Politics As Usual

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I thought they were also sending a message to any CIA agents who may be inclined to disagree with the administration.

I thought your theory was she was innocent of wrong doing, and the outing was to punish the hubbie. If a CIA operative disagrees with the President, that's grounds to be whacked- not outed. Don't you watch movies?

Anyway, i bet ty can find the statute authorizing assination in this case.

conf to everyone but Ty: How weird is it that Ty actually does legal research to respond to these bullshit arguments- tomorrow lets have him research whether W's holding the fake turkey at thanksgiving in Iraq violated the FDA act if he hadn't washed his hands. Atticus, you post it as an accusiation, and I'll counter no law was broke- Golden Boy will get on Westlaw and BLAMMO!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Anyone worried that this is actually 43's only remaining decision-making paradigm at this point?

you think the Iraq war was too get votes? You of all people must know how paranoid your above statement sounds. He either is completely controlled by voices he thinks are God, or controlled by what will get him votes. Would you pick please. I thought I had you down as a "god's voice" vote.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I thought your theory was she was innocent of wrong doing, and the outing was to punish the hubbie. If a CIA operative disagrees with the President, that's grounds to be whacked- not outed. Don't you watch movies?

Anyway, i bet ty can find the statute authorizing assination in this case.

conf to everyone but Ty: How weird is it that Ty actually does legal research to respond to these bullshit arguments- tomorrow lets have him research whether W's holding the fake turkey at thanksgiving in Iraq violated the FDA act if he hadn't washed his hands. Atticus, you post it as an accusiation, and I'll counter no law was broke- Golden Boy will get on Westlaw and BLAMMO!

I foresee a roadtrip to Connecticut in your near future.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(2) Whatever their motive, what they did was a crime. And it hardly rebutted his "partisan attacks." It was a case of kill the messenger's wife.

I'm a bit surprised to see this pop up again, and surprised that Slave is so obviously wrong -- and/or that he buys the whole idea that Wilson's wife being in the CIA would be a "motive" for him to slant his report. [Slave's incorrectness is usually more cleverly disguised.]

However, Ty, I've got to point out that, IIRC, the statute in question does require "intent" to expose the identity of a covert operative -- and thus, at a minimum, knowledge that Plame was undercover, as opposed to a regular CIA employee. That may be the issue holding up the indictments.

So, what's your deal Slave, you think Pat Roberts has sold out to the Democrats?

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Watchtower
So does this mean W subscribes to some kind of bizzare natural law theory, or does he just not understand the separation of church and state? What power does he think the government should have to regulate our daily life and religious beliefs? My religious beliefs, of course, are entirely supportive of gay marriage.

As a practicing born-again Christisan, W most assuredly believes in a natural law theory. His attempts to speak in those terms to his fellows and pretend to try to implement that theory are interesting and may yet hurt the GOP with the broader voting public. Here's hoping the debate on the Gay Marriage amendment comes on a slow news day.

S_A_M

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
I'm a bit surprised to see this pop up again, and surprised that Slave is so obviously wrong -- and/or that he buys the whole idea that Wilson's wife being in the CIA would be a "motive" for him to slant his report. [Slave's incorrectness is usually more cleverly disguised.]

One mo' time - since we've seemed to lose sight of how this whole thing transpired.

1) When Joe Wilson came out swinging as the "retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger" it was widely questioned why (A) an Al Gore supporter, (b) an avid opponent of the war and (c) a former member of Clinton's NSC would be given such a sensitive assignment by the CIA and unbeknownst to Tenet.

2) Lo and behold, we find out that he got the assignment on the sole recommendation of his wife. Thus, she presented him with a grand opportunity to make a spectacle of himself.

His "motive" for slanting the report is clear - he has changed his stance from public-servant to anti-Bush partisan hack.

The question was and is one of access.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
One mo' time - since we've seemed to lose sight of how this whole thing transpired.

1) When Joe Wilson came out swinging as the "retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger" it was widely questioned why (A) an Al Gore supporter, (b) an avid opponent of the war and (c) a former member of Clinton's NSC would be given such a sensitive assignment by the CIA and unbeknownst to Tenet.

2) Lo and behold, we find out that he got the assignment on the sole recommendation of his wife. Thus, she presented him with a grand opportunity to make a spectacle of himself.

His "motive" for slanting the report is clear - he has changed his stance from public-servant to anti-Bush partisan hack.

The question was and is one of access.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with his experience:

"Ambassador Wilson served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council from June 1997 until July 1998. In that capacity he was responsible for the coordination of U.S. policy to the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa, He was one of the principal architecs of President Clinton's historic trip to Africa in March 1998.

Ambassador Wilson was the Political Advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces, Europe, 1995-1997. He served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Gabonese Republic and to the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe from 1992 to 1995. From 1998 to 1991, Ambassador Wilson served in Baghdad, Iraq as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy. During ''Desert Shield'' he was the acting Ambassador and was responsible for the negotiations that resulted in the release of several hundred American hostages. He was the last official American to meet with Saddam Hussein before the launching of 'Desert Storm.'

