Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Vote to re-elect W. then for 4 years he won't be worrying about purely political purposes. Kerry will. Can you see the difference?

I grow suspicious when conservatives start insisting that you can teach an old dog new tricks. Presumably Edmund Burke is spinning in his grave.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you are saying that I am reiterating that someone leaked the name of a non-field operative (who, as Joe himself said repeatedly to Josh, is nothing more that a house wife taking care of 2 screaming kids) to impeach his credibility. ie. that he was not this appointed, disinterested public servant - but some opportunist that used his wife's credentials to mudsling the White House and lie about his findings, then yes, that is what I am saying.

He didn't use his wife's credentials for shit. And what did he do to mudsling the White House and lie about his findings?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Your earlier post and this one makes me think that you are posting about Susan Schmidt's article in the Washington Post, and that you already have read Josh Marshall's response. To recap the bidding, then, for everyone else, Schmidt wrote the above. Marshall points out:

(1) The text of the Senate report contradicts Schmidt's characterization of it, and it appears that she didn't bother to read the report itself, and instead relied on what a (Republican?) staffer told her. Page 56 of the report says:

• Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI drafted a memo for the NSC outlining the facts that the CIA believed needed to be changed, and faxed it to the Deputy Natoinal Security Advisor and the speech writers. Referring to the sentence on uranium from Africa the CIA said, "remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."
  
  ... Later that day, the NSC staff prepared draft seven of the Cincinnati speech which contained the line, "and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa." Draft seven was sent to CIA for coordination.
  
  ... The ADDI told Committee staff he received the new draft on October 6, 2002 and noticed that the uranium information had "not been addressed," so he alerted the DCI. The DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. On July 16, 2003, the DCI testified before the SSCI that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak." The NSC then removed the uranium reference from the draft of the speech.
  
  Although the NSC had already removed the uranium reference from the speech, later on October 6th, 2002 the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine city by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British."

This is the opposite of "clearing the language."

Rather compelling then, that on page 66 of the same report:

"On January 28th, 2003 the President noted in his State of the Union that "...the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." At the time the President delivered the State of the Union address, no one in the IC had asked anyone in the White House to remove the sentence from the speech. CIA nuclear analysts and the Director of WINPAC told committee staff that at the time of the State of the Union, they still believed that Iraq was probably seeking uranium from Africa, and they continued to hold that belief until the IAEA reported that the documents were forgeries."

So which is it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Rather compelling then, that on page 66 of the same report:

"On January 28th, 2003 the President noted in his State of the Union that "...the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." At the time the President delivered the State of the Union address, no one in the IC had asked anyone in the White House to remove the sentence from the speech. CIA nuclear analysts and the Director of WINPAC told committee staff that at the time of the State of the Union, they still believed that Iraq was probably seeking uranium from Africa, and they continued to hold that belief until the IAEA reported that the documents were forgeries."

So which is it?

I don't know what the IC is, but I gather that having won the battle over the Cincinnati speech months earlier, the people at the CIA weren't as vigilant on this speech. I don't know who at the CIA to blame for this, but it seems pretty clear that Condi Rice fucked up. The NSC should have been on the ball, coordinating this stuff, and it wasn't.

The references to "CIA nuclear analysts and the Director of WINPAC" are somewhat intriguing. Without having read the report, which of course is heavily redacted, and without knowing more about these specific people, you and I are in no position to evaluate these claims, but they sound to me like they were inserted by GOP staffers to give some cover. Since Tenet already tried to fall on his sword for the SOTU speech, it seems a little silly now for the administration's defenders to be pushing the position that the CIA really thought the intel was good, although I gather the thought is that if you can make the story a messy one, most people won't bother to figure out who's right. I keep seeing hints from lefty bloggers that someone is about to break a big story about the Nigerian connection, and the forged papers, so I think there's going to be a lot more information coming in before we can start writing a history of this.

Recall, also, that the forgeries were so bad that it's a little embarrassing that CIA "experts" were relying on them until the IAEA reported otherwise.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
He didn't use his wife's credentials for shit. And what did he do to mudsling the White House and lie about his findings?

1) As confirmed in the report, he was sent to Africa because of his wife's recommendation. Then he lied about it. Repeatedly. Even to JMM.

2) Well, let's see. When attacking the White House over the SOTU address, he's repeatedly made the claim that he unilaterally debunked the entire Niger connection and made this clear to the CIA. Despite his warnings, the White House continued with these assertions. The report now makes it clear that he made no such findings and the CIA dismissed his his findings out of hand.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you are saying that I am reiterating that someone leaked the name of a non-field operative (who, as Joe himself said repeatedly to Josh, is nothing more that a house wife taking care of 2 screaming kids) to impeach his credibility. ie. that he was not this appointed, disinterested public servant - but some opportunist that used his wife's credentials to mudsling the White House and lie about his findings, then yes, that is what I am saying.

Partisan politics are more important than national security - got it. Glad to know where you stand.

I find your characterization of Ambassador Joe interesting. He was decidedly non-partisan before these recent events. He tended to vote for Republicans in presidential elections, primarily for foreign policy considerations. But W's band of power-drunk Mayberry Machiavellis, playing fast and loose with our nation's security and reputation, has pushed him to the side of the Democrats. I suspect millions of others feel the same way. We'll find out in November.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
2) Well, let's see. When attacking the White House over the SOTU address, he's repeatedly made the claim that he unilaterally debunked the entire Niger connection and made this clear to the CIA. Despite his warnings, the White House continued with these assertions. The report now makes it clear that he made no such findings and the CIA dismissed his his findings out of hand.

