Harman wants House inquiry into pre-war Iraq intelligence

South Bay Democrat complains the Republicans are refusing to investigate reports of information gathering flaws.

By Toby Eckert Copley News Service WASHINGTON -- November 12, 2005

South Bay Rep. Jane Harman, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, criticized committee Republicans on Thursday for halting an investigation into intelligence claims used to justify the Iraq war. In unusually blunt language for the normally bipartisan panel, Harman accused Republicans, who control the committee, of reneging on a June 2003 agreement to study the "quality and objectivity" of pre-war intelligence. The investigation was stopped after the disclosure of an interim report that was critical of the Bush administration's intelligence claims, she said.

"I just think that this issue is too important," said Harman, D-El Segundo. "We've been trying to get it done for 2½ years and I felt we had to mark the spot."

The dispute mirrors a recent spat in the Senate. Last week, Democrats forced the Senate Intelligence Committee to renew a wide-ranging look at whether the Bush administration distorted intelligence about Iraqi weapons and ties to terrorism to win support for the war.

Citing the Senate action, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., said there was no need for the House panel to resume its Iraq intelligence probe. Instead, it will review leaks of classified information, including one that disclosed the existence of secret CIA prisons abroad. Interest in the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war has intensified since the indictment last month of Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. He has been charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements in an investigation of the unmasking of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had publicly disputed the truth of a key claim President Bush made about Iraq's attempt to acquire materials for a nuclear weapon. No nuclear, chemical or biological weapons have been found since the invasion, though Bush cited them as the primary justification for the war.

The House Intelligence Committee interviewed Wilson before he went public with his claims.

Harman noted that in June 2003, she and then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss, R-Fla., outlined a process for reviewing pre-war intelligence. It included committee hearings, interviews with intelligence analysts and allowing other House members to review intelligence that had been provided to the committee. After reviewing 19 volumes of classified information, the committee produced an interim report, in the form of a letter to then-CIA Director George Tenet, that said intelligence agencies had used outdated and uncertain information to conclude that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorist groups. The Bush administration disputed the findings and, Harman said, "shortly thereafter, the Republican majority shut down the inquiry and prevented (Democratic) staff ... from meeting with administration officials whom they deemed critical for this inquiry."

Bush named Goss director of the CIA after Tenet resigned in June 2004. Harman said that, last week, she gave Hoekstra a one-page plan for how the committee could finish its investigation.

"The (Republican) majority now seems likely to reject our proposal, preferring to curtail oversight over one of the worst intelligence failures in American history," Harman said in a written statement. "The main responsibility of our committee is to conduct oversight, and this action undermines the credibility of the committee."

The White House struck back at critics of the Iraq intelligence. "Our statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein were based on the aggregation of intelligence from a number of sources and represented the collective view of the intelligence community," said National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. "Those judgments were shared by Republicans and Democrats alike."

The plan Harman presented said the 2003 investigation found an intelligence analyst "who complained of political pressure" and that the issue should be studied, along with the treatment of competing views within the Bush administration about Iraq's threat; how intelligence officials viewed public statements by Bush, Cheney and Tenet about the threat; and the drafting of presentations like former Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations on Iraq.

Senate Democrats were able to force the issue by invoking a rule that allowed them to take the Senate into closed session, which drew attention to their complaints that Republicans were delaying an Iraq intelligence probe. House Democrats have little leverage under that chamber's rules.

"The House and the Senate are very different creatures," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, an independent research group. "The capacity for individual senators to make things happen is much greater than the capacity of individual House members."

Pike said he believes that a probe of pre-war intelligence would show "there was more than enough blame to go around," from poor work by intelligence analysts to distortion by administration officials eager to invade Iraq. - dailybreeze.com

Bush Disputes Charges of Intelligence Misuse in War

Nov. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush disputed allegations by Democrats that the White House twisted or misused prewar intelligence to justify the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

``It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how the war began,'' Bush told military families at an Army depot near Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania today. ``More than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to remove Saddam Hussein from power.'' ``Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war,'' Bush said in a Veterans Day speech. ``These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgment related to Iraq's weapons programs,'' he said.

Bush went on the offensive after weeks of charges by Democrats including Senators John Rockefeller of West Virginia and John Kerry of Massachusetts that the White House overstated or manipulated intelligence. Presidents almost always mark Veterans Day with a visit to Arlington National Cemetery. This year Bush left that ceremonial duty to Vice President Dick Cheney and chose to defend himself in a speech to military families at Tobyhanna Army Depot in the Pocono mountains in northeast Pennsylvania.

Justifications for War

In a wide-ranging speech that lasted almost 40 minutes, the president spelled out the struggle for influence between U.S.- led forces and what he called ``radical Islamists'' whose random bombings show ``cold-blooded contempt for human life.'' Iraq, he said, is ``the central front in our war against the terrorists.''

Questions about the quality of U.S. intelligence and whether Bush misled the nation on the threat posed by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein have arisen because none of the president's three main justifications for the war turned out to be true.

United Nations weapons inspectors found no evidence that Hussein possessed or was trying to obtain chemical or biological weapons, and the bipartisan Sept. 11 Commission concluded there were no prewar links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Investigators also found no evidence that Hussein was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program.

Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in a statement that Bush was using the Veterans Day speech ``as a campaign-like attempt to rebuild his own credibility by tearing down those who seek the truth about the clear manipulation of intelligence'' that led to war.

Terrorism

In a year marked by conflict and declining job approval ratings, one bright spot for Bush has been on the issue of terrorism. Americans give him better marks for handling that issue than any other. In a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll published yesterday, respondents gave Bush and Republicans a nine-point edge over Democrats with regard to which party is best equipped to handle terrorism. Republicans trailed Democrats in the survey on a number of other issues ranging from Social Security and education to tax policy. Still, the survey put Bush's job approval at 38 percent, the lowest of his presidency in that poll. While Bush describes Iraq as the focal point in the war on terror, other surveys show the war may be the biggest reason his approval rating is plummeting.

A Nov. 4 Washington Post/ABC News poll gave the president a job approval rating of 39 percent, his lowest in that survey, which also showed that almost two-thirds of those questioned disapprove of his handling of Iraq. And six in 10 said they now believe invading Iraq was wrong -- a seven-point increase in two months.

Warning to Syria

In his speech, Bush also warned that Syria must stop trying to destabilize the government of Lebanon, and should cooperate with the investigation into the murder of a former Lebanese prime minister.

``The government of Syria must stop trying to intimidate and destabilize Lebanon,'' the president said. ``The government of Syria must stop exporting violence and start importing democracy.'' the president said.

