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

September 5, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

WHAT VALERIE PLAME DID....I've been relatively quiet on the Valerie Plame front for the past year or so. Aside from Scooter Libby's indictment there hasn't been an awful lot of news, and what news there has been got picked over so thoroughly by the blogosphere's resident Plameologists that there wasn't much left to ruminate about over here.

However, after three years of guesswork from thousands of people about exactly what it was that Valerie Plame Wilson did at the CIA, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that David Corn has finally told us. It turns out that she didn't just work on WMD issues, she worked specifically on Iraqi WMD:

In 1997 [Wilson] returned to CIA headquarters and joined the Counterproliferation Division....She was eventually given a choice: North Korea or Iraq. She selected the latter. Come the spring of 2001, she was in the CPD's modest Iraq branch. But that summer before 9/11 word came down from the brass: We're ramping up on Iraq. Her unit was expanded and renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Within months of 9/11, the JTFI grew to fifty or so employees. Valerie Wilson was placed in charge of its operations group.

There was great pressure on the JTFI to deliver. Its primary target was Iraqi scientists. JTFI officers, under Wilson's supervision, tracked down relatives, students and associates of Iraqi scientists in America and abroad looking for potential sources. They encouraged Iraqi migrs to visit Iraq and put questions to relatives of interest to the CIA. The JTFI was also handling walk-ins around the world. Increasingly, Iraqi defectors were showing up at Western embassies claiming they had information on Saddam's WMDs. JTFI officers traveled throughout the world to debrief them.

So that's whose cover Robert Novak, Richard Armitage, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and God knows who else blew. The woman who was in charge of the entire CIA team trying to locate Saddam's WMD.

Of course, this also sheds some light on why Dick Cheney and the entire White House crew seemed so interested in discrediting Wilson: because her team didn't find anything. Cheney was visiting Langley, writing memos, demanding answers, and just generally obsessing over Iraqi WMD programs, and it was Valerie Wilson's team that was failing to find what he wanted. I think it's safe to say that he was displeased with Wilson and her team, and it stretches the imagination to think that this had nothing to do with the White House pushback against her husband's relatively innocuous op-ed about his trip to Niger.

Is there more to the story? Corn and his partner, Michael Isikoff, appear to be metering out their reporting for maximum possible book exposure, so there might be more to come. Stay tuned.

Kevin Drum 11:59 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (87)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Kevin is just making things up. I would take everything Corn says with a huge grain of salt. Especially since the Wilson's are probably his principal sources.

Why does Corn get to publish this information without an uproar about someone leaking classified information?

Posted by: brian on September 6, 2006 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

Why does Corn get to publish this information without an uproar about someone leaking classified information?

Well, you can congratulate yourself on starting the uproar, I guess. Either way, unlike the original leaks by the administration, this one seems intend to expose, rather than suppress, the truth.

Posted by: dj moonbat on September 6, 2006 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

Her Iraq portfolio is an unexpected new fact that adds a totally new dimension to the matter, I think. I used to scoff at the notion that she was outed to punish her personally, not just Wilson. But they could very well have been trying to ruin her career for not being sufficiently compliant with Cheney's demands for fake WMD intelligence.

Posted by: grytpype on September 6, 2006 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

I wonder how Byron York will reply. WMDs? That's so last century! Didn't you know we invaded Iraq on 3/19/2003 as this was the day after Pearl Harbor (OK - over a a year after 9/11 but what's the difference). WMDs had nothing to do with Bush's need to declare WWIII. Seriously Kevin - don't you know Karl Rove is only 60 days from his next election?

Posted by: pgl on September 6, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

This stinks of faith based political thinking. A conviction at The White House that Iraq had WMD's would naturally lead to their believing that the CIA was either incompetant or deliberately undermining their leadership. "nailing those bastards to the wall" would easily become a top priority.

Their faith in their rightousness is their biggest fault.

Posted by: joe on September 6, 2006 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

This is interesting, if true. How does it affect: (1) the issue of her role in Wilson going to Niger; and (2) his decision to publish in the New York Times.

If she was such a big deal in the Iraqi group with the CIA, isn't it logical to think she played a significant role in sending her husband to Niger and doesn't her husband look like an idiot from bringing attention to himself on the issue?

I wonder if this is a situation where Corn and the Wilson's can claim anything they want, because the CIA will never confirm or deny it, and the blogs/insiders/cable TV debate will not produce any resolution.

Posted by: brian on September 6, 2006 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

No, Brian, it's not logical to think that a significant role in the CIA's Iraq group somehow means Plame sent her husband to Niger. Those are separate points. You conflate them because your partisanship is the only logic you obey.

Posted by: walt on September 6, 2006 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

Thomas, idiot, she was not only covert, she was NOC. Please shove your dirty lies back up your prolapsed rectum where they came from.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on September 6, 2006 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

Of course, this also sheds some light on why Dick Cheney and the entire White House crew seemed so interested in discrediting Wilson: because her team didn't find anything.

Yawn Kevin. Even the liberal Washington Post admitted it was Joe Wilson's fault that his wife's career has been destroyed.

Link

"Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."

Posted by: Al on September 6, 2006 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

If she was such a big deal in the Iraqi group with the CIA, isn't it logical to think she played a significant role in sending her husband to Niger and doesn't her husband look like an idiot from bringing attention to himself on the issue?

No, assclown, because the CIA, as well as most other civil jobs is stacked with regulations forbidding such conflicts of interest.

Of course, it's the CONSERVATIVES who are trying to privatize everything, and get rid of these rules so they can turn civil service into a good-old-boy scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours federal patronage system.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on September 6, 2006 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

Look, if it is true that she was a big deal at the CIA on Iraq, it raises suspisions about ALL the following: (1) the disclosure by White House officials that she worked at the CIA; (2) her role in sending Wilson to Niger; and (3) Wilson's judgment in writing the NYT piece.

It also does not seem to fit with the rest of the story, so my guess is that Corn's claim is not true. How could it have been kept under wraps for so long with all the attention drawn by the case? Shouldn't Joe Wilson now blast Corn for publishing secret information that might hurt national security?

Posted by: brian on September 6, 2006 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

Yawn...Kevin the only person responsible for the leak has been...Armitage. Not those other kids you mentioned (Cheney, Rove, Bushhitler...). This nonsense that it was a bush conspiracy has been totally unfounded. And ludicrous. I thought that Bush was an idiot, anyway. And I thought that Rove was a mastermind?
You are so biased! Gimme a break.

Posted by: bj on September 6, 2006 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK

She was a NOC. See Larry Johnson; actual CIA agent who knew Val Plame.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on September 6, 2006 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

Wow. 9 out of the first 17 comments are from traitor-defending, weak-on-national-security trolls.

