Ok. Just about everyone seems to agree with the following statement:
1.) Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, was stationed in Washington at the time of her outing, and previously had been a covert agent.
Do we all agree on the following statements:
2.) Joseph Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame and former ambassador to Iraq, was sent by the CIA to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was interested in/trying to buy uranium (ignore precisely what he was doing in Niger for now- we can get to that later).
And, to keep the ball rolling, a separate statement:
3.) Valerie Plame recommended her husband to CIA authorities for the job, as he had extensive contacts in Africa from his numerous years of previous service.
Again- we are only addressing statements 2 and 3, and answer simply “Yes” if you agree, “No” if you disagree, but include links (not your own personal opinion). We will assume that for now, statement 1 is accurate.
Yes and Yes
Of course, those two were easier than the first.
Yes and Yes
Yes and Yes
I have no idea.
2) Yes, (if we’re ignoring precisely what he was doing there)
3a) Yes (Valerie Plame recommended her husband to CIA authorities for the job)
3b) Maybe (as he had extensive contacts in Africa from his numerous years of previous service.) I mean, if we’re still ignoring precisely what he was doing there, then I suppose the answer is a yes – but it’s hard to ignore the reasoning if the reasoning was because Plame (and others) in the CIA wanted to send someone presidsposed to “debunk” rather than “investigate” the report.
Although I admit I don’t know enough about the details to know if that allegation is true.
So in short, (a little too late for that, I guess), Yes and Yes.
Yes, and yes..
3) Not sure:
Jim Rhoads (vnjagvet)
Yes to #1. Yes to # 2; With the explanation that Ms. Plame may have had other reasons in addition to her husband’s prior experience, which your statement implies was the only reason.
3) Did this claim start with Novak and his team of all-star anonymous administration sources? Has it been backed up anywhere else?
The liberal MSM is so desparate to find something on Bush they have been suckered over and over and over again by liberals in government. What a bunch of suckers.
DJ 3000: Those clowns in Congress have done it again. What a bunch of clowns.
Bill: Wow! How does it keep up with the news like that?
3) qualified yes: Wilson was misrepresenting when he said Plame had nothing to do with his selection, but it is not clear that she initiated his selection or merely gave her recommendation when asked.
In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, C.I.A.’s counterproliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn.
Yes and Yes.
Yes to statement #2.
I’m not sure, and I’m not being snarky here, where all the certainty as to #3 is coming from, though I’ve oft heard it repeated. If someone wants to point out what the specifics are there, I’d be most interested in reading them.
3. It seems to be the case, so I will say “Yes”.
3) (qualified) Yes. I think “endorsed” is a better word than “recommended”, for what Plame did, because she did was not the person who suggested Wilson for the trip, and “recommended” is too ambiguous when one is trying to determine what the precise facts are.
Funny we should be discussing this now. Apparently the WH has spent the day desperately pushing the Plame boondoggle story (presumably on double super-secret background).
So there you have it. Their defense strategyis to repeat the attacks that got them into trouble in the first place. It’s as though they heard that somebody out there really believed that the Cooper conversation might have been well intentioned, and set out to put a stop to it.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Yes and partially yes. The third one is worded too ambiguous for my tastes. Many conservatives are claiming that Plame organized the operation and chose Wilson to go. That I have yet to see proof of…
I believe she only recommended her husband but that is not what many conservatives are claiming.
That’s the word I was looking for.
On 3: from what I’ve read, Plame “endorsed” him — i.e., they were looking for someone to send, said to Plame, hey doesn’t your husband have relevant experience and connections, and she agreed.
Now I don’t agree this makes Wilson a liar, although he should have been less absolute in his avowals that she had no input on the decision. She didn’t make the decision, but endorsed it, i.e. did have input, in this scenario.
The source for the “she sent him” meme is afaik anonymous sources on who the republicans on the senate committee based their separate (not bilateral) judgment that she sent him, which they in a really tawdry move appended as a statement to the bilateral senate report. Leading, as I’m sure was the intention, hordes of right-wing commentators to claim that “the senate report said that…”, which really depends on what the meaning of “senate report said” is.
No? How about these comments from Wilson:
“Valerie had nothing to do with the matter,” Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. “She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip.”
“nothing” to do with it? And she “definitely” had not proposed the nepotism, err, Niger trip Wilson said. And what did the Senate committee investigation have to say about Wilson’s claims?
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame “offered up” Wilson’s name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations saying her 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.” The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
Nope, that, among other ‘mistatements of fact’, pretty much makes Joseph Wilson a lying sack of sh*t
3. Not yet. I’ve seen it too many ways to agree with this as stated. I don’t believe she pitched him for the trip, I’ve heard she was appproached by the CIA to act as a liason, for input, and/or for an endorsement. I really don’t think she sent him as some right-wing sites claim. Something like what Cliff suggested above seems likely.
Caveat: Wilson did muddy these waters when he (understandably pissed) claimed she “had nothing to do with it.” She may have had nothing to do with the trip’s proposal, and even his selection, but it seems there is a bit of smoke there…
yes and yes
yes and yes
Darrell, why don’t you show us specifically where you got that italicized text, and show us the senate report and where those statements, in context, can be found.
IMO whether Joe Wilson is a liar, a murderer and kicks little puppies for fun are completely irrelevant questions in this case which involves the blowing of an NOC agent’s cover.
That said, I would look at the context where JW said that. If it was in direct response to the question “didn’t she pick you for this trip, and authorize it”, I can see the response (as she didn’t have the final say over who to send), which he then clarifies with the immediately following sentence (she didn’t propose him). Makes sense to me.
But as I said, irrelevant and only meant to distract.
The real spin — the story that’s really being pushed under the surface of the right wing spin — is: sure they blew her cover, but fuck her anyway and all the other fucking CIA agents that wouldn’t go along with the program. Cause they were saboteurs and traitors and playing politics with the intel, etc., as opposed to the true believers who just knew in their hearts that Saddam had WMD and was this close to having the Bomb. Or even: fuck the whole CIA, they’re traitors (just like State, the atomic energy people, etc.)
This would play a lot better, of course, had those CIA analysts not cowed by the admin not turned out to be absolutely right in their assessments, and the OSP / WHIG completely wrong and in fact the ones who were playing politics by distorting intel.
IOW all of this spinning would be a lot more convincing if it weren’t for the fact that JW was proved right, the inspectors were proved right, the WMD skeptics were proved right, and the administration proven not only wrong, but liars (with their claims of absolute proof, no doubt, complete certainty, etc. if nothing else).
3) “endorsed” rather than “recommended”