Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 2, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

PLAME UPDATE....I should have mentioned this yesterday, but I got distracted and forgot. On Hardball, MSNBC's David Shuster reported the following nugget about Valerie Plame on Monday:

Intelligence sources say Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson's cover was blown, the administration's ability to track Iran's nuclear ambitions was damaged as well. The White House considers Iran to be one of America's biggest threats.

I don't really know what to make of this. If it's true, it's a bombshell, and yet it was dropped almost casually into the middle of Shuster's report and wasn't followed up in any way ("Great. Thank you David Shuster," responded Chris Matthews).

I guess we'll have to wait and see if anyone else confirms this. I can think of several reasons why this might be either plausible or implausible, but two sentences with no attribution aren't enough to figure it out. But in any case, that's the latest.

Kevin Drum 12:41 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (115)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Combine that with this and whatdya got? The Keystone Kops administration, merged with Dr Evil and Elmer Fudd.

You just can't make this shit up. Though they try.

Posted by: craigie on May 2, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Raw Story reported this in mid-February:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Outed_CIA_officer_was_working_on_0213.html

Unfortunately, it was never picked up by others.

Posted by: Auster on May 2, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

I seem to have known that she was involved in some Eastern European front shop concerned with WMD... probably the black market heading from Russia down to the Middle East.

The explanation on Tweety's non-reaction is that he is all-knowing.

Posted by: norbizness on May 2, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Intelligence sources say Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran.

Which makes even a better reason why she was exposed. For all we know, she might have been a Iranian agent or a agent of Al-Qaeda. She might have been using her official position of tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran as a cover to leak classified information about America to Iran or Al-Qaeda. By exposing her we prevented her from doing any more possible harm to American security.

Posted by: Al on May 2, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

HAW! As if a traitor's wife could possibly have been working on the new Nazi Germany!

You LIEberals will say anything to undermine the Bush-loving Moral Majority!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on May 2, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Fake Al's going for the over-the-top Steven Colbert experience today. Of course we know that leaking classified information to the Iranians was Ahmad Chalabi's job, so if Ms. Plame was muscling in on his turf she needed to go.

Posted by: Joe Buck on May 2, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Al beat me to it -- everything Bush and Rove have ever done just keeps us all safe from the Brown Boogie Man just waiting to kill us if not for their manly packages!

Mission Accomplished, I say, Good Sirs!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on May 2, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

With a few honorable exceptions, the press has been useless as far as investigative reporting was concerned. It was clear that someone high up in the administration leaded Valerie Plame's position as a cia operative long before the press paid any attention; the story was ignored when David Corn asked wasn't it strange Novak said he was told she was an operative, and they've happily gone along with the administration's assurances they had nothing to do with it, even though it was obvious it must have. They only picked it up when Firzgerald's investigation made it unavoidable. This is a big story, and the press has done just about nothing to push it forward; so it doesn't surprise me one bit if she was working on Iran, and no one in the press has gone to the trouble to investigate if it's true.

--Rick Taylor

Posted by: Rick Taylor on May 2, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

You're really missing the drama of the situation if you don't realize the Bush gang is trying to pull off a coup d'etat. Slicing and dicing the institutional CIA, which has disagreed with the Bushies about the facts since about 1976, is what Porter Goss is all about. They haven't been shy about telling us this.

Yes, the group Plame was working with probably was our most reliable source of information about Iran.

But we'll have to wait to learn the facts. I'm guessing that will happen shortly after the release of the transcripts from the Warren Commission.

Posted by: serial catowner on May 2, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin does not seem to particularly like him, but Glenn Greenwald's take on the right wing reaction to Schuster's disclosure is quite interesting.

Posted by: lib on May 2, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Glenn Greenwald's takes are always interesting.

Posted by: shortstop on May 2, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

An Iranian Kurdish group has somehow gotten riled up to cause trouble in Iran causing Iran to counter-attack its' base inside Iraq,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/01/wiran01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/01/ixworld.html

Posted by: cld on May 2, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

This was broken by the Raw Story website back in February. But since it only relates to a Republican president committing treason and possibly thwarting the ability to track Irans nuclear materials, it isnt that important to the mainstream media. Dont you have any links to juicy gossip about Bill or Hillary Clintons sex life? Now THAT is really important!

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on May 2, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

"Dont you have any links to juicy gossip about Bill or Hillary Clintons sex life?" Digging into that was her real assignment. The stuff about Iran was just a cover.

Posted by: artcrit on May 2, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

From the Wayne Madsen Report:

"The mainstream media is finally reporting that Valerie Plame
Wilson's Brewster Jennings covert CIA team was actively pursuing nuclear
component shipments by the Pakistani A Q Khan network to Iran at the time the
Bush White House revealed her identity and that of her team. This was previously
reported in depth by WMR."

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

Posted by: Jeff King on May 2, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

excuuuzee me, shortstop!

Posted by: lib on May 2, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

So let me get this straight. The Bushies are gonna try to scare us with a nuclear boogie man Iran, saying that they don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. Therefore we have to attack Iran. But the major reason why we don't know much about the scary unknown mushroom cloud is because Rove et al blew Valery Plame's cover? Good grief.

Posted by: JJ on May 2, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, we're supposed to be surprised that the same media that had ZERO reaction to the Downing St. memo is now having zero reaction to the bombshell that Plame was working on intel surrounding nukes in Iran?

It's like they don't even understand what a smoking gun looks like.

Posted by: theorajones on May 2, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

What, lib? I was just complimenting Greenwald.

Posted by: shortstop on May 2, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

The press has trouble covering this story without admitting they were used like cheap whores. Or that they were guilty in allowing the White House to deny all involvement, when they knew perfectly well that it was the WH that leaked.

If the story wasn't so slow moving and confusing, they would have to invent another reason to ignore it.

Posted by: xyz on May 2, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

All one need to know about Valerie Plame is that she married Joe Wilson. Nuff said.

We simply can't have people working in our intelligence community with such poor decision making ability. Richard Armitage (the actual leaker) did us all a tremendous favor and should be commneded, he possibly saved thousands of lives.

David Shuster and Raw Story? Please.

