Ok, We generally seem to have agreement about the following statements:
1.) Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, was stationed in Washington at the time of her outing, and previously had been a covert agent.
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).
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.
Time to step boldly forward:
4.) Joseph Wilson, either on his own volition, or at the behest of the NY Times, wrote an editorial critical of the Bush administration and many claims made by the Bush administration and was quoted widely in major media outlets prior to the ‘outing’ of his wife.
Again, answer only “Yes,” if you agree, “No” and then why if you disagree.
JP
Yes
Andrew J. Lazarus
Yes, but with a cavil. It’s possible in a case like this that Wilson had a literary agent who both suggested the column and sold it.
waddayaknow
Yes.
Stormy70
Yes.
Demdude
Yes.
jim rhoads (vnjagvet)
Yes, but we are losing some of out audience.
Marcus Wellby
Yes – with the exception of the “at the behest of the NYT’s”. You will recall that not too long ago the Times wrote an editorial apologizing for its botched handling of the WMD issue. If anything, at the time of Wilson’s editorial, the Times was very sure of the existence of WMD’s. I don’t know why they would urge Wilson forward if their own reporters, including shining star Miller, were reporting the very opposite of what Wilson was saying.
Now, as far as Andrew J. Lazarus’ comment above, I wouldn’t bet money against a literary agent.
over it
Yes.
And yes to #2 & #3….I was afk.
Tim F
well duh.
Rhoads is right, let’s get back to punching eack other.
Kidding. This is smart and probably unique insofar as the blogosphere is concerned. One could ask whether anything Wilson wrote has any bearing on Plame’s status as a covert op.
Steve
Yes.
SamAm
Yes.
SoCalJustice
Si, Da, Oui, Yes.
Christie S.
Yep.
AJStrata
No.
Wilson and Plame had planned this as the last stage to undermine Bush. It was Wilson and Plame which drove the media blitz
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/291
John Cole
If you are saying Wilson planned a media blitz, I am at a loss to how you disagree with the statement, AJ. And please embed your links.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Yes, though I second Marcus’ comments:
“Yes – with the exception of the “at the behest of the NYT’s”. You will recall that not too long ago the Times wrote an editorial apologizing for its botched handling of the WMD issue. If anything, at the time of Wilson’s editorial, the Times was very sure of the existence of WMD’s.”
Well said Marcus.
Darrell
damn good link AJStrata.. and knowing what a dishonest lying POS Joseph Wilson has been proven to be, and what a hack his wife appears to be, she prejudged Saddam’s reported attempts at purchasing uranium as nothing but a “crazy report”, I think you have a solid theory
Darrell
oh, sorry.. forgot to add yes/yes
Vladi G
Hilarious. When Darrell isn’t quoting Powerline and Captain’s Quarters, he turns to good ‘ol Steno Sue.
Darrell
More penetrating insightful commentary from the deep thinkers
Mr.Ortiz
Wow, John, you’re getting almost as much mileage out of this as from the Schiavo case. Keep it up!
For the record, yes to all of the above.
The Disenfranchised Voter
“I stand by my prediction that an investigation is underway concerning a rogue CIA agent who conspired with her husband to foster erroneous intelligence on Saddam
Nikki
I’m saying yes to all of the above as well.
I also don’t believe that AJStrata’s link can be considered “reputable” (since it is to his own blog) know matter how heartily Darrell endorses it.
John Cole
For the love of everything holy, folks- what is so damned confusing about ‘Yes” Or “No” answers?
Monty Burns
Yes ….excellent.
ppgaz
When is the potluck?
michael shew
yes
eileen from OH
Yes, with a caveat re: #4. Up until the SOTU, Wilson was an anonymous source to someone at the NYTimes (Kristoff?)regarding Saddam seeking uranium in Africa. It was only AFTER the SOTU and the infamous 16 words that Wilson wrote the story and outted himself as the anonymous source. Also, in that piece, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa” he included a disclaimer. Basically, he said that “IF what the President is referring to is Niger, he’s wrong and here’s why.” And, of course, after that the WH backed off the claim.
So it’s not like Wilson came home and wrote an article. It wasn’t until the bogus info showed up in the SOTU that he went public and wrote the article.
John – sorry I didn’t do just a Yes, but I’ve been gone all day and didn’t get to jump in on the other threads.
