Tenet let Rove EDIT his Wilson report. Did Rove EDIT Senate Intel report?

The report where Sen. Roberts, Hatch and Blunt ALONE decided and concluded that Wilson lied and ADDED IT on afterwards?

If Rove was editting even the CIA head's report to exonerate himself, why isn't it logical to conclude that he also embellished the Senate Intel Report?


The Dems protested the additional findings by Roberts, Hatch and Blunt that referred specifically to Wilson. The media didn't pick up on their protests, yet EVERY REPUBLICAN TALKING TO THE MEDIA today uses that Intel report to attack Wilson, and noone in the media points out that it was an ADDENDUM to the report that was NOT agreed upon by the entire committee.

I think Roberts, Hatch, and Blunt should testify UNDER OATH to Fitzgerald exactly how they came to the conclusion that Wilson lied and why they decided to add it to their report when the entire committee did NOT reach the same conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_report_of_pre-war_intelligence_on_Iraq

The addendum to the Senate Intel Report is in the report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_report_of_pre-war_intelligence_on_Iraq

on MSNBC tonight. See Countdown.

.

will nominate and email.

and the other Dems on the INtel Committee that issued the report.

If they don't speak up, then the others will HAVE to get involved.

Dean should disseminate this gem throughout the DNC, though, and make certain all Dem spokespeople are aware of it.

:)

heh.

;)))))))

He's my senator. Get me up to speed, what do we need him to do. I'll blast my email groups and the state DPO that has taken a decidedly Dean turn anyway.

a few paragraphs that impugned Wilson's feedback.

I am quite certain that it was added to help Rove, especially since only 3 Republican senators put their name on that addendum.

See the post lower in the thread with the Salon link. It explains what happened.

outspoken as I believe most people would prefer -- especailly Hillary!!

week. You must have missed the threads on it here at DU then.

Noone else has dared to point a finger at Bush, himself.

operative for Kerry trying to sabotage Bush.

But, Kerry did put up a statement asking if Bush was not firing Rove because he, himself, was involved. Something noone in the media or other politicos have dared to mention.

But it would be interesting to get them under oath and see them squirm, especially Mr. "Holier Than Thou" Hatch.

WTF is Rove, who is supposedly a consultant/adviser, doing editing reports of such importance to our national security?

he was a political hack..he should not have even had access to any national security stuff..why is an unelected political hack even allowed to read national security stuff?? or any intelligence ..and to edit the cia directors documents?? something is disgustingly sick here...

Hell is there any chance kerry might actually get into the oval office?

orrin hatch savings and loans scandal - on google reveals that Hatch is not exactly 'squeaky clean' either?

the SSCI Report is very long. but the section of Additional Views is not. there are 9 "Additional Views" signed from one to six senators. there is no accusation of Wilson lying in the Main report, his name is note mentioned in eight of the nine additional views, but the one signed by rtoberts, bond and hatvh attacked Wilson for lying. in each case, the information that was the basiis for the accusations have been debunked. what remains is a partisan smear aimed at Wilson.

So many places to start, but in this case the beginning might as well be this, viz., the Report of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, because that is the document being used to attack Joe Wilson’s veracity and thus undermine his New York Times article of June 6, 2003, which itself was an attack on the truthfulness of the Bush Administration in the run-up to the Iraq War.

Wilson’s article provoked a retaliatory response from the Bush administration that “his wife is fair game,” according to Chris Mathews relating a phone call from Karl Rove. A subsequent leak to the press (at least six press members were contacted) provided information as to the CIA position of Wilson’s wife. Her job and her employment with the CIA were considered covert.

Because her covert status was revealed in the press it was considered by the CIA to be a matter to be investigated by the Dept of Justice. The Grand Jury investigation is centering upon White House employees having leaked the confidential information to the press.

So, proceeding, first, the actual words in the Report that are the reference point for the attacks on Wilson’s honesty instead of wilful mutant didactions found strewn all over FreeperLand that have also appeared here.