Posted by: BlaBlaBla on May 2, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Well, let's hire the gal again, and have her track the proliferation of material out of Iran this time.

Posted by: Matt on May 2, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Schuster didn't "disclose" anything unless he has his own sources. Odds are good that he's simply repeating the RawStory information, and of course, RawStory has leaped on Schuster's statement as "confirmation" of their story. This kind of circular credibility enhancement is not uncommon.

Although integrating separate data streams isn't a strong suit around here, I hope everyone realizes that you can't carry "Plame's outing threatened our national security by allowing Iran to pursue nuclear weapons" and "Iran's nuclear program is not a threat to the U.S." around in the same bucket.

Posted by: tbrosz on May 2, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, Randy Rhodes has been talking about this for ever.

Posted by: lib on May 2, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

"Plame's outing threatened our national security by allowing Iran to pursue nuclear weapons"

OK tbrosz, who exactly said that? Or it was just some voice in your head?

Posted by: gregor on May 2, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

From Eric Boehlert's new book Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush:

Like a newborn placed in a roomful of bachelors, the Downing Street Memo was greeted with befuddled stares; a hard-to-figure puzzle that was better left for somebody else to solve. And that's what was so striking how uniform the MSM response was. Why, in the face of the clearly newsworthy memo did senior editors and producers at virtually every major American news outlets fail to do the most rudimentary reporting the who, what, where, why, and how of the Downing Street Memo? Instead, journalists looked at the document and instinctively knew it was not a news story. Journalists didn't simply fail to embrace or investigate the Downing Street Memo story, they actively ignored it.
More.

Posted by: adios on May 2, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

"smoking gun" isn't as newsworthy as a stain on a dress.

Posted by: fcadmus on May 2, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

That VP was doing Iran-WMD work is just icing on the cake to this Administration. They don't WANT anyone to know the truth about Iranian nukes, because the truth is that they are much further from acquiring weapons than the Admin would like us to believe. The Iranians have been "just a couple of years" -- or "just a year," or "just months" -- from a working nuke for about A DECADE now; funny how the timeline just keeps extending with the passage of time.
If I were REALLY paranoid, I might even think that this was the real reason they outed Plame; harshing Wilson was just the excuse, and bonus points.
That this speculation isn't prima facie insane is the result of 5+ years of Bush misinformation, manipulation, and deceit.
To misquote Haldane, this administration is not only more f@#&ed than you imagine, it's more f@#&ed than you CAN imagine.

Posted by: smartalek on May 2, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

This kind of circular credibility enhancement is not uncommon.

I have to agree on this one.

1. WH leaks lies about Iraqi WMD to Judith Miller.

2. Judith Miller copies the info in NY Times.

3. WH sites Miller's article to justify the Iraq fiasco.

Where were you tbrosz when this was happening?

Posted by: lib on May 2, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

I hope everyone realizes that you can't carry "Plame's outing threatened our national security by allowing Iran to pursue nuclear weapons" and "Iran's nuclear program is not a threat to the U.S." around in the same bucket.

It's getting so it's pretty safe bet to put most things in the "Bush is incompetent" bucket. Iran is a threat. Yes. Do I trust Bush to handle it competently? Are you crazy?

That's why the irony of the Bushies outing the very person who could have given them good information is so rich. They don't care about the information that allows them to do a competent job. They have a different agenda out there outside the reality-based community.

Posted by: JJ on May 2, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

gregor:

Go back and read the original Raw Story article.

Posted by: tbrosz on May 2, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

The theory that Joe Wilson was smeared to deactivate Plame - rather than the other way around - has been around for almost as long as the 'scandal' itself. It seems more and more likely as the Iran deception materializes. Look at Cheney/Addington as being at the center of this mess.

Posted by: adios on May 2, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

"I hope everyone realizes that you can't carry "Plame's outing threatened our national security by allowing Iran to pursue nuclear weapons" and "Iran's nuclear program is not a threat to the U.S." around in the same bucket."

My god, you really are a complete moron, aren't you? You are the one pissing your pants over Iran's nuclear potential, so why aren't you more concerned about Plame's outing? The only possible reason would be because it would entail criticism of the Bush administration. And, no matter how clearly the facts expose the toxic stew of incompetence and mendacity that is the Bush administration, we must instead blame his political opponents.

Posted by: brewmn on May 2, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

It just occured to me...George W. Bush and Ken Lay, two names the MSM goes to great lengths not to mention in the same segment...both of these great CEO's brandishing MBA's, surrounded by executives with more MBA's, seem to adhere to the same management theories/stratagies with the same results. First, the big con that inflates the perception of success. Stand atop the financial ruins of fooled taxpayers/ratepayers and dine with the select few who drink from the same trough...ignoring the cries from below or outside the boardroom. Then, when the house of cards collapses in shambles, claim ignorance and best intentions.

Posted by: fcadmus on May 2, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Although integrating separate data streams isn't a strong suit around here, I hope everyone realizes that you can't carry "Plame's outing threatened our national security by allowing Iran to pursue nuclear weapons" and "Iran's nuclear program is not a threat to the U.S." around in the same bucket.

Sure you can, since "Iran with nuclear weapons" is not the same thing as "Iran is a threat to the US." A nuclear-armed Iran in ten years may be a regional threat, and may be a threat to Israel, but it is not necessarily a threat to the US -- at least, no more than Pakistan or North Korea may be, and the Bush regime doesn't seem too concerned about the fact that Pakistan or North Korea have nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Stefan on May 2, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Donny's awake. Can someone tend to the little boy down on the energy thread? I need to get back to work for awhile, and he's very colicky today.

Thanks.

Posted by: BB on May 2, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: My eyesight is weak. So tell me once again where in the original Raw Story article is the following sentence:

"Plame's outing threatened our national security by allowing Iran to pursue nuclear weapons"

Posted by: gregor on May 2, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz wrote: "Odds are good that he's simply repeating the RawStory information"

And you know this how, exactly? Of course, you have no idea what "the odds" are, which is why this statement is simply laughable.

"I hope everyone realizes that you can't carry 'Plame's outing threatened our national security by allowing Iran to pursue nuclear weapons' and 'Iran's nuclear program is not a threat to the U.S.' around in the same bucket."

Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that we are not advancing our own narrative? We are simply pointing out the gigantic and gaping holes in the Bush administration's narrative on Iran and on U.S. security -- holes which you have never even begun to acknowledge, much less seriously address. Do come back when you're ready to have a serious discussion, won't you?

Oh, and for the record, tbrosz, your glass house is far too fragile for you to toss such enormous stones. Your own narrative is that all of this Bush-bashing originates with a small cadre of CIA employees determined to discredit the Bush administration. And every story you read simply confirms that narrative, despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to support it.

Posted by: PaulB on May 2, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

I can understand the frustration of Rick Taylor and others with the media, but I really think we have the basic facts that we need. We know that GWBs top political staffers shamefully went after Joe Wilson and his wife for the purpose of revenge and, possibly, intimidation. Also, we know that it was contrary to our security interests whether its provably illegal or not. We should have already driven them from office.

A bigger problem is that too many Americans have no problem with this behavior. Bush is their guy and they demonstrate immaturity by supporting him no matter what for as long as possible.

Again, tbrosz, you trivialize the matter. If I had to guess your mind, I would most definitely guess that you have no problem with the behavior of Libby and Rove, youre just sorry they got caught. And when they first got caught, you likely attempted to cast doubt on the press coverage. Well, now we know, dont we?


Posted by: little ole jim from red country on May 2, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not concerned about Plame's outing in this context because I don't consider RawStory to be the word of God.

A standard pattern around here. Kevin pulls two lines out of something and says, "Hey, this isn't the strongest source, but isn't this interesting?" and five comments down the board it's not only an established iron-clad fact, but the most important issue of the year.

Posted by: tbrosz on May 2, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

As just demonstrated above, tbrosz is a liar of the lowest order, making up quotes that do not exist.

Posted by: gregor on May 2, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

I hope everyone realizes that you can't carry "Plame's outing threatened our national security by allowing Iran to pursue nuclear weapons" and "Iran's nuclear program is not a threat to the U.S." around in the same bucket.

Ooh, what a horrible logic trap! How about this:

It is obvious that when in the course of smearing their political opponents, if the White House compromises the CIA's ability to gather accurate intelligence on any of the many threats facing the US, they are endangering our national security. At the very least, this puts us all at risk because it enables a reckless and incompetent White House to wildly exaggerate and invent intelligence in order to justify sending our military off on a wild goose chase.

How's about that?

Posted by: theorajones on May 2, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, idiot as idiot does!!

Posted by: GOD on May 2, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Right, and if info in Raw Story turns out to be correct, the reporters who confirm it will not report it "just right", or they will "push the story a little further than they should have", and they will then, in turn be the issue.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on May 2, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

gregor:

The problem isn't your eyesight. You're not going to find that exact set of words.

The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, RAW STORY has learned.

...Their accounts suggest that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program.

By the way, where is that assessment?

Posted by: tbrosz on May 2, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

..because I don't consider RawStory to be the word of God.

Then why do you use a purported (non-existent) quote from Raw Story to support your position?

Posted by: gregor on May 2, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

gregor, because tbrosz is an idiot.

Posted by: GOD on May 2, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

xyz wrote: The press has trouble covering this story without admitting they were used like cheap whores.

Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Dinner: "Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew. But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"

Posted by: SecularAnimist on May 2, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

My cataloging scheme is getting overwhelmed. What's this, Bush administration fuck-up #43,872 or 43,873? It's awfully hard to keep track with these assholes....

Posted by: sglover on May 2, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

So again, what's going to be the Republican plan with regard to Iran nine years from now? "In the long run we'll all be dead" is bad enough in rightist theology, it's kind of ironic when dealing with nuclear foreign policy.


Posted by: Stefan on May 2, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

A standard pattern around here. Kevin posts an item about - anything - and, as if on cue, the trolls emerge from their cave and begin disinforming. Like the coming of Spring in the Arctic.

Posted by: adios on May 2, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

I think tbrosz comes here because it's a good place for the material with which to stitch together his strawmen. A verb from this post, an outraged spluttering from this one, a general sense of opposition from over here...

"Integrating seperate data streams" is certainly a strong suit of his! Although, of course, he does so in a partisan and dishonest fashion.

Anyhow... "I hope everyone realizes that you can't carry "Plame's outing threatened our national security by allowing Iran to pursue nuclear weapons" and "Iran's nuclear program is not a threat to the U.S." around in the same bucket."

Firstly, in your synthesis you seem to have left out the appropriate adjective before "threat", namely "immediate" or even "major". No one, aside from your strawmen, claims that Iran's nuclear program is not a threat at all.

Second, "Plame's outing threatened our national security by allowing Iran" and "Iran's nuclear program is not an immediate threat to the U.S." go really well together, because what us lefties in our inexplicable love for facts and reality would like is valid, empirical evidence about Iran's program before we take action.

I know your blind faith in Dear Leader obviates the need for any facts, but around these parts we rather value them.

Thus, given that Iran's program may be a threat, damaging our intelligence-gathering threatened our national security. Hell, it's like chocolate and peanut butter.

Posted by: S Ra on May 2, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

More than 1,000: total number of Drum's Plame/Rove posts.

Less than 5: total number of Drum's posts on Iran going nuclear.

Can you say "obsessed" ?

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on May 2, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Like the coming of Spring in the Arctic.

Yes. The Arctic Monkeys at their typewriters. I wonder how much they're paid?

Posted by: JJ on May 2, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

People! People! Refuse to argue with the voices in the head of tbrosz.

Posted by: gregor on May 2, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

I just posted it at my site because it's coming over in syndicated news pills on AM radio. If it's true (and why doubt it?) then it's a helluva story. If the Bush administration hadn't gotten away with so much already, I'd say it's the end of the road.

And another question is, who leaked it? (And what's the Administration planning for them?)

Posted by: PW on May 2, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Of course it was tucked in the middle of the story. That way, the paper and ink version is already on readers' driveways by the time the party censors find any uncomfortable truths.

