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 13, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

NOVAK AND ARMITAGE....Robert Novak slips the shiv into Richard Armitage today. In his first column about the Plame affair since Armitage was outed as his original source, he notes that he had never once met Armitage before the Plame pushback started: "I tried to see him in the first 2 years of the Bush administration, but he rebuffed me summarily and with disdain, I thought. Then, without explanation, in June 2003, Armitages office said the deputy secretary would see me."

And what happened during that interview? Here is Novak's recollection:

First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he thought might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson.

Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column.

....As for his current implications that he never expected this to be published, he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilsons role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column implying to me it continued reporting Washington inside information.

Very peculiar, no? After 25 years in Washington, Armitage calls Novak out of the blue and gives him an interview. He provides specific information about Valerie Plame. He clearly suggests that this would be good fodder for a column. Then, when the column appears (he now says), he was unsure he was Novak's source and thus didn't come forward and fess up. Novak notes acidly just how implausible this is, but then fails to ask the obvious followup question: So why did Armitage talk to him in the first place?

Questions, always more questions.....

Kevin Drum 1:11 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (270)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Armitage was never "in" with the cool kids. Assuming Novac isn't lying (big assumption), Armitage was probably set up to take the fall from the beginning.

Or, maybe Novak is lying now to finish Armitage off.

Either way, the Novak is a shit head who should have been banished from decent society a long time ago.

Posted by: Mysticdog on September 13, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Duh, Kevin: The Clenis made him!

Posted by: Al on September 13, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Sounds like Armitage may have been trying to prove to all the other Plame outers that the State Department was truly a team player as well.

Posted by: Macswain on September 13, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Karl Rove shaved his head, donned a pair of linebacker shoulder pads under his suit and impersonated Armitage for Novak.

Posted by: Matt D on September 13, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

What a nose for reporting! Novak gets this call for an interview and boy his spidey sense is tingling, but funny, none of that made it into the column he ultimately wrote. Give the man a pulitzer!

Posted by: JEM on September 13, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

...red herrings muddy the water, no?

Posted by: Darryl Pearce on September 13, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Given a choice of who to believe my first choice would not be Bob Novak.

Posted by: Barbara on September 13, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

So why did Armitage talk to him in the first place?

Armitage only seems like a reasonable and honest person when compared to the rest of the Bush administration. Wilson was going after Powell's assertions at the U.N. and thus taking a swipe at Armitage. It seems like he just did it out of spite.

Cheney, Rove and Libby on the other hand were trying to cover for the President during election season by deceiving the public.

Same action, different purposes.

Posted by: enozinho on September 13, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Who can believe any of these guys?

And what's with the linebacker shoulders? Can this fellow not find a suit to fit him in all of Washington?

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on September 13, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Assuming that Novak is being truthful about his first meeting with Armitage, how is Novak slipping the shiv into Armitage?

By Novak's account it was Armitage who wanted to disclose Valerie Plame's identity, her position with the CIA, the fact that she was the reason Joe Wilson was sent to Nigar and for Novak to print this information.

I, for one, am certainly glad that the Wilsons have added Armitage to their "lawsuit." Once the other defendants have been dismissed out of this groundless suit, perhaps they will obtain justice against the real person who has caused them such harm.

As for Kevin having "questions always more questions" about this pointless affair, one can only wonder. Perhaps you should talk to David Corn, I hear he's got a new book about this matter. lol

Posted by: Chicounsel on September 13, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I wouldn't trust Novak's version. For one thing, it protects Rove and any concerted campaign to discredit Wilson to make it look like Armitage called out of the blue.

At the least, it distracts from that storyline (Rove outed a CIA agent to protect the President) which, given Rove's history, is more likely to be true. Novak's loyalty is probably much more to Rove than Armitage. Rove is still in power, for one thing, and Novak still needs access to do his job.

Posted by: Joe on September 13, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Then what basis did Novak have for forming the opinion that Armitage was "no partisan gunslinger"?

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on September 13, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

i have no doubt that novak is telling the truth. my question is why now?

Posted by: mudwall jackson on September 13, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Then what basis did Novak have for forming the opinion that Armitage was "no partisan gunslinger"?

Because it was a personal attack, rather than a political one.

Posted by: enozinho on September 13, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

The theory has always been that you can't have a real conspiracy in Washington DC because some member of the group will always break and talk. I think we are seeing now the falsification of that theory. We will never know what really happened, but I think it is fairly clear that the 6-10 people closely involved in this are all lying consistently and without breaking confidence.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on September 13, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

So, Armitage at the least broke the Espionage Act. At the worst, committed treason.
When does he get his Medal of Freedom?
Heckuva job, Dick.

Posted by: Cazart on September 13, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

LIE # 2,226.

Posted by: Mann Coulter on September 13, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

They all knew alot for knowing nothing.

Posted by: Mann Coulter on September 13, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

ChiCounsel, you didn't bring the rest of the right-wing nutbars with you? What's wrong?

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on September 13, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

If Armitage is lying, he sure picked the best patsy that I could think of in Washington. Who would look at Novak and think that this bloodless tub of puss is to be believed? That being said, I forget, did Armitage lie to federal investigators in order to obscure their investigation like Libby, or not?

Posted by: Rick on September 13, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

My bet is that Armitage is essentially telling the truth, and that Novak is, in Jon Stewart's phrase, 'lying by implication'. Let's face it, most of this is just characterization; the difference between 'gossip' and more direct statements? Completely subjective. And at this point, how can Armitage disprove any of this?

They've decided to throw Armitage under the bus in the runup to the Libby trial.

Posted by: drinkof on September 13, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Who cares who first told Novak? If Rove had not confirmed the information, Novak would never have printed.

Rove is a traitor. He is a self-admitted traitor.

We know at this point that he is not the only traitor. It's possible that Armitage is also a traitor, but both are equally guilty.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 13, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

it's so HARD to keep track of all one's lies...isn't it Novakula?

Posted by: marblex on September 13, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

did Armitage lie to federal investigators in order to obscure their investigation like Libby, or not?

This is very good for Libby. Fitz has a he said/she said prosecution. This is another of a dozen examples of one person having a different recollection of a conversation than the other. No jury is going to convict Libby on the word of a couple reporters with every reason to cover their own ass.

It's also clearer that Fitz played a rather sleezy game of setting a perjury trap. Libby's defense has plenty to work with.

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Enozinho. Rove stated he had two sources. Armitage and Rove. One was fed the information out of Libby's office (Armitage) in hopes a blabbermouth would spill the beans to protect his boss and State from liability of sending Wilson. The other (Rove) to confirm the story in an attempt to protect his boss, the President) by discrediting Wilson. Two sources--two reasons--both wrong and liable. But only one (Rove) with motivation to attempt to coverup for the usage of the original 16 words.
The real questions remaining unanswered to date is who forged the documents, how did they get into American and British hands so readily and accepting, and who would benefit by having a rationale fit for Congressional mandate to go to war. The original crime here is utilizing known false and forged documents as a major rationale and cover to justify invading a country that has not threatened or attacked your country. That combined with pre-war knowledge about lack of ties to al-Qaeda terrorists/9-11 plotters, alumunum tubes that could not be used for centrifuge production, etc. would appear to remove all pre-war rationale and legitimacy for a pre-empted invasion. Can anyone say impeachable offense...sure...sure...I knew you could!

Posted by: SoonerBlue on September 13, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Assuming that Novak is being truthful about his first meeting with Armitage, how is Novak slipping the shiv into Armitage?

For the wingnuts out there who apparently didn't see the footage of Armitage fessin' up to his role, with those great big sorrowful eyes and woeful statements about how he felt sooooo bad about whut he dun, followed by all the RNC-inspired coverage of how Armitage is just such a helpless gossip anyway: if Novak is telling the truth, it reveals that Armitage knew precisely what he was doing.

Posted by: Wonderin on September 13, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

At one time I fantasized about going to work for the government in Washington. Good thing I never did so. What a snakepit!

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 13, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

wonderin,

Exactly correct. Kevin nail it. Novak is furious and he's getting even. Armitage was a scumbag here as was Colin Powell. Armitage knew exactly what he was doing and he knew immediately he was the source when he saw the story. He watched the WH get torched while he hid. Novak is calling him scum with the biggest megaphone he can find.

Whn the history is written of this Presidency Armitage wil be Benedict Arnold and Powell not much better.

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

When subject to an extraordinary level of scrutiny, are there not always more "questions, questions."

... the grassy knoll .. the second shooter ... the magic bullet ... the death of key witnesses.

Hmmm .... isn't it also true, even if Mohammed Atta's passport showed no trips to Prague, that merely proves he would have travelled on ANOTHER PASSPORT?!?!!?

"Questions, always more questions."

Posted by: The Commissar on September 13, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

ChiCounsel, you didn't bring the rest of the right-wing nutbars with you? What's wrong?

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on September 13, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Guess it's just my turn to hold down the fort until the reinforcements arrive. lol

Who cares who first told Novak? If Rove had not confirmed the information, Novak would never have printed.

Rove is a traitor. He is a self-admitted traitor.

We know at this point that he is not the only traitor. It's possible that Armitage is also a traitor, but both are equally guilty.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 13, 2006 at 2:11 PM |

Guilty of what crime POed? Oh that's right, it doesn't matter to you in the slightest. Just because they don't adhere to your liberal politics, they're guilty and must be jailed or worse. How very Islamic fascist of you. lol

Posted by: Chicounsel on September 13, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a thought - somewhat driven by my wondering why Sec. Powell carried onto Air Force One that State Dept. write-up of who Valerie Plame was. Let's suppose Bush had decided to enlist Sec. Powell's help along with the help of the Vice President. This would explain why the list of names includes Libby, Rove, and Armitage. Of course, the National Review wants Armitage to be the scapegoat so they can get back to declaring Rove and Libby to be saints.

Posted by: pgl on September 13, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

Just because they don't adhere to your liberal politics, they're guilty and must be jailed or worse.

You are so right. Trying to hold people to account for lying their country into war, then smearing their critics to cover up the original lies is exactly what I would call good "liberal politics".

Let the national healing begin.

Posted by: enozinho on September 13, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Guilty of what crime POed? Oh that's right, it doesn't matter to you in the slightest. Just because they don't adhere to your liberal politics, they're guilty and must be jailed or worse. How very Islamic fascist of you.

Liberal politics, Chicounsel? You mean revealing the name of classified intelligence officer working on prevention of WMD proliferation in Iraq is conservative politics?

Which side are you on?

Posted by: Wonderin on September 13, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Who cares who first told Novak? If Rove had not confirmed the information, Novak would never have printed.

Actually a lot of people knew about Valerie but the fact is this is very good news for the WH and Libby. It helps further destroy Fitzpatricks case against Libby and makes Fitz look more like a political hack when you connect his statements at the announcment of the charges.

It's unlikely the judge in the libby case will allow those statements to become part of the case but it ensures Fitz has seen his career to it's peak. He has no shot at a higher position or a judgeship.

The best part is it keeps the sleeziest parts of the story alive. Armitage is an even bigger chump and by definition Powell. The Washington Post looks even smarter for evicerating the rest of the MSM for relying on a sleezebag like Joe Wilson. Joe adds Richard to his lawsuit which has no prayer but Armitage still needs to hire a lawyer and enjoy even more publicity.

This is absolutely humiliating for everyone involved except for Rove.

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, the National Review wants Armitage to be the scapegoat so they can get back to declaring Rove and Libby to be saints

You've got it all wrong. They don't care about Rove and Libby because they'll do fine. rove is at the top of hisgame mamaging this campaign.

They detest the State Dept which has been a leak machine ever since Powell was in there. Conservatives knew all along GWB got it right in keeping Rummy and firing Powell. Now we know another reason why.

This is a disaster for the State Dept. Now every President can see how important it is to have an honest and loyal Secretary of State who can control his department. What you will see is an increase in the institutional isolation between the state dept and WH because every WH will see how much dangerous the State Dept can be.

It's very possible Presidents will start working on downsizing the State Dept and doing more foreign policy work within the WH.

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

Now every President can see how important it is to have an honest and loyal Secretary of State who can control his department.

This is a very funny statement - would be great if Powell himself got a chance to read it. Powell prostituted himself for the Bush administration; he knew going into Iraq would be a mistake, he knew that the stuff he presented at the UN was "bullshit," and he knew that the guys like Shinseki were right - yet he kept quiet.

I'd say "loyalty" is listed at the top of his CV.

Posted by: Wonderin on September 13, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Bush said he was going to take care of the leaker.

Why hasn't he fired Armitage yet?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Who cares who first told Novak? If Rove had not confirmed the information, Novak would never have printed.

Actually, confirming classified information that someone else already leaked, is ALSO a violation of both the spirit, and the letter, of the SF-312 document that ALL cleared individuals are required to read and sign.

Doesn't matter who first leaked. Rove still should at the very least, have his clearance yanked. If I was the White House FSO, I'd do it, and laugh like a donkey while I pointed my finger at him and slapped my knee.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Please cite to the federal statute which outlaws "lying the country into war, then smearing their critics to cover up the original lies" --

Common human decency?

Sorry, I forgot. Being a troglodyte isn't against the law. I need to re-read my copy of "Perfectly Legal".

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Loyalty is definitely skill one with Powell. Anyone how thinks otherwise is either woefully underinformed or stirring the still very murky waters of the Plame affair for further obfuscation.

To get a sense of how loyal Powell is one only has to compare what he hasn't said with what his aide Col. Wilkerson has revealed:

    "This is really a very inept administration," says Wilkerson, who has credentials not only as an insider in the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II presidencies but also as a former professor at two of the nation's war colleges. "As a teacher who's studied every administration since 1945, I think this is probably the worst ineptitude in governance, decision-making and leadership I've seen in 50-plus years. You've got to go back and think about that. That includes the Bay of Pigs, that includes -- oh my God, Vietnam. That includes Iran-contra, Watergate."

    Such a critique, coming from a man who was long thought to speak for Powell, is seismic in Washington power circles. Some observers used to regard Powell and Wilkerson as so close that they enjoyed a "mind meld," but now Powell distances himself from the pronouncements of his former aide.

    Often described as the ultimate loyal soldier -- and, like Wilkerson, a Vietnam combat veteran -- Powell has largely kept his mouth zipped. Whatever public regret or private disappointment Powell may have about selling the Iraq war, he still supports the commander in chief -- most recently during the flap over domestic electronic eavesdropping -- and occasionally dines with Bush.

Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

whatever.

Fitzgerald had this information 2 years ago but prosecuted Libby instead of Armitage. How does that make sense?

Posted by: republicrat on September 13, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Fitzgerald had this information 2 years ago but prosecuted Libby instead of Armitage. How does that make sense?

It doesn't really. The whole Armitage leak doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm a bit skeptical that someone with as deep a background in SpecWarfare as Armitage had wouldn't know classified material when he saw it. Also, Wilson's conclusions tended to back up the position that both Armitage and Powell were taking prior to the war, i.e. let's not rush into this.

So Fitzgerald is an idiot who indicted the wrong person and Armitage is an ex-Navy SEAL who didn't know classified info when he had it? Or there's something more to this and we don't have all the whole picture yet? I'll go with option B for now.

Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Loyalty is definitely skill one with Powell.

Not a chance. The entire world knows Powell knew all about Armitage days after the scandal broke and he kept his mouth shut while the MSM hammered the WH. You can't get more dishonest or more disloyal.

Colin was fired for a reason. It was not for being loyal.

Wilkerson is unfortunately far less than seismic Unhappy bureaucrats distraugh their policies were not advanced and then having a hissy fit are not a rare breed in DC. He's just another opportunist with something to sell.

Charges that the administration is super-inept don't hold up well when looking at the election results do they? I take it the Clinton Aministration was the model of efficiency. Monica certainly thought so.

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Good thing too, OBF, or you would be serving consecutive life sentences with nothing but the Holy Bible to read.
Posted by: Thomas1 on September 13, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Please. Not that. I'd rather have the collected works of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine:

I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible). Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible). It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible. Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance. The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.
-Thomas Paine
Posted by: George H W Bush on September 13, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

This is all very difficult to keep all the timelines straight, so it's virtually impossible to do anything but speculate ...

But it *does* seem like Novak is attempting to create a fall guy. Look at Wooten's anti-State Dept. narrative about it; clearly the wingers gain if the trail is off the White House.

But something about this is very, very peculiar. Why would Armitage at the State Dept. sabotage somebody who has institutional-government priorities against the revolutionary intent of the neocons? Why would *Armitage*, of all people, be working out of a WH political shop?

And why would Powell's homeboy have a vested interest in hanging on to the credibility of information he delivered to the UN *after the fact*? Powell, as we know, was extremely skeptical about most of the intelligence from the word go.

If Novak is right, somebody put Armitage up to this. If Novak is lying, then Armitage's "whoopsie" didn't go as far as it needed to to staunch the story.

After all, if Armitage's mea culpa sufficed to spell the end of it -- why is Robert Novak adding new wood to the fire?

There's an eminence grise behind this somewhere ... and I suspect atm he's sporting Elvis mutton chops.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 13, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1 wrote:

The "side" I am on is the one that still does not know if a crime was committed re: a certain classified intelligence officer.

For the record, Thomas1, I don't care if a crime was committed or not. I care instead that someone that was on our team, working to protect me and my kids, had her whole operation blown wide open for the purposes of political payback.

