Back to the SSCI report:
"On February 20th, 2002, CPD provided the former ambassador with talking points for his use in Niger. The talking points were general, asking officials if Niger had been approached, conducted discussions, or entered into any aggreements concerning unranium transfers with any "country of concern".
..the talking points did not refer to the specific reporting on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, did not mention names or dates from the reporting, and did not mention that there was any such deal being reported in intelligence channels.
In essense, Joe didn't ask anything of substance of the officials he talked to. Instead he went to drink sweat mint tea and toss up softball questions.
That part is known. However, these "talking point" have me bugged. First, why? If Joe was such an "expert" on the region who had 'extensive business' and diplomatic contacts, why the need for "Talking Points"? Why the "script"?
But it's not the first use of talking points.
"When the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting surfaced in early February, Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick decided to ask General Fulford to use the previously scheduled meeting to raise the uranium issue with Nigerien officials. Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick prepared talking points for General Fulford to use during his visit and the CIA coordinated the talking points."
Again, talking points. Now it's not unusual for the use of 'prepared questions' or 'talking points', but it strikes me as unusual that they would be used in both incidents, and in both cases prepared by the Agency.
So why would would the Deputy Commander of the Central European Command need talking points? And why would the CIA have to draft them?
Was it maybe so they could "match" those that Joe received? Why all this appearance of "Design"?
After all, when you think of it, the questions weren't that difficult where they?
"There is a report that Iraq is trying to buy Yellow Cake - it that true? Has it ever been true?... and so on. I mean - Specific questions get specific answers don't they?
Yet from what we know of the Wilson TPs we know they weren't designed to get squat.
It's like, "Hey, how you doing?...thanks for the sweat-mint tea, by the way, seen any Yellow Cake laying around?"
It's also noteworthy that Amb. Owens-Kirkpatrick didn't want Wilson talking with any current officials because of "on-going diplomatic efforts".
Fact is that Joes's trip was looking more and more like a "total shame". It wasn't designed to find squat. The trip was to lend credibility to his return - to his spin against the White House. Yet, even more to his role as "point man" in the scheme to embarrass the Bush Administration in the upcoming election year.
Most of the confusion and misinformation in the coverage of the Plame Game comes from "keeping the story in 2002-2003". When you look at this ONLY from the perspective of 2002-2003, it looks bad, and you might even see the case the MSM and left tries to preach, which is why that's where they have kept it. Yet when you bring it forward into 2004 and combine it with the almost daily CIA/State Departmen leaks, and all the negative books and stories, and especially the SSCI report that completely exposes Wilson/Plame the Agency for their game - and discredits them, it get's much clearer.
Much clearer indeed.
Next: The Dots Connected - the Noose get's tighter.
Filed under: judith miller valerie plame karl rove Valerie Plame PlameGate
Back to the SSCI report: