG THOMPSON, Jul 10, 2003, 11:51

Note that under the same law that pertains to the alleged outing of Plame, this T J wilkinson tale would also require investigation since the guy was claiming to be CIA.

Hmmm, what else occurred on July 11, 2003 while Cooper was jotting down his email to his bureau chief? Was it something in the UK like this, where a reporter by the name of Watts tells her bosses at the BBC she can't go along with their request for her to back up the BBC's correspondent Gilligan's claims about what the late wmd expert Dr. Kelly told him?:

JULY 11, 2003 : (UK : NEWSNIGHT SCIENCE EDITOR WATT'S LAWYER WRITES THE BBC TELLING THEM THAT WATTS WAS PREPARED TO COOPERATE WITH THE BBC ONLY IN LINE WITH HER DUTIES AS AN EMPLOYEE, BUT NOT IF IT MEANS VIOLATING HER ETHICS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS A JOURNALIST : See HUTTON INQUIRY ) Documents released by the [Hutton] inquiry show that Fiona Campbell, of Finers Stephens Innocent, wrote to the BBC on 11 July saying that Watts was prepared to cooperate only in line with her duties as an employee. 'Such duties, however, do not extend to "co-operating" where her ethics and responsibilities might conflict or in circumstances where she is being asked to participate in statements with which she cannot agree.' - "Email kept from BBC board; said that Gilligan had been guilty of 'loose use of language'," by Kamal Ahmed and Martin Bright, UK observer, 08/17/03 and "Email kept from BBC board : · Governors split over 'dumbing down' of Today programme · Gilligan accused of being 'too distant' from colleagues ," by Kamal Ahmed and Martin Bright, The Observer, Sunday August 17, 2003

SNIP

JULY 17, 2003 3PM : (UK : DAVID KELLY IS MISSING AFTER TELLING HIS WIFE HE WAS GOING FOR A WALK) - "Man named as BBC source reported missing," by Ciar Byrne, The Guardian UK, Friday July 18, 2003 Speaking of July 17, 2003 ... who leaked the copies of the Niger docs that were in IAEA hands to the Italian paper and are the copies really accurate copies? Someone at State? Or CIA? The French? Or ?

JULY 17, 2003 : (TIME MAGAZINE JULY 21 STORY BY MATTHEW COOPER APPEARS ON TIME'S WEBSITE; )-- "Reporters Subpoenaed in CIA Leak," By Susan Schmidt, Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, May 22, 2004; Page A11, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46823-2004May21.html

JULY 17, 2003 : (THE IAEA HAS STILL NOT RELEASED THE FORGED NIGER DOCUMENTS, THOUGH THE ITALIAN LEFTWING PAPER LA REPUBBLICA CLAIMS IT HAS OBTAINED THEM THROUGH A LEAK - * PRESUMABLY COPIES OF THEM, ANYWAY) The forged documents were passed in February this year by the US to the IAEA, which a month later declared them to be forgeries. The IAEA has not released the documents. But it is understood the documents are the same as those leaked to La Repubblica. The paper [left-of-centre daily La Repubblica] claimed the forged documents were passed to British intelligence in Rome and their contents given to the CIA. -- "Iraq uranium forgeries crudely done, newspaper reveals," By Sophie Arie, Rome, The Guardian, July 18 2003 via TheAge.com.au, http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/07/17/1058035132835.html

A Capitol Hill Blue rant by Doug Thompson, based on a "source" named Terrance J. Wilkinson

Here it is:

Doug Thompson, "BREAKING: Conned big time "CIA Witness" to White House Lying about Intel story found to be FRAUD", Capitol Hill Blue, July 9, 2003

Damn, I hate it when I've been had and I've been had big time.

In 1982, while I was working for Congressman Manuel Lujan of New Mexico, a man came up to a me during a gathering in Albuquerque and introduced himself as Terrance J. Wilkinson. He said he was a security consultant and gave me a business card with his name and just a Los Angeles phone number.

A few weeks later, he called my Washington office and asked to meet for lunch. He seemed to know a lot about the nuclear labs in New Mexico and said he had conducted "security profiles" for both Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs. Lujan served on the committee with oversight on both labs and he offered his services if we ever needed briefings.

We already had nuclear experts on the committee, on loan from the Department of Energy, and we never used Wilkinson for briefings but we kept in touch over the years. He said he had served in Vietnam with Army Special Force, worked for Air America, later for the FBI and as a consultant for the CIA. He said he had helped other Republican members of Congress I called some friends in other GOP offices and they said yes, they knew Terry Wilkinson.

"You can trust him, he's one of the good guys," one chief of staff told me. When I left politics and returned to journalism, Wilkinson became a willing, but always unnamed, source.

Over the last couple of years, Wilkinson served as either a primary or secondary source on a number of stories that have appeared in Capitol Hill Blue regarding intelligence activities. In early stories, I collaborated his information with at least one more source. His information usually proved accurate and, over time, I came to depend on him as a source without additional backup.

On Tuesday, we ran a story headlined "White House admits Bush wrong about Iraqi nukes." For the first time, Wilkinsson said he was willing to go on the record and told a story about being present, as a CIA contract consultant, at two briefings with Bush. He said he was retired now and was fed up and wanted to go public.

"He (Bush) said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," Wilkinson said in our story. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country."

After the story ran, we received a number of emails or phone calls that (1) either claimed Wilkinson was lying or (2) doubted his existence. I quickly dismissed the claims. After all, I had known this guy for 20+ years and had no doubt about his credibility. Some people wanted to talk to him, so I forwarded those requests on to him via email. He didn't answer my emails, which I found odd. I should have listened to a bell that should have been going off in my ear.

Today, a White House source I know and trust said visitor logs don't have any record of anyone named Terrance J. Wilkinson ever being present at a meeting with the President. Then a CIA source I trust said the agency had no record of a contract consultant with that name. "Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever heard of this guy," my source said.

I tried calling Terry's phone number. I got a recorded message from a wireless phone provider saying the number was no longer in service. I tried a second phone number I had for him. Same result.

Then a friend from the Hill called.

"You've been had," she said. "I know about this guy. He's been around for years, claiming to have been in Special Forces, with the CIA, with NSA. He hasn't worked for any of them and his name is not Terrance Wilkinson."

Both of his phone numbers have Los Angeles area codes but an identity check through Know-X today revealed no record of anyone named Terrance J. Wilkinson ever having lived in LA or surrounding communities.

His email address turns out to be a blind forward to a free email service where anyone can sign up and get an email account. Because it was not one of the usual "free" services like Hotmail, Yahoo or such, I did not recognize it as one (although you'd think that someone like me would have known better).

The bottom line is that someone has been running a con on me for 20 some years and I fell for it like a little old lady in a pigeon drop scheme. I've spent the last two hours going through the database of Capitol Hill Blue stories and removing any that were based on information from Wilkinson (or whoever he is). I've also removed his name, quotes and claims from Tuesday's story about the White House and the uranium claims.

Erasing the stories doesn't erase the fact that we ran articles containing informattion that, given the source, were most likely inaccurate. And it doesn't erase the sad fact that my own arrogance allowed me to be conned.

It will be a long time (and perhaps never) before I trust someone else who comes forward and offers inside information. The next one who does had better be prepared to produce a birth certificate, a driver's license and his grandmother's maiden name.

Any news publication exists on the trust of its readers. Because I depended on a source that was not credible, I violated the trust that the readers of Capitol Hill Blue placed in me.

I was wrong. I am sorry.

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.