Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

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.

That's just not true. When Bush speechwriters tried to put the allegation in a speech he gave in Cincinnati in the fall before the SOTU, the CIA debunked the Niger thing and it was taken out of the speech. Where do you get the idea that the CIA dismissed Wilson's report out of hand?

eta: Look at page 42 of the Senate Report. After it finishes the description of Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, the next paragraph explains that the intel was put in an intelligence assessment titled, Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq is Unlikely. They didn't change the assessment after they debriefed Wilson.

e again ta: The report, as a whole, certainly suggests that there were those in the intel community who didn't listen to him, but it also suggests that he was right.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
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.

More embarrassing is a pompous idiot such as yourself who refuses to acknowledge the actual words of the person they wish to defend.

And his wife's name wasn't "reported," it was illegally leaked by criminals in the White House.

Reporter Novak's actual words in the July 14th article:

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

As for your repeatedly silly statements about illegality, just because you like to huff and puff, it doesn't make it so.

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?

Novak on October 1, 2003:

"During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission"

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Where do you get the idea that the CIA dismissed Wilson's report out of hand?

Looking for the link.

e again ta: Look at the bottom of page 64. Although the acronyms are hard to follow, it looks the CIA screwed the pooch by failing to properly review the SOTU.

Then go to 66 as I mentioned earlier.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Looking for the link.

The CIA rated his information as "good," which is not the highest rating but also not the lowest. What we now know vindicates him.

Then go to 66 as I mentioned earlier.

Yes, I responded to this earlier. The list of people there does not reflect all our government knew. The CIA had told the White House not to put these allegations in the Cincinnati speech earlier. No new information had come in.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Reporter Novak's actual words in the July 14th article:

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

As for your repeatedly silly statements about illegality, just because you like to huff and puff, it doesn't make it so.

What about this vindicates anyone?

Novak on October 1, 2003:

"During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

I repeat: so?

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission"

Again: so?

[Hank Chinaski]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._withdrawal_dc

So the Phillipines is withdrawing its 50 support people from Iraq. if you go to Foxnews you can see a photo of a protest where at least 30 Phillipinos demanded the pull-out.
But what's cool here, is that we might have a poster working in the Phillipino government. The Deputy Prime Minister who announced the pull out ends with this....well it can only be called a Penske-like inside joke:

Seguis appealed to the group to release their hostage, truck driver Angelo de la Cruz, and added: "We know that Islam is the religion of peace and mercy."

Hey! Headchoppers! Don't headchop this guy, because you are part of the religion of peace.


Penske?

[sgtclub]

Kerrey/Edwards down 56-41 amoung likely voters in NC.

[sgtclub]

"We've got more African Americans in jail than we do in college. That's unacceptable," he [Kerry] added.

In fact, it seems that there are more than twice as many African Americans in college than in jail.

U.S. Census Bureau (2000): African Americans in college: 2,224,181

U.S. DoJ Office of Justice Programs: "Prison and Jail Inmates at MidYear 2003" (p.11): "Table 13. Number of inmates in state or federal prisons or local jails" -- Black Americans in jail: 899,200.

UPDATE: As a commenter notes below, this Kerry howler was already debunked a month ago. But then why is Kerry still making the same claim today? What kind of an echo chamber is his campaign that none of the staff read Kerry's sharpest critics? Not a good sign for those who look to Kerry to improve intelligence capabilities or cure government agencies of their dysfunctional groupthink culture.

http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/002309.html

Edwards is playing up class wars, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that Kerry is playing the race card.

[sgtclub]

Ty, you may want to contact this guy and back up your boy.

http://zonitics.blogspot.com/2004_07...26145478501297

When will we learn?

When the confirmation of the Iraq/Niger/Uranium story broke in the Financial Times last week, my enthusiasm was slightly guarded because of this post by Josh Marshall (lefty uber-blogger) [text deleted]:


A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.

The inquiry by Lord Butler, which was delivered to the printers on Wednesday and is expected to be released on July 14, has examined the intelligence that underpinned the UK government's claims about the threat from Iraq. . . .

The Financial Times revealed last week that a key part of the UK's intelligence on the uranium came from a European intelligence service that undertook a three-year surveillance of an alleged clandestine uranium-smuggling operation of which Iraq was a part.

Intelligence officials have now confirmed that the results of this operation formed an important part of the conclusions of British intelligence. The same information was passed to the US but US officials did not incorporate it in their assessment.
I would like to believe that Marshall actually knew something when he published his critique of the first Financial Times story. I'd like to think that Marshall wouldn't post something with so much breathless innuendo if there weren't something to back it up.

Unfortunately, Josh Marshall's history leaves one with little reason to believe him when he makes such assertions. In case you need a refresher, here's what I wrote about Marshall and scandal at the end of March, 2002:


1. Marshall promised that a bombshell report on Enron and a member of the Bush administration would be released by Common Cause right away. When it didn't appear immediately, he backtracked and said it was coming soon. Ultimately, that report never really materialized.


2. Before that, on February 22nd, Marshall wrote about suspicious connections between Karl Rove, Ralph Reed and Enron. He ended the post with a breathless hint of deep shenanigans and a promise of "More on this tomorrow." Well, he didn't post anything about it on the 23rd, the 24th, or the 25th. On February 28th, he wrote about "astroturf" organizing (his phase for phony grass-roots organizing) that included discussion of Reed, but nothing of substance about Enron. As far as I can tell, he never delivered on his promise of "more on this."


