Rove wasn’t talking to journalists yesterday. He was just talking to FOX News, where notorious dignityphobe John Gibson argued that Rove deserves a medal for exposing Valerie Plame. Here’s what he said (any transcription errors are my own):
I say give Karl Rove a medal, even if Bush has to fire him. Why? Because Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody, and nobody else had the cajones to do it. I’m glad Rove did, if he did do it, which he still says he didn’t.[1] Why should she have been outed? Well, despite her husband’s repeated denials, even in the face of a pile of evidence, and conclusions of a joint investigation of Congress, it appears that all evidence points to Joe Wilson’s wife, the spy Valerie Plame, as the one who recommended him to the job of going to Niger to discover Saddam was trying to buy nuke bomb material.
Why is this important? Because Wilson was opposed to the war in Iraq, opposed to Bush policy, and pointedly and loudly said so. Consequently, there was some interest in how he got chosen for the sensitive job, which people at the time might have thought would be a fulcrum point in the decision about the war. You wouldn’t send a peacenik to see if we should go to war, if we need to go to war, now would you? That’s exactly what happened. As they say in the news business, enquiring minds now want to know how the heck did this happen.[2]
Well, it turned out little wifey did it.[3] She touted husband Joe, her CIA bosses bit, and off Wilson went to completely knock down any notion that Saddam wanted Niger’s nuke bomb making stuff, which is called yellowcake. Problem is, reporters say many in intelligence said the information said no such thing. In fact, it was still a bit of a mystery, and Saddam could might have been trying to buy the nuke bomb material.[4]
So why should Rove get a medal? Let’s just assume that spy Valerie Plame knew her husband’s attitude toward the war in Iraq. She was married to him. Then sending him off to Niger could be regarded as an attempt to influence national policy. Where I come from, we want to know who that is. We do not want secret spy masters pulling the puppet strings in the background. That is something that should be out in the open, and the person doing it should be identified and should own up to it. So, Rove should get a medal, even if he did do what he said he didn’t do. And that is my word.
This is idiotic. Even if I were to grant Gibson every element of his argument- even if I stipulated that Wilson was a biased “peacenik” who did a shoddy job, and that Plame shouldn’t have recommended him because of his anti-Administration views- all I’m granting is that Plame used bad judgement in suggesting her husband.
Gibson is forced to argue that a covert CIA agent who shows bad judgement in a personnel suggestion should be exposed, rather than (say) ignored, reprimanded or even fired. Exposing Plame didn’t just hurt her and her family: it exposed all of her foreign contacts and all of her CIA colleagues “employed” by the same cover firm. Republicans can wag their fingers at Plame all day long. But unless they’re prepared to state that she deserved exposure, they’ve got no argument. She obviously didn’t. The cost to national security is far too great.
John Gibson purports to believe that political operatives deserve medals for exposing covert CIA operatives if their actions could be interpreted as an attempt to influence national policy. But this position is clearly incompatible with having any secret agents at all! Why do we have a CIA if it isn’t to inform and influence policy? Every internal memo, every report, every personnel choice, just about every damn thing the CIA does could be interpreted by some political operative as another filthy attempt to influence policy. If we followed the Gibson Principle, we’d have to publish the internal CIA phonebook tomorrow, starting with Valerie Plame’s bosses who actually made the decision to send Wilson. Why should the buck stop with her?
It’s absolutely unreal. I can’t believe we’ve come to this.
[1] This assertion is no longer operative since Rove’s lawyer admitted that he was a source, and Gibson is misleading at best when he makes it.
[2] Looking at Wilson’s bio, it’s easy to see why Plame’s bosses agreed that Wilson was a good choice for the Niger mission. Joseph Wilson was a former ambassador with a wealth of experience and contacts in the region. He had been a State Department officer in Niger in the mid-1970s. He was ambassador to Gabon in the early 1990s. And in 1997 and 1998, he was the senior director for Africa at the National Security Council and in that capacity spent a lot of time dealing with the Niger government. Wilson was also the last acting US ambassador in Iraq before the Gulf War, a military action he supported.
For his work in Iraq, he was sincerely praised by George H.W. Bush. Bush wrote to him, “Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq….The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job.”
Incidentally, George H.W. Bush also said, in a speech on April 26, 1999, “Even though I’m a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”
[3] Valerie Plame was working abroad as a covert WMD analyst, while John Gibson was perfecting his hairgelling technique not.
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
People in that position do more for national security than every blowdried anchor, pundit and blogger combined. Although it isn’t useful at the moment, it would behoove a stain like Gibson to talk about her with a little goddamn respect. “Little wifey,” indeed.
[4] Rove defenders would love to pretend that the real issue is that Wilson was wrong about Nigerien (not Nigerian- thanks, Tim) yellowcake, but he wasn’t. Again, from Larry Johnson:
According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe’s visit in February 2002), “Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on.” Joe’s findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 104 comments }
Uncle Kvetch 07.13.05 at 12:55 pm
I give you mad props for being able (and willing) to continue to take this story seriously, Ted. God knows somebody has to. Me, once I saw that the new talking point is “Karl Rove: Victim,” I gave up and decided that we must have entered some kind of rip in the time/space continuum, such that the entire political and journalistic elite of the United States has started acting out random bits of old Firesign Theatre sketches.
Jake 07.13.05 at 1:01 pm
I suppose I’m naive, but I still find it hard to believe that the kind of foamy-mouthed insanity that Gibson is producing is being given national exposure. Is Fox run by overcaffeinated monkeys?
Richard Bellamy 07.13.05 at 1:12 pm
Why the hatred for overcaffeinated monkeys?
Jake 07.13.05 at 1:31 pm
Richard–
You mistake me. I have the highest regard for monkeys (and that regard is completely orthogonal to their caffeine intake). I merely think that they serve as a good symbol of frenzy and a certain lack of sensible restraint and rationality.
The behavior of such people as Gibson above was reminding me of something. It’s that quote (from 1923, I think): “The democrats of Il Mondo want to know what our purpose is? It is to break the bones of the democrats of Il Mondo. And the sooner the better.”
Ragout 07.13.05 at 1:52 pm
Gibson seems to be projecting. The idea that Wilson might have been doing a professional job, seeking the truth instead of propaganda, seems to be beyond Gibson’s comprehension.
Mike Brown 07.13.05 at 2:05 pm
Gibson’s idea that Rove should get a medal should fit George Bush’s modus operandi to a “T”.
After all, didn’t George (“It’s a slam dunk) Tenet get a Medal of Freedom? And, Didn’t Paul (“Dissolve the Iraqi Army”) Bremer get one, too?
abb1 07.13.05 at 2:06 pm
I would like to see some evidence that anything the CIA is doing is beneficial for the national security.
Andrew Boucher 07.13.05 at 2:11 pm
I would like to think that this is evidence that Fox is imploding – so taken with itself and its importance, it thinks it can mouth the worst and most dangerous kind of nonsense with impunity.
fifi 07.13.05 at 2:13 pm
Proving once again freedom of speech is valued most fiercely in those societies it is used least. In totalitarian states it doesn’t matter what people think because the government can crush the people. In democratic societies thoughts must be crushed (controlled) instead, because democracy _is_ manufactured consent.
jlw 07.13.05 at 2:25 pm
According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe’s visit in February 2002), “Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on.†Joe’s findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.