And it really doesn't matter (to me) if she was a NOC or not at the time. And it doesn't even matter (to me) if she was still working on WMD proliferation or not at the time her cover was blown.

Because what it means is that everyone she worked with while she was a NOC working for Brewster Jennings, also had their covers blown.

I know what you or others will say, so you may as well save it: there was no damage done, right? Well, what evidence to you have that no damage was done?

Posted by: Wonderin on September 13, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel and rdw are completely incoherent today.

It's one thing to recite scripted Republican talking points, it's quite another to babble like a drunken paranoid schizophrenic on meth, and that's what they sound like on this thread. Just complete gibberish.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a bit skeptical that someone with as deep a background in SpecWarfare as Armitage had wouldn't know classified material when he saw it.

Armitage knew Valerie was a desk jockey. There was no risk.


Also, Wilson's conclusions tended to back up the position that both Armitage and Powell were taking prior to the war, i.e. let's not rush into this.

Wrong, Wilsons report to the CIA is what led them to believe Saddam was asking about trade in Niger. As the Washington Post described last week in their editorial, Wilson lied in his op-ed. The point the Post was making was that everyone associated with the clown made a big mistake in taking him seriously.

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Armitage knew Valerie was a desk jockey.

No, she wasn't. That's a lie.

rdw: Wilson lied in his op-ed.

No, he didn't. That's a lie.

I see you have sufficiently recovered from whatever sort of fit it was that had you babbling incoherently for most of the thread so far, and you are able to form complete sentences again.

Unfortunately, as usual, your complete sentences are nothing but the robotic regurgitation of scripted Republican Fascist Party lies by a neo-brownshirt mental slave.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Even if it was not "classified" OBF?
Posted by: Thomas1 on September 13, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

You're an idiot, T1.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Wilson didn't lie.

Iraq has about a metric ton of yellowcake lying around in piles on the premises of their former nuclear reactor. This was documented in ElBaradei's final report.

WTF would they need more of it without a reactor to process it into bomb fuel?

You can't just stuff yellowcake into a nuclear bomb.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 13, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

If Plame was NOT working on WMD proliferation...

I said I didn't care if she was still working on WMD proliferation when she was outed.

...and since damage assessment report was even done, I believe the burden of proof is on you in that regard.

Okay, I'll get back to you on that as soon as I receive my top secret clearances. I'm sure that the boys at the CIA will have no problem sharing the damage report with me, since it's got nothing to do with national security or anything.

Posted by: Wonderin on September 13, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

After all, if Armitage's mea culpa sufficed to spell the end of it -- why is Robert Novak adding new wood to the fire?

Novak thinks Armitage is a scumbag. He's out to humiliate him for what he did. He intentionally planted the story and knew immediately he was the source. Then he sat on his ass while Rove and others were dragged through a grand jury investigation that never should have happened. It also put incredible heat on Noval and athough he relished much of it Novak was pissed at having to keep his mouth shut knowing Armitage was such a weasel.

It wasn't until after Novak told Tim Russert on Meet the Press, "It's well past time my source comes public and releases me from my promise" that Richard realized Novak was getting ready to burn him anyway. It was later that week Armitage came clean. Too late. There's hell to pay. Novak is going to destroy what little of Armitage has remaining of a reputation.

As far as any scandal that's been laid to rest long ago. Even the Washington Post admitted Wilson was a total fraud and the media fools for listening to him.

This fire won't be going out for a while. Novak will remind people periodically. Wilson has his lawsuit. Libby has his trial. Interestingly the fact Novak and Armitage have different recollections of the same conversation will ensure Novak and Amritage are witnesses for the defense. Plus, conservative will bring this up often as an example of MSM and Liberal ineptitude. Joe Wilson is up there with Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and John Murtha as liberal icons.

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

Only if Iraq had a nuclear reactor.

It didn't.

The idea of cutting deals with Niger for a commodity that's heavily restricted by the IAEA and not exactly easy to smuggle in bulk quantities out of a landlocked nation absolutely and truly makes exactly zero sense whatsoever.

There were no secret negotiations for Niger yellowcake by Iraqi agents. The idea beggars all credulity.

If Iraq needed yellowcake to start some clandestine nuclear reactor they had built, they had all the yellowcake they could've possibly used for that purpose.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 13, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

This is all very difficult to keep all the timelines straight, so it's virtually impossible to do anything but speculate ...

That's by-design, Bob. Libby lied. Bush lied. Cheney lied. Novak lied. Miller lied. Their cohorts and co-conspirators (who are all linked at the roots, like aspens) lied, and their paid shills on this blog, rdw, Thomas1, etc. are continuing to lie to obfuscate the truth.

Nothing I've read leads me to that conclusion, and since damage assessment report was even done, I believe the burden of proof is on you in that regard.
Posted by: Thomas1 on September 13, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Assmunch, the "damage assessment" is very highly classified. The burden of proof is not on ME to determine what the damage assessment is, and pass that on to you on a blog. The burden of proof is on the president to declassify that damage assessment so that we can all know the actual truth.
Bush doesn't do that, of course, because it implicates his character-assassin hit squad. And so - putting the burden of proof onto us is a cop out. The only proof anyone should need is that the CIA *did* call for a special prosecutor and grand jury. That's not something that's typically done when the Janitor's secret identity is exposed.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1, you and I may not be aware of how many people worked at "Brewster Jennings" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), but I'm wonderin': do you know how many people work at the "Rendon Group"?

Honey!! Have you seen my RNC talking points?!

Posted by: Wonderin on September 13, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Wilson didn't lie.

Everyone at the Washington Post seems to think so.

He lied and it was an especially dumb lie and it was far from his only dumb lie. Actually the entire op-ed was silly. He claimed to have refuted the rumor after spending 7 days in Niger and having never left his hotel.

I have no bone to pick with Joe and even admire him to a degree. He played this perfectly. He got a lot more than his 15 minutes and he's a wealthy man. He went from a never was/has been to the cover of Vanity Fair. If I am not mistaken his publicist and defense team had a press conference to announce Armitage will in fact be added to the lawsuit. That lawsuit is a joke of course designed to generate publicity and nothing else but give credit where it is due. He gets publicity.

No doubt he's busy tonight speaking to a group of 'i'm not going to take it anymore' liberals for a $15,000 speaker fee.

Only in America!!!!

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps you are unaware that Bush and/or Cheney declassified Plame's status?
Posted by: Thomas1 on September 13, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Gee. How convenient.

So how could she be not a NOC, if she were classified (more accuratey, Top Secret-Compartmental) in the first place? (you can't declassify something that's not classified, and it's not routine to declassify such information - unless they were trying to make Libby not *technically* a traitor). And did they also declassify B&J?

Libby and Rove may not "technically" be traitors. They may "technically" have obeyed the letter of the law (particularly if Bush declassified her status). But they sure as hell did not obey the spirit of the law.

Furthermore, it's against the law to both classify information that has no operational security value (ie. to prevent embarrassment), and to declassify information that still has relevant operational security value, for political reasons. These laws are notoriously difficult to prosecute, because you have to prove intent.

But that doesn't mean it wasn't wrong.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Not a chance. The entire world knows Powell knew all about Armitage days after the scandal broke and he kept his mouth shut while the MSM hammered the WH. You can't get more dishonest or more disloyal.

Colin was fired for a reason. It was not for being loyal.

You don't make any sense whatsoever. Powell was Bush's water carrier to the UN for info that his staff had to go over with a fine-toothed comb, just so it wouldn't be laughably false. Has he ever complained about that? Read what Powell's aide Col. Wilkerson has to say about it. And your grandiose statements about how future presidents will down-size the State Department as a result of this? Yeah, right.


Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Armitage knew Valerie was a desk jockey

Be careful what you wish for. Someday ABC may make a documentary about how little Bush-licking trolls were scoffing at WMD analysts and how that led to The Peanut Museum in Skokie, IL being destroyed by nuclear suitcase toting Irano-islamo-nazi-jihado-crats.

Or to paraphrase one of you guys, whose name escapes me since you all sound the same:

WMD? Too Funny!

Posted by: enozinho on September 13, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

The idea of cutting deals with Niger for a commodity that's heavily restricted by the IAEA and not exactly easy to smuggle in bulk quantities out of a landlocked nation absolutely and truly makes exactly zero sense whatsoever.

The IAEA is a UN agency and thus both incompetent and corrupt. Smuggling is the major industry in Afria and the Middle east. Anything can be smuggled.

The fact is Saddam was sniffing around Niger for yellowcake. You might not think it makes sense but it doesn't matter what you think. It matters what whacko Sassam thought. He was sniffing around and he's far from the only one to have done so.

All irrelevent.

What is relevent is Joe Wilson told the CIA someone from Iraq was in Niger to talk about trade. He then wrote exactly the opposite in the NYT's. He lied though his teeth and made millions.

Don't take my word for it. Read the Washington Post.

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Be careful what you wish for.

Huh?

What is it I am wishing for?

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

It's already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, Wooten, that you have no morals as far as politics go. You're a shameless game-player whose only interest is in the outcome of your team. Truth -- up to and including issues of grave national security -- means absolutely nothing to you. The only thing that matters as far as you're concerned is the scoreboard.

You're a character assassin, and everything you post here is taken with that in mind.

The larger issue of Wilson's allegations are of course entirely true. Tenet apologized for the infamous 16 words. The "British intelligence" that was supposed to corroborate them turned out to be sourced to us, and a bullshit cover story. The Italian documents were forged.

And no Iraqi agents met with Niger officials to get a deal on a commodity that they would never have gotten away with shipping, nor could Iraq have used if they could.

Your story collapses, Wooten, because Iraq had *no nuclear program*. Without that, there's simply no need for Iraq to get more yellowcake when they already had a ton of it sitting in piles.

Now -- there are several facets of Armitage's story that are independently corroboratable. One, that he cooperated with the investigation and didn't hire a lawyer. Two, that ke kept his mouth shut because Fitz told him to.

Finally, there's little motive that Armitage could have for lending credence to something as patently absurd as a nation acquiring partially-refined uranium for a nonexistent nuclear program.

So all evidence points to a hatchet-job by Novak to help further insulate the real cuprits in the WH. It's he said / he said between Novak and Armitage, but it will be delightful red meat fodder for the wingnuts who read his column.

His intent is only to further cloud the issue with bullshit and smear the State. Dept in order to preserve the reps of the neocons.

Armitage may have been a bumbling fool. But Novak is an amoral tool.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 13, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Read what Powell's aide Col. Wilkerson has to say about it. And your grandiose statements about how future presidents will down-size the State Department as a result of this? Yeah, right.

Wilkerson is a dime a dozen disgruntled bureaucrat upset at the WH because the President actually thought he was in charge of foreign policy. He's as big a putz as Wilson.

Powell stood silently as the WH was drug through a grand jury investigation that never would have occured if he had a shred of decency and ordered Armitage to come clean. It is a permanent part of Powell's legacy and not the only example of his double-dealing. He was fired for a reason.

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

LOL, OBF -- everything I've seen is that NO damage assessment report was done. So, I think you are putting the cart before the horse there, son.
Posted by: Thomas1 on September 13, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. Then I defer to your superior level of Security Clearance.

IF a Damage Assessment was done - you and I cannot even know that. The fact of a DA itself is TSC.

On the other hand, you and I can conclude, very reasonably, that a DA was done, because such DA's are, in fact, routine, under these circumstances.

But the whole point is; you and I cannot conclude anything from the DA, whether it exists or not, because of the mere fact that it IS classified, to the very highest degree.

Speculating on whether one was done, is frankly, just stupid. You can't prove anything one way or another, based on information you can't know.

What information DO we know?

FACT: The CIA asked for a special prosecutor and grand jury.

What can we infer from that?

Either this sort of thing is routine for people with no special intelligence function getting named. . .

OR

Come on, Thomas1, fire up that primitive idiotic medieval fundamentalist brain of yours. . . OR, the information revealed in Novak's article was gravely damaging to national security.

He went from a never was/has been to the cover of Vanity Fair. . . .
Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Wilson personally faced-down Saddam Hussein at the height of his power, immediately following the Kuwait invasion, at great personal risk. Fuck you very much for attempting to disparage either his character or his fortitude.

He has accomplished more in his life than any two complete generations of born-on-third-base Bushes you can name.

Of course, you don't mind the Commander-in-Chief being undermined during war for political payback, right?
Posted by: Thomas1 on September 13, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

It's my duty as a Free American to do so. Anything less is unpatriotic. Being a mindless sheep is unamerican, and tantamount to acquiescence to fascism.
Question Authority. Always.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel and rdw are completely incoherent today.

It's one thing to recite scripted Republican talking points, it's quite another to babble like a drunken paranoid schizophrenic on meth, and that's what they sound like on this thread. Just complete gibberish.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2006 at 4:04 PM

Babbling? Gibberish? Me?

Just because you purposefully choose not to understand what I'm saying so you don't have to think about a response doesn't mean that I'm not reciting my scripted talking points clearly.

Now I know how Chris Tucker's character felt when he said to Jackie Chan's character in Rush Hour "DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH?" lol

Posted by: Chicounsel on September 13, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

The "British intelligence" that was supposed to corroborate them turned out to be sourced to us, and a bullshit cover story. The Italian documents were forged

You are a liar. You now the Brits investigated and affirmed their report. The italian documents were immediately identified as forged an never used by the brits.

BTW: Your boy Joe told us in his book he saw those documents and he knew immediately they for forged. Joe you see, in addition to being incredibly brilliant, is the greatest detective since Sherlock Holmes. Unfortunately Joe claimed to have 'reviewed' the document 8 months before it was written. Just as unfortunate, Joe never saw then anyway.

It was when I came to learn more about Joe I came to enjoy him. I knew he was going to be a disaster and embarrasment for the libs.

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, you don't mind the Commander-in-Chief being undermined during war for political payback, right?
Posted by: Thomas1 on September 13, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, if the Republicans didn't mind undermining the Commander-in-Chief during Kosovo for political payback, why should I mind now?

Posted by: Arminius on September 13, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

For the record, I don't know what was, or was not, classified when Plame's name was given. Nor do I know what damage, if any, was done.

I'm glad we agree: you don't *know* jack shit.


. . . Sounds reasonable to me.
Posted by: Thomas1 on September 13, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, but Pi=3.0 sounds reasonable to you.

Hearken back to May of 2003, and I bet that $2 billion dollars, six weeks, flowers and sweets, democracy domino effect and WMD in a box sounded reasonable to you as well.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

The "British intelligence" has nothing to do with the Italian documents. I was posting on the NYT Iraq forum at the time all of this broke, and it was noted very early on how clumsy those forgeries were. You hardly needed to be Sherlock Holmes to note that.

But none of this matters to you, Wooten. You will twist the larger context into whatever shape of Pennsylvania Dutch hot pretzel you need to in order to get your partisan jollies.

You really *are* like a classic '30s politburo apparatchik.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 13, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

So all evidence points to a hatchet-job by Novak to help further insulate the real cuprits in the WH. It's he said / he said between Novak and Armitage, but it will be delightful red meat fodder for the wingnuts who read his column.

His intent is only to further cloud the issue with bullshit and smear the State. Dept in order to preserve the reps of the neocons.

Armitage may have been a bumbling fool. But Novak is an amoral tool

Novak hates the Neocons. Armitage is a bumbling fool and a coward. I would very much like to see the State Dept eliminated.

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

What is it I am wishing for?

"Valerie Plame was a desk Jockey", is a talking point and a lie(or a wish, if you prefer). It is the only way you can justify the fact that the people you idolize would expose a CIA employee to press scrutiny, which they did, and have admitted to doing.

But somebody forgot to put their finger in Mohammad Atta's butt before he boarded a plane, therefore causing 9/11 and the poor sales of New Coke and the reduced number of teenage girls dotting their "i's" with little hearts. And this was all brought on by Clinton who was so fundamentally unserious about Iraq and WMD that he wiped his ass with the Aug 2001 PDB (brought from the future) and smoked pot with Osama Bin Laden while filming an MMF scene with Monica. Or something like that.

Posted by: enozinho on September 13, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

A third option is that Plame was not protected under any statute but CIA made the referral to DOJ as another shot in the turf war between CIA and DIA.Posted by: Thomas1 on September 13, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently, you don't have any idea how ridiculous that sounds.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

I have my own concerns about Fitzgerald, but do the Radicals who spend all day posting here really think that they can make Fitzgerald's /obstruction of justice/ charges against Libby just go away by chanting the mantra over and over? Martha Stewart was never charged with (and in my personal opinion wasn't guilty of) insider trading but she spent 9 months in jail for obstruction anyway.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on September 13, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

I would very much like to see the State Dept eliminated.
Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

. . . and yet, your brave, bold Leader won't do it. I wonder why? Is he not Commander In Chief? Is he not the very model of a modern major Unitary Executive?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

"Joe Wilson personally faced-down Saddam Hussein at the height of his power, immediately following the Kuwait invasion, at great personal risk. Fuck you very much for attempting to disparage either his character or his fortitude." - OBF


No question he is a man of high integrity.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

"Wilson is a 1972 graduate of the University of California, Santa Barbara. He joked that he majored in "history, volleyball, and surfing" [3], maintaining a "C" average, but became much more serious about his education after graduating....."

Maybe because he was going to end "global warming" working for Al Gore.

