95th in continuing blog series on the administration push to war. Moving into July of 2003, things really begin heating up re Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger. Wilson himself publishes an op-ed column in the New York Times, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” and backs up his column with personal interviews.
July 1-6, 2003:

 

 
July 1, 2003 – Bush discusses Afghanistan and Iraq in a speech at the East Room of the White House:

 

“The war on terror also continues in Iraq, where coalition forces are engaging remanent of the former regime, as well as members of terrorist groups. We met the major combat objectives in Operation Iraqi Freedom. We ended a regime that possessed weapons of mass destruction, harbored and supported terrorists, suppressed human rights, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world.”

 

July 2, 2003 – Upset, probably, at the plummeting Iraq oil exports, Bush gives a White House news conference with global AIDS coordinator Randall Tobias:

 

Q: A posse of small nations, like Ukraine and Poland, are materializing to help keep the peace in Iraq, but with the attacks on U.S. forces and casualty rates rising, what does the administration do to get larger powers like France and Germany and Russia to join in the American (inaudible)?

BUSH: Well, first of all, you know, we'll put together a force structure that meets the threats on the ground. And we got a lot of forces there ourselves. And as I said yesterday, anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice.

There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case.

Let me finish.

There are some who feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on. We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.”

 

July 5, 2003 -- At “about 10:30 p.m.,” Wilson’s op-ed hits the New York Times web site. At 10:32 he gets a call from a New York Post reporter; at 10:34 he gets a call from Meet the Press inviting him to be on the next day. (Wilson’s book, 333)

 

July 6, 2003Joseph Wilson’s op-ed criticizing and questioning the Niger story appears in the New York Times. The column is titled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa”:

“Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. . .

 

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau.”

 

July 6, 2003Wilson appears on Meet the Press, interviewed by Andrea Mitchell:

MS. MITCHELL: But first: Did the Bush administration exaggerate some of the intelligence on Saddam's weapons program in order to justify war with Iraq? This man, former U.S. ambassador to the West African country of Gabon, Joseph Wilson, says yes. He's disclosed publicly for the first time this morning in a New York Times op-ed that he was sent by the CIA to Niger in February of 2002 to investigate reports of a sale of uranium by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990s. Up until now, he's been referred to in many news reports as an unnamed former envoy and he joins us exclusively this morning. . .

 
MS. MITCHELL: Now, we only learned later when U.N. inspectors first looked at the documents, this was a year later, that, in fact, these documents were fraudulent, a year after your first trip. What did you think when you first saw the president making that comment in the State of the Union?

AMB. WILSON: Well, first of all, Andrea, when the president made the comment, he was referring to a British White Paper Report that came out in September of the previous year, September 2002; again, referring to uranium sales from an African country to Iraq. Now, there are four African countries that produce uranium or have uranium stockpiles: South Africa, Namibia, Gabon and Niger. So throughout this, whenever the British and then the president were mentioning Africa, I assumed that they were talking about one of the other countries and not Niger since we had, I believed, at the time effectively debunked the Niger arms uranium sale.

MS. MITCHELL: But, in fact, many officials, including the president, the vice president, Donald Rumsfeld, were referring to the Niger issue as though it were fact, as though it were true and they were told by the CIA, this information was passed on in the national intelligence estimate, I've been told, with a caveat from the State Department that it was highly dubious based on your trip but that that caveat was buried in a footnote, in the appendix. So was the White House misled? Were they not properly briefed on the fact that you had the previous February been there and that it wasn't true?

AMB. WILSON: No. No. In actual fact, in my judgment, I have not seen the estimate either, but there were reports based upon my trip that were submitted to the appropriate officials. The question was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president. The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there.

MS. MITCHELL: So they knew months and months before they passed on these allegations that, in fact, that particular charge was not true. Do you think, based on all of this, that the intelligence was hyped?

AMB. WILSON: My judgment on this is that if they were referring to Niger when they were referring to uranium sales from Africa to Iraq, that information was erroneous and that they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the British White Paper and the president's State of the Union address.

MS. MITCHELL: What do you think was going on here? Was this the politicization of intelligence in order to justify a war?

AMB. WILSON: Well, I think there's two things. One, either the administration has some information that it has not shared with the public or, yes, they were using the selective use of facts and intelligence to bolster a decision in the case that had already been made, a decision that had been made to go war.”

 

July 6, 2003Wilson also gives an interview to the Washington Post, corroborating the thrust of his op-ed in the Times. (In response to emailed questions, Wilson says that Bob Woodward is not present at this interview.)