Ok- some blowback from the right over this version of Step #8:
8.) It was within the context of renewed media scrutiny of pre-war WMD intelligence and administration claims that Joseph Wilson’s op-ed piece appeared, and this led to a concerted effort by Republicans and the administration to discredit Wilson.
Let’s try this re-write:
8.) It was within the context of renewed media scrutiny of pre-war WMD intelligence and administration claims that Joseph Wilson’s op-ed piece
appearedwas published, and this led toa concertedan effortby Republicansmany Republicans and the administration to discredit Wilson.
Can we get consensus on that? OK- this one is even better:
8.) It was within the context of renewed media scrutiny of pre-war WMD intelligence and administration claims that Joseph Wilson’s op-ed piece appeared, and this led to an effort by Republican partisans, including some in the administration, to discredit Wilson personally, as well as efforts by the administration and others to refute Wilson’s charges.
Can we agree on that? And again, we are trying to word this so that we can achieve consensus on the basic facts as most everyone sees them.
Harley
Oui!
Harley
Oui!
Defense Guy
Still a big no for me. It might be fair to say that the administration and many Republicans took issue with Wilsons claims.
Frank
Yeah. I still think my phrasing: “Republican talking points began to circulate questioning Wilson’s credibility?”
Posted by Frank at July 14, 2005 10:37 AM is better though.
over it
Yes
Rick Moran
Sorry John…
As this link to an interview with Wilson shows, he was talking with the press for 7 months prior to his Op-Ed in the Times.
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/50/news-ehrenreich.php
That Op-Ed had nothing whatsoever to do with any “renewed media scrutiny.” He had been trying to discredit the administration for months.
Anderson
Rick, you’re not reading John’s # 8. He says it was the op-ed that led to Republican efforts to discredit Wilson. And John never says that the “renewed media scrutiny” was caused by the op-ed; rather, the scrutiny was ongoing, and it was amidst same (that “context” word) that the op-ed appeared and lit the Republicans’ tails.
Anyway, “yes.”
Jeff Medcalf
No.
Not sure if I qualify as “the right”, but I would agree if the statement denoted two different efforts, one by Republican partisans (including some in the administration) to discredit Wilson personally, and another to substantively refute his charges.
Mr Furious
Still a “yes” for me.
Jeff Medcalf
Yes on the new formulation.
Jeff Medcalf
Yes on the new formulation.
For information, what is the minimum time between posts?
db
No…. explanation to follow, but first…
Quoting Harley:
“Oui!”
Funny that support for this has to be expressed in French.
I say No for the reference to “many Republicans” and the point about “media scrutiny”.
1)
I can agree that, perhaps, perhaps, today “many Republicans” are involved in trying to discredit Wilson. But was this the case immediately following the Wilson and Novak pieces? I don’t think so (correct me if I am wrong) but I think it is more the case now that Rove’s ass is on the line.
2) “media srutiny” was the context in which the Wilson was published? I did a quick Lexis-Nexis search on “Iraq WMD” from the dates of June 21, 2003 (arbitrarily selected) to July 6, 2003 (when Wilson’s piece appeared). 12 articles on the topic and all the articles were in British/Australian papers (NOT one in an American paper!). A similar search from July 7, 2003 (Novak’s column was on July 11) to July 23, 2003 (arbitrarily selected to give roughly same time period as the first search) shows 32 articles on the topic (and again I see only 1-2 articles in the American press on it).
Media scrutiny was hardly the context in which Wilson’s piece appeared unless you were living in London at the time.
Frank
ok
John Cole
DB- Search for ‘sixteen words.’ You could start at the Daily Howler.
Steve
Maybe “renewed scrutiny” is better than “renewed media scrutiny,” I dunno. You have to drag the media kicking and screaming to any real investigation. I give it a yes either way.
BinkyBoy
Yes
db
yes
neil
I agree, this one is better.
