Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

McClellan Testimony May Shed Light On Niger Forgeries

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 08:46 PM
Original message
McClellan Testimony May Shed Light On Niger Forgeries
http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=132

Investigative Report: McClellan Testimony May Shed Light On Niger Forgeries
By Jason Leopold
The Public Record
Monday, June 16, 2008

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan’s testimony next week before the House Judiciary Committee promises to reignite the debate over the “16 words” in President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address that claimed Iraq tried to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from Niger and how the White House’s response to the bogus intelligence lead to the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Aides to several senior Democrats on the committee are poring over former White House press secretary Scott McClellan’s book, What Happened: Inside The Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, as well as news reports and documents released publicly by Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel appointed to investigate the leak of Plame’s identity.

Right-wing columnist Robert Novak blew Plame’s cover on July 14, 2003, in an article suggesting that Plame had helped arrange her husband’s trip to Africa as some kind of junket.

The aides, who requested anonymity because they were not permitted to discuss details of next week’s hearing, have been drafting detailed questions for McClellan about the behind-the-scenes conversations that took place between Vice President Dick Cheney, former White House political adviser Karl Rove, Cheney’s former Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Stephen Hadley, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, and President Bush, surrounding accusations raised in the months leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and its immediate aftermath that the administration knew the Niger intelligence was false.

The committee wants McClellan, who was deputy press secretary at the time the administration was forced in July 2003 to admit the uranium allegations should not have been included in President Bush’s State of the Union address, to elaborate on Bush, Cheney, Hadley and Rice’s role in the campaign to discredit Joseph Wilson, a diplomat who had served in Iraq and Africa, was selected by the CIA’s non-proliferation office, where Plame worked, to travel to Niger in early 2002 to examine the Iraq-yellowcake allegations. Wilson returned to the United States and reported to CIA officials that the claims appeared to have no merit, a finding that matched with inquiries from other U.S. officials.

Two weeks ago, Congressman Henry Waxman, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent to Attorney General Michael Mukasey a letter that indicated Vice President Dick Cheney may have authorized his former deputy to leak Plame’s identity.

"In his interview with the FBI, Mr. Libby stated that it was ‘possible’ that Vice President Cheney instructed him to disseminate information about Ambassador Wilson's wife to the press. This is a significant revelation and, if true, a serious matter. It cannot be responsibly investigated without access to the Vice President's FBI interview," Waxman wrote.

Waxman's office would not release copies of the Libby-Rove transcripts or describe the contents in any detail. Fitzgerald's investigative interviews with Bush and Cheney -- asking how much knowledge the President and Vice President had about the Plame leak -- have not been disclosed.

But the committee wants to know if McClellan can offer insight into the vice president’s role as well as answers about why the administration continued to peddle the Niger story after the documents the intelligence was based upon were exposed as forgeries,

Democratic lawmakers have been trying to determine if Bush administration officials knew the Niger intelligence was bogus and if they allowed President Bush to cite it in his State of the Union address despite warnings of its veracity.

Last year, issued a subpoena for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice demanding that she explain her role in the matter and whether she had prior knowledge that Niger intelligence was fabricated. Rice has said that she could not recall receiving any oral or written warnings from the CIA about Iraq's interest in uranium from Niger as being unreliable. Rice penned an op-ed January 23, 2003, claiming Iraq was actively trying "to get uranium from abroad."

Rice ignored Waxman’s subpoena and the congressman had decided not to litigate the issue.

Now, by securing McClellan’s testimony, assuming the White House does not assert a last minute claim of executive privilege, some Democratic lawmakers are hoping they will be able to fill in some holes in the narrative related to the Niger story and determine what the administration knew and when they knew it.

The “16 words,” "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," was cited by President Bush on Jan. 28, 2003 and has widely been viewed as convincing the public and Congress to support a preemptive strike against Iraq.

MORE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. "assuming the White House does not assert a last minute claim of executive privilege"
I wouldn't bet any money on whether the White House will assert it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
williesgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I agree. rec'd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Can Scotty refuse it if they do?
McClellan seems to be looking to redeem himself so does he have the legal option of testifying anyway, even if they do claim executive privilege?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Maybe he'd testify even if he didn't have the "legal option"
It would be interesting to see the cabal try to physically restrain him....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
4. dupe
Edited on Sun Jun-15-08 10:59 PM by DesertRat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerOstrich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-15-08 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. Why waste the time on
investigations when they will never lead to anything? They have plenty of ammo to impeach the bastards, but they won't. Why waste thier time and our dollars finding more reasons to impeach, but not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-16-08 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. In hopes that something will finally blow the lid off?
'Course, I've been waiting for *that* for a loooooong time....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC