• 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.

American History and Black History Cannot Be Separated

Fani Willis claps back at Trump chihuahua, Jim Jordan.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

“That’s what the insurrection act is for!”

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

… among the most cringeworthy communications in the history of the alphabet!

The GOP is a fucking disgrace.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

Schmidt just says fuck it, opens a tea shop.

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

You cannot shame the shameless.

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

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

A lot of Dems talk about what the media tells them to talk about. Not helpful.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Plame Part #7

Plame Part #7

by John Cole|  July 13, 20054:30 pm| 52 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

There seems to be some general agreement so far, with the exception of one or two people. Let’s rehash (note- some slight edits):

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.

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 it *WAS PERCEIVED BY MANY AS* the focal argument for galvanizing support within the general American public *AND WITH THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY* (updated).

6.) On 28 January 2003, President Bush, stated the following during the annual State of the Union address:

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

That paragraph was one of 18 paragraphs in the part of speech *IN WHICH BUSH ASSERTED THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A THREAT*, and the veracity of the bolded words *LATER* became known as the “Sixteen Words” in an ensuing media firestorm *LATER ON IN THE YEAR WHEN NO WMD WERE FOUND IN IRAQ.*

Asteriks denote updates to the generally agreed upon statements to date. If you have a problem with 1-6, please note it in the comments. And now, one more for the day:

7.) Shortly after the State of the Union Address, Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, addressed the UN Security Council, presenting the administration’s case regarding Saddam Hussein.

Unmoved,The Security Council did not provide the authorization the United States had sought, yet Coalition forces proceeded to initiate Operation Iraqi Freedom on 20 March 2003. In the aftermath of the invasion, no WMD stockpiles were found.

This, and other developments we will discuss in other points, led to renewed focus on the intelligence used to advocate for the invasion.

Again, yes or no. Let’s clear all this up before we move on to the really thorny stuff. This is the last one for tonight, and tomorrow we will start anew, with revisions to Step #7, if necessary.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « SCOTUS Update
Next Post: Darrell’s Plame Flame Thread #2 »

Reader Interactions

52Comments

  1. 1.

    Tim F

    July 13, 2005 at 4:33 pm

    Yes.

    heh.

  2. 2.

    neil

    July 13, 2005 at 4:37 pm

    Yes, although I move to strike “unmoved.”

  3. 3.

    Defense Guy

    July 13, 2005 at 4:38 pm

    Yes.

    The discussion about why the security council voted the way they did can wait.

  4. 4.

    Tom Johnson

    July 13, 2005 at 4:45 pm

    Almost….I’d strike the word “yet”. It seems to place a value-judgement on the fact that the US sought, but did not receive Security Council authorization.

  5. 5.

    Mr Furious

    July 13, 2005 at 4:47 pm

    Yes, that’s what happened.

  6. 6.

    Zifnab

    July 13, 2005 at 4:49 pm

    I fail to see how anyone has assertained the “moved” – “unmoved” status of the UN. That said, there is nothing factually wrong about this statement.

    Yes.

  7. 7.

    demimondian

    July 13, 2005 at 4:51 pm

    Yes

  8. 8.

    MikeAdamson

    July 13, 2005 at 4:52 pm

    Yes

  9. 9.

    synuclein

    July 13, 2005 at 4:54 pm

    Yep

  10. 10.

    eileen from OH

    July 13, 2005 at 4:57 pm

    Yes.

    (reserving right to hopefully revisit the others at some point, specifically #4)

    eileen from OH

  11. 11.

    Anderson

    July 13, 2005 at 5:00 pm

    Yes.

  12. 12.

    John Cole

    July 13, 2005 at 5:03 pm

    Eileen- I forget what your objection was…

  13. 13.

    JG

    July 13, 2005 at 5:05 pm

    Yes but didn’t we ask for a second vote which we eventually cancelled when a head count revelaed it was going the same way as the first?

  14. 14.

    Harley

    July 13, 2005 at 5:07 pm

    Yep.

  15. 15.

    Keith

    July 13, 2005 at 5:12 pm

    Yes.

  16. 16.

    David Janes

    July 13, 2005 at 5:18 pm

    Yes.

  17. 17.

    Tim F

    July 13, 2005 at 5:19 pm

    JG,

    I propose that we vote on what John put in the text of this blog post.

  18. 18.

    Darrell

    July 13, 2005 at 5:19 pm

    Yes

    ____________

    JG, Bush wanted a UNSCR vote, remember the “show your cards” business? But France preemptively announced, before even reading the final resolution, that they would veto it.

  19. 19.

    Jeff Medcalf

    July 13, 2005 at 5:20 pm

    Yes.

    I would strike “yet” and make the clause (beginning with “Coalition”) a distinct sentence. This would add clarity, by removing the implied “disregard what has gone before” attached to works like yet, however, though and but.

    Not entirely sure where you are going, but it might also be worthwhile to note that this was not the first resolution on use of force to invade Iraq; though if you are aiming to see how far we can get on Wilson/Plame/Rove, that is irrelevant.

  20. 20.

    JG

    July 13, 2005 at 5:21 pm

    JG, Bush wanted a UNSCR vote, remember the “show your cards” business? But France preemptively announced, before even reading the final resolution, that they would veto it.

    Thanks.

  21. 21.

    Tim F

    July 13, 2005 at 5:25 pm

    Oh, I misunderstood what JG was asking about. NM.

  22. 22.

    Steve

    July 13, 2005 at 5:30 pm

    What, no one wants to argue that some suspicious tin can we found in Baghdad counts as WMD? I vote yes with the rest of this reasonable bunch.

  23. 23.

    Defense Guy

    July 13, 2005 at 5:33 pm

    I vote yes with the rest of this reasonable bunch.

    Since the evil neocons Darrell and I voted yes as well, does that mean we are reasonable as well?

  24. 24.

    Nikki

    July 13, 2005 at 5:37 pm

    Yes

  25. 25.

    Johno

    July 13, 2005 at 5:40 pm

    Yes.

  26. 26.

    Trevor

    July 13, 2005 at 6:03 pm

    Yes

  27. 27.

    Kirk Spencer

    July 13, 2005 at 6:05 pm

    Yes.

  28. 28.

    Kirk Spencer

    July 13, 2005 at 6:05 pm

    Yes.

  29. 29.

    foolishmortal

    July 13, 2005 at 6:07 pm

    Yes

    However, I must reiterate my frustration with the “a main argument” phrase. It could be that there were many excellent reasons to go to war in Iraq, but we only had a national debate regarding one of them. If I recall correctly, the “remaking the Middle East/Democracy Domino Theory” wasn’t floated until well after the congressional resolution authorising the use of force.
    This is of course speculation, but while I can well imagine the war having proceeded without the platitudes regarding the transformative power of democracy, the idea that, absent the WMD angle, the American people would have supported a war of choice to grant Iraqis suffrage strikes me as absurd.
    Hence my objection.

    And there’s “really thorny stuff”? God help us all.

  30. 30.

    JC

    July 13, 2005 at 6:07 pm

    Eh, well, this has gone past me now – “you had me at three oh, but you lost me at four-oh”.

    4. “and many claims made by the Bush administration” – Again, Wilson reported on his trip – what “many claims”?

    Here are the claims from the July 6th op-ed –

    “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”

    and

    “Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa” (Not a claim, really, statement of fact)

    “If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses”

    So what “many claims?”

    By the way, this was pointed out by P Lukusiak, and someone else, but that didn’t matter.

    5. This simply got too long – again, should have stayed with the initial one sentence claim, and switched the “one of” to main or primary. Where did the extra sentences come from?

    6. Qualified YES. High strength aluminum tubes was also a dud, but I grant that th 16 words caused most of the MEDIA firestorm.

    7. YES

    So at any rate, I’m out at 4.

  31. 31.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    July 13, 2005 at 6:46 pm

    Yes.

  32. 32.

    folkbum

    July 13, 2005 at 6:53 pm

    I know #1 was hashed out yesterday, but there’s a new piece out today by a contemporary of Plame’s in the Agency which reads, in part:
    For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. [. . .] The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O’Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey.

  33. 33.

    Jackmormon

    July 13, 2005 at 6:57 pm

    Yes.

  34. 34.

    eileen from OH

    July 13, 2005 at 7:01 pm

    John, re: my objection to #4, this is what is there now:

    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.

    Joseph Wilson’s editorial was NOT critical of “many claims of the Bush administration.” He was critical, and indeed the whole focus of the editorial, was about ONE “claim” of the administration – i.e., the African/Niger claim. For it was THAT claim about which he had specific knowledge.

    In short, Wilson, while he was obviously concerned with the lead-up to the war, did NOT address any claim specifically other than the African connection.

    Hence, my objection to #4.

    eileen from OH

  35. 35.

    Demdude

    July 13, 2005 at 7:39 pm

    Yes.

  36. 36.