Must be worried.

Posted by: Foundation of Mud on September 6, 2006 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

Foundation,

Hard to see why repubicans would be worried about this, since Fitzgerald apparently is not brining charges against anyone on the "leak" and the MSM apparently has moved on. But it remains a very interesting story/mystery.

Posted by: brian on September 6, 2006 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

Mrs. Wilson was in charge of the "entire" Iraq WMD team? That would be news, but I need more than Kevin's interpretation to make it so.

Posted by: Renny on September 6, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

The whole point of Fitz's investigation was triggered when someone violated their SF-312. Either the information that Plame worked at the CIA was classified or it was not. The CIA asked for an investigation. It wasn't because she was a janitor.

Did you even read Fitz's findings? He said that a violation occurred, but he was unable to obtain enough evidence because LIBBY LIED. Remember? Sand being thrown in the umpire's eyes? And Rove had to go back and add testamony 3 times, because he was parsing his words and evading as much as he could to avoid being proven guilty. And every step of the way, the Cheney administration obstructed, blocked, and fought Fitzgerald from getting the information he needed, and was lawfully entitled to show to his grand jury.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on September 6, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin - Joe Wilson made you out to be a fool. You spent months on this case, whipping yourself into a fenzy about Rove being "frog-marched" to jail. And the whole drama is ending in nothing more than a wimper. Can you admit Joe Wilson played you for a fool?

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on September 6, 2006 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

"So that's whose cover Robert Novak, Richard Armitage, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and God knows who else blew. The woman who was in charge of the entire CIA team trying to locate Saddam's WMD."

And if this is true, this adds another nasty smell to the whole affair. We all know that Bush and his gang were not at all satisfied with the intelligence on Iraq, especially the tidbits about WMDs. Instead of accepting that they were hunting a phantom, they suspected the CIA was blocking and sabotaging their case. If Plame was in charge of the WMD team, she didn't make any friends in the administration with her insistence to stay with the truth. Another reason for the neocon mafia to get rid of her.

Posted by: Gray on September 6, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

"Can you admit Joe Wilson played you for a fool?"

Can you admit you're totally detached from reality, 'Frequency'?

Posted by: Gray on September 6, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

The new twist really makes things interesting--is it possible that she was the actual target of the Shooter payback and her husband just offered a convenient cover? That would be ironic, wouldn't it?

Posted by: buck turgidson on September 6, 2006 at 4:11 AM | PERMALINK

Don't recall where I read it, but have been aware for well over a year that Plame was deeply involved in WMD Iran. Didn't know she had supvisory responsibility.

I have always felt Cheney wanted her out of the way b/c she had too much knowledge of Iran.

Posted by: Chief on September 6, 2006 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

Message to all the Republican trolls....The CIA requested an investigation because they believed national security was compromised so badly that something had to be done. Instead of cooperating with the investigation, the Administration dragged it's feet and Libby was indicted as a result. All of these trolls have become what they are defending....Americans who put individuals before the good of their party and their party before the good of their country.

Posted by: plane on September 6, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know if this report is true, but, if it is, it seems impossible to believe that Cheney and Libby did not know who she was. That would seem to contradict the idea that they thought she was some low-level analyst at the CIA.

Posted by: map on September 6, 2006 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

Thomas1:

Turf war smurf war. Are you now going to suggest that the justice department investigated because they were taking sides in the turf war? You're contorting. We now know she was a department head at the CIA working on Iraqi WMD...but for you she might as well have been a janitor......how do you say "Party before country" in latin?

Posted by: plane on September 6, 2006 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

I'm wonderin' how many of the trolls on this thread are in the employ of the Rendon Group...

Posted by: Wonderin on September 6, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

She was in charge of an area he was intensely interested in. I have to believe her name came up in the reports being sent to the Vice President from the CIA if she was the person in charge of putting the information together. Again, I don't know if any of this is true (it seems like it would have come out before this), but it seems like both Cheney and Libby would have tried to find out who was in charge of sending them information they thought was so off-base. Seems like a natural question to ask.

Posted by: map on September 6, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

libby's ongoing prosecution means results from a cia damage assessment would not be released until the trial....

anything less would be...well...

unamerican....

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 6, 2006 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

Map and Thomas1:

Of course they knew who she was....that's the heart of this whole thing. As a result of her husband's op ed, they sought to destroy her by knowingly and willfully revealing her identity as a CIA operative to Matt Cooper, Judith Miller, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Bob Woodward and Robert Novak. The revelation that Novak's original source was Armitage does not exhonerate the White House from CONFIRMING her identity through Rove and Libby. This was a concerted effort for political payback and it's despicable.

Posted by: plane on September 6, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

plane:

I'm not sure about this, but isn't part of Cheney and Libby's defense in all of this been that they DIDN'T know who Plame was before they became aware of Wilson talking about his trip? I don't know if they testified to not knowing her identity, but it's news to me that they could have reasonably known Plame's identity before.

Thomas1:

No, Cheney would not know the CIA section-heads for Albania or Outer Mongolia, but I think it's quite possible he inquired about who was in charge of finding out the information about Iraq's WMD. We know he took trips to CIA headquarters to ask questions and I would assume he would want to know who was in charge of this operation.

Posted by: map on September 6, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: OK so the DOJ investigated because "it's their job." How then would you explain the grand jury indictment of Scooter Libby? I guess the DOJ did their job too well? No official estimate yet of the damage done? OK...we've known for some time now that she was working undercover on WMD issues. The latest info says it was Iraqi WMD. We know her identity was classified....but like you suggest we don't know how sensitive this information was....so nothing to see here? And all of this is happening just as the scales were falling off of the public's eyes regarding the entire premiuse for the pre emptive invasion of Iraq.

Posted by: plane on September 6, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Map:
It may be part of their defense that they didn't know her identity until Wilson's op ed. However, the facts remain the same. Novak, Cooper, Miller, etc. learned of her identity mostly through sources at the White House. This was in response to the op ed. Clearly, the sources of the leak knew who she was...whether it was before or after the op ed is irrelevant. What is relevant is they knew who she was before the public did.

Posted by: plane on September 6, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

plane:

I don't disagree with you. I think this information makes this whole thing more problematic for both Cheney and Libby. The story we have heard (although I'm not sure this is Cheney and Libby's story), is that they didn't know who she was. I could believe that if Plame was a low-level analyst and it was credible that Cheney and Libby didn't know her identity.(Although it was incredibly irresponsible to be spreading this information around without finding out whether Plame was covert or not.) If they knew who she was it would up the level of irresponsibility to a new level, although I don't know if that would have tipped them off that she has any kind of covert status. It might also mean that they lied.

