Ok folks, I need some help.
I’ve stayed out of the swamp that is the Rove/Wilson/Plame game for the same reason I stay out of it when TG gets one of her speeding tickets, and is outraged, yes outraged that she has to go to court.
Yes, I know everyone does it, but that’s not going to do you much good in front of the judge when you’re explaining why the officer wrote you for 58 in a 40.
So yes, I know everyone talks to the press, and typically violates all kinds of policies up to and including secrecy, but there’s no way it doesn’t – at minimum – look bad when you’re the one caught doing it.
But that’s not my issue.This isn’t about the Rove / Novak talkfest. It’s about what lies underneath it.
Take a look at Intel Dump today, and the post by Jon Holdaway over there. First of all, it’s eminently unhysterical in tone.
But he summarizes the chronology about as well as I’ve seen it.
The story goes that Ambassador Joseph Wilson is assigned by the CIA, based on the recommendation of his wife, who works as a WMD analyst for the Agency, to go to Niger, where he had previous diplomatic contacts, and ascertain whether Saddam Hussein was looking for nuclear materials (specifically, Niger yellowcake).
Wilson comes back, briefs the CIA that Iraq had attempted to make commercial contacts with Niger officials, that Niger officials considered the contacts were for the subrosa purpose of purchasing yellowcake, and that they broke off contact due to the UN sanctions.
Pres. Bush, in his Jan 2003 State of the Union message states that Iraq is looking to purchase nuclear materials in Africa.
Next, we go to war in Iraq, with one of the reasons being that Iraq either was or had the intent of starting up a nuclear weapons program. Wilson writes an op-ed in the NY Times and states that the President lied because there was no evidence that Iraq was looking to buy nuclear materials in Niger. Robert Novak soon after quotes unnamed Administration sources who state that Wilson’s wife works for the CIA and is the one who put him up to the trip. Wilson complains that his wife is a covert operator who’s been outed in violation of the law, and the CIA asks the Justice Department to appoint a special investigator to look into whether someone broke the law and put one of their covert operators into danger.
Now here’s my dumb question.
I’ve read the damn Senate Report, and read the citation of Wilson in which – as stated above, he says that he was told that Iraqis were in Niger, and that the person he talked to thought they were trying to buy uranium.
From Page 43:
The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerian President Ibrahaim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997 – 1999) or Foreign Minister (1996 – 1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.”
So here’s my problem.
Bush was chastised for saying:
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Wilson claimed, both in his debrief (in the Senate Intelligence report it is stated that he said “there is nothing to the story” that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger).
So here’s where I get stuck, and could genuinely use some help.
It looks to me like Iraq did make an attempt – at least a desultory one – to buy uranium.
That’s what they were accused of.
Wilson, in his original oped, slams the Administration because
In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a ”white paper” asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.
So I’m puzzled…it seems that the facts as he knew them supported the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium.
So help me understand this gap. Too many smart people don’t see it as a gap for me to just assume there is one.
Help a blogger out…
I think after reading and hearing of this affair ad nauseam it all boils down to this, joe Wilson is a pompous liar and proud of it. Please, let’s move on to what is important like removing the jihadists from our country and getting our borders secured.
You have to boil away the nonsense and get to the bottom line, which is that it never had anything to do with Iraq or Hussein or the CIA cover, it has to do with getting Bush and his people. Thats whats important here. Details like ‘laws’ and ‘truth’ are unimportant.
Wilson is a partisan hack. IIRC Niger has two main exports, uranium and oil. To that I would add Niger is the worlds largest exporter of forged documents. That is why it is bizarre that any documents originating from there would not be immediately suspect.
At any rate, when the Iraqis make overtures to create a trade agreement, it was pretty obvious that Hussein wasn’t looking to buy oil.
Whereas Plame is a state sponsored whore, Wilson is a ideological vigilante with a book deal. Not much of secret anymore.
…it seems that the facts as he knew them supported the claim
Yes, but the facts didn’t support his paranoid fantasy, in which Joe Wilson saves the world from the Elders of Zion (soon to be an upcoming series on Egyptian television) so he ignored them.
I submit the following facts, to be laid in the path of this stupid non-issue, after the manner of a Speed Strip:
1. No one has been named as the target in this investigation. Of all the people possibly involved, there is absolutely no reason to think that Karl Rove will be the one blamed, except that some people hate Karl Rove.
2. No one has ever been convicted under the law that Democrats blame Rove of breaking. No one EVER WILL BE CONVICTED under this law. This law, passed after Philip Agee blew dozens of CIA agents (to loud liberal cheers) is specifically designed to NOT convict people. It is so narrow and the prosecutorial burden is so high that the law is essentially useless.
3. Wilson’s alleged investigation in Niger is so ridiculously flimsy that it makes Sean Penn’s fact-finding trip to Iraq look good.
4. Wilson has already denounced the investigation as a cover-up – which goes to show where Wilson’s blow-dried head is at – before it’s even complete. Democrats are praying that the investigation will go forward anyway, and run over Karl Rove. This gives new meaning to the word pathetic.
5. John Kerry blew a CIA agent during the Bolton hearings. (In fact, untold numbers of agents have been blown by senators with big mouths.) Since Kerry’s action was inadvertent, it is not against the law, but I don’t hear anyone complaining that Kerry has brought the entire intelligence community crashing down.
6. Joe Wilson’s teenage daughter could be selling yellow cake uranium in his garage, and the pompous incompetent would probably be none the wiser.
7. Memo to Valerie Plame: Covert CIA agents are not supposed to have their photos taken for publication. Especially not posed photos for Vanity Fair. If – IF – one should somehow have one’s photo published in Vanity Fair, one does not correct this by posing for another photo wearing a ridiculous headscarf-and-sunglasses “disguise”.
You guys should deal with the actual investigation, yes? Don’t decorate the site with red herrings.
AL, you too.
We don’t know much of what is going on, so sticking with what we do know:
a. There’s an investigation for a reason. What’s that reason?
b. It’s an investigation that at least two Republican judges found compelling enough to deny reporters being compelled to testify.
c. Cooper has said the following:
” Rove was an obvious call for any White House correspondent, let alone someone trying to prove himself at a new beat. As I told the grand jury — which seemed very interested in my prior dealings with Rove — I don’t think we had spoken more than a handful of times before that . . . (emphasis added)
As I told the grand jury — and we went over this in microscopic, excruciating detail, which may someday prove relevant — I recall calling Rove from my office at TIME magazine . . . (emphasis added.)”