    John Cole

    July 13, 2005 at 8:01 pm

    folkbum- we will address her status at the time of the ‘outing’ later. We were settling agrred upon facts that were obvious.

  37. 37.

    p.lukasiak

    July 13, 2005 at 8:14 pm

    Yes.

    (notwithstanding previously stated objections to aspects of “facts 2-4).

  38. 38.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    July 13, 2005 at 8:29 pm

    Yes, but I object to your use of the bullshit term “Operation Iraqi Freedom”.

    It is the Iraq War.

  39. 39.

    Jake S.

    July 13, 2005 at 8:52 pm

    On Point 7, yes.

    However, seeing as how I’ve gotten into this argument a bit on the late side, I’d have to say I have problems with Point 3. I still find the evidence of Plame’s recommendation of Wilson for the trip to be unconvincing. Instead, I will still hold to my understanding that this was a mission organized by the State Department. Unfortunately, without internal CIA and State documents falling from the sky and into our collective laps, there’s no way to determine this for fact.

  40. 40.

    Jonas Cord

    July 13, 2005 at 9:25 pm

    I still find the evidence of Plame’s recommendation of Wilson for the trip to be unconvincing. Instead, I will still hold to my understanding that this was a mission organized by the State Department. Unfortunately, without internal CIA and State documents falling from the sky and into our collective laps, there’s no way to determine this for fact.

    I don’t have it with me, but the Senate Intelligence Report states fairly clearly that Plame did recommend Wilson to her superiors, and that they lacked any other choices and went with him. Meanwhile, if I recall correctly State was used only to coordinate the trip and provide some contacts.

  41. 41.

    JC

    July 13, 2005 at 10:11 pm

    Also, as a matter of “meaning” of words – go back to #1 –

    “…and previously had been a covert agent”.

    Does this “previously” mean she WASN’T a covert agent, at the time of Rove’s leak? Isn’t that still up in the air?

    Or does this previously mean “earlier” she had been a covert agent?

  42. 42.

    CaseyL

    July 13, 2005 at 10:11 pm

    What is the purpose of this exercise?

    Is it to determine whether Rove outed a covert CIA op?

    If so, then all we need to know is what Rove knew, or should have known, about Plame’s status when he went journalist-shopping.

    Joe Wilson’s NY Times editorial is irrelevant.

    Unless the angle you’re going for is that political revenge is a legal justification for outing a covert CIA op?

  43. 43.

    John Cole

    July 13, 2005 at 10:32 pm

    It means that there is no argument whatsoever that at one time she was undercover. Everyone agrees on that.

    The point of this exercise is to slowly advance, fact by fact (as we see them and can agree on them), until we reach the point where we can no longer agree. Thus, since we all agree that she was at one time an undercover agent, that is why I phrased it that way. Later on, in subsequent points, we can debate other issues, like her current status.

    Again, I am trying not to advance any particular narrative, but I am trying to find where the actual point of departure is on what most people agree upon…

  44. 44.

    Jimmy Jazz

    July 13, 2005 at 10:47 pm

    Yes on 7.

    Re. #6: I submit that “not allowing Saddam to remain in power with WMD” was not the focus of the Bush argument. The focus was: allowing Saddam to remain in power with WMD was unacceptable because he might give the WMD to stateless terrorists.

    No one could reasonably argue that Saddam using WMD on any of his neighbors or on our forces was a reasonable threat, since we could have wiped him off the map if he ever did that (a course of action I would have wholeheartedly supported).

    Most of us anti-war folks believed that Saddam had some rump chem, and possibly bio weapons. The weakness of the pro war argument, at least to me and many others, is that a secular control freak like Saddam would never give these weapons to fundie terrorists.

  45. 45.

    Jimmy Jazz

    July 13, 2005 at 10:51 pm

    Sorry I meant 5, not 6.

  46. 46.

    Cliff

    July 14, 2005 at 12:39 am

    [Side note: John, I’d like to offer my general praise for your approach, and yeoman work, here — the scientific/technical troubleshooter approach (back up to last known good assumptions, work forward carefully) applied to disagreement. It’s difficult to stay rational and reasoned discussing these matters we feel strongly about, and this is a good framework to encourage the attempt. I say formalize the format a bit, lay down some ironcast rules, and this would be a killer regular feature on all sorts of subjects. Doesn’t have to aim towards agreement — just finding out where exactly the paths diverge is worthwhile.]

    I have some minor quibbles, and a big No on 5 with argument and citations.

