| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2005/7/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38623 Activity:high |
7/14 ok conservative pigfuckers, why does it matter whether valerie
plame authorized her husband going to Niger to report
selling yellowcake? How does this affect whether Rove should
be punished for revealing she has been a deep undercover
agent for the last 20 years?
\_ Because everything is politics. There is no right and wrong.
If you make everyone look equally sleazy, you can get away with
anything.
\_ there's an article on Salon I think today from sid blumenthal
saying that Wilson's wife never authorized the trip, and in any
case was not in a position to even authorize it. also I agree
that who cares who authorized the trip? Does anyone remember
Ed "pig biting mad" Anger? - danh
\_ They don't care if anyone actually believes. They're just trying
to spread FUD. Don't buy into it.
\_ I'm not a pigfucker, but I'll give it a go. No one is saying that
Plame authorized the trip. My understanding is that Rove was
saying to Cooper, "don't pay attention to this Wilson guy, because
he only got the trip because his wife's in the CIA". We now know
that Plame *did* recommend her husband. I've never seen his report
(which Wilson claims showed that Iraq had not been looking for U in
Niger). The point is, Wilson has already been shown to be a lying
sleezeball. It doesn't look like Rove really did anything wrong.
\_ Who cares about Wilson. No matter what happened (And I think
your whole Wilson was lieing is full of shit.) Rove LEAKED
a covert CIA agent's cover. A covert CIA agent who was working
with preventing WMD proliferation. Rove leaked the name for
no reason other than to get back at someone. In the process he
also leaked a CIA cover company and destroyed other agent's
covers. Why are you trying to defend this?
\_ read http://tinyurl.com/8obkt . The article says "
wilson's wife did not authorize the trip." but like i said,
who cares who authorized the trip? - danh
\_ dan, use motdedit. you stomped on me.
\_ How often does it have to be said. Repeating it doesn't make
it true. What did he lie about? How does it feel to defend
someone who single-handedly demolished a CIA front company?
\_ You know what's really sad? Both you and pp are both just
regurgitating talking points drafted by someone else.
The Republicans are much better at this sort of Pravdaesque
manipulation, so I expect them to survive this quite nicely.
\_ you got me, I read the same stuff everyone else does.
It infuriates me when someone prints in the media the
exact polar opposite of what actually occured. For example
read in the Chronicle: http://tinyurl.com/c77w2
I am pretty sure Wilson's report said that Niger was not
selling yellowcake to Iraq. It's like the officers
beating Rodney King claiming they were beating the
crap out of him to help out his skin complexion. - danh
\_ Wilson, through his Congressional testimony that
contradicts his newspaper articles and quotes, has
already been proven a fraud. Even Kerry, who initially
appointed Wilson an advisor, backed away from him during
the election. What you likely have here is an attempt by the
Democrats and their media abettors to create a scandal
during an election season that has subsequently blown
up in their face. Of course time will tell.
Since Wilson had extensive business interests in Africa and
Middle East, including Niger, his wife's role in
his selection is very pertinent.
\_ did you read danh's link?
\_ What's most important though, is that each of these claims is
irrelevant.
irrelevant to the subject at hand. Rove outed a CIA agent.
It wouldn't matter if Joe Wilson was the seven-headed beast of
the apocalypse.
\_ Point out a lie. Please. Still waiting.
\_ So, I haven't been following this too closely, but everything
I've read seems to indicate that Rove did not actually leak
classified info. Saying 'X' works at the CIA, especially when
such fact is already known, is not a leak. It only became a
'leak' when it turned out that she was actually undercover at
the time, which apparently Rove didn't know. How can someone
leak info they don't know? Rove's actions in trying to
discredit Wilson, while not pure, are at least reasonable in
that Wilson is actually not very credible. I think that's the
only reason anyone cares about Wilson. I think danh's link was
the most balanced thing I've read though... -jrleek
\_ Did you actually read danh's link? Quote:
No, Rove didn't "reveal the name." But the law doesn't cite
that as a felony; it only specifies revealing the "identity" as
a crime. It says nothing about a "name." Rove revealed "Joe
Wilson's wife." That qualifies as an "identity." By the way,
Plame did not go by the name of Plame, but Wilson -- in other
words, Mrs. Wilson, or "Joe Wilson's wife." Rove seemed to know
that much -- her identity."
Also, what do you mean by "especially when such fact is
already known"? Are you saying it was widely known that
Plame was a NOC working in weapons of mass destruction for CIA?
I mean, it certainly became widely known she was a CIA agent
working WMDs after Novak's article.
\_ The law also requires you to have learned the identity and/or
status from classified sources, and have the intent to expose
the agent. It appears now that Rove learned that Wilson's
wife was in the CIA from Novak (not a classified source) and
that his purpose was to warn Cooper away from trusting Wilson
as a source because he got the Niger job not because of
qualifications but because of family ties. No, Plame didn't
/approve/ the job (she didn' thave the authority), but she
/did/ present Wilson's name as a candidate (which Wilson
denies but which has been proven in a memo found by the Senate
Intelligence Committee). -emarkp
\_ I think you're chewing on RNC talking points this morning.
What would make Wilson more qualified? He served as a
diplomat in Niger, Togo, Burundi, South Africa,
Gabon, and Sao Tome, plus Iraq. The CIA claims that
Wilson was chosen based on his experiences, not because
of who his wife is. - danh
\_ Well, the CIA _did_ screw up the pre-war intel, so
we know how reliable they are....
\_ I don't think he was unqualified. But that's what Rove
was trying to say. I find it odd that Wilson denies that
his wife recommended him. At any rate, I haven't read
any "RNC talking points" this morning. -emarkp |
| 5/25 |
|
| tinyurl.com/8obkt -> gelatinous.com/danh/2005_07_14_Salon_Blumenthal.txt Rove's war Bush's right-hand man is dispatching his troops to smear Joe Wilson -- and save himself. He may win in Washington, but the special prosecutor will have the last word. From his command post next to the Oval Office in the West Wing of the White House, he is furiously directing the order of battle. The Republican National Committee lobs its talking points across Washington, its chairman forays the no-man's-land of CNN. Rove's lawyer, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial board are sent over the top. Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay man the ramparts, defending Rove's character. For two years, since the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the disclosure of the identity of an undercover CIA operative, President Bush and his press secretary, Scott McClellan, have repeatedly denied the involvement of anyone in the White House. "Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him?" "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." Bush backed himself into that corner because of a sequence of events beginning with the ultimate rationale he offered for the Iraq war. Public support for the war had wavered until the administration asserted unequivocally that Saddam Hussein was seeking to acquire and build nuclear weapons. Its most incendiary claim was that he had tried to purchase enriched yellowcake uranium in Niger. An Italian magazine, Panorama, had received documents appearing to prove the charge. Former ambassador Joseph Wilson was secretly sent by the CIA to investigate, and he found no evidence to substantiate the story. The CIA subsequently protested inclusion of the rumor in a draft of a Bush speech, and Bush delivered it on Oct. But a month earlier, a British white paper had mentioned the Niger rumor. And in his January 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." These 16 notorious words had already been proved false, however (debunked by three separate reports from administration officials, which were apparently ignored ahead of Bush's speech). On March 7, 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that the Niger documents were "not authentic." The following day, the State Department concurred that they were forgeries. After the war began, the administration refused to acknowledge those 16 words were false. To set the record straight, Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article on July 6, 2003, in the New York Times titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa." It was the first crack in the credibility of the administration's case for the war, suggesting that the underlying intelligence had been abused, distorted and even forged. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice later admitted, "It was information that was mistaken." And CIA Director George Tenet said the lines "should never have been included in a text written for the president." A week after Wilson's Op-Ed appeared, on July 14, conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote that Wilson's "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 revelation of Plame's identity may be a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 -- a felony carrying a 10-year prison sentence. Apparently, the release of Plame's identity was political payback against Wilson by a White House that wanted to shift the subject of the Iraq war to his motives. On July 30, the CIA referred a "crime report" to the Justice Department. "If she was not undercover, we would not have a reason to file a criminal referral," a CIA official said. Fitzgerald's investigation stalled when two reporters he subpoenaed, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of the New York Times, initially refused to testify. But Time handed over Cooper's notes on his conversation with Rove to the prosecutor, and Cooper eventually decided to cooperate. Miller chose to remain in contempt of court and has been imprisoned until the grand jury is dissolved. With the publication of Cooper's memo to his editors two weeks ago, the White House was asked about whether the president would adhere to its own "highest standards," as McClellan had put it, and fire anyone involved in outing Plame. But since Monday, both McClellan and Bush have refused to comment on the investigation. While the White House stonewalls, Rove has license to run his own damage-control operation. His surrogates argue that if Rove did anything, it wasn't a crime. There's no cause for outrage, except at Joe Wilson, and now, in a turn of the screw, Matt Cooper. The inhabitants of the political village should busy themselves with their arts and crafts. No one's status will be endangered or access withdrawn, it is implied, if they do nothing rash. They should simply accept that exposing undercover CIA operatives is part of politics as usual. Rove is fighting his war as though it will be settled in a court of Washington pundits. Brandishing his formidable political weapons, he seeks to demonstrate his prowess once again. His corps of agents raises a din in which their voices drown out individual dissidents. His frantic massing of forces dominates the capital by winning the communications battle. Indeed, Rove may succeed momentarily in quelling the storm. Can the special counsel be confounded by manipulation of the Washington chattering class? What's the obligation of a reporter to a source in this case? What are the legal vulnerabilities of Rove and others in the White House? Wilson's article provided the first evidence that the reasons given for the war were stoked by false information. But the attack on Wilson by focusing on his wife is superficially perplexing. Even