Patterico's Pontifications

11/9/2005

Maguire Makes Kristof Squirm

Filed under: Media Bias — Patterico @ 5:08 pm

This is a very entertaining post by Tom Maguire, about Nick Kristof’s airbrushing errors and making implausible excuses for Lyin’ Joe Wilson. Read it and chuckle.

Comments (16)

16 Responses to “Maguire Makes Kristof Squirm”

In the preface of his book, Joe Wilson claims that Kristoff was wrong when he wrote that Wilson had seen the infamous forged documents. Also, Wilson talks of the smear campaign waged on him and his wife in the book’s preface here: http://www.politicsoftruth.com/documents/preface.pdf.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/9/2005 @ 8:46 pm
In the preface of his book, Joe Wilson claims that Kristoff was wrong when he wrote that Wilson had seen the infamous forged documents.

Kristof was wrong — but that’s what Wilson had told him and at least two other journalists.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/9/2005 @ 9:07 pm
But that’s not what Kristoff is saying now according to the article that you link to. He claims that Wilson never told him that.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/9/2005 @ 9:17 pm
“But that’s not what Kristoff is saying now according to the article that you link to. He claims that Wilson never told him that.”

No he doesn’t. From his original column:

“I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy’s debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.”

From the new column:

“The better objection is that the references to the documents themselves make it sound as if the envoy had the documents in possession, while in fact he didn’t.

Wilson has said that he misspoke when he made references to the documents to me and to two other journalists. By the time we spoke in 2003, these problems in the documents had been pointed out and were in the public domain, but apparently not in early 2002. So while it’s possible that he reported that the signatures were wrong, that seems to me unlikely.

There’s also a suggestion from the right that Wilson was wildly spinning me and others and exaggerating how strongly he debunked the deal.

So where does that leave us? I think that the attacks on Wilson are overdone. He clearly was wrong in any hinting that he had seen the documents, but he has acknowledged that. He may have exaggerated how strongly he debunked the documents, but that seems to depend a bit on who was listening.

He never says Wilson didn’t say it. He artfully dances around the fact that Wilson lied to him.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/10/2005 @ 5:43 am
You are right Dwilkers; I misread a quote in the article last night. (It was getting late – 11:17 my time – but that’s really no excuse.)

According to Wilson’s preface, however, Kristof admitted that he was wrong and that Wilson didn’t make the claim about the forgeries.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/10/2005 @ 8:04 am
NBD. I’m afraid I am a reader of the Just One Minute group that daily cogitates and parses this (Plame) stuff to the nth degree. Its better than a Tom Clancey novel at this point.

This thing is so convoluted its difficult (actually I’d say impossible) to keep a grip on who said what and when they said it.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/10/2005 @ 8:48 am
I agree Dwilkers, this gets complicated. But Kevin Drum has a condensed timeline here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_10/007408.php .

What catches my attention (per Drum) is this item:

October 2002: State Department intelligence agency (INR) gets an actual copy of the Niger docs and immediately concludes that they’re bogus. However, nobody outside the government knows this.

So the INR new they were forged way back in 2002. And Bush still used the bogus intel.

Now of course Wilson is well connected and his wife is in the CIA. So could it be that Wilson knew about the INR conclusion about the Niger Documents and talked about it with reporters? Could talking to reporters about the INR findings get Wilson in trouble?

I admit that this is sheer speculation, but maybe Kristof wanted to report the forged Niger information but new he couldn’t source the INR, but could source Wilson (or at least a generic “government official”).
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/10/2005 @ 9:16 am
Who knows man. I certainly don’t.

As far as “And Bush still used the bogus intel.” though, all Bush did was say that British Intelligence has learned blah blah. From my understanding of it they had that information independant of the forged docs – the docs were just determined to be irrelevant.

In other words, although people seem to be tying the docs to Bush’s statement, as far as I can tell they were unrelated to one another. The existance of the forged docs only goes to whatever the docs said, not to whatever else they had intelligence-wise, and from what the investigations into it (SSCI, Butler) have indicated they had reasons to believe it was true.

But whatever. This has gotten so far afield its degraded into examining the bark on a tree with a microscope and missing the forest. Whether or not Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger wasn’t the be all and end all of the case for the war.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/10/2005 @ 9:39 am
So, Dwilkers, the White House’s position is that the documents were “fake but accurate” and the Dems are howling about it?

So, that’s where Rove got the blueprint for Operation Rather. Brilliant!

I suppose it matters more than a little bit that the “accurate” part in the Niger story is supported by actual evidence.
TNugent (6128b4) — 11/10/2005 @ 9:50 am
The Straight Skinny:

Lyin’ Joe is only Mary Mapes with a better haircut.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 11/10/2005 @ 11:07 am
The basis of the 16 words was from the forged documents, according to this site: http://truthout.org/docs_03/071203B.shtml. In Wilson’s explosive op-ed, he implies the British “white paper”, referenced in the SOTU speech, was based upon the forgeries too.

Here is a quote from the article:

The early drafts of the speech did not include Britain as the source of the information, according to administration officials. A senior official denied that Britain was inserted in the final draft because the CIA and others in the U.S. intelligence community were concerned that the charge could not be supported. The British addition was made only “because they were the first to say it publicly in their September paper,” the official said.

