July 15, 2004
Joe Wilson's Credibility Doesn't Matter
Bush Bashers are making an interesting claim:
Bush apologists are pointing to Joe Wilson's credibility problems concerning Niger yellow-cake and the alleged outing of his wife, Valerie Plame, by someone in the White House.Fact is, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter? Wilson was the person that started the Yellowcake uproar and called Bush a LIAR. He said Iraq NEVER tried to seek Yellowcake from Niger. He "investigated" the matter, don'tcha ya know?
"We're awaiting apologies from former Ambassador Joe Wilson, and all those who championed him, after his July 2003 New York Times op-ed alleging that Mr. Bush had "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." The news is also relevant to the question of whether any crime was committed when a still unknown Administration official told columnist Robert Novak that Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA employee and that's why he had been recommended for a sensitive mission to Niger. A Justice Department special prosecutor is investigating the case, with especially paralyzing effect on the office of the Vice President.In that New York Times piece, readers will recall, Mr. Wilson outed himself as the person who had been sent to Niger by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq might have been seeking yellowcake ore for its weapons program. Vice President Dick Cheney had asked for the CIA's opinion on the issue after reading a Defense intelligence report.
Mr. Wilson wrote that "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." He claimed he informed the CIA of his findings upon his return, was certain reports of his debrief had circulated through appropriate channels, and that the Administration had chosen to ignore his debunking of the story. "
Yeah, well don't hold your breath. Because as the Bush Bashers will remind us that Joe Wilson's credibility doesn't matter. Something else the BB said has stuck in my head like a spear:
"Similarly, although Plame is his wife, Wilson's credibility has nothing to do with whether or not a felony was committed by someone in the White House. They either outed her or not; it's either a felony or it's not. Wilson's word is neither here nor there."
Maybe. But Joe Wilson "claimed" that his wife was outted as political payback.
After the Novak column appeared, Mr. Wilson charged that his wife was outed solely as punishment for his daring dissent from White House policy. To that end, he has repeatedly denied that his wife played a role in his selection for the mission. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he wrote in his book "The Politics of Truth." "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." A huge political uproar ensued.But very little of what Mr. Wilson has said has turned out to be true. For starters, his wife did recommend him for that trip. The Senate report quotes from a February 12, 2002, memo from Ms. Plame: "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."
This matters a lot. There's a big difference both legally and ethically between revealing an agent's identity for the revenge purpose of ruining her career, and citing nepotism (truthfully!) to explain to a puzzled reporter why an undistinguished and obviously partisan former ambassador had been sent to investigate this "crazy report" (his wife's words to the Senate). We'd argue that once her husband broke his own cover to become a partisan actor, Ms. Plame's own motives in recommending her husband deserved to become part of the public debate. She had herself become political.
Of course, all this brings us back to was she or was she not covert. The investigation will tell us soon. Let's take a look at what is means to be "covert".
The legal definition of a "covert agent" is: if and only if he/she is "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States."
According to James Taranto:
Little has been revealed publicly about the details of Plame's CIA career. But we do know that she gave birth to twins in 1999 or 2000, and it's unlikely that the CIA would send a new or expectant mother overseas on a dangerous assignment. Thus one may surmise that if indeed Plame was legally a covert agent, it was because she worked overseas during the early part of the five-year period preceding July 2003, when Novak's column appeared--that is, between mid-1998 and mid-1999. If she had been at a desk job at Langley for four years by last July, then concealing her identity, even if it was still classified, might not have been such a high priority for the agency.
We will find out soon if any crime was committed with her outting. We know two things for certain. If Joe Wilson says the sun is shining - take your umbrella with you and when he says trust me - bend over at the waist and be prepared to get fucked.
Posted by rosemary at July 15, 2004 09:07 AM | TrackBack"Little has been revealed publicly" and "one may surmise." Yeah, airtight case there, Rosemary. Hit it out of the park on that one. Proof positive. Yep.
Posted by: Adam at July 15, 2004 11:06 AM“The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
– George W. Bush, State of the Union, Jan. 28, 2003
“Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”
– Joseph Wilson, July 6th, 2003
Joe Wilson's credibility matters but mostly relative to the president's, which matters much, much more.
shep, when will you Bush-haters get your collective head out of your massive buttocks and READ what you post!? Or what other people post, for that matter?
First, did you read the Taranto quote about the definition of "covert?" Since when does the CIA post pregnant women to covert positions? Best case for her, she might have been -in theory- covert back in the second half of 1998, but not later.
But (as the saying goes) "that doesn't matter."
Nor have you read your own post: please show me where the word "Nigeria" shows up in that speech? Hmm? Pretty Please? With sugar?
But "that doesn't matter" either, because the Bush-haters will just move the goalposts the same way they always have.
Now me, I think that Rose's last graf was bit over the top, but the previous part was spot-on. The Bush-haters have been screaming about the "Plame affair" for months in the hope that they can turn it into another "scandal," despite the fact that Wilson himself lied about how he got the job!
Not to mention -by his own account- his so-called "investigation" consisted of sitting on his ass, sucking down drinks, while conferencing with his buddies in the Niger government; and we all know how honest, incorrupt, and upright African governments are, right? I'm sure once Joe had the word that Bush was full of it, he was only too happy to leave a big tip on the bar tab...
Also not to mention that his wife has virtually certainly not been "outed" (assuming that she ever was a "covert" agent in the first place) because the five factors necessary to fit that definition have not fullfilled.