Bush said incidents like Wednesday's hotel attacks in Jordan prove that terrorists, including those operating in Iraq, must be stopped before they are allowed to spread their violence to the U.S. or other nations.

The attacks on three hotels in Amman on Nov. 9 ``can seem like random acts of madness'' but in fact are efforts to end Western influence in the Middle East, Bush said. ``We must stop them before their crimes can multiply.''

Constant Theme

Bush has turned repeatedly to the war on terror in recent weeks; today's Veterans Day speech was the third time in less than a month he has addressed what he calls America's most important mission. In recent weeks, Bush has been under fire for an investigation into the leaking of a CIA agent's name and the failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers.

U.S. military deaths in Iraq number 2,052 as of yesterday, according to the Pentagon. Meantime, the steady barrage of bombings sparked fresh debate over the benefits of a war that's now in its 32nd month.

Political Progress

Amid an increasing call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops - - 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Kerry yesterday called for 20,000 troops to be sent home in the first phase of a withdrawal -- Bush has steadfastly refused to put a timetable on when U.S. soldiers could begin returning home. There is political progress in Iraq. After two decades of dictatorship, the war-ravaged nation moved toward establishing a federal government after voters approved a new constitution Oct. 15 by a 4-to-1 margin. The next step is voting on a new parliament Dec. 15.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost $361 billion since Sept. 11, 2001 for military operations, reconstruction and other expenses, the Congressional Research Service said in an Oct. 3 report. Spending includes money for the current 2006 fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1.

``The terrorists' goal is to overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East, and strike America and other free nations with increasing violence,'' Bush said. ``Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power, so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq.''

bloomberg.com

Report: Senior Official Told Woodward About Plame

Source Wasn't Libby, Woodward Says

November 15, 2005 WASHINGTON -- Washington Post editor Bob Woodward testified that a senior Bush administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame about a month before her identity was publicly exposed, the Post acknowledged Wednesday.

Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leak of Plame's identity, that the official talked to him about Plame in mid-June 2003, the Post said. Woodward and editors at the Post refused to identify the official other than to say it was not I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

Libby was indicted last month on one charge of obstruction of justice and two counts each of false statement and perjury in connection with Fitzgerald's investigation.

Plame's husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had criticized U.S. intelligence efforts before the Iraq war. On June 23, Libby told New York Times reporter Judith Miller that Wilson's wife might work at the CIA. Robert Novak, in a column published July 14, identified Plame, as a CIA operative.

Woodward's testimony in a two-hour deposition Monday would mean that another White House official told a reporter about Plame before Libby revealed her identity to Miller. A spokesman for White House adviser Karl Rove told the Post that Rove did not discuss Plame with Woodward.

William Jeffress Jr., one of Libby's lawyers, told the Post that Woodward's testimony raises questions about his client's indictment. "Will Mr. Fitzgerald now say he was wrong to say on TV that Scooter Libby was the first official to give this information to a reporter?" Jeffress said.

Woodward, famous for his investigation with Carl Bernstein of the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration, is now assistant managing editor of the Post. In October, he was dismissive of the outing of Plame, telling CNN's Larry King that the damage from her exposure was "quite minimal." - 10news.com

Bob Woodward: A Military intelligence damage limitation operation

The staunchly conservative Bob Woodward grew up in Wheaton, Illinois. A good student at Yale, he was ultimately one of fifteen seniors "tapped" for one of that university's secret societies, Book and Snake, a cut below the more infamous Skull and Bones, but the top of the second-tier fraternities.

Woodward had his first journalistic experience working for the Banner, a Yale publication. In his 1965 yearbook he was referred to as a "Banner mogul." Havill writes, Certainly, with the CIA encouraged to recruit on the Yale campus, particularly among history majors and secret societies, it is more than reasonable to assume Bob may have been one of those approached by the agency, or by a military intelligence unit, especially after four years of naval ROTC training.

Although it would answer a lot of questions that have been raised about Bob Woodward, at this point one can only speculate as to whether he was offered the chance to become a "double-wallet guy," as CIA agents who have two identities are dubbed. It would certainly be understandable if he decided not to adhere to the straight and accepted the submerged patriotic glamour and extra funds that such a relationship would provide. It would also explain the comments of Pulitzer Prize-winning author J. Anthony Lukas, when he wrote in 1989 that Bob Woodward was "temperamentally secretive, loathe to volunteer information about himself," or the Washingtonian's remarks in 1987: "He is secretive about everything." As Esquire magazine put it, summing up in its 1992 article on Bob, "What is he hiding?"

- webcom.com

Media Matters for America has identified numerous instances in which Woodward -- without disclosing his involvement in the Plame affair -- criticized Fitzgerald's investigation and questioned whether an actual crime had been committed. Woodward's comments, some of which are inconsistent, raise questions about his conduct.

Wash. Post's Woodward's misleading, disingenuous statements on Plame investigation

Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information

According to sources with firsthand knowledge, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.

By Murray Waas, National Journal - Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.

Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to correspondence recently filed in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Beyond what was stated in the court paper, say people with firsthand knowledge of the matter, Libby also indicated what he will offer as a broad defense during his upcoming criminal trial: that Vice President Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials had earlier encouraged and authorized him to share classified information with journalists to build public support for going to war. Later, after the war began in 2003, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.

[snip]

The new disclosure that Libby has claimed that the vice president and others in the White House had authorized him to release information to make the case to go to war, and later to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence, is significant for several reasons. First, it significantly adds to a mounting body of information that Cheney played a central and personal role in directing efforts to counter claims by Wilson and other administration critics that the Bush administration had misused intelligence information to go to war with Iraq.

Second, it raises additional questions about Libby's motives in concealing his role in leaking Plame's name to the press, if he was in fact more broadly authorized by Cheney and others to rebut former Ambassador Wilson's charges. The federal grand jury indictment of Libby alleges that he had lied to the FBI and the federal grand jury by claiming that when he provided information to reporters about Plame's CIA employment, he was only passing along what he understood to be unverified gossip that he had heard from other journalists.

Instead, the indictment charges that Libby had in fact learned of Plame's CIA status from at least four government officials, Cheney among them, and from classified documents. Indeed, much of Libby's earliest and most detailed information regarding Plame's CIA employment came directly from the vice president, according to information in Libby's grand jury indictment. "On or about June 12, 2003," the indictment stated, "Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division."

Libby testified that Cheney told him about Plame "in an off sort of, curiosity sort of, fashion," according to other information recently unsealed in federal court. Not long after that date, Libby, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, and a third administration official began to tell reporters that Plame had worked at the CIA, and that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger.