Posted by: map on September 6, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, brian, are the Wilson's anything like the Wilsons. Just wondering.

Kevin, this is just more proof that the Cheney gang will throw anybody overboard, no matter how useful, if it serves an immediate political goal. Thats because, like our trollish friends here, they care about nothing, feel nothing, believe in nothing except serving the notion of power itself.

Meanwhile, it would be nice to just send George WMD Bush and Karl Gay-Dad Rove off somewhere so they can be alone, because thats the enduring love story in this whole saga. (Of course, with Dubya ballooning out and Karl slimming down, their top-and-bottom roles may be reversed.)

Posted by: Kenji on September 6, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

"Meanwhile, it would be nice to just send George WMD Bush and Karl Gay-Dad Rove off somewhere so they can be alone, because thats the enduring love story in this whole saga. (Of course, with Dubya ballooning out and Karl slimming down, their top-and-bottom roles may be reversed.)"

It's always nice to see what passes for liberal/progressive thought and commentary these days.

Posted by: Billy Bob Shranzburg on September 6, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

LOL -- the "Cheney" Administration?!

Charlie, only 14-year old girls use "LOL." Be quiet now; the adults are talking.

Posted by: Reprobate on September 6, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

There are many threads here that I just do not understand at all, and I don't think this is entirely my fault. The speculation and discussion is very interesting, but really avoids what I see as the bottom line in this story: Cheney, Rove, and Libby acted like utter pigs to people who really didn't deserve it. Political infighting is one thing, but we are talking here about deliberately placing a political opponent in physical danger, which is tantamount to using a machine gun to retaliate for the firing of a beebee gun. And then acting like you responded in kind. And that doesn't even account for Plame's confidential sources, who may have been placed at increased risk as well -- fine payment for their willingness to assist our government - a risky proposition even before she was outed. The two points that are most telling have not really been addressed, namely that:

1. It should be pretty obvious why Wilson wrote the editorial: because he thought people ought to know what he learned in Niger.
a. If the story is true, it's even more obvious why he wrote the editorial. His wife obviously couldn't because of her job and her cover. If they believed that SOMEONE had to tell at least some of the truth, then he was the one to do it.
b. If "a" is even a remotely accurate hypothesis about what happened, then blaming Wilson for destroying his wife's career and placing her in danger is particularly nasty. He told the truth by exposing official lies (but hopefully they were merely distortions) and that pissed off the officials. If these Plame and Wilson are really a married couple, I find it impossible to believe that she didn't know about and approve of the editorial he was working on. Who knows what they thought would come of it? Perhaps they underestimated the White House's vindictiveness. Either way (but particularly if the story above is true) both of them were willing to risk alot just to tell the public about what they apparently thought was the truth (right or wrong, but presumably right, given lack of WMD's turining up in Iraq) and that is pretty impressive.

2. Federal laws were apparently broken when they outed Plame. I really don't think it matters what she did at the CIA, ultimately. Nor does it ultimately matter whether the target of the apparent retribution was Plame or Wilson in the final analysis. What we have learned from all this is that
a. When people don't toe the line, Cheney and Rove will do their best to squash you like a bug. And if Plame was a janitor at the CIA that makes their conduct even more disgraceful.

b. If she was in charge of the section they had to have known who she was - she would have written all the reports they distorted later. So they either crushed her because they knew exactly who she was or they got a two-fer: they could crush her and her husband at the same time.
c. If Plame was a janitor or some mid-level employee, then Libby, Cheney, and Rove found out that she was CIA because they were actively looking for a way to get back at Wison in the nastiest way possible - by making someone he cares about suffer instead of just him (Don't they always complain that using human shields is the classic sign that someone is just a cowardly terrorist? I guess they would know). If that's the case they made a concerted effort to endanger a mid-level civil servant who really has no way to defend herself from the danger they put her in. That is pretty despicable, isn't it? Isn't it?

Maybe I'm just a liberal, or maybe I'm just naive. But I can't get behind methods like that no matter what people might say about the purity of the motivation. In my field we have a diagnostic term for this kind of behavior: Psychopathy. This is not just the first time I've posted to this list -- it's the first time I've ever seen it. So I'm submitting this in the spirit of a question and I really want to hear what others have to say. No matter how I look at the evidence, I reach the same conclusion about the characters of the people involved: Wilson and Plame may or may not have been right in their assertions, but their motives were at least purer. The administration comes off looking like a big bully trying to force others to toe a political line that may or may not have had any resemblance to reality. Plame especially is (or was) a civil servant who has every right to demand immunity from that sort of pressure and, indeed, has the responsibility to do so. I'm a civil servant myself and I take this very seriously in my own work -- and it isn't always easy.

What am I missing here?

Posted by: CindyM on September 6, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

map:
They knew who she was...the situation has been upped...that what get's people so pissed and it's the main reason the Bush cult gets so defensive. The acceptance of the idea of the administration outing a CIA operative for political gain would destroy their belief system by eliminating any rationale for supporting the administration. Therefore they must eliminate this evidence at all costs, otherwise they would be forced to reconsider what they hold most dear....love of all things Bush and their own perception of themselves as patriots.

Posted by: plane on September 6, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

well, the plot thickens:

1. It is certainly possible that she was deliberately targeted in terms of leaking her name (and that her husband wasn't the target)...this doesn't change the fact that people such as Armitage and Rove were apparently not aware that she still had a nominal cover.

2. This also explains why she had a nominal cover. Even though she was retired from the field (and hadn't been a NOC for years, OBF to the contrary), she was still on the operations side -- and even desk operations folk generally have nominal covers.

3. Some people still make to much of the referral to the Justice Department. Such referrals happen everytime classified info at Langley is released into the public domain and, in fact, occur numerous times a year. Anyone want to comment on the referrals over the CIA prisons and the NSA TSP? Oh, those don't count, right?

4. This does explain why the Senate was rather incredulous that she didn't have a role in her husband going to Niger. If she was indeed head of operations for the JTF on Iraq WMD she would have had a part in that decision by definition.

In sum, this info (assuming its accuracy) doesn't help anyone.

Posted by: Nathan on September 6, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Liberals just don't understand quantum mechanics. Just as an atom can be at two places at the same time, so can Valerie Plame not only be an insignificant employee of the CIA but also have enough power within the agency to engineer the boondoggle that was the trip of her husband Joe Wilson: a trip whose sole purpose was for him to soak the sunshine on the beach in Niger at the tax-payer expense on the pretext of an assignment to do some official work.