Posted by: Jay on September 13, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Two further points:

1) Novak revealed (as we all know now) that his sorce was "no partisan gunslinger." In the new article, Novak claims that Arimtage is no mere lose-lipped gossip, but was *actively pushing* the story, suggesting it would make good column fodder, pushing the Cheney talking point about how Wilson's story needs to be discredited.

Those two things simply cannot exist in the same universe. If Novak's later story is true -- then Armitage was slingin' some partisan Colts.

2) There is exactly *zero* motive for Armitage to discredit a story that is true in its broader outlines (once again: no nuclear program = no need for more yellowcake) and serves to exonerate the State Department at the expense of the neocon stand-alone intelligence shops.

It just makes no sense that Armitage would do such a thing intentionally. Where's the motive?

Novak's story simply does not pass the smell test.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 13, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

You know, Thomas1, my brother is a professor of English, so I'd rather take lessons on grammar and verb tense from him.

But, back to the issue, let me get this straight. Are you saying that you're comfortable with the notion that a classified operation, with a national security objective, was revealed simply for partisan payback? Again, I must ask: which side are you on? Why don't we just give away all of our national security operations to our enemies?

Of course, you don't mind the Commander-in-Chief being undermined during war for political payback, right?

I would prefer that the Commander-in-Chief tell me the truth about why he wants us to go to war. If he lies to me, and someone points it out, I don't call that being "undermined."

Posted by: Wonderin on September 13, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Talking Point, Talking Point, Smear, Lie, Lie, Talking Point, Churchill, WWII, Appeal to Masculinity, Attack on someone else's Masculinity, Non sequitur, Straw Man, Racial Slur, Straw Man, Straw Man, Fart Joke, Lol!

Posted by: Wingnut_Madlib on September 13, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie Lawrence posting as "Thomas1" wrote: "I would be interested in your take on Wilson's report actually confirming what CIA had suspected about forays by Iraq into Africa for yellowcake?"

Wilson's report "confirmed" no such thing, so my take would be that you are regurgitating a scripted Republican Fascist Party lie, the same as you always do, same as all the neo-brownshirt Bush-bootlicking mental slaves who infest this site always do. It's all you ever do.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: "Joe Wilson is up there with Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and John Murtha as liberal icons."

No, they are up there as right-wing extremist bogeymen.

Without courageous people who love America -- like Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and John Murtha -- for Bush-bootlicking neo-brownshirt Republican Fascist Party mental slaves like yourself to hate, you have nothing.

All you really have is your love affair with hating "liberals" (and a "liberal" is just a word for whoever Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter tell you to hate). Aside from that, your so-called "politics" has no other content.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

Wilkerson is a dime a dozen disgruntled bureaucrat upset at the WH because the President actually thought he was in charge of foreign policy. He's as big a putz as Wilson.

Read his CV moron. You're not fit to shine his jumpboots (not that you'd know how):

    "We got shot at nearly every day," he says. A brush with death came when a sniper's bullet pierced the helicopter's cockpit plexiglass, but he was never wounded or shot down. "My men used to call me the Teflon guy. . . . I felt like I had some kind of protective coating on me because I think I flew about 1,100 combat hours, which is a lot of hours."

    (Predictable aside on hawks like Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz: "None of these guys ever heard a bullet go by their ears in combat.")

    After Vietnam, Wilkerson went on to the elite Airborne and Ranger schools, earned his bachelor's in English literature and advanced degrees in international relations and national security. Rising through the ranks, he attended the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and eventually returned there to teach. He later served as acting director at the Marine Corps War College at Quantico.


The only one here that's a dime a dozen rdw is you as a proud member of the 101st Keyboardists. Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

"Wilson's report "confirmed" no such thing,...." secular


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson


"The Senate Intelligence Committee Report further criticized Wilson because his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report. Wilson told the Senate his findings refuted the notion Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The intelligence report written from Wilson's findings, but not by Wilson, confirmed that Iraq in 1999 had approached Niger for increased trade, which was interpreted by the former PM as seeking uranium.

The Senate Intelligence Committee Report also criticized Wilson because his description of the information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA's account. Wilson claimed the CIA told him about documents pertaining to an alleged uranium sale to Iraq; the CIA reports officer denied giving Wilson any such information and noted there were no "documents" circulating at the time"


That's because he was regurgitating a scripted Democratic Fascist Party lie, the same as he always does, same as all the left wing brownshirt Sheehan-skirtlicking mental slaves who infest this planet. It's all they ever do.

Posted by: Jay on September 13, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

There is a legal side to this, which is narrow and technical and other than the principals involved, at one level, I don't care about it. It will certainly be hard to prove anything other than obstruction because all the other statutes involved will require proving intent and that's hard to do. Thomas1 and rdw and all the other apologists want to see the discussion kept as narrow as possible.
But there is also an ethical side to this. And this one seems pretty easy to me - a slam dunk. What Armitage and Rove and Libby did was extremely unethical and they should have been fired as soon as their bosses knew about their involvement. Remember what Bush said in 2003 :
"Leaks of classified information are bad things. Weve got too much leaking in Washington ... I want to know who the leakers are."
Well, it wasn't hard to find out. Clearly Bush has known at least some of this for a very long time. He's not a lawyer, he's a guy who says Jesus is favorite philosopher. Does he think Jesus would consider Rove's behavior ethical ?
Does anyone think Rove's motivation was to clarify exactly how sure or unsure we were about Iraq and Niger and yellowcake uranium ? So why oh why is Bush, the man who ran on his "character", not asking for Rove's resignation ? OK apologists, answer up, would you want sleezy employees like this ?

Posted by: ralph on September 13, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1 wrote to rdw: "It's already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, Wooten, that you have no morals as far as politics go."

You are being too kind to rdw.

He's really just an ignorant, lying asshole, when you get right down to it.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

Ralph:

I agree with you.


Wonderin and others:

Plame was working on Iraq WMD. she was directing the Iraq WMD JTF operations side from Langley. she had left the field since she married Wilson, but yeah, she was important.

no damage was done by the leaking of the Brewster Jennings name (other than any damage already done by the leaking of Plame's name) because she was the only person using that nominal cover.

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/10/apparent_cia_front_didnt_offer_much_cover/

in sum, based upon Plame's job (if the Corn book is to be believed), her outing probably harmed national security in that an experienced professional left her job. thankfully, it probably didn't do anymore damage than that.

Posted by: Nathan on September 13, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

"Leaks of classified information are bad things." - ralph


Classified?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair


"Novak later said a CIA source told him unofficially that Plame had been "an analyst, not in covert operations." When Novak approached the CIA's office of Public Affairs regarding his article on Plame, he claimed that the office expressed no specific danger to anybody in case of the public disclosure of her name, but warned strongly against it"


How's that lawsuit coming along?

Posted by: Jay on September 13, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

The juvenile moron Jay wrote: "The Senate Intelligence Committee Report further criticized Wilson ..."

As always, you cut and paste a quote without naming the source. Why are you trying to hide the source of the quotes you post?

The "Senate Intelligence Committee Report" did not "criticize Wilson". The unfounded, bogus, entirely partison opinion of the Republicans on the Committee that was appended to the report criticized Wilson.

You are doing nothing more than quoting Republican Fascist Party propaganda to support Republican Fascist Party propaganda.

That's all you ever do, because you are an ignorant, lying asshole.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1:

It would have been illegal under the IPA to intentionally out Plame.

Armitage is protected simply because he didn't know her identity was classified.

(The Espionage Act has major constitutional questions which is why prosecutors generally don't test it....and normally liberals would be the first to point out those issues.)

Posted by: Nathan on September 13, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Everyone knows who you are, Charlie.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

"As always, you cut and paste a quote without naming the source." - secular

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

I don't know how to make it more obvious for you secular.

"You are doing nothing more than quoting Republican Fascist Party propaganda to support Republican Fascist Party propaganda." - secular


And that right there folks is the Democratic Fascist Party Propaganda. See how that mindless game is played?

Posted by: Jay on September 13, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan wrote: her outing probably harmed national security in that an experienced professional left her job.

...and that her sources -- hell, anyone who had contact with her, as an Ambassador's wife or otherwise -- almost certainly clammed up at best or were given a nine millimeter brain hemmorage at worst. Shame on you for your continued dishonesty, especially as it's in service of carrying water for these traitors.

By the way, isn't it fascinating to see that there's no one, absolutely no one, that Bush Cultists like Wooten won't smear if they embarrass the bush Administration?

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory:

see my comment to Ralph.

um, what sources? According to Corn and Isikoff..she wasn't running agents. (considering that she only had a nominal cover after marrying Wilson she better not have been running agents).

you might want to keep your talking points straight.

Posted by: Nathan on September 13, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:
I didn't say "leaks are bad things", Bush did. I have no lawsuit pending. And why did the CIA
warn strongly against it ?

Thomas1:
"There's a lot more to ethics and the big picture than meets the eye". Yikes, what a dork.

My point is that it is Bush who ran as the "character" candidate, remember, so hiding behind legalisms seems hypocritical.
And there is no trick question at all. Assuming you understand that all that is legal is not ethical, please just answer the qustion: Do you think Armitage's and Libby's and Rove's behavior was ethical ? Do you have any qualms about it ?

Posted by: ralph on September 13, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

"....isn't it fascinating to see that there's no one, absolutely no one, that Bush Cultists like Wooten won't smear if they embarrass the bush Administration?" greggy


Isn't it fascinating to see that there's no one, absolutely no one, that leftys won't smear if they support, or are a part of the Bush Administration.

See how that mindless game is played?

Posted by: Jay on September 13, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan writes:
...no damage was done by the leaking of the Brewster Jennings name (other than any damage already done by the leaking of Plame's name) because she was the only person using that nominal cover.

Possibly so. But since we're speculating, I would suggest that there is a larger picture to consider. When she was working under the BJ cover, she had presumably developed a network of contacts throughout the "nuke community," some of whom may have been useful intelligence assets. In other words, she wasn't operating in a vacuum.

Posted by: Wonderin on September 13, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1:

her identity was classified, she still had a nominal cover.

no one was prosecuted under the IPA for a much simpler reason: the IPA has an intent requirement. they didn't know her identity was classified, therefore no intent.

Posted by: Nathan on September 13, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Wonderin:

nope. she was a NOC before she married Wilson and she was under a different cover then. The B&J cover was created when she moved to a desk job at Langley. her old cover has not been compromised (yet).

Posted by: Nathan on September 13, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

jay: No question he is a man of high integrity.

"Duke Cunningham is a hero. He is an honorable man of high integrity."--Tom DeLay, June 15, 2005

Posted by: mr. irony on September 13, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

My bad, then, concerning the timing of the BJ cover.

But you're suggesting that people who worked with her (internationally, for example) when she was a NOC haven't seen her story plastered all over the press?

She must have been wearing one of those Mission Impossible masks during her NOC days...cool.

Posted by: Wonderin on September 13, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

thomas1: A third option is that Plame was not protected under any statute but CIA

that would explain this:


'I've gone to Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and they have told me they are not involved in this' Scott McClellan 9/23/03

Posted by: mr. perspective on September 13, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Another question that is never asked (that I have seen since Armitage fessed up) by the Right Wing Lemming corporate media that dominates this country:

Who told Armitage, and for what purpose? The request to investigate the Niger claim was initiated by Cheney (i.e. White House).

Keep digging, Fitz. Kenny-boy Starr set the $73 million precendence in the Whitewater probe, no reason not to follow suit.

.

Posted by: GK on September 13, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

"Kosovo was neither a war nor a threat to the United States of America."

Yes, it was. It was a clear indication of how seriously Clinton took Al Qaida by 1998, because al Qaida was infiltrating the Muslim resistance groups in kosovo, utilizing the chaos and genocide to recruit and to train.

Clinton drained that swamp, and kept Al Qaida from getting a solid foothold in Europe.

He also achieved a total victory, with no combat deaths for US soldiers, the removal of a genocidal dictator, and set up a stable peace keeping force with our allies . It enhanced our status in the Muslim world, and was a strong beginning to draining the rest of the swamp.

It is a shame he was followed by an incompetent blowhard who never had to work for anything or be held accountable for his numerous failures in life. 9/11 would have been foiled by Clinton or Gore, who's staff took terrorism seriously.

Posted by: Mysticdog on September 13, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Wonderin:

true. but that's somewhat mitigated by the fact that no one knew what she looked like until she deliberate posed with her face unconcealed for photographers.

hopefully that means that she had reason to believe that it was unnecessary to conceal it further. but it doesn't put her in the best light, does it?

look, as I've reiterated here manytimes...I do think the leak of her name was unethical and wrong.

But there's a long continuum between Thomas1's nothing wrong was done and "it was treason!"

I'm in the middle of that continuum. I do love the hypocrisy of the same posters who will bleat all day here about Plame and then refuse to denounce those who leaked the CIA prisons or the NSA TSP...

Posted by: Nathan on September 13, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

"9/11 would have been foiled by Clinton or Gore, who's staff took terrorism seriously."

I highly doubt that. Bush hadn't been in office long enough to institute institutional changes to remove the beauracratic walls that allowed 9/11 to happen. he inherited those. with that said, I doubt he would have instituted such changes anyway.

Posted by: Nathan on September 13, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Mindless juvenile moron Jay wrote: "I don't know how to make it more obvious for you secular."

What is obvious is that you quote the deliberately dishonest, partisan Republican commentary on the Senate Intelligence Committee report and claim that you are quoting the report itself.

What is obvious is that you are a lying asshole.

Jay: "See how that mindless game is played?"

I've never seen you do anything but play mindless games on this site.

The only thing you ever contribute is mindless regurgitation of the stupidest Republican talking points ever invented, most of them amounting to nothing more than yelling "Liberals Suck!" over and over again.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK


nathan: in sum, based upon Plame's job (if the Corn book is to be believed), her outing probably harmed national security in that an experienced professional left her job. thankfully, it probably didn't do anymore damage than that.


"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well known for her protection or for the benefit of all of us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, they be protected not just for the officer but for the nation's security."

- Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald October 28, 2005

Posted by: mr. perspective on September 13, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

GK:

um, Armitage learned Plame's identity from a State Department memo on Wilson's mission to Niger. no one's asking cause he already answered that question.

Posted by: Nathan on September 13, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Perspective:

huh? what does that quote have to do with anything? except point out that Thomas1 is wrong as to there being any dispute as to her identity still being classified.

Posted by: Nathan on September 13, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

thomas1....

I've gone to Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and they have told me they are not involved in this' Scott McClellan 9/23/03


see...they lied because...she was under cover...

makes perfect sense...

to a dead ender...

Posted by: mr. perspective on September 13, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

cyntax: So Fitzgerald is an idiot who indicted the wrong person and Armitage is an ex-Navy SEAL who didn't know classified info when he had it? Or there's something more to this and we don't have all the whole picture yet? I'll go with option B for now.

I also do not understand why Armitage is talking about this now. If he testified truthfully to the grand jury, as thomas1 thinks likely, why isn't Armitage just keeping quiet right now? It makes him look stupid, and it makes Powell and Fitzgerald look dishonest.

Posted by: republicrat on September 13, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan wrote: "Bush hadn't been in office long enough to institute institutional changes to remove the beauracratic walls that allowed 9/11 to happen."

That's a crock of scripted Republican bullshit.

It was not "beauracratic [sic] walls" that "allowed 9/11 to happen."

It was the criminal negligence -- in my opinion, the intentional and deliberate criminal negligence -- of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice in ignoring the numerous, specific warnings that they received not only from the departing Clinton administration officials, but from people in their own administration, including warnings that Al Qaeda cells were actively operating in the USA and preparing to hijack commercial aircraft, that allowed 9/11 to happen.

Just like Rush Limbaugh's butt-boy who created Disney's right-wing extremist cartoon fantasy movie "The Path to 9/11", you are making up fake, phony stories to cover up Bush's criminal negligence.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

".....because al Qaida was infiltrating the Muslim resistance groups in kosovo, utilizing the chaos and genocide to recruit and to train." - mystic something


So Al Qaeda was operating in Kosovo but stayed completely out of Iraq prior to 2002? I would think that if Kosovo proved to be a good recruiting area in the 90's that Iraq might have been even better........hmmmmmmm.

I guess if the Democrats say it's true, it must be huh?

Posted by: Jay on September 13, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: I have no reason to doubt Fitzgerald's statement.

In addition, the CIA referral to the Justice Department (such referral occurs numerous times each year and happens whenever classified information is publicly disseminated) evinces as much.

Posted by: Nathan on September 13, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK


"The damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't to Valerie Wilson, it was done to all of us."


- Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald October 28, 2005


Posted by: mr. irony on September 13, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan,

um, that's what is claimed.

My "Keep digging, Fitz" post stands.

Posted by: GK on September 13, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan: I'm in the middle of that continuum. I do love the hypocrisy of the same posters who will bleat all day here about Plame and then refuse to denounce those who leaked the CIA prisons or the NSA TSP...

Not sure that I'm bleating, but I do see a difference between someone outing a CIA officer operating with a cover and someone disclosing a program that they believe is unconstitutional. One is revenge the other is whistle-blowing. The whistle-blowing may have been misdirected or not, depending on your opinion, but I kind it very difficult to ascribe any altruistic motive to outing Plame.


Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

"It was not "beauracratic [sic] walls" that "allowed 9/11 to happen."" - secular something


No, it was our President who was more obsessed with blowjobs, polls and eight years of fame who is primarily to blame.

Posted by: Jay on September 13, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat: "... why isn't Armitage just keeping quiet right now?"