Posted by: Nobody on May 2, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

One of the really cool things about aging is when you no longer have to sit in a classroom while the teacher tries to explain something to the tbrosz in the room. We've all been there. Aren't you glad you're not there today?

Posted by: serial catowner on May 2, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist. That was about the best of Cobert's remarks, and the comments that earned him the undying hatred of the Washington press corp. Bravo, Stephen Colbert.

Not a single serious reporter can be found in the entire White House press gang.

Posted by: Ron Byers on May 2, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Instead of heaping (deserved) abuse on Mr. tbrosz you all really should be looking at this and thinking about connections to Iran-Contra

You know, many of the same actors w/similar roles acting out similar behaviors

Probably a little too complicated/realistic to actually think about the possibilities

And just what WAS that deal President NoMind`s handlers made with those other folks ?

Follow the trail of evidence no matter where it leads

*sigh*

Not very likely to happen

"...The growth of state power is neither a caprice of history nor the fruit of "paganism." It is the consequence of the community's effort to protect itself against irresponsible economic power." - Reinhold Niebuhr

Posted by: daCascadian on May 2, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Can someone show me a Quote where the Terrorists say they hate us for our freedoms.Can someone show me where Iran has threatened us.Or where Iraq has threatened us.The only thing I have read says they hate us for our Policies toward Isreal.Isreal is threatened by these terrorists but not us. 911 happened because of Isreal not our freedoms.

Posted by: Booo on May 2, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Even the non-retired military generals are breaking ranks with King George in the run-up to this one:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/02/iran-general/

Posted by: JJ on May 2, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

I don't believe that Isreal is real.

Posted by: adios on May 2, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Is it common pratice for the spouses (Joe Wilson)of "covert" agents (Plame) to act like complete buffons on national TV, join political campaigns (Kerry, only to be fired), write misleading Op-Ed's in the country's most prominent paper, repeat lie after lie about a boondogle (arranged by said "covert" agent) in Niger, and be throroughly discredited by a Senate investigation committee all during a highly politically charged election season? Seems to me that a publicity whore like Joe Wilson didn't care too much about people asking who is wife was.

Posted by: BlaBlaBla on May 2, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Is it common pratice for the spouses (Joe Wilson)of "covert" agents (Plame) to act like complete buffons on national TV

Yeah, he was really annoying. Plus he uncovered our smokescreen of fabrications that were used a premise invade, conquer, and occupy another country. So to get revenge our elected officials should break the law, jeopardize national security, and then bomb the freaking country that she was working in (why get intelligence when you can just bomb/nuke/invade the country, anyway?)

Posted by: JJ on May 2, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Has anyone else noticed a seeming pattern in how the 'retired generals' became 'former generals' and now 'ex-generals'?

Posted by: cld on May 2, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Is BlaBla Somerby?

Is Niger a country where you would want to go on a junket?

Would you want to destroy your wife's career and then come home?

Just asking...

Seriously, whether or not Wilson is a media hound and a bit blow dried for some, how does that impact whether he was correct or not? Was there a Niger Deal yes / no?

And how does that in anyway invalidate the work his wife was doing?

Posted by: Samuel Knight on May 2, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

"And how does that in anyway invalidate the work his wife was doing?"

Who said it "invalidated" her work? I am simply saying that if your wife is a truly a covert agent, and you are truly worried about her identity being revealed, it might not be such a good idea to inject yourself as a political hack into a 24/7 media frenzy like a presidential election.

Posted by: BlaBlaBla on May 2, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Josh Marshall has this post,

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008345.php

about why the Washington press corps is so lame: they're being personally stalked and intimidated, usually on trivial issues, but stalked and intimidated nonetheless.

Does his correspondent have a breakdown of the evident political persuasion, liberal or conservative, of the people who are so judiciously doing this?

Posted by: cld on May 2, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Wilson is a showboater, even his defenders admit that. Who cares? GHWB loved the guy for his 'showboating' in Iraq and Africa, and for the lives it saved.

Being 'discredited by a Senate investigation committee' - given this Senate - is a virtual exoneration. Most of them (R) are practicing criminals, anyway.

Posted by: adios on May 2, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

The guy was already a public figure. He had already been on TV during Gulf War I. Bottom line: More people should have been speaking out about WMD intelligence. Perhaps the fact that they weren't was what drove him to write an Op-ed. Now what does this have to do with Rove and Co. breaking the law and risking national security?

Posted by: JJ on May 2, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

BlaBla,

As you well know, Joe Wilson had been a talking head before. And he waited until after the war to speak out. At a time when it was wildly unpopular to do so, a time when the President's ratings were still sky high.

So why did he? JJ's theory is probably valid: he spoke up because no-one else had. And because he knew in this case that the country had been mis-led. And he figured maybe that the administration would fight fair - and not blow an intelligence agent's cover in a political fight.

He was clearly wrong to think so, but heck most of the country thought that there was no way in G*d's earth that a President would mislead a country about a matter of life and death.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on May 2, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

I am simply saying that if your wife is a truly a covert agent, and you are truly worried about her identity being revealed, it might not be such a good idea to inject yourself as a political hack into a 24/7 media frenzy like a presidential election.

Interesting theory, that Ambassador Wilson should not have revealed the truth because he should have known that Rove would have betrayed national security by revealing his wife's identity.

Or, in simpler terms, Wilson is to blame because he should have known that Rove is a low-life traitor who will put his partisan politics over his duty to his country. It's sort of government by Mafia: if you talk, we'll hurt you, and that'll be your fault.

Posted by: Stefan on May 2, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's the contrast that bugs 'em. No one in the administration (or in the Republican caucus or conservative think tanks, for that matter) ever just gets up there and tells the truth. So Wilson kind of stands out, the showboater! Oh, and Colbert too. Gosh, and Howard Dean, come to think of it... Must be a disease of the left.

Posted by: PW on May 2, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Simple.

If you want to make money selling commodities like oil, you want the prices to go up. And when the middle east is unstable, prices go up. And when you invade countries, the middle east is unstable. And when you eliminate nonproliferation efforts, you get justification for invading countries.

This is precisely why:
You do not elect oilmen president.
You do not give presidents unlimited power with no oversight.

