DU: Please contact FactCheck.org IMMED on Plame error

[SoCalDemocrat]

Factcheck.org is stating erroneously a conservative claim which the CIA strongly disputes. Accordingto the CIA, Valerie never requested the CIA send her husband to Niger. I have written the editor and encourage other DU members to do likewise so they will print a retraction/update.

ERROR:

"According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on pre-war intelligence, Wilson “was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.” (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence"

FACTS:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507200002

My letter

Editor,

I'm sure you will want to maintain your reputation for objectivity by correcting an omission in your Valerie Plame leak report. I'm sure this was just an oversight on your part.

Your timeline states that Valerie suggested her husband go to Niger. This is strongly disputed by the CIA, the agency that actually sent Wilson to Niger. I strongly suggest that you, at a minimum, provide the CIAs claim in your timeline. Your earlier reference in 1999 to a 2004 Senate report is biased and should not appear where listed.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507200002


Mail:

FactCheck.org
Annenberg Public Policy Center
320 National Press Building
Washington DC 20045


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-Mail:

[e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Telephone: (Annenberg Public Policy Center)

[phone]

[EFerrari]

1. Will do. Another endlessly repeated obfuscation. n/t

[LA lady]

2. It is in the article at least 3 times

I see reference to the CIA denial in several places in the article. Have they already edited it?

[SoCalDemocrat]

3. FactCheck is biased

This is not the first time I've seen this type of bias from FactCheck.

In the 1999 timeline they discuss the trip to Niger at the behest of the CIA. FactCheck.org felt COMPELLED to interject into the timeline the 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee commentary making the false claim. They fail to mention that the CIA disputes that claim. Also fail to mention that, from what I can gather, the claim itself is unsupported and was made by an anonymous source.

There should be no mention of the 2004 slander in the 1999 timeline, and FactCheck should print a retraction there.

[SoCalDemocrat]

4. Read again

They are plugging the administrations version of events on the first page under the 1999 timeline entry. Why do they feel a need to plug the anonymous accusation made in the Senate report which the CIA disputes?

Most readers won't get past the first page of that mass of information.

DU members need to get behind this request for FactCheck to remove political bias from its reporting.

FactCheck.org is, once again, making an argument in support of the Administration rather than reporting the facts.

"1999 – Joseph Wilson takes a trip to Niger at the behest of the CIA to investigate “uranium-related matters” separate from Iraq . (Wilson, Politics lv-lvi). According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on pre-war intelligence, Wilson “was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.” (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on Prewar Assessment of Iraq Intelligence, 39, July 2004)."

The Intelligence Report is dated 2004, why is it cited in the 1999 timeline? Why is the CIA memo disputing the Senate Report's "anonymous" source not cited?

This is clearly partisan and an attempt to further smear the Plames. Don't let this pass. FactCheck has still not corrected this entry!

[SoCalDemocrat]

5. I looked at the Senate Report

The only source I can find in the report for the claim that Valerie orchestrated Wilson going to Niger was a single INS intelligence analyst's written notes. This unnamed analyst was speculating as to the reason and he speculated that Valerie wanted the trip to take place. Valerie was not even present at the meeting beyond the first three minutes.

pp 40 of the report

http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

"On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with teh former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from the DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss teh merits of the former ambassador travelign to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was 'apparently convened by ] wife who had teh idea to dispatch to use hi contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue." The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes."

The Senate Report does not conclude that Valerie Plume initiated Wilson's trip. The FactCheck.org article is misstating the facts.

[Nederland]

7. Not so clear cut

When I read the line at least:

"The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was 'apparently convened by <the former ambassador's> wife who had the idea to dispatch <him> to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue."

This certainly indicates that it was his wife's idea.

Of course, everything hinged on the reputability of the analyst.

[SoCalDemocrat]

9. Read carefully

The analayst said "apparently" which means it was the opinion of that particular INR analyst. We also know that Valerie was not in the meeting. How did he draw this conclusion about Valerie's opinion without her participating in the meeting?

[Nederland]

8. Read page 39

There is another reference to Wilson's wife on page 39:

The CDP reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CDP on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with the PM <prime minister> 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."

So basically we are looking at three different sources that say Wilson's wife suggested his name to the CIA:

1) The CDP reports officer.
2) A memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CDP.
3) An analyst's recollection.

Given the the fact that no sources anywhere offer up an alternative explanation for why Wilson was chosen, why should FactCheck.org say anything other than what they did? Yes, CIA disputes the claim, but they don't offer up an alternative explanation, nor are they exactly unbiased. It is in the CIA's interest to say that there is no cronyism at the agency.

IOW, I think the OP is wrong. FactCheck called it right.

[SoCalDemocrat]

11. Think again

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507200002

The memo, written by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), contained an intelligence assessment disputing the allegation that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, as well as an attachment with an INR analyst's notes from a February 19, 2002, meeting where the CIA discussed sending Wilson to Niger to investigate the allegation. The notes reported that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip. (It's not clear whether the claim that Plame suggested her husband for the trip was also included in the memo itself, or only in the accompanying notes.) But CIA officials reportedly dispute this part of the document because, they claim, the CIA agent whom the notes record as describing Plame's role at the 2002 meeting could not have attended it.

