Joe Wilson, Your 15 Minutes Are Up
Compare, contrast, vomit.
Our 27 months of hell
By Joseph C. Wilson IV
October 29, 2005
Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?
Clifford D. May
July 15, 2005
And for a guy who spent some time in Africa you'd expect Joe to have some perspective on what "hell" is really like. Unless of course he spent all his time over there on a plantation sipping tea on a chaise lounge.
Our 27 months of hell
By Joseph C. Wilson IV
October 29, 2005
The attacks on Valerie and me were upsetting, disruptive and vicious. They amounted to character assassination. Senior administration officials used the power of the White House to make our lives hell for the last 27 months.
. . .
It was payback — cheap political payback by the administration for an article I had written contradicting an assertion President Bush made in his 2003 State of the Union address. Payback not just to punish me but to intimidate other critics as well.
Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?
Clifford D. May
July 15, 2005
The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak’s column appeared. It carried this lead: “Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security — and break the law — in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?”Apparently this is more a case of "character suicide" than "character assasination". Valerie Plame's exposure has more to do with Joe Wilson not being able to control his petty partisan urges and love of the limelight than anything else. And if you want to get really cynical, based on how quickly David Corn sprang forth with his premature accusation it's easy to believe Wilson orchestrated or at least desired the exposure, whether to satisfy a martyr complex or in a premeditated attempt to cause problems for the Bush administration. Wilson hasn't been "attacked". His pain has been caused by his own lies and his wife's nepotism coming to light. How is that "payback"? He should be grateful. What's happened to him is nothing at all like the kind of inane ad hominem attacks the left often uses against their opponents.
Since Novak did not report that Plame was “working covertly” how did Corn know that’s what she had been doing?
And for a guy who spent some time in Africa you'd expect Joe to have some perspective on what "hell" is really like. Unless of course he spent all his time over there on a plantation sipping tea on a chaise lounge.
posted by Tanstaafl at 11/01/2005 08:50:00 PM
8 Comments:
Im sorry for being naive, but, if Person A is a NOC for the CIA and Person B reports in his weekly column that Person A works for the CIA - does it matter to the KGB, Mossad, KWA, SAVAK, etc. that Person B didnt report that Person A was a secret agent?
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
Did Novak break the law? Not in any court of law. But to suggest that the "secret" status wasnt divulged is just plain idiotic.
This was a case of character assassination, plain and simple. Joe Wilson dropped the bomb and the Admin (used as a general term in light of no published evidence) focused a campaign to discredit that continues today (the latest Hannity/Rush lines refer to the prospect that Joe Wilson was a CIA plot to discredit VP Cheney due to the longstanding divisive relationship from (get this) the Reagan White House years).
"His pain has been caused by his own lies and his wife's nepotism coming to light."
You citing lies somewhere. What the VP connection? Do your homework. Nepotism? Was there someone more qualified on Iraq available? As per Novak's opening line:
"The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge."
"Made routinely at a low level..." The evil liberals are crafty using underlings in the government to dismantle the mighty neo-con empire.
Your banter is proof of the right wing conspiracy to assassinate wilson's character.
To suggest that every CIA agent is "secret" is also idiotic. Most are not. What I've read indicates Plame was not, and hadn't been for a long time, if ever.
Where is the "character assasination"? Has anything exaggerated or untrue been said about Wilson or Plame? He's the one spouting lies.
Maybe Joe Wilson was picked not because he was the best choice but because they could rely on what he would report. Or is it only evil neo-cons that have such base motives?
I'm sorry for being naive, but, if Person A regularly goes into CIA HQ every day you'd think foreign intelligence agencies W, X, Y, and Z already know she's an agent? Person A should also maybe not be posing for Vanity Fair photos, and should maybe consider distancing self from Limelight Seeker C.
What a great revelation uncovered by powerline... (excuse the length, but try to read it all, its at the very least interesting)
from http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/
Bush "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
As Power Lunch reveals:
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June [That would be June 2003 - since this report is dated July 2004]. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger [that would be 8 months after Feb 2002 or October 2002 before the Bush Jan 2003 SU Address].
