It seems like so much longer than four days since Henry wrote:
But I’m disturbed by the tone of triumphalism coming from a few left blogs and their commenters. It’s understandable that some see this as an opportunity to stick it to the warbloggers. It’s still a mistake. This story is too important to be turned into a cheap gotcha. There’s a growing groundswell of outrage on the right as well as the left. People should be building on this, rather than using the affair to score short-term ‘told you so’ points.
But it isn’t. Anyway, I think we can agree that by now, that this water-source has been well and truly pissed in, so I feel less guilty than I ought in taking what is, after all, a pretty decent opportunity to stick it to the warbloggers. One has to say, the opposition have performed pretty dreadfully on this one. Bereft of any unifying theme from the top, they’ve failed mightily to improvise material. Below I offer a few suggestions …
It’s true, though, isn’t it? Starting off with “It’s all too complicated”, moving on to “How do we know that she was even in the CIA?” and thence to “I hear that bloke Wilson was a liberal!”, the starboard half of the weblog world (with a couple of honourable exceptions) has had a hard time coming up with a response to the situation which maintains at least arms-length contact with acknowledged facts but which doesn’t end up with some pretty nasty implications for their party. I’m disappointed, frankly; I’m pretty sure our lot would have done much better, if only because of the practice over fifty years of explaining how Stalinist Russia wasn’t really a socialist state.
Anyway, I thought I’d lend a hand by making a few suggestions for “Talking Points” for the right wing half of the blogosphere. Sort of as recompense for all the helpful advice they’ve been offering to Democrats on how to get elected by never criticising George Bush. I had a cake with my coffee today, so I managed to come up with six possibilities. Ten points to our readers for spotting any of my six in a live use somewhere, plus five points for identifying the ringer (as in, an argument which has already been actually used somewhere on the right wing blogosphere) that I slipped in for fun. Here goes:
1. The “Libertarian-Contrarian”
“Has anyone thought of this as a big-government issue? I mean, if the CIA knows my name (and they certainly do), why shouldn’t I be allowed to know their names?”
2. The “Shoot the Messenger”
“I tell you one thing; if Valerie Plame’s cover wasn’t blown by a tiny off-hand mention in the Bob Novak column, all the self-righteous lefty ‘patriots’ have made damn sure that it is now!”
3. The “Blind Faith”
“One thing is clear, however; this issue doesn’t go to the heart of government, or anything like it. Bush has addressed the problem, and when he finds out who leaked, he’s going to act in his usual manner; boldly and decisively”.
4. The “Barking Conspiracy Theory”
“Given all we know about the KGB (Aldrich Ames, etc), is it plausible to think that Saddam’s Mukhabarat didn’t have even one double agent within the CIA? And what if that agent was Valerie Plame? Makes a lot more sense to ‘destroy her career’ now, doesn’t it, huh?”
5. The “Back to the Playground”
“Does anyone else think this is really lame? The left are just coming across like little snitches, always tattling to teacher.”
6. The “I Could Tell You, But I’d Have To Kill You”
“I have a suspicion that something is about to come out which will make all the lefties baying for blood right now look very stupid indeed”.
7. The “Hey! Look! WMDs!”
Hey! Look! WMDs!
“I managed to come up with six possibilities.”
There’s seven possies there, you misinformed terror apologist you.
Why not make it eight.
8. The “Keep You Eye On The Ball” theory.
“Saddam’s gone and now we need to keep the Islamofacisti on the run. This is no time for petty partisan sniping now.”
Don’t forget about the “Clinton was worse” defense
There’s seven possies there, you misinformed terror apologist you.
Yes, but I only came up with six of them. One’s the ringer.
2. I swear to God that this is a real comment from Bill Hobbs in the comments to his own posts:
“Since Novak says the white house did NOT leak it, you’re wrong. And she wasn’t very covert. And WILSON outed her himself (as did Josh Marshall and David Corn.)”
6. Rush Limbaugh is trying this one, but I don’t have a link.
“Yes, but I only came up with six of them. One’s the ringer.”
Doh! I really should start reading the original posts properly.