Perhaps because he knew that Corn and Isikoff's book was about to be released, in which they identify Armitage as Novak's original source.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

I have a policy of not responding to SA's hateful spleen. but if he wants to list one Clinton anti-al-quaeda policy that was discontinued by Bush upon entering office I'd like to hear it.

the fact of the matter is, Clinton was getting the same sort of PDB's that Bush was. there was simply little that a president could do that would have been politically possible before 9/11. it's all hindsight now.

there are legitimate criticisms of Bush's antiterrorism policies post-9/11 of course.

Posted by: Nathan on September 13, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

"The damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't to Valerie Wilson, it was done to all of us."


- Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald October 28, 2005


My heart just cries out.

Posted by: Jay on September 13, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: I suppose. I fail to see your point though.

Posted by: nathan on September 13, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Jay wrote: "No, it was our President who was more obsessed with blowjobs, polls and eight years of fame who is primarily to blame."

You become more stupid and mindless with every comment you post.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

cyntax:

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Posted by: Nathan on September 13, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat: I also do not understand why Armitage is talking about this now. If he testified truthfully to the grand jury, as thomas1 thinks likely, why isn't Armitage just keeping quiet right now? It makes him look stupid, and it makes Powell and Fitzgerald look dishonest.

Well, another way of looking at it is that Armitage's admission, while pushing Novak back in the spotlight, is an attempt to diffuse suspicion and helps the WH (Rove?). I'm not sure. Armitage's motivation for talking now is not clear.

Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Thanks for the update.

Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, speaking of memo's, nathan, why are you Right Wing Lemmings still claiming that GeeDubya couldn't stop 9-11 because of some perceived "[beaurocratic] walls that allowed 9/11 to happen" ?

Jamie Gorelick's memo (you read that, didn't you?) defined procedures to circumnavigate such perceived "walls," which shatters that Right Wing Lemming myth.

Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. Nobody, or nothing, else allowed it. GeeDubya allowed it.

Given GeeDubya's complete failure to protect this country (proven by 9-11, the anthrax attacks & Osama's cold trail), & the preceeding administration's proven ability to thwart domestic terrorist attacks (millenium, CIA building plots) I'd take my chances with Gore any time.

Of course, the only domestic terrorist attack after the first Trade Center bombing (Clinton was in office for a month) was made by a far Right extremist.

Go figure.

Posted by: GK on September 13, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: You mean, cyntax, other than preventing the death of 1 million or more Americans?

Do you have some specifc event in mind? Or are you just riffing off the top of Rove's talking points on that one? I'm infinitely skeptical that there were ever any operations afoot that could have killed 1 million Americans. Did al Qaeda get the launch codes to Russian ICBMs or something?

Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan wrote: "I have a policy of not responding to SA's hateful spleen."

In that case, you are a fake, phony, hypocritical asshole for responding to me, and your "policy" is pretentious, empty posturing. Much like good old Charlie's "Ignore List".

Nathan wrote: "if he wants to list one Clinton anti-al-quaeda policy that was discontinued by Bush upon entering office I'd like to hear it."

How ignorant are you? Have you read Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies? If not, don't you think you should, before you spout off about things you are grossly uninformed about?

Nathan wrote: "there was simply little that a president could do that would have been politically possible before 9/11."

There was quite a lot that the Clinton administration did. Once again you show your ignorance.

Moreover, all of the outgoing Clinton administration officials who had anything to do with counterterrorism told their incoming counterparts in the Bush administration that despite their efforts, Al Qaeda remained a serious threat -- in their view, the most serious threat -- facing the USA, and the Bush people completely ignored this and did nothing, right up to the August 2001 PDB and the 9/11 attacks.

You are just an apologist for the Bush administration, and a shockingly ignorant one at that.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

I'm infinitely skeptical that there were ever any operations afoot that could have killed 1 million Americans.

Planned Parenthood made an oath to Al-Qaeda to abort 1 million snowflakes on the eve of the millienium. KSM called it "The Aborting Snowflakes Operation".

Posted by: enozinho on September 13, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan wrote: "if he wants to list one Clinton anti-al-quaeda policy that was discontinued by Bush upon entering office I'd like to hear it."

How about twice-weekly principles meetings held at the White House specifically for the purposes of national security against domestic terrorism, or do you not consider that sufficiently anti Al-quaeda ?

Probably the single-most reason why Al-Quaeda didn't attack us here for over eight years until GeeDubya & the grown-ups took over - Clinton actually paid attention to the matter, whereas GeeDubya was only interested in clearing brush and acknowledging those who covered their arses.

Posted by: GK on September 13, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

Planned Parenthood made an oath to Al-Qaeda to abort 1 million snowflakes on the eve of the millienium. KSM called it "The Aborting Snowflakes Operation".

D'oh! Of course. I knew I'd over-looked some salient details the last time I cross referenced Ann Coulter's 'Godless' with Nosterdamus: so many liberal plots, so little time...

Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

I forgot to mention the assault on July 4, 2002 at LA airport.

Later considered a terrorist attack.

GK regrets the omission.

Posted by: GK on September 13, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

I always wonder if all this doesn't go back to George Bush the First. 41 was the CIA chief under Ford and I believe Nixon as well. I figure Bush has got to have lots of crap on a lot of people in the world including senators and house reps(esp. the ones on the intelligence committees), foreign leaders incl. Tony Blair, various political leaders and career government and military employees. Pretty much everybody has skeletons in their closet. I just find it hard to believe that Tony Blair, Armitage, Powell, and John McCain would go along Bush's nutball son's policies.

Posted by: bumblebee on September 13, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, speaking of beaurocratic walls, I forgot about this as well (sorry in advance if this post is too long):

Bin Laden Trail 'Stone Cold'
U.S. Steps Up Efforts, But Good Intelligence On Ground is Lacking

By Dana Priest and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 10, 2006; A01


"Bureaucratic battles slowed down the hunt for bin Laden for the first two or three years, according to officials in several agencies, with both the Pentagon and the CIA accusing each other of withholding information. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's sense of territoriality has become legendary, according to these officials.

In early November 2002, for example, a CIA drone armed with a Hellfire missile killed a top al-Qaeda leader traveling through the Yemeni desert. About a week later, Rumsfeld expressed anger that it was the CIA, not the Defense Department, that had carried out the successful strike.

"How did they get the intel?" he demanded of the intelligence and other military personnel in a high-level meeting, recalled one person knowledgeable about the meeting.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then director of the National Security Agency and technically part of the Defense Department, said he had given it to them.

"Why aren't you giving it to us?" Rumsfeld wanted to know.

Hayden, according to this source, told Rumsfeld that the information-sharing mechanism with the CIA was working well. Rumsfeld said it would have to stop.

[Lots of snippage...]

Today, however, no one person is in charge of the overall hunt for bin Laden with the authority to direct covert CIA operations to collect intelligence and to dispatch JSOC units. Some counterterrorism officials find this absurd. "There's nobody in the United States government whose job it is to find Osama bin Laden!" one frustrated counterterrorism official shouted. "Nobody!""

Jeepers, slapping around the RightWingLemmingdomPubbiehood is easy . . . .

Posted by: GK on September 13, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: It doesn't take that many suitcase nukes detonated in New York City, San Francisco, downtown L.A. etc. to get to one million dead pretty darn quick.

Since they aren't air detonated, it takes more than you think. Also, al Qaeda doesn't have suitcase nukes so maybe you were thinking of their fyling purple people eater weapon?

    What is a suitcase bomb? The US and possibly other countries have made weapons that might fit in a large suitcase. They would be rather heavy, however, and it is quite unlikely that a terrorist group could make such a bomb.
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20770/Nuc_explosion_facts.pdf#search=%22suitcase%20nuclear%2C%20damage%2C%20yield%22 Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan wrote: "if he wants to list one Clinton anti-al-quaeda policy that was discontinued by Bush upon entering office I'd like to hear it."

I forgot another one.

How about John O'Neill, who was investigating the Cole bombing, had his clearance to travel to Yemen pulled by the State Department after bush's Right Wing Yemenese Ambassador (her name escapes me, you can do your own homework) recommended it.

Is that considered Anti-Al-Quaeda policy ?

O'Neill, as you recall, left in frustration to join the WTC as director of security (?) and died on 9-11 after only a few days on the job.

Why do I always get suckered into edumicating Right Wingers & doing their homwork for them?

I need to be more disciplined . . .

Posted by: GK on September 13, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Care to quantify how "quite unlikely" it would be that a terrorist group could make such a bomb? Is it more, or less, likely that they would simply buy, or steal, a couple instead? After that, it's kinda like that old gameshow "Name that Tune" with a twist -- I could kill one million with 6 suitcase nukes -- your turn.

Posted by: Thomas1

Actually, you probably would need a lot more than 6 bombs. Your previous inaccurate assumptions not-witstanding (e.g. a bunker buster is meant to take out a specific hardened target so not the ideal MO for maximizing civilian casualties), let's look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and make a few estimates. The 2-3 kiloton bunker busters are usually airborne munitions and not suitcase bombs per se. We'll assume a ground burst not airborne detonation of one kiloton bomb. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were bombed with 10 kilton yield bombs and both were air-bursted for maximum damage. Hiroshima was very flat and so the air burst was nearly doubly effective in terms of casualties. Since we're using a groundburst scenario where bulidings and surrounding terrain absorb damage let's take the casualty rate from the more hilly Nagasaki and then we'll use one tenth of that as the likely casualty rate for a ground burst at one tenth the yield ( Nagasaki hit with a ten kilton bomb, the terrorists using a one kiloton bomb). Since Nagasaki suffered 64,000 civilians killed by a ten kiloton, airbursted nuclear bomb it seems reasonable to say that a ground-bursted one kiloton bomb wouldkill in the range of 6,000 to 7,000 people. At the high end (7,000), that would mean al qaeda would need to acquire, place, and detonate ~142 suit case nukes.

Like I said, I'm very skeptical that there was ever a plot of this magnitude even concieved, let alone in play. And to think such a massive plot was foiled and the the administration never took credit for it? The mind boggles.

Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Care to quantify how "quite unlikely" it would be that a terrorist group could make such a bomb?

Quantified:
Years of above-ground and below-ground nuclear detonation testing was required before such designs were perfected.

The plans for a simple gun-type uranium bomb are downloadable on the internet. The resulting device fits on the back of a truck, or in a shipping-container.

Implosion bombs are much trickier, requires Plutonium which is much more difficult to get ahold of, but still in the realm of "possible". The chances of a successful full nuclear detonation on a first try are pretty low. The device that detonated over Hiroshima was less than 1% efficient.

Pushing up from there, the miniturization, and yeild boosting achieved by more advanced construction techniques, including deuterium and depleted uranium neutron reflectors, are way, way beyond the capabilities of any non-industrial power. Not only are precision machining and manufacturing techniques required, but you simply can't construct such a device without either significant industrial facilities to contain radioactive materials, or you sacrifice skilled bomb builders as they die from exposure to radiation (which, it's rumored, happened for the early Soviet program).

Theorizing that terrorists, or even governments such as Saddam's Iraq, or Iran, have the technology to accomplish more advanced devices now or in the near future is a fucking joke.

TESTING IS REQUIRED.

Computer simulation could get them part of the way there. (Which is why supercomputers were export controlled for many years) But the reliability of the end product would be in question.

Pakistan is well on their way to figuring this stuff out, but official reports vary on whether their test was actually successful because they tested several devices at one time (ie. a trial and error approach). Some analysts believe that none of their devices achieved anywhere near the expected yeild. I seriously doubt that even Pakistan has a reliable device they can deliver with a ballistic missile. Possibly India has that capability. And North Korea. China only recently gained that capability (in theory) through espionage - which was not backed up by actual testing (so again, there's a reliability issue).

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and Thomas1? Although Dr. Al-Zawahri boasted about being able to get suitcase nukes (a good indicator in my eyes they didn't have them), he did say they cost 30 million USD each. So even if we up the casualty rate to 10,000 dead per bomb, to kill one million Americans would cost three billion USD. Not sure that's in al Qaeda's operating budget.

Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

cyntax;

Nagasaki had single and two-story wooden-framed structures.

A modern American city would soak up a lot more shock damage than even "hilly Nagasaki".

As a bonus, Republicans would win the next election, and a major American city would lie in ruin for at least another four years, with nothing done to rebuild. Just like the WTC and New Orleans.

Wait - what did you say? They fixed the hole in the Pentagon?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

Those two things simply cannot exist in the same universe. If Novak's later story is true -- then Armitage was slingin' some partisan Colts.

They can absolutely exist in the same universe. Discrediting Joe Wilson is hardly a patisan exercise. The Washington Post just did it and they're partisan democrat.

Karl Rove is a partisan gunslinger. Cheney, Bush, Dean, Kerry, etc., are all partisan gunslingers. Armitage is a professional bureaucrat. He's never run for office, or campaigned for anyone or been a politician.

Why would there be any question the WH, CIA and State Dept would find out about Joe Wilson? Aside from some lower level people in the State Dept and his wife as CIA no one knew Joe Wilson. Colin Powell asked for a report and after finding out the man had zero credentials, zero experience, was unemployed and unpaid and clearly a democratic hack why on earth did the CIA use him?

The answer was Joe's wife and CIA incompetence.

It was incredibly poor judgement. The likely truth is Armitage wanted to embarrass the CIA while protecting State.

2) There is exactly *zero* motive for Armitage to discredit a story that is true in its broader outlines (once again: no nuclear program = no need for more yellowcake)

Armitage was probably gleeful for the fact this was a CIA disaster. Joe lied through his teeth. That's well established. I'll refer you again to the WashPost Editorial Board. We know for a fact Joe told the CIA Iraq was in Niger inquiring about trade. We know for a fact it wasn't until Joe told the CIA this that the CIA even got interested. What Joe wrote in his editorial was exactly the opposite of what he told the CIA.


and serves to exonerate the State Department at the expense of the neocon stand-alone intelligence shops.

It just makes no sense that Armitage would do such a thing intentionally. Where's the motive?

His motive was to embarrass the CIA and show Joe Wilson to be a putz.

It turns out he and Joe were exposed. Joe doesn't care. He just wanted to make some money and get his 15 minutes.

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1,

Your macabre fantasy about one million dead is just that: fantasy. If thinking that al Qaeda can kill one million Americans is what turns your crank then fine, fantasize about that. But it's not realistic. Though now that I think about it, you must be pretty pissed at the Republicans for killing the Dems attempt to inspect every container coming into the US right...right?

BTW: you never did answer why you think it is impossible for a suicide bomber to air detonate as the device is falling to the ground.

Possible or likely? Anything is possible, but if you're trying to argue for a terrorist skydiving out of a plane with a suit case nuke strapped to him and detonating it during freefall.. uh, OK. Sounds like you've been watching a few too many James Bond movies though.


Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

Valerie Plame was a desk Jockey", is a talking point and a lie(or a wish, if you prefer).

Val was a desk jockey and had been since before the birth of her twins. It's a fact.

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

cyntax,

Wilkerson was a disgruntled bureaucrat. That's all he was and nothing more. They are a dime-a-dozen in Washington.

Posted by: rdw on September 13, 2006 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: About 20,000 people work in the Empire State Building, and more than 3.8 million people visit its observation decks annually: http://www.new-york-hotels-usa.com/empire_state.htm

So, that's approximately 30,000 dead just taking out that one building, even if the surrounding buildings magically "soaked up all the shock damage" and no one else died.

And that leaves you ~970,000 short of the million you claimed were saved by the NSA wiretapping program. There's no way that you can kill a million people with suitcase bombs, and at 30 mil a pop al Qaeda doesn't have the money to do it. Are these apocalyptic fantasies really what you spend your time thinking about?

Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

Wilkerson was a disgruntled bureaucrat. That's all he was and nothing more. They are a dime-a-dozen in Washington.

rdw, can't you read? He flew 1,100 combat hours in Vietnam in an OH-6A scout helicopter. As in right over the jungle canopy. Let's contrast that service with, I don't know, being in an Air National Guard unit? If a combat vet like Wilkerson is a bureaucrat, what does that make GWB? A complete farce?

Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

I recall the breathless speculation on CNN and FoxNews the morning of 9/11 that 50,000 people work at the WTC.

Final death toll - - - anyone?

Cigarette manufacturers murder more Americans on a monthly basis than that. Yet nobody is invading South Carolina. How curious.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin is funny. He has repeatedly disparaged Novak, but now that Novak offers some information that gives a conspiracy guy cause for hope, Kevin is all over Novak's account without a hint of doubt.

I have always believed Novak, but the whole episode further demonstates the foibles of people. Neither Novak nor Armitage apparently having any notes of the conversation, so unless one of them wrote it up (aside from the newpaper column bare bones treatment), each of them is trying to remember precise words from a conversation three years ago. A Kevin is again behaving foolishly on the subject.

To Kevin's question, Novak as an anti Iraq War conservative is a logical person for Armitage to talk to. Novak also apparently agrees Dubenstein set it up.

Novak does not write very well. But Armitage certainly concitinues to look bad, particularly in his failure to fess up for three months or let the public know for threee years.

Posted by: brian on September 13, 2006 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

I also think Armitage might have talked to Novak because he knew Wilson was lying, or at least not making any sense, and he wanted to dicredit Wilson. Since Armitage has not been indicted, the disclosre of Plame apparently was not a crime.