    NOTE: A useful link: You can search all of Bush’s (and others’) speeches at VoteSmart.

    1) Yes

    2) Yes

    3) I would endorse “recommended or endorsed” — there is circumstantial evidence for both, but at this time unknowable. Not a critical difference, so Sure.

    4) Yes

    5) No.

    The “main argument” was not that “he should no longer be allowed to possess WMD” — that was a rhetorical next step following the central argument: Saddam is an urgent threat, and if we don’t Act Now, millions might die (see bolded quote). IOW, why should country X no longer be allowed to possess WMD, unlike say France or Israel? That reason why is the argument.

    The specific points used to sell the argument that He Is An Urgent Threat were 1) Saddam has or is about to have WMD, specifically (at times this was only implied) nuclear capabilities, and intends evil with them, and 2) Saddam has ties to terrorism in general and Al Qaeda specifically (the latter again at times was only implied; and a 9/11 link was at times implied but was not AFAIK explicitly stated by the admin).

    A few key citations, there are many more:

    • Bush refers to a “grave and gathering threat”, states “With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.”, 9/12/02
    • Bush again refers to a grave and gathering threat: “[…] Saddam Hussein’s regime has proven itself a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.” 9/14/02
    • Rumsfeld refers to an “immediate threat” 9/19/02 (use Bugmenot.com) (in clear contradistinction to an “imminent” threat, one supposes)
    • Bush says “Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror.”, “Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation.”, “I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he’s a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I’ve got a good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction, and he has used weapons of mass destruction, in his neighborhood and on his own people. He’s invaded countries in his neighborhood. He tortures his own people. He’s a murderer. He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. I take the threat seriously, and I’ll deal with the threat.”, 3/6/03

    I won’t bother going into the mushroom clouds or Cheney’s many quotes. The above should suffice to show that the central/main/focal argument being made for war was He Is An Urgent Threat. That is, in my opinion, the only persuasive argument one ever could make for a preemptive war and that is the the argument they made.

    6) Yes, although I seem to recall some comments at the time he made the statement, not just later — but not necessarily using that “sixteen words” phrase. I believe that particular phrase was pushed especially hard by right wing commentators (to make it seem nitpicking, eg, it’s just 16 words). Too pooped to do the research, so Yes.

    7) Yes.

  47. 47.

    Cliff

    July 14, 2005 at 12:57 am

    A few followup notes now that I’ve read actual comments:

    4) I withdraw my Yes and am holding him hostage until such time as my demands are met, my demands are a) replace “many claims” with “one claim” and eh… b) pancakes.

    Jimmy Jazz: “No one could reasonably argue that Saddam using WMD on any of his neighbors or on our forces was a reasonable threat, since we could have wiped him off the map if he ever did that (a course of action I would have wholeheartedly supported).”

    Whether or not anyone could reasonably argue so, argue so some did in at least one case: He has unmanned drones with the range to reach us. Not sure how strongly this was claimed or whether it was claimed by the admin, but it was put out there.

  48. 48.

    Mason

    July 14, 2005 at 2:13 am

    Yes.

  49. 49.

    Christie S.

    July 14, 2005 at 7:27 am

    Yes

  50. 50.

    whew

    July 14, 2005 at 7:38 am

    rr

  51. 51.

    BinkyBoy

    July 14, 2005 at 11:06 am

    Yes

  52. 52.

    folkbum

    July 14, 2005 at 1:27 pm

    Thanks, John. I was just a little confused by the syntax–as apparently JC was–which makes #1 sound like she had been undercover previous to Novak’s outing her, but not at the time.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Political Action

Postcard Writing Information

Recent Comments

  • Baud on Cold Grey Dawn Open Thread: Polling Hysteria (Sep 26, 2023 @ 5:58am)
  • Baud on Cold Grey Dawn Open Thread: Polling Hysteria (Sep 26, 2023 @ 5:53am)
  • Bruce K in ATH-GR on Cold Grey Dawn Open Thread: Polling Hysteria (Sep 26, 2023 @ 5:51am)
  • lowtechcyclist on Cold Grey Dawn Open Thread: Polling Hysteria (Sep 26, 2023 @ 5:49am)
  • JPL on On The Road – lamh26 – 2022 Birthday Trip to Italy! (Sep 26, 2023 @ 5:42am)

🎈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

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
What Has Biden Done for You Lately?

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

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)

Twitter / Spoutible

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

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Cole & Friends Learn Español

Introductory Post
Cole & Friends Learn Español

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

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

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

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

Email sent!