Posted by: gregor on September 6, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Cindy says:

"b. If she was in charge of the section they had to have known who she was - she would have written all the reports they distorted later."

well no. it certainly increases the odds that they were cognizant of her name...though her husband's name would have been instantly recognizable. But she wouldn't have been writing the WMD reports. That was done on the analysis side. The operations side gathers data, the analysis side evaluates it.

Which, come to think of it, decreases the odds that they were after her personally. Its the analysts that would have been under heavy pressure (and the analysts would in turn pressure the operations side, but that's indirect with reference to the WH).

Posted by: Nathan on September 6, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

CindyM:
You nailed it...it's despicable. Since you know a thing or two about psychology....what do you call a person who seeks to preserve a positive self image at all costs? And do you suppose an organization or government can behave this way as well?

Posted by: plane on September 6, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Nathan:

Even if the people who leaked her name didn't know she had nominal cover, shouldn't they have found out before they talked about her?

Posted by: map on September 6, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Nathan: some people make a big deal when a grand jury indicts...and fools will make a big deal out of whether or not she had a role in sending him to Niger. Whatever her role, does it change the outcome of what Wilson and the rest of the world concluded? Did Iraq seek uranium from Niger? Nope. Did they include this claim in the SOTU in spite of repeated warnings by the CIA that it was not reliable? Yup. Wilson blew the whistle on these shenanigans and all the Bush defenders have to say is his wife arranged the trip. Oh that clears everything up....

Posted by: plane on September 6, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Map: I agree. But Armitage wasn't indicted because although he F---ed up, he didn't violate the intent requirement of the IPA (cmdicely will no doubt chime in to say that I don't know that's why he wasn't indicted...so I'll preemptively respond that it is the most likely reason).

Plane: I'm not sure I see your point. Is it notable and a bit of a "big deal" that Libby was indicted for perjury, sure. Whether he'll be convicted, I'm not so sure. Look, I'm not defending the WH here...they come out smelly (although it was Armitage...no water carrier for the WH...who innocently "outed" Plame....the WH was telling reporters to investigate who sent Wilson to Niger, a somewhat underhanded, if legal, political game).

Posted by: Nathan on September 6, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Chucky Schumer and Lyin' Joe Wilson hatched this plot to unseat a war-time president. Lyin' Joe Wilson was promised a cushy appointment under president John Kerry. When does the investigation of Schumer and Lyin' Joe Wilson begin? That would be funny.....

Posted by: nikkolai on September 6, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

AHHH Yes Nikkolai! WILSON LIED! Therefore Iraq aquired uranium from Niger and the President has been vindicated! I missed the victory speach George must have given at the white house live on prime time tv.

Posted by: plane on September 6, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

What am I missing here?

Cindy,

This post is a reaction to a very recent Washington Post editoral admitting the MSM got everything wrong. That really wasn't the news. We knew that.

The news was for the 1st Time the Washington Post admitted That Joe Wilson lied about almost everything in his NYT's OP-Ed.

Joe Wilson said he told the WH there was no attempt by Iraq to buy yellowcake. Leaving aside the absurdity Joe could never and proved any such thing and it's an obviously silly claim Joe in fact told the CIA the EXACT Opposite. He told the CIA a ranking member in the Iraqi Govt DID contact someone in the Niger govt to discuss trade. The CIA wasn't interested in the rumor until Joe told them this.

In addition Joe indicated in the op-ed the WH and the CIA head sent him. No one in the White house or upper levels of the CIA had any clue abot Joe Wilson and never heard of him.

Moreover, After Novak reported his wife got him the job he insisted she had nothing to do with it. The dumb bastard forgot his wife wrote a friggin letter on his behalf.

Joe Wilson did great for himself. He made a ton of money and is treated like royalty by the wacky left. The fact the Washington Post outed him as a total fraud in their lead editoral won't effect that at all.

This one of those great stories where liberals and conservative make out. The press got it's teeth kicked in. The NYTs spent a fortune in legal fees to lose a supreme court decision 9-0 which allows judges to throw reporters into jail if they don't give up sources. This is a dramatic loss for the press.

At the end of the day liberals still have Joe Wilson as a hero while Conservatives get to savor WashPost editorial that are the equivalent of putting a sign no their backs saying, "Kick me, I'm stupid". Also, the WH still kicked ass in 2004. No harm no foul.

NYT's stock price is down 60% since this story broke and they've had 3 downsizings. Another hero like Joe Wilson and they'll declare Bankruptcy.

Posted by: rdw on September 6, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Now, that would be treason, nikkolai -- I hope Kerry was not involved in that, because I voted for him -- I was very uneasy about Wilson taking a job with the campaign in the first place.

Psalm 101:7, NIV. "No one who practices deceit will dwell in My house; no one who speaks falsely will stand in My presence."

Posted by: concerned friend on September 6, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Whoa! Where to begin? How about your theories are on par with a Bigfoot or UFO sighting.

So the WaPo writes an op ed and declares "case closed." They tell us that since Armitage was Novak's first source that this tid-bit of information completely exhonerates Libby and Rove from revealing Plame's indentity to Cooper and Miller and rest of the gang of six. Next, the editors tell us that "white house officials are not blameless" that they were trying to "discredit Mr Wilson." And somehow they conclude that Mr Wilson outed his own wife even though he never mentioned her in any way and they do not share the same last name.

WILSON LIED!! That's all you've got. From this piece of fiction you ask us to discount everything he said regarding Iraq aquiring uranium from Niger.

Posted by: plane on September 6, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

If that was her job, then who was the idiot that got her husband involved?

Posted by: Matt on September 6, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

I was talking about you.

Posted by: concerned friend on September 6, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

"This is interesting, if true. How does it affect: (1) the issue of her role in Wilson going to Niger; and (2) his decision to publish in the New York Times.

If she was such a big deal in the Iraqi group with the CIA, isn't it logical to think she played a significant role in sending her husband to Niger and doesn't her husband look like an idiot from bringing attention to himself on the issue?"

Well, maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with trying to stop a train wreck?

Looks more like IF she did have a role in sending him to Niger, it was not in a boondoggle kind of way (which was always ridiculous, cuz it's not like she sent him to Paris or anywhere else nice), but in a policy way, like "these dunderheads need even MORE evidence that there's no there there."

Posted by: Cal Gal on September 6, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

plane,

I'm not asking you to do a thing. The train left the station. The story is written. Do you have any idea how difficult it had to be for the Post to write that Mea Culpa?

They admitted they were played for saps for 4 years.