None of the above has anything to do with Wilson, now does it?
Of course not.
BTW –
People who work real covert jobs in the CIA (and for that matter, in the FBI and other agencies) put up with a ton of hardship and crap. Their families have to constantly be on their guard with everyone. Their kids usually go to school with the upwardly-mobile spawn of the State Department and the diplomatic corps, while their dad (or mom) supposedly works some nameless civil service job where they never seem to do anything or get promoted. They have to live the make-believe life, too, and they have to keep it up day after day.
For this, they get zero thanks from the people who are now screaming their heads off over Wilson and Plame. On the contrary, they are customarily treated with contempt and derision by such people.
For this reason, it’s pretty hard to sympathize with a couple of socialites who go cruising around Georgetown in their convertible, playing Mr. and Mrs. Jane Bond, basking in glory of having all their Ivy League classmates whisper behind their hands at cocktail parties about what secret big-shots they are.
I think Glenn pretty much summed it up- as far as the Wilsons go.
Unfortunately, the Wilsons aren’t under investigation at the moment.
Glen,
WHAT are you doing? Really, what?
A few articles to educate you:
“The Intelligence Challenge. Can We Trust Our President?”:http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/15/225611/396
By Brent Cavan, Jim Marcinkowski, Larry Johnson, and Jane Doe
It begins:
“We trained and worked at the CIA with Valerie Plame. We presented the following statement at a hearing on Capitol Hill in October 2003. In light of the latest White House sanctioned assault on Valerie Plame and her character, our testimony remains relevant and accurate.
We slogged through the same swamps on patrols, passed clandestine messages to each other, survived a simulated terrorist kidnapping and interrogation, kicked pallets from cargo planes, completed parachute jumps, and literally helped picked ticks off each other after weeks in the woods at a CIA training facility. We knew each other’s secrets. We shared our fears, failures, and successes. We came to rely on each other in a way you do not find in normal civilian life. We understood that a slip of the tongue could end in death for those close to us or for people we didn’t even know. We were trained by the best, to be the best. We were trained by the Central Intelligence Agency. They may not appreciate what they have created.”
Also, “Mr. Bush, have you no shame?”:http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/17/14226/2382
And then, “the big lie about Valerie Plame”:http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340
So again, what are you talking about??
Read these, then get back to me with your well-practiced hack partisanship, you know better than these 4 ex-CIA guys.
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
1999 != recent.
7. Memo to Valerie Plame: Covert CIA agents are not supposed to have their photos taken for publication. Especially not posed photos for Vanity Fair.
Memo to Glen: not only was the horse out of the barn at that point, the barn itself was on fire.
GLEN: “2. No one has ever been convicted under the law that Democrats blame Rove of breaking.”
There has been one conviction.
GLEN – “3. Wilson’s alleged investigation in Niger is so ridiculously flimsy that it makes Sean Penn’s fact-finding trip to Iraq look good.”
It happened to agree with the findings of both the local Embassy and Gen. Carlton Fulford.
JC – And then, the big lie about Valerie Plame
I missed the “big lie” in that article, JC. I didn’t miss the faux-indignant speculation-stated-as-fact, though:
When Johnson says “we know”, he’s referring to the people who’ve taken the CIA mind-reading course. Or at least the Joe Wilson course on Leaping to Comfortable Foregone Conclusions.
Steve J. – There has been one conviction
If you refer to Jonathan Randel, he was not convicted under the Intelligence Identities And Protection Act. He plead guilty to violating a different statute. And he did not reveal a CIA agent – he leaked information from DEA files.
JC — Wilson’s wife pushed him hard for the job; he had business interests in Niger (hello? Conflict of interest?) but had last been in Niger 20 years before. He was hardly the best man for the job, being a well known Democratic hack, who like most Ambassadors bought his position, for Wilson under Clinton.
Wilson met with various Niger officials, including the Minister of Mines, reporting an ambigous attempt to purchase either uraniam or chickpeas, take your pick, that the Niger folks never followed up on.
Interestingly enough, the Iraqis seem to have employed a Niger-based businessman in their approach to Niger officials, of whom nothing is known.
Wilson, returned, made his oral debrief and written report which detailed the ambigous attempt and that was that.
He then wrote an op-ed for the Times blasting Bush as a liar. He gave further numerous interviews blasting Bush for relying on a forged document which he says he personally debunked. Which was interesting since his service ended 8 months before the US got a hold of the documents. He insisted that Cheney and Tenet personally selected him (his wife pushed him hard) in various interviews, and said the opposite of his written and verbal reports. This was well documented in the recent Senate Intelligence Committee hearing and interestingly that well known conservative rage the WaPo blasted him for knowingly deceiving them in interviews.
Further muddying the waters is the political goings on. Wilson was briefly a part of the Kerry campaign until he was dropped on basic issues of truthfulness above. Various reporters including Cooper of Time and the NYT reported straight out of Wilson’s “punishment” by outing of his wife by Karl Rove.
Interestingly enough, Cooper in his sworn Grand Jury testimony contradicted his own story which said that Rove and others contacted him and shopped the Plame story with him (and other reporters). Instead it was Cooper who called Rove by his own Grand Jury testimony. Rove’s testimony says that Cooper first asked about Welfare Reform then switched to Plame. Cooper’s is so far unclear on that point in what’s leaked out. Cooper also contacted Scooter Libby, Cheney’s Chief of Staff, who when asked about Wilson’s wife said “oh I heard that too.” Rove claims he heard first about Wilson’s wife pushing Wilson for the Niger trip from journalists, but doesn’t remember which one.
Novak reported that when he called Rove to “confirm” the Plame story Rove told him “Oh I heard that too” or words to that effect. Cooper said in testimony that Rove did not mention Plame’s name or agent status merely that she worked at the Agency on WMDs. Novak has said in interviews that no one at the Agency asked him not to report on Plame, if asked he would not have used it, and has implied that this has happened in the past (reporting that “in such cases” the DCIA calls his editor and asks no use).