Finally, the new information indicates that Libby is likely to pursue a defense during his trial that he was broadly "authorized" by Cheney and other "superiors" to defend the Bush administration in making the case to go to war. Libby does not, however, appear to be claiming that he was acting specifically on Cheney's behalf in disclosing information about Plame to the press.

Libby's legal strategy in asserting that Cheney and other Bush administration officials authorized activities related to the underlying allegations of criminal conduct leveled against him, without approving of or encouraging him to engage in the specific misconduct, is reminiscent of the defense strategy used by Oliver North, who was a National Security Council official in the Reagan administration.

North, a Marine lieutenant colonel assigned to the National Security Council, implemented the Reagan administration's efforts to covertly send arms to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages held in the Middle East, and to covertly fund and provide military assistance to the Nicaraguan Contras at a time when federal law prohibited such activities. Later, it was discovered that North and other Reagan administration officials had diverted funds they had received from the Iranian arms sales to covertly fund the Contras. - national journal

CIA says Libby defense could disrupt intelligence

Tue Mar 7, 2006 - By Andy Sullivan WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA would have a hard time advising President George W. Bush on security threats if a judge forced it to provide material sought by a former vice presidential aide accused of perjury, the agency said in a court filing made public on Tuesday.

CIA officials would need up to nine months to dig up classified information sought by Lewis "Scooter" Libby as part of his defense against perjury charges, the CIA said.

"The job would divert their precious time and effort away from their primary task: preparing breaking intelligence for the president's immediate attention," CIA information review officer Marilyn Dorn wrote.

Libby is charged with lying to the FBI and a grand jury during an investigation into who disclosed the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to news reporters in 2003 after her husband accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

Libby sought access to nearly a year's worth of intelligence briefs to prove he was preoccupied with national-security matters at the time and thus could not accurately remember his conversations with reporters and government officials.

Only those officials who prepare the reports have enough security clearance to handle the task, Dorn said, and the task could take months because information would have to be reassembled from many different sources.

Even a more narrowly targeted request proposed by the judge would require three months to assemble, she said.

In a response filed later on Tuesday, Libby's lawyers said a judge might conclude the agency was engaged in "unjustified foot-dragging."

Nevertheless, they said they were willing to narrow their request to the briefs Libby saw during the weeks he discussed Wilson with reporters and officials, and the days when he was queried by investigators, roughly 46 days in all.

They also scaled back the range of documents they wished to see and proposed limits on where they could view the material. The lawyers said they need to see the documents to refresh Libby's memory and mount a convincing defense.

"Mr. Libby needs what the Supreme Court calls the 'persuasive power of the concrete and particular' to convince the jury that in a welter of more urgent matters, he confused or forgot snippets of conversation concerning Ms. Wilson," they wrote.

Libby is scheduled to stand trial in January 2007.

- reuters.com

Judge Says Libby Can See Bush Briefings

By TONI LOCY Associated Press Writer March 10, 2006 - WASHINGTON - A federal judge ordered the CIA on Friday to turn over highly classified intelligence briefings to Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide to use in preparing the aide's defense against perjury charges. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected CIA warnings that the nation's security would be imperiled if the presidential-level documents were disclosed to lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff.

The judge said the CIA can either delete highly classified portions from the briefing material and provide what amounts to a "table of contents" of what Libby and Cheney received six days a week. Or, Walton said, the CIA can produce "topic overviews" of the matters covered in the briefings. The judge also ordered the CIA to give Libby an index of the topics covered in follow-up questions that the former White House aide asked intelligence officers who conducted the briefings.

"The court has painstakingly endeavored to ensure that the defendant is provided with information he truly needs to prepare his defense," Walton wrote in a 25-page ruling.

In seeking CIA input late last month, Walton appeared to have been trying to broker a compromise between defense attorneys and prosecutors to avoid a lengthy court battle with the Bush administration over the briefing material. The judge's order indicates he is ready for such a fight. He set a schedule for the Bush administration to file any objections by March 24.

The ruling is a partial victory for Libby, who is charged with lying in the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

But Walton noted in his ruling that most of what he ordered Libby to receive probably won't be revealed to a jury. Any classified evidence that Libby wants to use must be approved by the judge after a secret vetting process established by Congress to ensure protection of government secrets.

Libby, 55, was charged last October with lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury about how he learned and when he subsequently told reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame. He faces trial in January 2007 on five counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice.

Plame's identity as a CIA operative was published in July 2003 by columnist Robert Novak after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of twisting intelligence about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium "yellowcake" in Niger. The year before, the CIA had sent Wilson to Niger to determine the accuracy of the uranium reports.

Libby's lawyers originally wanted nearly a year of the President's Daily Brief, a summary of some of the government's most sensitive intelligence gathered on threats to the United States.

The lawyers want to use the briefings as the cornerstone of Libby's defense: to show that the former top White House aide had more important matters on his mind and could have easily forgotten or remembered incorrectly "snippets" of conversations he had about CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald opposed giving Libby any of the briefings and accused the defense of trying to derail the case by "greymail," a process where former government officials have forced dismissals of their cases because they threatened to reveal the nation's secrets at their trials.

"Neither party has it exactly right," Walton wrote.

Libby needs to know the gist of the intelligence briefings to put on a "preoccupation defense," the judge said. But, he said, the former White House aide should be able to refresh his memory by reviewing generalized versions of the intelligence briefings. "It is inconceivable that the defendant's memory of matters of significance to him have totally vanished," Walton wrote.

The judge also rejected Fitzgerald's arguments that the intelligence briefings belong to the vice president's office and the CIA, two agencies that were not part of the investigation. Walton said "there can be little doubt" that when Fitzgerald has asked either agency for help in his probe, there has been "a rather free flow" of information. "These entities have contributed significantly to the investigation and without their contribution it is unlikely that the indictment in this case could have been secured," the judge wrote. - source

Magazine: Bradlee Knows Woodward's Source on Plame

By Jim VandeHei - Tuesday, March 14, 2006; A02

Vanity Fair is reporting that former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee says it is reasonable to assume former State Department official Richard L. Armitage is likely the source who revealed CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward.

In an article to be published in the magazine today, Bradlee is quoted as saying: "That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption." Armitage was deputy secretary of state in President Bush's first term.

In an interview yesterday, Bradlee said he does know the identity of Woodward's source and does not recall making that precise statement to a Vanity Fair reporter. He said he has no interest in unmasking the official who first told Woodward about Plame in June 2003.

"I don't think I said it," Bradlee said. "I know who his source is, and I don't want to get into it. . . . I have not told a soul who it is."

The identity of Woodward's source emerged as one of the big mysteries of the CIA case after he disclosed last year that a government official with no ax to grind had told him about Plame, an undercover operative, a month before her name was revealed by columnist Robert D. Novak. Since then, guessing Woodward's source has been a Washington parlor game.