Much worse of course is that of all parties in this soap opera, i.e., the Wilsons, Libby, Bush, Armitage, Colin Powell, NYTs, Judy Wilson and the MSM in general, the Wilsons made out fabuously.

BTW: David Corn broke the story about Val being undercover and his source was Joe Wilson.

The Wilsons are wealthy and have acheived immortality among the whacky left. Good for them. While I think Joe is a turd of a human being he's such a minor figure I can't lose any sleep over him. And I can't deny his ability to manage the MSM. He was brilliant.

As far as discounting what he said about Niger which story are we to discount? The story he told to the CIA about an Iraqi Govt official asking about about some trade initiatives with Niger? Or the exact opposite story he told the NYTs in his Op-ed?

They both can't be true and it's obvious which one is a fraud. The NYTs op-ed was stupid. Do you really think it's possible for one person to travel to Niger and in one week investigate the entire govt?

It's actually even dumber than that. Joe never left his hotel. You are dumb enough to think he investigated the entire govt in one week without leaving his hotel. I wouldn't think it's possible to be that stupid.

If Joe had claimed, "I couldn't find evidence of anyone from Iraq trying to buy Yellowcake so I think it didn't happen". That's reasonable but hardly substantial evidence it didn't happen. But Joe made the ridiculous statement, "I proved it didn't happen."

The fact is there's not that much stupid in the world. This was never about anything. It was the anti-Bush crowd gone wild. to their credit they generatd an incredible amount of heat including a special prosecutor. Unfortunatly it was also a political disaster for the libs as well as a financial disaster for the NYTs as well as a legal disaster for all journalists.

GWB election in 2004 was the best mid-term effort since FDR in 1936. GWB ranks among the greatest.

The NYT's spent a fortune in the courts to keep the press out of jail and lost a devastating 9-0 decision before the Supreme court. This will have serious negative repercussions for journalists for decades and more.

At this point Joe Wilson's is a fraud everywere except with the whacky left. For a DC creature nothing is worse than being called a fraud in a WashPost editorial.

Posted by: rdw on September 6, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

rdl:

Your arguments depend upon them being heard by the very ignorant and gullible. GWB is the greatest? Sucker....

Posted by: plane on September 6, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Your arguments depend upon them being heard by the very ignorant and gullible. GWB is the greatest

The venerable Washington Post labeled Joe Wilson a liar in it's lead editorial and lamented the fact anyone took him seriously.

GWBs election performance as party leder in 2002 and 2004 was the best performance by a party leader since FDR in 1934 and 1936. That's a fact.

Posted by: rdw on September 6, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

RDL:
Here's some more facts....It takes more than an editorial to vindicate the white house and it takes a whole hell of a lot more than winning an election to make a President great.

Posted by: plane on September 6, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

I still think that Valerie Plame can see through buildings with her x-ray vision. And Joe Wilson can stretch himself super long. And they both look great in Prada. And on the cover of Vanity Fair. And Dick Cheney is mean. And Bush lied. And Republicans blew up the levees. And 9/11 was an inside job.

The left is now officially beyond parody.

Posted by: nikkolai on September 6, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

rdw

It really doesn't help your credibility when you start your comments with a complete misinterpretation of the facts. First, this post was about Corn and Isikoff's revelations about Plame, not about the Washington Post. The fact is, no one but Republicans cares about the Post editorial. In case you weren't aware, the editorial and news departments in a paper are run by different individuals. The Post had long been critical of Wilson, and wrote a similar editorial in April. They didn't "admit" anything. The right loves to portray papers like the Post as liberal mouthpieces, so they can seize on stories as some sort of official statements from the left whenever it suits their purposes. The Post was a major cheerleader for the war, and their editorial page has never been on board with Wilson (editorial page; get the distinction yet?) The news of the week has been about Armitage's role (and no one has said he was the only leaker, so I think the right's "case closed" mentality is just a lot of wishful thinking) and Plame's work on WMDs. It's funny how many on the right are dismissing the news about Plame, while trumpeting the news about Armitage, when both pieces of news came from the SAME BOOK.

Posted by: chriso on September 6, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

Chrisco,

I'm not sure of your point. As a political issue the story ended after the 2004 elections. The so-called scandal failed. If anything it helped Bush. That the post started out about corn is meaningless. I've misinterpreted nothing.

As a news issue it's been devastating for the media. The NYTs lost a fortune and reporters now get to live in fear of jail if they manage to get drug into a political battle. Every time the write a story with an anonymous source they have to ask themselves if it's worth jail.

Armitage and Powell have been disgraced. Armitage come's off 1st as an old hag gossip putting a shocking end to his carefully cultivated image as a marine tough guy. Add to that the incredible Backstabbing by letting the administration twist in the wind when it was his big mouth that started it. Powell remained silent as well much to his disgrace. It was an increadibly dishonorable thing to do and one wonders if that's why he was fired.

As far as the theme these guys called 6 reporters we've known that's a lie and it was always stupid anyway. The reporters called Libby and they brought up the topic. But who cares. There were no charges because that wasn't illegal.

Fitzmas was a dud. Even the guy who got charged is already coming out smelling like a rose. He's working at a think tank for a hefty raise and he's got a well funded defense fund. Remember, a lot of people want to see a lot of these reporters on the stand under oath. He's writing a book and he'll get off rather easily. The trial will be fabulous publicity. He'll be doing the conservative talking circuit for years and remain as a senior advisor at the think tank of his choice. Scooter Libby will die as the most famous and wealthiest VP chief of staff of all time.

On top of that Fitz is under fire from many sources as well. His reputation is getting shredded and if he held dreams of becoming a federal judge he can kiss that away.

BTW: If you are not critical of Wilson you are a moron. He lied in his op-ed. He told the CIA someone was sniffing around. He said the opposite in his Op-ed. You were a moron to believe his claim. He went to Niger for a week and by his own admission never left his hotel. And from there you think he proved Iraq never made contact? While sitting in his lobby? If you believe that's possible you are dumb.

Posted by: rdw on September 6, 2006 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

It takes more than an editorial to vindicate the white house and it takes a whole hell of a lot more than winning an election to make a President great

There's nothing to vindicate. The WH is clear. They've been investigated and cleared. Rove is running this election. Bush and Cheney have raised a lot more money than in 2002. They're focused and ready.

Time will tell about GWB but he did more in his 1st 4 years than Clinton did in 8. Liberals are going to have the exact same heartache with GWB you had with Reagan. You labeled him a dolt. History has already ranked him as a top ten President.

Liberals have spent the last 4 years fully invested in fools like Joe Wison and Cindy Shehan. Neither will be remembered. The top 'scandal' of the Bush admin will be a VP staffer charged with perjury. Slick Willie owns the scandal category.