Ambassador Wilson was a member of the U.S. Diplomatic Service from 1976 until 1998. His early assignments included Niamey, Niger, 1976-1978; Lome, Togo, 1978-79; the State Department Brueau of African Affairs, 1979-1981; and Pretoria, South Africa, 1981-1982.

In 1982, he was appointed Deputy Chief of Mission in Bujumbura, Burundi. In 1985-1986, he served in the offices of Senator Albert Gore and the House Majority Whip, Representative Thomas Foley, as an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow. He was Deputy Chief of Mission in Brazzaville, Congo, 1986-88, prior to his assignment to Baghdad."

http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html

Or his personal relationships with several of the key players in Niger in power when the uranium ore transactions took place. If that's what you mean by "access", I'll accept that.

Now let's get to the nitty-gritty: What would your reaction be if the criminal acts committed by the current administration had been committed by the Clinton White House?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
One mo' time - since we've seemed to lose sight of how this whole thing transpired.

1) When Joe Wilson came out swinging as the "retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger" it was widely questioned why (A) an Al Gore supporter, (b) an avid opponent of the war and (c) a former member of Clinton's NSC would be given such a sensitive assignment by the CIA and unbeknownst to Tenet.

2) Lo and behold, we find out that he got the assignment on the sole recommendation of his wife. Thus, she presented him with a grand opportunity to make a spectacle of himself.

His "motive" for slanting the report is clear - he has changed his stance from public-servant to anti-Bush partisan hack.

The question was and is one of access.

How fascinating -- he has a motive for slanting the report. Pity no one figured that out before giving him the assignment.... or maybe the motive just didn't exist then.

Nah, that would be silly. He MUST have ALWAYS had a motive. The CIA just overlooked it. Of course, that would suggest that maybe, just maybe, he was the one who was wrong about the supposed uranium buy.... but no, that didn't happen either.

And what about the findings he made, or claimed to have made, has been debunked? You offered this as one reason for outing his wife. But you've provided no support.

And what, finally, about Ty's point -- one that you agreed with -- that if this was above-board and principled, whoever did it would just say so? You agree with that, yet seem to ignore it.

Finally, you seem to be calling Wilson a liar because he didn't identify his wife's position as the (supposed) reason he was given the job. Fascinating theory. Yet doing that, of course, would have meant exposing his wife as a CIA operative. So, either he does that, or the Admin does it to punish him for not doing it in the first place?

So, simple question: What was the principled reason for identifying his wife as a CIA operative? Do you think that was a decent, legal, moral, ethical thing to do?

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
I'm sure it had nothing to do with his experience

You forgot to list his shoe size.

Nevertheless, as he clearly never intended to be an unbiased fact finder (for all of the reasons I've previously stated), but for his wife's connections, he would never have been considered for the job.

Now let's get to the nitty-gritty: What would your reaction be if the criminal acts committed by the current administration had been committed by the Clinton White House?

If the acts committed were actually criminal, yes. But as you keep choosing not to acknowledge:

• In order for the alleged leakers to have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, they would have to have known that [Plame] was covert and that the government was "taking affirmative measures to conceal" her relationship to the CIA. Novak's statement that the CIA made only "a very weak request" that he not use her name suggests the absence of such "affirmative measures," which would put the leakers in the clear legally if not politically.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
How fascinating -- he has a motive for slanting the report. Pity no one figured that out before giving him the assignment.... or maybe the motive just didn't exist then.

Wilson's report:

• The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
  
  I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place

The CIA dismissed his tea conversations out of hand. And that was the end of it. Until the entire 16 word issue surfaced once the docs - that Wilson never saw - were claimed to be forgeries (still disputed by the Brits) and Wilson mugged for the cameras at every opportunity to decry Bush and state that he knew this all along.

maybe, just maybe, he was the one who was wrong about the supposed uranium buy.... but no, that didn't happen either.

According the FT, the Niger claims are looking pretty accurate.

And what about the findings he made, or claimed to have made, has been debunked?

"Debunked" was the word he used repeatedly for the Niger claims. That he debunked the claims and that Bush knowingly lied in the SOTU. This led to questions as to his motives and why he was sent overseas in the first place. And thus his wife's name was reported.

And what, finally, about Ty's point -- one that you agreed with -- that if this was above-board and principled, whoever did it would just say so? You agree with that, yet seem to ignore it.

I don't ignore it at all. Someone should just step forward at this point.

Finally, you seem to be calling Wilson a liar because he didn't identify his wife's position as the (supposed) reason he was given the job. Fascinating theory. Yet doing that, of course, would have meant exposing his wife as a CIA operative. So, either he does that, or the Admin does it to punish him for not doing it in the first place?

Um, he repeatedly denied it after the fact.