Phil Smith
yes
db
I would agree with this but I wonder why it is being mentioned that “in the context of renewed media scrutiny.” Is this to imply that Wilson only did this because of this scrutiny (that he would not have done so otherwise)? Because he’s an egotistical media-hound?
I really have no basic problems with the current wording but wonder why this is relevant to the facts of what happened. What does it contribute?
p.lukasiak
Yes, but with the caveat that there was very little effort made to “refute” what Wilson had written — the effort was to discredit/belittle Wilson.
Trevor
Yes
Birkel
John Cole,
This is truly an inspired effort but nonetheless pointless.
p.lukasiak and others will never admit that any of Wilson’s charges were even dented, much less disproven. So the best you can hope to accomplish is to get people to agree to a timeline about which their preconceptions can be affixed. At best.
Tim F
Yes.
Tom Johnson
Yes.
Molly McRae
Sidney Blumenthal has an article in Salon that outlines some of the key events.
Mason
Yes.
Dodd
Regarding the third formulation, I can’t agree. Rather than saying “discredit Wilson personally” – which carries unjustifiably (given that Wilson *was* lying, shilling for the President’s enemies, and hawking a book) perjorative connotations – I would say something more along the lines of “point out the contradictions between Wilson’s official report and his frequent public comments on what it contained.” Or simply skip that part altogher and go straight to “efforts by the administration and others to refute Wilson’s charges.”
Darrell
I feel the exact same way, which is why I can’t say yes. Furthermore, bringing up Wilson’s NYT op-ed minimizes to the extreme what amounts to a PR jihad on the part of Wilson. Wilson appeared on 30+ talk shows for chrisssakes, and all that is mentioned is one op-ed? Talk about understating.. in addition, he willingly passed lies about the forged documents to Pincus which appeared in the Washington Post. Nope, Wilson did MUCH, MUCH more than simply write an op-ed.. he really did go to extreme lengths to create a sh*tstorm… basically backing the administration into a corner to respond to his falsehoods (aka lies).
If there is some way to convey that:
A) Wilson started it, and he went to EXTREME lengths (I believe 30-odd talk shows + op-eds + passing on info to other editorialists and reporters + writing a book about it, easily qualifies as “extreme lengths”), including the telling of lies on substantive matters. It was much, much more than one op-ed
B) As a result, what administration wouldn’t respond after what Wilson did FIRST? He was out there telling what we now know to be outright lies.. let’s put it in perspective, ok?
Since JohnC is the wordmeister, I’ll leave it up to him. But without somehow conveying my points A and B, I find the wording too slanted as it stands to agree with it
Jeff Medcalf
Dodd, since I wrote the reformulation, I’ll defend it. I had the same objection as originally written, but it is undeniable that there were Republican partisans trying to personally discredit Wilson. It’s also undeniably true that there were people in the administration and others trying to substantively refute Wilson’s charges.
This does not require a position yet to be taken on whether or not Wilson’s charges were true, nor on who might whether a given person might have been trying to discredit Wilson, refute his charges, neither or both.
Gus diZerega
Yes- And it is fascinating to watch the Republican partisans on this list use logic they would have rightfully attacked as inane had it been (and when it was) employed by defenders of Clinton over Lewinsky.
Darrell
Apples and oranges. Linda Tripp was backed into a corner into going public, Joseph Wilson intentionally went public.
Linda Tripp, to my knowledge, did not lie. Joseph Wilson has been caught in at least 2 outright lies, and several instances of using “literary flair”
But thanks for playing. Come again
db
Response to Darrell (and JC indirectly):
If you feel exactly the same way as me by referencing something I said, then I should take blame for not wording what I said correctly. I say this because you say you agree with me and then go on to say things I cannot absolutely agree with. So we do NOT feel the same way.
I am just wondering what is the point of mentioning “media scrutiny” in the context of Wilson’s piece. In other words, I disagree with such reference for the very reasons that you then go to purport – that Wilson was a media hound going all over the talk show circuit.
So in speaking for you since you have spoken for me, you should agree with JC’s current phrasing because it implies exactly what you accuse Wilson of doing.