If you do these things, you deserve what you get.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on May 2, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK
If you want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and therefore improve our national security situation, you can't do it if you're a Republican because you are too wedded to the oil companies.

We have two oilmen in the White House. the logical follow-up from that is $3 a gallon gasoline. There is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect.

~N. Pelosi

Posted by: adios on May 2, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

This just in: the documents Dan Rather submitted in order to discredit GW's military service may not be authentic.

(We're going to get this guy even if it does mean losing the '08 election. We'll show him)

Posted by: Jay on May 2, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't realize Jimmy Carter was an oil man. Afterall, I guess that would have to be the case if you buy into what brain-dead Nancy says considering the gas embargo, sky high gas prices and long lines in the 70's. Carter must have made a mint off of that.

Posted by: Jay on May 2, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Samuel Knight: "Seriously, whether or not Wilson is a media hound and a bit blow dried for some, how does that impact whether he was correct or not?"

Perhaps Joe Wilson would be far more credible to BlaBlaBla, et al., if he used peroxide to bleach-blond his hair, like Paula Zahn of CNN, Rita Cosby of MSNBC, and John Gibson of FOX News.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on May 2, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, where is Silent Bob? I'd rather he were here instead of you. At least he's smart enough to keep his trap shut most of the time, unlike you.

Posted by: GOD on May 2, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Brain-Dead-Jay:

she said 1) the Prez & VP were oilmen - true (Bush, more of a dry-oilman), 2) that they & their party was 'wedded' to Big Oil (totally), so 3) high prices were no accident. WTF does that have to do with the oil embargo of the late 70s? Also, you forgot to blame Clinton's penis.

Posted by: adios on May 2, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

WTF does that have to do with the oil embargo of the late 70s?

A lot if you are brain dead.

Posted by: gregor on May 2, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

I would say I find this shocking except I had pretty much assumed something like this once she was outed would prove out to be the case.

As for the Trolletariat argument about how Plame is not or could not be covert because her husband is a public figure (or as they like to call it a showboater), all that shows is how poorly these people understand cover. If anything this was great cover since usually one does not expect public figures and/or their spouses as being covert intelligence operatives. Indeed, thanks to Plame's cover being blown this entire category of useful possible covers has been destroyed. The ONLY way this claim makes any sense is if you assume that because her husband was being a critic of the current Administration that she would be considered a fair target to use to try and discredit him with, notwithstanding her classified CIA connections. As Stefan noted that only makes sense if you assume the WH people are willing to place their narrow partisan political interests above the national security of America, which while being the belief of many Dems is not the usual belief of Bush defenders, so watching Bush defenders doing so demonstrates just how much they will say ANYTHING to try and defend Dear Leader no matter how nonsensical AND clearly relying on precepts you know the person advancing the argument does not believe.

People used to think I was too harsh in classifying tbrosz as Trolletariat, why do I get the feeling that is no longer the case these days?

For me the scandal of Bushco outing Plame showing the clear hypocrisy on nuclear threats was clear almost three years ago, in other words right from the outset of her being identified as a nuclear proliferation expert. For an Administration to out the wife of a critic that was a NOC dealing in tracking nuclear proliferation put the lie to any claims of concern about nuclear proliferation by this Administration. It is nice that Kevin Drum is finally catching up to that POV, if more than a little late in coming to it.

The degree of betrayal of America's national security and the assets needed to maintain it was stunning from day one. For me one of the best pieces of evidence that the MSM is not treating this Presidency at all the same as the predecessor Administration has been the repeated unwillingness to look into this story and doing everything possible to minimize it a la Woodward. He in particular is someone that as far as I am concerned completely disgraced and destroyed himself when it turned out he was a knowing player in this after all the denigrations he made towards this prosecutor and even the idea that there was ever a case here to begin with, and if somehow the WH did out her it was unintended/accidental. Why this man is allowed to have anything to do with news or to be considered a reliable informed commentator on any channel other than FOXNEWS is beyond my comprehension.

Posted by: Scotian on May 2, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

This kind of circular credibility enhancement is not uncommon.

As, for example, when Judy Miller and the Pentagon both quoted the same bogus material at each other to whip up war fever. Shame on you, tbrosz.

Posted by: Gregory on May 2, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

I hope everyone realizes that you can't carry "Plame's outing threatened our national security by allowing Iran to pursue nuclear weapons" and "Iran's nuclear program is not a threat to the U.S." around in the same bucket.

Sheesh, tbrosz, do you ever get tired of straw man arguments? Plame's outing -- by your cherished Bush Administration, let's recall -- threatened our national security by denying us intelligence on just what the hell is going on with Iran's nuclear program and preventing a rational assessment of whatever threat it may pose.

Of course, a rational assessment of Iran's nuclear threat isn't what the Bush Administration wants. Their actions, and your staunch and dishonest defense of same, is just more evidence you can't trust Republicans with national security. Shame on you, tbrosz.

Posted by: Gregory on May 2, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

More on Wilson and the WMD's: How many people besides Wilson would have been A) high profile enough to have gotten a credible listen by the press B) would have had the inside knowledge on all the outrageous goings-on at the CIA (very well documented in countless news stories & books at this point) and C) had the cajones to speak up about it? It's not hard to figure out why Wilson would have come forward, despite his wife's status as the head of a deep cover corporation. There was no one else likely to come forward.

Posted by: JJ on May 2, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: "I didn't realize Jimmy Carter was an oil man. Afterall, I guess that would have to be the case if you buy into what brain-dead Nancy says considering the gas embargo, sky high gas prices and long lines in the 70's. Carter must have made a mint off of that."

When Jimmy Carter succeeded to the presidency on January 20, 1977, the "gas embargo, sky high gas prices and long lines in the 70's" you cite were already well-accomplished facts of American life, having been borne out during the administrations of his two GOP predecessors, Gerald Ford (1974-77) and Richard Nixon (1969-74).

But then, you probably didn't know that President Ford's chief of staff was none other than our current Vice President, Dick Cheney. Or that Ford's second defense secretary (after he fired Nixon administration holdover James Schlesinger in 1975) was none other than --ta-ta-da-DAAAHHHH! -- our current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld!