Posted by: brian on September 13, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

After that initial 30,000 dead, cyntax, how many more do you think die in the panic across the country when 5 more nukes go off every 1/2 hour thereafter?

Well, at least the 49% who voted for Bush will probably be hauled out into the street and beaten to a pulp. . .

As for searching every container that enters the U.S., there's not enough manpower or money to do so and it would bring the economy to a halt.

hm.

Money?

Or life.

Money?

Or life. . . .

No man can serve two masters: For either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. - Jesus Christ Matthew 6:24

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 13, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

>Good grief you're an idiot.
>Do you have any grounding
>in reality at all?

GOP, Don, whoever the fuck you are.

Shut.the.fuck.up.

That's right. I told you to shut the fuck up. If you open your sonofabitchin mouth one more time and post on this blog I will rip Thomas1's head off and shove it down your filthy pie hole.

Do you understand me?

There is no *fucking* way either of you could ever conceivably be right about anything. You both need to get:

1. A gallon of Vaseline
2. A six foot piece of rubber hose
3. An isolated hotel room
4. Thirty steel dildos
5. A weekend off from your job abducting children with a moving van

And get together and go to town.

GOP and Thomas1 - this is your daddy speaking -

Shut.the.*FUCK*.up

That's my take on it, anyway

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 13, 2006 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

I Wiki'ed Joe Wilson and as usual, Wooten, you're telling less than half the story. Your whole point hinges on a later meeting of Niger officials with Iraqi officials to "discuss trade." Since about 70% of Niger's trade involves uranium, this is *assumed* to be what that meeting was about.

Well, guess what. You *still* haven't answered why Iraq would need yellowcake when it has a metric ton of it. You *still* haven't confirmed a nuclear program that would require such material (and you'd need either centrifuges or a heavy-water reactor to morph the lightly-refined yellowcake into the crudest bomb fuel).

That WaPo editorial's points about Wilson are disputed; go Wiki Wilson yourself. What's undisputed is that *not a single soul* questions the basic premise of Wilson's report -- that Iraq was not seeking uranium from Niger.

Except, of course, right-wing character assassins and disinformation artists.

Oh, and idiot-boy -- Armitage's attempt to attack Wilson's story would serve to *bolster* the CIA's credibility at the *expense* of the State Department. Precisely the opposite of what you proposed.

Robert Novak's story appears to be pure bullshit designed to do precisely what you allege of Armitage.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 13, 2006 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas obviously's feeling pretty hard-pressed in the debate on suitcase nukes.

OBF and cyntax clearly know a bit of what they're talking about, and all Thomas can do is google furiously.

So, out of a frustration that Thomas can only take *so much of*, he starts once again spoofing me.

I really am beginning to feel geninely badly for this person.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 13, 2006 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

You mean, cyntax, other than preventing the death of 1 million or more Americans?

Look Thomas1, you're the one asserting that not only could al Qaeda credibly threaten one million Americans but that somehow the NSA wiretapping program saved one million Americans. Color me infinitely skeptical for all the reasons I've layed out above.

If you want to come in off that less than tenable rhetorical ledge that's fine with me.


As for searching every container that enters the U.S., there's not enough manpower or money to do so and it would bring the economy to a halt. I was fine with those evil greedy bastard Republicans stopping that. The better system would be to inspect at all the points of departure and make sure containers cannot be tampered with en route.

BS-- Other foreign ports do it right now. Are you saying American know how isn't up to the what Singapore and Hong Kong are currently doing? For shame Thomas1. And are you really saying we can't afford it? Hmm... maybe we shouldn't be cutting taxes then.

Posted by: cyntax on September 13, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

Since all the trolls on here reciting scripted talking points are shiving Armitage, I think we can all conclude that that was the intended purpose of Novak's article.

Posted by: Disputo on September 13, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

I'd almost say that post was funny ... but it's too obviously crude.

Keep trying, Thomas. Maybe someday you'll actually write a post that might be mistaken for mine.

Once again, you might try leaving spaces after the quote headers.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 13, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

As for searching every container that enters the U.S., there's not enough manpower or money to do so and it would bring the economy to a halt.... The better system would be to inspect at all the points of departure and make sure containers cannot be tampered with en route.

So, we don't have enough $ to inspect incoming containers at US ports, but we can afford to inspect outgoing containers at foreign ports? You are truly a retard. There are plenty of reasons to inspect for nukes before a container goes in route to the US (most of all, because the nuke ain't here yet), but cost concerns is not one of them.

Posted by: Disputo on September 13, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo:

Exactamundo:

If Wooten's shanking Armitage, you can be damn sure that was Novak's point in the article.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 13, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

Hm. Interesting info in the wiki on Armitage. This guy has been around since 1975, both in DOD and all around the world in State. I didn't realize he was a PNAC signer:

"He signed "The Project for the New American Century" letter (PNAC Letter) to President Bill Clinton in 1998. The letter urged Clinton to target the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power in Iraq due to erosion of the Gulf War Coalition's containment policy and the resulting possibility that Iraq might create weapons of mass destruction. The letter's intended purpose of removing Hussein was to protect Israel and other U.S. allies in the region including oil-producing Arab countries."

And guess what he's doing now?

"On May 10, 2006, Armitage was elected to the board of directors of the ConocoPhillips oil company."

Although everything I read about Armitage describes him as a moderate in the Colin Powell mold, exactly what does moderate mean in this current era? Powell lied through his teeth at the UN. Armitage could easily have been a 'safe' person to be given the task of outing Plame, and I don't doubt that he would have turned down the mission.

Posted by: nepeta on September 13, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

"Perhaps you are unaware that Bush and/or Cheney declassified Plame's status? "

Perhaps you are unaware that Rove told Cooper it would be declassified soon - meaning it was still classified when both Armitage and Rove leaked it.

Posted by: chaboard on September 13, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1: That WaPo editorial's points about Wilson are disputed; go Wiki Wilson yourself. What's undisputed is that *not a single soul* questions the basic premise of Wilson's report -- that Iraq was not seeking uranium from Niger.

Not a single soul? Christopher Hitchens questioned the conclusion of Wilson's report quite nicely, by directing attention to the person who was representing Iraq in those negotiations. And the reason that Iraq needed new yellowcake was that their existing stocks were monitored by the UN, and Iraq wanted a clandestine program.

Granted, the "trade" talks between Niger and Iraq did not move forward. Still, Iraq *was trying* to buy more uranium.

Posted by: republicrat on September 13, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat:

Christopher *Hitchens?* You mean the former Trotskyite ultraleft persecutor of Mother Teresa of all people, turned neocon fanatic whose main source in all things Iraq is Ahmad Chalabi?

*That* Christopher Hitchens? The sloppy rotund drunk three barstools down?

Iraq "wanted" a clandestine program. That's just too funny. I want a pony. No, make that a *stablefull* of ponies ...

Mohammed ElBaradei has pulverized this crapola in his final report.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 13, 2006 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat:

We don't even know what the content of that trade was supposed to be. If it was uranium, it would have been simply impossible.

But it couldn't have been uranium without either centrifuges or a heavy-water reactor. There's no other way to use yellowcake.

The contempt ElBaradei has for the accusations that Iraq has anything remotely resembling a functioning nuclear program is palpable. Most of their scientists and technologists fled the country after the Gulf War. What was left of the physical plant was in shambles.

The uranium-from-Niger story simply hasn't an ounce of credibility.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 13, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

Sheesh!!! It was not only Wilson who said that Iraq was not attempting to import yellowcake from Niger, it was also the US Ambassador to Niger at the time and a visiting US general.

Posted by: nepeta on September 13, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

Christopher Hitchens is bat-shit crazy. Sad. He has a good mind but it has turned upon itself and there seems to be little hope of recovery.

Posted by: nepeta on September 13, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK
Still, Iraq *was trying* to buy more uranium. republicrat at 10:25 PM
Only in your wet dreams. Iraq had tons of yellowcake on hand that it could not use because it had no program. None. There was no reason to buy more. None. The entire story is fake justification for an illegal war, and the delusional Hitchens is as big a liar as any Republican. Posted by: Mike on September 13, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

I want a pony. No, make that a *stablefull* of ponies. I want them to have fluffy hair and to prace about the place.

Do you think if I had a stable full of ponies that people would treat me better? Methinks that if a bunch of people knew I was a pony person, they'd like me more.

Until then I think I'm going to figure out how to handle the problem of what to do when someone in prison sticks a shiv in your thigh. Obviously, you can drink aftershave and get a nice buzz, but what do you do? Can you use toothpaste or deodorant in the wound and hope the screws take you to the infirmary? I need a lot of rest right now. I need to settle in and do something about my insomnia.

Drifting, drifting in a sea of blood red water...who loves you, baby? Who can love a fool like me...

Buurp! Bzzzt! Wheeeeoeeee-wop! Sha-bippth! Grrrrrr-flong! Whoop de whoop de whoop! Gak!

That's my take on the subject.

Posted by: rmck1's dreams on September 13, 2006 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan: I have a policy of not responding to SA's hateful spleen. but if he wants to list one Clinton anti-al-quaeda policy that was discontinued by Bush upon entering office I'd like to hear it.

Let me help you out, since SA did not:

Jan 2001: the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism position was downgraded by the incoming Bush Administration to second tier, a position not having direct access to the President. This was the post held by Richard Clark.

Feb 2001: According to Time magazine, The US was all set to join a global crackdown on criminal and terrorist money havens [in early 2001]. Thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers like Liechtenstein and Antigua, whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicatesand groups like Osama bin Ladens al-Qaeda organization. Then the Bush administration took office. After pressure from the powerful banking lobby, the Treasury Department under Paul ONeill halts US cooperation with these international efforts begun in 2000 by the Clinton administration. Clinton had created a Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center in his last budget, but under ONeill no funding for the center is provided.


May 2001: The US introduces the Visa Express program in Saudi Arabia, which allows any Saudi Arabian to obtain a visa through his or her travel agent instead of appearing at a consulate in person. Five of the hijackers take advantage of this program to enter the US.

May 2001: The Justice Department curtails a highly classified program called Catchers Mitt to monitor al-Qaeda suspects in the United States. This is apparently because a federal judge severely chastised the FBI for improperly seeking permission to wiretap terrorists. [Newsweek, 3/22/2004]

May 10, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft sends a letter to department heads telling them the Justice Departments new agenda. He cites seven goals, but counterterrorism is no longer one of them.

June 13, 2001: At President Bushs first meeting with NATO heads of state in Brussels, Belgium, Bush outlines his five top defense issues. Missile defense is at the top of the list. Unlike Clinton's policy, Counter-terrorism is not mentioned at all.

July 5: the CIA briefed Attorney General Ashcroft on the al-Qaeda threat, warning that a significant terrorist attack is imminent, and a strike could occur at any time. On July 12, acting FBI Director Tom Pickard briefs Ashcroft about the terror threat inside the US. Pickard later swears under oath that Ashcroft tells him, [I do] not want to hear about this anymore. Ashcroft, also under oath, later categorically denies the allegation, saying, I did never speak to him saying that I didnt want to hear about terrorism. However, Ruben Garcia, head of the Criminal Division, and another senior FBI official corroborate Pickards account.

August 2001: acting FBI Director Tom Pickard meets Attorney General John Ashcroft to ask for supplemental funding for counterterrorism, but his request is turned down. On September 10, 2001, Ashcroft rejects a proposed $58 million increase in FBI counterterrorism funding for the next years budget.

This list ignores the enormous number of threat warnings in the summer of 2001, in response to which the Bush Administration took no action (except of course for Ashcroft, who stopped travelling on commercial airlines).

Posted by: Broken on September 14, 2006 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

Broken:

And those threat warnings included (among other things) an FBI report attempting to get through to the CIA, that Mohammed Atta, on the terrorist watch list, was taking flying lessons ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

Republicrat: The reason that Iraq needed new yellowcake was that their existing stocks were monitored by the UN, and Iraq wanted a clandestine program.

Sorry, there were no UN inspectors in Iraq from 1998-2002, when Iraq was supposedly arranging yellowcake shipments in accordance with the fake Niger document.

By the way, when the UN inspectors returned in Dec 2002, the UN seals on the 500 tons of Iraqi yellowcake were unbroken.

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

rmck1's dream:

You can write all the lame and mind-numbingly predictable would-be satire you'd like -- but Thomas is *still* Cheney, despite having lied about it for months.

:)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

Broken:

The idea in this conspiracy theory is that Iraq needed more yellowcake precisely so it could leave the seals on the stuff it had.

This would suppose, of course, an entirely clandestine centrifuge and/or reactor program. If Iraq was worried about repercussions from breaking the seals on its yellowcake, it surely wouldn't start building nuclear processing equipment that a future inspection regime could finger as well.

And *that's* what just beggars credulity right there.

rmck1's dream:

See if you can develop your next riff on the phrase "beggars credulity." I've used it twice today, and it *does* have rather a nice ring to it ...

:)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

Riverbend.

Bent over a chair.

Cue my fave Billy Joel tunes...

Boob

Posted by: rmck1's dreams on September 14, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

rmck1's dream:

*snickering helplessly*

I think you need to chase that aftershave. Try some orange-flavored Listerine :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK

The idea in this conspiracy theory is that Iraq needed more yellowcake precisely so it could leave the seals on the stuff it had.

This would suppose, of course, an entirely clandestine centrifuge and/or reactor program. rmck1:If Iraq was worried about repercussions from breaking the seals on its yellowcake, it surely wouldn't start building nuclear processing equipment that a future inspection regime could finger as well.

And *that's* what just beggars credulity right there.

It also beggars credulity that Saddam would abstain from using his own yellowcake for fear that he might someday have to let the inspectors in, while at the same time accepting the enormous risk of smuggling in vast quantities of yellowcake and parts for tens of thousands of centrifuges.

Posted by: Broken on September 14, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

Broken:

Egg-fucken-zakley.

There's no way you can slice the yellowcake story and have it be plausible.

I suppose one could imagine this vast underground nuclear laboratory with hundreds of centrifuges and a heavy water reactor, untouched by the Gulf War bombing and built without the postwar inspectors ever knowing about it. I suppose *then* the Iraqis might think they could fool the entire world by importing tons of yellowcake while leaving piles of their own and the wreckage of their old nuclear program standing -- as a monument to the massive deception they were pulling off.

And yes -- that was *precisely* the sort of idiocy you'd have to believe to buy into the yellowcake-from-Niger story. And so many *did* believe it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure whom to believe, the Novak of Sep '06:
"Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column."

Or the Novak of Oct '03:
"He [Armitage] said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger."

Hmmmm...can someone explain to me the distinction between idle chitchat and offhand revelation?

Posted by: BlueThunder on September 14, 2006 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

BlueThunder:

Exactly. Thanks for pulling those quotes side-by-side. Novak is obviously lying (though doubtless he'll call it "misremembering" if called on it) in one of them.

Novak is attempting to smear Armitage to throw everyone off the scent of his *other* source(es) ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

Well, guess what. You *still* haven't answered why Iraq would need yellowcake when it has a metric ton of it. You *still* haven't confirmed a nuclear program that would require such material (and you'd need either centrifuges or a heavy-water reactor to morph the lightly-refined yellowcake into the crudest bomb fuel).


You are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

I have no idea how he intended to use the yellowcake nor does it matter. We know hwta yellowcake is for. We know Saddam wanted it. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the most likely probability.


That WaPo editorial's points about Wilson are disputed; go Wiki Wilson yourself. What's undisputed is that *not a single soul* questions the basic premise of Wilson's report -- that Iraq was not seeking uranium from Niger.


There is nothing in the Post's editorial that is dispited. Wilson is a liar and the MSM were fools to listen to him.

Iraq was absolutely seeking to buy Uranium from Niger as the Brits claimed. It is a claim they've re-investigated and stand by.

The sentence suited it's purpose. It was part of the long chain of evidence GWB used to take Saddam out. Quess what? He received the staunch backing of the entire Senate, each of whom has access to ALL of the same data and after the Congress gave him a virtually unamious blessing he went to took Saddam out.

You should be aware one of the things Presidents are rated one is the ability to get important legislation passed. Like Reagan, GWB has a very good record in this regard. Exhibit A will be GWBs dominating performance regardind Iraq, Homeland Security and Defense budgeting. For all of the blather, the Democratic opposition hasn't been just inept. It's been invisible.

Yet, he's the dumb one.

As time goes by the entire Wilson story gets better for GWB. Not only has the Washington Post verified the 'scandal' was a sham from beginning to end and the MSM saps but GWBs enemies have been humiliated and while they were sitting smug thinking they did real damage GWB continued to get things done including the greatest mid-term election performance by a President since the great FDR.

Everyway you look at Joe Wilson he's been a liberal disaster and like Michael Moore he's still around to enjoy. He's a liberal fungus. You can't get rid of him. He's a minor figure but can only cause you more irritation and it just won't go away.

Robert Novak's story appears to be pure bullshit designed to do precisely what you allege of Armitage.

You could be right but he's got two big advantages here. Actually a few. He's got a column that prints in 300 papers and he's pissed. He's out to crush Armitage, Joe Wilson and the rest of the MSM. Like so many old times he's got the advantage of not being PC. He doesn't give a crap what you think and he's preference is actually to piss you off and his MSM peers. This is just getting started. He's also obviously hoping to destroy the case against Libby.

