 PlanetWavesUpdate Dec. 30, 2003 Bush's Worst Enemy By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective Tuesday 30 December 2003 When Ambassador Joseph Wilson speaks of the White House, he tries to take the high road. "It's hard to imagine the government being irrational," he told me over the telephone on Monday afternoon, "and revenge is an irrational act." One breath later, however, Wilson showed why the Bush administration has a great deal to be worried about. "If they thought I was going to go away after they raped my wife," said Wilson, "they were dead wrong." Wilson best explains who he is in the New York Times editorial [op-ed piece] he had published on July 6, 2003 entitled 'What I Didn't Find in Africa.' "For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador," wrote Wilson. "In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council. 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." July 6, 2003. That's pretty much when the madness began. Joseph Wilson had been tasked by the CIA, after a request from Vice President Dick Cheney, to travel to Niger and investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium 'yellowcake' from that African nation to develop a nuclear weapons program. He spent several days there in February of 2002 investigating the matter fully, and returned to state flatly that no evidence of such a transaction existed. "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place," Wilson wrote in his Times editorial. "Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired." Before Wilson left Niger, he briefed the American ambassador to that country, availing her of findings that matched her own. He returned to the United States and briefed the CIA on his findings, as well as the State Department. In short, he covered all the bases and returned home to his normal life. Later, it was revealed that the "evidence" used to support the claim that such a transaction had taken place was a pile of crudely forged documents. In January of 2003, George W. Bush used the debunked Niger uranium claims during his State of the Union address to buttress his argument that war in Iraq was necessary. This begat the "16 words" scandal that burned briefly this summer before disappearing with nary a ripple. Why did the President use grossly inadequate intelligence data in such an important speech? Was it a deliberate attempt to mislead the American public, a deliberate attempt to fill them with the fear of terrorist mushroom clouds from Iraq? Or was it an incredible failure on the part of the National Security apparatus that this flawed and forged data made it into the speech? A 'yes' answer to any of these questions was profoundly unacceptable, which was the motivation for Wilson's editorial on July 6th. The publication of Wilson's editorial brought about a rare day of discomfort for a White House that is normally insulated by a friendly Congress, a subordinate Justice Department, and a tamed media. "The day after I wrote the article," said Wilson on Monday, "the White House said those 16 words shouldn't have been there. For me, that was the end of the story. Others could decide if the White House had deliberately deceived the American people. I'd gotten my answer, and afterwards refused all interviews on the subject, beyond the ones I'd already committed to." Agents within the Bush administration, most notably Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld, claimed they had never been informed of the corrupted nature of the Niger evidence. Some days later, CIA Director George Tenet took public responsibility for the fact that those 16 words made it into the State of the Union speech. The CIA, said Tenet, had never told the White House that the Niger evidence was phony. Amusingly, few people believed what Tenet was trying to sell. First of all, Wilson had informed not only the CIA, but the State Department as well, that the Niger claims were empty. Many people beyond Mr. Tenet had the data, and the standard operating procedure would have such important data climbing a number of administration ladders. Second of all, it was Dick Cheney who asked for the investigation in the first place. Is it reasonable to assume that, after having demanded the investigation, Cheney refused to be briefed on the findings? A number of intelligence community veterans likewise did not buy what Tenet was trying to sell. I spoke with Andrew Wilkie in those July days when all of this was unfolding. Wilkie is a former senior intelligence analyst for the Office of National Assessments, the senior Australian intelligence agency which provides intelligence assessments to the Australian prime minister. "In the last week in Australia," said Wilkie, "the Defense Intelligence Organization has admitted they had the information on the Niger forgeries and says they didn't tell the Defense Minister. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs has admitted they had the information on the Niger forgeries and didn't tell the Foreign Minister. The place I used to work, the Office of National Assessments, has admitted publicly that they knew the Niger evidence was fake and didn't tell the Prime Minister about it." "You've got three intelligence organizations in Australia, the intelligence organizations in the US," continued Wilkie, "and every one is saying they knew this was bad information, but not one political leader reckons they were told. All three organizations have said they didn't give this information to their political leaders. It is unbelievable to the point of fantasy." Ray McGovern, a 27 year veteran and former senior analyst for the CIA, was likewise unconvinced after Tenet made his dubious confession. "Tenet's confession is designed to take the heat off," said McGovern when I spoke to him in July, "to assign some responsibility somewhere. It's not going to work. There's too much deception here. For example, Condoleezza Rice insisted that she only learned on June 8 about Ambassador Wilson's mission to Niger back in February 2002. That means that neither she nor her staff reads the New York Times, because Nick Kristof on May 6 had a very detailed explication of Wilson's mission to Niger. In my view, it is inconceivable. Her remark this week - that she didn't know about Joe Wilson's mission to Niger until she was asked on a talk show on June 8 - is stretching the truth beyond the breaking point." This situation, for Wilkie and McGovern, was an interesting case study in the incredible malfeasance of the Bush administration. For Joseph Wilson, however, it became much more personal. Before long, it became about his integrity, and about keeping his wife alive. "After my editorial came out," said Wilson on Monday, "the President went to Africa. Then White House slimeball press secretary, Ari Fleischer, started spreading rumors that maybe my information wasn't that good, maybe he has some ulterior motives. Cap Weinberger, a lifelong friend of Dick Cheney, wrote an article saying I'd had less than a stellar career. Rather than let bygones be bygones and deal with the issue - the issue being that someone had apparently put lies in the President's mouth - they decided to get the messenger who had said, 'Mr. President, someone put a lie in your mouth.'" The manner in which the White House decided to "get" the messenger cuts straight to the heart of the integrity of this administration. The Bush administration, in order to silence the politically discomforting Joseph Wilson, along with any other analyst insiders who might speak out about the shady way intelligence surrounding the Iraq invasion was handled, attacked Joseph Wilson's wife. Wilsons' wife is named Valerie Plame, and she has worked for the CIA for years. Plame is not an analyst or a secretary. Plame is what the CIA calls a NOC, which