Jeff Medcalf
John, correct me if I am wrong, but as I see it the point of this exercise is to see how far we can come to agreement on facts without resorting to opinions. For example, the last point of agreement should be the one right before, “Therefore, Karl Rove broke the law.” or “Therefore, Joe Wilson is a serial liar who was trying to embarrass the administration for purely political reasons.”
If I am correct as to the point, than Darrell’s point A is premature, because who started it is not yet at issue in the thread of facts, and a matter of opinion in any case; and Darrell’s point B is irrelevant, speaking to motive as opposed to events.
By the way, I think that this is one of the best things I’ve seen in the blogosphere in a long time, and it makes me wonder if there’d be any draw in a site that does this on a full-time basis on a number of topics, to try to reach consensus on facts so that all sides are arguing the same points, rather than moving the goalposts every time their opponents make a good point.
Darrell
db, I interpreted your comment to mean that you were questoning whether Wilson came forward only AFTER, AND AS A RESULT OF media scrutiny… he certainly did not. He placed himself at the very center of the media controversy.. my mistake if you intented to say something different
Defense Guy
As an aside, and for purely partisan reasons. If Wilson is charged with perjury, and Rove keeps his job, I think it likely that we will see a meltdown of epic proportions by some of our left leaning friends on these threads.
That will be really sweet, but only because I’m an eeeeeevil neocon.
Darrell
I disagree. As #8 stands right now, it ALREADY states that the administration was responding to A)Wilson’s op-ed and B) to other ‘media scrutiny’.
Since specific mention of Wilson’s op-ed and how media scrutiny led the adminsration to respond, then it’s already in the wording of #8.. how then could my bringing it up be ‘premature’?
Darrell
In the interest of bipartisan ‘bridge building’, let me mull over the wording some more.
Jon H
Here’s something new, a standing Executive Order which Henry Waxman just reminded the White House about:
The executive order requires that “at a minimum,” the agency must “promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards.”
(via Tapped.)
db
Darrell,
“db, I interpreted your comment to mean that you were questoning whether Wilson came forward only AFTER, AND AS A RESULT OF media scrutiny… he certainly did not. He placed himself at the very center of the media controversy.. my mistake if you intented to say something different”
Okay, we may be talking about the same thing but from different angles; I think what you are pointing it should be an entirely different step in this process (why Wilson came out).
Step #8, as it is (in my opinion), is making the motives of both Wilson and the administration suspect. Current wording allows for Wilson to be accussed of unnecessarily whoring himself to the media. Whether that is the case or not is beside the point.
Step 8: Wilson came out. Administration Responded.
JG
http://crookedtimber.org/2005/07/14/another-bite-at-the-apple/
Darrell
I would prefer see: Wilson came out in a very big, and very public way. Administration responded. But I can agree with your statement ‘as is’
One other thing, contrary to what you wrote, I never commented or speculated on this thread as to *why* Wilson came out, although I think it’s obvious
Jon H
Here’s more information about that executive order.
The relevant portion about sanctions:
Sec. 5.7. Sanctions. (a) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office finds that a violation of this order or its implementing directives may have occurred, the Director shall make a report to the head of the agency or to the senior agency official so that corrective steps, if appropriate, may be taken.
(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently:
(1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;
(2) classify or continue the classification of information in violation of this order or any implementing directive;
(3) create or continue a special access program contrary to the requirements of this order; or
(4) contravene any other provision of this order or its implementing directives.
(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.
(d) The agency head, senior agency official, or other supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order.
(e) The agency head or senior agency official shall:
(1) take appropriate and prompt corrective action when a violation or infraction under paragraph (b), above, occurs; and
(2) notify the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office when a violation under paragraph (b)(1), (2) or (3), above, occurs.
Jon H
Sorry, that Executive Order can be read in its entirety here.
Darrell
Jon H, I am hardly one to talk, but you are polluting the thread with off-topic postings.. you aren’t even responding to another poster.. you are introducing new off-topic info. Take it to one of “my” flame threads or another appropriate place, ok?