if the allegation were true that she "authorized" his mission, as Rove told Cooper, it would have no bearing whatsoever on the Niger forgeries, or any indictment. But Rove's is a psychological operation intended to foster the perception that the messenger is somehow untrustworthy and that therefore his message is too. By creating an original taint on Wilson's motives, an elaborate negative image has been constructed. The Wall Street Journal editorial of July 13 best reflected the through-the-looking-glass Rovian defense and projection: "For Mr Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal ... In short, Mr Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign." In order to untangle this deceptive web, it's essential to return to the beginning of the long disinformation campaign triggered by the publication of Wilson's Op-Ed. The facts clarify not only the mendacity of the smears but also the seeming quandary of the reporters who have become collateral damage. In early 2002, Valerie Plame was an officer in the Directorate of Operations of the CIA task force on counter-proliferation, dealing with weapons of mass destruction, including Saddam's WMD programs. At that time, as she had been for almost two decades, she was an undercover operative. After training at "The Farm," the CIA's school for clandestine agents, she became what the agency considers among its most valuable and dangerous operatives -- a NOC, or someone who works under non-official cover. NOCs travel without diplomatic passports, so if they are captured as spies they have no immunity and can potentially be executed. As a NOC, Plame helped set up a front company, Brewster-Jennings, whose cover has now been blown and whose agents and contacts may be in danger still. After marrying Wilson in 1998, she took Wilson as her last name. When the Italian report on Niger uranium surfaced, Vice President Cheney's office contacted the CIA's counter-proliferation office to look into it. It was hardly the first query the task force had received from th... |
| tinyurl.com/c77w2 -> sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/14/EDG4PDN4TU1.DTL view archive JUST AS the New York Times reported that Bush guru Karl Rove disclosed to a Time magazine reporter that Bush-hater Joseph C Wilson was married t o a CIA operative -- without naming her -- the Times had a real scoop: V alerie Plame "prefers" to be known as Valerie Wilson. Funny, for years, the Times and her husband referred to Mrs Wilson as Valerie Plame. Now that reports say Rove mentioned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, P lame is Valerie Wilson -- a fact that conveniently further damns Rove. America now knows that Rove told a reporter that former ambassador Wilson , an official in the Clinton administration, was sent to Niger to invest igate reports that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium for nuclear weapons -- and on the recommendation of his wife, who worked for the CIA. After Wilson wrote an op-ed for the New York Times about his mission, Rove que stioned his credibility. I understand the front-page treatment in the Times and The Chronicle when it came out that Rove spoke about Plame with Time's Matthew Cooper. Pre sident Bush made the mistake of saying he would fire any staffer who lea ked "classified" information -- a Clintonesque pledge and hedge. There is no evidence, however, that Rove broke the law, as he seemed comp letely unaware that Plame was a covert operative. He wasn't out to punis h Plame, but rather to discredit her husband, who discredited the Bushie s Now Rove critics argue that Rove was wrong to leak anything to the press, not because he might have broken the law, but because those White House denials undermine the Bushies' credibility. This is funny, because Wilson has been caught in some truth-twisting hims elf. While the media focus on White House discrepancies, discrepancies i n Wilson's story go underreported. While Wilson denied that his wife rec ommended him for the Niger trip, a Senate bipartisan Select Committee on Intelligence committee found a memo in which Plame recommended sending her husband to Africa. More important, Wilson's report did not debunk the Niger story, as he ass erted, but instead bolstered the story's credibility to the CIA, althoug h State Department officials were skeptical. Spare me the hand-wringing about "the national security of our country," as Sen. I agree that the White House is too lofty a perch for bad-mouthing a federal employee -- that's what the Republica n National Committee is for. Be it noted, however, that America is no le ss safe with Valerie's name -- be it Plame or Wilson -- in the spotlight . Besides, surely Wilson knew he was compromising his wife's anonymity when he wrote the piece for the New York Times. If there were stories that endangered the lives of Americans serving abro ad, they were the stories of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, and la ter the overblown Quran stories that graced the Times' and The Chronicle 's front pages in June -- stories that incited anti-American sentiment a cross the globe. Rove critics aren't demanding an investigation to see w ho leaked those stories, although some on the right wanted an investigat ion to see who leaked the original (and inaccurate) Quran-flushing repor t to Newsweek. Note how, after Newsweek got the Quran-flushing at Guantanamo Bay story w rong, the New York Times followed with we told-you-so reports that there were abuses of the Quran at Gitmo. Stop the presses: A defense contract or stepped on the Quran, for which he apologized; the night shift tossed water balloons in a c ellblock, Quran copies got wet. Somehow that nonstory was front-page new s That Times editors saw the Quran story as a top-of-the-page story is a si gn of pure hysteria. Here's an example of how tone-deaf the Times has become: Its magazine wan ted a photographer to depict the abuse of prisoners at Iraqi facilities and Gitmo, so the editors hired Andres Serrano, the photographer who ang ered America with his photograph of a crucifix in urine. Call the Quran and Rove stories examples of a new trend: We-told-you-so j ournalism. If a new story reinforces an old story that the public didn't care about before, it lands on page one. |