Weekly Standard's Hayes spun inaccurate, incomplete retelling of Niger uranium affair
The October 24 edition of The Weekly Standard featured a factually inaccurate, incomplete, and highly deceptive article by staff writer Stephen F. Hayes purporting to explain the "chain of events that gave rise to a grand jury investigation" into the alleged outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and to set right the "narrative constructed to date by the mainstream media" surrounding the investigation, which Hayes described as: "Simple. Clean. And very misleading." Hayes's treatment of the facts surrounding a mission to Niger undertaken by Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, wrongly portrayed Wilson as a serial liar whose conclusions regarding dubious reports of Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from Niger were widely debunked and largely ignored the intelligence assessments that backed Wilson's findings. Notwithstanding the article's numerous falsehoods, on the October 18 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, host Matthews described Hayes's article as a "brilliant piece," telling Hayes that he was "a great reporter, and you're probably right in every regard."
Wilson, a former diplomat who specialized in Africa, traveled to Niger in 2002 at the behest of the CIA to investigate questions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office concerning reports that Iraq had purchased yellowcake uranium (a lightly processed form of uranium ore) from Niger. Based on his observations, Wilson concluded that no such sale had taken place, and reported his findings to the CIA. After President Bush referred to the uranium deal in his 2003 State of the Union address as justification for invading Iraq, Wilson detailed the findings of his Niger trip in a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed. Eight days later, nationally syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction," and wrote: "Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger." The White House allegedly attempted to discredit Wilson by suggesting that Plame recommended him for the mission. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is investigating whether any laws were violated in connection with the leak of Plame's identity.
In writing his Weekly Standard article, Hayes drew heavily from the Senate Intelligence Committee's "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq." Hayes wrote that the "Senate report includes a 48-page section on Wilson that demonstrates, in painstaking detail, that virtually everything Joseph Wilson said publicly about his trip, from its origins to his conclusions, was false." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report drew no conclusions regarding the origins of Wilson's trip or the accuracy of his findings. Wilson's report, according to the Committee, "did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal." The CIA viewed Wilson's report as supportive of its contention that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa, whereas the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) believed the report backed their assessment that Niger was likely unwilling and unable to supply uranium to Iraq. The Senate report did conclude, however, that INR's assessment -- which Wilson's statements supported -- of Iraq's nuclear program as a whole was the correct assessment based on the intelligence available at the time. Hayes made no mention of this fact.
Hayes consistently downplayed INR's analysis of the Niger intelligence, instead focusing heavily on the CIA's interpretation. Hayes wrote: "Even as some CIA officials expressed doubts about the original Iraq-Niger reporting and the INR analyst quietly voiced his concerns about a potential hoax after careful examination of the Iraq-Niger documents passed to the U.S. embassy in Rome, the CIA approved Iraq-Niger language for the White House." The Senate report noted, however, that the INR analyst "sent an e-mail to several IC [intelligence community] analysts outlining his reasoning why, 'the uranium purchase agreement probably is a hoax.' He [the analyst] indicated that one of the documents that purported to be an agreement for a joint military campaign, including both Iraq and Iran, was so ridiculous that it was 'clearly a forgery.'" The report further documented that when the CIA acknowledged it did not have the documents the analyst referred to, INR sent them to the CIA. Moreover, the Senate committee attributed much significance to the INR analysts' objections, concluding that: "Even after obtaining the forged documents and being alerted by a State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analyst about problems with them, analysts at both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not examine them carefully enough to see the obvious problems with the documents."
Hayes also omitted a key portion of Wilson's findings that bolstered the INR's analysis. Hayes highlighted a "tantalizing detail" of Wilson's report: that Wilson met with former Nigerien prime minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who disclosed to him that an Iraqi delegation visited Niger in 1999 with the hopes of "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries -- which Mayaki took to mean negotiating for the sale of uranium. According to the Senate report, this finding was significant to the CIA, as it reinforced its belief that an Iraq-Niger transaction had occurred. Hayes did not mention, however, a second portion of Wilson's report, in which he recounted a meeting with Niger's former minister of mines, Mai Manga. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Manga claimed that "there were no sales outside of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) channels since the mid-1980s," and that he "knew of no contracts signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of uranium." Manga went on to state that a "French mining consortium controls Nigerien uranium mining and keeps the uranium very tightly controlled from the time it is mined until the time it is loaded onto ships in Benin for transport overseas," and that "it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a special shipment of uranium to a pariah state given these controls."
Hayes also misleadingly attempted to dismiss allegations that the Plame's outing was an effort to discredit or strike back at Wilson by the White House. Hayes wrote:
If the White House launched a campaign to counter the claims Wilson was making to columnists like [The New York Times' Nicholas D.] Kristof, it doesn't appear to have been very comprehensive. Officials who worked on other aspects of the Iraq WMD story say they do not recall any coordinated effort to correct Wilson's misrepresentations. And, in any case, the results were hardly what you'd expect from a White House offensive. Several reporters known to have spoken with Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, the senior White House officials apparently at the center of the current investigation, have testified that they did not learn of Plame's identity or status from either person.
What Hayes failed to mention was that Time reporter Matthew Cooper disclosed that in a July 2003 conversation with Rove, he "learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA." Also, New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who recounted her testimony before the grand jury in an October 16 Times article, wrote of a meeting with Libby on June 23, 2003 -- well before the July 6, 2003, publication of Wilson's op-ed -- that "I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A."
Additionally, Hayes wrote affirmatively that "Valerie Wilson suggested the agency send her husband," and that "[c]ontemporaneous notes from an analyst in the State Department's INR suggest that Mrs. Wilson 'apparently convened' the meeting" at which Wilson accepted the assignment. But, as Media Matters for America has noted, the CIA has denied that Plame sent Wilson and has reportedly disputed the INR memo's assertion that Plame suggested her husband for the trip. Also, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not reach an official conclusion as to who made the decision to appoint Wilson to the mission.
Hayes appeared on the October 18 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews to discuss the Plame investigation. Matthews lavishly praised Hayes's article, saying, "Stephen Hayes wrote a long, I think in many ways brilliant piece about this whole story." Matthews also complimented Hayes's journalistic acumen, saying: "And by the way, in the particulars, you're a great reporter, and you're probably right in every regard."














Hayes lost all credibility when he wrote that farce of a book called "The Connection," which laid out the purported link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. John Stewart had this guy on the Daily Show last year and totally gave him hell, that's when I started to like Stewart.
Back to the Niger incident: The 2002 Iraq N.I.E. “noted reports that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in Africa but included a warning from the State Department that the reports were ‘highly dubious.’” [NYT, 7/19/03]
In addition to Wilson’s claims, former US Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, and her staff had already concluded the intelligence was false by the time he arrived in the country. Four-Star Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr. met with Niger president in February 2002 to check the security of the country’s uranium. Fulford reported that he was “convinced it was not an issue,” and passed his findings to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. [Washington Post, 7/15/03; NYT, 7/6/03]
So, the official estimate from the intelligence community corroborated Wilson's claim, contrary to what Hayes wrote.
I mean really, to the extent people know Stephen Hayes at all its for that joke of a book, the conclusions of which were dubious then, and are now known to be totally groundless now, to everyone with half a brain at least. Youd think that group would include the people who ask Hayes to be on MSNBC. Yet that ole "liberal" Chris Matthews insists on massaging Hayes'.....ego, knowing his major previous work is total bullsh*t.
:slams head against wall:
any more doubt that chris matthews is a neocon apologist, since mattews is praising this guy and all the distortions he wrote?
It's becoming apparent that Matthews hates the truth.
I just wrote Chris Matthews an email.... it will go unread I'm sure.
Dear Mr. Matthews,
When and where exactly did Joseph Wilson claim to have been sent to Niger by the Vice President's office? It certainly was not in his New York Times Op-Ed piece: "What I didn't find in Africa" 7/6/2003. Please see excerpt below
"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."
I've heard you say repeatedly that the office of the Vice President was justified in playing "hardball" with Mr Wilson because he (Wilson) falsely claimed to have been sent by them. Can you please clarify when and where Mr. Wilson made this claim? If you can't, will you please adjust your future statements to reflect what is actually in the public record.
Regards, Bill Rousseau
As usual, Hayes does what he does best: exactly what Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes tell him to. In this case, they (the Weekly Standard, et al) are working hard to create a false history to use as a basis to de-criminalize the activities of those about to be indicted.
And, it's no surprise that Matthews was at his boot-licking best since he's consumed with trying to peddle his "Maybe Cheney just mentioned something in a meeting and these guys went overboard" line of crap.