There were 2 reports prior to his that debunked the Niger claims also. He made no claims that the connection was "unilaterally debunked" by him. It has now been debunked by several sources. Perhaps the CIA was feeling a little bit of pressure?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) As confirmed in the report, he was sent to Africa because of his wife's recommendation. Then he lied about it. Repeatedly. Even to JMM.

I'm not familiar with what the report says about this, but I do recall that he didn't mention his wife until she was outed.

2) Well, let's see. When attacking the White House over the SOTU address, he's repeatedly made the claim that he unilaterally debunked the entire Niger connection and made this clear to the CIA. Despite his warnings, the White House continued with these assertions. The report now makes it clear that he made no such findings and the CIA dismissed his his findings out of hand.

Cite, please. Presumably this is why the CIA told the President to run with the Niger connection in the Cincinnati speech? Oops -- actually, they told the White House that they thought the connection was bogus, only to have White House speechwriters (?) continue to try to get the line into presidential addresses. Bingo, SOTU.

Spending a lot of time dwelling on just how meager the proof was of Iraqi WMD and ties to Al Qaeda is not a winning political strategy, so keep it up. There was no nuclear program. There was no alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda. We've replaced a brutal strongman with a weak strongman.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Without having read the report, which of course is heavily redacted

True.

and without knowing more about these specific people, you and I are in no position to evaluate these claims

perhaps.

but they sound to me like they were inserted by GOP staffers to give some cover.

Of course it does ;-)

I keep seeing hints from lefty bloggers that someone is about to break a big story about the Nigerian connection, and the forged papers, so I think there's going to be a lot more information coming in before we can start writing a history of this.

Josh is on the clock and his window of "who gives a fuck" is really beginning to wind down.

Recall, also, that the forgeries were so bad that it's a little embarrassing that CIA "experts" were relying on them until the IAEA reported otherwise.

I think this entire mess has revealed - to the detriment of the Nation - that both parties have universally failed to keep tabs on Langley.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
Partisan politics are more important than national security - got it. Glad to know where you stand.

Accidentally* revealing the name of a CIA field-operative no longer working in the field** - already well known in the DC community as having worked for the CIA - to refute certain ludicrous claims made by her husband rises to the level of being a threat to our National Security?



* The "accident" being that she was still covered by the law.

** Joe Wilson: "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"

[Watchtower]

"If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened," Bush said.


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.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Accidentally* revealing the name of a CIA field-operative no longer working in the field** - already well known in the DC community as having worked for the CIA - to refute certain ludicrous claims made by her husband rises to the level of being a threat to our National Security?

It used to be the one thing that made conservatives marginally better than liberals was their willingness to discuss the consequences of a policy, as opposed to its good intentions. Conservatives were very good at being the guys who said, "Wait, um, I don't think we should do that after all, because it will fuck us in the ass in 5/10/50 years."

As a True Conservative, you might want to consider getting back to basics when formulating your knee-jerk defenses of W's fuckups. Even the Neo Conservatives are playing a lot of tut-tut about Plame --- it's the one thing over which they express public shame and dismay.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Accidentally* revealing the name of a CIA field-operative no longer working in the field** - already well known in the DC community as having worked for the CIA - to refute certain ludicrous claims made by her husband rises to the level of being a threat to our National Security?



* The "accident" being that she was still covered by the law.

** Joe Wilson: "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"

Valerie Plame was an undercover operative specializing in WMD interdiction. If you hadn't noticed, we are currently waging a war against terror and terrorism (google it if you don't believe me). Part of this war involves tracking down WMDs that may find their way into the hands of bad guys. This is an important component of our National Security.

A competent administration would do everything it could to help those involved in tracking down WMDs do their job. Rather than refute the substance of what Ambassador Wilson wrote, the administration chose to out a CIA agent who happened to be his wife. Obviously, the Administration felt that discrediting Ambassodor Wilson so they could build support to go after SH (who didn't have WMDs - whoops!) was more important than interdicting WMDs.

* Also glad to learn the disrespect you have for the law and for the lives of CIA agents.

** I don't even know what you're trying to prove by touting this point. Valerie Plame was not a stay-at-home mom and this quote offers no evidence to the contrary.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Valerie Plame was an undercover operative specializing in WMD interdiction. If you hadn't noticed, we are currently waging a war against terror and terrorism (google it if you don't believe me). Part of this war involves tracking down WMDs that may find their way into the hands of bad guys. This is an important component of our National Security.

A competent administration would do everything it could to help those involved in tracking down WMDs do their job. Rather than refute the substance of what Ambassador Wilson wrote, the administration chose to out a CIA agent who happened to be his wife. Obviously, the Administration felt that discrediting Ambassodor Wilson so they could build support to go after SH (who didn't have WMDs - whoops!) was more important than interdicting WMDs.

* Also glad to learn the disrespect you have for the law and for the lives of CIA agents.




** I don't even know what you're trying to prove by touting this point. Valerie Plame was not a stay-at-home mom and this quote offers no evidence to the contrary.

If she was so important why are so many details out that you know. Doesn't this potentially compromise her connections and what remains?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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 in it requires either of these propopsitions to be true? Marriage originates in religion, but has secular components. By tradition, it has been between a woman and a man.

Are you saying that any state involvement in marriage at all violates the separation of church and state? If so, fine, but that's not a proposition that's been changed by the emergence of gay marriages.