Some Confusion on the MBL Claims

by emptywheel

See update below: the NYT seems to have gotten antsy about the reporting in Hubris.

I'm working through three documents of varying reliability--Judy's reporting, Corn and Isikoff's Hubris, and the Phase II report--on the mobile bioweapons labs (MBLs). And something--some things--don't add up with the public claims about the MBLs. Here's the chronology I did for this post, updated to reflect Hubris' and SSCI2's data:

Late (later described as mid) April: Kurdish forces find trailer
Late April: US forces discover smaller toxicology lab
Late April: CBIST inspects first trailer, give qualified support of MBL theory (SSCI2)
Late April: Task Force 20 inspects trailers, effusive support of MBL theory (SSCI2)
Early May (before May 11): US forces find trailer at al-Kindi
May 11: Judy reports "smoking gun" of trailer, mentions new inspection that day
Mid-May: 3 CIA analysts inspect trailer in Baghdad, general support of MBL theory (SSCI2)
Mid-May: DIA analysts inspect trailer, all but one inspector oppose MBL theory (Hubris)
May 13: NYT editorial argues the trailer may be for peaceful purposes
May 16: White Paper drafted (per SSCI2)
May 19: White Paper presented to White House
May 20: AP reports international experts will examine the trailers
May 21: Judy and William Broad leak the White Paper results
May 25, 26: DIA-sponsored "Jefferson Project" inspects MBLs
May 27: "Jefferson Project report, "Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers," submitted by email to the US
May 28: White Paper declassified with DIA symbol (CIA got lone DIA MBL supporter to endorse White Paper--Hubris)
May 29: Bush declares finding the WMDs in the form of MBL
June 6:  Condi briefing claims White Paper had integrated dissent from Jefferson Project team (SSCI2)
June 7: Judy and Broad present a third assessment of the trailers, integrating objections of skeptics, but quoting male SAO repeating material from Condi's briefing

This chronology suggests there's even more correlation between the internal debate about the trailers and Judy's reporting. Her first article would serve to publish positive results before the mid-May team(s) reached any conclusions. The May 21 article almost certainly served to pre-empt the Jefferson Project study. The subsequent May 28 declassification of the White Paper served to negate the results of the Jefferson Project. And Judy's June 7 article clearly integrates the reaffirmation from the CIA (in the Condi briefing), which was sent on June 6. Every time they needed to reaffirm their claims for the MBLs, Judy magically wrote a new article on them.

But there are three contradictions with this chronology.

First, both the SSCI2 and Hubris describe mid-May inspection teams. According to the SSCI2, the team was from the CIA and it reaffirmed Task Force 20's results. But Corn and Isikoff state that the team was DIA, and only one of the mid-May inspection team bought the earlier positive results. Either SSCI2 doesn't mention the negative DIA inspection, or Corn and Isikoff are referring to the late-May Jefferson Project team.

I assume the latter is the case--that the negative DIA team referred to by Corn and Isikoff is the Jefferson Project. But they also describe that one shill on the DIA mid-May team bought off on the White Paper, thereby allowing the CIA to publish the paper under the guise of both CIA and DIA. Now, Corn and Isikoff make no mention of the earlier drafting and leakage of the White Paper, so perhaps they're talking about the May 28 declassified White Paper. Which would say the White Paper originally was published under the guise of the CIA alone, but that they added the DIA after the first results of the Jefferson Project came back, presumably precisely because of the harsh denial made in that report. Again, I assume this is what happened--the first version of the White Paper bore only the CIA logo, while the later, public one bore the DIA logo as well.

Which raises one more question. Both SSCI2 and Judy's June 7 article quote someone as saying that the dissent of the Jefferson Project was considered before the publication of the declassified White Paper. I guess that's possible if by "considered" they meant immediate filing in the circular file--there's no real dissent considered in the White Paper itself, and the straw man objections that are dismissed in the White Paper are described in Judy's May 21 article. In the matter of dissents, the White Paper doesn't appear to have changed after the Jefferson Project results came in. In other words, the CIA and an SAO Judy/Broad source both claim they considered the Jefferson Project dissent. But that word, "considered" doesn't mean what you and I think it means.

So I think this means there's a good deal of confusion in the Hubris discussion of the White Paper that serves to hide still more dissembling on the part of those who were going to sustain that MBL claim, no matter what. And I think the two publication dates of the White Paper (May 16, then May 28) belie claims to have integrated the results of the Jefferson Project team.

Update: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

One new detail Hubris did include on the Judy MBL saga (though one that also contradicts prior  reporting, which says the commander of Judy's former unit kicked her out) is that Jim Wilkinson, chief of public affairs for Central Command and formerly of WHIG, got in a spat with Judy when she tried to go back to Iraq.

Late one night, while he was sleeping, his cell phone went off. It was Miller, and she lit into him about the agreement that permitted military commanders to review her copy before she filed it. Now that major combat operations were over, she no longer thought it was necessary. Wilkinson viewed it differently: a deal was a deal.

[snip]

She was, according to Wilkinson, in a state of "hysteria." She screamed at Wilkinson that she would send her story back to New York anyway, by regular, unclassified e-mail. "What she was trying to do was use her diva status to roll me," Wilkinson later said. Wilkinson ordered her evicted from the unit. "I kicked her ass out of Iraq," he boasted. (247)

Well, you're going to have to take my word for this (or go check out the microfilms in your local library). But the NYT has, quite recently updated the online version of the June 7 story. It didn't mark this update as a correction, mind you--it just added this paragraph.