Plame is at the center of an investigation by a special prosecutor into whether White House officials knowingly disclosed her name to the media to discredit allegations made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, that the administration twisted intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The probe has resulted in charges of perjury, making false statements and obstructing justice against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.

Beth Kseniak, spokeswoman for Vanity Fair, said the reporter who wrote the story, Marie Brenner, was traveling in India and was unavailable for comment.

Bradlee, currently Post vice president at large, said he learned the source's name from someone other than Woodward. Woodward said he did not reveal the source to his friend and former boss.

"He is not in the management loop on this," Woodward said. "Maybe he was alerted from somebody else, if he in fact did learn" the source's name.

Woodward and Bradlee refused to disclose the source's name. Armitage did not return phone calls requesting comment.

Bradlee's brief comments about the source are included in a lengthy article about the Plame case. Bradlee is the longtime Post editor who rose to prominence when his reporting team of Woodward and Carl Bernstein broke the Watergate story. Woodward and Bradlee refused for many years to reveal the identity of Deep Throat, a key source.

Bradlee defended Woodward after the journalist disclosed in November that a senior Bush administration official had told him about Plame and her CIA ties a month before her identity was revealed.

At the time, Woodward was criticized by Leonard Downie Jr., The Post's executive editor, and others for not telling the newspaper about his knowledge of Plame until after Libby was indicted.

In the course of writing a book on Bush, Woodward said, he had discovered mention of Plame in his notes just as the grand jury in the leak case was expiring last October. Woodward contacted prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald and later testified under oath about his conversations with the source, whom he has refused to name publicly.

Woodward's testimony changed key elements in the chronology Fitzgerald laid out in his investigation and announced when indicting Libby. It made Woodward's source -- not Libby -- the first known government official to disclose Plame's CIA employment to a reporter. Woodward has said he does not recall ever discussing Plame with Libby.

It also apparently made Woodward the first reporter to learn about Plame from a government source. Libby's legal team has cited Woodward's testimony as evidence that there are holes in Fitzgerald's version of events and hinted it might call the reporter to testify at the trial.

The identity of Woodward's source is one of several mysteries that remain in the leak case. Lawyers involved in the case have suggested Woodward's source and Novak's source are the same person. Novak has refused to discuss the source for his column but suggested in a speech in December that he and Woodward shared the source. Novak and his lawyer declined to comment yesterday.

Fitzgerald has not concluded his investigation, but people involved in the case said he has not shown interest in Woodward or his source since Woodward testified last year.

Fitzgerald has not closed the investigation of whether White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove provided false statements about his role in the disclosure of Plame's identity, according to lawyers in the case. - washingtonpost.com

Is Karl Rove stabbing Cheney in the back?

There are intriguing signs of George Bush trying to distance himself from Dick Cheney as the investigation into who leaked the name of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame homes in on members of the vice-president's close circle. Leaking the name of a covert CIA officer is illegal under US law and an investigation has been going on for some time under Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald into who was responsible. Karl Rove, the president's special adviser, reportedly "tipped off" Fitzgerald on the location of 250 emails that had mysteriously gone missing from the vice-president's office.

We now know that Plame's name was leaked to a succession of US journalists, most famously Judith Miller, late of the New York Times, and the great Bob Woodward, of Watergate fame, in an attempt to smear Plame's husband Joseph Wilson. The former US ambassador had criticized Bush over claims, ironically true, that the British believed Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger.

Cheney's former chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted on five counts of obstruction and false statements made to Fitzgerald's investigation last October. His lawyers have since been trying to tie up the investigation in red tape by demanding access to classified CIA documents they say will show their client is innocent.

Libby is not the only Cheney confidant said to be implicated in the case. The Sunday Times reported last November that Stephen Hadley, National Security Adviser, was the source who leaked Plame's name to Woodward. Hadley owes his career to Cheney's patronage during the administration of George Bush senior.

Rove was initially thought to be one of those in the frame but according to the New York Times he is now "increasingly certain" that he will not be indicted, although that may not save his skin as Republican congressmen, desperate to improve the party's declining standing ahead of this year's mid-term elections, are equally desperate to give the administration an extreme makeover (their pressure has now led to the resignation of Bush's other close aide Andrew Card, his chief of staff). Now the US internet newspaper Raw Story is reporting that it was Rove who told Fitzgerald where to find the emails Cheney's office didn't want the special investigator to see.

It was a combination of the Downing St Memos - with their evidence of both the "fixing" of the intelligence and the sheer incompetence of the coalition's preparations for the aftermath of war - together with the increaisng evidence on the ground in Iraq itself, that began the slide in the president's ratings - now at an all time low. So it is interesting to see the New York Times, which contrived to ignore the original memos, coming up with one of its own that is far less revealing. Sadly it is the same memo previously reported in the paperback edition of the Philippe Sands book Lawless World and contains nothing of any interest that is new.

The memo is from David Manning, then Blair's foreign policy adviser and the author of one of the key Downing St Memos. It is essentially the minutes of a meeting between Bush and Tony Blair at the White House in January 2003, The most interesting thing for British readers at this time would have been the questions over legality but what the New York Times reports does not add to the Sands version, indeed he has much more and given his expertise in international law I am sure he didn't miss anything in that regard.

But since the New York Times has seen all five pages of the memo it would be nice to be able to read the text to make up our own minds. Perhaps the New York Times has some more revelations to report? If they have I can't imagine what it might be, given that their initial report seems to contain nothing new. So if there isn't more to come why not put the text on the internet? Come on guys, TimesOnline published the text of the Downing St Memo, and got a huge hike in its ratings as a result. Why not put the text on the New York Times website so we can all see it? - mick smith

Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak

Apr 06 12:57 PM US/Eastern By PETE YOST - Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq. The authorization came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.

Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information."

"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller _ getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval _ were unique in his recollection," the papers added.

Libby is asking for voluminous amounts of classified information from the government in order to defend himself against five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the Plame affair. He is accused of making false statements about how he learned of Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about it.

Her CIA status was publicly disclosed eight days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction. In 2002, Wilson had been dispatched to Africa by the CIA to check out intelligence that Iraq had an agreement to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger, and Wilson had concluded that there was no such arrangement.

Libby says he needs extensive classified files from the government to demonstrate that Plame's CIA connection was a peripheral matter that he never focused on, and that the role of Wilson's wife was a small piece in a building public controversy over the failure to find WMD in Iraq.

Fitzgerald said in the new court filing that Libby's requests for information go too far and the prosecutor cited Libby's own statements to investigators in an attempt to limit the amount of information the government must turn over to Cheney's former chief of staff for his criminal defense.