Further issues: State prepared for Colin Powell a briefing on Plame/Wilson and why this guy was sent. It didn’t have a Plame’s name but had other details. It was passed around on Air Force One and reporters may have seen it. Cooper’s wife is a high-level staffer for Hillary Clinton, and used to work at the White House for Bill. Judy Miller sits in jail not having written a word on Plame. However she had high-level inside sources on Iraq War run-up, presumably either Tenet or Powell. Fitzgerald had a run-in with Miller, she tipped off an Islamic Charity in Queens that allegedly funded Al-Qaeda operations that Fitzgerald was investigating them giving them a day to destroy evidence. Andrea Mitchell (Mrs. Alan Greenspan) admitted that it was common knowledge before Wilson/Niger flap that Plame was CIA. Her neighbors and some fellow CIA co-workers have alleged this also. Aldrich Ames blew her to the Soviets, and the CIA goofed and let the Cubans in on the secret as well, leading her to be withdrawn in 1997.
What is known are these facts:
1. Cooper’s Time stories conflict with his sworn Grand Jury testimony in that he contacted both Rove and Libby not the other way around. Cooper did not and has not disclosed his wife’s job and basic conflict of interest, which is not uncommon in the media. Dan Rather’s daughter works for the Democratic Party in Texas.
2. It was common knowledge in Press circles that Plame, married to socialite Wilson, was CIA. DC is a small town.
3. Plame’s position may have been leaked to reporters through the Powell memo on Air Force One.
4. Novak had at least one other solid “non-partisan” as he put it source for Plame that wasn’t Karl Rove.
5. There is bad blood between Miller and Fitzgerald.
6. This is a disaster for the Press/Dems since it shows how intertwined they are. When a senior reporter for Time is married to Hillary’s senior staffer, basic issues of conflict of interest aris.
7. No future Republican official will talk to the press. All future inquiries will be directed to the press office which will just issue press releases. Cooper seemed to engage in a partisan gotcha at odds with the sworn testimony he gave; people are not dumb and will notice that and adjust accordingly.
I’m not going to do a point by point, because these are almost universally assertions mirroring those found in talking points and web conspiracy theorizing. I will say that I agree that the report was not all that damning, and that Bush’s words were parsed carefully enough so as to be merely misleading rather than an outright lie. At the end of the day, the basic fact holds that it doesn’t matter whether Wilson is a hero (as G.H.W. Bush more or less called him) or a liar… his wife was not “fair game” and if what we’ve heard is true Rove does not deserve to keep his job. Nonetheless, a couple of key points:
* “Wilson’s wife pushed him hard for the job.”
There’s no evidence (so far) that she “pushed him hard for the job.” There is evidence that she said he would be good for the job, but we do not know whether that was solicited or unsolicited by other officials.
* “He insisted that Cheney and Tenet personally selected him…”
This is also not true. I abandoned a long post on the subject of the RNC talking points – which make this claim as well. In brief, I found no actual evidence that he did so. Most of the quotations to this effect are out of context. At one point, Wilson said that, based on Libby’s comments, he thought Cheney sent him. On at least one later occasion, Wilson flatly denied that Cheney or Tenet knew that he was in Niger.
* “It was common knowledge in Press circles that Plame, married to socialite Wilson, was CIA.”
I’ve seen this assertion more than once, but, again, with no corroborating evidence. Cooper, for example, said he did not know. You’re right, DC is a “small town,” but not as small as you think, and not nearly as transparent as this early line of defense implies.
* “Cooper’s Time stories conflict with his sworn Grand Jury testimony….” We’ve seen the actual testimony? Really? Where can I find it?
Anyway, for a good discussion of the other side of the debate, see here and here.
Anyway, the major lesson here is that a lot of the facts on Wilson and Plame are not at all settled, not that anyone is right about them.
I have read that Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC admitted that much of the Washington Press corp was aware of Plame’s employment before the whole fiasco. Of course, it’d be best to double check on that for me.
a/s
Hope this helps:
http://forum.chronwatch.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=210781&highlight=#210781
This is the best analysis I have found on the net concernning the whole mysterious Wilson Plame
addair.
The analysis is long and twisty and seems to show
a level of inside knowledge about how the secret
services work that would exceed just an ordinary
citizen’s theories.
The quick synopsis is that Wilson was working for
the French to muddy up the fact that France
really did authorize the uranium mines of
Niger to supply Saddam and the whole downstream
mess is track covering once France realised that
President Bush was actually going to invade Iraq
and they would be found out, but it’s far more
twisty than that. Had to read it three times before I understood it. Enjoy.
Well, it looks like JC successfully hijacked the comment thread up there in comment #5… does anyone have a response to AL’s original question?
Somebody asked for Cooper’s GJ testimony. Here’s his account. “Text to Display”:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083899-1,00.html
This sucks. Everybody thinks they know everything. There is an ongoing investigation. One side can’t believe its going on, and the other side can’t believe its not finding what they know to be facts. I don’t know what to believe, but I don’t fully believe any of you. I guess I’ll wait for the results of the investigation.
Indeed, JC did hijack the thread with a backflip spin attempt that was based on completely ignoring AL’s point with a little icing of repeating several myths.
As for AL’s question, the reason that the Democrats are ignoring the reality that Wilson was and remains a discredited liar is that they are so desparate to smear President Bush that they will hang on the coattails of any and all charlatans to do so.
One of the things I think this illustrates is how extraordinarily clean the Bush administration has actually been. We are in the fifth year of his Presidency and consider how few scandals we’ve actually seen. That people feel the need to pump hot air in this faux scandal is quite telling.
“Answer”:http://forum.chronwatch.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=210781&highlight=#210781/
Re #18,
This is the answer to the original question. Go there and read it.
Scroll down about ten or eleven posts until you get to a post reading “Now would be a good time to review what I published after the Senate Intelligence …
The bleg question is comprehensively answered
Question: _it seems that the facts as he knew them supported the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium._
I’ll bite. The implicit answer is that there are some or many that believe that Saddam’s *intent* to build a nucular bomb is irrelevant. That Saddam was not *capable* of building such a device is what is important. This springs from a law enforcement model in which *intent* alone is not a crime. Thomas Hobbes said intent was never a crime, but it may be a sin. As an enlightened society, we do not police intent, although we may use evidence of intent to police predictable actions. Saddam’s intent could not be used to justify a war, any more than the police could arrest someone for wanting to kill his wife.