Interesting exercise.
eileen from OH
Darrell
Uh Wilson has in fact been proven by a bipartisan Senate committee to be a lying fraud. Nepotism aside, he and his wife conspired to get his little Niger trip, this is established fact. They are not honorable people. As the WP article maked clear, Plame had prejudged the uranium sales story before she even sent Wilson.. prejudged it as “this crazy report.”
Having prejudged Saddam’s attempt to buy uranium, and having pulled strings to get her husband on the trip, it makes entirely perfect sense that she got him that gig so that he could smear/sabotage the administration. No ‘moonbat theories’.. it makes perfect sense
Trevor
Yes
Jimmy Jazz
Yes.
MikeAdamson
yes
Andrew J. Lazarus
You can find the Senate Committee’s report here. Warning: large PDF. What a surprise, it doesn’t support Darrell’s conclusions (nor Steno Sue’s) at all. It does show some confllicts in Wilson’s testimony where his memory is probably not correct—the same sort of discrepancy as tripped up murderer Michael Schiavo when he couldn’t keep his 911 calls straight!
On the other hand, the report does make clear the insistence on the part of DIA and the White House to believe the forgeries that claimed Iraq was buying yellowcake. Funny how little interest Darrell has in finding out who lied to dupe our intelligence agencies, isn;t it? And, of course, we know that the yellowcake sales, amounting to 1/6 of annual production, could not have been hidden and did not take place. given that there was no Iraqi nuclear program to use the stuff, all that’s really left to Darrell is to confuse the issue.
More on the partisan (not bipartisan) attempt to slime Wilson at Wiki.
synuclein
Yes
John Bolton
No.
Why I disagree: I’m nuttier than a goddamn fruitcake.
Harley
Yes
Kimmitt
Yes.
Darrell
I don’t find Mr. Lazarus to be a particularly honest fellow. If he has specific points of disagreement, please cite SPECIFICALLY what they are without burying any verification by posting a 500+ page pdf file and essentially saying ‘read it yourself’.
From the bipartisan Senate Intelligence committee investigation:
and this:
and as for Lazarus’ suggestion that Wilson was merely have some Michael Schiavo-like problems with minor discrepancies:
Ah yes, Wilson having claimed to know information about CIA documents for which he never had (unless his wife illegally gave them to him) access to
And when the Senate Committee asked Wilson how he could have come to such grandiose conclusions without any information:
“literary flair”? literary flair = slanderous lies. If leftists were honest, they would be up in arms about this.. but they’re not, are they? What does that say about them
Mike
Yes
Al Maviva
Yes with caveat.
“Sent by the CIA” implies official sanction. Based on the Rove/Cooper email, it appears that the mission may have originated in Ms. Plame’s section, without higher headquarters sanction. This is unusual because such a high level and politically sensitive mission would ordinarily be a “call home” issue in most agencies, requiring express permission or at least monitoring by somebody at the D.O. or D.C.I. level. Sensitive missions usually follow a 1-2-3 rule – 1 level higher than the first line supervisor (in the chain of command) closely controls the mission, 2 levels higher is informed of all activity; 3 levels higher is apprised of all significant information. That is pretty typical in most government agencies, except where there are stovepipes; either way it means the agency head or relevant WH staffer (NSC staff in this case, or Cheney) would have been briefed.
I would agree to “sent on a trip authorized at some level by the CIA.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I presume you have evidence of this conspiracy?
Well the bipartisan panel hasn’t ruled out that is was a “crazy report”. Besides, isn’t she entitled to her own opinion? This is America, afterall…
Yesterday’s report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched “yellowcake” uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.
Wilson’s reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.
Don
Yes, but what aspect of this could be up for debate? Isn’t the printing and quoting of the Wilson article a matter of historical record?