According to Miller's grand jury testimony, Libby told her about Plame's CIA status in the July 8, 2003 conversation that took place shortly after the White House aide _ according to the new court filing _ was authorized by Bush through Cheney to disclose sensitive intelligence about Iraq and WMD contained in a National Intelligence Estimate.

The court filing was first disclosed by The New York Sun. - breitbart.com

'Forgers' of key Iraq war contract named

Michael Smith The Sunday Times - April 09, 2006

TWO employees of the Niger embassy in Rome were responsible for the forgery of a notorious set of documents used to help justify the Iraq war, an official investigation has allegedly found.

According to Nato sources, the investigation has evidence that Niger's consul and its ambassador's personal assistant faked a contract to show Saddam Hussein had bought uranium ore from the impoverished west African country.

The documents, which emerged in 2002, were used in a US State Department fact sheet on Iraq's weapons programme to build the case for war. They were denounced as forgeries by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) shortly before the 2003 invasion.

The revelation spawned a series of conspiracy theories, most alleging that the British, Italians, or even Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, had had a hand in forging them to back the case for war.

The story was still reverberating around Washington last week with claims that President George W Bush had authorised the leaking of the identity of a CIA agent whose husband cast doubt on the Niger link.

According to the sources, an official investigation believes Adam Maiga Zakariaou, the consul, and Laura Montini, the ambassador's assistant, known as La Signora, forged the papers for money.

They allegedly concocted their scheme as reports reached western intelligence agencies, including MI6, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to buy uranium ore, known as yellowcake, from Niger. The agencies had no evidence he had succeeded. The pair are alleged to have copied a real contract to look like an agreement with Iraq under which Niger would supply Saddam with 500 tons of yellowcake.

The story of the fake deal had begun with a meeting in a Rome bar in February 2000 set up by Antonio Nucera, an officer in the Sismi, the Italian intelligence agency, between two of his former agents, Rocco Martino and Montini.

However, unknown to the Sismi, Martino, a former policeman turned spy, had been working for the French intelligence service, the DGSE, since 1996. He was controlled by the DGSE head of station in Brussels, who paid him a retainer of between £1,050 and £1,400 a month.

"Nucera asked if I was interested in meeting a person who worked in an African embassy and who had been able to supply [Nucera with] documents and information, including the embassy's cipher," Martino told an investigating magistrate during an Italian inquiry.

Montini is understood to have agreed to work for Martino, who paid her £350 a month as a "sub-agent".

In the spring of 2000, she handed him a document relating to a visit to Niger by Wissam al-Zahawie, the Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican. Martino passed it to his French handler. The French, who were watching for an attempt by Saddam to obtain uranium from Niger, showed great interest and told Martino they wanted more information. Martino asked Montini if she could get a copy of a contract for Niger to supply Iraq with uranium.

"Martino told me that if he was able to obtain a copy of a contract then he would have earned a lot of money from an unspecified 'intelligence' organisation," she told the magistrate. The lure of the money was apparently too much. "She was [the ambassador's] trusted personal assistant. The consul Zakariaou . . . needed money. He would help her forge the documents," the Nato sources claim.

Martino passed the contract to his French handlers, but they spotted it was a fake and refused to pay.

Some time in 2002, however, they obtained another apparently incriminating document, the source said. This was a letter purporting to be from al-Zahawie relating to a visit to Niger in 1999 to discuss the possible supply of uranium. This did not constitute evidence that Niger had agreed to supply yellowcake but it did indicate Saddam was trying to obtain it. The letter, deemed "credible" by the Butler inquiry into Iraq intelligence, appears to be the evidence that led to Bush's claim in January 2003 that the British had "learnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

The French passed copies to MI6 with caveats to protect their source. The British could tell the CIA Iraq had tried to obtain yellowcake from Niger but not about the actual letter. In the autumn of 2002, Martino passed the documents allegedly faked by Zakariaou and Montini to an Italian journalist. She then took them to the American embassy and they were passed on to Washington.

After the IAEA had dismissed the forged documents, the Americans disowned all the Iraq-Niger uranium claims. But the latest allegations are unlikely to end the row. This springs from the mission of Joseph Wilson, a former American ambassador, who was sent to Niger to check the uranium claims. Wilson dismissed the possibility of Iraq obtaining uranium and publicly attacked Bush's claims. The White House retaliated, with officials briefing journalists that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent. Naming an undercover agent is illegal in America.

Last week, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former aide to Cheney, told the inquiry into the leak that the vice-president ordered the briefings and that Bush had authorised them.

Zakariaou, now a Niger representative to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome, said: "If you really want the truth you must look somewhere else. You should deepen your inquiries elsewhere."

neo-con media outlets repeat 'African' source of forger

Wayne Madsen reports -- April 9, 2006 -- The Sunday Times of London, a Rupert Murdoch-owned publication, is running a report today that states that the infamous Niger yellowcake uranium documents used by the Bush administration to justify the attack on Iraq were forged by Niger's consul in Rome, Adam Maiga Zakariaou, and the Nigerien ambassador's personal secretary, Laura Montini, code named La Signora and said to be an agent of the Italian SISMI intelligence service. The Times spins the story that Zakariaou and Montini forged the documents for money, thus diverting attention from the obvious political reasons behind the forgery.

The Times' report also repeats the allegation, denied by ex-French DGSE intelligence agents like Alain Chouet and Jacques Nadal, that ex-SISMI middleman Rocco Martino, the person who passed on the documents to an unnamed "intelligence organization," was actually an agent for French intelligence. This allegation, like the recent one about the forgeries being the work of a Nigerien diplomat, have been repeated in several well-known neo-con media outlets, including neo-con web sites. It is also a clear attempt by the neo-cons, who never miss a chance to display their racist colors, to blame the forgeries on a black African. It was this same mindset that was used by the neo-cons, including George W. Bush, to suggest that Saddam Hussein was conspiring with Africans to obtain a nuclear weapon. And it is the same "plantation mindset," egged on by the neo-con commentators, authors, pundits, that pervades the Republicans on Capitol Hill who treat some African American members of Congress as hired help who are supposed to identify themselves before gaining admittance to the "white clubhouse." In the neo-con playbook, black and brown people are bad, Muslims are evil, whites of two of the three Abrahamic tradition religious sects are good. It's that simple and don't dare disagree with it.

The disinformation being pumped out by the neo-cons is no surprise to Cold War-era U.S. intelligence agents who tracked similar Soviet disinformation campaigns -- some involving the very same characters involved in the current neo-con disinformation antics. Leonid Shabarshin, the head of the First Chief Directorate (Foreign Intelligence) of the KGB, stated that the purpose of the Soviet disinformation program was to compromise political figures and organs of the press.

Today's neo-cons learned well from their one-time Soviet colleagues -- active and ex-KGB agents who emigrated to Israel and the United States during the 1970s and 80s and who subsequently penetrated the Mossad, the Pentagon, and neo-con think tanks in the United States, Britain, Italy, and other countries. These disinformation specialists continue to ply their trade in purveying lies and train other up-and-comers in the same art in pursuit of the neo-con cause.

Forged documents like the Niger "yellowcake" papers are the norm, not the exception, in an Africa rife with forged documents and international criminal cartels involved in uranium, diamond, gold, weapons, and currency smuggling

During the recent American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) meeting in Washington, a similar disinformation campaign began. Several neo-con outlets reported that two colleagues of outed CIA covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson listed her non official cover firm, Brewster Jennings and Associates, on their on-line resumes. This was clearly an attempt to once again spin the falsehood that "everyone knew" Plame's covert status, as well as the mission of her cover company. It was no coincidence that the AIPAC meeting brought together most of the key members of Scooter Libby's Defense Fund, which has an interest in downplaying the damage caused by the Plame/Brewster Jennings revelations.

WMR reported on the disinformation background to the Niger and the less-reported Congolese forgeries last October:

The neo-cons who are behind the Niger forgeries that were used as justification for the war in Iraq have been aided by former KGB officers who honed their African forgery trade during the Cold War. A number of these KGB officers are now Israeli citizens who are working closely with a special activities unit in Ariel Sharon's office. The former KGB agents, having left the Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s when a neo-con cell first nested in Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson's office and then migrated to the Pentagon under Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, now work for Likud and specialize in creating forgeries, especially those attributed to African countries. These Israeli former KGB agents work closely with neocon units in Rome, Washington, and London. The State Department once maintained a full-time office dedicated to proving Soviet generated documents as forgeries. The documents were always easy to detect since the forgeries were crude and the information contained within them was capricious.

Some of these KGB agents now work for the neo-cons in Israel and the United States.

The Congo forgeries were overshadowed by the Niger forgeries

Although the focus is on the Niger forgeries, there was another case in which forgeries "proving" Iraq's nuclear ambitions were shopped by the neocons. It received little or no attention.

In July 2002, documents on CIA letterhead were "discovered" in a Nairobi hotel room. They described attempts by Mai Mai guerrillas in Bukavu in the DRC to negotiate the sale of uranium to Saddam Hussein's government. The discovery of the documents in Nairobi came after Wilson, CIA weapons of mass destruction experts -- including Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson -- the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the US ambassador to Niger, and the US European Command in Stuttgart concluded that there was no evidence to support the allegation that Iraq was shopping for nuclear materials in Africa -- a charge later leveled by President Bush in his January 2003 State of the Union address.

The "discovery" of the CIA documents -- clearly forgeries like the Niger documents -- were leaked to the press, including Le Soir in Belgium. Their leak was followed by the release of a British government dossier describing Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. The DRC government later produced photocopies of original false Bukavu documents -- on which the bogus CIA documents were based -- offering Iraq (or any other high bidder) 9 kilograms of "superior quality" uranium from Mai Mai units in the eastern DRC. U.S. intelligence sources maintain that the Nairobi and Bukavu documents were crude forgeries produced after then-Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner III met with Rwandan President Paul Kagame in Kigali on January 15, 2002. The plan was to blame the DRC for providing uranium to Iraq in an attempt to destabilize Kabila and justify the continued presence of Rwandan troops in eastern DRC. Iraq's complicity in obtaining uranium in DRC would then be bolstered by the Niger "evidence" lending credence to Saddam's nuclear "ambitions."

Kansteiner was assisted in the operation by his deputy, Charles Snyder, a former US Special Forces officer who was involved in covert operations in Sierra Leone and is tied to the neo-conservative elements within the Pentagon. Kagame relies heavily on Israeli and Pentagon security advisers in his eastern Congo military operations.

Former KGB disinformation and forgery experts have also been behind illegal forgery operations tied to the Russian-Israeli Mafia's weapons, diamond, gold, platinum, uranium, and plutonium smuggling operations in other African countries, including Ghana, Nigeria, Togo, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Mozambique, Liberia, Congo (Brazzaville), and Benin.

Washington Post Praises Bush Leak, Mangles Facts

This morning, the Washington Post published an editorial — entitled “A Good Leak” — vigorously defending President Bush's decision to authorize a leak of classified information as part of a political effort to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Apparently, it isn't a very strong case because, in order to make their point, the editors had to mangle the facts –

CLAIM: Wilson said Cheney sent him to Africa "Mr. Libby’s motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney." [Washington Post, 4/9/06]

FACT:

Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president's office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney's questions. [Bloomberg, 7/14/05]

CLAIM: There is no evidence of a White House effort to punish Wilson. "Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative…After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson’s charge." [Washington Post, 4/9/06]

FACT:

Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July14, 2003 discussed Wilson's wife's employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 - which evidence has been shared with defendant - it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to "punish" Wilson. [Fitzgerald filing, pg. 29-30]

CLAIM: There was nothing unusual about Bush’s conduct. "Vice President Cheney initially chose to be secretive, ordering his chief of staff at the time, I. Lewis Libby, to leak the information to a favorite New York Times reporter…There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about that." [Washington Post, 4/9/06]

FACT:

Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be declassified.” [Fitzgerald filing, pg. 23]

CLAIM: Wilson’s op-ed has been discredited; his report supported White House claims. “The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.” [Washington Post, 4/9/06]

FACT:

Two-year old assertions by former ambassador Joseph Wilson regarding Iraq and uranium, which lie at the heart of the controversy over who at the White House identified a covert U.S. operative, have held up in the face of attacks by supporters of presidential adviser Karl Rove…[T]he Senate panel conclusions didn’t discredit Wilson. The committee concluded that the Niger intelligence information wasn’t solid enough to be included in the State of the Union speech. It added that Wilson’s report didn’t change the minds of analysts on either side of the issue… [Bloomberg, 7/14/05]

Think-Progress

White House Says Some Leaks Are Good

McClellan, Press Spar on Disclosure of Iraq Intelligence

Analysis - By JOHN COCHRAN April 7, 2006 - -

Scott McClellan wanted to talk about promising economic figures and the immigration bill on Capitol Hill. So when he walked into the White House briefing room, he read a statement of the points he wanted to make. The White House press secretary was all too aware that might be his last chance to talk about the issues the administration wants to push.