From an appendix to the actual Report, entitled “Additional View” There are nine “Additional Views” sign by from one to six Senators. This one is signed by three Senators.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/roberts.pdf

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

Despite our hard and successhl work to deliver a unanimous report, however,
there were two issues on which the Republicans and Democrats could not agree: 1)
whether the Committee should conclude that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s public
statements were not based on knowledge he actually possessed, and 2) whether the
Committee should conclude that it was the former ambassador’swife who recommended
him for his trip to Niger.
Niger
The Committee began its review of prewar intelligence on Iraq by examining the
Intelligence Community’s sharing of intelligence information with the UNMOVIC
inspection teams. (The Committee’s findings on that topic can be found in the section of
the report titled, “The Intelligence Community’s Sharing of Intelligence on Iraqi Suspect
WMD Sites with UN Inspectors.”) Shortly thereafter, we expanded the review when
former Ambassador Joseph Wilson began speaking publicly about his role in exploring
the possibility that Iraq was seeking or may have acquired uranium yellowcake from
- 442 -
Africa. Ambassador Wilson’s emergence was precipitated by a passage in President
Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address which is now referred to as “the sixteen
words.” President Bush stated, “. . .the British government has learned that Saddam
Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The details of the
Committee’s findings and conclusions on this issue can be found in the Niger section of
the report. What cannot be found, however, are two conclusions upon which the
Committee’s Democrats would not agree. While there was no dispute with the
underlying facts, my Democrat colleagues rehsed to allow the following conclusions to
appear in the report:
Conclusion: The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was
suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee.
The former ambassador’s wife suggested her husband for the trip
to Niger in February 2002. The former ambassador had traveled
previously to Niger on behalf of the CIA, also at the suggestion of his
wife, to look into another matter not related to Iraq. On February 12,
2002, the former ambassador’swife sent a memorandum to a Deputy
Chief of a division in the CIA’SDirectorate of Operations which said,
“ and
the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both
of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’’ This was just
one day before the same Directorate of Operations division sent a cable to
one of its overseas stations requesting concurrence with the division’s idea
to send the former ambassador to Niger.
Conclusion: Rather than speaking publicly about his actual
experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former
ambassador seems to have included information he learned from
press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence
Community would have or should have handled the information he
provided.
At the time the former ambassador traveled to Niger, the
Intelligence Community did not have in its possession any actual
documents on the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal, only second hand
reporting of the deal. The former ambassador’s comments to reporters that
the Niger-Iraq uranium documents “may have been forged because ‘the
dates were wrong and the names were ~ o n g , ” ’ could not have been based
on the forrner ambassador’s actual experiences because the Intelligence
Community did not have the documents at the time of the ambassador’s
trip. In addition, nothing in the report from the former ambassador’strip
said anything about documents having been forged or the names or dates
- 443 -
in the reports having been incorrect. The former ambassador told
Committee staff that he, in fact, did not have access to any of the names
and dates in the CIA’s reports and said he may have become confbsed
about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the
documents were not correct. Of note, the names and dates in the
documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates
included in the CIA reports.
Following the Vice President’s review of an intelligence report
regarding a possible uranium deal, he asked his briefer for the CIA’s
analysis of the issue. It was this request which generated Mr. Wilson’s trip
to Niger. The former ambassador’s public comments suggesting that the
Vice President had been briefed on the information gathered during his
trip is not correct, however. While the CIA responded to the Vice
President’s request for the Agency’s analysis, they never provided the
information gathered by the former Ambassador. The former ambassador,
in an NBC Meet the Press interview on July 6,2003, said, “The office of
the Vice President, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific
response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip
out there.” The former ambassador was speaking on the basis of what he
believed should have happened based on his former government
experience, but he had no knowledge that this did happen.
These and other public comments from the former ambassador,
such as comments that his report “debunked” the Niger-Iraq uranium
story, were incorrect and have led to a distortion in the press and in the
public’s understanding of the facts surrounding the Niger-Iraq uranium
story. The Committee found that, for most analysts, the former
ambassador’s report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-
Iraq uranium deal.
During Mr. Wilson’s media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television
shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who
would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President
had lied, and that he had “debunked” the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from
Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT “debunk”
the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it
may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude
publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only
incorrect, but had no basis in fact.
- 444 -
In an interview with Committee staff, Mr. Wilson was asked how he knew some
of the things he was stating publicly with such confidence. On at least two occasions he
admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was
drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all. For example, when
asked how he “knew” that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a
Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his
assertion may have involved “a little literary flair.”
The former Ambassador, either by design or though ignorance, gave the
American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate,
unsubstantiated, and misleading. Surely, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has
unique access to all of the facts, should have been able to agree on a conclusion that
would correct the public record. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so.

Yes indeed, harsh words for Mr. Wilson from three of the US Senators on that committee.

However, it should be noted that there were eighteen members of the US Senate on that committee, and all nine Democratic members along with six Republican US Senators refused to sign on to the aforementioned interpretation of the “facts.”

