According to Byron York, there is at least one congressman who has become a bit more curious over recent testimony Valerie Plame gave to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. That's the one chaired by California Democrat Henry Waxman. In denying that she had any role in the choice of her husband for the fact finding mission to Niger, she told a story about some junior officer who came to her very concerned and upset by a phone call from somebody in the Vice President's office she said, asking for information about a supposed sale of yellowcake uranium by Niger to Iraq. Another officer passing by overheard and made the suggestion that Wilson make the trip.
Well. My question is, why all the angst by the junior officer? What's the big deal? The V.P. asks a question, just do your job. Go find the answer. What's the matter, you don't like your job?
But, that's not what has Representative Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia asking questions. Congressman Westmoreland's problem is different.
Her testimony seemed to offer new insight into the beginnings of the Niger mission. But soon after Mrs. Wilson’s appearance, Missouri Republican Sen. Christopher Bond, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told National Review Online that Mrs. Wilson, in her interview with Senate investigators, never mentioned the young junior officer, the call from the vice president’s office, or the passing CIA official who suggested Joseph Wilson’s name.
“Friday [March 16] was the first time we have ever heard that story,” Sen. Bond said in a statement. “Obviously if we had, we would have included it in the report. If Ms. Wilson’s memory of events has improved and she would now like to change her testimony, I’m sure the committee staff would be happy to re-interview her.”
Well, the obvious thing to me is, it neatly explains how the memo Val wrote recommending her husband could have been dated a day before Cheney asked about the sale of yellowcake. (I think Val reads JustOneMinute.) Be that as it may, in keeping with what I suppose are congressional protocols, Congressman Westmoreland requested some transcripts from his committee chairman, Representative Henry Waxman.
In addition to asking for the transcript of Mrs. Wilson’s interview with Senate investigators, and the full text of her February 12, 2002, memo, Westmoreland submitted a question to Mrs. Wilson that could tell us more about that chance, why-don’t-we-send-Joe meeting with unnamed CIA colleagues. “List all the parties participating in the conversation you described in detail during the March 16, 2007 hearing,” Westmoreland asked Mrs. Wilson, “including, but not limited to, who told you there was a query from the Vice President’s office and who suggested your husband for the trip to Niger because of his expertise in Africa?”
The question now is whether chairman Waxman will be inclined to do anything about Westmoreland’s request. Other than place it into the official record of the hearing, he doesn’t have to do anything. But Westmoreland is hoping otherwise. “It is our understanding that no one is under any obligation to pass on our questions, and Mrs. Wilson is not obligated to answer them,” says Brian Robinson, Westmoreland’s deputy chief of staff. “That said, it is our hope and intent in doing this that she will be made aware of them, and that she will want to answer them.”
Well, let's not hold our collective breath waiting around for that to happen. However, what Congressman Westmoreland can do is take a page from the Democrats' playbook. In fact, the page is here. It's a memo from the office of Senator Jay Rockefeller outlining the way to play politics with the this very same topic -- Niger and pre-war intelligence. It says in part,
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or
B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.
Substitute "the origins of that trip" in place of "the 'use' of intelligence", and keep asking for information. Hold press conferences and continue to ask for information. I'm sure Congressman Waxman will refuse to budge, but my sincere hope is that Congressman Westmoreland will also refuse to budge, and refuse to take no for an answer. Then he can hold a press conference and ask why Waxman is stonewalling. Won't that be fun!
Update: Speaking of JustOneMinute, here is a characteristic Tom Maguire reaction to York's column: "Why do the rest of us fear aging when clearly memory improves with time?"
Comments