Why does Michael Ledeen hate America?
Because Michael Ledeen LOVES israel. That is his first love and never forget it.
Even in 2002, Michael Ledeen: (BEFORE we invaded iraq he says:)
One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today.
Ledeen LOVES italian facism and takes most of his policy and philosphy ideas from this.
he is also the #1 suspect for the Niger forged documents (not that actual forgery -- but setting it up and then pushing out the documents).
In 2005, Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism operations at the CIA and the intelligence director at the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan, implicated Michael Ledeen as the possible source of the forged memo that claimed that Iraq had sought to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger.
I freakin' hate this guy! he needs to rot in jail big time and I'd say it to his face.
I wrote to Chris following that program with this email:
It is of no small significance (and no small consequence) that the entire Iraq war "enterprise" was conceived, drafted, promoted and set into place by the principle founder of the Weekly Standard - (William Kristol) and is also the principle founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), therefore it is an extremely significant matter of journalistic ethics and propriety whenever a contributor or editor from the W.S. appears on your show that this fact is disclosed to viewers, most especially on the subject of the "Plame Leak" simply because the underpinning events of that affair goes to the very core of the "rational" President Bush used in his State of the Union speech and the now proven forged documents from Niger, which infact were about fixing the facts around the policy to go to war and that is what this is really all about, as evidenced in the infamous communications known as the "Downing Street Memos" (Downing Street Meeting Minutes).
The war was based on a pack of lies, Joe Wilson merely exposed one aspect of that fact.
So it is in this context that these matters such as the 'Plame Leak' should be discussed and it is in this context that the investigation should ultimately reveal, and eventually expose.
And it is this simple, plain truth that this Administration lied to the American Citizens - after fixing the intelligence to fit the policy, in order to justify their long planned for and subsequent invasion of the War in Iraq.
It is not complicated.
The effects of those lies impacted thousands of lives and with consequences of huge proportions.
And William Kristol is the founder of the very doctrine that designed and shaped the policy that brought us all here today, and the Weekly Standard is created to establish his credibility and as means to "catapult the propaganda" in order to continue to "convince" the American Public (vis a vis interviews on cable news shows and other "Public Affairs" (programs ike Hardball and others) that the Iraq invasion was the "right policy" to pursue.
It is a huge disservice to all viewers (most especially American Citizens) for this abhorrent lack of disclosure which has gone on for three plus years, but it is also my sincere hope that this matter will be corrected in all future shows going forward.
Sincerely, xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx, xx xxx-xxx-xxxx
>>which infact were about fixing the facts around the policy to go to war and that is what this is really all about, as evidenced in the infamous communications known as the "Downing Street Memos" (Downing Street Meeting Minutes).
Finally, someone who understands that there were rtasons for putting troops on the ground in iraq that had nothing to do with what was stated by any administratioin official; I think it is high time we step back and look at our position in the region (not just Iraq) and come to a conclusion as to what we might be in the process of doing over there.
When we went into Afghanistan we had allies in Turkmenistan, Pakistan, and Turkey (Turkey being part of NATO). We have our command and control center in Qatar. Looking at the map of the area, this looks like a big dog holding Iran in its jaws. By taking over Iraq we surround Iran (a known state sponsoor of terrorism); By putting a constitutional republic in we enable our state department to stricke a deal with the Iraqis to place an air force base there. With the forward prescence such a base in Iraq affords we have Iran under our continual threat. We could tear Ramstein Air Base out of Germany and transplant the entire base to Iraq. With another base or two in Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Nepal, India, Kyrgystan, Khazakstan, Uzbekistan, Bangladesh, and Bhutan we would have a new treaty organization that would make these countries economically dependent on our prescence there, boost their infrastrucutre from the necessary roads that would be built linking these bases and give China second thoughts about taking back Taiwan. If we can get the Russian federation to join this treaty organization we can have a check on Chinas military ambitions.
THIS is the kind of planning I would expect from our state department and Joint Chiefs. I would expect the core of this treaty organization to be in place in theory before it was actually revealed; But putting this core in place would have to be done for moralistic excuses. They are excuses because they aren't the real reasons. Any attempt to dissuade people by attacking the excuses leads only into a maelstrom of charges, countercharges, and empty threats. The theater continues while the plans go forward.
