Booman Tribune asks: Who leaked NIE info in September 2002

[Coexist]

Booman Tribune points out something that may be significant - or not - I can't decide.

by BooMan
Thu Apr 6th, 2006 at 06:25:22 PM EST

In my previous posting, I referred to the fact that Judith Miller anticipated, by a month, all the key judgments of the intelligence agencies about Iraq's nuclear program that went into the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. But, I left it to the reader to go to the sources and compare them. This led to some confusion. So, let me lay it out for you all again, and then put the two documents side by side.

On September 8, 2002, Judith Miller and Michael Gordon published an article entitled U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts . In the first week of October, the intelligence community produced the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. It was a report that was requested from Congress and it was used to justify their vote for the authorization of force. As you will see, it used almost the same language, and drew the same conclusions, to describe the state of Iraq's nuclear capabilities as Miller's article had used. In other words, Judith Miller had seen all the facts that went into this highly classified report a month before Congress did.

Now, fast-forward to July of 2003. Baghdad is occupied, but no one can find anything to back up either Judith Miller's reporting, or the reporting from the NIE (they are the same thing) on Iraq's nuclear program. Once again, Scooter Libby goes to Judith Miller. He shows her (again) the key findings of the NIE (as if she hadn't seen them back in September 2002). He also reveals Valerie Plames's name and occupation (apparently getting her department wrong).

Now he claims, in court, that he went and got specific permission to leak these documents to Judith Miller in July. But, who leaked them to her in September of 2002?

This question sounds very interesting to me - does it matter? Is this big? Can someone help straighten this out in my mind? H2OMan?

[Coexist]

1. kicking in hopes of a better informed opinion than mine.

[jsamuel]

2. hmmm

?

[understandinglife]

3. K&R. And, it is quite important, in fact, what Miller and Gordon write ...

... in September 8, 2002 (almost a month before the NIE was available) borders on plagiarism:

Just compare - Miller and Gordon, September 8, 2002:

American intelligence officials believe that Iraq could assemble a nuclear device in a year or somewhat less if it obtained the nuclear material for a bomb on the black market. But they say there are no signs that Iraq has acquired such a supply.

To - NIE October 2002:

How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material. * If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year.

And, if you compare the other quotes BooMan selected the inference is reasonable ... someone was chatting with Judy who had access to the info that ultimately found its way into the NIE. In addition to Libby, I'd tend to think of Bolton and Feith and others whom chief propagandist Miller had long-term relationships and who would have had access to the info - like Poindexter.


"The President of the United States willfully violated National Security to cover-up his willful launch of a war of aggression."

[stop the bleeding]

4. DU'er's also talking about this article here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x867128

oh and KICK!

[H2O Man]

5. Here's a suggestion:

(Note: I'm far too tired to think straight, so hopefully this will make a bit of sense.)

When the administration decided to attack Iraq -- which they had planned actually before 9-11, but which was then postponed until after Afghanistan -- they had, under the leadership of Cheney and Rumsfeld, developed three circles of power. These were all overlapping in some areas.

The first, which is very important, was the Office of Special Plans. Feith was in charge, but others with far more knowledge and insight ran the show. (As Tommy Franks said, Feith was "a fucking asshole.") This was an independent intelligence operation, which gathered "raw" data for the OVP. There was, believe it or not, another smaller group, that coordinated with OSP. It could, in essence, be considered the nucleus of the intelligence cell.

At the same time, Andy Card organized the White House Iraq Group. Again, others with more ability ran it. Some were not only unelected, but actually not in the administration. Think Newt Gingrich. Their job, outlined in their weekly meetings in the OVP, was to "spin & sell" the war.

The third group is a bit harder to define. It includes people who work for the media, at least publicly, but have other attachments. Two examples are Bob Woodward and Judith Miller. One need only to look at Woodward's access to the WH -- in time of war (!) -- to get the picture. Or, think of Miller working for the NY Times -- but not reporting to an editor, but instead reporting to a chain of command that went to Rumsfeld.