Paging Dr. Holsclaw. Dr. Holsclaw needed in right wing talking points support.
norbizness 07.13.05 at 2:29 pm
Unfortunately, the RNC talking points rehashed by Gibson were also used in their entirely in the lead editorial for the Wall Street Journal. I don’t see this as legitimate argumentation that could be accepted by any sane person, but rather elaborate code to Mr. Rove from these media outlets that he still has their undivided loyalty.
KCinDC 07.13.05 at 2:39 pm
Yes, the WSJ’s participation in this insanity was considerably more surprising than Fox’s, though the WSJ editorial board has been pretty wacko in recent years.
Thomas 07.13.05 at 3:15 pm
There’s a lot here:
What would it mean to “ignore” Plame’s role in this case? Would it mean taking her idiot husband seriously? Because that may be a burden that some of us aren’t willing to bear.
It doesn’t seem to me that Gibson is suggesting CIA operatives could or should be exposes if they attempt to influence national policy. Rather, that they shouldn’t seek to undermine national policy without being accountable for their efforts.
The assertion that “Exposing Plame didn’t just hurt her and her family: it exposed all of her foreign contacts and all of her CIA colleagues “employed†by the same cover firm”, and at a great cost to national security, isn’t back by any argument or facts whatsoever. We don’t know that exposing Plame has in any way harmed her or her family; to the contrary, it seems to have resulted in their getting invited to the right parties. We don’t know that there were any foreign contacts or any other CIA colleagues using the same cover firm, so to insist that they’ve been damaged without demonstrating that they exist seems a bit premature.
I’m not sure why Plame’s bosses would have thought Wilson a good choice, whatever contacts he might have had. He’d already become an outspoken critic of the administration’s foreign policy, which would suggest that he wouldn’t be the most impartial investigator; further, he had the closest of personal ties to an analyst who had already pronounced on the matter.
It isn’t the case that Rove or his lawyer has admitted being “a source” for the publication of Plame’s name in the Robert Novak story.
Why are you quoting Larry Johnson when you could quote the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report? Is it because you and Larry don’t agree with the bipartisan report?
roger 07.13.05 at 3:22 pm
Actually, the Fox argument is exactly why the law is insane. We should know who is pulling the strings, up to and including who the CIA’s covert operatives are. Philip Agee was perfectly right in exposing the CIA’s death squad movers and shakers in the 60s. That Fox news and Fidel Castro agree on this issue is funny — that anybody who values civil liberties thinks that the law isn’t a blight should look at how it has been used as a tool of policy blackmail in D.C. –indeed, is being used like that now.
y81 07.13.05 at 3:30 pm
I have to agree that praising people for exposing CIA agents is nonsensical and even contemptible, but so are (i) excusing and justifying lying to a federal judge, on the grounds that lying is the proper response to questions about sex (this was John Kenneth Galbraith’s line) and (ii) responding to federal investigations by speculating about the sexual fetishes and religious notions of the federal prosecutor (this was Maureen Dowd’s line). If you don’t respect government authority when it operates to your political detriment, you must not expect your opponents to respect it when it operates to theirs.
Barry Freed 07.13.05 at 3:31 pm
A few words on “Moral Clarity”:
Here’s a choice selection from a post at Kevin Carson’s fine blog entitled, “A (Partial) Neoconservative Lexicon” in the tradition of Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary:
A (Partial) Neoconservative Lexicon
Moral Relativism. Aka historicism. The denial of any unified, objective standard of value. The diametric opposite of Moral Equivalence (q.v.).
Moral Equivalence. Judgment of the United States government by the same unified, objective standard of value as the governments of other countries. The diametric opposite of Moral Relativism (q.v.).
Moral Clarity. The Zen-like state of mind from which it is possible accuse the same political enemy, simultaneously, of both Moral Relativism and Moral Equivalence.
Uncle Kvetch 07.13.05 at 3:41 pm
Thomas, I must have missed the part in the bipartisan Senate report that stated that it’s OK to expose an undercover CIA agent, unless and until it has been definitively proven that somebody got hurt as a result.
Would you be so kind as to provide the relevant link?
Thanks much.
engels 07.13.05 at 3:45 pm
Barry – I saw that the other day. It’s very good.
Kevin Donoghue 07.13.05 at 3:57 pm
Who had ticket no. 15 in the Clinton’s penis stakes?
Ted 07.13.05 at 3:57 pm
Thomas,
1. Feel free to denigrate Wilson all you like. However, if you want to bring him into a discussion of the morality of outing his wife, please be ready to explain why it’s relevant.
2. Any recommendation, advice or report the CIA gives that isn’t congruent with the rhetoric or objectives of the current Administration could be judged, by somebody, as “undermining national policy.” Surely the correct penalty can’t be exposure. That’s insane.
3. My point would, indeed, be much easier to prove if the CIA would only play along and reveal the identities of all of its injured assets. Of course, I don’t wish for that, and I don’t think you do, either. It’s an unacceptable risk for very, very little gain.
4. No… but he’s admitted to being a source for Cooper, which is what we’re talking about here.
5. I haven’t read the Senate report, so I can’t speak to its conclusions.
abb1 07.13.05 at 3:59 pm
Ah, the neocons, haven’t seen much of them lately. Except for this one yesterday: Neoconservative William Kristol. The guy sounds like he’s on sedatives or something… Not a very promising start for The New American Century… Well, maybe the next one.
soru 07.13.05 at 3:59 pm
Who was it that has the $100 bet with me that we’d heard the last of the Niger yellowcake story?
I don’t think this report calls in the bet in itself, but it does make me feel pretty confident that whatever was going on will see the light of day.
soru
Scott 07.13.05 at 4:00 pm
You wouldn’t send a peacenik to see if we should go to war, if we need to go to war, now would you?
Would that make less sense than sending someone chafing at the bit for an invasion, a selection Gibson evidently would have supported?