Joe Wilson can cancel his WashPost subscription but that's all he can do. As stupid as the folks at the NYTs are he's not getting more print space. IN fact there will be very, very few Joe Wilson defenders. He's got the crank fringe and that's it. The WashPost isn't done with him either.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

>> Well, guess what. You *still* haven't answered why Iraq would need
>> yellowcake when it has a metric ton of it. You *still* haven't
>> confirmed a nuclear program that would require such material (and
>> you'd need either centrifuges or a heavy-water reactor to morph the
>> lightly-refined yellowcake into the crudest bomb fuel).

> You are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

No, I'm dealing with reality, Wooten -- not political spin.

> I have no idea how he intended to use
> the yellowcake nor does it matter.

Of course it matters. In order for your story to be
plausible, you'd have to explain the rather immense
absurdity that Saddam would have built clandenstine nuclear
facilities contrary to the sanctions while somehow not
using the *500 metric tons* of yellowcake Iraq already had.

Does this make sense to anybody? Of course not. That's why
there's no confirmation that any uranium negotiations ever
proceeded with Niger in the late 90s, let alone a deal went down.

> We know hwta yellowcake is for.

You have no *fucking clue* what yellowcake is for, Wooten. You
think you can stick it into a bomb like it was dynamite or something.
Yellowcake is partially refined uranium that would have had to have
been either 1) processed in a cascade of hundreds of centrifuges
like the ones Iran is having so much trouble getting to function
properly or 2) used as fuel in a specialized heavy water reactor
so that the byproducts can then be used in a bomb.

> We know Saddam wanted it.

Saddam *already had* 500 tons of it. If he's going to
circumvent the sanctions by building an entirely secret
nuclear infrastructure (difficult if not impossible to
do), can you even begin to explain why he wouldn't just
break the IAEC seals and use the yellowcake he already had?

> It does not take a rocket scientist to
> figure out the most likely probability.

It might, however, take a cursory knowledge of highschool
chemistry to understand that yellowcake uranium is entirely
useless as bomb fuel without a functioning nuclear program.

I assure you I didn't bother to read the rest of your smear job.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Does this make sense to anybody? Of course not. That's why
there's no confirmation that any uranium negotiations ever
proceeded with Niger in the late 90s, let alone a deal went down.

This strawman has been long dead. No one ever said a deal done NOR how far along negotiations went. All we know is Saddam was looking into it. We know for a fact he had representatives in Niger looking into it.

The fact remains it's also a pointless discussion. Joe Wilson tried to smear the administration. Joe Wilson, the MSM, Richard Armitage, Colin Powell and the NYT's are the ones deep in the poop.

Just consider the NYT's. Since they allowed this sleeze to write his piece they've lost a fortune in losing the legal battle in rather embarrasing fashion 9 - 0 before the Supreme Court forcing their then star reporter into prison and putting every other reporter at risk for prison whenever they leak classified info using a confidential source. After rewarding their reporter who testified anyway and did nothing to help the conspiracy nuts they then fired her after a palace revolt. The NYTs has had 3 downsizings since costing more than 2,000 people their jobs and their stock price is down 60%.

On top of that their rival the Washington Post calls them morons in a lead editorial.

Face it Bob. This has zero to do with national security. Val was a desk jockey and when Joe Wilson told David Corn about it Val, Joe and David all understood there was no crime committed. Each received a lot more than 15 minutes and have made a fortune. They succeeded beyonf their wildiest dreams.

I don't doubt they did want GWB to lose in 2004 but that just stands as another perfect example of how this 'scandal' has so totally failed the conspiracy freaks.

Bob if you don't think it made any sense for Saddam to buy more yellowcake that's fine. But you''ve got no one to debate but yourself. The train has left the station. This story has been written. As Kevin pointed out there are a few knives to be placed in a few backs but as a national political issue it's a liberal disaster and that won't ever change.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

I assure you I didn't bother to read the rest of your smear job.

Bob, you can keep your head buried up your ass but I do not recommend it. You've been trying to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'm sure you've been told that's unproductive and boring. That's not a good combo.

I smeared no one. That Joe Wilson is a total fraud has already by been confirmed by the Washington Post. Don't blame me. I've in fact been quite complimentary of his gund raising skills and his ability to use the liberal media for his purposes.

Not until you realize what this was all about, and it has ziltch to do with protecting the CIA, you will remain frustrated no one cares about Saddams wisdom is looking for Yellowcake. No one cares. That train left the station years ago. It's another failed attempt at a political scandal.

You really need to learn from the GOP. You must have a blue dress BEFORE you get started and it's got to be authentic. Joe Wilson is a lot of things but authentic isn't one of them.

My recommendation to you is to ignore this scandal. There's at least a year left and there won't bea shred of good yewss for you. After Scooter wins there's the book rollout and the tour but after that it will die down.

Just ignore it. Your head will explode.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

>> Does this make sense to anybody? Of course not. That's why
>> there's no confirmation that any uranium negotiations ever

> This strawman has been long dead.

This is not a strawman, Wooten. It's the essense of your
smear against Wilson. You have to prove that Saddam's
agents were trying to negotiate a deal for Niger yellowcake.

> No one ever said a deal done NOR how far along negotiations went.

No one ever said that they were even negotiating yellowcake, either.

> All we know is Saddam was looking into it.

No, Wooten, we don't. You only have inference.

> We know for a fact he had representatives
> in Niger looking into it.

No, we don't know this for a fact. We haven't any shred
of evidence of why Saddam's trade reps were in Niger.

> The fact remains it's also a pointless discussion.

It's a "pointless discussion" because you lose on the merits.

Without a nuclear infrastructure, yellowcake is useless. *With* a
clandestine nuclear infrastructure, *Niger* yellowcake is useless.

You seem incapable of addressing any of this.

And no, once again I didn't bother to read your smear, nor will
I read anything of what you write on this until you address
the fundamental issue of why Iraq would need yellowcake from
Niger in the first place when they already have 500 tons of it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, Hard to believe this thread is still going.

RDW:
So, let me understand, there never was a scandal and Armitage and Rove and Libby never had anything to be ashamed of, it was just a little political hardball to undermine Joe Wilson's credibility - business as usual. And when the first public outcry was voiced in the summer of 2003 (over 3 years ago), they each went to their respective bosses and explained their parts in the controversy and why it was all legal and aok.
Then why did the President behave like this was all a mystery and have the justice department look into it and then a special prosecutor ? Why have we spent millions of dollars and wasted all this time if George W. Bush - or at least someone in his admin. - could have come out and explained this to us all 3 years ago ?

And just in case Thomas1 asks, I never beat my wife, I'm no expert on Jesus but my guess is he would not have apporoved of Truman's use of the atomic bomb and if outing Valerie Plame/Wilson saved a million lives then that's swell. See, it's easy to answer direct questions, though I'm sure it's more fun to bloviate about the height of skyscrapers in NY.

Posted by: ralph on September 14, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

This is not a strawman, Wooten. It's the essense of your
smear against Wilson. You have to prove that Saddam's
agents were trying to negotiate a deal for Niger yellowcake.

It is absolutely a strawman. The entire scandal is a strawman. The lie the Washington Post is referring to is what Joe told the NYTs. He told the CIA Iraq WAS IN NIGER. He wrote in him op-ed he told the CIA he 'proved' they were not.

This is only the 1st core lie.

The 2nd core lie is Joe Wilson is the one who told David Corn there could be charges because his wife was covert. Joe knew, Valerie knew and David Corn all knew princess was a desk jockey in DC and had been for a long time. They all knew there was no crime.


BTW: I don't have to prove a thing. That's been my point. The Washington Post did all that.

Bob,

It over.

There won't be a Fitzmas.

All's not lost.

You still have Joe Wilson and he's not going anywhere. He likes that spotlight and we can at least agree he's got a talent for grabbing it.

BTWII: THe highly esteemed Butler report in the UK confirmed British intelligence. Saddam was in fact seeking uranium from Niger.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

So, let me understand, there never was a scandal and Armitage and Rove and Libby never had anything to be ashamed of, it was just a little political hardball to undermine Joe Wilson's credibility - business as usual

Have you been reading at all. Armitage is a human turd. He's got plenty to be ashamed of.

Rove and Libby have nothing to be ashamed of. They are stars. The Washington Post got it right regarding lying Joe. Valerie as part of the lie as was David Corm. This was well planned. It was the duty of this WH to see they were exposed as frauds.

Don't take my word for it. Read the Post yourself.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Then why did the President behave like this was all a mystery and have the justice department look into it and then a special prosecutor ? Why have we spent millions of dollars and wasted all this time if George W. Bush - or at least someone in his admin. - could have come out and explained this to us all 3 years ago ?

Because it was all a mystery. Joe Wilson was never more than a low level flunky. No one knew him. They had to find out about him. As they were doing this the MSM made a fuss and demanded an investigation. So GWB said fine. The NYTs wants an investigation they'll get one. A decision the NYT has a great deal of regret for today as does the entire press corps.

We now know thanks to Fitz there were no crimes committed regarding Valerie.

I wouldn't be too hard on the GWB. It seems you still don't know exactly what happened.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

RDW:
I'm not asking the Washington Post, I'm asking you. What is it with you guys and answering simple questions. Or do you think you did answer my question ? I'll try again:
If "It was the duty of this WH to see they were exposed as frauds" then why did we need a special prosecutor ? Why not make all this clear 3 years ago ?

Posted by: ralph on September 14, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

It's a "pointless discussion" because you lose on the merits.

It's pointless because it's utterly irrelevent. It has no bearing on anything. GWB won an easy re-election. There was never any point but to stop him and obviously is was an abysmal failure.

History will record the Brits stand by their intelligence. No legitimate Historian can refute that fact. Liberals seem to think those '16 words' will be remembered by history. That's braindead. Next time some simle bastart makes that claim ask them if they can remember other famous moments from the State of the Union address. There are NONE! This is like Clinton bragging about passing budgets. Liberals actually think that's an achievement. We do it every friggin year!

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

RDW:

Sorry, posted too soon and didn't see you answer, such as it is. So this is your answer:

"the MSM made a fuss and demanded an investigation. So GWB said fine. The NYTs wants an investigation they'll get one"

Reread that a few times. That is the single lamest thing I have read in the entire thread.

Posted by: ralph on September 14, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

I hate to pull a Thomas and cite Wikipedia, but I'm sick and tired
of going around and around with you on this. I'm quoting mutiple
paragraphs to be fair to the context. Read it and weep:

An editorial in the Washington Post claimed that "Mr. Wilson was the
one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report [to the CIA]
supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium." The last time
Iraq sought uranium from Niger, according to the Duelfer Report, was
1981. The editorial also claimed that "President Bush was right to
approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence
Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had
believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons." [10] An
editorial in the Wall Street Journal makes similar claims: "In short,
Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa,
how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why
he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly
abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to
his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone
can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly
discredited, let us know."[11]

However, a Washington Post news report by Dafna Linzer and Barton
Gellman appearing in the same issue as the aforementioned editorial
indicated that the White House's disclosure of certain portions of the
October 2002 NIE may have misrepresented to reporters the actual level
of confidence the intelligence community had regarding Saddam
Hussein's seeking uranium. This news report stated that "At Cheney's
instruction, Libby testified, he told [reporter] Miller that the
uranium story was a "key judgment" of the intelligence estimate, a
term of art indicating there was consensus on a question of central
importance. In fact, the alleged effort to buy uranium was not among
the estimate's key judgments, which were identified by a headline and
bold type and set out in bullet form in the first five pages of the
96-page document." This report further noted that according to the
NIE, "U.S. intelligence did not know the status of Iraq's procurement
efforts, 'cannot confirm' any success and had 'inconclusive' evidence
about Iraq's domestic uranium operations... The State Department's
Bureau of Intelligence and Research, likewise, called the claim
'highly dubious.' For those reasons, the uranium story was relegated
to a brief inside passage in the October estimate."[12]

A few days later Dafna Linzer wrote another Washington Post article
describing a letter from Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to
Judge Reggie B. Walton correcting a sentence appearing in his recent
filings describing Scooter Libby's testimony regarding his
conversation with Judith Miller about the October 2002 NIE. That
sentence said Libby "was to tell Miller, among other things, that a
key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to
procure' uranium." Instead, the sentence should have conveyed that
Libby was to tell Miller some of the key judgments of the NIE "and
that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure'
uranium." [13].

The Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, noted that Dafna Linzer's and
Barton Gellman's reporting relied on Fitzgerald's representations in
his legal filings, that the editorial was written before the
front-page report and that although the writer had not read the
report, it would not have changed his mind. She also noted that the
basis for the editorial's claim that Wilson's report "supported the
conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium" was the fact that there was a
meeting between Iraqi and Nigerien trade officials "because that's
mostly what Niger has to export." She also noted that the editorial
had inconsistently dealt with the report of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, which noted that "the State Department's
Bureau of Intelligence and Research analysts believed that [Wilson's]
report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be
willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." She also advised that "It
would have been helpful if the editorial had put statements about
Wilson in more context -- especially the controversy over his trip and
what he said."[14]

An article in the 25 October 2005 edition of the Italian newspaper La
Repubblica[15][16] indicates that some of Wilson's statements about
Niger were correct.[17][18][19] The article states that Nicolo
Pollari, head of the Italian Intelligence Service, SISMI, knew the
Niger documents were forgeries, but tried to go around the CIA to get
them into the public eye in the US. The documents contained several
misspelled French words and contained signatures from Nigerien
officials who hadn't even been in office at the time they were signed,
although Wilson did not see any of these documents during his trip to
Niger.

La Repubblica also claims that Pollari met with Stephen Hadley,
previously the Deputy National Security Advisor, on 9 September, 2002,
to discuss the documents without going to the CIA, who had reservation
about the documents. That meeting was before President Bush gave his
major speech on 7 October, 2002 saying, "The Iraqi regime....
possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking
nuclear weapons". An effort was made to include in that speech the
specific claim that uranium was sought from Niger, but the CIA had
that claim removed from the speech (source). President George W. Bush
then included the 16 words in his January 2003 speech that uranium had
been sought from Africa, even after the CIA had expressed reservations
in October 2002. The National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002
said, "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are,
in INR's assessment, highly dubious".[20][21][22][23]

On 11 December 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported that French
intelligence had warned the Bush Administration repeatedly that there
was no evidence that Saddam sought uranium from Niger. The Times
reported that "The French conclusions were reached after extensive
on-the-ground investigations in Niger and other former French
colonies, where the uranium mines are controlled by French companies,
said Alain Chouet, the French former official. He said the French
investigated at the CIA's request.... [T]he essence of Chouet's
account -- that the French repeatedly investigated the Niger claim,
found no evidence to support it, and warned the CIA -- was extensively
corroborated by [a] former CIA official and a current French
government official, who both spoke on condition of anonymity."[24]

The op-ed

The controversy surrounding Wilson began with President Bush's 2003
State of the Union Address[3], in which Bush stated that "The British
government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa." The documents had been obtained by
the U.S. Embassy in Rome on October 9, 2002, and distributed
throughout the U.S. intelligence community shortly thereafter, but not
passed on to the IAEA until February 3, 2003. Two months later,
documents suggesting that Iraq had tried to buy 500 tons of uranium
from Niger, were judged to be "obvious" forgeries by the IAEA.

It is suggested the documents that the IAEA judged to be forgeries
were not the same documents that the British based their original
assessment on. Two British Parliamentary reports confirmed the
original intelligence. One of these reports (the Butler Report)
suggested that the forged documents were distributed with the knowing
goal of being discovered as obvious forgeries so as to discredit the
intelligence. The revelations in La Repubblica (above) seem to counter
this allegation. Furthermore, although other sources for the uranium
claim are mentioned, no evidence of their existence has been advanced.
The IAEA released its report a month later, just weeks before the
start of the Iraq war.

=-=-=-=-=-

So much for your beloved Butler Report.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

So, rdw, if Armitage did not violate any law, does that make you a "turd"?

I agree with Thomas, rdw is a turd.

Not to pick a fight with Jason, whose analysis finds him more in the area of liquid waste. It's just that rdw's penchant for historical falsehoods, praising the corrupt and demeaning good people who've served this country really makes him a backender in my estimation.

Plus, he seems to attract "flies" in the form of Jay and others here.

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Wikipedia!!!

Wikipedia is totally bullshit. You can't cite Wikipedia anymore. It's written and re-written by people who try to insert partsian bullshit in there. Wikipedia is fricken famous for being full of misinformation and halftruths. They have to lock certain entries to keep the racists and the looneybin rejects from putting in Holocaust denial lies.

Try finding some real info and give us a call, OK.

Dumb~ass

Posted by: props to The Man on September 14, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

So, rdw, if Armitage did not violate any law, is he a "turd" because he didn't go to President Bush as soon as the article came out? Do we "know" that he didn't?

Presidents do not get involved in this kind of crap. Their staffs' would not allow them.
Clearly Armitage did not violate any law. He sat in front of a Grand Jury and testified about his actions and was cleared.

What Armitage did was allow the WH to get dragged through the mud. The speculation for 2 years was that Novak got the story from Rove. Armitage knew that was nonsense. Colin Powell knew that was nonsense. It's unlikey there would have been a grand jury if Armitage admitted his roll up front.

Among the many reasons the WAshPost ran up the white flag was every single aspect of the story was a fraud. Even the narrative that had the WH anxiously calling reporters to get the 'smear' out was an obvious fraud. We know from Grand Jury testimony the story started with Armitage and each of the reporters called the WH and they brought the subject up. Judy Miller testified she DID NOT learn anything from Libby. Matt Cooper testified his source was trying to warn him not to go too far out on the story. We now know, the the libby jury will also know, that was the equivalent of a community service announcement. There was no WH conspiracy.

Thomas1, you have to see the beauty of this thing from a conservative perspective. It has been a total disaster for liberals. The NYTs and the MSM have been clobbered. If this is a scandal, and it is, the scandal is for the stockholders of the NYTs to settle. The Bush Presidency has been one long disaster for them.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Props:

When it's a choice between Wikipedia and rdw ... :)

Actually, Wikipedia's pretty reliable as internet sources go. The fact that it's swarmed by people from around the world constantly updating and revising stuff is on balance more a good thing than bad.

You have to wait for another addition for revisions to be published by the major encyclopedias.

So while, no, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a sole source on a few recently hotly controversial subjects -- I'd give its confidence level at least a high a rating as I would any national newspaper.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Richard Armitage kept his mouth shut because that's what Fitz told him to do.

He was -- like Novak -- obeying the prosecutor.

Oh -- and can you please explain the difference between Novak's characterization of Armitage, "not a partisan gunslinger" who revealed his information "offhandedly" and Novak's recent characterization of Armitage's revelations as deliberate to the point of suggesting it for an Evans & Novak column?

Novak clearly lied in one of those columns, Wooten.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas & rdw:

Your theories only work if Armitage is the sole source.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1, you have to see the beauty of this thing from a conservative perspective. The Bush Presidency has been one long disaster for them.

I agree with rdw, the Bush presidency has been one long disaster for conservatives.

Other people who agree with rdw that Bush has been one long disaster for conservatives of all stripes are:

- William Buckley,the "Father of Conservatism"

- Francis Fukuyama, the "Father of Neoconserativsm"

- Pat Buchanan, the "Red-Headed Stepchild of Paleoconservatism"

- Sixty some percent of Americans who don't approve of the job he's doing as president

Also, little Billy Kristol and Robert Kaplan -- the "the Dateless Nerds of Prep School Conservatism" -- possess a subset of rdw's beliefs, which is that Bush has fucked up the prosecution of the Iraq War beyond all recognition.

So he does find himself in agreement with many conservatives on the failure of the Bush presidency.

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK


Bob,

Your strawmen are really getting tiresome.

GWB didn't cite US intelligence. He cited British intelligence and they stand by their report. The various citations above refer to US intelligence. It is by definition irrelevent.

You can also cite the famous italian letter all day long but it is even more irrelevent. By all measures it was even more poorly done than Dan Rathers garbage. That would explain why US and British intelligence ignored it. The dumb bastards who wrote it never even bothered to spell check it. The Italian forgery never entered into the British investigation nor any other.

Not only does the Butler Report still stand today but so does the Washington Post editoral.

Sorry Bob,

You are just going to have to love Joe Wilson. He's going to fight this thind to his last breath. Or until the cash stops rolling in. Which ever comes first.

Here's a prediction. Joe Wilson will be in business a lot longer than the publisher and editors of the NYTs. And the publisher is the owner.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Now I see that trex has been reduced to misquoting -- fake but accurate I guess -- at least he and Dan Rather have that in common. The "them" in rdw's post obviously referred to the immediately prior (and deleted) sentence: "stockholders of the NYTs".

Posted by: Thomas on September 14, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

Go upthread. BlueThunder posted Novak's initial comment referencing but not naming Armitage as "no partisan gunslinger" and his recent shiv job.

Both quotes describe the same conversation Armitage had with Novak.

Each quote characterizes the conversation entirely differently. The first was offhanded and gossipy; the second was deliberate, detailed and had the intent of suggesting a column.

One of those versions of events is clearly wrong.

Wooten, until you actually read that entry and grapple with the facts, I'm no longer interested in discussing this with you.

The Butler Report has never confirmed its sources that Iraq was attempting to buy yellowcake from Niger.

It remains an unsourced and unproven allegation, thoroughly debunked by a host of intelligence agents and private contractors.

Once again, you lose on the facts, Wooten.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Not only does the Butler Report still stand today

Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports -- based on other sources -- that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Hmmm, so who ya gonna believe -- the Brits or the Americans in the CIA? Tough choice.

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Plus, there's absolutely no motive for the crime. Saddam already had 500 tons of yellowcake.

Why would he need more?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

So he does find himself in agreement with many conservatives on the failure of the Bush presidency.

Not even close!

GWB has remade the world. The UN and EU are toast. NATO has been successfully converted from a North Altantic only organization into a global organization useful ONLY to the USA. As we knew a long time ago but proved in Kosoco NATO is a debate club without the US. Today it's only purpose is as an organizing group for USA led coalitions of the willing ONLY.

Liberalism in Europe is dying. They are terrified as they should be. Scared people don't reproduce. With the pullout of ALL US troops Europeans are getting a long overdue dose of reality and the opportunity to change. Some will continue to rely on soft power and they will soon be majority Islamic. Some will get it. Merkels very pointed decision to sell Israel subs known for their 2nd strike capabilites suggest Germany will be joining Japan in the GWB induced march to full remilitarization.

GWB is aware some peoples are natural appeasers and some are not. GWB is also aware Americans will not defend the appeasers. It looks as thought Germany, Italy, Poland and the others in the coalition of the willing will eventually form a coalition of large and wealthy democracies. GWBs vision is of global military power dominated by the big three of the USA, Japan and Germany and eventually India.

It is stunning how far ahead of the elite this man is. He hasn't written off France, Spain, The Netherlands, Sweden etc but he has either removed to downsized all US facilities. The USA started 'detatching' economically a long time ago. They are in for some very rough times but we have been isloated from the potential disaster to come.

History will be good to Mr. Bush.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever you say, Thomas. After all, according to you I can interpret anything you say any blessed way I want to -- so I choose to interpret you as being a babbling fool who argues for the sake of arguing :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

The Butler Report has never confirmed its sources that Iraq was attempting to buy yellowcake from Niger.

It remains an unsourced and unproven allegation, thoroughly debunked by a host of intelligence agents and private contractors.

Once again, you lose on the facts, Wooten.


The butler report confirmed any moron with an IQ above 12 could see the Italian letter was a forgery. It has friggin mis-spellings. They specifically said, "Even Dan Rather would have known this was a joke".

OK, they didn't mention Dan Rather but it is known the forgery was even more comically inept. One would think that's not possible.

There is nothing unsources or unproven about the Britih intelligence. You are unsourced and unproven. The Brits haven't shared their intelligence. Imagine that! An intelligence agency keeping secrets!

Bob, GET OVER IT!!!!!!!

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Plus, there's absolutely no motive for the crime. Saddam already had 500 tons of yellowcake.

Why would he need more


It's irrelevent. What is relevent is the scope of this disaster.

Besides, anyone trying to understand the mind of Saddam is a fool.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1:

Here's BlueThunder's post again:

> I'm not sure whom to believe, the Novak of Sep '06:
> "Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat,
> as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it
> especially suited for my column."

> Or the Novak of Oct '03:
> "He [Armitage] said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's
> counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one
> of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation
> from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger."

If you want to read these two different descriptions as fairly
applying to the same conversation, you just go right ahead.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Germany will be joining Japan in the GWB induced march to full remilitarization.

Haven't I seen this movie?

Now I see that trex has been reduced to misquoting

Rather say I have been "elevated" to getting at the true essence of the person's post, of what he or she is unable to say due to timidity, habit, or social conditioning.

It's irrelevent. What is relevent is the scope of this disaster.

Hey, that's just what William F. Buckely said!

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.

You two guys should meet for a beer or something, I'll bet you'd really hit it off!

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Wooten, until you actually read that entry and grapple with the facts, I'm no longer interested in discussing this with you.

I read the entry. It's not relevent.

My position all along is Armitage is a turd and Powell not much better. It doesn't matter how he told Novak. It matters he watched this WH get creamed.

That Fitz told him to keep quiet is irrelevent. Armitage should have come out immediately and told the truth. He put a knife in Roves back. He deserves the knifing he's getting now. Which to be honest is overkill. Conservatives had him labeled a turd before Novak said anything.
Moreover it doesns't matter what Fitz says. Fitz cannot restrict ANYONE from revealing their testimony.

There is fun irony here. The gossiper is now getting the treatment.

BTW: Novak very well might be lying. He's far from a paragon of virtue. The important thing here is what does it all mean?

To me it means Armitage and Powell are further exposed for their duplicity and this disaster of a story stays alive much longer. In fact don't be surprised if the Washginton Post wrte another Editorial, "We were even dumber than we thought".

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

1) The Butler Report was explicitly not based on the Italian forgeries.

2) If you want to say that it's based on super-secret info that can't be confirmed -- then fine, you'd prefer not to live in a democracy, where intelligence agencies have public oversight and information is routinely declassified after the fact to justify their actions to the taxpayers who fund them.

Can you imagine any conceivable reason for the Brits keeping that info classifed three and a half years after the fall of Saddam's regime? The CIA certainly shared its sources for the conclusions it drew about Iraq's WMD programs publicly and endured oceans of healthy criticism for it.

Heh. Only if the information is rank bullshit.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK


It's not been a good month for libs:


September 14, 2006

(47%) of American adults approve of the way that President Bush is performing his job. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove. Those are by far the best numbers for the President since mid-February.

Rising U.S. natural gas supplies send prices close to a 2-year low; oil eases in sympathy.

They're paying $2.20 for gas in NJ and they're still coming down


Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Can you imagine any conceivable reason for the Brits keeping that info classifed three and a half years after the fall of Saddam's regime?

You are kidding right?

You had a 3-yr hissy fit over Val's name getting released, by her husband as it turns out, because she was undercover, except she wasn't.

And now you are wondering why the brits might want to protect real undercover sources?

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Okay ... so lemme get this straight. Novak may well be lying -- but if so, this only further exposes the duplicity of Armitage and Powell.

Boy, that's one nifty moral slide you you have there, Wooten.

Thomas:

"Offhanded" and "deliberate" have opposite meanings when describing the intent of a conversation. Anyone can be indiscreet and blurt out stuff that afterwards they kick themselves for saying.

That's obviously not the same thing as revealing that information intentionally.

Of course, it's possible to be *duplicitous* and *pretend* to "offhandedly" drop some bombshell or another in a conversation. But that wasn't what Novak described in either characterization.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

moral slide = moral slide rule

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Jason,

The UN and EU are toast. No one denies it. Polls on each are at all time lows.

I am more impressed about NATO. I like the fact they're in afghanistan. Means it's no longer NATO doesn't it? They can go wherever we tell them to go.

And only we can tell them.

Nice!

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Who says you have to reveal the names of sources in order to give a plausible explanation of why your report concluded what it did?

You think that concern prevented the CIA from laying out its rationales in the NIE?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

"The one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. We've looked at those reports and we don't think they are very credible. It doesn't diminish our conviction that he's going for nuclear weapons, but I think they reached a little bit on that one point."

- Deputy Director of Central Intelligence John McLaughlin, in his testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Why does rdw hate the American CIA and love the Butler report?

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Cite your source, please.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

trex:

Because the Butler Report is the main thing that keeps the meme alive that Joe Wilson is a compulsive liar because he never revealed the meeting that Niger had with Iraqi trade officials.

Because that, you see, MUST mean that Iraq was desperately seeking their uranium and not angling for any other kind of trade relationship.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Because the Butler Report is the main thing that keeps the meme alive that Joe Wilson is a compulsive liar

You mean Wooten would betray his loyalty to his own nation just to pursue a mean-spirited smear campaign? And all just to win some cheap political points?

Some things are more important than polls and party interests. I'm ashamed to call him a fellow countryman.

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

rdw has done far less here that could be alleged to be "treason" than Joe Wilson.

Not true. British intelligence has a classifed report showing that in fact rdw did attempt to commit treason.

Good luck getting it out of them, though.

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

And the technical term for what *you're* indulging in is character assassination.

Neither you nor Wooten ever managed to rebut Wilson's central charge, that Iraq was not seeking uranium from Africa.

He didn't share info about a meeting between Niger officials and Iraqi trade reps.

You *extrapolate* from that and conclude, without a shred of evidence, that Joe Wilson knew that Iraq was trying to get uranium from that country. Joe Wilson didn't mention the meeting because he had every reason to consider it *irrelevant* to the connections he traveled there to explore.

Nobody has a fucking clue what was discussed in that meeting. Nobody has ever claimed that anything ever came of that meeting one way or another. To cite the meeting would be to play into precisely the hyping of intelligence that Wilson was attempting to debunk.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

"Attempt to commit" is not what I said.

So you're alleging that rdw in fact did commmit treason?

Those are some pretty serious charges.

You might be right about him being a turd after all...

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

trex:

Not only treason, trex -- but molesting adolescent penguins in the London Zoo by plying them with canned sardines.

It's all in the transcripts, which I read about on a secret encrypted website to which only I have American access because my great-great-great-grand-second-cousin was Prince Albert's favorite foot massager's third lover.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: They're paying $2.20 for gas in NJ and they're still coming down


talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations...


BARREL OF OIL ON 1/20/2001: $22.50

BARREL OF OIL ON 9/14/2006: $63.28

happy days are here again....

Posted by: mr. irony on September 14, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Not only treason, trex -- but molesting adolescent penguins in the London Zoo by plying them with canned sardines.

Poor bastards never had a chance -- they just can't resist sardines!

I shudder to think of the misplaced shame they're going to carry all their lives from this.

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

"One" Niger official is on record saying that he "thought" that these Iraqi agents were attempting to arrange a uranium deal? Well hell, Thomas -- if I were a Niger official, considering that 70% of my exports are yellowcake uranium, I'd probably be damn tempted to think that myself.

But as an official of the government, you might also conclude that he'd be able to *confirm* if they did one way or another. I mean ... after the pleasantries and cups of tea and chitchat about how lovely your country is this time of year, they *would* eventually get down to discussing why they came there ... right?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

Well that's all very interesting, if still only alleged an inferential.

First thing: be a swell and send me the link for that Financial Times article. I'd like to examine it carefully.

Secondly, the Prime Minister of Niger had every reason to "expect" that "trade relationship" would mean yellowcake. But that's still not in the realm of describing the actual negotiations or what commodities were actually negotiated for.

See, without a nuclear program, yellowcake is kind of useless to Saddam, considering that his country already has, umm, 500 metric tons of it. And if he was angling for some illicit, IAEA-banned trade with Niger for it -- why would he give the tiniest crap about using the stuff he's already got?

This is really a rather high bar to get over before a sane person can start "connecting the dots" about this unfruitful Iraq / Niger trade meeting that nobobdy seems to know anything concrete about.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

Interesting that what you quoted talks about intelligence chatter from "traders" -- not agents of the Iraqi government. No doubt there's a black market operation out there that might have hoped to serve as a middleman or contract player in an illicit smuggling deal between Niger and a number of countries. Nothing you quoted leads one to believe that this was being *instigated* by Iraq -- only that Iraq was one of the potential customers under discussion.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

I knew my mind was not playing tricks on me.

I wouldn't jump too conclusions too quickly on that one.

the Financial Times reported that they had "learnt that three European intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium

Yeah, except that turned out to be an unsourced, unsubstantiated, bogus story:

Moreover, a subsequent report (registration required) on August 1, 2004, by the Times of London severely undermined the credibility of the Financial Times' unnamed intelligence sources. The Times of London reported that SISMI, the Italian intelligence agency, had produced the forged documents itself, according to the middleman who allegedly received them from a SISMI agent and passed them on to an Italian journalist, Elizabeth Burba. Burba in turn handed them to the U.S. embassy in Rome. The Financial Times' "European intelligence officers" had alleged that the middleman was the forger. But the middleman, who would not speak to the Financial Times, provided details to the Times of London about SISMI's alleged responsibility for the forgeries. Given that the Financial Times itself reported that the middleman "is understood to be planning to reveal selected aspects of his story to a US television channel," it appears likely that the Financial Times' "European intelligence officers," who insisted that untainted evidence existed for Iraq's efforts to procure uranium, were, in fact, Italian intelligence officers attempting to advance the "scam" theory in order to preempt the middleman's revelations and cover their tracks.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502240002

Careful now, you don't want to end up spouting nonsense like rdw. We all know what he ended up like.

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Anyway, getting back to something a little more interesting and topical than Bush's transparent lies that led us to war:

What about those poor penguins? Is someone going to set up some kind of fund for their therapy or are they going to have to come up with the cash out of pocket?

'Cause I don't think they should be reintroduced into society until they've really had a chance to work through all of this with a professional. Don't let the confident dress fool you, underneath all that formal wear they're really very sensitive and vulnerable people just like you and me.

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

trex:

Well, I think there's going to be a class action lawsuit against rdw on their behalf. Unfortunately there's no statute on the books that explicitly defines "penguin molestation" (though doubtless the public outcry will motivate some newly-elected idealistic legislator to fill this legal vaccuum) -- but civil penalties are still entirely within reach.

The intolerable cruelty of having one's white belly rubbed with rdw's sardine-greasy hands ... what jury could listen to those tales dry-eyed, eh?

Nancy Grace is going to have a field day with this. Imagine the bumpers intercut with scenes from "March of the Penguins." These are *fiercely monogamous* birds! They love their spouses for their whole lives! Male penguins sit on those eggs! This is a family value-loving community!