In short, AL, there are a lot of people that simply do not care whether Saddam intended to develop nuclear weapons.
Cmon guys –
We really don’t know much about what is going on in this case, outside of self-interested leaks. I’m simply pointing out that exercising all this energy in bashing Wilson/Plame, first and primary, is a red herring, and fairly destructive as well. And that was my point. This includes AL’s speculation.
David and Robin – if you wanted to talk about who “hijacked the thread”, you just have to look at 1 through 4 – those don’t really address AL’s point either, now do they? Except by bashing Wilson-Plame, thus inviting a response, yes?
And Robin, how do you manage to go from criticizing me for hijacking the thread and not responding to AL’s question, to then immediately back to criticizing democrats – _and not responding to AL’s question?_
Whiplash.
And Robin *since you brought it up*, “here’s the scandal sheet for the Bush administration’s 4 years”:http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011905D.shtml
Enjoy.
Now, back to AL’s question- although again, I protest it is a red herring.
AL, there’s rather a large gap or leap between unidentified people “taking a meeting” and “Iraq was trying to buy uranium.”, such that Iraq is an immediate threat. A significant gap. I know this post was framed to pump up that connection, but the ambassador to Niger at the time also came back with a report that had the same conclusions as Wilson’s report.
Again – myself, I very much doubt that this will end up as any type of conviction for someone in the administration. There are only a few months left, and everybody it seems, was talking to everybody, so it will be difficult to “pin” the leak on one particular person.
JC, you have completely established my point. And attempted yet another thread hijacking.
The core remains that Bush Derangement Syndrome, lacking any real sustenance, requires a regular influx of charlatans. In this case, none of the people regularly flogging the Wilson-Plame nonsense have any understanding of the actual yellowcake issue and absolutely no interest in it. Its just a myth to hang their hatred upon.
This entire story only reinforces my view of a media out of control.
Valerie Plame was outed by the Russians in the early 1990’s and by the CIA in a “secret” memo to the Swiss embassy in Cuba which “somehow” was read by the Cubans.
She had not been undercover since 1997 and held an analyst position at Langley since her marriage to Wilson.
Larry Johnson is full of crap. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Don’t believe me? Read the amici curiae brief submitted by the media’s lawyers in support of Miller and Cooper. It’s on page 8.
“One of the things I think this illustrates is how extraordinarily clean the Bush administration has actually been. We are in the fifth year of his Presidency and consider how few scandals we’ve actually seen. That people feel the need to pump hot air in this faux scandal is quite telling.”
Two words: Republican Congress.
Another four words: no independent counsel law.
There have been an enormous number of protoscandals, i.e., things that would’ve been investigated to death during the Clinton years and become scandals.
If you want Executive=branch accountability, you don’t want undivided government.
I thought I’d responded to AL’s question: Bush’s actual phrasing was not refuted by Wilson’s findings. Indeed, Bush’s phrasing could not have been, because it included the phrase “British” intelligence services reported, which was true.
Wilson’s statements became a big deal, I suspect, because they were consistent with other evidence that the administration was throwing questionable facts at the wall, particularly with regards to Iraqi activity in Africa (e.g., the CIA’s attempt to keep Africa references out of other speeches). Put differently: Wilson would not have been a big deal if his revelations had been the only factor suggesting the Bush administration had taken information they knew was suspect, put in a speech, and wrote the phrasing around that fact so that they could not be accused of lying. Even without Wilson, this looked pretty bad, and Wilson only added a public, media-friendly face to the episode.
From my perspective, the deeper problem with Bush’s claims about Iraq leading up to the war was that they represented a deliberate strategy of what some call “threat inflation.” The kinds of Iraqi WMD capabilities and programs that were within the realm of possibility simply weren’t a threat to the US. Bush through a huge amount of questionable material at us in order to convince the public that Iraq was an imminent danger, that this was a war of preemptive self-defense, and that we therefore could waste no time in taking Hussein out. This was simply not the case.
Indeed, there was no reason we couldn’t have waited, and there would have been enormous strategic gains from doing so (it would have made it more likely that we could have gotten Turkey on board, it would have made European objections less credible, etc.).
The answer to the question AL asked is, “Wilson lied.” That’s obvious. He lied about his wife’s involvement. He lied about what he found in Niger. He lied about what Bush said. And he lied about having seen the forged documents (unless his wife showed them to him, which would be a criminal security breach.)
I’m just looking forward to how far both sides will have to backtrack when the investigation is complete and we have something beyond allegations, innuendo, and vitriol to base our assumptions upon.
Except, Dan, that the SICR refutes that meme. According to their investigation (and rest assured, the report would not have been unanimous of the Democrats thought there was some “there” there), there was no attempt by the administration to “twist” the intelligence, as Wilson asserted in his op-ed.
Try again.
Antimedia: not exactly. This is the RNC talking point, but it is not accurate. As Rockefeller and Levin note in their addendum to the report:
“Phase one of the Committee’s report on U.S. pre-war intelligence on Iraq details how the Central IntelligenceAgency (CIA) and the Intelligence Community as a whole ofien failed to produce accurate intelligence analysis on alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorist organizations.
Regrettably, the report paints an incomplete picture of what occurred during this period of time. The Committee set out to examine ten areas of investigation relating to pre-war intelligence on Iraq and we completed only five in this report. The scope of our investigation was divided in a way so as to prevent a complete examination of all the matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction at one time.
The central issue of how intelligence on Iraq was used or misused by Administration officials in public statements and reports was relegated to the second phase of the Committee’s investigation,along with other issues related to the intelligence
activities of Pentagon policy officials, pre-war intelligence assessments about post-war Iraq, and the role played by the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmad Chalabi, which claims to have passed “raw intelligence”and defector infomation directly to the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President.
As a result, the Committee’s phase one report fails to fidly explain the environment of intense pressure in which Intelligence Community officials were asked to render judgments on matters relating to Iraq when policy officials had already forcefully stated their own conclusions in public.”
Wilson did not, to my knowledge, lie about what he found in Niger. The question is whether he was right that his report was definitive as he believed it to be, which is a different issue.