Although the fact I couldn’t spot the ringer says something about something.
Oh well, back to listening to ‘Rattus Norvegicus’ and poking the carcass of m’novel with a pointed stick.
I think David Brook’s latest qualifies as an example of number 5.
Five is indeed the ringer, but it’s actually from someone that instapundit linked to, who has it complete with the “jocks & geeks” reference.
JP nailed it with an earlier comment. Here’s the first (I’ve seen) “Clinton was worse” mitigation.
How about disengenuous sorrow for the low, low scourge of partisanship staining our great nation? Here’s Roger Simon:
“The viciousness of the Clinton years, the unremitting scandals of Whitewater, the impeachment, blown out of all proportion to reality by Clinton’s enemies, may have been mere foreplay compared to what we are about to go through in the Plame/Wilson Affair.”
Awesome! Now I can finally remember which side is starboard and which side is port. Thank you for the handy device.
Remember that starboard and port are defined with respect to someone facing the prow of the ship rather than yourself; ie, if your ship has capsized and is heeling over on its starboard side, starboard is down.
Variation on #4: Here’s a quote from Tom Maguire’s comments(not from TM himself:
“Has anybody considered the idea that the CIA set this whole thing to get rid of a bad agent? Here’s what I mean: If Plame was a crappy operative doing shoddy work (i.e., recommending that her virulently biased husband go to Niger), perhaps the best way to render her harmless would be to “out” her so-called “undercover” abilities. It could be a win-win for the CIA; they get rid of a bad agent who it might have been difficult to fire (she’s hard-wired to the State Department through her husband), AND work in some political digs at the White House.”
Daniel, I don’t think that you can cook up any defense so idiotic that someone won’t try it.
They’re all real! At least, I’ve seen 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and I can’t imagine that 1 and 4 aren’t out there somewhere in Freeperland.
Daniel, I don’t think that you can cook up any defense so idiotic that someone won’t try it.
I know that wasn’t addressed to me, but as a challenge it’s too good to resist, so here goes.
Vince Foster was never really murdered that was a whole trick by the Clintoons to throw us off the trail of the real scandals involving the communists still in charge of red Russia he’s really living in a secret hideaway location (with Elvis Jim Morrison etc etc) where he keeps up his affair with Hilary and hes learned how to impersonate the voices of various senior government officials so when wilson’s wife was about to discover his diabolical secret he rang up all those journalists and tricksed them tricksed them into thinking he was nice Karl Rove and getting them to write these mean things about the good CIA agent who would finally expose the lying Clintons for who they really are.
Admittedly, this isn’t a new explanation as much as a variant on #4, but it’s amusing.
You’ve seen “Wilson blew this up because he wanted a movie deal”. Unbelievable.
And Jonah Goldberg has got to win some kind of medal for this:
“WHAT’S MISSING? [Jonah Goldberg]
Oh, I know: Character assasination. If something similar to this Joe Wilson flap (and I still believe it deserves only flap status) occured during the Clinton years, we’d be hearing a barrage of attacks on Wilson’s motives — not just from barking dogs like Conason, but from the White House too.”
Yeah, we might be hearing those. Thank God we’re not.
Why, if this was the Clintons, those horrible people might even have tried to undermine Wilson by REVEALING HIS WIFE’S IDENTITY AS A CIA AGENT! Those horrible, horrible Clintons!
Vince Foster was never really murdered that was a whole trick by the Clintoons to throw us off the trail of the real scandals involving the communists still in charge of red Russia…
Sorry, the Wall Street Journal tried that yesterday morning.
(Just kidding.)
(I think.)
“…and which side is port.”
Which side do you pass it on?
The Wall Street Journal did actually try the deeply idiotic Glenn Reynolds feint::
“The real intelligence scandalis how an open opponent of the U.S. war on terror such as Mr. Wilson was allowed to become one of that policy’s investigators.”
I’m just getting angrier and angrier.
According to Atrios, the deeply partisan Joe Wilson donated $$ to the Bush campaign. If he’s right, this one has no basis in either fact or logic.