Again, lay side by side this minority viewpoint with Wilson’s rebuttal at Salon.com and his subsequent reply to an article in the Washington Post and you can see why 15 US Senators did not sign on to what the minority view was stating. I could understand using this minority view if it was a majority view to attack Wilson, but is it not standard fare to use what the majority is saying is true instead of a minority view? When did we start saying that we all agree that what 1 out of 6 say is the way it is? Why were five out of six Senators wrong?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/07/16/wilson_letter/index_np.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56501-2004Jul16.html

to Fitzgerald exactly how that "conclusion" came to be part of an official report.

I would bet my house that Rove or someone on Rove's behalf told them EXACTLY what he needed to be said about Wilson.

Nigerian yellowcake in Iraq? What's that - we haven't but we are still going to keep the slander in the committee report? Oh I get it - it will all be corrected in Phase 2 of the report - the part where we talk about how the intel was used in the lead up to war.

I was just reading back through all of this and then saw this thread. Lets just suppose for a minute that Wilson's wife did suggest that the CIA send here husband to Niger.

Valarie is a under cover CIA operative. She finds out that someone in the CIA or WH is fixing intelligence to support WMD's. It would be difficult for her to go to the press because it would blow here cover, and she does not know who within the CIA she can trust.

Wilson her husband has experience in Niger and had lived there for twenty years. Wilson does not work for the US government, but is qualified. By sending him, he can then release the mess to the press without his wife having to be involved.

It could very well be that Valarie planned this all along in order to expose their dirty tricks of intelligence fixing. It would look real bad now if something were to happen to Valarie, considering all the media attention. If she would have exposed this on her own she would have been in more danger of having an accident or something.

was made of her asking why Wilson would be a good person for the trip.

That aspect seems to always get lost in the Republican lie machine and the media's ignorance.

Is a copy of the memo available?

I have bits and pieces of the memo, In Valerie's memo responding to a request to her superiors, she states that, “My husband has good relations with both the PM and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.”

And in July 14, 2003 Robert Novak’s “Mission to Niger” column is published. Novac clams that two senior administration officials told him Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. But the CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.”

I really think its hard to say one way or another based on the information I have found. It all comes down to who is telling the truth, and I would be more inclined to believe J. Wilson, his wife and the CIA.

I'm not sure if it really matters if the CIA asked Wilson to go. or if Valerie suggested or perhaps tossed his name out as a qualified person. The way I view it is if Valerie suggested it, she could actually be the hero that could bring this administration down.

Again if something dirty was going on, (and we know it was) Valerie would have a hard time bring them down on her own, because she would have no way of knowing who was involved and who she could trust. If she would have tried it on her own it could have jeopardized her job.

So if everything is like a have theorized, the administration was infuriated about what she did, and they leaked her name to get back at her. Not to get back at her husband necessarily, but by leaking her name and blowing her cover, she will probably never be able to be a covert CIA agent.

made to Plame about her husband's experience.

So, I expect that Plame told him she was merely responding, since she can't speak up for herself at this time.

I certainly take their word over Roberts.

"the CIA is known to be TOO secretive" fame?

heh

Thank you for reminding me....it wasn't the entire Senate Intel Committee that discredited Wilson. Where are the other 15 Senators who didn't agree with the lawless 3? Why aren't they speaking up and stating they found Wilson credible?

Especially since dumbasses like McCain get their faces out their all the time and repeat the lies about Wilson without any basic follow up question using simple logic - Have these 3 senators shared their findings with Fitzgerald under oath and what evidence did they provide for their conclusions?

We shouldn't have to tell the media what questions to ask. They should be all over this...or at least check to see if the RNC talking points are legit before they let the Republican whore leaders blabber their bullshit to all who are watching.

I can't decide...

Is the MSM lazy, stupid and shallow?
or
Is the MSM the GOP's bitch?

I'm going with lazy stupid and shallow, although it's probably a bit of both.

I guess the MSM has more important things to investigate like missing white girls from Aruba or sharks attacks THAT THEY CAN'T FOCUS ON SUCH AN OBVIOUS COVER-UP CONSPIRACY BY WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS.

Last night I watched Campbell Brown (filling for Matthews on Hardball) ask if the Democrats only cared about this to get back at Rove. At least she didn't trivialize the entire case or anything! If she insisted on making it political why not ask why the Republicans keep making excuses for Rove or why they smear Wilson or why they keep using talking points that only 3 out of 9 Republican Senators agreed to be legitimate in the first place?