….

Administration officials preparing drafts of the speech also wanted to name Niger as the focus of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium, according to a senior administration official who has looked into the process. But when CIA officials said there were problems with the Niger information, the more vague reference to Africa was substituted for Niger. The State Department, in its talking points on Iraq, had made a similar change the month before the speech.

The International Atomic Energy Agency told the U.N. Security Council in March that the Niger claim had been based on forged documents, a conclusion the Bush administration did not dispute at the time.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/10/2005 @ 11:54 am
Hmm. I don’t see it Tillman.

The early drafts of the speech did not include Britain as the source of the information, according to administration officials. A senior official denied that Britain was inserted in the final draft because the CIA and others in the U.S. intelligence community were concerned that the charge could not be supported. The British addition was made only “because they were the first to say it publicly in their September paper,” the official said.

Nothing there about the documents.

Administration officials preparing drafts of the speech also wanted to name Niger as the focus of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium, according to a senior administration official who has looked into the process. But when CIA officials said there were problems with the Niger information, the more vague reference to Africa was substituted for Niger. The State Department, in its talking points on Iraq, had made a similar change the month before the speech.

“[P]roblems with the Niger information” is what you are referring to? Fair enough. However you missed this part from your link:

“There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people,” Powell said. “There was sufficient evidence floating around at that time that such a statement was not totally outrageous or not to be believed or not to be appropriately used.”

That is, the docs were not the case against Iraq.

The International Atomic Energy Agency told the U.N. Security Council in March that the Niger claim had been based on forged documents, a conclusion the Bush administration did not dispute at the time.

March. As in, after the SOTU in January. And in any case, it wasn’t about the documents.

May I say though, this whole line of reasoning is flatly dumb and illogical. Here’s a link to someone else who has helpfully explained it for people that don’t get it: “Bush Lied” – A Mindless Rant.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/10/2005 @ 1:51 pm
Dwilkers, I believe that when members of the WH started talking about mushroom clouds, it really raised some eyebrows. The nuclear threat may not have been the only reason for us invading Iraq, but it was certainly a major reason. So it is important. But in a way, since the WH did admit that it was wrong – and George Tenant took the bullet for it – it is a moot point since they in effect admitted it was mistaken. Good thing Wilson spoke up though or I doubt seriously that the WH would have ever fessed up. It was less than a week after Wilson’s op-ed appeared that Tenet admitted that the 16 words shouldn’t have been there.

All I was trying to show is that the British intelligence was based upon the forged documents. The forged documents were known to be forged in October 2002 – well before the SOTU speech. If you read the article in context, the last sentence I quoted is actually referring to the British intelligence, which was based on the forgeries.

But to be honest, the more I look into this, the less clear it becomes since you can find conflicting accounts about the British intelligence. So now I’m not convinced that I know what evidence the Brits had.

One thing is for sure: with an issue this intricate and politicized, it would be easy to argue that Wilson doesn’t tell the truth. In the end, it just depends on who you want to believe.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/10/2005 @ 3:47 pm
Well, I was with you right up until you started talking about Wilson.

Washington Post

I’ll save you looking, here’s the point:

“Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV…was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.“

That’s 1.

“Wilson’s assertions — both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information — were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.”

That’s 2.

“The panel found that Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts.”

That’s 3.

“And contrary to Wilson’s assertions and even the government’s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms…”

That’s 4.

“The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.”

That’s 5.

“The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June.”

That’s 6.

“Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong’ when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel said.

That’s 7.

I’ll stop there, that’s about 3/4 way through the article and that bastion of the VRWC has just called His Excellency The Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV a liar 7 times just about as plainly as it can be done. I can understand someone being upset with Bush about the war, but I cannot understand anyone defending the self-important lying bag o crap that is Joe Wilson.

So yes, “it would be easy to argue that Wilson doesn’t tell the truth”. It is very easy indeed to make that argument.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/10/2005 @ 4:56 pm
Well, according to the other side, that Senate report which accused Wilson of lying was not accurate. So as I said, it depends on who you want to listen to. For me, I’m suspending judgment until more information is available.

Also, you have to admit that the WH has a huge motive to do everything they can to discredit him.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/10/2005 @ 5:23 pm
UPDATE: According to Kevin Drum in a comment,

As for the British, the Butler report is out of date. It’s become quite clear since then that their primary evidence was indeed the forged documents.

(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php#751850 )

So it looks like my suspicion was right – the key evidence that the British had on Iraq buying uranium from “Africa” was the poorly forged documents.

I can’t believe that Bush actually wants to have a fight on prewar intelligence. But, to be fair, maybe Bush knows that he doesn’t have a choice abut this anyway. The democrats are coming after him on it, so he might as well go ahead and defend his position. In my not so humble opinion however, this is an argument that he will surely lose. Drum has a summary of some of the selective intelligence used to sell the war in his main post here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/14/2005 @ 7:50 am

11/9/2005

Maguire Makes Kristof Squirm

16 Responses to “Maguire Makes Kristof Squirm”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out