The best evidence that he lied is his denials that his wife had “anything to do” with his going to Niger. We now know that she said he would be good for the job, but we still don’t know if this was on her own initiative or whether she was asked to give CIA officials an opinion on whether he was qualified. Given what sources in the administration did to his wife, and what evidence we have, I’m not yet convinced that this is sufficient to discredit him as some kind of inveterate liar who cannot be trusted.
Again, good discussion of this issue, on both sides, in the links I posted above.
He did clearly lie about having seen the report. He admitted this when asked about it, according to the SSCI report, where he says he “misspoke.” I suppose the issue is that he concluded that any such documents were likely forgeries, which seems to be the case.
But I think ALs original questions are the important ones. Whether or not Wilson told the whole truth and nothing but the truth isn’t material to the question of whether it was ethical and/or legal to target his wife.
My own view is that Rove’s admitted actions, regardless of whether or not they were legal, breached his ethical responsibilities as someone with security clearance, and that this should be grounds for his dismissal. This was also the administration’s stated position in 2004, even if they have raised the threshold once the shit has started to hit the fan.
From Tim:
_”I’m just looking forward to how far both sides will have to backtrack when the investigation is complete and we have something beyond allegations, innuendo, and vitriol to base our assumptions on.”_
hmmm….Well, so far the only backtracking seems to be coming from the White House.
The real story to come will define what loyalty stands for. Will it be defined by how “loyal” Bush remains to retaining his staff involved with this investigation? Or, will it be defined about how loyal this administration is to the thousands of people in the CIA, and the hundreds of thousands of Americans in the military, none of whom ever picked up a telephone to call Robert Novack as well as other members of the Press?
Understanding how “duty, honor, and country” are defined will also be decided when these questions are answered.
Dan Nexon:
Did Wilson tell the truth when he wrote that his trip to Niger disproved that Saddam was “trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.” “(NY editorial)”:http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
PD Shaw: here’s the full context of the quotation:
“The question now is how that answer [about whether Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa] was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It’s worth remembering that in his March “Meet the Press” appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was “trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.”) At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president’s behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.”
So no, he didn’t lie in the NYT Op-Ed, at least on this issue.
AL This is a link to the wilson story. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45430-2004Jul12.html
It essentially says the that Wilson reported it was _IRAN_ not Iraq that was trying to buy the yellowcake. I haven’t waded through the link to the Senate report on the Intel-Dump to verify this yet.
As to Rove: Regardless of how the facts came out about Mrs Wilson she was still a CIA employee during _WARTIME_. Why is anyone in the White House with a security clearance to know talking about whom CIA agents are? Why is any Democrat confirming or denying whom an agent is?
For the President it is a problem because, not because other people lied or did not, he said he’d fire anyone involved in the incident. No parsing. We now know Karl Rove was _INVOLVED_. There is should be no attempt to parse his own words. Other wise he looks like Clinton. Clinton was a liar when he denied getting extramarital sex in the White House. Until the President fires Rove George Bush is a _LIAR_.
Robert M:
No. You are conflating two separate instances. Iran tried to buy 400 tons in 1998. The former Nigerien PM told Wilson that he was approached by a businessman in 1999 to set up a meeting with an Iraqi delegation to expand trade. He inferred from the fact that the only thing besides uranium that they have to offer is livestock, chickpeas, and onions, that it was an attempt to discuss uranium, and told Wilson that as well.
“Why is anyone in the White House with a security clearance to know talking about whom CIA agents are?” Or more to the point, under what circumstances could it possibly be concluded that the chief political advisor to the president has need to know that information? The answer to that question will show that this game is either much deeper than Rove, or that Plame’s cover really was completely blown.
Rove is not the target of the investigation according to Fitzgerald.
So far all we know is about Rove is that he confirmed he had heard the rumors.
We do know that Bush’s desire for war was based on Congressional action first taken by Congress and confirmed by Clinton in 1998 and the desire to prevent Saddam from restarting his nuclear program.
The second point was confirmed by British intel and not Wilson. Although Wilson provides corroborating evidence.
Robert M is talking, I think, about a mistake in a Washington Post article (which said Iraq when it should have said Iran) that got picked up as vindication for the administration by some bloggers and conservative pundits.
This is why I stress the issue of “threat inflation.” Hussein would certainly have liked to restart his nuclear weapons program, but it was far from being reconstituted.
Iran has no need to buy yellowcake outside Iran. They have their own uranium mine.
Curioser and curioser.
JC;
Please stop trying to “hijack” this thread back into reality.
Folks around here don’t take too kindly to that sort of thing.
They’d rather fly the friendly skies of make-believe over Bush-Land.
“this is about Iraq”
“this is about sex”
“this is about outing a CIA agent”
“this is about perjury”
Im not saying who’s right, but I know damn well that if it Karl Rove were on the other side, hed be saying its about law breaking, and how his side is just standing up for the rule of law and patriotism.
Thats what makes it different – if this were Wolfowitz, or Rice, or Gonzales, or some other policy guy or gal, you could look with some sympathy on the unfairness. But its one of the premier political operatives, an expert in putting his opponents in the worst possible light, getting hoisted by his own petard.
Note that I’m explicitly not defending (or excoriating) Rove; It’s far from clear to me that he violated the law, but I’m willing to bet that he did what everyone in Washington (or Sacramento) does, which is to trade in valuable (and often confidential and possibly harmful to others) information.
But, as with speeding “everyone was doing it” is no defense. When that’s exposed to light, it isn’t pretty, and the consequences are often severe.
I’m more interested in understanding WTH the actual contemporaneous reports about Iraq and Niger were.
A.L.
Well, I’ll just point out that Kerry, Leahy (to the point of having his security clearance pulled) and other Dem Senators have revealed on the floor of the Senate or in Committee hearings or through their staff the names of active CIA agents on active foreign duty, not desks. No fallout. Why?
One is that Dems/Media (which are the same, given Cooper’s wife being a Clinton staffer) suffer from a myth. That myth is that if wasn’t for the evil Machiavellian manipulations of Rove or Atwater or whoever then the true forces of righteousness would have prevailed and as Sean Penn sang in Team America, “in Iraq the rivers ran with chocolate before the Americans came.” It’s naive and stupid (instead of oh I dunno finding out by talking to them why swing voters went the other way) but that’s the usual Dem and Media desire for scapegoats.