Then McClellan took questions, knowing the onslaught that would come and that they'd have nothing to do with the economy or immigration. It would be about "Topic A" in Washington this week: court documents alleging that President Bush authorized a leak to a New York Times reporter about previously classified material on Saddam Hussein's nuclear intentions. In the documents former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby said Vice President Dick Cheney told him the president had given the green light.

Twenty-four hours after the story broke, one very big question had already been answered. Had the president violated the law protecting the nation's most sensitive secrets? No. The president has the authority to declassify material. So, once he authorized the leak, it became declassified material. But some big questions remained. Was the president, a fierce critic of leaks, a hypocrite? Had he leaked material for political reasons?

McClellan was ready as the questions came, one after another after another. He has a reputation for discipline behind the podium, never going beyond the point his superiors have instructed him to go. That often infuriates reporters, but that's OK with McClellan and his boss, President Bush.

On this day, McClellan did not bother to deny the claim that the president had approved the leak. Instead, he argued there was nothing wrong about it. And he implied there was nothing really new about the story. After all, he said, he announced back on July 18, 2003, that information from the intelligence report had been declassified. But when making that announcement almost three years ago McClellan said: "It was officially declassified today." That was 10 days after Libby had shared the Iraq information with Times reporter Judith Miller. McClellan now dismisses the 10-day discrepancy as meaningless, that what he meant three years ago was that July 18 was the day it was released publicly.

But what about the hypocrisy factor? McClellan was reminded that the president has said, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." And here is where McClellan summed up the administration's defense: "The president believes the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And I think that's why it's important to draw a distinction here. Declassifying information and providing it to the public when it is in the public interest is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious, and there's a distinction." McClellan said nothing revealed to Judith Miller compromised sources or methods that could be harmful to national security.

The question then becomes this: Was the president leaking in the national interest or in his own political interest? The obvious answer is that it is very hard to separate the two. But McClellan tried. He noted that in the summer of 2003 many accusations flew around that President Bush had "manipulated or misused intelligence. That was flat out false." The administration, he said, decided it was in the public's interest to build its confidence in the reasons for going to war.

Of course, building confidence back in 2003 could also help the president and his poll ratings. What was Bush's real motivation? Different people have different opinions on this. Unfortunately for the president, the leak controversy comes at a time when his popularity has hit some new lows. An AP-Ipsos poll puts his job approval rating at 36 percent, his lowest ever in that poll. Only 35 percent approve of his handling of Iraq. Questions about Bush's reasons for leaking will do nothing to raise his numbers. Splitting hairs over the reasons for the leak is also unlikely to do much for what was once a strong point: public confidence in his candor and truthfulness. One Republican consultant said Friday: "Bush is a far better man than Bill Clinton, but unfortunately, this will sound to people like something you would expect from Clinton."

When Friday's contentious press briefing finally ended, Scott McClellan, a genuinely courteous man, thanked the press corps and wished them a good weekend. With that, he ducked into his office, clearly relieved that the weekend was finally here. TGIF. - ABC News

Bush acknowledges declassifying Iraq intelligence

Apr 10, 12:57 PM (ET) By Steve Holland - WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush acknowledged on Monday he ordered the declassification of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq to respond to critics who alleged he manipulated intelligence to justify the war.

Bush offered his first comment on a prosecutor's disclosure last week that he authorized Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to declassify Iraq intelligence.

The disclosure prompted a firestorm of criticism from Democrats who charged Bush was a hypocrite who denounces leaks of information while becoming the "leaker-in-chief." A Republican ally, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, urged Bush on Sunday to "tell the American people exactly what happened."

At issue is the administration's release in July 2003 of parts of an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that alleged Iraq under Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was trying to develop a nuclear weapon.

Bush said he declassified parts of the document to answer questions raised about why the United States invaded Iraq.

"I wanted people to see what some of those statements were based on. I wanted people to see the truth. I thought it made sense for people to see the truth. That's why I declassified the document," he said.

Bush, answering questions from an audience after a speech in Washington, would not comment on the allegation that he authorized Libby to release the information to reporters.

But a senior administration official said Bush did not designate Libby or anyone else to release the information, trying to distance Bush from any tactical decisions made on how to release the information.

The White House release of the parts of the National Intelligence Estimate came in response to charges from former ambassador Joe Wilson that Bush had manipulated intelligence to justify the war. Wilson later accused the White House of leaking the identity of his wife, who was then a CIA officer, Valerie Plame, to retaliate against him.

Libby is accused of obstruction of justice and perjury in an investigation designed to discover who leaked Plame's name.

White House officials have stressed that Bush was well within his legal authority to declassify the document. The new controversy erupted as Bush seeks to rebound from weak poll numbers and tries to bolster sagging American support for the Iraq war. Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday" that Bush owed "a specific explanation to the American people" of what happened.

"The president has the authority to declassify information. So in a technical sense, if he looked at it, he could say this is declassified, and make a disclosure of it," he said.

Wilson, speaking on ABC's "This Week," called on Bush to release transcripts of his and Cheney's testimony to the prosecutor. "It seems to me it is long past time for the White House to come clean on all of this," he said. - Reuters

The Leaker in Chief?

Court filings indicate that Libby, right, Cheney's former chief of staff, told a grand jury that Bush, center, had authorized him to leak intelligence information

Is he a CEO who stays above the fray? Or did he give the go-ahead to strike back at critics over prewar intel? A presidential mystery.

By Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas Newsweek April 17, 2006 issue -

George W. Bush likes to be seen as a man who dwells above the pettiness of political warfare. He has said he doesn't read the newspapers and shrugs off media criticism as carping of the chattering classes. Especially since 9/11, he has said that he looks to a higher power for guidance. He once threatened to stop sharing information with Capitol Hill if lawmakers didn't put a stop to leaking. "There are too many leaks of classified information," he told reporters in September 2003, "and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is."

Last week a video clip of Bush making that statement became cable-TV wallpaper.

Bush, it appeared, was not above the old leaking game after all. The president who, as a younger man, once played the role of loyalty enforcer in his father's White House had not forgotten how to play hardball. According to a filing from the prosecutor in the Valerie Plame leak investigation, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, who has been indicted for lying in the case, told a grand jury that President Bush specifically authorized him to leak from an intelligence document on WMD in Iraq. The leak, according to Libby's testimony, was intended to rebut the allegations of an administration critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was disputing administration claims that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had been trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger.

Democrats jumped on the news, calling Bush a hypocrite. Republicans on Capitol Hill worried that the attacks on Bush's integrity would further sink his poll ratings and hurt the GOP in November. "Leaker in chief is something that could stick," said a senior GOP aide, who declined to be named for fear of angering the president. The White House has not denied the central thrust of Libby's claim. But by late last weekend, the White House was scrambling to distance Bush from the leak, putting out the word that the president had not been involved in tactical decisions-like who should leak, or picking which reporter to leak to. The White House may just be spinning-or the reaction could portend a rift between Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who seemed to be giving Libby his marching orders.

