Kristol falsely claimed Bush "declassified most" of the NIE
SUMMARY: On Fox News Sunday, William Kristol falsely claimed that President Bush "declassified most" of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that he reportedly authorized then-vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to leak to reporters. In fact, Libby leaked a very small, cherry-picked series of excerpts from the 90-page NIE, reportedly following Bush's authorization.
On the April 23 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol falsely claimed that President Bush "declassified most" of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that he reportedly authorized then-vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to leak to reporters.
In fact, court papers filed by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald in his prosecution of Libby state that Libby testified that Cheney told him Bush had authorized the disclosure of select portions of the NIE. According to the papers, Libby testified that he disclosed a very small, cherry-picked series of excerpts from the 90-page NIE in an effort to discredit claims made by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. While it remains a matter of debate whether Bush's reported authorization constituted a "declassification" of those portions of the NIE, neither that disclosure -- nor the subsequent, official declassification of additional portions of the NIE -- resulted in the declassification of "most" of the document. Kristol made the false claim to support his contention that there is "no comparison at all" between Bush's reported authorization of Libby to leak portions of the NIE and former CIA officer Mary McCarthy's alleged leaking of classified information to The Washington Post.
Fitzgerald's court filings indicate that Libby in fact leaked only selected portions of the NIE during his July 2003 conversations with reporters. Fitzgerald wrote that Libby said he told then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller that the NIE held that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium from Niger -- a claim intended to rebut a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed by Wilson. But Libby did not include another portion of the NIE that contradicted this rationale: the assertion by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that the claim that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium in Africa was "highly dubious."
Although Fitzgerald also noted that during the same July 2003 campaign to discredit Wilson, Libby also discussed the "key judgments" of the NIE with Miller and then-Time magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper, this did not constitute disclosure of "most" of the document either. On July 18, 2003, the Bush administration declassified and released additional portions of the NIE, which included the "key judgments" and the INR's claim that reports of an Iraq-Niger uranium deal were "highly dubious." But as the Associated Press noted on July 21, 2003, the original, classified NIE was a 90-page document. The version released by the White House in July 2003 -- which included the key judgments -- was a mere eight pages long.
Moreover, neither of two other publicly released versions of the NIE contained "most" of the original document's contents. As George Washington University's National Security Archive noted, the CIA released a 28-page unclassified presentation on Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction programs -- containing portions of the NIE -- in October 2002. On July 1, 2004, the CIA also declassified a heavily redacted version of the NIE in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive. But in a July 9, 2004, response, the National Security Archive noted that the document "consist[ed] almost entirely of whited-out pages. Only 14 of the 93 pages provided actually contained text, and all of the text except for the two title pages and the two pages listing National Intelligence Council members had previously been released [by the Bush administration] in July 2003."
From the April 23 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Bill, let me ask you about this, because some -- after this dismissal, some former CIA officials were drawing a parallel between what Mary McCarthy allegedly did in leaking this story about the overseas prisons and what President Bush did in authorizing disclosure of the National Intelligence Estimate.
And you heard Congresswoman [Jane] Harman [D-CA] today say, yeah, she thinks that there's a big comparison. What do you make of that?
KRISTOL: I think any administration, any CIA director, would have fired someone who was discovered to have leaked something this major, this sensitive, and this classified. There's no comparison at all.
Obviously, the president declassified most of the National Intelligence Estimates, as the media wanted him to, as he was entitled to, which was a retrospective look at Saddam's weapons programs or lack thereof.
This was leaking contemporaneous information about an ongoing secret program in the United States government. There's no parallel at all. There's no parallel at all with what Scooter Libby's alleged to have done, incidentally, which was all about past stuff about what the CIA said two years before about Saddam Hussein, and this leak.
So for me, it's -- obviously, she should just be fired. They'll have to decide whether there's a criminal offense here. But I think the president right now should say -- I mean, what it shows is how -- what a nucleus of people there were in the CIA and elsewhere in the U.S. government who are hostile to Bush, [2004 presidential candidate Sen. John F.] Kerry [D-MA] contributors, as this woman Mary McCarthy was, and a Democratic National Committee contributor in 2004, close friend of Rand Beers, who left the NSC [National Security Council] to work for Kerry, and [former White House counterterrorism czar] Richard Clarke, who wrote that book during the campaigns that denounced Bush.
There were a bunch of people in the CIA who were out to get the Bush administration, and a lot of the leaks over the last two or three years come from that group of people, I suspect, directly or indirectly, and the Bush administration's had a tough time dealing with that.
... is the subject of an ACTUAL INVESTIGATION.
Nothing Kristol or any other rightwing blowhard says will make an iota's difference to Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald has the FACTS, and he does not rely on talking heads to know what is TRUE.