Posted by: rdw on September 6, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

rdw

You said "This post is a reaction to a very recent Washington Post editoral admitting the MSM got everything wrong." I said the post wasn't about the Washington Post (it was about Plame working on WMDs,) and nobody "admitted" anything, since the Washington Post editorial wasn't about the media coverage of the case. I'll try to refrain from answering your name calling in kind, but is it really that hard for you to understand my point?

And how in the world has it been "devastating" to the media? You mean all those right wing blogs that always praised the objectivity of the MSM have now turned against them?

And you claim that Libby is coming out smelling like a rose, simply because his right wing friends have given him a no-show job? How about if you wait until after his trial and the Wilson's civil suit before you close the book on Libby's reputation. Just because he's between his indictment and trial doesn't mean he's off the hook, and it's moronic to think so. You said "The Wilsons are wealthy." So by the logic you've employed, they're coming out of this thing "smelling like a rose."

And I'm getting tired of repeating the same points to people who refuse to get it, but Wilson never told the CIA someone was "sniffing around." He said a former Niger PM thought a meeting would be about yellowcake, but the subject never came up. The in his op-ed, he said his investigation did not show that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake. That is perectly consistent.

Hey, I've got an idea. Next time, before you start calling people morons, why don't you actually read some of the documents involved? It will save you a lot of embarrassment.

Posted by: ChrisO on September 6, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

History has shown Reagan to be a Top 10 president? Who's history? Just because true believers like Peggy Noonan keep beating the drum doesn't make him a Top 10 president. Check this link from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents A roundup of many surveys of historians has Reagan ranked on average as the 18th best President. A couple of popular opinion polls rank him highly, but a Gallup poll from 2005 ranks Bill Clinton as the best President ever. I like Clinton, but even I would never make that claim. It just shows how skewed the popular opinion polls are. But since you claim that "history" has shown Reagan's greatness, how exactly do you support that?

And the White House has been investigated and cleared? Boy, talk about pulling statements out of your ass. Who exactly "cleared" them?

Posted by: ChrisO on September 6, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

And how in the world has it been "devastating" to the media? You mean all those right wing blogs that always praised the objectivity of the MSM have now turned against them?

Because the Supreme Court ruled reporters can be tossed in jail if they ignore a judges order to give up a source. If you remember the NYTs lost at least 3 decisions including a 9-0 decision at the Surpreme court to keep Judith Miller out of jail. They failed and it set a new standard for the entire press corps.

This has considerable implications for reports dealing with classified or confidential data and anonymous sources. If Karl Rove did not give Matt Cooper the OK testify he was headed to jail. Matt was sweating bullets.

Less devastating but not insignificant is the fact the entire MSM bought into a story by a man exposed as a total fraud. His lies in the op-ed were hardly his only lies. He also claimed to have seen the letter Italy was holding concerning Iraq and yellowcake but was proven to be a fraud. The crackerjack documentation expert claimed he knew immediately it was a forgery because the dates, names and format were all wrong.

Except he never saw the letter. He made it all up.

Joe's single skill lies in separting liberals from their money. He's the PT Barnum of your party.

This is the guy the MSM believed in for 4 years. They are embarrased.

Posted by: rdw on September 6, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

And you claim that Libby is coming out smelling like a rose, simply because his right wing friends have given him a no-show job? How about if you wait until after his trial and the Wilson's civil suit before you close the book on Libby's reputation

Scooter almost left the administration before this thing broke because he needed to start making more money for family expenses. This forced his hand and he is now making substantially more.

Perjury is very hard to prove and Fitz has a rotten case. It's a he said/she said without a shred of evidence either side to the conversation has a better memory than the other. Libby's real advantage is that in almost every case where two parties discussed the same conversation their recollections of it were different and often substantially different.


The investigation was more than two years after the conversations took place. In many cases reporters didn't remember conversations at all and only had a phone log to indicate they occured. There is no way Fitz can prove perjury to 12 reasonable people.

As far as the future if Scooter left as a VP chief of staff he's certainly fine work but you can't name another VPs chief of staff. Now he's a celebrity. See Joe Wilson. It's worth a lot of money on the speakers circuit and OK course there will be a book.

Posted by: rdw on September 6, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

." He said a former Niger PM thought a meeting would be about yellowcake, but the subject never came up


What he said was that a meeting with an Iraqi govt representative was scheduled to talk about trade but nothing came of it. Niger has nothing to trade but yellowcake. It didn't have to 'come up'.

This is what peaked the CIAs interest and Joe understood that. It wasn't until Joe confirmed Iraq had someone in country asking about they got interested.

That's only one point.

Even if that did not happen Wilsons claim is moronic and it's obviously moronic. To think that fool could go to Niger and after sitting in one hotel lobby for a week and conduct an even remotely effective investigation is MORONIC. There's no way he debunked anything.


The way this man lies it's very unlikely he met with anyone. His lie about the italian forgeries is one of the all time dumbest lies. His lie about his wife getting him the job is another. The simple bastard had to know she wrote the letter of recommendation. Who else in the CIA would ever know Joe Wilson?

Joe Wlson is the classic putz. The pain you could read in the WashPost editorial was their shame in being taken in by such a clown.

Posted by: rdw on September 6, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

The in his op-ed, he said his investigation did not show that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake. That is perectly consistent.

Hey, I've got an idea. Next time, before you start calling people morons, why don't you actually read some of the documents involved? It will save you a lot of embarrassment.

I've read Joe op-ed as well as his many statements that he debunked GWB claim. Joe did no such thing. Joe has no idea because GWB wasn't referring to the rumor he was sent to check out. GWB specifically referred to a different British investigation NOT the US investigation.

Here's GWBs statement:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

It's called a strawman. Joe debunked his fanatasies. He didn't debunk the British report which has since been confirmed in the Butler Report.

Posted by: rdw on September 6, 2006 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK

But since you claim that "history" has shown Reagan's greatness, how exactly do you support that?

Gallup polls are useless regarding history. Slick Willie is popular because he's likeable but history will not remember him. The fact is nothing significant happened on his watch except for his impeachment. I like what he did regarding his support for the death penalty, mandatory sentencing, prison construction nd spending for more police but these are not historical items. Actually the 2nd most famous event of his Presidency might be the GOP revolution in 1994.

The only really solid poll is one commisioned by the WSJ and managed by the heritage foundation. No one from either organization participated. Heritage selected a board who then selected a group of approx 80 presidential historians, constitutional scholars, political scientists, etc. Unlike some polls which just use Ivy league professors this one tried for a cross section to limit bias. In the last century TR, FDR, HST, Ike and RR make the top 10.

