I raised some questions the other day about the January 24, 2003 document that OVP used to justify the inclusion of the 16 words in the SOTU. Basically, my questions were:
- Why did George Tenet refuse to mention this document in his July 11 statement?
- Does the fact that Libby was a recipient of the January 24 document mean he was involved in putting the Niger claim into the SOTU, contrary to claims?
Well, there are a few pieces of evidence in the exhibits from Libby's grand jury appearances that helps to answer these questions. These pieces of evidence show that Bob Joseph and others requested the January 24 document two days after Joseph had been told to remove the reference to Niger from the SOTU. The January 24 document has nothing to do with the SOTU (and therefore should never have been used to defend the inclusion of the uranium claims in the SOTU). Rather, it related solely to Colin Powell's speech. And in spite of the existence of this document, Powell refused to include the Niger claim in his February 5 speech.
One of the exhibits tied to Libby's March 24 Grand Jury appearance is a set of notes Cathie Martin took from a conversation between David Sanger and Libby (page 64 and following). Right at the top of those notes, Martin refers to the meeting in which they drafted Powell's speech:
Powell Presentation
Saturday Sit Room Meeting
Which I take to mean the drafting of Powell's speech took place at a Saturday meeting in the WH Situation Room. The January 24 document itself was sent late in the evening on Friday January 24, received by the White House Situation room, and it bears the note:
They need by Saturday morning
In other words, it appears that this document was sent to the Situation Room for the meeting at which they were drafting Powell's speech. This accords with what we've always known about the document--it was sent as background to Powell's speech, not to the SOTU. Which then explains why Libby, who purportedly wasn't involved in the drafting of the SOTU, would be a recipient. Its function--the reason it was requested--pertained solely to Powell's speech.
But from a later exhibit from Libby's Grand Jury testimony, we can assign some further dates to the events leading up to the SOTU. In a set of talking points apparently written to strengthen the claims made in George Tenet's July 11 statement (the talking points begin on page 76; they were written the following week but never used), OVP makes the following assertion:
Director Tenet's statement cites an oral conversation between CIA and NSC staffers shortly before the State of the Union, but not the equally or more authoritative January 24 submission that was sent by the CIA officer responsible for the NIE, that reached some or all of these same NSC staffers within two days of the oral discussion and that reaffirmed the Intelligence Community's conclusions in the NIE. [my emphasis]
This is the portion of Tenet's statement to which that refers:
Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed.
This is the conversation between Alan Foley and Bob Joseph in which Alan Foley told Joseph to remove the reference to Niger that had been in the SOTU.
First, when the WINPAC Director first spoke to Committee staff and testified at a Committee hearing, he said that he had told the NSC Special Assistant to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech because of concerns about sources and methods.
Of course, the SSCI never tells us the date of this conversation, but this exhibit does: It had to have happened on January 22 or 23, just two days before the January 24 document was faxed to the White House Situation room.
Bob Joseph was told not to include Niger in the SOTU--and just a day or so later, someone requested and Joseph and others received just that section of the NIE that supported the uranium claim (and, as the OVP talking points helpfully remind us, "There is no INR disclaimed in this January 24, 2003 report"). The Niger claim had already been challenged and removed by the time Hadley and Libby and Joseph received this document! Which suggests OVP's attempts to use it as justification for the inclusion of the uranium claim in the SOTU is a bunch of baloney. It could have no effect on the inclusion of the claim in the SOTU, because the claim had already been challenged. If anything, they requested this document because Joseph had been told to get rid of the Niger claim.
No wonder George Tenet didn't include reference to the January 24 document in his statement--the document had nothing to do with the SOTU.
And there's a further implication of this. Reports have always been crystal clear: the Niger claim was never in Powell's speech. That suggests that this January 24 document was never viewed as authoritative by those involved in Powell's speech. Libby and Hadley may well have tried to resuscitate the Niger claim for Powell's speech. But their efforts failed. Not only Tenet, but also those at State vetting Powell's speech, found this January 24 document to be a bunch of hogwash.