• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

Innocent people don’t delay justice.

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

Come on, man.

Spilling the end game before they can coat it in frankl luntz-approved dogwhistles.

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

Don’t expect peaches from an apple tree.

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

This year has been the longest three days of putin’s life.

Never forget that he train is barreling down on Trump, even as he dances on the tracks.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

Today’s gop: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

If you are in line to indict donald trump, stay in line.

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

Jack be nimble, jack be quick, hurry up and indict this prick.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

“In the future, this lab will be a museum. don’t touch it.”

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Plame, Another Try

Plame, Another Try

by John Cole|  July 13, 20051:24 pm| 46 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

Alright- I am getting frustrated as hell with our progress in the Plame step-by-step approach. First things first- I do not have an end narrative planned, so I would appreciate it if some of you would quit implying that I am simply spinning for the White House. I am offering up statements, when we all agree with a basic statement, we move forward. That is it.

If I had an overall narrative I was advancing, I would just write it, post it, and shut down the comments. So, no more bitching about what facts are included- yes or no on why a statement should or should not be included. If you have a possible statement you wuld like included, mail it to me.

Now, on to what we agree on:

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.

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.

Previous attempts at moving forward have failed miserably, so here is another stab:

5.) After 9/11, the administration advanced the argument that it was no longer acceptable to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, as he had used chem/bio weapons in the past, it was believed (or at least asserted) that he had stockpiles of weapons, he seemed intent on obtaining WMD, etc. Thus, a main argument used to sell the necessity of the war in Iraq was that he should no longer be allowed to possess WMD. This was not the only argument for removing Hussein from power, but was the focal argument for galvanizing support within the general American public.

I am treating points one through 4 as established points of agreement. Commentary should be limitied to “Yes” if you agree with statement #5, or “No” and the reasons you disagree. The statement should be analyzed for the veracity of that stament alone, and not for how it may be used in the future (and yes, Paul Lukasiak, I am talking to you). This Rove/Plame issue is not going anywhere, there will be plenty of time in the future to deal with it thoroughly.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Bolton
Next Post: Plame, Step #6 »

Reader Interactions

46Comments

  1. 1.

    Nikki

    July 13, 2005 at 1:28 pm

    Yes.

  2. 2.

    Defense Guy

    July 13, 2005 at 1:29 pm

    Yes.

  3. 3.

    demimondian

    July 13, 2005 at 1:32 pm

    Yes

  4. 4.

    Steve

    July 13, 2005 at 1:32 pm

    Yes, for the love of God.

  5. 5.

    Tim F

    July 13, 2005 at 1:38 pm

    Yes.

    Biting tongue until we get a good cat thread.

  6. 6.

    Zach

    July 13, 2005 at 1:39 pm

    Yes, for the love of Steve.

  7. 7.

    scs

    July 13, 2005 at 1:42 pm

    Si – but eager to get to the meat of the matter. Let’s all agree and move on.

  8. 8.

    Jeff

    July 13, 2005 at 1:42 pm

    Yes, but Ann Coulter is a bigger and better-known meanie than Julianne Malveaux.

  9. 9.

    Keith

    July 13, 2005 at 1:43 pm

    Yes.

  10. 10.

    Frank

    July 13, 2005 at 1:43 pm

    Yes.

    Ignoring your rules for the moment, I don’t think you should feel so frustrated. It seems to me you have made good progress on an oddly controversial issue.

  11. 11.

    p.lukasiak

    July 13, 2005 at 1:47 pm

    Yes.

    (notwithstanding previously stated objections to points 2-4)

  12. 12.

    William Swann

    July 13, 2005 at 1:53 pm

    Yes.

    I’m new to this, by the way, and intrigued. Our Plame thread was the first one over on Centerfield to get over 100 posts. There is virtually no agreement in the two factions on that thread.

  13. 13.

    eileen from OH

    July 13, 2005 at 1:53 pm

    Yes

    eileen from OH

  14. 14.

    Marcus Wellby

    July 13, 2005 at 2:00 pm

    Just a summary of what was said in past threads on this matter:

    Lefty!
    Talking Points!
    Traitor!
    MoveOn.org!

    MMMMM, healthy discourse…

  15. 15.

    Trevor

    July 13, 2005 at 2:02 pm

    Yes

  16. 16.

    Joshua

    July 13, 2005 at 2:10 pm

    Yes.

  17. 17.

    Johno

    July 13, 2005 at 2:11 pm

    Yes.

  18. 18.

    Johno

    July 13, 2005 at 2:12 pm

    Yes.

  19. 19.

    Keith

    July 13, 2005 at 2:13 pm

    I think you need to go back to No. 1 and clarify it as follows:

    Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, was stationed in Washington at the time of her outing, and had previously been a covert agent. Her status at the time of her outing is not publicly known at this time.

    (No 1 as written is technically correct, but it could be interpreted that you accept the pro-Rove spin that she was no longer covert in July 2003)

  20. 20.

    Blue Neponset

    July 13, 2005 at 2:14 pm

    First off…kudos to you John for trying to get the story straight but…

    No.

    I don’t believe this statement is accurate:

    “the administration advanced the argument that it was no longer acceptable to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power”

    It was my impression that if Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions and disarmed completely and verifiably (if that is a word) Bush & Co. would have been fine with allowing him to stay in power.

  21. 21.

    chris m

    July 13, 2005 at 2:15 pm

    yes

  22. 22.

    Tim F

    July 13, 2005 at 2:16 pm

    It was my impression that if Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions and disarmed completely and verifiably (if that is a word) Bush & Co. would have been fine with allowing him to stay in power.

    Guffaw.

  23. 23.

    Kirk Spencer

    July 13, 2005 at 2:19 pm

    Yes.

    And Keith, while I agree the adverb “previously” is too vague to be definitive, it does allow this factfinding to continue instead of hanging up on whether/when such status ended. I suspect that if the chain that’s building fails on that point, we’ll revisit it.

  24. 24.

    W.B. Reeves

    July 13, 2005 at 2:21 pm

    Yes to 1-5 and I heartily applaud your efforts John. Good Luck with this enterprise.

  25. 25.

    ARROW

    July 13, 2005 at 2:23 pm

    Yes

    It was my impression that if Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions and disarmed completely and verifiably (if that is a word) Bush & Co. would have been fine with allowing him to stay in power.

    Seems to me he gave Saddam 3 days to get out, he probably would have been compelled not to invade if Saddam had complied.

  26. 26.

    neil

    July 13, 2005 at 2:24 pm

    Yes!

    Except it’s way too long. Also, the WMD-speak was also the focal argument for galvanizing support within the international community (remember Colin Powell’s Famous UN Speech?) and I think this is relevant. And I seem to remember that the other “reasons” were painted as ancillary benefits, at the time, and that WMD and the violation of UN Res. 1441 were The Reason. But I realize that this steps on a few toes in the new right-wing consensus reality, so I’ll hold my tongue for the purposes of Plamery.

  27. 27.

    Phil Smith

    July 13, 2005 at 2:27 pm

    Yes.

  28. 28.

    synuclein

    July 13, 2005 at 2:29 pm

    Yes,

    (And I agree with Neil about clarification on the int’l community)

  29. 29.

    JG

    July 13, 2005 at 2:31 pm

    Yes

  30. 30.

    Anderson

    July 13, 2005 at 2:34 pm

    Yes. Indeed, “duh.”

  31. 31.

    Dan

    July 13, 2005 at 2:44 pm

    Can I say, “kinda?”

    I agree that WMD was not the only argument at the time, but certainly to focal argument. What I would disagree with was the stress you put on the past. Imminent threat, gathering threat, smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud, we know Saddam has mobile labs and we know where they are…they are in the areas around tikrit and bagdhad, etc. were the points they really used to rally Americans. While what Saddam had done in the past was talked about, it was the threat of his current stock piles of weapons and his seeking to buy Uranium in Niger (even mentioned in the state of the union) that were the selling points. Maybe I’m splitting hairs here, but just my thoughts.

  32. 32.

    MC

    July 13, 2005 at 2:44 pm

    “Quit implying that I am simply spinning for the White House…If I had an overall narrative I was advancing, I would just write it, post it, and shut down the comments.”

    …and then all you have to do is come out in support of public-financed stadium construction in NYC, and you could become Hugh Hewitt…

  33. 33.

    Dan

    July 13, 2005 at 2:45 pm

    Can I say, “kinda?”

    I agree that WMD was not the only argument at the time, but certainly to focal argument. What I would disagree with was the stress you put on the past. Imminent threat, gathering threat, smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud, we know Saddam has mobile labs and we know where they are…they are in the areas around tikrit and bagdhad, etc. were the points they really used to rally Americans. While what Saddam had done in the past was talked about, it was the threat of his current stock piles of weapons and his seeking to buy Uranium in Niger (even mentioned in the state of the union) that were the selling points. Maybe I’m splitting hairs here, but just my thoughts.

  34. 34.

    p.lukasiak

    July 13, 2005 at 2:56 pm

    (No 1 as written is technically correct, but it could be interpreted that you accept the pro-Rove spin that she was no longer covert in July 2003)

    Point of information:

    Although Plame remained “covert”, she segued from NOC to “State Department” cover after she married Wilson and had kids. (The difference being that NOC (non-official cover) was “deep cover” that did not provide her with diplomatic immunity if a “targeted” nation discovered that she was working for the CIA. NOC are the real “secret agents” — people with diplomatic passports are pretty much assumed to be working, on some level, for a nation’s intelligence services, and their activities are monitored accordingly. In other words, there is “covert” and then there is really “covert”, and Plame was “really covert” before she had her kids.)

  35. 35.

    mac Buckets

    July 13, 2005 at 3:02 pm

    Yes…if by “the administration advanced the argument that it was no longer acceptable to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power” you meant either

    a) to add “…while in violation of UN Resolution 1441,” or

    b) when you wrote “the administration,” you meant the Clinton Administration, which signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1988 that made advancing regime change in Iraq the official US policy. What I’m saying here is that Bush didn’t advance a new argument or a new policy w/r/t regime change because of Saddam’s intransigence — he, in fact, seemed to give Saddam some outs that Clinton did not.

  36. 36.

    Don

    July 13, 2005 at 3:10 pm

    No, exclusively because of this statement:

    “he should no longer be allowed to possess WMD.”

    Not because it’s not correct, but because it’s not sufficient. The statements and implications were “he should no longer be allowed to possess WMD because he will plausably use them against us or provide them to others to use against us.” Where us means the actual territory of the US or significant US interests.

    The difference in reaction to those two statements is significant.

  37. 37.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    July 13, 2005 at 3:11 pm

    Yes, as long as the final paragraph is understood as the claims of the Administration, not to be confused with external reality.

    I also echo Neil’s point (which I had not thought of myself) that WMD were the centerpiece of Colin Powell’s infamous PowerPoint, not one of whose slides, IIRC, turned out to be entirely correct.

  38. 38.

    mac Buckets

    July 13, 2005 at 3:17 pm

    Correction:

    b) when you wrote “the administration,” you meant the Clinton Administration, which signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1988 that made advancing regime change in Iraq the official US policy.

    should be 1998…damn these giant fingers!

  39. 39.

    Tom Johnson

    July 13, 2005 at 4:30 pm

    Yes.

    Sorry about calling previous text # 5 “weasel words”. What you are doing is a valuable service and you deserve the assumption of best intentions.

  40. 40.

    HH

    July 13, 2005 at 6:17 pm

    This Downing St. memo story definitely has legs so we will be debating it for a while…

  41. 41.

    Jackmormon

    July 13, 2005 at 6:52 pm

    Yes

  42. 42.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    July 13, 2005 at 6:56 pm

    I’m with Dan…kinda. I agree with his sentiments. The Administration depicted Saddam as an imminent threat. That was how they pushed the war.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. SoCalPundit says:
    July 13, 2005 at 2:06 pm

    MSM Involved In Massive Cover-Up In Plame Case

    As Powerline, Hugh Hewitt and the entire mechanism of the GOP has been saying for the last several days, the MSM, getting it wrong as usual, is failing to see the true illegalities in this story. The real crime is in the details the MSM is leaving out…

  2. The Glittering Eye says:
    July 13, 2005 at 4:29 pm

    Catching my eye: morning A through Z

    Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning: John Cole of Balloon Juice, one of the most reasonable guys in the blogosphere, is meticulously building a consensus of opinion on the Wilson/Plame/Novak/Rove matter. Step 2, Step 3, Step 4. I’ll be…

  3. Mark in Mexico says:
    July 13, 2005 at 10:41 pm

    Rove / Plame game: some adults are found

    “She was quite prepared to take the consequences and the judge had no choice, she understood that. I don’t see how it could have been avoided because the law is the law. She exhausted her appeals and had no place left to go.”

  4. Hyscience says:
    July 14, 2005 at 8:49 am

    On that Rove / Plame game: Some adults are found

    Mark In Mexico has performed the impossible – he has actually found a few adults amidst the crowd of talking heads, pundits, opiners, and editorializing left and right wing moonbats offering nothing more than left-wing smear and right-wing knee-jerk de…

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • WaterGirl on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:24pm)
  • zhena gogolia on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:24pm)
  • Brachiator on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:23pm)
  • trollhattan on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:22pm)
  • WaterGirl on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:22pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!