You know, when I really want to see whether my arguments are any good, I try running them by people who disagree with the conclusions to see if they can punch holes in them. If they can’t, I know I’m on pretty solid ground. Sometimes this is hard work, because I end up losing, but it’s a better guide to the truth. Of course, if I didn’t care about the truth, I’d just get my friends and allies to check the reasoning, and I’d get much more positive feedback.
Atrios is right. These donations are public information, accessible at OpenSecrets.org.
Here’s the link: Joseph C Wilson IV, employed by JCWilson International Venture, gave $1000 to George W. Bush’s campaign.
Actually, Open Secrets provides a far more complete and honest accounting of Joe Wilson’s political contributions then the misleading picture that Ted and Atrios are trying to spin:
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=wilson%2C+joseph&txtState=DC&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=Y&Order=N
Looks like he also contributed $2000 to Al Gore and $1000 to Ted Kennedy the same year he gave $1000 to Bush. He’s thrown $1000 each to Hillary Clinton (HILLPAC) and John Kerry. The only other Republican that he has contributed to is Ed Royce (R-CA) who received three $500 contributions from Wilson over the years while Democratic Congressmen Charles Rangle received $500 and Nick Rahall $250 and Senate Democratic Challenger Alan Blinken received $500.
This would seem to mean that his political contributions favor Democrats about 71% of the time which would probably bolster rather than refute the charge of partisanship.
Yeah, thorley, all the rabidly partisan democrats I know make a habit of giving money to Republicans. Sheesh. If anything, his pattern of political donations indicate an Independent frame of mind, rather than one who adheres only to one party or the other. C’mon, you’re not even trying very hard with stuff like this.
Could I inject some sanity here by pointing out that these “donations” almost certainly refer to attendance at fundraising dinners, and that in general, the dinners you go to depend on who is inviting you?
I’ve also seen all but 1 and 4.
“Daniel, I don’t think that you can cook up any defense so idiotic that someone won’t try it.”
Posted by Ted Barlow
That doesn’t worry me. What worries me is how idiotic the defense has to be before it won’t work.
Thorley,
No one denies that Wilson is a Democrat. Wilson has described himself as a Democrat. His donations to Gore and to Kerry have gotten wide play. Are you saying that I was trying to convince you that he only gave to Bush? Or that Atrios was trying to convince people that he only gave to Bush? Here’s Atrios:
“Yes, yes, we knew the Republican talking point that Wilson gave money to John Kerry, which for some reason is supposed to have something to do with the fact that two top white house aids have apparently committed serious felonies. Maybe simply giving money to Democrats now excuses any and all illegal behavior by other people.
But, he also gave money to George Bush. Please inform your readers.”
For purposes of comparison, Enron gave 73% to Republicans and 27% to Democrats, according to NRO’s Byron York. And York, among many others, used these numbers to try to argue that Enron gave in a bipartisan manner.
Really, this just isn’t an issue. Let’s say that he gave 100% of his contributions to Democratic candidates. Does the law have clause allowing people to reveal a covert agent’s identity if the spouse of the covert agent gave 100% to the other party? Of course not. The whole issue is a waste of time.
Thorley shows us why we liberals should not get sidetracked by the wing nuts into arguing irrelevant side points.
Okay, yes, let’s assume that Wilson is, in fact, a Democratic partisan.
And this makes is okay to blow his wife’s cover as a CIA employee because…
And if Wilson is such a DemocRat, giving money to those commie pinkos, why did the Bush Adminstraion appoint him for such a politically sensitive and high media profile mission?.
The only doable answer is they fucked up the process of vetting people they thought would deliver what they wanted for war.
At this stage, incompetence is their best defence - hardly an “Adults with MBAs back in charge” approach.
Love to hear other intepretations of the hiring Wilson decision.
Reg, over at Matthew Yglesias’ blog http://matthewyglesias.com/ has been trying out the ‘technically it’s not a felony if the person doing it didn’t know he/she wasn’t supposed to do it.’ defense.
Remember, as long as your target is a Democratic donor, it’s ok to commit a crime against them.
I’m a warblogger, and I don’t feel that “it” has been, is being, or will be stuck to me. I’m more worried about you non-warblogger types.