That's just a re-mark--able coincidence, isn't it?

Judging by the apparent width, breadth and depth of your particular historical knowledge, I would certainly argue that it's probably not the next Speaker of the United States House of Representatives who appears to be "brain-dead", dude.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on May 2, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, Jay, Carter took office in late January, 1977, a little too late to stop the energy crises of 1974.

I guess you expected him to take office, eliminate OPEC, and re-vamp the petroleum-based world economy pronto.

Many people predicted his political death when he became the first President who dared take on the oil companies.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on May 2, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: "Plame's outing threatened our national security by allowing Iran to pursue nuclear weapons"

No... Plame's outing threatened our national security by hurting nuclear counter-proliferation efforts. That includes Iran. Fortunately much of the work that got us this far with Iran appears to have been accomplished before Plame was outed and Brewester Jennings dismantled. (Khan's network was also well on the way to being completely rolled up.)

That Iran had a covert program of some type was a foregone conclusion at least five months before Plame was outed. Iran publicly declared its fuel enrichment program to the IAEA in February 2003. Maybe Iran thought it could keep it contained and didn't realize how many cracks in the story IAEA inspection and analysis would produce (e.g., the inspections and analysis that ultimately revealed centrifuges of foreign origin).

Plame and other Brewester Jennings employees were reported to have some contact with the IAEA, or IAEA personnel. While reprting is thin, it would be no surprise, espcially for a nuclear counter-proliferation effort. Nor would it be a surprise if the IAEA inspectors and analysts had a bit of help knowing where to look, what to look for, and what they were seeing--the IAEA is very thin on weapons and weaponization expertise. Which would allow the public revelations and continued poking and prodding to come from evidence and analysis by the IAEA.

In short: Idiots in the White House have threated our national security by torpedoing nuclear counter-proliferation efforts.

Posted by: has407 on May 2, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

Jimmy Carter epitomizes that old description of a Republican as a "worshipper of dead Democrats." No, he's not dead yet (glad for that) but as time passes, the foresight and candor he brought to many issues stands in stark contrast to the white trash running things today.

His energy addresses are a fine example; they could have been written last week (if we had a functioning Presidency).

Posted by: adios on May 2, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK
Their accounts suggest that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program.

By the way, where is that assessment?
Posted by: tbrosz on May 2, 2006 at 2:10 PM


How is this for a starter:

1 - By outing Plame, the bush administration also outed her cover company: Brewster Jennings.

2 - By outing Brewster Jennings, any competant, awake, counter-intelligence agency knows who else was a CIA asset at that company. Answer: treat them all as spies, just to be sure. Since they are not covered by diplomatic immunity (they are illegals), they may be arrested and imprisoned, or merely deported as "undesirables."

3 - By outing Plame, the bush administration showed that it was willing to deliberately and intentionally burn every person who willingly supplied the US with intelligence. Those people would be imprisoned and probably executed for betraying their homeland. As a result, it will be harder in the future for the US to recruit willing informants. Who in their right mind would willingly supply the US with information, if the US was willing to betray them this time? Even people who weren't involved with the Plame/Brewster Jennings betrayal would, for their own safety, break off contact with other US agents. I predict this angle to be advertised in unfriendly countries (to the US) as a method for discouraging future, potential informants for the US.

4 - By outing Plame, any competant, awake, counter-intelligence agency would have analysed and backtracked every single person Plame had contact with in their country. Make those people disappear as examples to the rest (word on the street is that between 50 and 150 "assets" have vanished, which means dead). If you have a security clearance, you're required to notify your security office if you've been approached by foreigners. Other countries do similar things.

5 - By observing the persons, places and things that Plame was interested in, any competant, awake, counter-intelligence agency would learn what the CIA knew of their WMD programs. By subtracting that from what the counter-intelligence agency knew about their own country's WMD programs, they know what the CIA didn't know. Programs that the CIA were unaware of? Do more of that. Programs that the CIA were aware of? Get rid of them, or turn them into honeypots to trap future CIA assets (or to become dummy targets for the US to waste "smart bombs" on).

6 - Perform steps #4 & 5 for each other person working for Brewster Jennings.

7 - Any awake, competant, counter-intelligence agency would look at Brewster Jennings to see how that company was established, what cover stories were used, what funding and contracts for "business" existed. They would then use that profile to look for any other companies matching that profile, and would discover several other CIA undercover companies. They would have learned the CIA's recipe for setting up non-operational covers.

8 - Then, repeat steps 3-6 for those companies discovered in #7.

By outing Plame, and Brewster Jennings, the bush administration blew at least one decade's work in counter-WMD efforts. And set back future HUMINT operations by many years, as the CIA has to come up with a new recipe for setting up NOCs and their cover companies (my guess is that every NOC set up since the Reagan administration has been compromised, and about 10 years before new NOCs will provide useful intelligence). All to score points and discredit Wilson for uncovering their Yellowcake Forgeries.

From the complaints from the rightwingers, it looks like Iran disassembled and hid programs that Brewster Jennings were aware of, and interested in. As a result, America has no clue where to drop "bunker busters." And any remaining facilities other than large unmovable ones, like the reactors at Bushehr, would be potemkin sites: empty except for some guys with guns to arrest/shoot anyone walking in the door. Or maybe just enough traffic in/out to make the target planners in the US believe that the bad stuff is there, so as to cause "smart" bombs to be wasted on dummies.

If you think making honeypots to trap future spies is baloney, the Baikonur Cosmodrome (the Soviet Union's space center) was named for a town ~200 miles away. Anyone arriving in the town named Baikonur and asking where the space center was, well, they're a spy, so shoot them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikonur_cosmodrome

By awake, competant counter-intelligence agency, I am not singling any country out. Every country that Plame visited has, by now, been checked by those country's counter-intelligence agencies. Even if those countries are currently friendly towards the US, the bush administration could turn on them next week, so those countries would have performed such analysis.

Even our "allies" would have performed such an analysis, if only to learn what assets of their's might be lost, or compromised by bush's betrayal. And such an analysis will probably be assigned to new counter-intelligence agents as a homework exercise.