RVD 07.13.05 at 4:00 pm
Is anyone who has posted here today capable of getting past their set-in-concrete-ideology? From all that I’ve read in the public domain, it would seem that (1) Rove meets NONE of the legal definitions that must be met to be considered as breaking ANY laws,(2)The President stated (au contrair to Harry Read’s inability to comprehend the English language) that he would fire someone who HAD BROKEN THE LAW–as opposed to someone who was “involved.” (3) The “ethical dimension”–or lack thereof–exhibited by Karl Rove is scarcely in play either. My reading of the current information extant in the public domain sees Rove REACTING to a call INITIATED by a reporter about a TOTALLY DIFFERENT SUBJECT in which, by way of secondary verbal meanderings by the REPORTER, Rove, in an attempt to warn the said reporter that Wilson’s trip, subject of which broached by said REPORTER, was hardly authorized by the Dir. CIA (in which said Director subsequently publically confirmed that said trip was indeed NOT authorized by him) and further,(4) Rove’s concern’s are, in retrospect, totally and ethically justified insofar as the official report of the 9/11 Commission ABSOLUTELY CONFIRMS that Joseph Wilson’s VERY PUBLIC pronuncements about “his” version of the nature of “yellow-cake” acqusition attempts, and the nature of the way in which he became involved, were outright LIES! (although in sworn testimony before the comission, Wilson, in a craven attempt to cover himself, FORMALLY ADMITTED, IN SWORN TESTIMONY, to have “perhaps” “mis-spoken.”) This, in an on-the-record, unconvincing attempt to explain his(by now) legally proven, and formerly erronous public statements. And, to further distance himself from his highly dissiminated public pronouncements (now proven under oath as lies) Wilson advanced the unbelievable fiction that his public statements (interpereted by one and all as damaging to the Bush Administration) were admittedly wrong ONLY because they were “MIS-INTERPRETED” by the news media (his OWN words in SWORN testimony).
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, it seems to me that all available evidence points to the fact that Val baby wasn’t either (a)By CIA’s own strictures, a “covert” agent at the time in question, or therefore(b) a “covered person” under the Agee Law. Therefore what???????!!!!!!!
Seems like a lot of “Sturm und Drag” about nothing as far as I can see–except for those of you lefties who, like Pavlov’s dogs, leap to indignation upon the slightest pretext to froth at the mouth in an attempt to search for any old cudgel, real or imagined, to smite the hated BUSHITLER regime. GROW UP! GET A LIFE, LEARN TO READ THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE! Take a Freshman entry-level course in logic at the nearest CC., for Christsake! The election is OVER! MOVE ON! (.org)
engels 07.13.05 at 4:08 pm
ENOUGH ALREADY!!!???!!!
Ted 07.13.05 at 4:08 pm
“Sure, he exposed a covert agent, but it possibly wasn’t technically illegal.”
Ah, there’s that bracing moral clarity we’ve been missing. Thanks, rvd.
Matt Austern 07.13.05 at 4:09 pm
A suggestion on writing technique: a post that’s urging other people to calm down and not be so emotional comes off as ever so much more credible if you avoid 80-line paragraphs, all-caps shouting, and strings of eight or more question marks and exclamation points. Overuse of such techniques might lead your readers to start thinking about motes and beams.
y81 07.13.05 at 4:09 pm
Well, kevin, yours is the argumentative mode favored by Glenn Reynolds: pronounce matters which don’t support your worldview to be “bogus” and move on. The difference is that Reynolds (and I) are in the majority, and don’t indeed have to convince any of our opponents of anything to get our way, whereas you are in the minority and likely to remain there.
Uncle Kvetch 07.13.05 at 4:13 pm
The President stated (au contrair to Harry Read’s inability to comprehend the English language) that he would fire someone who HAD BROKEN THE LAW—as opposed to someone who was “involved.â€
Sadly, no:
“Mr. McClellan and Mr. Bush have both made clear that leaking Ms. Plame’s identity would be considered a firing offense by the White House. Mr. Bush was asked about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer’s name. “Yes,” he replied, on June 10, 2004.”
Uncle Kvetch 07.13.05 at 4:15 pm
The difference is that Reynolds (and I) are in the majority, and don’t indeed have to convince any of our opponents of anything to get our way
“We don’t make sense. We don’t have to. We’re Republicans.”
Lily Tomlin, where are you?
abb1 07.13.05 at 4:15 pm
Ooops, there goes the neighborhood. How did the freepers find this place?
y81 07.13.05 at 4:29 pm
No, uncle kvetch, post a civil and responsive answer to my earlier post, and I am happy to engage in civil discussion. I am not Brian Leiter.
Uncle Kvetch 07.13.05 at 4:33 pm
Y81, your earlier post was a slightly more sophisticated version of “I’m rubber, you’re glue.” I gave it all the consideration it deserved.
Steve Carr 07.13.05 at 4:39 pm
Y81, what about those of us — which I think would probably include most reguler CTers — who do respect the authority of a democratically-elected government even when it operates to our political detriment, and who didn’t think Clinton should have lied to the American people? Can we complain about Karl Rove’s decision to leak a CIA agent’s identity in order to achieve a political goal?
I’m also fascinated by the idea that someone supporting Karl Rove’s position is in the majority. Do you honestly think that if you asked the American people to vote on whether it was okay for Karl Rove to out a CIA agent in the circumstances that he did so, a majority of them would say “Yes”? Not a chance.
If Rove’s actions were in fact so unproblematic, he wouldn’t have had to leak the secret. The White House could have just blown Plame’s cover publicly. Why didn’t it?
Barry Freed 07.13.05 at 4:43 pm
No, uncle kvetch, post a civil and responsive answer to my earlier post, and I am happy to engage in civil discussion. I am not Brian Leiter.
Obviously not, Brian Leiter would actually attend to the factual points cited by his interlocutor and address his/her logical argument built thereon. Rather than say, ignoring well established facts concerning this issue in favor of RNC approved talking-points and interspersed with what passes for reasoned debate among sibling toddlers.
Tim May 07.13.05 at 4:46 pm
(This is really beside the point, but the alleged yellowcake would be Nigerien, not Nigerian.)
Ted 07.13.05 at 4:52 pm
Three points:
1. Steve Carr is exactly right. It’s literally no defense to point to Clinton. I thought Clinton did wrong. I voted against him twice. It’s completely irrelevant.
2. Right-wingers are more than welcome in the comments. If I could trade right-of-center comments for the p*k*r spam invasion we’re getting right now, I’d do it in a second.
3. Good point, Tim. I’ll correct it.
Kevin Donoghue 07.13.05 at 4:55 pm
Steve Carr, Y81’s view is more nuanced than you allow. He disapproves of Rove’s conduct, but wishes to draw attention to J. K. Galbraith’s ideas about illicit sex and Maureen Dowd’s ideas about the sexual fetishes and religious notions of a federal prosecutor. He didn’t mention Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac or Michael Moore but clearly there are issues there which must be taken into account. And then there is the increased prevalence of cat-blogging to be considered.
Nat Whilk 07.13.05 at 5:09 pm
Uncle Kvetch wrote: “Mr. McClellan and Mr. Bush have both made clear that leaking Ms. Plame’s identity would be considered a firing offense by the White House. Mr. Bush was asked about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer’s name. “Yes,†he replied, on June 10, 2004.â€
Anyone able to tell me what date the original pledge was made?
Barry Freed 07.13.05 at 5:36 pm
(This is really beside the point, but the alleged yellowcake would be Nigerien, not Nigerian.)
You know how it is, all those West African countries look the same.
Thomas 07.13.05 at 5:38 pm
Ted,
1. It seems to me that Wilson was hiding behind his wife, daring the administration to shoot. They did shoot, and now he’s complaining that they’ve injured her.