For all I know, George W. Bush himself, with malice aforethought and in knowing violation of the law, ordered his lackeys to out Plame. Or maybe the whole thing was just a string of misunderstandings between incompetent low-level paper-pushers. Regardless, you port-side rowers reflexively assume (and set out to prove, with or without evidence) the worst, and make dogs howl from the pain of your shrill, hysterical proclamations. If I were Bush and gave a damn, I’d cook up stuff like this on a regular basis (staying barely within the law), just to stir up your little ant’s nest. Yes, I’m easily amused, and it would be pathetically easy to get you on record saying the most idiotic things.
Reynolds characterized the scandal as credible and disturbing, albeit with much qualification. He said the Administration was stupid to hire Wilson. He said even more bluntly, subpoena Novak and get to the bottom of this. And you, with the aid of your magical lefty-lens, see him as defending the White House with extreme partisanship and prejudice.
That’s just weird.
In the eye of the beholder, dear boy. You say “see him as defending the White House with extreme partisanship and prejudice”, I say “making a bit of a twat of himself, and inter alia showing how badly he flusters when not in possession of a tightly drafted party line”. You say potato, I say Freedom Fries. Let’s face the music and dance.
Variation on “Blind Faith”
Bush’s quick reaction to the allegations of leaks contrasts well with the Clinton Administration, who leaked all the time and kicked small animals.
Hugh Hewitt, repent!
I have seen #5, the “Back to Teacher” excuse, in action. Unfortunately I forget where. Specifically it was something close to “the Democrats just look like the geeks tattling on the jocks.”
The one that’s pissing me off the most is the “Oh, she was just a glorified secretary” meme, which seems to be a desperate bit of English applied to the “I’m waiting to see if she’s really an operative or just a mere analyst” talking point since taken out of play.
Rush weighs in today with a variation on #4:
“There are a lot of Clinton people around in various departments of the administration. It’s not inconceivable that Bill and Hillary can push a couple of buttons or pull a couple of strings and get this leaked. You just never know.”
And a variation on #6:
“If the Democrats stay harping on this for too long after Novak has said there’s nothing here - and if they are seen to be literally pursuing nothing and thus trying to make something up or manufacture it - my opinion is that it’s going to come back to bite and haunt ‘em.”
I’ve seen #4 in a blog comment.
The person was trying to suggest that Wilson is a Commie plant, asking if we knew of any unusual events that happened where he was working shortly before he left. (Implication being that he’d been involved with something shady or violent and was transferred quietly).
I responded by pointing out what he did in Baghdad shortly before he left (ie, saved lots of Americans).
The Limbaugh one is far too apeshit to be a version of #4. I’d have choked on me carrot cake if I’d had the sheer brilliance to come up with “It was Clinton that leaked the name, not Bush”. It’s right up there with the time that Francois Mitterand blew his own car up to pretend that he was being attacked by terrorists. (Yes, really).
Alterman has some good comments and links on the CIA leak story: http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp.
This is kind of fun
From the comments at Dan Drezner comes a rather bold attempt at #4:
Remember all those revelations that were coming out while we were entering Iraq about the Really Large sums of money Saddam was allegedly spreading all over, from journalists to politicians, in the Mideast… I’m not normally a conspiracy-monger (really!). But. The recent revelations out of Gitmo show there has been a large, sustained, long-term effort to penetrate and compromise our institutions - which worked… always thought the whole way the uranium thing worked out was very weird. It was almost a throw-away, added-late item as used at the time - Bush didn’t need it to make his case. So why add it? Somebody decided it sounded juicy - mayhaps because it was presented to them as juicy. What if, indeed, the whole thing was a plant by the opponents of the war? Possibly motivated by ideology, or possibly motivated by money. After what we’ve seen in Gitmo, I don’t believe for a second that Washington is not penetrated. While trying to ascribe this latest row to conspiracy is a stretch, it does not strike me as completely implausible. I’d really, really like to see more about that Iraqi money, and who got it.
It was Saddam.