I thought officially that he was just another private citizen at the time, a hired private political campaign consultant of George Bush. I believe he only acquired a formal position within the government as of February, 2005. If this is true, how can the head of the CIA allow a mere civilian, non-government employee to edit reports?

.

I assumed it was a campaign advisory role, not one of government administration.

Asst Chief of Staff?

office privilege or protection (perhaps as a federal whistleblower? that was their first spin) that he didn't have as a political advisor.

can be found in the RNC talking points. So I have to agree that it's more than a possibility that Rove either directed, wrote or edited their addendum.

The strategy was to have an addendum that would further the attack on Wilson. Then by quoting the addendum but naming it the Senate Intel Report for credibility, all Repukes could be drawn in the plot to discredit Wilson by quoting it over and over again in the media.

I believe this is similar to creating phony intel like the forged Niger docs in order to use it politically to deceive the American people and the world. The DSM confirms that the British were complicit in the plan to "sell" the war and voila they were the quoted source for those 16 words in the SOTU address. All tied up in a neat little bow ... how convenient.

When the hosts on CNN, MSNBC, Faux, and the networks don't challenge the Senators and Representative, the pundits and the "experts," when they use RNC talking points and spout outright lies, then they are complicit in deception and mislead America. They bear the responsibility of being knowledgable of the facts and shouldn't be providing the lie factory to operate unchallenged.

More disappointingly, the Democrats in Congress, who do know the truth should be publicly challenging these lies. Silence only give credence to those lies.

.

"The strategy was to have an addendum that would further the attack on Wilson. Then by quoting the addendum but naming it the Senate Intel Report for credibility, all Repukes could be drawn in the plot to discredit Wilson by quoting it over and over again in the media."

"I believe this is similar to creating phony intel ..."

At the time I thought they were just pulling a power play and rolling Rockefeller and Levin for standing up to them. But Hatch is a lawyer and I can see him reasoning it out as you have. Thank you.

I'm sure it was a plan laid out by Rove in order to control the message and the talking points. They knew were in deep doo doo and controlling the dialogue was essental ... which is Rove's job.

Notice how that's the only thing you hear about that Senate Intel Report and that leaves the impression that it was the conclusions of the report. So it worked. That's where we need Dem Senators stepping up to the plate immediately to set the record straight. They should have gone on the offense with the truth.

Senators to step up to the plate.

I remember Rockefeller protesting about this addition when it happened, but, the media didn't bother to discuss it. He better get out there now.

Why is an intelligence committee allowed to become a tool for a White House vendetta? Why have Republican Senators saboutaged their voters' interests by ceasing to be independent representatives for their constituents in order to become agents of intimidation for an administration perpetrating a fraud?

Karl to try to win the spin in the media by discreditting Wilson.

Hence, we have the Rove deserves a medal horseshit.

doesn't seem to be sticking. :)

on it?

Let me think out loud - He knew what he was doing was illegal and therefor dangerous and that he needed as much cover as he could get. He had Wilson declared a fraud and a liar by the Majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Is he that smart?

He's a street fighter, this kind of thing is second nature to him.

Even other Repubs didn't sign on to it. Were they even consulted about it?

in fact now that you mention it, I find it inconceivable that Rove did NOT edit that report. They would definitely want the edits to agree with each other.

We know too much about these thugs to believe it's just a coincidence.

Dems should demand Roberts, Hatch and Blount testify to Fitzgerald how they came to conclusions of Wilson's credibility quite separate from all the other Senators on the committee.

And the other questions in this thread.

Having followed this closely for two years I am convinced that this could lead to Impeachment of Bush and Cheney. People keep saying that the Rethugs will never even consider a commitee to begin the proceedings but I feel that they will not be able to avoid doing so as more facts emerge regarding the Bush Regime's High Crimes. This case is a whole lot bigger than Watergate and just because it has taken two years to begin to lift the lid off of the putird scum does not mean it will not happen.

:kick:

been busting McClellan's balls?

Intelligence report.

More Bush apologists. Their complicity gets more obvious every day. I guess treason is OK for Roberts, Blount, and Hatch....

addendum.

Addendum, did I say? I meant TREASONOUS COMPLICITY.

demanding EXPLANATION of THEIR LIES!!!!

If we can get enough attention, maybe we can get the questions asked AT LEAST by someone in the media.


Maybe Media Matters can take this one up, since it's the media giving Roberts, Blount, Hatch, and the rest of the GOP liars a complete pass on their constant slandering of Wilson.

for requesting a special prosecutor because one of his people were exposed by Novak and the White House or Rove or somebody...

:kick: back to top.


dp

.