2. Certainly you must think that there is some recommendation/advice/report by the CIA, intended to undermine the elected administration of the country, that could properly lead to the outing of a covert operative. The question is whether it’s appropriate in these circumstances, isn’t it? That is, there isn’t a categorical rule here, and the measure of the action taken by the CIA in “influencing” (or “undermining”) the policy of the administration is relevant in determining the appropriateness of the outing.
3. It would be enough for me if the CIA were to say that its assets had been injured, or, for that matter, for Wilson and Plame to credibly claim that they’ve been injured. But there haven’t been any such claims.
4. Is that clear? I thought we were talking about the “outing” of Plame in Robert Novak’s column.
Uncle Kvetch 07.13.05 at 5:43 pm
1. It seems to me that Wilson was hiding behind his wife, daring the administration to shoot. They did shoot, and now he’s complaining that they’ve injured her.
Oh, now I get it: If I dare you to do something illegal, and you go ahead and do it, you’re not at fault…I am!
I think I’m finally getting the hang of this moral clarity thing.
KCinDC 07.13.05 at 5:52 pm
Only if it’s a double dog dare.
Ray 07.13.05 at 5:55 pm
Nobody can resist a _telepathic_ double-dare.
Steve Carr 07.13.05 at 5:56 pm
How was Wilson hiding behind his wife? Karl Rove could have come out and said “Joseph Wilson is a crank. He’s a self-aggrandizing fool who’s distorting the truth about what he actually found in Niger.” That would have been a perfectly acceptable answer to Wilson’s op-ed. Outing a CIA agent was not acceptable.
Thomas, you can’t actually believe that telling Matt Cooper that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent was a reasonable or, from a national security point of view, sensible thing to do in response to Wilson’s column. It was the wrong thing to do. You know this. So why defend Rove?
Barry Freed 07.13.05 at 5:57 pm
1. It seems to me that Wilson was hiding behind his wife, daring the administration to shoot. They did shoot, and now he’s complaining that they’ve injured her.
Are you a craven cur? A pusillanimous punk? If I called you out to your face would you strike out at my wife in reply instead of myself? Do you find it in yourself that such is your natural instinctive reflex? Somehow, I think not. So why do you think this is justified (as if it were some law of nature) when it is Bush and his people who are doing the same, in effect. The same? Far worse, need I remind you her responsibility was WMD proliferation, an issue purportedly of paramount concern to this administration, in the ME and Central Asia, a region purportedly of paramount concern to this administration.
Wow. Just wow.
David T. Beito 07.13.05 at 6:22 pm
Rvd says that
Seems like a lot of “Sturm und Drag†about nothing as far as I can see—except for those of you lefties who, like Pavlov’s dogs, leap to indignation upon the slightest pretext to froth at the mouth in an attempt to search for any old cudgel, real or imagined, to smite the hated BUSHITLER regime. GROW UP! GET A LIFE, LEARN TO READ THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE! Take a Freshman entry-level course in logic at the nearest CC., for Christsake! The election is OVER! MOVE ON! (.org)
First, I am not a lefty. I am ardent free marketeer who believes that Clinton should be impeached. I also believe that Rove should be fired and Bush, if his words are taken at face value, does too.
He said as much with no ifs, ands, and buts:
Here is what he said at a June 10, 2004, press conference after the G8 summit:
Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name?
BUSH: That’s up to —
Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
BUSH: Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.
McClellan at a September 29, 2003, press briefing:
McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame’s identity], they would no longer be in this administration.
[…]
Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it’s so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?
McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
Q: At a minimum?
McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
David T. Beito 07.13.05 at 6:25 pm
That is “I believe Clinton should have been impeached” (for perjury)
Ted 07.13.05 at 7:14 pm
1. It seems to me that Wilson was hiding behind his wife, daring the administration to shoot. They did shoot, and now he’s complaining that they’ve injured her.
…what? How in the world was Wilson hiding behind his wife?
theorajones 07.13.05 at 7:20 pm
This is like looney tunes.
George Bush says we gotta invade Iraq because they are an imminent threat and may already possess WMDs. He cites yellowcake in Niger as one piece of evidence in support of this assertion. Joe Wilson says, “um, that yellowcake isn’t evidence and you guys know it.” Someone in the administration talks to reporters off the record and attacks Wilson’s credibility, in the process making public the fact that Wilson’s wife is a supertopsecret CIA agent protecting us from WMDs. Bush promises full cooperation, his determination to get to the bottom of this situation and his resolve to fire the leaker.
Two years later: No WMDs in Iraq. A British memo indicates Bush’s administration knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. Karl Rove (rather, his lawyer) admits he exposed a CIA agent. Bush is not firing Rove, and the entire white house is refusing to comment on the situation publicly but are commenting anonymously.
And reporters/pundits, who are at least supposed to pretend to follow the facts…are supporting Rove?
We are through the looking glass, alice.
theorajones 07.13.05 at 7:24 pm
Sorry, I forgot “two years later: Bush apologizes for talking about yellowcake in the SOTU.”
Syd Webb 07.13.05 at 7:46 pm
I say give Karl Rove a medal
Given that Crooked Timber is an international newsgroup, rather than a national one, why not?
The CIA is an external spying arm of an imperialistic power. Its role, if not its methods, are comparable to that of the international wing of the former KGB.
A foreign spy’s job is to get people like us to betray our own countries. If one of these spies is exposed then I, for one, applaud freedom of information.
Of course if this is viewed as a purely domestic issue, on a US-only blog, then yes, what Mr Rove has done has the appearance of treachery. Give him a fair trial and a chance to clear his name.
a 07.13.05 at 7:53 pm
“Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on.â€
This is a straw man, and if you’re venturing to comment on this matter, you should damn well know it.
The issue was not whether “anthing was going on”, nor was it whether any actual yellowcake was transferred.
The issue, as succinctly explained by GWB was whether Saddam sought to acquire yellowcake. And we know he did. And we (now) know that Wilson helped confirm this.
Ted 07.13.05 at 7:54 pm
a, give me a link. A source. Something other than an insult and an assertion.
Uncle Kvetch 07.13.05 at 8:19 pm
Why are you bothering, Ted?
Even if what “a” claims were true, it does nothing to excuse the exposure of Wilson’s wife.
It also raises the question of why Bush apologized for making the Niger-uranium claim in the SOTU, as theorjones points out.
If this thread proves anything, it’s that the administration’s supporters have been reduced to frantically attempting to shift the terms of the debate. They have nothing else left.
KCinDC 07.13.05 at 8:20 pm
Clearly there’s a bit missing at the end of one sentence in the McClellan transcript above. It should read
That’s the current moral standard embraced by this administration and its supporters. In the event of a conviction, there may be a revision.
Nat Whilk 07.13.05 at 8:23 pm
Ted:
Could you state precisely the assertion for which you’re asking documentation. Saddam was interested in yellowcake? Saddam was interested in acquiring yellowcake from Africa? Saddam expressed interested in acquiring yellowcake from Niger between mm/dd/yyyy and MM/DD/YYYY?
Uncle Kvetch 07.13.05 at 8:23 pm
In the event of a conviction, there may be a revision.
