Over the weekend, Catfish Cod whipped up this 32 page Plame timeline, completge with sourcing and quotes. Check it out (.rtf)
Reader Interactions
16Comments
Comments are closed.
Trackbacks
-
C&C Plame Timeline 1.0 now available @ Balloon Juice
To further clarify reality, I have written up a 32-page timeline describing the entirety of the Plame controversy.
John Cole of Balloon Juice has very graciously provided host space. Andrew Sullivan thinks it “useful”. Thanks, gentlemen!
Anyone …
Frank
I just looked at the begining of Catfish’s timeline. The release of the information that Plame’s employer was a CIA front company should be another “hot potato” Also it seems to repeat the old mistake claiming that an agreement made between Iran and Niger was made between Iraq and Niger.
p.lukasiak
Any timeline that relies upon the completely discredited “INR memo” (which reportedly is based on someone’s notes of the meeting, but that person wasn’t at the meeting in question) is clearly of very little value.
Mr.Ortiz
Curse that liberal media! Joe Wilson was clearly conceived for the sole purpose of tormenting future conservatives!
Catfish N. Cod
Frank:
Based on comments, I had assumed that (collectively) the release of Hot Potatoes A – C implied the identification of Brewer-Jennings Associates. But I didn’t track it, and maybe I should. If you have links showing when Brewer-Jennings was first publicly mentioned (or if it’s part of the material I already have), please let me know (here or by email).
As to the purported agreement between Iraq and Niger, arguments and evidence both pro and con are noted in the timeline.
Two purported agreements are described: one dated 1999 and one dated 2000. It appears that there is little or no evidence to coroborrate a 1999 agreement, which was based on SISMI speculation and the Forged Documents. There was at that time still-classified British data, however, suggesting a 5-7 June 2000 agreement. The documents I have do not discount that possibility.
Please note also that all parties appear to agree:
1) that in any event, no uranium actually got shipped.
2) that one contact attempted to open commercial ties to Niger in 1999. The contact was refused due to UN sanctions.
Whether the commercial ties were intended to include uranium purchases is a matter of interpretation.
Catfish N. Cod
P. Lukasiak: please give a source discrediting the INR Memo.
Note that even if the INR Memo is discredited, it stays in the timeline. So do the Forged Documents, which are much more thoroughly discredited.
Trevor
That’s a great resource, Catfish, thanks. Now I have to spend some time absorbing it all.
p.lukasiak
Whether the commercial ties were intended to include uranium purchases is a matter of interpretation.
its not a question of “interpretation” its pure speculation (and secondhand speculation at that) based solely on the fact that Iraq requested a trade meeting. (It should also be noted that at the same time, Iraq was on a diplomatic offensive designed to get the sanctions lifted; “trade talks” were most logically requested as part of that offensive, with “favorable terms on oil purchases for Niger” an equally speculative, and valid, assumption for the trade talks)
As to the discrediting of the INR memo…. a CIA spokesperson discredited it, because the person whose notes it was purportedly based on was not at the meeting in question.
Finally, as to the idea that there was some sort of second agreement, insofar as the Iraq Survey Group said that there was no evidence that Iraq sought uranium in the recent past, its pretty damned obvious that it didn’t arrange to purchase any, notwithstanding the dubious claims of some sources that Blair’s sycophants were peddling.
Andrew J. Lazarus
I don’t have time to study the entire file this morning, but I appreciate the effort enormously. I’m one of those junkies who read the complete transcripts of the first release of Nixon tapes.
I have some suggestions for improvement:
(1) There is no mention of when or how Wilson’s first marriage ended. I assume divorce.
(2) In the definitions of hot potatoes (cold spaghetti?!—that’s a recent parent joke…), I think something should be rephrased to “Hot Potato: when it became clear that Plame/Wilson’s job prior to living in DC was NOC operative for the CIA.” I don’t think her visits to Langley after marriage were intended to be secret, at least not at nearly the same level.
Catfish N. Cod
P. Lukasiak:
1) In the intelligence business there is not much difference between “interpretation” and “speculation”.
2) You are correct; it is indeed based solely on the request for a trade meeting.
3) The speculation is not secondhand according to Niger Five, the CIA report typed up to summarize Wilson’s trip. The firsthand speculation is double sourced to Ari Fleischer (via CR2) and to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report. I can’t do much better on the contents of Niger Five without a leak of the actual memo… unless Joe Wilson himself would like to confirm it…
4) I would be very interested to receive a link to a publication or transcript detailing the CIA spokesperon’s discreditation of the INR Memo.
5) As for the Iraq Survey Group, do you recall in which report they stated that there was no evidence for Iraq seeking uranium recently? This is also quite relevant and should be included.
Catfish N. Cod
Andrew: I don’t have data regarding what the CIA intended as to the openness of Plame’s visits. I do know that the CIA did intend for her overseas profile to be lower due to her possible outing by Ames. I have data suggesting that she was in the process of switching from NOC to official cover in spring, 2003. I do not have data suggesting that her NOC status was “no big deal” to the CIA between 1998 and 2003. (Her social life might argue otherwise.)
You are the second person to suggest that Plame’s former NOC status (Brewers-Jennings Associates) be another Hot Potato. I’ll see what I can do about that.
And, finally, I’ll add in more marital info. This is Wilson’s third marriage, Plame’s second.
KC
Regardless of who is right or wrong, innocent or guilty. In an administration that truly wanted to “restore honor and integrity” to the White House, the time line could have stopped with this:
Early Sept. 2003, Bush calls all senior administration officials into office in regards to Plame affair and dealings with press.
Sept 5, 2003 – After internal discussions and meetings, White House announces…
(A) After an internal investigation, it has been determined that no laws have been broken and National Security has not been compromised. Administration officials that were involved and violated ethics codes have been reprimanded and disciplined internally.
or
(B) Administration official XYZ has been found to have violated at the minimum White House ethical standards and possibly Federal law. XYZ has been removed from their position and the White House will cooperate with any subsequent investigation to make sure that justice is served and National Security protected.
…of course honesty is a hard thing to come by in Washington no matter what side of the fence you live.
sadie
Catfish: The 12/26/03 Washington Post had the following:
Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband’s trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.
CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame’s alleged role in arranging Wilson’s trip could not have attended the meeting.
“It has been circulated around,” one official said. CIA and State Department officials have refused to discuss the document.
p.lukasiak
BTW, anyone who thinks that Catfish’s timeline has any real connection to reality need only compare this
“Niger Six contained no inconsistencies in names and/or dates”
which he sources to the SSCI report
with the actual text of the SSCI report, which states…
“Of the five lower ranking, two were not the individuals in the positions described in the reports,….one date, July 7, 2000, is said to be a Wednesday in the report, but was actually a Friday.”
These discrepancies are downplayed by the SSCI report, but it is these “minor” details that intelligence analysts use to determine if a document is genuine or not. Catfish states unequivocally that there were “no inconsistencies”, when in fact the SSCI report states that there were no “obvious inconsistencies”, while revealing that the inconsistencies in the details were damning.
Catfish N. Cod
P. Lukasiak: thank you for catching that. When you go through this much data you sometimes don’t catch things like that, no matter how much you intend to.
That statement will be fixed in the next edition.
Yes, I know you’re shocked.
db
The link to the RTF does not work — server returns “404 Not Found” for this URL:
balloon-juice.com/archives/Plame%20database.rtf