Finally, let's not leave out all the intel coming out of the woodwork the past couple of weeks indicating that there seems to have been something brewing in Africa after all. Note that I didn't specify Nigeria in that sentance.
You know, shep, all you are doing is making yourself look stupid. Really. Maybe this stuff goes over well at an all-Dem blog, or your local coffee-break group, but normal people (i.e. not-Republican and not-Democrat, and uncomitted centrists) see those antics and start to wonder about you.
It's the same reason it took so long for anti-war feelings to catch momentum during Vietnam, and why nobody but the crazies and the ANSWER/Communist groups show up at anti-war protests: the fuckers are crazy.
Why don't you just cast yourself loose, and do what you really, really would like to, deep down inside: run up to the first soldier you see and call him (or her) a "baby-killer."
My, my, my, Casey. Who pissed on your Cheerios today? I just posted a couple of quotes.
In any event, the Ashcroft Justice Department doesn’t investigate non-crimes by the Bush administration and, any way you slice it, the Republican attack machine behaved abominably when The White House outed Plame and it is behaving abominably now. I’m shocked!
And, btw, it’s pretty easy to see who the haters are. Go re-read your post.
If no crime were committed this investigation would have been ended.
The investigation continues because Plame is a CIA agent and revealing her identity is a felony.
The President and other Whitehouse personnel have lawyered up with good reason.
Posted by: expletive deleted at July 15, 2004 03:05 PMThat is so not true. Investigations take time and when the government is involved they take longer.
I mean look how long Clinton was investigated only to have Ken Starr give us a fat report filled with nothing, no crimes - with one small exception and it was small.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at July 15, 2004 03:08 PMIf we're going to "surmise," Rosemary, do you "surmise" that Bush's own Justice Department would be doing a massive investigation if the most basic tenet (no pun intended) of the case, Plame's status, wasn't undercover?
Comparing Ashcroft/Bush to Starr/Clinton is frankly, a joke.
Posted by: Adam at July 15, 2004 03:17 PMJanet Reno appointed Ken Starr because it was her job to do so.
Ashcroft has a job to do and if he doesn't do it - what will the screams be?
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at July 15, 2004 03:45 PMLet them squeal. It's instructive. Remarkably, most of us who though Joe was a lying SOB still said the investigation must go forward, it is the law. You know, reasonable people and all.
Now that there's a decent whistleblower's case and Joe is 'outed' as a liar, it's as though "oh no, he couldn't have had an agenda? Noooooo.
This is comical. It's like watching Michael Palin scream "Help Help! I'm being repressed"! Squeal on Mark, shep. Teach us about integrity.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at July 15, 2004 08:12 PMBottom line, if Plame was not a CIA agent
there would be no crime and no investigation.
Posted by: expletive deleted at July 15, 2004 08:13 PMI never said Plame wasn't a CIA agent and neither has anyone else.
The issue was whether or not she was covert. George Tenet was a CIA agent - he was the boss. Everyone knows his name and he wasn't covert.
You are incredibly naive if you believe that there would be no investigation if there was no crime.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at July 15, 2004 08:42 PM
One wonders if Joe Wilson testified anywhere under oath. And if so, shouldn't he be up for perjury charges?
Posted by: bryan at July 16, 2004 10:47 AMDave in Texas:
“Remarkably, most of us who though Joe was a lying SOB still said the investigation must go forward, it is the law. You know, reasonable people and all.
Now that there's a decent whistleblower's case and Joe is 'outed' as a liar, it's as though "oh no, he couldn't have had an agenda?”
Um, no one has proved that Joe Wilson lied about anything (I’m using the current Republican standard of “proved” and “lie” mind you). Because the right-wing blogosphere says so doesn’t make it so (as hard as that may be to believe for some).
“Squeal on Mark, shep. Teach us about integrity.”
Sadly, Dave, you may be showing yourself to be uneducable.
Tell you what, I'll use Joe's word for "lie" instead.
"Misspoke".
Better?
Posted by: Dave in Texas at July 17, 2004 10:44 AMDave:
"Misspoke"? Like when Dick "F-Bomb" Cheney said that Iraq had definitely reconstituted its nuclear program? Or when Cheney said the Atta meeting was "pretty well confirmed"?
But then again, I've always thought that Cheney was a Lying SOB(tm).
Again, and hopefully for the last time, the case is whether the White House outed a covert CIA operative. Either they did or they didn't. Seems simple enough, even for my addled liberal brain.
Posted by: Adam at July 17, 2004 06:58 PMSorry Mark, wrong "joe" expression.
"literary flair".
better?
Posted by: Dave in Texas at July 18, 2004 12:51 AMor Adam
Posted by: Dave in Texas at July 18, 2004 12:52 AM
There's a big difference both legally and ethically between revealing an agent's identity for the revenge purpose of ruining her career, and citing nepotism (truthfully!) to explain to a puzzled reporter why an undistinguished and obviously partisan former ambassador had been sent to investigate this "crazy report" (his wife's words to the Senate).
A lot of difference legally. You know, I've read the legislation and I don't recall anything about nepotism or puzzled reporters. At all. What bull. And from the WSJ opinion pages. Like these idiots don't know what they're peddling.
Posted by: Max M at July 18, 2004 05:59 PM$200 for proof that Wilson lied
See
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
To avoid accusations of "moving the goal post"
(already registered by some), I don't require that
you prove Wilson guilty of perjury - he's not on
trial, so how can you? Rather, the proof should
be based on the standards for perjury, which I
assume require establishing beyond a reasonable
doubt that someone lied.
Regards,
Michael Turner
leap@gol.com