Reagan does so well for his legislative record, communication skills and success in the economic management and foreign policy. He also gets a great deal of credit for eliminating the national malaise of Jimmy Carter.

For just one comparison between Reagan and Clinton look at tax rates. Reagan ran on supply-side tax cuts and despite a mostly unfriendly congress got them done. He started with tax rates of 70% and ended with tax rates of 28%. That's an incredible legislative acheivement. Clinton ran on middle class tax cuts yet immediately raised taxes. Even then I think he only raised them 5%.

Consider that differential. 70% to 28% is a dramatic 42% reductions. By comparison Clinton was playing at the margins. When Reagan took office Kenysian economics ruled. In 2006 we're all supply-siders.

Liberals make the same mistake with Reagan that all elitists make with those who disagree with them. You are making it with GWB now. Labeled a bozo by libs RR was quite smart, quite accomplished and extremely well prepared for the office. A common sentiment among the MSM is the futher away we get the better he looks. History is going to be very kind.

Posted by: rdw on September 6, 2006 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Slick Willie owns the scandal category"

Can someone tell me what the end result of the Whitewater "scandal" was? You know, the $80 million taxpayer-funded witchhunt? I know you can give me the answer, come on!

Go to bed, rdw, you're not making sense.

Posted by: Danny on September 7, 2006 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, cripes...we KNEW what she did for some time (if not all the details)...and it will make NO DIFFERENCE to the Bush apologists ...any more than any other FACTS that are presented to the media or the public. It will continue to be spun as a "non-story" that no one cares anything about all the while the fear mongering and back patting continues for KEEPING US SAFE(R)...

ARE YOUR EYES OPEN YET????

Posted by: Dancer on September 7, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

Can someone tell me what the end result of the Whitewater "scandal" was? You know, the $80 million taxpayer-funded witchhunt? I know you can give me the answer, come on!

Impeachment!

Posted by: rdw on September 7, 2006 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

RDW:

1) Did Iraq attempt to aquire uranium from Niger? If your answer is yes....prove it. Prove to everyone they did and you'll have our respect....from there you should consider writing a book because you'd win the Pulitzer Prize.

FYI: The Butler report relied on the forged Niger memos...
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_11.php

Posted by: plane on September 7, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

Dancer,

What she did was never important unless she was covert as defined by the laws. She was not. What the Washington Post made clear, and what David Corn has confirmed, is that Joe Wilson outed Valerie Plame.

Justice has been served. Joe has been clearly identified as a comically inept fraud and the MSM made into fools. The NYTs lost a fortune, the Press must consider jail with each anonymous source, and GWB lead a brilliant campaign in 2004 to significantly increase the GOP majority.

The NYT's stock price is down 60% and they've had 3 layoffs while newspaper and network viewership continues to drop. Thanks to talk radio, the internet and Fox Joe Wilson is far more famous among conservatives than liberals and we are vastly better informed. Joe Wilson is a serial liar. He's part of the reason GWB received 22% more votes in 2004 than in 2000.

Joe will remain quite famous as well much to the chargin of the press. He's pure embarrassment. They know they manufactured a scandal after being suckered by a rather inept liar. Everytime a reporter faces prison they will refer back to Judith Miller nd Joe Wilson.

Who better than to represent the ideals of the Democratic party? (to be honest I'd nominate Michael 'americans are the dumbest people on the planet' Moore but Joe would do)

Posted by: rdw on September 7, 2006 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

plane,

No, the butler report confirmed the brits never took the italian letter seriously. They STILL stand by the assertion made by Blair that Iraq tried to buy uranium TO THIS DAY.

Which is in fact what Wilson told the CIA. He reported Iraq had a 'trade' emmisary in Niger. Given the country had only one exportable product even liberal should be able to figure his intentions out.

Posted by: rdw on September 7, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

RDW:

You must be high....the Butler report TO THIS DAY relies on the forged Niger memo....how you manage to conclude that Wilson outed his own wife is amazing; it's twisted logic designed only to defend what's most dear to you.....an infantile faith and belief in the administration. You still can't demonstrate that Iraq aquired uranium from Niger.....tell us RDW where's the evidence?....and please spare us from citing the Butler report because if that's all you've got then your argument is over....yes...tell us please without citing the Butler report where this evidence is. Surely, something can be proven to be true without relying on one source. Let's see, perhaps something from Douglas Feith or maybe a tidbit from Dick Cheney will be enough to convince us?

Posted by: plane on September 7, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

plane,

Check out todays David Broder column in the WashPost.

These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.

David names names and points out the terrible cost to the press for this disaster both in terms of legal rights and reputation.

I don't want this story to end and if Joe Wilon has any say it won't. God bless Joe Wilson.

Posted by: rdw on September 7, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

no, rdw, it was not impeachment. it was zero. zero convictions. nothing. it was a scandal created out of nothing that yielded nothing. and it cost us $80 million. the gop became obsessed with bill's penis and meanwhile obl planned his next move.

ken starr should be the one apologizing for wasting everyone's time while the focus should have been on terrorism. i believe even that fake abc movie will tell you that much truth.

Posted by: Danny on September 7, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

no, rdw, it was not impeachment. it was zero. zero convictions.

It most certainly was impeachment. It was without qustion impeachment. One is Impeached by the House and then sent to the Senate for a trial. William Jefferson Clinton was in fact impeached by the US House of Representatives. He was then tried by the US Senate. They chose not to remove him from office.

The 1st line in every Clinton bio will be impeachment. It is the only noteworthy element of his administration althought if they have to fill out a page the disasterous Oslo accords, NK deal which NK immediately ignored, could be added. There's Kosovo but a war without casualties doesn't rate high on any scale. Somalia would be included before Kosovo. There's the 1st WTC, the Cole Bombings, Welfare reform but even that's small potatoes for a legacy.

Anyway you look at it the 1st sentence in his bio is impeachment for lying under oath about an incredibly humiliating affair with a 21-yr old chubby unpaid intern.

In the year 2040 when they list the 50 Presidents and put a one-line description it will be impeachment.

Ken Starr has had a very successful career as one of the top lawyers in the country for 40 years including a number of mentoring programs for young lawyers and has done a great deal of pro bono work. Ken is a very wealthy but modest man withy a great deal of serious accomplishments.

Posted by: rdw on September 7, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

RDW:
Thanks for the heads up about the opinion article. I liked this passage:

"In fact, the prosecutor concluded that there was no crime; hence, no indictment."