Yes. The name of the target of the Republican’s smear-campaign machinery will be changed from Wilson to Fitzgerald.
David T. Beito 07.13.05 at 8:24 pm
The sources for the 2003 and 2004 Bush news conferences can be found here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507120004
Nat Whilk 07.13.05 at 8:36 pm
Re #39: Does the sound of crickets chirping mean that Bush had never made the pledge that the reporter on 6/10/2004 asked if he was standing by? (McClellan’s 9/29/2003 description of the President’s position, notwithstanding.) If so, and if Bush is really as dumb as everyone here says he is, I can imagine him being flummoxed by the question. Do you stand by your pledge to stop beating your wife?
FWIW–not much–I abhor “leaks”, since they almost always are a violation of trust. This goes not only for governments but for my university, where it seems a single athletic coach can’t be fired without the coach’s friends and family first learning of it by reading the front page of the local newspaper.
Nat Whilk 07.13.05 at 9:01 pm
The sources for the 2003 and 2004 Bush news conferences can be found here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507120004
FWIW, the ellipsis in Media Matters’ account of the 9/29/2003 McClellan news conference stands for the omission of 2,336 words.
Chris 07.13.05 at 9:25 pm
Seems like a lot of “Sturm und Drag†about nothing … LEARN TO READ THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!
Sturm und Drag would be a great name for a oratorio for drag queens. I think you mean “Sturm und Drang” in which case you should learn to write the English language, RVD.
To make a broader point, it’s clear that the Republican party in this country has no shame and no morals. It’s good to debate them to set the record straight when they lie, but that doesn’t actually achieve anything politically. We need a uninhibited Kenneth-Starr-esque war on the Republican party and its supporters that will destroy them. In most cases that would be morally wrong, but in this case it is morally right precisely because they are not kind of evil one negotiates with; they are the kind of evil one has the moral obligation to destroy. (By destroy, I mean bankrupt, indict, deport, or otherwise emasculate them.)
For the record, I do not use phrases like “no shame and no morals” lightly. I use that phrase now because the Republican party has shown a unmistakable consistency in taking the moral low ground on every political, fiscal and social issue in the last ten years. (If I looked hard enough, I might find one or two exceptions, but heck, nobody’s perfect.)
In the long run, the total destruction of the right-wing machine would be a good thing for reality-based conservatives, too, because they could start a respectable, rational political party that might serve as a loyal opposition.
paul 07.13.05 at 9:38 pm
“Yes. The name of the target of the Republican’s smear-campaign machinery will be changed from Wilson to Fitzgerald.â€
Yep. If the Democrats were remotely as organized as the Republicans at this sort of thing, they would already be preparing for the Fitzgerald smear campaign that will inevitably start if an indictment is made.
Rob 07.13.05 at 9:45 pm
Shorter nat: Hey Bush is fine with his top people exposing CIA agents so shut up!
grackel 07.13.05 at 9:49 pm
Whoa! Dissonance formation! Maybe this is not the proper forum, but I detect assertions , diametrically opposed, all asserted as fact, which lead one to think that dispassion is not the name of the game here. Sources, please – did Valerie Plame indeed send her husband to Niger, or is this a talking point? What did Mr. Wilson apologise for – either mis-stating or being mis-interpreted – to the joint congressional committee? Source, please. To what extent are these things interpretations in the mind and typing fingers of the reader? What do they have to do with the exposure of Valery Plame?
The only facts of which I am fairly certain, are that Joe Wilson was sent to Niger to investtigate the yellow cake issue, reported back that this was a non-issue, wrote an OP-Ed piece that criticized the rush to war, and then his wife, a CIA operative was exposed by Bob Novak. Finally, if Mark Cooper’s notes are to be believed, Cooper was informed of Plame’s employment with the CIA by Karl Rove, however obliquely.
I suppose we will have to wait for Mr. Fitzgerald to decide whether or not this was a chargable offense. In killing another human, intent means the difference between murder and manslaughter, more or less.
As I read some commenters here, I cannot discern the difference between a government official with (presumed) high security clearance exposing an undercover operative with malicious intent — and what exactly is it they propse happened?
paul 07.13.05 at 9:52 pm
The above quote should have been attributed to uncle_kvetch. Sorry, in my rush to agree, I left that out.
The Rovian administration has a long and consistent history of trying to solve all inconvenient political problems by using smear campaigns against those who disagree with them.
This is what got them into their current mess.
They have done weirder stuff in the past. Who knows, maybe Turd Blossom will “find†another bug in his office and blame it on the Democrats.
Randy Paul 07.13.05 at 9:53 pm
Ted, you’re forgetting: Wilson speaks fluent French which already makes him suspect to the Bushiites.
bh 07.13.05 at 10:01 pm
thomas said
“3. It would be enough for me if the CIA were to say that its assets had been injured, or, for that matter, for Wilson and Plame to credibly claim that they’ve been injured. But there haven’t been any such claims.”
But I thought that the orignal investigation was because of a CIA complaint? Seems like they care.
Nat Whilk 07.13.05 at 10:09 pm
Shorter rob: Don’t bore me with the facts!
Mr. Language Person 07.13.05 at 10:13 pm
Sturm und Drag would be a great name for a oratorio for drag queens. I think you mean “Sturm und Drang†in which case you should learn to write the English language, RVD.
Instant karma comes through again.
Nash 07.13.05 at 10:17 pm
Thomas repetitive use of “bipartisan” with reference to the SSCI report is a warning flag–it’s been a consistent though subtle part of the right’s talking points on this.
In point of fact, the information Thomas is citing is neither bipartisan nor is it actually the report per se. It represented an appendix added by 3 Senate Republicans on the committee. A majority of the Republicans and all of the Democrats on the committee refused to sign off on Thomas’ “bipartisan report.”
In addition, Amb. Wilson wrote a response to these three Senators. His answers all of their charges. Any honest discussion of this will not stop at a description of the report as “bipartisan” nor will it fail to mention that Wilson disputed in writing to Chr. Roberts every charge that was made.
Mr. Language Person 07.13.05 at 10:22 pm
We need a uninhibited Kenneth-Starr-esque war on the Republican party
they are not kind of evil one negotiates with
the Republican party has shown a unmistakable consistency in taking the moral low ground
No, this is too much to attribute to instant karma. This is clearly a person who slept through grammar class on the day that articles were discussed.
Barry Freed 07.13.05 at 10:33 pm
Let’s face it, this is the mentality we’re dealing with here. George W. Bush could crash some of these true believers’ daughters’ weddings, kick the groom in the nuts, give the best man a wedgie, towel snap the minister, cop a feel off the bride, pinch the bride’s mum’s bum and dump a fat, stinking, steaming turd on top of the wedding cake and they would still be defending him against all comers.
Rob 07.13.05 at 10:39 pm
nat you’re the one saying Bush is fine with having his top aides burn CIA agents.
