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.