Posted by: Peter on May 2, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

Peter: good post.

Unfortunately, the Carl Rove's of the world seem to see themselves as "at war" with Democrats if you can believe that. The Rovian mindset is not only politics uber alles, but that our governmental institutions literally cannot be trusted. Thus, CIA agents are expendable. The State Department is expendable in their view.

Re-electing Bush was comparable to General Motors extending the contract of a CEO who did not "believe" in the validity of GM's entire corps of engineers. He goes out and hires his own special unit of "ideologue" engineers who have no particular experience or successful track record, but they tell him what he wants to hear about hybrids.

Go figure.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on May 2, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

Peter:

Very nicely structured post, unfortunately these points have been made to tbrosz and the other deniers of anything wrong done by Bushco in this matter many times over the last couple of years by myself and others with a real understanding of the intelligence community. So it will not do any good there, but it still was a very nicely written post and assessment of the damages done by first outing Plame herself and then the follow-up outing of Brewster Jennings and associates. What really gets on my nerves are all these so called security experts here when it comes to defending anything Bushco does in the name of national security demonstrate not only their partisanship but their complete ignorance of the security implications of outing a NOC and her cover business and the intelligence world generally.

It never matters to these people what the facts are, just the politics of the issue and how best to support/defend Bush and the GOP and/or to do any and all possible damage to anyone not of the GOP, especially the Dems but more broadly anyone left of the GOP as weak-kneed untrustworthy potential traitors. Thank you though for trying to present a serious sober and clearly informed opinion on the minimum damages the outing of Plame and BJ&a would have to leave in its wake, and your assessment is the minimum damage done, there may well be aspects/damages we have not the clearances to know about.

Posted by: Scotian on May 2, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Peter - that is the best analysis of the possible damage outing Valerie Plame has done (and will do) that I have ever seen. Nice, nice job.

Posted by: EmmaAnne on May 2, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Peter -- Nicely done.

tbrosz -- As to an assessment, maybe you should let your representatives know that you support Senator Lautenberg's request to Porter Goss for exactly that.

Posted by: has407 on May 2, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, I know it is wasted on the bushderangementsquad. The day that one of us stops replying to bds, then they'll claim to have won the issue. Because arguing with tborez and his sort is like the parrot skit from Monty Python.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm

Tborez and his ilk are engaging in a form of "dogmatic fallacy"
1 - If you have evidence against bush, then you are evil.
2 - If you have evidence against bush, then your evidence is wrong.
3 - The bush that you have evidence against is not the TrueBush.
4 - If you have evidence against bush, then you have the other bushderangementsyndrome, and are evil/deluded.
5 - If you have evidence against bush, then you misunderstood what bush/fleisher said.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DogmaticFallacy

Kevin, if you want to clean it up and post it somewhere yourself, feel free.

Posted by: Peter on May 2, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

One other bit of trivia, reported before, but of note...

Based on the report of Wilson's trip to Niger, the Iraqi attempt to acquire yellowcake is predicated on an arguably ambiguous interpretation of the statement "expanding commercial relations" made in 1999 (SSCI report pg. 43).

Yet in the next paragraph appears the following clear and unambiguous statement, also from the report on Wilson's trip:

[Mia Manga, former Niger Minister for Energy and Mines] said that an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998, but said that no contract was ever signed with Iran.
Discounting Iran looks to be the flip side of hyping Iraq.

Posted by: has407 on May 2, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Peter-
Thanks for succinctly explaining that.
You make it sound as if the outing was in fact a means of providing aid and comfort to ALL enemies of the USA. Intentionally or no, that seems to have been the result.

Oh well.
At least we never joined the International Criminal Court. Which means capital punishment is still on the table.
That isn't something I am normally OK with, but in this case I'll make an exception.
It'd be interesting to see a Republican Congress scrambling to do away with the death penalty.