RVD 07.13.05 at 11:20 pm
Well Chris(#62) you’ve got me, I over-looked the limitations of spell-checker. However, it seems to me that no one has as of yet been able to (a) refute the testimony of Wilson before the 9/11 Commission, or (b) adress the EXACT PARTICULARS of the Agee law insofar as it applies to Rove, or, (c) as any high school sophmore enrolled in a basic physics class would do, draw up a “vector analysis” graph of “resultant forces” to acertain in which direction and with what intensity the primary forces (i.e., who called whom, and who initiated the conversation about what) tended to indicate where the locus and direction of energy concerning the exact status of “double-secret” agent Plame was focused. To anyone with even a nodding acquaintance as to how the interplay of the media and government officals works insofar as the nuts and bolts of “sourcing” stories is concerned, this entire “contretemps” would be laughable were it not so pathetic.
Finally, (as if there ever is a finite point in sofar as endeavours such as this are concerned)the sight of well-paid, college educated, grown adults (who should know better) not only saliavating in public, but issuing the wildest of unsubstantiated “known-in-advance-to-be-untrue,” statements, is, to say the very least, enough to make even the lowest of low-order Jackels wretch.
KCinDC 07.13.05 at 11:26 pm
That’s because there are two separate quotes. How is the length of the omission significant? I realize it’s standard procedure on the right to cut-and-paste quotes to make them say things the original doesn’t, but that doesn’t mean every ellipsis is an indicator of misrepresentation.
Chris 07.13.05 at 11:37 pm
Surely, though, the yellowcake issue no longer needs to be decided from the outside, as it was at the time of the Wilson trip and the forgeries. The Americans have in detention the people who would have been on the other end of the deal, and can ask them what happened without having to rely on any senate committee or any foreign intelligence service. If it was true that Saddam tried to buy yellowcake, the Americans would have the ability to prove it; and the fact that they haven’t yet proved it from these untainted sources is, I think, evidence that they can’t, and that it isn’t true.
Thomas 07.13.05 at 11:54 pm
Ted, I recommend the following:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf
See the section beginning on page 36. Contrary to a suggestion in the thread above, this is a bipartisan report, and the report makes it very clear that Joe Wilson isn’t someone with a lot of credibility.
Joe Wilson got a job he shouldn’t have gotten, because of his outspoken political opposition to the administration and because of his ties to one of the analysts whose work he was, in a sense, checking. His trip wasn’t particularly worthwhile, but he was able to use the credibility gained by the trip (which isn’t something he had a right to) to tell a bunch of lies. When people pointed out that his lies oughtn’t to be believed, because the credibility he was spending wasn’t really earned but instead was given by his wife, he complains that they’re attacking his wife. Which is a bit cheeky, if you ask me.
bostoniangirl 07.14.05 at 1:39 am
This thread is too long for me to respond intelligently, but I do want to point out two things.
(1.) Crooks and Liars has the video of Gibson here.
(2.) Wilson will be on the Today Show on Thursday. By the time anyone reads this, it will be past. Brad Blog had the details. Atrios has a link.
rajH 07.14.05 at 1:59 am
Thomas:
It doesn’t seem to me that Gibson is suggesting CIA operatives could or should be exposes if they attempt to influence national policy.
…except that he said the person who did this should “get a medal”. Medals (whether literal or figurative) are usually given for things that not only could, but very much should, be done.
As for your insistence on an actual compromise of sources-and-methods to have taken place as a precondition for criminality of the leak – neither the IIPA nor the Espionage Act consider that relevant or necessary.
bad Jim 07.14.05 at 2:12 am
Why isn’t it relevant to the discussion that Iraq did not present a threat to the United States, that it did not have weapons of mass destruction, or even useful programs to develop such weapons?
You can’t deny the revelations of hindsight without denying reality.
rajH 07.14.05 at 2:36 am
rvd,
If I were to admonish the folks here for their language skills, I’d damn well be sure not to use words that I don’t know or can’t spell, or use embarassingly over-the-top rhetoric. (This also applies to gratuitous references to vector statics and Pavlovian conditioning in an attempt to sound substantial.)
I think many of the posters here have a far better grasp of English than you and I do. You, on the other hand, would do well to outgrow the adolescent tendency to confuse good writing with bombast.
Jack 07.14.05 at 2:47 am
Thomas, what makes you think he got a job that he shouldn’t have or that he didn’t do it well? ANything more than the unwelcomenes of his now well born out conclusions? How many people are there who have been ambassadors to Niger, Gabon and Iraq with a proven record of standing up to Saddam?
Brett Bellmore 07.14.05 at 7:20 am
“George Bush says we gotta invade Iraq because they are an imminent threat”
Geeze, this again? No, he said that the threat was NOT “imminent”, but that waiting until it was would be too late. Look, if you’re going to put words in Bush’s mouth, could they at least not be the exact opposite of what he actually said?
Mike 07.14.05 at 7:28 am
This has probably been said already but just in case. The whole outing the operative thing is a moot point. Operative being a term of art having to do with a covert field agent whose name, location and mission are all DDO classified. Plame hasn’t been an operative for going on a decade. She was compromised all right.. By Aldrich Aimes when he turned the list of field agents over to the Russians …costing at least one his life. It was feared Plames name was on that list so she lost her operative status and was given a job as a desk jockey. Doing WMD analysis out of Langley. That she was an analyst and that her field of expertise was WMD has been public information since the day she started that position. Her status has been neither classified nor privileged as an analyst. Only the details of her work have that distinction. So as far as Roves conversation with the reporter are concerned. He’s not guilty of leaking anything because there was nothing privileged about the information he shared. What appeared to me as awkward silence from the administration now looks more like stunned incredulity when seen from my current perspective. I can’t say that I blame them. The press and the democrats have got to appear to have completely lost the plot. By pursuing this dead leak angle so doggedly they’re oblivious to the facts surrounding it that render the whole psychodrama a non issue.
When the frenzy lets up for lack of blood in the water. I’ll bet there are going to be some red faced dems and journalists for having chased this one for two years only to wind up making colossal asses of themselves.
Ouch.. but it really couldn’t have happened to a more deserving bunch.
MS
Thomas 07.14.05 at 8:29 am
rajh, I don’t recall discussing the alleged criminality of any leak anywhere on this thread. Can you help me out here? This is my fourth post, so check the other three. In any event, I read Mark Kleiman too. On Gibson: I don’t read him as suggesting a categorical rule, but as suggesting a medal is appropriate in this case.
Jack, I don’t think it’s appropriate for a portion of the government supposedly under the control of and responsive to the administration to give the job of responding to an inquiry from the vice president regarding a sensitive matter of intelligence at the heart of a controverted area of national policy to an open, avowed, partisan opponent of the administration. I also, as a general rule, don’t think that it’s appropriate for a portion of the government supposedly under the control of and responsive to the administration to respond, when asked to confirm the conclusions of their analysts by investigating further, to respond by choosing as the investigator someone who is married to one of the analysts.
There’s nothing partisan about these points. I would hope that some future CIA wouldn’t work to undermine or ignore the policies of a Democratic administration. Elections are supposed to have consequences, one of them being control of the levers of government.
Ginger Yellow 07.14.05 at 8:45 am
Brett:
“Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.”
• President Bush, 11/3/02
“I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.”