Again the memo is another reference to the INR analysts hand written notes. Notes taken at a meeting Valerie did not attend, by an analyst whose very attendance at that meeting is questioned by the CIA. It is the unsubstantiated opinion of one unnnamed analyst upon which that entire claim is founded.

1. The INR agent did not attend the meeting per the CIA
2. Valeria Plame left after the first 3 mins of the meeting

Further the Senate Intelligence Report DID NOT CONCLUDE that Valerie was involved in recommending or sending Wilson. That is also explained at MediaMatters.org.

The fact is at best disputed and FactCheck got it WRONG. They are cleaning the administrations dirty laundry.

[Nederland]

14. Let me try again

You've got two parties claiming different things.

You have the CIA is saying:

1) Plame didn't recommend her husband.
2) The agent actually didn't attend the meeting in question.

You have the State Department saying:

1) Plame did recommend her husband.
2) The agent did attend the meeting in question.


So who do you believe? Well, FactCheck choses to believe the State Department because:

1) State has physical evidence (i.e. written notes).
2) The CIA has offered up no alternate explanation.
3) The CIA has a desire to make it appear that there was no cronyism, State is unbiased.


It seems sensible to me. I have to admit however, that the biggest reason I believe FactCheck got it right is because they are basically saying that the State Department is telling the truth and the CIA is lying--an assertion I find entirely plausible.

[SoCalDemocrat]

16. Bias

You're omitting facts in your synopsis.

#1 Plame was only in the meeting for 3 minutes to introduce her husband.
#2 The state dept analyst makes an assumption, which is clearly documented as an assumption in his notes as shown in the Senate report.

#3 The CIA has in fact offered up an alternative, but you and FactCheck are both putting a partisan spin on events and ignoring their alternative.

The CIA has stated that the analyst in question was not at the meeting, that Valerie did not in fact recommend her husband for the trip, and that Valerie was not in the meeting when said recommendation would have been made in the first place.

The entire thread is held together by a single analysts supposition written in his crib notes. This is NOT supported by the State Department, and it is NOT supported by the Senate Intelligence Report.

FURTHER, the CIA itself has refuted the supposition made by the state dept analyst.

FactCheck.org has no business taking a political position on this topic. Again this is not the first time I've seen them do so. FactCheck.org either needs to maintain impartiality in their "fact" checking or they need to put a disclaimer up because they are no longer a source of unbiased information.

[Nederland]

17. More Evidence

From Fitzgerald's indictments:

From page 4:

6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.


So here we have evidence that not only the State Department believed that Wilson's wife recommended him for the trip, but certain people at the CIA believed that too. Now I'm sure you'll make much of the words 'saying' and 'believed'. What you fail to acknowledge is that those very same words can be applied to the CIA's claims as well. The bottom line is that barring video tape of these meetings, everything is subject to a large degree of skepticism. In that case, the proper thing for FactCheck to do is to state both sides of the issue, which is precisely what they did do.

Even if you admit that nothing here is actually provable, the tendency is to pick which side you find more believable. In that case, when I am given a choice between believing the CIA and the State Department, I'll go with State every time.

Buy hey, feel free to believe the CIA spin if you'd like.

[underpants]

6. THe CIA sent Wilson to Niger not his wife

Change your website you idiots.



How hard was that to check? Not at all. The CIA has said that from day one and still stand by it .

Sheesh what a bunch or morons you all are making yourselves out to be.

Hows the Bigfoot hunt going?

[Nederland]

18. In case you haven't heard

Wilson's wife is CIA.

[napi21]

10. As I understand it, the CIA opted to send Wilson to Niger, but

since at least one of the CIA group had worked with Val and knew Joe was her husband, they called her and asked if she thought he would accept the job.

That makes sense that it would have happened that way, but I don't have any proof of my version anymore than you have proof of yours.

I don't know if FactCheck is biased or not. From most of what I've seen, they aren't. But if you hope to get them to change their information, I think you're going to have to get some quotes or someone from the CIA to notify them, not just one of us.

[SoCalDemocrat]

12. CIA is on record already

The CIA has written an official challenge against the accuracy of the INR notes. This challenge is published in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30842-2003Dec25

FactCheck.org has no business taking sides on this issue if they intend to maintain their claim of being an umbiased source of information.

DU members can and should voice their concern to FactCheck.org over what is clearly an endorsement of a political opinion by FactCheck.org that is in dispute.

[Catrina]

13. I agree, and they've made a second mistake

“was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.” (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence"

The trip was in 2002, the Bush administration wasn't even in office in 1999. If they want to call themselves 'factcheck' they might at least get the year right. That pretty much shows they are doing sloppy, if not partisan, work. I won't be 'factchecking' at that site anymore.

[Nederland]

15. Fact Check yourself

The year is not wrong. There was a trip in 1999. The trip in 2002 was the second time Wilson went to Niger.