stands for "non-official cover." A NOC designation means that Valerie Plame was working under such deep cover that she could not be associated with the American intelligence community in any way, shape or form. Plame worked out of a CIA front company called Brewster Jennings & Associates while she performed her service to America's defense. Her service? Valerie Plame ran a clandestine global network designed to track any person, group or nation that might try to deliver weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Not long after Wilson's editorial ran in the Times, individuals within the Bush administration cold-called several journalists and informed them that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. One of these calls went to Robert Novak, who wrote about it in his column. "Wilson never worked for the CIA," wrote Novak on July 14, "but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." This revelation, and the subsequent firestorm that followed, had a number of effects. Most prominently, it annihilated an intelligence network dedicated to keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. It destroyed the viability of Brewster Jennings & Associates as a front company, thus wrecking the work of every other agent who worked from there. It put the lives of Plame's informants within her network in mortal peril; when an agent gets blown, foreign intelligence agencies - especially ones in unfriendly countries - tend to erase the people that agent associated with as a matter of national security. It put Plame's life in peril as well; those same foreign intelligence services would prefer Plame be dead for revealing sensitive data about their activities. "They couldn't resist letting Novak and those others know my wife worked with CIA," said Wilson on Monday. "Did they know she was a clandestine operator? The number of people in the administration who knew what my wife did for a living is very small. Only those who had means and motive could have done this, someone who has keys to our most precious national security secrets along with a political agenda. It occurred right at that nexus of policy and politics." Why do this? Agents within the Bush administration destroyed a network dedicated to what is roundly broadcast as this administration's main mission: Keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. According to the rhetoric, this was why we invaded Iraq. "I operate from the assumption," said Wilson on Monday, "that the reason for doing this was to discourage others who were talking to press - and there were many - from coming forward more openly. The message was 'Be very careful: Do a Wilson on us, and we will do a Plame on you.' Its one thing to be political and put up with this crap. I'm used to it, after having been around for so long. But it's another thing for an analyst to deal with threats like this. Analysts aren't used to dealing with pressures like this. This act may have discouraged many of them from coming forward. I don't know to be sure, but have been far less insider stories about what we were hearing, stories of Cheney pressuring CIA analysts and the like, than there were a few months ago. There are far fewer unattributed sources talking about it. What they did to my wife was a political act to discourage others from coming forward." For the record, the United States of America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration spent months terrifying the American people with the specter of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. The record is clear: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, August 26 2002 "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." - George W. Bush, September 12 2002 "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." - Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002 "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003 "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." - George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28 2003 "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." - Colin Powell, February 5 2003 "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons." - George Bush, February 8 2003 "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George Bush, March 17 2003 "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." - Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003 "There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." - Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003 "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003. All of these claims were wrapped around the rhetoric of September 11, making a clear connection for the American people: If we do not invade Iraq and get those weapons, they will be given to terrorists for use against you. This rhetoric is further buttressed by claims on a page on the White House's own website titled 'Disarm Saddam Hussein.' That page outlines, in specifics, why Iraq was a threat. The threat: 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX gas (500 tons = 1,000,000 lbs.), nearly 30,000 munitions to deliver these poisons, and al Qaeda connections just itching to take possession of it all. In a bit of black comedy, the Niger uranium claims - so thoroughly debunked that America stands ashamed before the world because Bush used them publicly to augment his case for war - still remain on this official White House page. The tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and botulinum toxin, the million pounds of sarin, VX and mustard gas, have thoroughly failed to turn up after nearly a year's worth of occupation and investigation, after almost 500 American soldiers have died, after thousands more have been horribly wounded, to defend America against a threat that did not exist in the first place. The White House lied. George W. Bush lied. Dick Cheney lied. Don Rumsfeld lied. Ari Fleischer, perhaps predictably, lied. Joseph Wilson called them on just one of their lies, and that same White House reached out and destroyed his wife's career in order to protect itself politically, and to warn any other whistleblowers that public criticism might well amount to complete personal destruction. In doing so, the White House trashed an intelligence network that was working to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. As the New Year approaches, all sorts of retrospectives will be broadcast across the spectrum of television networks. Famous people who died will be remembered, and the most interesting news stories of the year will be rehashed. You'll see Saddam Hussein's capture many times, and you will see his statue toppled in Baghdad many times. You won't hear about Valerie Plame, or her savaged intelligence network that was protecting you. You won't hear about the missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You won't hear the names, nor see the faces, of the nearly five hundred American soldiers who have died because of the Bush administration's lies. You won't see the ripped flesh or bloody stumps on the thousands of American soldiers who were torn up because of the Bush administration's lies. All of that happened, however. All those dead and wounded soldiers happened. Valerie Plame happened. Joseph Wilson happened, and he is not finished yet. Not by a long chalk. What would you do if someone attacked your wife? ------- William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org. He is a New York Times and international best-selling author of three books - " War On Iraq ," available from Context Books, " The Greatest Sedition is Silence ," available from Pluto Press, and " Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism ," available in August from Context Books. Copyright held by the author. Planet Waves Weekly International Edition
| ||