York misstated Fitzgerald correction
SUMMARY: Byron York claimed that court papers pertaining to Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby "contained the erroneous and later-corrected suggestion that Libby lied about the contents of the National Intelligence Estimate [NIE]." York, however, misstated Fitzgerald's correction. In fact, Fitzgerald corrected the suggestion that Vice President Dick Cheney authorized Libby to tell Judith Miller that a "key judgment" of the 2002 NIE was that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium -- not the "suggestion that Libby lied about the contents of the" NIE, as York wrote.
In an April 13 National Review Online column, White House correspondent Byron York claimed that court papers -- released April 6 -- pertaining to special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby "contained the erroneous and later-corrected suggestion that Libby lied about the contents of the National Intelligence Estimate [NIE]." York, however, misstated Fitzgerald's correction. According to those original papers, Libby testified that Vice President Dick Cheney instructed him to tell former New York Times reporter Judith Miller that a "key judgment" of the 2002 NIE was that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium. Fitzgerald later corrected the suggestion that Cheney authorized Libby to tell Miller that it was a "key judgment" -- not the "suggestion that Libby lied about the contents of the" NIE, as York wrote. Fitzgerald's correction did not in any way refute the fact that Libby was reportedly instructed to give Miller an inaccurate account of the contents of the NIE, which also included the judgment of the State Department's intelligence arm that the uranium story was "highly dubious."
From York's NRO column:
In addition, Fitzgerald's filing from last week -- the one that contained the erroneous and later-corrected suggestion that Libby lied about the contents of the National Intelligence Estimate -- hinted that Cheney was behind the disclosure.
Fitzgerald's original court filing stated:
Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE's key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8. Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium.
On April 11, Fitzgerald submitted a correction to that filing, which York posted in his entry on The Corner, an NRO weblog:
We are writing to correct a sentence from the Government's Response to Defendant's Third Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on April 5, 2006. The sentence, which is the second sentence of the second paragraph on page 23, reads, 'Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." That sentence should read, "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
In the post, York wrote: "That sentence led a number of reporters and commentators to suggest that, beyond the issue of the leak itself, the administration was lying about the NIE, because the African uranium segment was not in fact among the NIE's key judgments."
In fact, as the correction clearly stated, the only thing that changed was the suggestion from the original filing that Cheney instructed Libby to present the NIE's Niger conclusions as one of its "key judgments." As Media Matters for America noted, the information Libby was reportedly instructed to give Miller -- that the NIE stated Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium -- is not an accurate presentation of the NIE's findings. The NIE noted that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research called the claim "highly dubious" -- indicating that it was, at best, disputed within the intelligence community.
...a Nat'l Review collumnist mistated the position of a Democrat? WHAT?? Is anyone surprised by this?
Perhaps, this is what the neocons call a 'stiff upper lip' in regard to the failed Bush policies... Byron York, of course, would have to, first, find his upper lip (sorry, had to).
I don't think Fitzgerald is a Democrat. Perhaps we're so used to Republicans who refuse to hold one of their own accountable that the exception is hard to imagine.
My bad... you're quite right. I was unsure of his political affiliation...but, just figured he was a democrat. Amazing. I'm not sure if that says something about me, or about the system...(prob both).
... went so far as to say Fitzgerald "EMBARRASED HIMSELF" by having to make this correction.
The correction is simple: The original filing suggested that Cheney specifically pointed to the uranium finding as a "KEY JUDGMENT" of the agency. In fact, Libby's testimony was that Cheney did not specify THAT FINDING as a "Key Judgment".
In fact, it was NOT a key judgment; to the contrary, the very document in question contained a statement of doubt about the veracity of the information.
The correction, then, reflects that Libby is trying to provide Cheney the thin cover of not SPECIFICALLY ordering the exposure of the uranium info, SPECIFICALLY as a "key judgment".
As with most lies, this one does not pass the laugh test. If Libby was told the expose "key judgments" from this document, and he exposed both the uranium info (without exposing the doubt expressed within the document), and ALSO exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, then was he NOT FOLLOWING CHENEY'S ORDERS? If he exposed info that was NOT key, then he would be in clear violation of what Cheney supposedly ordered.
By trying to provide cover for Cheney, Libby is digging himself deeper into lies and deceit. If he keeps it up, his prison time will be long indeed.
If the President had the plenary power to declassify all or portions of the NIE; and, in fact, only declassified portions of the NIE, isn't Libby potentially liable for disclosing the portions of the NIE that Bush did not declassify? Or did Bush or Cheney further grant Libby the authority to declassify any portions that he disclosed? If so, do either Bush or Cheney have the authority to make this delegation to Libby to declassify?
Perhaps it is time to have Bush, Cheney, et.al. testify under oath about their seeming cavalier treatment of classified material.
The Executive Order in operation specifies a PROCEDURE for declassifying any classified material, and it REQUIRES a "written" rationale which specifies exactly WHAT is to be declassified, and WHY.
If Bush indeed DID declassify some or all of this material, the details will be in that written notation.
If there is no such written notation, then Bush has not followed proper procedures. Declassification, as well as classification, are matters of LAW; the penalties are severe, because the consequences can be catastrophic.
It'll be up to lawyers to determine if Bush actually broke the law with his unilateral and unorthodox declassification in this instance, but he certainly broke all protocol and failed in his duty to follow the letter of his own Executive Order.
The written instructions would answer all pertinant questions, but alas, there has so far been no indication that such written explanation exists.
Cheney says: Tell Miller 1. Some key judgments of the NIE 2. The NIE stated that Iraq was vigorously trying to procure uranium 3. Other things.
"Other things" including what? Plame's identity? When will we know what other things? Possibly never, since as I understand it the only things Fitz is going to report are those necessary to procure indictments, with evidence relating to anything short of that standard (roughly, reasonable probability of a conviction based upon available evidence) never seeing the light of day.
When Clinton was being hounded by Starr, there were innumerable other committees investigating "issues" Congress claimed it needed to know, as Gingrich attempted to destroy the ability of the government to function under the leadership of Democrats. Today, Congress doesn't want to know anything that might be unpleasant.