• President Bush, 11/1/02
“There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.”
• President Bush, 10/28/02
“The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.”
• President Bush, 10/16/02
“There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.”
• President Bush, 10/7/02
“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02
“There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02
“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.”
• President Bush, 9/26/02
Now you’re correct that Bush himself did not use the exact word “imminent”, but that’s pretty weak, given the above. If something can happen on “any given day”, then it’s imminent.
Besides, three of his spokesmen, Ari Fleischer, Dan Bartlett and Scott McClellan, all agreed to the description of Saddam as an “imminent threat”:
Absolutely.”
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
“This is about imminent threat.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
“Well, of course he is.â€
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?â€, 1/26/03
And that’s without even going into all the crap that Cheney spouted.
Uncle Kvetch 07.14.05 at 9:06 am
Thomas, help me out. Couple of things.
First of all, the notion that the Senate report you linked to really was “bipartisan” was criticized pretty convincingly by Nash in #71–but you haven’t answered those criticisms so much as wave them away.
Second, it’s a long document and I’m a busy guy. You’d do a lot to bolster your argument if you could point out where in the Senate report it is stated that Wilson was sent to Niger because he is Plame’s husband. This is a charge I’m seeing alleged ad nauseam, never with a scintilla of proof. If this charge is addressed convincingly in the Senate report, please point it out. If it isn’t, then I can only conclude that your linking to that report is just a dodge, intended to sway those of us who don’t have time to read dozens of pages of bureaucratese.
As Jack points out, your efforts to paint Wilson as some kind of wild-eyed pacifist are coming off as pretty much ridiculous–read footnote #2 of Ted’s original post and tell me which part screams “peacenik” to you.
It’s quite impressive, really. A serious crime, rife with the potential to damage fundamental national security interests, has been committed by someone in the highest reaches of the Bush administration. And supporters of the administration like yourself are succeeding in turning the debate into one about Joe Wilson’s political views (not to mention his masculinity–his wife had to get him a job?? [snicker]), and whether the CIA is a rogue presence within the US government dedicated to bringing down GWB.
Seriously, I’m impressed. This is Rovism in action, and it’s how the Republicans got to where they are today. Slime and defend.
Elections are supposed to have consequences, one of them being control of the levers of government.
“Control of the levers” does not mean being above the law. We were hearing that a lot from Republicans a few years back…can’t remember why, exactly.
RVD 07.14.05 at 9:24 am
Dear “Rajh”:
Condescending remarks aside, at what point on the plimsoll line does a studied indifference to the facts cause one’s bile to rise? Why seemingly erudite and intelligent people “on the left” would lash themselves to the mast of a ship floated by a self-aggrandizing liar is beyond me. But then why should I be surprised? Most things in life come down to the simple matter of whose sacred ox is being gored–the facts be damned. But then, the left has been on the wrong side of history for most of the 20th Century, so why spoil such a long established track record now in the 21st? Perhaps Trotsky had the best insight as to why certain people on the left deny reality when he famously said of the first editor of The Nation (A staunch Stalin apologist/supporter who denied the facts of the show-trials until his death) that: “All of us are entitled to our fair share of stupidity in this life, but our comrade is seriously abusing his privilidge.” The same could be said of many on the left today concerning this matter.
As to why those on the left continue to see the universe as they do, perhaps the best explanation of the left’s signal ability to always get it wrong was given to me by a friend over a decade ago. “Liberals,” he said, “have a genetic defect that prevents them from processing reality–and thus they live their entire lives in a state of denial.”
Concerning this embroglio, I would only add that we, each of us on the side opposite, seem to be having what is, as the French are wont to say, “A dialogue of the deaf.” Adieu.
BenA 07.14.05 at 10:58 am
Hardly bears saying, but repeated assertions that Wilson is a self-aggrandizing liar doesn’t make it true. Indeed the entire argument of the Bush supporters in this case consists of repeatedly asserting falsehoods in the hopes that eventually folks will stop questioning whether or not they’re true.
But the facts are the facts, and some facts are clear. Saddam did not purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger. The documents indicating he did were crude Italian forgeries. Wilson helped bring these facts to light. Somebody in the Bush administration, in retaliation, outed Wilson’s wife as a CIA agent, quite possibly breaking a federal law, very definitely destroying some CIA work on (actual) WMDs, and quite unsuccessfully trying to change the subject from the lies of the Bush administration on Iraq to supposed problems related to Wilson and Plame.
Well, the attempts at lying and spin failed then (hence the Fitzgerald investigation) and I think they’ll fail now, too.
What’s left, then, is the ultimate in wingnut projection: when confronted time and time again with questions about their own reality-challenged assertions, rvd and his ilk are left (again without a shred of evidence) arguing that it is _we_ on the left who believe what we will “the facts be damned.”
Whatever.
Ultimately, whether they are incredibly cynical, completely deluded, or both, it’s just not worth arguing with these folks.
AnneG 07.14.05 at 11:21 am
So many good points that other comments have already made. But there’s one line of logical idiocy that proves the utter bankruptcy of Gibson’s slander. I quote:
“Well, despite her husband’s repeated denials, even in the face of a pile of evidence, and conclusions of a joint investigation of Congress, it appears that all evidence points to Joe Wilson’s wife as the one who recommended him to the job of going to Niger to discover Saddam was trying to buy nuke bomb material.”
Let’s read that again:
“…even in the face of a pile of evidence, … it appears that all evidence points to…”
Huh? Decoded:
Despite the fact that Wilson has piles of evidence supporting him, we’ll just SAY that the evidence does NOT support it. We’ll just wave our bully stick and hope no one notices. And we’ll be so arrogant and lazy that we won’t even bother to do it in a different sentence.
It’s like words have no meaning. These people have no shame.
Thomas 07.14.05 at 11:27 am
Uncle, what is it that I’m supposed to say? I’ve provided you a link to the document. You can read it for yourself and see that nash has it wrong. The report itself is a bipartisan report; there are also some personal views appended to the report, which personal views aren’t the views of the select committee and aren’t bipartisan.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for when you say that you’d like me to point to where it says in the report that Wilson was sent “because” was he was married to Plame. The report describes, in detail, how it was that Wilson was chosen. In short, he was chosen on the recommendation of his wife, who, when she asked him to go, told him that he was being sent to investigate “this crazy report.”
I didn’t accuse Wilson of being a peacenik. Obviously one can favor some wars and not others. I did describe Wilson as an opponent of the foreign policy of the Bush administration, and that’s true.
I don’t mean to suggest anything at all about Joe Wilson’s maculinity. He seems plenty man enough to me. It isn’t his masculinity that’s in question, but, rather, his impartiality as an investigator and his credibility as a commentator on these issues. (Surely one can’t dodge all questions involving conflicts of interest arising due to marriage or other intimate relations by decrying sexism or some such.)
I would think that the question of whether the CIA (or elements thereof) is a rogue presence is a more weighty topic for discussion than whether a particular spy was outed.
I’m not claiming that anyone is “above the law.”