• For those who would assert that somehow she was involved in this, it just defies logic. At the time, she was the mother of two-year-old twins. Therefore, sort of sending her husband off on an eight-day trip leaves her with full responsbility for taking care of two screaming two-year-olds without help, and anybody who is parent would understand what that means. Anybody who is a mother would understand it even far better. Secondly, I mean, the notion somehow that this was some nepotism, that I was being sent on an eight-day, all-expense-paid--no salary, mind you--trip to the Sahara desert. This is not Nassau we were talking about. This is not the Bahamas. It wasn't Maui. This was the Sahara desert. And then, the only other thing I can think of is the assertion that she wanted me out of the way for eight days because she, you know, had a lover or something, which is, you don't take lovers when you have two year old kids at home. So there's no logic in it.

So, simple question: What was the principled reason for identifying his wife as a CIA operative? Do you think that was a decent, legal, moral, ethical thing to do?

Legal has yet to be determined. As for decent, moral or ethical - as if you or me would recognize that if we saw it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Yeah, except we allow state shield laws to apply to "unprivileged" matters, like videotape of a junkie shooting up in a flophouse in the presence of others. These laws don't really create a privilege relationship between reporter and source anyway. The underlying facts aren't privileged, but we've made a policy decision that we want people to trust the press. So we give the press a special little shield to use to protect their own asses from spending a night in jail every time their confidential source gets into hot water.

The existence of statutes suggests that the activity is not protected by the First Amendment. It may, or may not, be a useful policy to protect the press in those situtations, and to call it, in essence, a right of the press. But the press, like states, isn't something that really has rights. The interest to be protected is the public's interest in full information, which can be ensured (in part) by protecting the press from lawsuits that would hamper their ability to gather and diseminate news. But the rights of the press are not themselves an end, just a possible means to an end.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
conf to everyone but Ty: How weird is it that Ty actually does legal research to respond to these bullshit arguments

I just followed the link in the article club posted. Try it sometime -- it's not that hard.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'm a bit surprised to see this pop up again, and surprised that Slave is so obviously wrong -- and/or that he buys the whole idea that Wilson's wife being in the CIA would be a "motive" for him to slant his report. [Slave's incorrectness is usually more cleverly disguised.]

However, Ty, I've got to point out that, IIRC, the statute in question does require "intent" to expose the identity of a covert operative -- and thus, at a minimum, knowledge that Plame was undercover, as opposed to a regular CIA employee. That may be the issue holding up the indictments.

So, what's your deal Slave, you think Pat Roberts has sold out to the Democrats?

S_A_M

I would think the fact that Novak called her an "operative" -- not an "employee" -- would be enough.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
but for his wife's connections, he would never have been considered for the job

Where did you get this idea?

eta: The selection of Wilson is discussed at page 39 of the Senate Report. Although the report says that some CIA people recall that Wilson's wife suggested that Wilson would fit the bill, it hardly supports your characterization of it above. Note also that if I'm reading the report correctly, Wilson had already gone on one such mission to Niger in 1999.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Wilson's report:

• The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
  
  I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place

The CIA dismissed his tea conversations out of hand. And that was the end of it. Until the entire 16 word issue surfaced once the docs - that Wilson never saw - were claimed to be forgeries (still disputed by the Brits) and Wilson mugged for the cameras at every opportunity to decry Bush and state that he knew this all along.



According the FT, the Niger claims are looking pretty accurate.



"Debunked" was the word he used repeatedly for the Niger claims. That he debunked the claims and that Bush knowingly lied in the SOTU. This led to questions as to his motives and why he was sent overseas in the first place. And thus his wife's name was reported.



I don't ignore it at all. Someone should just step forward at this point.



Um, he repeatedly denied it after the fact.

• For those who would assert that somehow she was involved in this, it just defies logic. At the time, she was the mother of two-year-old twins. Therefore, sort of sending her husband off on an eight-day trip leaves her with full responsbility for taking care of two screaming two-year-olds without help, and anybody who is parent would understand what that means. Anybody who is a mother would understand it even far better. Secondly, I mean, the notion somehow that this was some nepotism, that I was being sent on an eight-day, all-expense-paid--no salary, mind you--trip to the Sahara desert. This is not Nassau we were talking about. This is not the Bahamas. It wasn't Maui. This was the Sahara desert. And then, the only other thing I can think of is the assertion that she wanted me out of the way for eight days because she, you know, had a lover or something, which is, you don't take lovers when you have two year old kids at home. So there's no logic in it.

Legal has yet to be determined. As for decent, moral or ethical - as if you or me would recognize that if we saw it.

You're embarrassing yourself with your use of selective quotations from Wilson's book. You should either read his book or find a better blog source. I have the book, but I loaned it to a neighbor and, even if I did have it here, I'd rather not type out passages debunking your debunking of Wilson's debunking.

And his wife's name wasn't "reported," it was illegally leaked by criminals in the White House. And I don't know what a "very weak request" by the CIA means, other than perhaps they felt intimidated by the White House. Or perhaps it is a lame-ass post hoc rationalization. And even if the request was weak, was it not still a request? Or does the adminstration, like others I can name, not know how to take "no" for an answer?