Posted by: kenga on May 2, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Alot of times I look to the past, as habit from days gone by, to lookup instead of remember, things change, even in history.
Food for thought, Parallel thunk.
~~~~~~~~~
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations fashioned a complex scheme of annual visits to Dimona to ensure that Israel would not develop nuclear weapons. But the Israelis were adept at concealing their activities. By late 1966, Israel had reached the nuclear threshold, although it decided not to conduct an atomic test.

By the time Prime Minister Levi Eshkol visited President Lyndon B. Johnson in January 1968, the official State Department view was that despite Israel's growing nuclear weapons potential, it had "not embarked on a program to produce a nuclear weapon." That assessment, however, eroded in the months ahead. By the fall, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul C. Warnke concluded that Israel had already acquired the bomb when Israeli Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin explained to him how he interpreted Israel's pledge not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region. According to Rabin, for nuclear weapons to be introduced, they needed to be tested and publicly declared.
~~
NPT Word Play. but as you see the 'Bomb' has been aroound for quite a while

Posted by: Mach Tuck on May 2, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Peter,

Bob Woodward reported an assesment had been done and the conclusion was no harm had been done. The small little cover companies are a dime a dozen.

Posted by: rdw on May 2, 2006 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

Based on the report of Wilson's trip to Niger, the Iraqi attempt to acquire yellowcake is predicated on an arguably ambiguous interpretation of the statement "expanding commercial relations" made in 1999

Wilsons trip was informal. He wasn't asked and didn't file a written report or take any oath of confidentiality. There wasn't anything ambigious about Iraq interest being anything other than yellowcake. Niger had no other products of interest to Saddam Hussein. The fact Wilson uncovered this tidbit was never seen a proof of anything butit was the 1st time the CIA actually thought there could be something to the rumor.

Wilson reported he told the CIA nothing happened. He lied. He said no such thing. He knew the CIA would be interested in his information and he knew why.

Posted by: rdw on May 2, 2006 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

rdw -- He was debriefed orally and a report filed, as documented in the SSCI report. Go fish.

Posted by: has407 on May 2, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

Bob Woodward reported an assesment had been done and the conclusion was no harm had been done.

Well, we'll have to see if Frank Lautenburg gets blocked in his attempt to get the facts:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/New_Jersey_senator_calls_on_CIA_0502.html

Posted by: JJ on May 2, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

I'd really like to know why and how Woodward seems to know and can speak to the fact that "They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed." Yet no one else seems to know or hint of such or its findings--including our elected representatives.

Moreover, Fitzgerald's response to Libby's discovery filings states, "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilsons status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document.

Woodward might have been referring to a more immediate assessment; a "formal" assessment might take longer, but if done should have been completed some time ago. (IIRC the Aldrich Ames assessment took about 18 months.) In any case, someone should peg Woodward on the matter.

Posted by: has407 on May 2, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

rdw's attacks on Joseph Wilson illustrate how pathetic the right-wing in America has become:

A respected diplomat risks his life to go on a fact-finding mission of grave importance to this country, comes home and tells the truth (i.e. debunks the lies being spread by a corrupt administration) and is relentlessly attacked and his wife's career ended to silence him.

What a pathetic, unAmerican group of people rdw and his ilk are....

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on May 3, 2006 at 7:51 AM | PERMALINK

Man that's good crazy.

Posted by: Birkel on May 3, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

"Bob Woodward reported an assesment had been done and the conclusion was no harm had been done. The small little cover companies are a dime a dozen."

Posted by: rdw on May 2, 2006 at 8:23 PM

Yes, and we also know that for the entire time that Woodward was offering his opinion on this story from when it broke until late last year he claimed he had no first hand information in the matter, something clearly false. Woodward indeed went out of his way to hide both his direct knowledge of senior Administration figures leaking Plame's name and profession and that this gave him a reason to discredit the idea anything wrong had occurred. He called Fitzgerald an out of control prosecutor abusing his powers when he subpoenaed journalists to find out whether there was a leak to them from the WH about Wilson's wide, something we thanks to that compelled testimony we know is true and also appears to have been the idea that the press would not give them up gave Libby and possibly Rove the idea they could get away with lying to the grand jury about their contacts with these reporters and what they told them in this matter.

It is also remarkable how well versed and knowledgeable you are about how the CIA sets up business covers for their NOCs, which goes to prove you are talking from your posterior. If you had the clearances to know this you would also be bound to maintain the secrets involved, so you do not know this for yourself and you are clearly believing what a source you trust/find credible, which if it is Woodward only further shows that your ability to assess credibility is kaput. Woodward has very dirty hands on his behaviour over this issue since it first broke, especially with his denigrating the prosecutor and any basis for investigation despite his knowing firsthand that the WH actually was shopping Plame's name around as a means to discredit/rebut Wilson's public critiques of the Bush nuclear weapons claims on Iraq.

Isn't it amazing how reporters that act to support this WH are not members of the liberal media? Isn't it amazing how being in the bag for this WH is seen by the trolletariat as evidence of being fair and balanced reporters as opposed to being clearly biased and unprofessional reporters by taking sides, something they decry when the side taken favours the Dems/left or any of their agendas which is the basis for their spin that there is a liberal dominated/controlled media. Got to love the moral relativism being practiced here, not that it is any shock given that this GOP Congress and Presidency are the very definition of moral relativism

Posted by: Scotian on May 3, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

tborzs; This kind of circular credibility enhancement is not uncommon.


not uncommon at all....

best example recently...

cheney to libby to judy miller to the nytimes to cheney on meet the press saying look its in the nytimes

Posted by: thisspacevailable on May 3, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

It is also remarkable how well versed and knowledgeable you are about how the CIA sets up business covers for their NOCs.


Anyone can set up a corporation. It's very easy and very cheap.

Posted by: rdw on May 3, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

comes home and tells the truth (i.e. debunks the lies being spread by a corrupt administration)

sleezy Joe risked nothing and lied through his teeth. I was Joe who reported to the CIA Iraq had been sniffing around about a few trade opportunities. It wasn't until Joe gave his oral report the CIA was even interested. He didn't prove anything. He obviously didn't disabuse anything. He suggested something had happened.

Give the sleezeball credit. He's become a wealthy man manipulating liberal hatred.

Posted by: rdw on May 3, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

I'd really like to know why and how Woodward seems to know and can speak to the fact that "They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed." Yet no one else seems to know or hint of such or its findings--including our elected representatives.

Maybe because we see stories in the media EVERY DAY that are the result of CIA leaks. It's become a partisan political organization useless for it's original purpose. Clintion knew exactly what he was donig in keeping the CIA director out of the WH.

Posted by: rdw on May 3, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

rdw -- He was debriefed orally and a report filed, as documented in the SSCI report. Go fish.

What is your point? I said sleezy joe never even filed a written report. That's a fact. Joe never put work one on paper to the CIA and then lied through his teeth in the paper.

Posted by: rdw on May 3, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

I read that information about Valerie Plames "job" over two years ago from several reliable sources. Nobody picked it up them either.

Posted by: Sandy on May 4, 2006 at 3:40 AM | PERMALINK

Wait a sec, we're losing context here. 1) No WMD's were found. 2) There's been reams of reports on cherry picking of WMD evidence. 3) There's been reams of reports on manhandling and botching of intelligence processes at the CIA and elsewhere (see Lawrence Wilkerson and Tyler Drumheller). 4) You have to go back to the sinking of the Battleship Maine to find a more contrived and trumped-up casus belli. 5) The botching of the post-war further demonstrated that heads were firmly up respective alimentary canals and locked.

And Joe Wilson is the sleezy one? Does Fox News give you secret messages on how to get the stuff you obviously smoke on a regular basis?

Posted by: JJ on May 4, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

It is also remarkable how well versed and knowledgeable you are about how the CIA sets up business covers for their NOCs.


Anyone can set up a corporation. It's very easy and very cheap.
Posted by: rdw on May 3, 2006 at 7:46 PM

Yes, anyone can set up a corporation that is not acting as a cover front for an intelligence agency very easily. Doing so that it will pass the scrutiny of other intelligence agencies and other potential opponents though is a bit more difficult and generally far more costly. If you actually knew anything about the intelligence sector and how it works you would understand this so yet again you demonstrate your understanding of this matter comes entirely from your anal region and not from anything remotely resembling informed opinion/knowledge.

Posted by: Scotian on May 4, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly