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.
Nikki
Yes.
Defense Guy
Yes.
demimondian
Yes
Steve
Yes, for the love of God.
Tim F
Yes.
Biting tongue until we get a good cat thread.
Zach
Yes, for the love of Steve.
scs
Si – but eager to get to the meat of the matter. Let’s all agree and move on.
Jeff
Yes, but Ann Coulter is a bigger and better-known meanie than Julianne Malveaux.
Keith
Yes.
Frank
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.
p.lukasiak
Yes.
(notwithstanding previously stated objections to points 2-4)
William Swann
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.
eileen from OH
Yes
eileen from OH
Marcus Wellby
Just a summary of what was said in past threads on this matter:
Lefty!
Talking Points!
Traitor!
MoveOn.org!
MMMMM, healthy discourse…
Trevor
Yes
Joshua
Yes.
Johno
Yes.
Johno
Yes.
Keith
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)
Blue Neponset
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.
chris m
yes
Tim F
Guffaw.
Kirk Spencer
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.
W.B. Reeves
Yes to 1-5 and I heartily applaud your efforts John. Good Luck with this enterprise.
ARROW
Yes
Seems to me he gave Saddam 3 days to get out, he probably would have been compelled not to invade if Saddam had complied.
neil
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.
Phil Smith
Yes.
synuclein
Yes,
(And I agree with Neil about clarification on the int’l community)
JG
Yes
Anderson
Yes. Indeed, “duh.”
Dan
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.
MC
“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…
Dan
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.
p.lukasiak
(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.)
mac Buckets
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.
Don
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.
Andrew J. Lazarus
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.
mac Buckets
Correction:
should be 1998…damn these giant fingers!
Tom Johnson
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.
HH
This Downing St. memo story definitely has legs so we will be debating it for a while…
Jackmormon
Yes
The Disenfranchised Voter
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.