Uncle Kvetch 07.14.05 at 11:35 am
In short, he was chosen on the recommendation of his wife, who, when she asked him to go, told him that he was being sent to investigate “this crazy report.â€
No, there is no evidence that he was “chosen [for the trip to Niger] on the recommendation of his wife,” Thomas, and your repeating it doesn’t make it so. Ted addresses this very clearly in the new thread on the subject. I’d like to hear what you have to say in response (over on that thread, as this one is winding down).
And again (and again and again)–how do you possibly get from “he was recommended for the trip by his wife” to “therefore, it is only right that his wife’s identity as an undercover CIA agent was exposed”? It still makes no sense.
jaimito 07.14.05 at 12:20 pm
Not cajones. C O J O N E S.
Thomas 07.14.05 at 12:56 pm
From the bipartisan unanimous report: “interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip.” Those aren’t my words I’m repeating.
The mere recommendation of one’s spouse for an assignment isn’t sufficient to justify exposure. But it isn’t the only fact here, is it? I mean, fill out the context, as I did above, and substitute names as appropriate to raise your ire. Think of a future President Clinton, for example, undermined by neocon holdovers in the CIA, who give reports and, when asked for more information, send interested parties to do an “independent” evaluation of the reports, and think of those investigators then spinning tall tales with the credibility gained through their investigation. Think, in other words, of a future Democratic administration whose policies are opposed and undermined (for right or wrong) by a faction within the unaccountable bureacracy. And then think, do I really believe that there’s nothing they can do that would justify exposing them?
Jack 07.14.05 at 1:37 pm
Thomas, it still wasn’t his wife who made the decision, in any case she was na expert in the field and so well placed to make such recommendation. It looks superficially as if Wilson was almost uniquely well qualified for the job. Is it the nepotism that is at issue here or is it the inconvenience of the expert views that is at issue here? Was Wilson wrong about the Yellow Cake documents? Was there a possibility of Nigerien yellow cake making its way to Iraq any time soon?
How loudly have you complained about Lynn Cheney’s public life? Or about the propriety of George Bush’s brother deciding who would be president? These issues must at least concern you, right?
Wilson supported the first gulf war and was praised by the younger Bush. Is that bad a judge of character?
Uncle Kvetch 07.14.05 at 1:56 pm
Thomas, I have no interest in arguing a hypothetical with you, so I’m not going to follow you into this “put the shoe on the other foot” business. There is nothing hypothetical about this. A criminal investigation is underway. The burden isn’t on me here, it’s on you. You are seeking to somehow justify, rationalize, or minimize an alleged criminal act by a senior member of the President’s administration. You’re going to need a hell of a lot more than “what-if’s” to make your case.
1. As has been pointed out on another thread, whether Plame “suggested” Wilson for the trip is highly debatable, whatever the Senate report might say:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/07/14/plame/index.html
2. Even if Plame did “suggest” Wilson for the trip, you still have offered nothing to show how this might justify Plame’s outing…
3. …unless, that is, we accept what you’re sort of kind of getting at in your last post, which is that the CIA has become a rogue operation dedicated to undermining the Bush Administration by any means necessary. If this is, in fact, the case you want to make, then make it. But I have to say that Joe Wilson’s personal opinions about the invasion of Iraq (which are, once again, far more debatable than you let on) do nothing to contribute to your argument. Unless your argument is that Joe Wilson has no credibility because he was sent to cook up a rationale for that invasion, and when he failed to find adequate evidence, he should have made something up. But that would suggest that, as the Downing Street Memo put it, “the intelligence was being fixed around the policy,” and I thought everybody was denying that…
M. Gordon 07.14.05 at 3:08 pm
as any high school sophmore enrolled in a basic physics class would do, draw up a “vector analysis†graph of “resultant forces†to acertain in which direction and with what intensity the primary forces (i.e., who called whom, and who initiated the conversation about what) tended to indicate where the locus and direction of energy concerning the exact status of “double-secret†agent Plame was focused.
Whoa. I’m close to completing a physics PhD, and I really can’t figure out what the hell this is supposed to mean. I don’t remember any questions on Classical Newtonian Mechano-Politinomics on my quals. I think RVD may be Archimedes Plutonium in disguise.
rajH 07.14.05 at 4:21 pm
On Gibson: I don’t read him as suggesting a categorical rule, but as suggesting a medal is appropriate in this case.
Gibson makes no attempt to distinguish this case: “We do not want secret spy masters pulling the puppet strings in the background. That is something that should be out in the open, and the person doing it should be identified and should own up to it.” Unless he clarified his remarks somewhere, you’re walking on thin ice here.
rajh, I don’t recall discussing the alleged criminality of any leak anywhere on this thread. Can you help me out here? This is my fourth post, so check the other three.
you’re right, looking at your first post, you seem to bring this point up merely to refute the claim that the leak has provably (rather than potentially) caused harm. In any case, the absence of dire consequences does nothing to justify the leak either legally or ethically. (I agree that you’re not seeking such a justification.)
rajH 07.14.05 at 4:40 pm
anneg,
You’re misreading what Gibson said: he’s referring to Wilson’s denials when he says “even in the face of the pile of evidence”. That sentence doesn’t have the contradiction that you read in it.
However, it does have a somewhat subtle give-away that I missed at first:
“…the job of going to Niger to discover Saddam was trying to buy nuke bomb material.”
The job was not to discover whether Saddam was buying yellowcake, it was to unconditionally “discover” that he was indeed doing so. Now, it might just be that Gibson’s being sloppy here, or it might be a hilarious Freudian slip.
rajH 07.14.05 at 4:50 pm
rvd and his ilk are left (again without a shred of evidence) arguing that it is we on the left who believe what we will “the facts be damned.â€
bena, I’m sure the lack of evidence that you mention will soon be addressed when rvd and his wise friend publish their study in Nature proving that “the Left” suffers from a debilitating, delusionary genetic disorder.
engels 07.14.05 at 8:47 pm
when rvd and his wise friend publish their study in Nature
I think Archimedes Plutonium usually just publishes stuff on his web site. You could check there.
johnhayter 07.15.05 at 8:09 am
I think rvd is a bot.
J Thomas 07.15.05 at 8:55 am
OK, so what do people get from arguing with rvd on crookedtimber? You get to be right. You get to show how stupid he is. You get to confirm your beliefs.
If instead you wrote a letter to the editor of your local paper, or started up a conversation in the grocery line, or whatever, you might plant little seeds of change.
I vividly remember once late at night, in 2003, in texas — I was in the checkout line at the grocery store and there was no line, and the 50-something checkout woman showed me the cover of the TV guide. It had a picture of the WTC about to fall. She pointed to some little dots near the top. “Those er bodies, people jumping. You cain’t see them here, but I got a 9/11 commemerative book. I look at it every day. It shows blowup pictures of this and you can see the people falling to their deaths. You can almost see the expressions on their faces. We gotta support Bush and the war on terrah.”
I could tell, she talked to every customer about it when she had time.
That’s who you’re competing with. Rvd is just a troll.
Comments on this entry are closed.