We know the following things. First, the american people aren't likely to send their kids off to war for a future economic and military advantage. The greeks wouldn't do it for Menelaeus at Troy, and people haven't changed; Wars need to be sold on the back of a moral reason. Helen is kidnapped by the Trojans, Remember the Maine, Saddam has a nuclkear program. If the propaganda has an element of truth, so much the better.
Hardball is still on TV? I though the only show GE-NBC had left was Olbermann!
It DOES NOT MATTER WHO sent Joe Wilson to Africa, or who he supported for Pres, or even if he were the Pres of MoveOn.org. This is about OUTING a CIA agent!!!! That is called TREASON. Years of covert operations were ruined, lives were at stake, and these neocons STILL think this is all politics???? Watergate showed us how vindictive and vicious the Repubs can be, but Watergate was inside the United States ...against Democrats. Then we have Ronald Reagan's Iran-gate...trading arms for hostages and supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran, but Reagan didnt know that was happening!!! wink wink.( Oliver North went to jail, and now shows up on Fox News.) Then we have payback time when Ken Starr started w/ Whitewater and found NOTHING...(remember the Clintons were supposed to have killed Vince Foster and about 30 other people and OMG they trashed the White House before they left, also untrue! etc etc) and ended at Clinton trying to skirt the issue about a couple of BJs to protect his wife and family. (Now that really hurt the public!) Now we have Bush& Co, fabricating evidence to invade a sovereign country and OUTING CIA AGENTS to cover it up! I ask you...of all the above scenarios, just which ones are more serious to national security for God's sake? These talking heads should be ASHAMED if they think it is business as usual to harass and intimidate CIA operatives to justify your politics. That sounds like the old Soviet Union to me! And indeed, as someone who watched almost EVERY minute of the Watergate proceedings, this is far far WORSE than Watergate!
a a a,
Many good points.
While it's gotten zero press as far as I know, one of Rove's (many) past dirty tricks shows a pattern that continues today.
When he used the FBI as a tool during his "Somebody bugged my office!" scam/smear job in Texas (see Bush's Brain), he showed how willing he is to abuse power, never mind lie repeatedly.
Lest we forget this nugget:
Karl Rove was fired from George H.W. Bush's 1992 reelection campaign for leaking information to syndicated columnist Robert Novak. According to newspaper reports at the time, Rove was terminated for passing information to Novak from a meeting of the president's chief advisors. Rove denied he was the leaker.
gee? YA THINK?
"this is far far WORSE than Watergate!"
Of course it is; Watergate didn't cost the lives of 2000 soldiers. It is CERTAINLY worse than lying about sex, so where are all those "rule of law" Republicans now?
He's called Ann Coulter a "great author" too. More than once.
He does one good show, then one show completely full of neocon garbage. I think he's hedging his bets for when his contract comes up. Lord knows what Ailes would pay him to go to Fox. Lord also knows Matthews will take whatever money the highest bidder gives - ethics, morals, or no.
A Matthews’ move to Fox wouldn't be a surprised especially since O'rielly has been throwing around the retirement word lately. I think the evil websites and their demonic followers are getting to him. O'rielly believes Liberal assassins are out to get him.
I heard it is a done deal. Matthews was never getting an 8:00 slot at GENBC so long as Olbermann is there so he is now building his credentials with the kool-aid crowd before taking over for O'Liely.
He may regret it though, rumor is ABC and CBS are seriously considering Olbermann and if he bolts Matthews would have lost out on being the #1 RNC water boy for the Jack Welsh kabal!
Calling Ann Coulter anything but a total hack earns you, in my book, a big brown star next to your name. Can you guess what the color brown means? I thought you could.
Anyway, inaccuracy seems to be the only way the whole neocon community can wriggle out of this one. Just wait when the indictments come out. Then the attack will turn on Fitzgerald because he once went to MoveOn.org. DeLay’s lawyer asked the judge to recuse himself because the judge donated money to MoveOn.org last year. That’s proof that DeLay cannot differentiate himself from Bush, proof that the Republicans are one continuous organism, White House to Congress, one monstrous rubberstamp juggernaut plowing over the little guy to further the conservative agenda.
Softball and the Weekly sub-standard heavy petting over Iraq and Palme, who could have guessed? Is there anyway we could get indictments on reporters who have obfuscated, obstructed, and tried to divert justice as accomplices before and/or after the fact as their bit parts allow? These yahoos patting their own backsides, congratulating themselves for their dubious ethics, are making me want to be physically ill.