Hey! Look! Madonna’s kissing Hillary!
dsquared,
I was referring to Ted Barlow, regarding the comment about the “deeply idiotic Glenn Reynolds feint”, where he characterized the “hiring Wilson was an idiot” observation as a defense of the Administration, and finished with, “I’m just getting angrier and angrier.”
To be fair, Reynolds did say “forget Valerie Plame, the big scandal is…” Well, too bad. I take that as irony. When Reynolds calls for Novak to be subpoenaed, it’s obvious he doesn’t want to sweep the Plame business under the rug. Nor is this the first time I’ve seen Reynolds’s stance on some issue or other grossly misrepresented on Crooked Timber. If he was really such a blockheaded partisan, he wouldn’t have blogrolled this site.
Anyway, forget Reynolds. My main point is the outrage on the left outweighs the evidence by a large factor. It’s stupid and wasteful to get angry (or defensive) over what might conceivably have happened. By all means, be suspicious, be tenacious in pursuit of truth. But don’t get yourself emotionally invested in the extreme-case explanation. That way lies denial.
Suppose the Administration isn’t actually a gaggle of treasonous crooks. That would be a good thing, right?
re: Nabakov
Everyone knows the dutchy is passed on the left hand side..
;)
In terms of dumb excuses, Nikita Demosthenes suggests that the leaker might be protected by federal whistle blower statutes, as, evidently, they were leaking information about inappropriate nepotism against normal federal contract assigning policies. I kid you not.
My main point is the outrage on the left outweighs the evidence
What’s heaven for?
(look it up, look it up!)
Nice nautical references. Now, if everyone on the port and everyone on the starboard will please direct your attention to the two red lights, one over the other, on the main mast.
It’s stupid and wasteful to get angry (or defensive) over what might conceivably have happened. By all means, be suspicious, be tenacious in pursuit of truth. But don’t get yourself emotionally invested in the extreme-case explanation. That way lies denial.
It’s even stupider to try get the Left to refrain from getting emotionally invested in the manner you describe. Let them put all their emotion/outrage eggs in one basket. When the scandal fades, it will leave them scrambling next spring, sputtering in their rage, as they contemplate the improving jobs picture, the stabilizing situation in Iraq, their failure to get Hillary to run, the prospect that California is in play, and the daunting task of taking on W with the weakest team since Dukakis-Bentsen.
I say egg ‘em on.
“The real intelligence scandal is how an open opponent of the U.S. war on [Iraq] such as Mr. Wilson was allowed to become one of that policy’s investigators”
Glenn Reynolds essentially regurgitates the WSJ quote above. But Glenn, how could Wilson be an opponent of the War in Iraq at the time of his mission to Niger? HE WENT TO NIGER IN JANUARY OF 2002, more than a year before the war started! How can he oppose something that wasn’t even on the drawing board yet? How could he be biased against something that doesn’t exist? Wilson only came forward with his complaints after the war ended, more than a year and a half after his mission. One of three things might be true if we believe Glenn’s account:
1. Wilson is clairvoyant, and so can oppose a policy not yet formulated.
2. The Bushies had already decided to go to war in January 2002, and Wilson knew about their plans.
3. Wilson wasn’t opposed to the Iraq war in January of 2002. And really wasn’t even a Administration critic in 2002. And maybe that’s why he was chosen for the mission— because he could report impartially on this foreign policy issue.
Which one do you think it is?
My main point is the outrage on the left outweighs the evidence by a large factor.
The outrage on the right is outweighed by a child’s marble.
Like you, they seem mostly interested in trying to change the subject with invalid arguments that, if true or false, have no effect on whether or not administration officials illegally exposed Valerie Plame.
Hey, I got one. It’s a variation of #6:
“Let them put all their emotion/outrage eggs in one basket. When the scandal fades, it will leave them scrambling next spring, sputtering in their rage, as they contemplate the improving jobs picture, the stabilizing situation in Iraq, their failure to get Hillary to run, the prospect that California is in play, and the daunting task of taking on W with the weakest team since Dukakis-Bentsen.
I say egg ‘em on.”
“Everyone knows the dutchy is passed on the left hand side..”