3. Before all of that, in a series of early to mid-February posts (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) Marshall reported on developments in the Enron situation. Each time he hinted that someone big in the Bush administration was going to be implicated in one of the Enron phony-balony partnerships (that generally made huge money for the insiders for no risk investments). In fact, Marshall did more than just hint on February 10th:


There are investigators on the Hill, ones working in private lawsuits against Enron, and presumably many in the Justice Department who are piecing together this information. And given that investments in one of Fastow's particularly lucrative sweetheart deals would likely be politically fatal and perhaps even worse, the rumor mill is bubbling with names. Names high up the political ladder. Really high up the political ladder.

A good bit of this is probably just wishful thinking on the part of Democratic politicos in Washington. But not all of it, I'd bet. In any case, we'll know soon enough.
It's over 6 weeks later and those "really high up" names still haven't surfaced. Maybe they still will, but if the rumor mill were really "bubbling" with names like Marshall claimed, I seriously doubt that it would still be quiet now.

4. In January, Marshall speculated that Phil Gramm's decision to retire was connected to his wife's involvement in a scandal involving Enron. Although not explicit, in a later post Marshall seemed to imply that it was more than just her membership on the Enron board.

5. Also in January, Marshall wrote that he suspected that the White House must have known far, far in advance of Enron's problems because they had vetted Ken Lay as a possible Treasury Secretary. After telling the White House Press Corp, that "this one's on me" nothing ever came of it.

As you can imagine, after writing that post, I pretty much quit checking out Marshall's blog as a useless waste of my time. If you've found examples after March 2002, where he actually delivered anything close to what he's promised by way of scandal, feel free to post it in the comments. His latest non-delivery doesn't give me much reason to fear.
posted by Edward at 9:18 PM Comments (27)

[Replaced_Texan]

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.

Didn't work. There's a new book coming out soon out by Anonymous called Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (go to lawtalkers amazon link). Anonymous is an active CIA officer, and you can hear interviews with him here.

[Sidd Finch]

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

And what does the fact that no one has suggest to you? When I say you "ignore" that no one has stepped forward, I'm implying that you refuse to believe that this could mean that maybe the reasons for outing Plame were not as pure as you want to believe.

Legal has yet to be determined.

And it never will be unless the person who did it steps forward, or is identified, and explains how/why he didn't know that Plame was a covert operative. (As Ty pointed out, the "affirmative steps" element would be satisfied by the CIA simply having designated her as covert. Hell, even the supposedly "weak" request to Novak might suffice.)

As for decent, moral or ethical - as if you or me would recognize that if we saw it.

Okay, you win on that one.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
"We've got more African Americans in jail than we do in college. That's unacceptable," he [Kerry] added.

In fact, it seems that there are more than twice as many African Americans in college than in jail.

The statement that I heard many times in the last decade (not from Kerry) is that there are more African Americans in the criminal justice system than in college. The criminal justice system includes more than jails and prisons; it includes people on parole, on probation, or under other form of supervised release.

I don't know if the statement is true today, but the stats I saw years ago when I first heard this statement supported it.


Before the attack-machine gets churning on me -- I'm not defending Kerry, who obviously said something wrong. I'm just pointing out what the original statement -- the parent of his bastard comment, if you will -- was.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Didn't work. There's a new book coming out soon out by Anonymous called Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (go to lawtalkers amazon link). Anonymous is an active CIA officer, and you can hear interviews with him here.

Do they disguise his voice?

Gotta say -- some of my favorite books have been by Anonymous, but the subject matter was pretty different.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The statement that I heard many times in the last decade (not from Kerry) is that there are more African Americans in the criminal justice system than in college. The criminal justice system includes more than jails and prisons; it includes people on parole, on probation, or under other form of supervised release.

I don't know if the statement is true today, but the stats I saw years ago when I first heard this statement supported it.

It also appears to be true if you refer only to African-American men.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Yglesias says Wilson has a credibility problem, but so what?

Originally posted here
Much to-doing about Joe Wilson's treatment in the SSCI Report which establishes pretty clearly that the dude has a serious credibility problem. I think that if you look back through my writings you will see me having stated from the get-go that Wilson's credibility is not really the issue here. Burning CIA operatives is illegal, and the allegation that the burning was done in no way depends on Wilson's credibility. It's too bad, though, that a lot of liberals took the fact that Wilson really hated George W. Bush as grounds for believing that he should be treated as a serious source of information and critique of the Bush administration. Read his book, for example, and you'll that it's quite awful and the man himself doesn't have a great deal to contribute to our understanding of anything.

Wilson's discrediting should have one beneficial effect, though, which is to get people off of his pet theory that the Plame leak was an effort to "punish" him. I never believed this. The Plame leak was an attempt to discredit him. What's interesting about this is that the mere fact that Wilson was someone with close personal ties to the CIA was believed by the leaker to by information that tended to discredit him. That, in turn, is an artifact of the pre-war hawk line that the CIA was a hotbed of anti-war agitors deliberately downplaying the Iraqi threat. Now, of course, we know the truth.

Me, I never bothered to get his book. He seemed like a lightweight compared with Clarke or O'Neill.