The other is that the Party is deeply divided. The Moveon/Kos/DU folks control the money, both on the internet end and in the Soros/Hollywood big chunk ends, and have the political class scared. Pros like Vilsack or Warner or Bayh know Moveon’s obsessions (Gitmo, Rove, “torture=pee on a koran” etc) are losers, particulary when the sadly inevitable next terror attack happens here, but are powerless to stop it.
Durbin calling troops Nazis and Pol Pot is actually wildly popular. Add to that the struggle between the Kennedy/Kerry and Clinton machines for dominance, with the Deaniacs/Kos kids sniping at both, and you have a party unable to come to grips with any issues and make a philosophical stand.
Hence the desire for scandal.
The fallout for this though is going to be that no Dem will have any role in the Bush Admin. After Wilson they won’t be trusted and the idea of non-partisan technical issues being beyond the bounds of ordinary partisan politics is dead. Joe Wilson killed it with a hugely partisan attack.
Is not the real question,what were the Iraqis after in Niger cowpeas,goats,uranium?
Niger is a dirt poor country hardly on the must visit circuit.
Dan, the WaPo article was the source of the error, but both events are outlined in the SSCI report. Iran tried in 98, Iraq tried in 99.
The President said that he’d “take care of” anyone caught leaking classified info.
Since we do not know if Plames status was a covert CIA agent, and we do not know if Rove learned of this through classified info, how can the President act on his promise.
Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, the Presidents pledge was what I said…
The qualifier was there from the beginning, and it’s been the press which has dropped and fudged it at times.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/18/224504.shtml
The press is claiming that President Bush has changed his pledge to fire anyone in his administration involved in leaking Valerie Plame’s name – saying he’s now added the qualifier “if someone committed a crime.”
But that’s exactly what Bush said when he was first asked about the Plame case on Sept. 30, 2003.
“If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” the president told reporters back then. “And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.”
Dozens of news organizations quoted Bush’s Sept. 2003 proviso, “if the person has violated law”, including USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN.
On Monday, Bush made it clear his position hadn’t changed one bit. Asked about the Plame case, he explained: “If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.”
Still, that didn’t stop the Associated Press from charging: “On Monday, however,[Bush] added the qualifier that it would have [to] be shown that a crime was committed.”
The AP cited a June 10, 2004, news conference, where, according to the wire service, a reporter simply asked if Bush stood by his earlier pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame’s name. Bush answered, “Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.”
But the full June 10, 2004 exchange was somewhat more complicated:
REPORTER: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leak the agent’s name? And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
BUSH: Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts. [End of Excerpt]
Any honest reading of that exchange would acknowledge that when Bush answered, “Yes” – he meant he was standing by his earlier statement, not the reporter’s distorted version: “Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?”
Bush hadn’t offered any such pledge.
But what he had said several months previous was that if the leaker had “violated the law,” he’d be “taken care of.”
Sorry Dan, I can’t read Wilson’s NYT editorial without concluding that Wilson is representing that the information he obtained in Africa directly contradicts Cheney’s statement that Saddam was “trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.” The contradiction is at such a level that Wilson levels the charge of false pretenses. His information did not contradict Cheney’s statement.
What am I missing?
If Joe’s wife was not an undercover agent since 1997, then Rove couldn’t have possibly disclosed her undercover identity while she was an undercover agent.
Read “this”:http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp:
bq. Just four months ago, 36 news organizations confederated to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. At the time, Bush-bashing was (no doubt reluctantly) confined to an unusual backseat. The press had no choice — it was time to close ranks around two of its own, namely, the Times’s Judith Miller and Time’s Matthew Cooper, who were threatened with jail for defying grand jury subpoenas from the special prosecutor.
bq. The media’s brief, fairly short and extremely illuminating, is available “here”:http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF. The Times, which is currently spearheading the campaign against Rove and the Bush administration, encouraged its submission. It was joined by a “who’s who” of the current Plame stokers, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters America, the Washington Post, the Tribune Company (which publishes the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun, among other papers), and the White House Correspondents (the organization which represents the White House press corps in its dealings with the executive branch).
bq. The thrust of the brief was that reporters should not be held in contempt or forced to reveal their sources in the Plame investigation. Why? Because, the media organizations confidently asserted, no crime had been committed. Now, that is stunning enough given the baleful shroud the press has consciously cast over this story. Even more remarkable, though, were the key details these self-styled guardians of the public’s right to know stressed as being of the utmost importance for the court to grasp — details those same guardians have assiduously suppressed from the coverage actually presented to the public.
That brief is pretty interesting. First, it asserts that Plame’s cover was blown by a foreign spy to the Russians in the mid-90s. Second, the Cubans – after the Russians were informed, but before Novak’s article – found out after the CIA didn’t take appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana.
Read it all, for it is informative.
Um, Colt, the media’s brief is no longer there. I gues their attorneys are taking a different position now.
The NYT brief is there; the link malforms. Try clicking here.
A.L.
Seems like Wilson’s story is invented out of a comic book.
In fact this entire story is irrevelvant. Smoke and mirrors. He said, she said.
The very first time I heard the initial report of a former ambassador going alone to Niger to investigate uranium sales, I thought “what idiot did this? why on earth would anyone in thier right mind think a diplomat would get anything close to accurate information simply by calling up his former contacts and asking, oh by the way, has iraq, a country under un sanctions been secretly buying unranium from you?” “oh, no. no way would we sell saddam any. LOL I find it amazing this guy is taken seriuosly by anyone.
Oh, and as far as plame goes, it seems she has been out of the field for about a decade, and supposedly was compromised long ago. Any one she was handling, if that was her job, is long ago also compromised.
This all smells like a jounalistic cloak and dagger game. I’m not sure there is any truth to any of this at all.
I classify this as garbage journalism, maybe a teenager could do better.
And lies upon lies. My personal opinion is plame and wilson are liars, most of the reporters are liars. Rove is probably guilty of gossipping with a jackass he shouldn’t have spoken to.
A.L.: I’m willing to bet that he did what everyone in Washington (or Sacramento) does, which is to trade in valuable (and often confidential and possibly harmful to others) information.