Now I’m told. And all this time I thought they were just blowing smoke.
The port’s coming up on yer left, Subversive.
And while I generally disagree with Dipnut and Dick Morris’ overall premises, you have to admit they are fighting their corner with great vim, vigour and style.
Pass ‘em the port and dutchy - from any direction.
I’ve got another one, that I’ve seen quite a few times. Not sure whether it’s Number 8 or 9 or whatever.
The “Circular Reasoning” Argument: It would be unbelievably stupid for Karl Rove to have called six journalists to commit a federal offense that could send him to prison for a decade, and sink the Bush presidency to boot. Karl Rove is not unbelievably stupid, and in fact is devilishly clever. Ergo, either Rove didn’t do it or it’s not a crime.
Actually, Number 4 (the double agent theory) occurred to me as at least as plausible as anything else. But one thing is certain: whenever you get into these Spy vs Spy things, at least 50.1% of what you read and hear is false. It’s preposterous to speculate at this point. If somebody did commit a crime, it’ll be pretty hard to cover it up at this point. But the full truth may never be known.
It’s even stupider to try get the Left to refrain from getting emotionally invested in the manner you describe. Let them put all their emotion/outrage eggs in one basket. When the scandal fades, it will leave them scrambling next spring,
Hey Dick. (Good name for you. ) Look, I’ll put it to you in terms that the wingnuts put it to Clinton. It’s not about the blowjob. It’s about honesty and integrity.
This is not about the election- aside from the fact most Americans are dissatisfied with Buchco and the damage this ass has caused Americans. It’s about whether we want to be led by people who betray their own soldiers just because this administration as caught in an outright lie.
Much as I’m loath to agree with the “lefty-bashers” in this thread, I’d like to put in a word for not getting carried away. Though I am by no stretch of the imagination a fan of the Administration (since the days of the so-called energy task force) I am still waiting for the evidence to come out.
This situation certainly has the appearance of extreme impropriety- which, I would argue is much than your average leak- any speculation on who is behind the leaking is premature. While I would very much like to see Carl Rove nailed (not a fan of him either), any evidence that he is the leaker has thus far been hearsay.
Let’s wait for this to pan out… push for an independent investigation, but wait.
Suppose the Administration isn’t actually a gaggle of treasonous crooks. That would be a good thing, right?
As Susie Madrak said yesterday at Open Source Politics, they’ve had their chance to make that case. Now you want to give them the benefit of the doubt?
The “Circular Reasoning” Argument: It would be unbelievably stupid for Karl Rove to have called six journalists to commit a federal offense that could send him to prison for a decade, and sink the Bush presidency to boot. Karl Rove is not unbelievably stupid, and in fact is devilishly clever. Ergo, either Rove didn’t do it or it’s not a crime.
This isn’t circular reasoning… it’s just missing a necessary premise, that smart people cannot do dumb things.
…you did give all I asked, I think -
More than I merit, yes, by many times.
Taak, what the hell are you talking about? Bush isn’t a fascist!
Unless there’s been some post deleting going on, I didn’t see where taak called anyone a fascist. Unless accusing people of reasoning invalidly is suddenly equivalent to calling them fascists. I haven’t got the latest talking points on what things are and aren’t morally equivalent, so I’m not really in a position to judge.
You’re right, perhaps I should have called it the “River in Egypt” theory. As in, “Whoah, this could be really, really bad, so it couldn’t have happened.”
And here I will repeat an observation I made during the 2000 Florida post-election fight: there’s only one person being truly objective about the whole thing, and that person is…me.
Now you want to give them the benefit of the doubt?
No, I want to eliminate the doubt, or at least reduce it to a manageable level. Maybe once that’s done, I’ll fire up my twelve-cylinder diesel panty-twister.
Heed BradH, and disregard Maccabee, is all I’m saying. The appearance of impropriety is not a crime, and Assuming The Worst may well make an ass of you and Ming The Worst.
On topic, has anyone read this yet? It’s the “Intelligence Leaks Are SOP” argument, which I don’t see on the list.
That Alterman bit is very good.