Legally, Bush did nothing wrong. The president can declassify a document any time he wants. Indeed, a sanitized version of the document in question-a National Intelligence Estimate compiled by the CIA and other agencies-was formally declassified and made public only 10 days after some of its contents were leaked by Libby to New York Times reporter Judith Miller in July 2003. But the administration was unquestionably playing games with reporters, whether or not the president was directly involved.

For instance, on July 11, seven days before key portions of the NIE were released, reporters badgered the then national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice to allow them to see some of the NIE, which had been used by the administration to make the case for war with Congress. "We don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification," said Rice, though she added, "We're looking at what can be made available."

What Rice did not say was that just a few days before, Libby, who was Cheney's chief of staff and national-security adviser, had been doing some highly selective leaking to Miller over breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington. (A spokesman for Rice said she had no comment because of the ongoing investigation.) Miller later wrote in The New York Times that Libby appeared "agitated" about an article Ambassador Wilson had published two days earlier on the Times's op-ed page. Wilson had disputed one of the more sensational claims made in Bush's State of the Union address in January-that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium from Africa for its nuclear-weapons program. Wilson wrote that, as a former diplomat with African experience, he had been asked by the CIA to travel to Niger to check out the claim, and found no evidence to support it.

At his meeting with Miller, Libby asked to be identified only as a "former Hill staffer"-a position he had not held for several years. Libby proceeded to rip into Wilson as a minor figure whose report about African uranium had never been seen by the White House. He went on to tell Miller that a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate had "firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium." He also made a passing reference to Wilson's wife, who was working at the time on WMD at the CIA. At one point, wrote Miller in her notes (later subpoenaed by the prosecutor in the leak investigation), Libby seemed to be "reading from a piece of paper he pulled from his pocket."

It is not clear how much Libby might have been freelancing and how much he was working under orders. According to the filing by the prosecutor, Libby told the grand jury that he had been authorized by Cheney to disclose the "key judgments" of the NIE. Libby further testified that Cheney told him he had "consulted" with Bush. A lawyer familiar with the investigation, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, told NEWSWEEK that the "president declassified the information and authorized and directed the vice president to get it out." But Bush "didn't get into how it would be done. He was not involved in selecting Scooter Libby or Judy Miller." Bush made the decision to put out the NIE material in late June, when the press was beginning to raise questions about the WMD but before Wilson published his op-ed piece. (Bush once harrumphed that he would fire whoever had outed Plame. No one is accusing Bush of leaking Plame's name, but he started the ball rolling that ended up with her exposure.)

Judging from Miller's account of her breakfast with Libby, the vice president's man went well beyond the "key judgments" of the NIE. The reference that Saddam was prospecting in Africa for uranium was inserted in the NIE's back pages, along with a dissent from intelligence analysts at the State Department who were "highly dubious" about the report. A former U.S. intelligence official who declined to speak for the record due to the sensitivity of the matter told news-week that the NIE staff, writing under strict time pressures, adopted a "kitchen sink" approach, throwing in all sorts of reports that had not been fully vetted.

The dissenting opinions were included in the declassified NIE released to the press on July 18, 2003. But Libby said nothing about them to Miller when he was leaking to her on July 8. Cheney's role in this operation remains murky, as does the precise role played by Bush (both men were questioned by the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald-Bush at the White House, Cheney at an unknown location-but not under oath). The filing by Fitzgerald ties Cheney more directly to Libby's leak than any evidence so far. It says Libby testified that after Wilson's op-ed appeared on July 6, Cheney questioned whether Wilson's trip to Africa was legitimate, or "whether it was a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife," Valerie Plame, a CIA operative then working in the agency's counterproliferation division of the directorate of operations.

Libby has been charged with lying to a grand jury and to the Feds about when and from whom he learned Plame's identity. The theory was that Libby was trying to intimidate or get back at Wilson by exposing his wife's undercover role. Libby has argued all along that he was so preoccupied with important national-security matters, he barely noticed that Wilson's wife was involved, and later forgot that he had mentioned anything about her to reporters when he was questioned by investigators in the leak probe. To defend himself, Libby may now want to call both Cheney and Bush as witnesses at his trial. That is not likely to endear him to the president-the one man who has the power not only to declassify secrets but also to pardon convicted felons. - msnbc.msn.com

A summary of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction" was released on July 18, 2003, ten days after President Bush allegedly authorized the vice president's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to share similar information with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. What the President Leaked Authorized Leak or Declassification? The Documents Behind the Bush Administration's Intelligence Disclosure on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction For more information contact: Thomas Blanton - 202/994-7000 For more information CIA Whites Out Controversial Estimate on Iraq Weapons July 9, 2004 Washington D.C., 7 April 2006 - Only 14 of the full 93 pages of the National Intelligence Estimate that President Bush authorized Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to disclose to New York Times reporter Judith Miller has actually been officially declassified, according to a posting today on the Web site of the National Security Archive at George Washington University. The estimate has apparently been released in four forms: one, a white paper that purportedly represented the substance of the estimate but actually left out most of the dissents and caveats; second, an abstract that Mr. Libby apparently used to brief New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003; third, the July 18, 2003, release by the White House of the "key judgments" section and parts of the dissents; and fourth, a Freedom of Information Act release to the National Security Archive on June 1, 2004, that included two additional pages but left the vast majority of the estimate whited out. The July 18, 2003, "key judgments" document was declassified and released by the Bush administration just ten days after President Bush authorized Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to disclose similar information to Miller, according to Libby's testimony before a grand jury. "The ship of state is the only vessel that leaks from the top," commented Thomas Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archive. Also included in today's posting is the October 2002 unclassified presentation on "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," with the seal of the Director of Central Intelligence on the cover, and a version of the NIE released by the CIA on June 1, 2004, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive. The document was almost completely redacted by CIA censors. All of the text except for the two title pages and the two pages listing National Intelligence Council members had previously been disclosed in the July 2003 release. Documents National Intelligence Estimate - CIA declassification release Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction October 2002, Top Secret Source: CIA declassification release under FOIA, June 1, 2004 National Intelligence Estimate - White House declassification release Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction October 2002, Top Secret (Extract) Source: White House, July 18, 2003 National Intelligence Estimate - CIA Unclassified version Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs October 2002, Unclassified Source: CIA public release, October 2002

White House advisor Karl Rove and his wife Darby, left, arrive on Capitol Hill in Washington Thursday, Jan. 20, 2005 for President Bush's inaugural. (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia)