Comments on: Two more points

By: raj

raj — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:46:03 +0000

Regarding (i), the problem with the special prosecutor statute was that it set a ridiculously low, and in any case vague, standard under which the AttyGen was required to name a special prosecutor. Special prosecutors had been named before without regard to a special prosecutor statute—the special prosecutor who had been named to investigate the Nixon administration in regards Watergate is the most famous. Regarding (ii), it’s interesting that the spin now seems to be that Wilson’s bias affected his conclusion that the Niger documents were forgeries. His mission was, of course, to determine whether the alleged Niger documents were authentic. And, of course, the spinners do not provide any evidence that his conclusions were incorrect. In other words, spinners, either put up evidence that the alleged Niger documents were authentic, or shut up.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 10:26:47 +0000

I don’t think it’s accurate to assert that the office of the VP specifically picked Wilson for this job. In his interview with TPM, Wilson says that he thinks that someone from the VP’s office contacted the CIA about this question, and then the CIA brought him in. He pretty much confirms the likliehood that Cheney’s assertion is true (that he had no idea of Wilson’s involvement), including that the final report seen by the VP’s office would likely not have included his name. Based upon Wilson’s own words, I really don’t think the WH had anything to do with his selection for the task and, indeed, likely didn’t think about or much care that someone was going to be sent to Niger to investigate. Wilson says that the way these things work is that someone asks an intelligence staffer a question they don’t have the answer to, and the staffer then sets in motion a process such that an answer is generated. I really think everyone should read Josh Marshall’s interview with Wilson. It sheds some light on this, and also on whether or not Wilson merely “sipped tea with some government ministers” in Niger (he did much more than that).

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:42:14 +0000

”. . .or an explanation of why this partisan hack was sent on this important mission.” If this is true, it certainly fits with the Bush Adminstration’ standard operating procedures.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:34:55 +0000

You guys have just been blessed with Reg. His comment was characteristic of his contributions at Matt Yglesias. He has enormous stamina and throws up lots and lots of stuff. He can’t be defeated in argument because there’s no referee here and no scorekeeper either, and Reg has no shame. You will get to know him very, very well.

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:29:00 +0000

I can’t speak with certainty about what the purpose of the leak was. I can say with 100% certainty that the effect of the leak was to harm his wife. The whole world now knows that she was a CIA operative. At best, her career is over. At worst, her safety is compromised. And this is ignoring any harm that might or might not come to her connections and our national security. You don’t need to look at any of Wilson’s statements to realize that.

By: Kristjan Wager

Kristjan Wager — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:25:24 +0000

Who cares what the purpose fo the leak was. It happened. It is a felony. The people responsible should be found and punished. It really is that simple.

By: epist

epist — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:24:43 +0000

“. . .or an explanation of why this partisan hack was sent on this important mission.” 22 years in the foreign service, including 4 DCM and 2 Amb spots. Personally commended by Bush pere for his work in helping to evacuate thousands of people from Iraq before the Gulf War in 91, where he was DCM. Was point man for the NSA on Africa. I can only hope to one day be such a partisan hack.

By: Reg

Reg — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:58:27 +0000

“it doesn’t justify going after his wife” What evidence is there that the purpose of the leak was to “go after” his wife? Maybe it was a charge of nepotism, or an explanation of why this partisan hack was sent on this important mission. I think the only evidence that it was revenge is Wilsons statements, which haven’t proved to be very reliable so far.

By: PG

PG — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:11:02 +0000

The only thing to do now is call for a solid investigation. Everything else is fruitless speculation; too much smoke and not enough fire. A dogged insistence that we see seomeone take responsibility for any crime that was committed will serve all of us better than a lot of hopeful dancing around at the possibility that Rove will be out. They took Lott out of the majority leader position, but he’s still got plenty of power. I doubt that Rove will go gently into that obscure night.

By: scott h.

scott h. — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:25:58 +0000

Personally, I’m getting sick of the “You could find out Valerie Plame was married to Wilson with google, so ipso facto she’s a spy.” (I think of it as the Rumplestiltskin argument.) Jon H. in this thread says it best: “Barbara Bush is married to a guy who is not only a former Ambassador, but is also former head of the CIA. And that doesn’t automatically make Babs a spook, does it?”

By: Chun the Unavoidable

Chun the Unavoidable — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:59:28 +0000

I think it’s pretty clear at this point that Wilson should be the democratic candidate with either Dean, Clark, or his wife as his running mate.