An October 31 USA Today editorial made false, baseless, and misleading claims about special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the alleged leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted on October 28 for obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements in connection with the investigation.

Editorial falsely claimed Fitzgerald's investigation “ended”

USA Today's editorial falsely declared that “Fitzgerald's two-year investigation ended without charges on the issue it was exploring -- whether anyone knowingly blew Plame's undercover status.” According to USA Today, this “raises doubts about its [the investigation's] value.” In fact, while Fitzgerald noted in an October 28 press conference announcing Libby's indictment that “the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded,” he also said of the investigation: “It's not over.” Fitzgerald added, "[I]t's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing."

From Fitzgerald's October 28 press conference:

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking?

FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one. OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded. This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.

Editorial agreed with disputed claim that Plame “suggested” Wilson for Niger trip

USA Today agreed with the disputed claim that Plame had suggested that the CIA send her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from that country. According to USA Today, “Syndicated columnist Robert Novak ... revealed Plame's identity publicly, writing [in his column] on July 14, 2003, that she had a hand in Wilson's trip to Niger. This was true." In his column, Novak had actually been more specific, reporting that according to “administration officials,” Wilson's wife had “suggested” him for the trip: “Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.”

But CIA officials have disputed the accuracy of a State Department intelligence memo that reportedly indicates that Plame “suggested” Wilson's name for the trip. And CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reported during CNN's October 28 indictment coverage that he had “talked to very high intelligence officials” who say that the suggestion that “Valerie Plame suggested her husband be sent to Niger ... just isn't true.” Noting that Plame's alleged role in suggesting Wilson for the trip was discussed in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's July 7, 2004, report on prewar intelligence, Ensor reported that, according to his sources, Plame had simply written an email responding positively to the suggestion by “higher-ups at the CIA who suggested that Joe Wilson be sent.”

From CNN's October 28 breaking-news coverage of Libby's indictment:

ENSOR: Secondly, the suggestion that's been out there quite a bit -- and there's even some discussion of it in the Senate Intelligence Committee report -- that Valerie Plame suggested her husband be sent to Niger. I have talked to very high intelligence officials who say that just isn't true. That it was senior officers above her who had the idea of sending Ambassador Wilson, knowing that he'd been in Niger before and was an experienced hand in Africa, a former ambassador on that continent. And they thought he'd be good. They then went to her and said, “Well, what do you think?” She responded with an email that said, “Yes, he'd be good for the following reasons.” That was in response to higher-ups at the CIA who suggested that Joe Wilson be sent.

Editorial omitted State Department's conclusion that Wilson's finding did not support uranium claims

Arguing that Wilson's report on his Niger findings “was not the smoking gun he fancied it to be,” USA Today noted that the Senate Intelligence Committee found that "[f]or most CIA analysts, the trip 'lent more credibility' to the idea of a uranium deal." However, USA Today omitted the fact that the committee also concluded that “State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.” In addition, the committee concluded that, based on the intelligence available when the Niger claim was included in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, INR was correct in its alternative assessment that there was not a “compelling case” that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program:

After reviewing all the intelligence provided by the Intelligence Community and additional information requested by the Committee, the Committee believes that the judgment in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, was not supported by the intelligence. The Committee agrees with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) alternative view that the available intelligence “does not add up to a compelling case for reconstitution.”

Editorial narrowed initial White House pledge to fire anyone “involved” in leak

In its editorial, USA Today noted that “President Bush vowed in July that 'if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.' ” Without noting that the White House had pledged two years earlier to fire anyone “involved” in leaking Plame's identity, USA Today asked: “But is criminality the only standard? When the leak occurred, Bush might have avoided this harmful investigation by making clear he doesn't countenance national security leaks, finding the culprits and dealing with them directly. But that clearly is wishful thinking. Even the vice president was among the officials who passed the information to Libby.”

In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, the White House's initial pledge to fire anyone involved in leaking classified information related to Plame's identity did not hinge upon any determination of illegal activity. During a September 29, 2003, press conference, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters, “If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the alleged leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.” Bush himself stated on September 30, 2003: “If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.” The quote USA Today used comes from a July 18 press conference in which Bush narrowed his pledge to cover only those administration officials who “committed a crime.”