Then the camera pans over to rdw in his black tie and designer trenchcoat ...

Justice *will* be served, trex. You mark my words.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, your beautiful words have inspired me with hope for these fragile creatures.

"having one's white belly rubbed with rdw's sardine-greasy hands" -- LOL!

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

trex:

BTW, thanks for nuking Thomas' story there :)

Funny that since the topic has shifted to something a tad more edifying than rehashing a case for war that was thoroughly debunked three years ago, that these two miscreants apparently *just can't seem to face* the social tragedy that is penguin abuse ...

:)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

I'm confused again...

If the administration was so right and Wilson so wrong, why did Ari Fleischer say this (Jul 14 '03)?

"And, therefore, the judgment the White House has made is that it [the 16 words] should not have risen to the level of the Presidential State of the Union address."

Posted by: BlueThunder on September 14, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

BlueThunder:

Or why did George "Slam Dunk" Tenet fall on his sword for it and explicitly apologize for those words, besides?

What, did they just *take Wilson's lying word for it* or something :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Okay ... so lemme get this straight. Novak may well be lying -- but if so, this only further exposes the duplicity of Armitage and Powell.

Boy, that's one nifty moral slide you you have there, Wooten.

Now Bob this really isn't hard. Well maybe for you it is so I'll explain. This entire ordeal has been a humiliation for both Armitage and Powell. I believe Richard even had a crying attack on TV recently. Apologizing for his family and all that right?

So stick with me here. Humiliation is not a good thing. It's a bad thing. Most people don't like it. It can happen however in which case one can only hope few people find out and it ends quickly.

Guess what? This ain't ending quickly. It's not going quietly wither now is it? Novak knows exactly what he is doing. Right or wrong he is maximizing the pain for Armitage. He's going to drag this out as long as possible as publically as possible.

Does it mean Richie is any more the worm? does that matter? Does it matter to Richie this isn't going away and more people find out and more people are reminded and he becomes more famous for all of the wrong reasons?

It would if it were me.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Does it ever seem to bother you, Wooten, that you seem to take so much incredible delight in the suffering of people, regardless of whether or not they deserve it?

Trex and I are both snickering over the fanciful image of you being a penguin molester (read upthread to see where it came from).

Do you know what the metaphoric meaning of a penguin molester is?

Somebody who delights in shitting on the innocent.

Not a pretty picture, Wooten.

All Richard Armitage did was tell the truth (without the benefit of either a subpoena or counsel) and keep his mouth shut -- as per requested by Fitzgerald. If you're saying he could have sung -- well then, so could have Novak.

And you take delight in seeing him suffer.

Fucking penguin molester.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

You gotta feel sorry for rdw really -- point after point after point that he's made here has been refuted, so all he's left with is pounding his dick and getting some kind of sick glee over the circumstances of Richard Armitage -- who, ironically, has served his country in wartime, been a faithful conservative hawk in the DoD for years, and even signed the PNAC letter to Clinton urging him to overthrow Saddam, for fuck's sake.

Just goes to show you the sickness of the Bush cult. Any time a member becomes a liability or goes against accepted doctrine they leap on him like hyenas and tear him apart, devouring his entrails.

Truly fucking disgusting to watch.

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Okay ... so lemme get this straight. Novak may well be lying -- but if so, this only further exposes the duplicity of Armitage and Powell.

Boy, that's one nifty moral slide you you have there, Wooten.

Now Bob this really isn't hard. Well maybe for you it is so I'll explain. This entire ordeal has been a humiliation for both Armitage and Powell. I believe Richard even had a crying attack on TV recently. Apologizing for his family and all that, right?

So stick with me here. Humiliation is not a good thing. It's a bad thing. Most people don't like it. It can happen however in which case one can only hope few people find out and it ends quickly.

Guess what? This ain't ending quickly. It's not going quietly either now is it? Novak knows exactly what he is doing. Right or wrong he is maximizing the pain for Armitage. He's going to drag this out as long as possible as publically as possible.

Does it mean Richie is any more the worm? No but that wasn't the point. Does it matter to Richie this isn't going away and more people find out and more people are reminded and he becomes more famous for all of the wrong reasons?

It would if it were me.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

trex:

Yeah it really is. It reminds of the purges routine in totalitarian personality cults. How many lost their lives who believed in their deepest hearts that they were stalwart loyalists of Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein. The look of utter shock on their faces after they publicly "confess" and are either exiled to Siberia or summarily executed.

Yeah, it's exaggerated. Nobody's going to a Gulag here. But the psychology seems disturbingly similar in a country that's supposed to be the freest democracy the world has ever known.

Rdw is the classic henchman. He's just too low on the GOP totem pole to ever have to fear that knock on the door in the night.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

point after point after point that he's made here has been refuted,

So this has been good for the NYT's?

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

What was the best part?

Paying all of those lawyers for fortune to lose a humiliation 9 - 0 defeat in the Supreme Court?

Losing in all courts and then in the Supreme Court?

Sending star reporter Judy Miller to prison?

Seeing Judy get out of prison, start a newsroom revolt, and then having to pay her to leave?

Watching Judy tell Fitz Libby never told her about Valerie?

Watchng their stock price all 60%?

The 3 layoffs?

Watching GWB get 23% more votes despite their best efforts?

Reading in the Washington Post they're morons?

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

Lieberman lost a primary election.

Armitage is an Administration official who actually did its bidding, but is being hacked up by Novak to throw the scent off the other leakers. Armitage is also, in my estimation, playing up his role a little bit in order to take as many bullets for the Administration as he can. He's trying, IOW, to be the ultimate party loyaltist, the good soldier who sacrifices his life for the squad.

And they're tearing him apart like jackals because the Administration needs a fall guy and a single, cohesive narrative for the leak scandal.

Lieberman, by contrast, was attacked and lost a primary election for being *disloyal* to his party.

The two situations couldn't be more opposite.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Does it ever seem to bother you, Wooten, that you seem to take so much incredible delight in the suffering of people, regardless of whether or not they deserve it?

Armitage deserves a lot more than this. He deserves a lifetime of this and if Novak and Joe wilson have their way he'll get it.

Powell and the State Dept also deserve the scorn to come their way by History.

The NYTs deserves everything it's getting and while Joe Wilson lied and lied he didn't steal your money. Liberals were happy and will remain happy to buy his books and go to his appearances.

This is ending the way it should. The WH is cleared. State is full of rats. The MSM is brain dead. Fitz ended his career. GWB sailed in his election.

All's well that ends well!

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

trex:

Once again, Wooten proves himself incapable of doing anything aside for whacking his dick on the the table.

He's a henchman. He's Torquemada's hooded assistant, bounding up the feet and hands of the torture victim and placing them on the rack for the Big Man -- then taking the broken and barely-alive body away.

Every few months, the Big Man nods at him approvingly. And that makes it all worthwhile ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Bob...

If Tenet is to blame...why did he receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

Posted by: BlueThunder on September 14, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Irony,

This is a what have you done lately world. No one remembers 2/2001 or 2/2002 or 2/2003. They do remember $3.15 and $2.15 feels much, much better. When the electorate is voting you want them feeling much, much better.

BTW: The real good news today wasn't unleaded but the collapse of natural gas prices by 10%. Our heating bills will be dramatically lower this year than the last two. In fact we should get two very positive CPI and PPI reports with negative inflation before the election.

If Harry Reid isn't sick about what this means to voters he's an idiot.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

No. Because what was "done" to Lieberman was entirely fair pool. It's no different than what happens to any incumbent who gets out of touch with his/her base. That's politics, and it ain't beanbag.

What's being done to Arimtage -- and for what as yet unclear motives -- is something else entirely.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

Armitage is also, in my estimation, playing up his role a little bit in order to take as many bullets for the Administration as he can. He's trying, IOW, to be the ultimate party loyaltist, the good soldier who sacrifices his life for the squad.


bob,

Please. This isn't just dumb. It's obviously dumb. Armitage sat quietly as the WH staff had to hire lawyers because he sat quietly.

The man is scum.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

BlueThunder:

That's precisely one of the reasons *why* he got the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Because he deflected the blame at a critical time.

If you wanted to be a tad, uhh, cynical about it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

The man was doing precisely what Robert Novak was doing -- keeping their mouths shut as per request of the special prosecutor.

*YOU* are a lying piece of steaming pig shit.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

as per requested by Fitzgerald. If you're saying he could have sung -- well then, so could have Novak.

Armitage had a responsibility tocome clean two years before Fitz got involved. Your point is irrelevent.

Novak had a promise to Armnitage which he kept.

This is where Novak is holding all of the aces. Besides the fact he's got a column and Armitage doesn't. Novak kept his word. He didn't publically name Armitage even thought most of Washington knew it was him.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

The man was doing precisely what Robert Novak was doing -- keeping their mouths shut as per request of the special prosecutor.

The story broke two years before Armitage ever spoke to Fitz. He should have come clean two days after the story broke. He was king rat for two years.

And it's irrelevent what fitz asked. EVERY testifyung before a grand jury has the absolute right to tell the world immediately what they said. Armitage was one of the few who did not and we know he did not because he's a scumbag.
.

Posted by: rdw on September 14, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Maybe all the time he was "king rat," he was doing at least what he thought was the Administration's bidding.

Novak testified and didn't reveal his source publicly and did so at the behest of Fitzgerald, not his source. He started making noises that his source should come clean because the obligation to the investigation had expired.

The Administration wants and needs a single fall guy and a clear narrative. Armitage does *not* fill the bill for a whole number of reasons starting with his history.

And there's no question in my mind right now that Novak is lying in his recent characterization of Armitage's conversation.

Somehow the ex-wrestler doesn't strike me as a terribly Machiavellian kinda guy ... We'll see.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

The story broke two years before Armitage ever spoke to Fitz. He should have come clean two days after the story broke. He was king rat for two years.

Yeah, and Karl Rove denied on televison that he leaked Valerie Plame's name -- and then was busted over a year later and forced to come clean to the grand jury and confess that he did, in fact, leak Valerie Plame's name to reporters.

Now in batshit crazy world, how is Karl not the exact same scum that Armitage is? Worse, how is Bush not scum? It's since come to light that he knew from the beginning that Karl had passed along Plame's name to reporters...and yet let a multi-million dollar investigation go forward to "discover the leaker!"

What a fuckin' liar that guy is.

I wanna see you eat both their livers. Careful, George's has gone through decades of abuse, it's not gonna be pretty.

P.S. Is this what's it's like for you arguing down at the feed store? Guy in a nice L.L. Bean jacket comes in to buy some cracked corn to feed the deer so his little girl can watch them out the window, and you start up with, "betch you wunna them liverals, ain't cha?"

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Trex has got you dead to rights, Wooten. If Armitage is "king rat" -- so is Karl Rove. And so is Bush for lying that he'd "fire the leakers" once he found them.

Evidence now shows that he knew who they were all the time.

Speaking of, you know, who caused the multi-million-dollar investigation.

Sheesh.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

Nope, that's me.

As for Armitage's motives and who may have put him up to it -- I do not know. I don't take anyone's story at face value at this point. Armitage may have coordinated with someone at the behest of the WH, or he may only be an indiscreet oaf. I haven't made up my mind.

As for Bush -- Scott McClellan was pinned down on several occasions and he did indeed say something to the effect that Bush wants to know who the leakers were and that they shouldn't be working for him (which implies they'd be fired). I don't recall the precise wording, but it's a google away if you're interested.

There's no question that Bush expressed, either in his own words or through his spokesman, that leaking the name of a CIA agent was a firable offense. He also said several times that he wished the leakers would come forward to him privately.

McClellan also said that he spoke to Karl Rove and was assured that Rove wasn't a leaker -- quite an embarrassing moment for McClellan when the truth came out there.

Did Bush know who the leakers were? As far as I know, that remains an open question.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

He also said something more definitive than that, IIRC. He was either asked to qualify what "appropriate action" meant, or else it was in response to a different question. Again, I don't recall the wording, but it was much more difficult to construe as meaning anything other than "a leaker would get fired in this Administration."

See if you can't google it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

Or, if you prefer, we could again discuss whether terrorists with six, 10-kiloton suitcase nukes could kill more or less than 1 million Americans?

You're a dork. No wonder the kids never played with you at recess. And I think I speak for everyone who posts on this board when I say that no one is interested in "discussing" anything with you in the slightest, particularly not your ridiculous fantasy hypotheticals, as it's clear you are only here only to act out like a child.

I do know of a blog where some high schools kids are willing to argue with you about who's stronger, Superman or the Hulk, which is a lot more relevant than your nonsense.

That sounds pretty clear to me.

They're playing with words just as much as you are -- which you do, by the way, because you can't win an argument on substance so you resort to trying to win points with your passive-aggressive word games.

You know, like a terrier who shits on the living room rug when he doesn't get his way.

The secret defense of the White House via the Libby lawyers is that they are insisting that as soon as Bush says "go tell it on the mountain" whatever he says is automatically considered to be declassified, no matter how double super-secret it was the moment before and despite the fact that he hasn't filled out any paperwork to authorize declassifcation.

It's kinda like the magic of transubstantiation, only with less of a paper trail and zero accountability.

So on this brilliant theory, the Resident could stroll through Central Park chanting nuclear access codes or the location of secret military units and never be in violation of the law, even as the words left his thin lips and floated to the ground like rum-soaked violets.

Because on their theory, he's above the law.

And I know how that appeals to mewling cultists like yourself.

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

trex:

I doubt if Thomas is going to understand a word of it -- but that was a great post.

"Sort of like transubstantiation, but with less of a paper trail and no accountability."

Very drol-l-l :):):)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

I'm not remotely interested in discussing that subject, Thomas.

Considering how old this thread is, it's not very likely anyone else would be, either.

So if you want to keep the discussion going -- stay on topic.

Neither trex nor I (your last interlocutors here) are particularly interested in your ideas about suitcase nukes.

Tell us instead about how Bush never, ever said he would fire the leakers :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

Although a few venues like the Indianapolis Speedway hold up to 250,000 wank wank wank

And on cue the rug-shitting begins.

So Bob, how's tricks? I hafta admire your dogged tenacity with rdw. Trying to respond intelligently to all the grandiose claims has got to be exhausting. "History will record the Brits stand by their intelligence. No legitimate Historian can refute that fact." What the hell does that mean?

You not only outargued him you outlasted him, which is the tougher part. He likes to select a thread and set up camp, using it as his own little blog and putting up post after post to himself long after the thread has died and everyone else has gone home. Good on ya for keeping him from nesting here.

Posted by: trex on September 14, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Uh-oh. I think Homeland Security needs to look into this ...

"Hello, DHS ... thanks for taking this call. We have a guy on a political blog who's talking about the damage that a suitcase nuke would do to Disneyland ... is he serious? I dunno ... he doesn't sound remotely Islamic, but he *does* seem to have a very knowledgable grasp of yields and casualty differentials for air and ground bursts. To be truthful, the guy gets a little unhinged and grandiose at times -- he's always lying about his identity -- and the whole thing just makes me kind of uncomfortable, you know what I mean? I mean ... I don't want to intrude on the guy's free speech rights or anything ... but I have reason enough to suspect he's some kind of unhinged looney. Right-wing Christian, probably. Eric Rudolph, abortion clinic bomber Dominionist type.

Yeah sure, I'll keep asking him questions while you call his ISP and get his IP address ... "

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

[/satire]

Thomas, in all seriousness, I hope you know I'd never do this on the strength of anyone's blog posts alone.

I was just yankin' yer chain.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 14, 2006 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

Not on this thread anymore.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 15, 2006 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

Thank you!
[url=http://rfkxbekp.com/bxgx/hedy.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://franxkco.com/buzu/rkzi.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Adam on September 15, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Well done!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Gabriel on September 15, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

best nfl picks ans best nfl picks ans http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.comans
college football picks ans college football picks ans http://college--football-picks.blogspot.comans
football betting ans football betting ans http://winning-football-betting.blogspot.comans
free football picks ans free football picks ans http://free-football-picks.blogspot.comans
nfl picks ans nfl picks ans http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.comans
aa ans aa ans http://testtestans
football predictions ans football predictions ans http://football-predictions-1.blogspot.comans
football predictions ans football predictions ans http://best-football-predictions.blogspot.comans
best nfl picks ans best nfl picks ans http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.comans
college football picks ans college football picks ans http://college--football-picks.blogspot.comans
football betting ans football betting ans http://winning-football-betting.blogspot.comans
free football picks ans free football picks ans http://free-football-picks.blogspot.comans
nfl picks ans nfl picks ans http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.comans
aa ans aa ans http://testtestans
football predictions ans football predictions ans http://football-predictions-1.blogspot.comans
football predictions ans football predictions ans http://best-football-predictions.blogspot.comans
best nfl picks ans best nfl picks ans http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.comans
college football picks ans college football picks ans http://college--football-picks.blogspot.comans
football betting ans football betting ans http://winning-football-betting.blogspot.comans
free football picks ans free football picks ans http://free-football-picks.blogspot.comans
nfl picks ans nfl picks ans http://best-nfl-picks.blogspot.comans
aa ans aa ans http://testtestans
football predictions ans football predictions ans http://football-predictions-1.blogspot.comans
football predictions ans football predictions ans http://best-football-predictions.blogspot.comans

Posted by: best nfl picksans on September 15, 2006 at 3:07 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