It goes a long way to explaining why nom de Plame is definitely a big deal. In the typology of scandal, I think it’s closest to Monica and Strom’s Infamous Birthday Party. That is, someone got caught doing something that Everyone Knew they did. But that someone kept pushing the limits of what he did until he did something so out of line, so impossible to deny, that all the other stuff that hadn’t stuck for years started sticking.
Everyone Knew that Clinton fooled around. But BJs in the Oval Office? Democrats blanched, Republicans pounced, and the rest is a tawdry impeachment transcript. Everyone Knew that Lott played footsie with the guys in the white sheets. But blaming everything that conservatives think has gone wrong since 1948 on not electing Segregatin’ Strom Prez? Republicans grew pale, and someone who had a lot of power in the Senate quickly had less.
Now. Everyone Knows that this White House twists arms and runs roughshod for partisan and personal advantage. Rove’s reputation goes back decades in Texas. Savory it is not. But disclosing the name of a covert agent who works on nonproliferation? The very thing that Bush has said is most important to American security? And all this for petty revenge? Fair-minded Republicans are saying that it looks bad.
It’s the kind of bald-faced misdeed that makes the even well-disposed observers to rethink everything else. “If they did this, then maybe there is something else to all the other criticism.” And suddenly other charges start to stick, old missteps come to light, every new mistake seen in light of this affair, this telltale name.
Just responding to the attacks on Wilson — assume that he’s like me, very concerned about terrorism, supported the attack on Afghanistan (but wished it was done competently), and was open minded about the threat posed by other potential terrorist supporting nations getting nukes. He goes to Niger with an open mind, and finds nothing. He reports that, which is the truth — we know not just from information gathered in Niger, but from David Kay and others in Iraq that Iraq was not acquiring material for nukes.
I’m sure that if he had gone to Iran instead, he would have come back waving a huge red flag, the way El Baradei is today about Iran(remember, the guy the warbloggers said had no credibility because he said Iraq had no nuke program).
My sense from Reynolds and others is that the problem with Wilson is that he had integrity, and he was looking for the truth instead of intent on making shit up.
But I digress from my real point, which is Ashcroft and the DOJ intends to make #2 a really big issue. They are gathering docs at the CIA about contacts between intelligence officials and the Newsday reporters who first covered the story about the leak to Novak. It’s a clear message to the CIA that DOJ intends to fight back on behalf of the WH if this is pushed.
I’ve finally found something resembline #1. From
Ben Domenech (http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/):
“Valerie Plame’s name is freely accessible from the net. And if Bob Novak wants to print her name, I think the First Amendment overrides the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act.”
Doug, you’re not wrong. But those “well disposed observers” are not going to be swayed by anything Alterman says. They’ll wait for the results of the Justice probe.
You know, it’s interesting how the right blogosphere gets all hincty about school bully analogies, but they fall right into line on the wrong side when the shit hits the fan.
Am so not a bully, and anyway, you told.
>“Valerie Plame’s name is freely accessible from the net. And if Bob Novak wants to print her name, I think the First Amendment overrides the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act.”
Shame a fervent free speech activist like this was busy when Hitchens narked on what he thinks he can remember about his lunch with Blumenthal.
“Hincty”?
Although now that I think about it, it’s be a blast to see (say) Instapundit, Alterman, Atrios and Jonah Goldberg go a few rounds on SissyFight 2000.
Although now that I think about it, it’s be a blast to see (say) Instapundit, Alterman, Atrios and Jonah Goldberg go a few rounds on SissyFight 2000.
Something we all can agree on, I think.
Valeris Plame was an undercover CIA operative.
That is a confirmed fact.
Two Bush administration officials outed her.
That seems to be a fact.
So two crimes have likely been committed by people at the WH.
Why is this so partisan? Because to the right wing, an affair with an intern was enough to force an impeachment trial on a Democratic President. But predicating a war based on stretched truth, fumbling the victory that costs us billions and blood, and outing US operative in the field- don’t seem to be enough to raise anything from the right except for either a deafening silence or sad rationalizations.