By June 2004, the "Niger" junk mail was in the US for 8 months. What is interesting to note is that Wilson went to Niger NOT on the basis of the British documents received by US officials in october 2002, but on the basis of some other evidence that the CIA was privy too. You should read Henry Waxman's synopsis (very partisan but offers up some striking questions):
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0306/S00270.htm
Power lunch forgot to mention that the Bush Admin immediately backpedaled on the 16 dribbles:
Condi on CNN 07/14/03
And a whole bivvy of other cuts:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush's_16_words
Character assasination is really not worth the discussion. If you want to know the how, who, when and where - go straight to the horse's mouth (taken with a truckload of salt):
http://www.politicsoftruth.com/
Read both sides - the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
You should read the Carnegie endowment report:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1435&prog=zgp&proj=znpp
The unclassified July 2003 report on Iraq stated their were "dissenting opinions" within the govt especially regarding the aluminum tubes. "... entire agencies, not just some individuals, dissented on the aluminum tubes and on a number of other key issues."
Off the Carnegie report look up Table 3 (nukes) for a broad summary.
Bush "Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."
Well, being a monday morning quarterbacker - looks like Lucy did splain it to you Ricky.
Bush "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving."
Deceive, yes. http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/
Disarm. Err, yes, that too, with a little help from his friends.
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2005/11/for_the_record.htm
Dont forget our ol' pal Hans Blix:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unmovic/unmovic-blix-notes-121902.htm
And under the "say its not true" category:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2002/1222theft.htm
Bush "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
"Assembling" being the operative word - NOT!
Bush "The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups." and-
"We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."
Let me see...
State of the Union January 28...
Invasion "started" March 19...
So we sanctioned the shit outta Iraq for 10+ years, bombed them, and then gave them 50 days to satisfy George W Bush?
Maybe Im cynical, but I dont think George was really going to "consult".
Bottom line: the argument that "Bush lied" is ridiculous. All the D heavyweights have been quoted in the past acknowledging the threat from Saddam and his WMDs. They had access to the same, apparently flawed, intelligence Bush did. To claim now that Bush knowingly inflated the threat is at best ignorant of history, and at worst a lie.
I would hold judgement pending further releases (it may take 30 years). The Congress received the intel from the NIE:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/
What I still need to find out is what the process is for interpreting and presenting intel data to the white house and the Congress.
What I find simply mind-boggling, is that no one in the Admin had doubts about the intel, that the "individuals" and "entire agencies" with "dissenting opinions" didnt reach Bush, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Tenet. When it comes to ending or extending sanctions and bombing aspirin factories from 35K feet - its a no brainer; but, a preemptive war, dismantle a country, not to mention an islamic country, not to mention a centerpiece of struggle with the west? Sorry, "dissenting opinions" must have some worth. Were these dissenting opinions shared with the Congress? If not, how can ANYONE claim the Congress was looking at the same intel as the White House.
I want to know how far up the chain the intel went and who decided what intel was "reliable" and what was not.
I am tired of the naysayers exclaiming this is water over the dam, just move on, we have more important issues on our agenda. It is that philosophy that leads us down the road to war, time after time. If the Admin (meaning the Executive Branch) has too much wiggle room to start a war, we really need to reevaluate the govt (that would mean the weenies in Congress who gave away that power).
Of course there were doubts. Powell was openly skeptical. But the intel we had was enough to make both Clintons, Kennedy, Biden, Kerry, and all the rest express exactly the sentiments Bush did when he took us into Iraq.
What comes to light in the future will reveal flaws in what they thought they knew.
What's ridiculous is the charge that Bush distorted reality to take us to war. It is the Ds who are distorting reality right now by forgetting what they said and believed. It's so incredibly lame an argument it's hard to believe anyone thinks it needs refuting.
We said that?
Post a Comment
<< Home