However, Fitzgerald really SHOULD subpeona people like Kristol, who claim TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC that they know the details of what's going on in this Plame investigation. Fitzgerald should place Kristol under oath, and ask him to repeat what he's been telling America.
Kristol will fold like a cheap suit. He will admit that what he has said is not factual, and has no basis in reality. He will admit that he doesn't know a damn thing about the evidence in this case, and he can add nothing to Fitzgerald's understanding of what went on.
Fitzgerald should then RELEASE this information, to alert the America Public that listening to Kristol lie and spin and obfuscate is a total waste of time.
Kristol quite simply doesn't know what the hell he's blabbering about. He is a shill whose "information" is worse than useless, because it is MISinformation, and is intended to deceive the masses.
Kristol says that Mary McCarthy and others were releasing information to "get Bush," whereas Bush has supposedly declassified information in order to defend his decision to go to - and stay in - a war of aggression. What Kristol chooses to ignore is that McCarthy and the other whistleblowers she cites are on a save American campaign, whereas Bush is on a buttress my buttocks mission. Clarke and the others who would now love to see Bush go did not start out that way. Heaven forbid that Kristol stop and wonder why these people so deep inside and so highly loyal to their country have risked so much in proving it.
Kristol talks as he writes: without thinking. "Most," indeed.
denies leaking the information about exporting torture policies into other countries. See [link to www.truthout.org] So, prosecute her for what? Kristol may be premature in calling for her head and I may be premature in calling her a patriot for making disclosures until we know what she leaked.
Media Matters writes, regarding what Libby told Miller:
"Libby did not include another portion of the NIE that contradicted this rationale"
I am looking at the document cited:
[link to www.thesmokinggun.com]
around pp. 21-24, and while it does specify that Libby "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," it does not state that he failed to mention the "highly dubious" qualification to that judgment.
In other words, while it may be true that there is no evidence at present that Libby did include that portion of the NIE, I do not see how Media Matters can definitively state the opposite: that "Libby did not include another portion of the NIE that contradicted this rationale."
I would appreciate clarification.
The claim that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium" was not, in fact, a key judgement of the NIE. That's what the dishonesty was.
Is that what you were asking?
I see. And Fitzgerald's brief repeats several times on pp. 23-24 that it was the key judgments of the NIE that Libby (says he) was authorized to disclose, the key judgments that he brought with him, etc. So one might conclude that Libby discussed nothing other than the key judgments.
However, there are are a few places where one might conclude that perhaps Libby had, nevertheless, mentioned the "highly dubious" qualification of the "vigorously trying" judgment. The phrase "relevant portions of the NIE" is used on p. 23. Fitzgerald writes that Libby understood that he was to mention the "vigorously trying" judgment "among other things." Might the "other things" or "relevant portions" include the INR's excerpted qualification?
Also, since the material officially declassified on July 18 is about 95% key judgments and 5% the "INR's Alternative View," perhaps it was simply referred to as the "key judgments" even though it did include part of Annex A which was not strictly speaking part of those judgments. That case would be strengthened by looking at how the White House senior administration official introduced the official declassification to the press on July 18: "What you have here today is the key judgments from the National Intelligence Estimate" (but it also included the excerpt from Annex A, as the official said two paragraphs later).
I'm not saying there's a strong case that Libhy actually did speak with Miller on July 8 about the INR's dissenting view. But I don't think we know for certain, at this point, that he did not. We can infer that from Fitzgerald's language, but since I don't think any part of his case hangs on whether Libby discussed the INR's dissent with Miller, I think we might be reading too much into such an inference.
I'm not arguing a case one way or another at this point, just trying to assemble the facts for my own benefit. I'd be interested in any additional information from MM. Thanks.
Libby never said it was a key judgment. Fitzgerald wrote a correction clearing this up. You can read about it here [link to www.washingtonpost.com] and read an entire copy of the correction letter here [link to www.usdoj.gov]
Hi there. In response to your question:
In his April 5 court filing [p.23], Fitzgerald wrote that Libby "testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller" at their July 8, 2003 meeting "because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out."
He also wrote [p.23] that Libby "understood that [on July 8] he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."
Fitzgerald corrected this last sentence in an April 11 letter reported and subsequently misrepresented by National Review WH correspondent Byron York (see MMFA item here: [link to mediamatters.org]
In his correction, Fitzgerald clarified that Libby "understood that [on July 8] 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."
The INR's contention that the uranium claim was "highly dubious" was not included in the "key judgments," (nor was the uranium claim cited by Libby in his conversation with Miller, as we've noted before). So the INR claim wasn't included in the portions of the NIE Libby specifically told Fitzgerald he disclosed.