Emperor Larry Bernard
If we include the caveat “sent on a trip authorized at some level by the CIA.” then I can say (fundementally) Yes
#1) Yes she was in DC and yes she WAS a covert agent ( but was not at the time of the so called outing)
#2)YES… now how he investigated… that is something subject for debate but he did go over and ask his buddies over there what was what
#3) -with the mentioned edit- yes
#4) Yes: though his motives here are questionable
Emperor Larry Bernard
If we include the caveat “sent on a trip authorized at some level by the CIA.” then I can say (fundementally) Yes
#1) Yes she was in DC and yes she WAS a covert agent ( but was not at the time of the so called outing)
#2)YES… now how he investigated… that is something subject for debate but he did go over and ask his buddies over there what was what
#3) -with the mentioned edit- yes
#4) Yes: though his motives here are questionable
Mike
Darrell,
The part of the Senate report you seem to like so much was NOT the “bipartisan” ENDORSED report. It was an add-on put there by the Rethuglican leadership after the fact.
John, Darrell continues to insult us at every turn. You warned us all not to continue the insults. Please address this.
Fledermaus
rogue CIA agent who conspired with her husband to foster erroneous intelligence on Saddam
p.lukasiak
Highly conditional “yes”.
the statement says “wrote an editorial critical of the Bush administration and many claims made by the Bush administration”….
Wilson’s piece was not “highly critical of…many claims made by the Bush administration.” It focussed on the single “niger/uranium” claim.
Indeed, if you actually read the piece, its not really “highly critical” as much as “highly questioning” of the Bush administration’s handling of intelligence — with the specific claim that 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.
Jess
Yes.
And regarding the honor or lack thereof of Wilson and Plame, what does that have to do with Rove’s outrageous behavior? Wilson and Plame did not break the law, however much you might disagree with their actions; the question is to what degree Rove fucked up in his desire to silence all dissent, and to what degree the White House backed him in this.
BumperStickerist
Yes – minor quibbles with some phraseology.
But I’m getting the feeling that I’m about to be asked to invest in a multi-level marketing opportunity that’s not a pyramid scam called ‘Amway’.
Darrell
Translation: “mommy, I just pooped my pants..Do something!”
god you are a pathetic little whiner. How do you live with yourself?
Oh, and which parts of “the Senate report you seem to like” was not bi-partisan endorsed? I linked to a Washington Post news story and cited direct quotes from it. Are their facts being disputed? Where, specifically?
Andrew J. Lazarus
Let’s see, you can follow my link and read the Senate report itself, or you can follow Darrell’s link and get an inaccurate, biased summary that, as we have explained several times, conflated the bipartisan report with a partisan addendum that was generally rejected. Poor Darrell, those official gOP talking points must be getting harder and harder to type without falling over laughing.
Bob
Yes.
Can we vote on Darrell next?
Darrell
Such substantive insights coming from you leftie kooks. I’m feelin’ the love
Mike
Darrell,
I have been called worse by far better than you.
Yes, there was a very partisan add-on to the bipartisan report. It was added by Pat Roberts after the fact and was not accepted by the democrats on the committee. That is where the quotes you pulled from the WaPo article came from. But of course, you have already read the report and know that, right?
Darrell
Which points are you disputing? Did Wilson not explain his lying inconsistencies by saying it was all “literary flair”? Which parts of the Washinton Post news story are you claiming to be erroneous?
And just because a Republican makes a statement, backed by facts, does not necessarily make it less factual
ppgaz
Well, there ya go. It’s a Darrell thread now.
Party’s over. Please check above and below your seat for personal belongings.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Darrell, an even better version of the Committee Report is here, where it is text PDF (hence searchable) and not a graphic. So I typed in your alleged direct quote “admitted that he had no direct knowledge”, and the only match is on page 455 (physical pages as numbered in PDF). The following paragraph is (my emphasis)
Now, is there any doubt in your mind that your quote does not represent a finding of the bipartisan commission? Four pages earlier, the section in which this quote is found is labeled Additional Views of Chairman Pat Roberts joined by Senator Christopher S. Bond, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, that is, a minority even of the Republicans on the committee.
So I think we are on notice: you can no longer pretend to be an innocent dupe when coppying the GOP Talking points that Wilson was found to be a liar by a bipartisan committee. From now on if you choose to make such statements, we know you are a goddam liar. Clear enough?
Mr Furious
Nicely done up top Lazarus, and down here. You are doing yeoman’s work fighting off Darrell and his bullshit.
4. Yes. And I believe it was on his own (or with an agent) not from the NYT.
arkabee
yes
arkabee
yes
arkabee
yes
Defense Guy
Yes.
Late returning to the party. The statement, as written seems accurate.
Jackmormon
Yes.