Now, most of the information that is being questioned here came through two foreign sources. We need only deal with one -- Mr. Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress (INC). The bullshit about the tubes, and the very fake former Iraqi "officials" ... all of this was fiction that would not, could not, and did not fool the Agency or State Department officials. Believe me it did not. But it gets "stove-piped" through the OSP and group #3, endorsed by Cheney, and then channeled through WHIG -- often back through group #3.

Now, I think that the House should investigate both Bush and Cheney. I think both are guilty of crimes, very serious crimes. I think Cheney more than Bush. But it is important to recognize (as DUers surely do) that many of the most serious crimes were those that were committed by other forces that have infected our federal government like a cancer.

Does that make any sense? Old men often make rambling statements at this time of day.

[Coexist]

6. it makes a lot of sense - launder bad info and it comes out smelling fresh

and clean and appears on the front page of the NYT.

We here know that Curveball was known to be a bullshit artist, yet was referenced as a credible source when necessary. Is that really general knowledge yet?

... it would be like the Government putting Talon News above the IAEA because Talon helped strengthen their position. Everyone knew which source was better, but it was more expedient to go around the truth to achieve the objective.

This has, and always will be the ends-justify-the-means administration.

They ran the Iraq campaign the same way they run the Climate Change issue - Do what achieves your goals in the short term - even if you have to outright lie and silence, ridicule or ruin dissenters, and have someone figure out a way to clean up the mess if anyone notices it later.

[stop the bleeding]

7. this also coincides with firedoglake's time line see here

That NIE (or National Intelligence Estimate -- a compilation from the various intelligence departments of all the available information relating to a particular situation) was a crock from the git-go. BushCo. didn't even want to do one, even though they are typically done before launching any major military operation like oh, say, a war. Unbelievably, Dick Durbin had to make a special request to even get one prior to granting Dubya the authority to declare war (p. 12 of the SSCI).

National Intelligence Officers assert that ideally it takes three months to produce an accurate NIE, but Preznit Itchy Trigger Finger and the Stovepipe Posse claimed that the threat Sadaam posed was so imminent that they couldn't wait.

The NIE was produced in less than twenty days, and its findings were never sent out for peer review or to a panel of outside experts because Bush and company said there wasn't time. (p. 13, SSCI).
At the time they compiled the NIE, an INR dissent was included which stated that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."

And what happened to this dissent when the NIE was published on October 1, 2002?
The language on Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium from Africa appeared as it did in the draft version and INR's position that "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are highly dubious" was included in a text box, separated by about 60 pages from the discussion of the uranium issue.
And what happened when people started to ask questions in July 2003 about the 16 words.....





Read the rest of the post here, it is about a 5th of the way down the page, it is cache of key words so it should be easy to find.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:_mjOsVbkl6AJ:firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_02_05_firedoglake_archive.html+Could+Cheney+Declassify+the+NIE+plame+inr+firedoglake&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1


I can not definitively say ALL of the information in the INR ended up in the NIE, however some information did end up in the NIE from the INR as a footnote. See second link the Roger Morris article for time line and Intel(Plame's status) in regards to the INR. First link is this one here that shows info about the 2 docs becoming 1 or at the very least one is footnoted in one.

DU thread here with Roger Morris article and more on Plame and the INR vs NIE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=871455&mesg_id=871455

[Coexist]

8. Oh, great stuff

thank you so much for those links.

Oh and H2OMan - get some sleep!

[Patsy Stone]

9. Take a vacation, jeez... :)

It all makes sick, sad sense in this Orwellian world in which we find ourselves. Since there is no evidence for war, the Ministry of Truth (in this case the OSP, under direction of the OVP/DoD) must concoct the information. Then you launder it and release it. It works out easier that way -- no pesky facts to interfere with the party line. The problem arose when Wilson went to Niger. Cheney must have been soooo pissed off that he didn't get to send one of his minions instead, because the truth trickled out. Damn! Don'tcha just HATE it when that happens? :)

If you ever meet my husband, please remember to ask him if I didn't wonder aloud the minute the SCOTUS decision in BvG came down when we were going back to Iraq. This has been a long and painful revelation of what I knew was coming since day one. I had no idea how they would justify it, and I still stand amazed at how they did it, but there is no surprise left in me.

Oy. Remember not worrying about things taking a turn for the worse EVERY day?