The reporting for this article was carried out by Judith Miller in Iraq and Kuwait and by William Broad in New York. Her agreement with the Pentagon, for an ''embedded'' assignment, allowed the military to review her copy to prevent breaches of troop protection and security. No changes were made in the review.

Judy's stories have been funky all day (for a while today, no stories came up if you sorted on Judith Miller, even though they showed up on sorts on Miller). Is the NYT trying to quietly correct the record on Judy's reporting?

Update: lukery points out that the paragraph showed up in earlier versions, so it's not a response to Hubris. I've got several printed copies of this article, though (I'm looking at one printed on 8/2/2005, for example), and I've never seen the paragraph. So they must have just added it to their archival copies.

Comments

[peanutgallery]

So Judy is. as usual. intimately involved in the weapons lies, Isikoff (and Corn) - representing the complicit media - are muddying the waters, the DIA represent uncooperative dissent to be ignored....You've provided more information but I wonder if you still think Judy is representing the media here. I recall you wrote approvingly of her Grand Strategy paper which I found alarming....

[emptywheel]

I don't think I wrote approvingly of her grand strategy paper--the only time I've written on it was when I considered it in regards to her being quoted as a source by the AIPAC guys indicted for spying.

So no, I don't think she's representing the media. I don't know that I've ever been terribly supportive of that view, either. My very first post on her suggested that, if we don't given the PR flack of Exxon First Amendment protection, allowing her to hide the crimes of the CEO of Exxon in, say Valdez, we shouldn't give judy such protection to hide the crimes of this Administration.

[peanutgallery]

Fair enough. So - at the risk of being a concern troll (!) - did you see anything in her grand strategy reflections on counterproliferation and the field work of spring 2003 of interest? Wasn't it you who asked what she was working on in July 2003 all those months ago? I think it was that assessment.

[eCAHNomics]

True Miller and Blair story:

In late summer '03, when it was obvious that they weren't finding WMDs in Iraq, I bought 2 copies of the child's book, "Where's Spot?" (Spot is a puppy and his mom is looking for him in the grandfather clock, under the rug, inside the grand piano, etc., with lift ups for the child to see that the hidden creature is not Spot, until the end when he is found in the laundry basket.) I enclosed no note, but put my address sticker on the envelope so they would know it was not a terrorist missive. Over the word "Spot", I pasted "WMDs". In return, Miller sent me a handwritten note that said something like: Where's the WMDs indeed, we were all fooled, etc. PM Blair's assistant sent me a typed note thanking me for my kind gift. The little project was worth the laughs and the nice cocktail party story I get to tell over & over again.

[Katie Jensen]

Amazingly validating. You know, even if this doesn't take us where we want to go, (vindication for the U.S.A regarding a president that misled us into a war)it is at the very least, nice to have somewhat of a handle on why this stuff felt crammed down our throats and phoney. Keep up the great work and I will toast you with my coffee and pray that you find some facts that someday will be used in the treason trial against 43 himself.

[orionATL]

i'm betting this is where two years of hard work are finally beginning to feel like fun - when you can hold accountable in specific ways major institutions and leaders and strongly suggest, if not demonstrate outright, that they colluded and/or mislead and/or covered up their colluding and misleading.

at least it is satisfying for me to read, especially after after having to endure two years of the ssci1 cover up.

a time of reckoning, just as with the count of monte cristo - though measured in paragraphs, not chapters.

[QuickSilver]

emptywheel

Does that Times paragraph somehow help shield the SAO if he is indeed Miller's source (and not Broad's)? I don't entirely understand the significance of the added text.

BTW, did you ever see the picture of Judy with the floating Knesset?

[lukery]

EW - I think that disclaimer ("...No changes were made in the review...") was in the original - or at least it was on contemporaneous copies of the article - eg here

Or perhaps the disclaimer was on a different page? MoJo: "By the way, the following italicized and separate paragraph (on an inside page) accompanied the Miller-Broad article somewhat in the manner of an author's bio..."

[emptywheel]

I don't know, lukery. I've got about 8 copies of that article printed out, from the NYT archives. None of them have the paragraph. Today was the first I've seen it.

[emptywheel]

Noted accordingly, lukery. I think they've just added it to the archives---

QS

I saw a picture of the floating Knesset. Not Judy with it though.

The significance of the article is that it admits that Judy was still working as a weird embed when she wrote this. I don't know how much of this Broad actually wrote, so it's not so much a matter of protection (they certainly didn't protect Jehl when Judy outed a source earlier that summer). I think it's post-Jayson Blair, post-Raines CYA.

[Watson]

You guys are deep. (I mean that in a good way.)
For the non-expert, but well-meaning (like me), I googled ‘floating Knesset’ and found at http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/08/post_1.html, that the ‘floating Knesset’ refers to ‘mock-ups of the Israeli Parliament’ found in ‘four feet of fetid water in the basement of the Mukhabarat’, but which disappeared two days later, according to Judy’s May 03 embedded ‘journalism’.

[Vereker]

Your deconstruction of Miller's visit to the Mukhabarat is most interesting. By then there was an air of desperation about Miller's reporting as an embed, what she could say, what she couldn't say. She really was on a kind of Indiana Jones neocon PR mission, wasn't she? That missing 7th century Talmud is a nice touch.

[emptywheel]

Vereker

Yes, the search for a 7th century Talmud really did Leo Strauss proud.