Part one here.
R. Jeffrey Smith wrote back with this:
it's not an allegation on the part of Fitzgerald. it's an account of testimony by a senior White House official, which the White House did not dispute (and does not dispute). in fact, you might have noticed a companion
article quoting a White House official defending what Libby asserted was
done. a second companion piece delved into the issue of the legality of
what was done (my piece was intended to recount it, not judge it). finally,
there really is no debate, as i understand it, that the nie sentence cited
in your letter below remains unproven. feel free to contact my colleague
dafna linzer (her addy included here) if you want to contest the point. but
you'd be going out on a limb, i think.
To which Hubster responded:
Mr. Smith,
Thank you very much for taking time to respond to me. I know you must
have a hectic schedule and I really appreciate your feedback. If I may
impose on your good nature a bit more, I would like to respond to what
you said.
First, I must apologize for not choosing my words more carefully when I
first wrote to you with respect to the issue of the Bush
administration's motive for releasing selected parts of the NIE document
in question. I agree that the move was a calculated effort to rebut
claims made by Wilson and others, but what I should have said is that I
am uncomfortable with the characterization of it as a personal attack
against Mr. Wilson. This is not to say that it couldn't be for this
reason but merely that I haven't seen any incontrovertible proof that
this was a personal vendetta on the part of the Bush administration.
As far as the testimony by a senior White House official you referenced,
it appears that you are referring to Mr. Libby's testimony:
"Fitzgerald's new account is based on Libby's grand jury testimony that
Cheney told him Bush had authorized the declassification and disclosure
of some of the information."
If this is indeed the case, then I feel that we are getting closer to
the source of my frustration. Mr. Libby has been indicted for perjury
and obstruction-of-justice yet there seems to be a double-standard with
respect to judging the truth of what he has said. To rely on an alleged
liar as an accurate source for information on the motives of the Bush
administration seems ill-advised. Furthermore, consider Mr. Libby's
current predicament:
- resigned from his prestigious and well-paying career position
- indicted for perjury
- drowning in negative media coverage
- his former boss, Vice President Cheney, hasn't come to his defense
- financially draining legal expenses that continue to rise
If one takes the position that the Bush administration lashed out at Mr.
Wilson personally simply because of some bad press regarding the Iraq
War, then it only seems reasonable to apply the same logic to Mr.
Libby's situation and conclude that his testimony is a personal attack
against his former employer. After all, Mr. Libby's life is in disarray
over this issue to say the least whereas the Bush administration was
merely dealing with more of the same negative press they have received
since day one. If I were in his position, I would be extremely upset
with being left hanging by my former employer. I don't think it's a
stretch to conceive that Mr. Libby would do or say just about anything
to get himself out of this mess, especially if one gives merit to the
notion he lied and obstructed an official investigation to keep himself
out of it in the first place.
Aside from conjecture as to Mr. Libby's personal motives, there was also
this very interesting part of what I think you referenced as your
companion article:
"Libby, who was indicted last year for allegedly lying to the FBI and a
grand jury about what he said to reporters about his contacts with the
media, wants the materials because he thinks they will show that his
misstatements were innocent and did not stem from an orchestrated
administration campaign to discredit Wilson, according to his court
filings."
If I understand you correctly, Mr. Libby has gone on record as saying
that there was no attempt on the part of the Bush administration to
attack Mr. Wilson personally. If we compare this official statement to
the testimony you referenced in your article, then it appears that they
are at odds with one another. As a result, Mr. Libby appears to be
sending mixed messages if this is truly the case. Stating there was no
vendetta and then testifying that there was doesn't help his
credibility, nor does it help end the debate regarding the motives of
the Bush administration.
This is why I am uncomfortable with using Mr. Libby as a source for
pronouncing with certainty that the release of the NIE information was
merely an effort to smear Mr. Wilson. If someone would produce a
disinterested third party that had knowledge of the events surrounding
the information release that would go on record, that would be one
thing. Instead, I seem to be unable to find anything other than
references to an alleged liar, an arguably partisan Special Counsel, and
various unnamed sources.
This is why I wanted to write you. I feel it is important for every
citizen to hold all government officials accountable for their actions
regardless of political party affiliations. However, I want to be
careful not to unfairly criticize anyone without first possessing all
the facts. It's what I would expect from others if the roles were
reversed. If there is additional information that supports the notion
that the Bush Administration smeared Mr. Wilson for personal reasons, I
am very interested in hearing it. Any additional information you may
have that supports this view would be greatly appreciated.
As to the issue of how your article portrayed the legality of the
President's release of information contained in the NIE in question, my
only criticism, and it was really meant as more of a comment, was that
it seemed more ink was used outlining Democratic partisan posturing over
the incident than what I would've felt was appropriate given the
situation and your rationale for writing about it. Regardless, I
appreciate the clarification and understand better why you wrote what
you did.
Finally, with respect to the question of whether the CIA really believed
Iraq was trying to procure uranium, my original intent was to ascertain
the names of the sources you were citing in your piece. At the time,
from what I can gather, the CIA had an idea that it might be true but
was unable to make a definitive determination as to the authenticity of
the claim. In that respect, they did have cause to believe that the
report may have had merit. If memory serves, the British government
report provided the strongest evidence and that is what President Bush
cited in his State if the Union speech. In any event, according to the
CIA's web site, there seemed to be a collective belief within the agency
that Iraq was pursuing WMD whether or not they had actually sought
uranium in Africa. Here are some links:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr07112003.html
In my continued pursuit of more definitive information on this topic, I
will most definitely contact your colleague Ms. Linzer regarding this
issue and I want to thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I
just wanted to let you know why I said what I did.
As I said in the beginning of this letter, I am extremely grateful for
the chance to discuss these issues with you. As a student who is
currently taking a course in United States History covering modern
times, this exchange has definitely been very exciting. Talking about
current events that are shaping our history with a professional like you
is a rare opportunity and I hope I haven't consumed too much of your
time.
To which R. Jeffery Smith replied:
your letters are polite and thoughtful -- two rare qualities in most
of our reader mail. i do think you should not get hung up about libby's credibility
on this one issue -- the leaking of information to undermine wilson -- because the white house does not contest it. notwithstanding all the legitimate reasons to
question his remarks, this one has not been disputed. cheers, jeff smith
A nice example of what political/intellectual discourse between adults ought to be like. Bravo!