Trading in confidential information is the entire modus operandi of the establishment press. The anonymous source, bolstered only by the judgement of a prestigious reporter and protected by that reporter at all costs, is a central myth-figure of the old MSM.
If you could jail people on speculation about leaks, and the possible consequences of leaks, every big-name reporter in the country would be in jail. Needless to say, the media doesn’t want to see that.
The partisans among them have no problem with pushing for a witch-hunt anyway, because they are frankly accustomed to seeing such standards selectively “enforced” against Republicans only. Certainly not against good people like Sidney Blumenthal, James Carville, or Larry Flynt.
It’s been pointed out that if any of this Wilson-Plame blather were taken the slightest bit seriously, it would be almost impossible to write about the CIA, and very dangerous indeed to criticize the CIA. Although many (though not all) of the people who criticize the CIA are full of crap, I don’t think anyone wants to see the CIA awarded the status of the NKVD.
BTW, Plame has been working at Langley for the last four plus years.
The CIA isn’t exactly brilliant, but I’d have thought their undercover agents wouldn’t report to CIA HQ every day for several years.
Jim: are you referring to this story? Because it isn’t true.
Anyway, a quick Lexis-Nexis search reveals that Keith and Newsmax are right: Bush said he would only get rid of someone who violated a law. I guess its time to get the left to stop harping on this one, unless there’s another statement I couldn’t find (although his wording in a couple of different contexts is similar enough that this looks like a vetted line). Indeed, given I rail against using talking points, I feel kind of sheepish.
Interestingly, I did come across dozens of stories in which the administration denied that Rove had any involvement in the leak. I don’t think that’s such a big deal, but I also don’t think that Wilson insisting his wife had nothing to do with sending him to Niger is a big deal :-).
PD Shaw: in what part of the editorial does Wilson say that his discoveries in Niger show that the administration was wrong about the entire WMD program? I don’t think he says that. He says that “if” his report was ignored because it didn’t fit with the administration’s preconceptions, than a “legitimate case” can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. There’s a couple of conditional steps in the argument that get you from “no uranium sale” to “war under false pretenses.”
Ohhhh, this is good: “Did Joseph Wilson commit a crime?”:http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/07/did-joseph-wilson-commit-crime.html
bq. Wilson went public (“communicates…to any person not entitled…”) with information he legitimately gathered privately under legitimate government auspices (“lawfully having possession of”…). His aim was to weaken the administration’s credibility, which had as its consequence the weakening of the United States’ credibility internationally (“to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation…” Indeed, this weakened international credibility became one the center features of the Kerry campaign, which Wilson subsequently joined.)
Steve Antler suggests Wilson is in violation of 18 U.S.C. 793(d).
Another point in all this. (Wild speculation alert).
_”The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”_
Funny thing is, Niger is not likely field for British intelligence to operate. OK, its possible that they were following up some thread from the Iraqi end.
But Niger is an former _French_ colony; that makes it French intelligence turf. Without very, _very_ good reason, the UK would not encroach.
They would ask Paris for confirmation.
There’s a funny smell to this.
Rove: maybe I’m being a dumb Brit here, WRT to how these things are done in Washington.
But WHY would a experienced pol leak anything _direct_ to a reporter, still less more than one, and especially including ones from “opposition” media, when he’d have to know the potential for a media/political/legal feeding frenzy?
If you wanted to do it, you’d do it indirectly, surely?
_There’s a couple of conditional steps in the argument that get you from “no uranium sale” to “war under false pretenses.”_
Wilson indicates only two conditions. Either his information was inaccurate or it was ignored.
If it was inaccurate, then he understands and would like an explanation.
If it was ignored, then the U.S. may have been led into war under false pretenses, such as when Cheney said that Saddam was “trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.”
I really have no idea what Joe Wilson is so mad about, other than maybe it turned out Iraq did indeed get yellowcake uranium from Niger and thus he is proved to have been wrong – Wilson is certainly in no position to be claiming he proved otherwise.
PD Shaw, all the information the US has found in Iraq – weapons-grade uranium, documents on attempts to develop nuclear weapons, agreements with North Korea on nuclear arms, the concerted effort by Iraqi guerrillas to kill Iraqi scientists with knowledge of Saddam’s nuclear weapons programs, the effort by Saddam’s acolytes to destroy evidence on Saddam’s nuclear weapons programs – indicates the US went to war under legitimate pretenses.
#61 John Farren
bq. Without very, very good reason, the UK would not encroach.
The UK wouldn’t gather information in a former French colony without French permission? Why not?
P. D. Shaw refers to:
_”That Saddam was not capable of building such a device is what is important…a law enforcement model in which intent alone is not a crime…As an enlightened society, we do not police intent…Saddam’s intent could not be used to justify a war.”_
This is a outstanding example of why law enforcement is a poor model for national security policy.
Intent is, arguably, rather MORE important than capability, given a certain minimal level of capability (which for some nukes is rather less than people often think), and may justify various actions, up to and including pre-emptive or preventory war.
Especially when the downside of an underestimate of capability is potentially catastrophic.
And still more when it is just part of a combination of other considerations, none of which may be conclusive _cassus belli_ alone, but become so when considered as components of an overall analysis.
So Niger exports consist mainly of Oil and Yellowcake.
And allegedly, and it’s extremely thin, a third party told an official that Iraq wanted to discuss trade.
So obviously Iraq isn’t trying to trade in oil right?
But wait, Iraq has tons and tons of yellowcake already? Whats up with that? Why would they want more when we now know it was useless to them?
I think the entire Mayaki angle is extremely weak at best.
And what’s sad is that the fact that Saddam had no need for yellowcake was pointed out early on when this whole thing started, yet everyone seems to have missed it or forgotten.
#65 Colt:
It’s not an absolute rule, more a matter of professional courtesy and custom in minor states; may be waning these days. And would be ignored if _necessary_.
But generally the “global” Western intelligence services -i.e. French, British and American- have tended to have, and respect, various “spheres of interest”.
If only because one of them usually has a good network of sources set up on their “patch” e.g. UK in the Gulf States and (some) former African colonies; France in Algeria and the former French African “community”; US in Latin America, E & SE Asia, Saudi; etc. etc.
As I said, this is speculative, but if London _had_ asked Paris for confirmation, Paris said the Iraqis had been up to _something_ (which I suspect they had, if only for future connections) and _then_ this forged document turns up, with the added benefit of a diplomat appointed by the US itself to push it…
Voila.
A disinformation sting with real information behind it. Neat work.
If this story is true, Rove is gone. No ifs, ands, or buts.
“Keep in mind the IF though.”:http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10016
If this story is true, what is the usual punishment/crime for witholding information from the FBI in an investigation, if any?
_If this story is true, what is the usual punishment/crime for witholding information from the FBI in an investigation, if any?_
None. The punishment is for lying. Rove’s only obligation is to answer questions truthfully. His lawyers would have advised him not to offer any information unsolicited. The linked article seems to erroneously suggest that Rove had an independent obligation to tell everything he knew.
More likely the story is about the questions Rove answered “I don’t recall.” Proving that someone is lying about their recollection is pretty much impossible. Again, lawyers will advise their clients to state that they don’t recall unless they are 100% certain of their recollection. Answering with less certainty is a good way to inadvertantly lie.
Ah – okay then – so I guess it isn’t a crime to withhold. Thanks for the update.
Following this thread is an interesting study in BDS. A reasonable question is asked, then suddenly “experts” appear out of the word work, knowing all things about covert operators, and absolutely certain that Iraq would never, ever, ever talk to Niger about yellowcake. I bet you don’t even know where Niger is on the map – much less where yellow cake is or is not mined. Yet experts you suddenly are and on all of these issues.
That and of course gentlemen on white horses, out to defend the honor of the piteous Valerie Plame. yeah right, your motives are so pure.
Get a grip. There is clearly more to this story that we do not yet know. Stop acting like experts. It makes you look like fools.
Here is a question I have – and I apologize in advance for interrupting this thread. But I was reading the other article on here regarding “The Big Lie” and one question that I would love to see explored is how “The Big Lie” can be countered.
The Rove/Plame affair is an interesting study in The Big Lie. If you go look at moveon.org or the democratic underground – they are set up for this one. They have the graphics, the talking points and the team leaders are ON it. The pied piper is piping and the minions are bravely marching to the tune. Full of piss and vigor the followers suddenly find outrage in issues that they know nothing about and will care nothing for, once this blows over. But they do know one thing, they are Shocked! Shocked! and outraged by this latest horrible scourge that has afflicted us, whatever it may be.
I think that “The Big Lie” is one of the greatest threats we face right now – and perhaps it always is. Hitler and Stalin were able to kill millions. Millions! Yet I’ve never seen anything written on how we can counter or recognize that we are being used as tools by the powerful, working against our own interests. People on both sides of the aisle are willing to fall for it. It has gotten far more brazen lately and dangerous, considering the stakes.
just a thought. Thanks for listening.
Becky (#73),
I was thinking long similar lines this morning, WRT to the “Big Lie” as you call it. The real problem is that the MSM is not doing it’s job. This really isn’t about the usual left wing bias problem. This one swings both ways. Has anyone seen an indepth analysis of ALL the issues surrounding the plame affair? I haven’t.
Is there any wonder that we have these tempests in a teapot when there’s no reliable publication that gives ALL the background? My local paper seems to just reprint the DNC talking points. The networks are not any better.
Dan (#59),
Thanks for this. Your acknowledgement gives me hope that there is still some signal distinguishable from noise in this matter.
WRT to my post above (#73)…
Has anyone seen this analysis of Bush’s complete statements on this topic in any MSM outlet?
Don’t think so.
“After Wilson they won’t be trusted and the idea of non-partisan technical issues being beyond the bounds of ordinary partisan politics is dead. Joe Wilson killed it with a hugely partisan attack.”
BS. Cause Iraqi WMDs proved to be partisan, youre not going to use Dems on say, the TVA? Determining the definition of north american content under NAFTA? etc, etc. There are plenty of dry technical issues, and NOBODY thought that investigating evidence of Saddams pursuit of nukes was one of them.
As for division among the Dems – that there is, but Rove is well hated by all, AFAIK. Hell, hes hated by John McCain, whom he smeared more intensely in 2000 than he did any Democrat. Kos or no Kos, Iraq or no Iraq, if the Dems had something juicy on Rove theyd go after him. AS he would after ANY of them, BTW.
#65 Colt: (addition to my #68)
Here’s an interesting (cynics might say suggestive) snippet from the Senate report(p.39):
Memo from Valerie Plame to Deputy Chief CPD
“my husband has good relations with the PM and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts)…”
Phil Smith thanks for the update on Iraq vs Iran.
As to Rove: The Republicans have consistently polled and commented that the American people view them as more resopnisible thatn the Democrats in regard to national security issues. How is it excusable for anyone with a security clearance to talk about whom is or is not in the CIA or discuss non- classified information(See here http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/37/sections/section_793.html)
This is the problem. Worse it was done for partisan political purposes. Rove has to go. He has put McClellan and President Bush in the positions of being liars. Worse this the President is losing his standing in the polls regarding Iraq and other issues before the latest info came out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8561443/
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050715/ap_on_re_us/ap_poll_method
What is it doing to the Republican Party’s ablity to claim the high ground on the issue of national security?
Believe me I am nauseous about this issue because I have no support for the President except on the issue of the GWOT. And now members of his inner circle are exposing national security assets. The American people ended up hating President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair because he constantly lied, dissembled evaded over the issue. If the President is to avoid being a word parsing _LIAR_ a la Clinton he has to fire Rove.
“Believe me I am nauseous about this issue”
If true, you really need to get a life. 50 people were bombed in a subway less than 2 weeks ago and it’s basic raw knuckles partisan politics that has you nauseous? I’m impressed. Gandhi has nothing on you.
Allow me to sum up, according to my imperfect lights.
What concerns me isn’t so much that this happened, but that so many smart people in the media had left A.L. (and the rest of us) in the dark about it for years. This suggests a serious malfunction somewhere.
Wilson is a nonentity who couldn’t even hack it in the backwaters of the Foreign Service. His chances of getting a book deal based on his lousy career were zero. The only way he could get a book deal – as either he or a clever agent deduced – would be to cash in on the cottage industry of Bush-bashing books & make sensational charges against a President in wartime. That American troops were being killed every day was even better – free publicity.