Have some integrity and insist that foxes don’t guard the henhouse. Independant counsel is called for here. Hell with the Patriot Act passed, this shouldn’t take more than a day or two to find out who made what call to whom.The goal of this administration is damage control. The goal should be honesty.
No idea what dipnut is talking about re: Bush is a fascist.
Settle down, maccabee. Things aren’t nearly that clear cut, at least not yet.
Regarding whether Plame was a covert agent, as far as I know at least two different CIA sources (Larry Johnson and Novak’s confidential source) say two different things. I’m not saying I trust one more than the other, I’m saying I don’t trust EITHER of them. They’re spies, remember? And besides, there seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that if she was undercover, a lot of people seemed to know it already.
Regarding who it was that blew her “cover” (if that’s what it was), there’s the accusation from Tenet (another spy) of WH calls to six journalists, there’s Novak’s denial of this, and again, there’s a lot of background noise.
I agree with you that the basic facts must be revealed, as I’m sure they will be. If the facts are as you state, somebody better go to jail. But just branding things as “facts” doesn’t make them so.
What’s wrong with the Third-Rate Burglary theory? Obviously a third-rate burglar inadvertently left the Plame info in Novak’s office after having burgled CIA HQ earlier in the evening.
In this connection, the late President Nixon’s late press secretary Ron Ziegler later defended his use of the famous phrase and said he hadn’t known of the cover-up. (Wash Post interview 1981)
point well taken gw.
the first fact is a fact.
the second claim is what needs to be proven
I think the urgency would be just as great from the right if it were a Clinton in office.
Bush is a fascist.
Ha! You said it!
Now, seriously, will anyone look at that other link I put up? I’m sorry about the trolling; I got carried away; that’s what you get for calling me a lefty-basher.
I’m really just trying to help, OK? I found a prominent right-winger arguing that everybody does it, with regard to security leaks. This is what I’m talking about when I say it’s stupid to get angry or defensive at this stage in the game. Anyway, the argument isn’t on Daniel’s list, probably because it’s in the realm of stuff you can’t make up!
Where’s the outrage?
Glenn Reynolds just went for #7: Hey, look! WMD!.
There’s a particularly amusing right-wing fantasy here.
Sample quote: Mr. Wilson is well-known as a partisan liberal Democrat. He gave money to Al Gore in the last election cycle and to John F. Kerry in this one. He’s written articles for any number of radical left-wing publications, including The Nation, the leading magazine of the radical left. He was a member of Bill Clinton’s National Security Council. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a CIA operative of any kind. His appointment makes no sense at all- until you understand that his wife sent him. Still then, one must ask, why would his wife, supposedly a loyal and dedicated CIA officer, send someone so obviously unqualified? It comes down to one word: whitewash.
If there is wrongdoing here, I guess I’ll go for a 4+7 (October 1, 2.23am).
With regard to the anecdotal evidence that “everyone knew” that Ms. Plame/Wilson was a CIA operative, I thought that Josh Marshall did a pretty good job of arguing against this.
How is it nepotism when Wilson undertook the Niger mission at his own expense?
Ok, if anyone makes it this far down-thread and isn’t sidetracked by Maria’s enticing SMSes, I think all of the variations are covered in one nauseating post in the New Republic’s debate.
Look I’m a conservative but if the ‘facts’ are as bad as they appear to be, even arguing about this is unpatriotic and someone had better go to jail! Don’t you agree? But who?
I guess I’m wondering how Karl Rove could have known the name of an undercover agent…does he now have a top secret security clearance? Most ‘political’ folks don’t but I guess someone who does have a clearance could have told him. But wouldn’t disclosing the name of a top secret agent (pretty much the definition of covert) be a crime? Why yes it would.
If this is something that Bush told Rove, we actually DO have an impeachable offense. Of course would Rove rather go to jail than tell anyone who told him? I mean there is loyalty and then there is loyalty…All those who think a Republican dirty trick was played that Rove didn’t know about raise your hand…
Ooops. Sorry. There I go again thinking. I forgot, I’m not supposed to think about this just wait around patiently for more intelligent people (Glen Reynolds) to tell me what to believe and when I’m allowed to believe it.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review