The crime in question is very difficult to prove as I'm sure you know. In addition, simply showing that Armitage was Novak's original source does not exhonerate Libby or Rove. Let's not forget that Libby and Rove were the original source for Miller and Cooper. I don't know how anyone can defend Libby when he is currently under indictment for obstructing the investigation of who leaked the identity of an undercover CIA operative. That boggles my mind. Yes, it remains to be seen whether or not he will be convicted but nevertheless, Cooper and Miller stand as a testament to the injustice that was committed here.

BTW....the Broder article proves nothing. Where's the proof of Iraq aquiring uranium from Niger? I'm sorry RDW....it doesn't exist. If it did, don't you think the administration would be explaining that to the American people at every opportunity in an election year...where the central issue is Iraq???....where the balance of power is at stake? Don't you think the public deserves to know beyond any doubt that our fears were justified? After all, this would justify the invasion of Iraq, unite the country behind the President and return American presitge! Don't you think the administration would be making every effort to show the world...."here's the evidence that Iraq really was an imminent threat to the West...here's the evidence that proves our invasion was justified."?? We all know how clever they are when they want to win a political battle, so why would they not pull out the big guns and end this debate once and for all? If they are sitting on the evidence that proves Iraq aquired or attempted aquire uranium from Niger, then why won't they defend themselves from these aggregious accusations? That makes no sense whatsoever.

But you know what does make sense? They don't have the evidence and they never did.

RDW...I would love to see American prestige returned; I would love to know that we were right all this time. But were not.

Be well...

Posted by: plane on September 7, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

i believe even that fake abc movie will tell you that much truth.


You'll be happy to know that in fact it does just that.

Clintons problem is that it even mentions impeachment and then suggests it may have been a distraction. He's sticking with his version that it never effected anything. Only a moron could believe that.

Of course there's other stuff about Mad Maddy, Sandy Burgler and many others that's less than complimentary.

I've heard the movie is very well done and Clinton is being hyper-sensitive. They really expected the political establishment and MSM spin machine would continue to protect them in retirement.

History is not going to be kind to this group.

Posted by: rdw on September 7, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

The crime in question is very difficult to prove as I'm sure you know

The crime is very easy to prove. They know for a fact Armitage told Novak. The only question at that point is about Plame's status as a covert operative. If she is Armitage is guilty.

My understanding is the law was written for expecially egregious situations like the Agee case. Thus they put a 5-yr limit. If a covert operative hasn't been in the field for the last 5 years they do not qualify as covert.

In fact Plame was a desk jockey and hadn't been overseas in 7 years.

No crime was possible.

As far as Rove and Libby the narrative advanced by the MSM was the WH was calling all over the place putting plames name out there. IN fact in every case Fitz mentioned the reporter called either Rove and libby and they mentioned the case and they about up wilson's wife and the response was, "I heard that too".

Hardly a smear campaign.

In fact I mever got that anyway. How does it smear Joe Wilson to say his wife works for the CIA? What's wrong with that? It certainly wasn't going to impact her carer as a desk jockey and with twins she was never going back out.

This was as Broder said, purely a manufactured scandal that if remembered by history only when more reporters go to jail and they note it's all because the NYTs lost at the surpreme Court 9-0.

I do give Joe a lot of credit. He was unemployed with absolutely nothing going on in his life aside from babysitting the kids when Valerie went to work. Now he's a liberal icon like Dan Rather.

Posted by: rdw on September 7, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

Where's the proof of Iraq aquiring uranium from Niger? I'm sorry RDW....it doesn't exist

Don't be sorry. There's nothing to be sorry about. No one said they acquired uranium from Niger.

Posted by: rdw on September 7, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

then why won't they defend themselves from these aggregious accusations? That makes no sense whatsoever

It makes perfect sense.

This was never about anything other than politics. As a political issue it's been a disaster for the Democrats. This was on the table in 2004. GWB increased his vote total by a historic 23% and picked up 5 Senate seats. it was the nest 2nd term showing since 1936. If the Democrats wish to keep it on the table God Bless them!

Me, I'd never bring it up again.

Posted by: rdw on September 7, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

...I would love to see American prestige returned

Allow me to offer you some advice. Life is not a prom and one can't stay a teenager forever. Chasing popularity is worse than a fool's errand because it can never be productive. If you do things to become popular or measure success by popularity you'll always be a shallow failure.

You are of course referring to Europe and the last place we can be concerned about is Europe. They are committing cultural suicide and the most important thing we can do is distance ourselves as much as possible. Thus it was critical we pull all of our troops out of Europe.

Now Europe has the complete freedom of acting without US influence or involvement. They are totally on their own. They seem to beleive the answer is soft power but we can at least agree it's never been seriously tested. Now with 150,000 US troops on site. Now it's a real test. Europeans have complete clarity regarding their current status. They can show the world how well soft power works. This will be a real test we can all learn from.

And if it does not work US troops will not be in harms way. it's only fair that if Europe makes bad diplomatic decisions Europeans bear the brunt of the results, good or bad.

It's also true the absence of US troops will force a harder and more sober re-evaluation of their policies. It's the most dramatic change since 1945 and change is good.

My view is that Germany, italy, Poland and the Czech repubic at a minimum will align and aggressively defend their culture. They will not appease. I fear for the UK and France for they have especially daunting problems and seem the most likely to appease. Time is their enemy due to demographic and economic issues yet they're most likely to appease as a way of buying time. The most likely result is they grow weaker abd the radicals much larger.

We'll see.

Posted by: rdw on September 7, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

"[R}elatively innocuous op-ed"? Jeebus. Wilson implicitly challenged the administration's integrity in the country's most prestigious newspaper. Kevin, you're a smart guy. C'mon, baby!

Posted by: Hieronymous Braintree on September 7, 2006 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

RDW:

Here's the problem. When you say things like this, it makes me question how your brain is wired.

"No one said they acquired uranium from Niger."

I think we've said all we can say about this matter and we each remain unconvinced.

Posted by: plane on September 8, 2006 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

plane,

No one said they acquired uranium from Niger. GWB said the Brits had intellegence that Iraq TRIED to acquire uranium, more specifically yellowcake, from Niger.

You are quite correct a core will remain convinced of Rove's 'treason' and that's a beautiful thing. This is a story conservatives want to keep alive. Joe Wilson is the perfect metaphore for what Liberalism has become. You of course know Wilson as a Great American. The Washington Post and New York Times have identified Wilson as a complete fraud and the media fools for listening to him. You still know him as a Great American.

It's perfect. We have the liberals with one set of beliefs and then we have sane America with the opposite beliefs.

And you wonder why you lose elections.

Posted by: rdw on September 8, 2006 at 11:55 AM | 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