Additionally, on page 23 of his April 5 filing, Fitzgerald wrote that Libby "testified that the Vice President ... advised him that the President had authorized defendant [Libby] to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE" because "it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said."
Based on that assertion, it's pretty clear that Libby did not disclose the INR's contention that the uranium claim was "highly dubious," as it would have directly undercut the argument Cheney told him to make to Miller - that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium.
See also this MMFA item: [link to mediamatters.org]
The item quotes a NYT interview with Judy Miller, in which she stated: "As I told Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Libby also cited a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced by American intelligence agencies in October 2002, which he said had firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium."
This pretty clearly backs up our above argument, and Miller definitely didn't mention the INR claim in the interview.
Joe,
Thank you for your informative reply.
Please see what I wrote above in "Key Judgment and Annex A." I hope someone at Media Matters will look at this issue. While it isn't central to the question addressed on this page (Kristol's claim was wrong either way), I believe MM has overstated its case on this specific point and I hope that will be corrected.
You write that the INR's qualification was not part of the key judgments, "[s]o the INR claim wasn't included in the portions of the NIE Libby specifically told Fitzgerald he disclosed." We can't conclude that from the Fitzgerald clarification letter you cite, where he writes that Libby "was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE."
And as you point out, for Libby to mention the INR qualification would undercut the argument he was trying to make. But that doesn't mean he didn't say it. Often providing facts against interest can be very persuasive as part of an overall argument, as Libby surely knew.
Finally, Miller did write that Libby "said [the NIE] had firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium." This is the strongest evidence yet, but it still does not mean Libby failed to mention the INR's qualification. One can easily imagine discussions in which Libby referenced it but still left the impression with Miller that seeking uranium was a firm conclusion.
While it may well be true that Libby never mentioned the INR qualification to Miller, we simply have no way of knowing that for sure at this point.
I would urge MM to reword the phrase in this article "But Libby did not include another portion of the NIE that contradicted this rationale" to perhaps something like: "But there is no evidence that Libby included another portion of the NIE that contradicted this rationale," or "But the evidence strongly suggests that Libby did not include another portion etc."
Or delete that paragraph entirely, as it's only a supporting point for the article's main point which is already incontrovertible. But stating it as an outright fact at this point in time goes too far.
I read MM because I have an extremely high level of trust in your research and synthesis. I hope you'll look at this point and consider a correction. Thank you.
Hi Jamie. I see the point you're making.
I do, however, think that the only logical conclusion - based on what Fitzgerald and Miller have written - is that Libby did not disclose the INR's contention that the uranium claim was "highly dubious" to Miller. Here are some more excerpts from Miller's New York Times article ([link to www.commondreams.org] in which she recounted her grand jury testimony on the Libby matter:
"As I told the grand jury, I recalled Mr. Libby's frustration and anger about what he called 'selective leaking' by the C.I.A. and other agencies to distance themselves from what he recalled as their unequivocal prewar intelligence assessments."
[...]
"I recall that Mr. Libby was angry about reports suggesting that senior administration officials, including Mr. Cheney, had embraced skimpy intelligence about Iraq's alleged efforts to buy uranium in Africa while ignoring evidence to the contrary. Such reports, he said, according to my notes, were 'highly distorted.'"
[...]
"According to my notes, he began with a chronology of what he described as credible evidence of Iraq's efforts to procure uranium. As I told Mr. Fitzgerald and the grand jury, Mr. Libby alluded to the existence of two intelligence reports about Iraq's uranium procurement efforts. One report dated from February 2002. The other indicated that Iraq was seeking a broad trade relationship with Niger in 1999, a relationship that he said Niger officials had interpreted as an effort by Iraq to obtain uranium."
[...]
"As I told Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Libby also cited a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced by American intelligence agencies in October 2002, which he said had firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium."
"An unclassified version of that estimate had been made public before my interviews with Mr. Libby. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I had pressed Mr. Libby to discuss additional information that was in the more detailed, classified version of the estimate. I said I had told Mr. Libby that if The Times was going to do an article, the newspaper needed more than a recap of the administration's weapons arguments. According to my interview notes, though, it appears that Mr. Libby said little more than that the assessments of the classified estimate were even stronger than those in the unclassified version."
Based on:
-Libby's assertion that the CIA and other agencies made "unequivocal" pre-war assessments that supported the administration's case for war
-his assertion that reports that Cheney ignored contradictory assessments were "highly distorted"
-his assertion that the NIE "firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium"
-his assertion that the classified NIE's WMD claims were "stronger than those in the unclassified version"
-Miller's statement that Libby did little more than "recap ... the administration's weapons arguments"
The only logical conclusion is that Libby did not share the INR claim with Miller.
However, we appreciate your point that this is a logical inference, as opposed to something explicitly stated in the documents. We don't feel a correction is neccessary per se, but in the future we will carefully consider our language to make clear that this is an inference (based on strong evidence) as opposed to something explicitly stated by Fitzgerald or Miller.
Thanks for your careful reading of our articles. We appreciate your comments and thoughtful questions, and we encourage you to bring up issues like this in the future.
Regards, Joe
Here's a good link to that Miller article:
[link to mediamatters.org]
If what Libby leaked was declassified then why all the fuss about getting the person responsible for leaking classified information?
As Scott McClellan made clear on July 18, 2003, "this information was just, as of today, officially declassified... It was officially declassified today." And on April 10, 2006, the President's spokesman repeated that he would stand by those remarks. In other words, on July 8, when the information was leaked on what Libby said Cheney said was Bush's authorization, it was still officially classified.
However, the legal argument has been put forth that since the President is the one who established the rules of classification and declassification by executive order, he by definition cannot be accused of wrongly leaking a classified document. Libby claims the Counsel to the Vice-President at the time told him specifically that authorization from the President had the legal weight of declassification. In particular see section 3.1(b) of that executive order, which the President apparently violated, but 3.1(b)(2) says expressly that such violation is not a matter for the courts.
Whether that legal theory holds up remains to be seen; all this is without precedent.
I'd made the same assertions in your first paragraph weeks ago. That there was no official word that the document was declassified until the press briefing of July 18th. So therefore the administration's argument that when parts of it were disclosed 10 days earlier (but only to Cheney, Libby and eventually Miller) seems to indicate the administration is grabbing for straws.
But let's look at your second paragraph! And let's look at the ethics involved in that executive order. (EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292) http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html
That executive order superceded the previous Clinton executive order - (EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958) http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html
Curiously, the words Vice President were added all over the Bush Executive Order. When in the Clinton Executive Order the words Vice President were only used twice!
The Bush White House mysteriouly expanded the Vice President's role just three days after the war in Iraq was commenced. Nothing illegal perhaps. But it sure points toward a Vice President who had his hands all over more than the Bush White House admits. This all stinks.
He lies with the authority of a college professor with his own curriculum. The problem is his ideas are sublime in his own little world, until he lures us into his reality is it a nightmare that he politely informs you is your own incompetence.
He was telling us how great this policy of pre-emptive war to pacify an Islamo-Fascist extremist that dominate the Arab Nations. We invade a partially Arab nation that is now controlled by Shia’s that now amounts to the Arab Nations of Sunnis' worst nightmare.
Iran’s Islamic Theocracy exported with American tax dollars, and blood for our security?? Ayatollah’s of Iran will have handed to them the first Shia Islamic Empire in Middle Asia history, and sends the region into the 12th Century of Ottoman style governance.
A rebirth of a new Persian Empire on the American Taxpayers, and not so much as a kiss.
How again did this protect us? I see the oil companies making out like robber barons of the 19th Century. I see our tax dollars being doled out to Bush/Cheney friends. I see the Republican's power grab, spying, lying, and plundering of our nations resources. I see our nation splitting by race, religion, and wealth.
I don’t see that smaller, more effective government they nagged about to get into power. I don’t see that balanced budget. I don’t see that strong military that we Democrats left him.
Bill has had himself a run as the big expert for a few years, and I dare say nobody I can remember has been such a huge failure. He would stil presume to be the only intelligent voice in the room. Please let him finally be the only voice in the room.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Lies that encourage people to believe, have faith are moral. Of course that's faith in God. Well, that was the old model. The new improved version includes each, every, any and all lies. So if you're confused about how this can be the most moral administration in history perhaps you should know more about the evangelical's and their 9 commandments, 9 for conservatives and 10 for liberals. Everybody else knows. They found out at [link to www.hoax-buster.org]
Never forget: Faith moves mountains, mountains of lies that is.
The obvious abuses of Constitutional rights by the administration, e.g., warantless wiretaps and suspension of habeous corpus, are disturbing, yet - despite arguments from apologists of these policies - the law seems reasonably clear. However, perhaps a more disturbing trend is the use - or abuse, if you prefer - of classification and declassification by the administration.
The courts have recognized the authority of the executive to classify information, and that the authority rests with and emanates from the President. I don't argue that the authority doesn't have an important purpose. However, an administration that uses that authority to effectively censor the flow of information to the U.S. public strictly for their own gain represents a serious threat to democracy. While the administration has probably not been as effective in using the strategy as they hoped, the price to the American people has been quite high (e.g., Iraq).
So what is my real concern? That future administrations may learn to abuse classification authority to even greater effect.