JG
The beginnings of the ‘we outed her because he made us do it’ excuse. Read the crookedtimbers article.
db
Darrell:
“One other thing, contrary to what you wrote, I never commented or speculated on this thread as to *why* Wilson came out, although I think it’s obvious”
You’re right. You did not say why Wilson came out.
The “why” is left wide open by current phrasing of Step 8 (in the context of media scrutiny), though. It could be:
-He and his wife had an axe to grind
-He’s a media whore
-He was doing his patriotic duty
-The media egged him on
Who knows? I would just like to know what is the relevance of “context of media scrutiny” to Wilson’s coming out. If it is essential to Step 8, then let’s leave it in.
Cliff
Yes.
And a big Hahaha to Darrell’s three words “Wilson started it”. That phrase, I think, perfectly captures the level of maturity we’re dealing with here.
Tony Alva
Yes.
Darrell
Who started it is entirely relevant.. It’s key. The administration did not just decide one day “hey, let’s go after Joe Wilson”. They were in fact backed into a corner into responding after his very public (again, 30+ talk shows, editorials, book, etc) attacks on the administration
Darrell
I think it’s misleading language. I like your “Wilson came out. Administration responded”. That wording doesn’t suggest anything other than what is says. How ’bout it John Cole?
Kirk Spencer
Yes.
db
Could it be essential in that the administration’s response was not just against (and because of) Wilson’s piece? That the administration was responding not just because of Wilson but also because of this “context of renewed media scrutiny”? (i.e., they would have come out slinging whether Wilson published his piece or not because it was more than just Wilson critiquing the administration?)
Rick
That’s about as accurate as I can expect, since I’m down on the host of this blog.
Cordially…
synuclein
Yes
Defense Guy
In the interest of bipartisanship, I will change my answer to Yes.
I concede that some on my side where attacking the man’s character, such as it is. I, however, chose to try to refute his claims rather than just call him the lying partisan asshat that he is. Irony intended.
Still, it’s a Yes for me.
Jeff Medcalf
The point at issue states that “it was within the context of renewed media scrutiny of pre-war WMD intelligence and administration claims that Joseph Wilson’s op-ed piece appeared.”
This statement implies nothing about why the administration decided to do what it did after the report was published – that is unknowable anyway at this point, and as a matter of conjecture must be excluded from a debate to establish the facts of what happened – only that Wilson’s op-ed appeared in the context of a pre-existing debate about pre-war intelligence and claims made by the administration in the justification phase of the war, presumably including SecState Powell’s presentation to the UN. The rest of the conjecture is that the appearance of this op-ed led to efforts both to attack Wilson personally and to attack his claims substantively.
Do you agree that there was an ongoing debate about pre-war intelligence and administration claims prior to the publication of Wilson’s op-ed?
Do you agree that after the publication of Wilson’s op-ed, and because of that publication, for whatever reasons and regardless of “who started it”, that Republican partisans attempted to discredit Wilson, and people both in and outside of the administration substantively attacked Wilson’s claims?
If in fact you agree to both of these points, then it is not logically possible to also disagree with the conjecture at issue, because it comprises exactly those two points. What you appear to me to be doing is to propose a further conjecture, that the administration was justified in doing what they did because Joe Wilson was a liar and a publicity hound and “started it”. While it’s fine to propose a new conjecture, it’s also outside the scope of discussion on whether the current proposed conjecture is true.
Frankly, I think you and I would agree on the issue of whether or not Joe Wilson is a liar and was out to get the administration for partisan or institutional reasons. That is, however, beside the point, since Wilson’s motivation, character and accuracy are not at issue in conjectures 1-7 or 8 as proposed.
db
Damn, just keep talking to myself here…
I guess I can say yes if the placement of phrases in Section 8 does not entirely change what is being said.
Compare this to:
Major difference? What do ya think?
Cliff
Apologies to the thread for an OT sidetrack.
Darrell, this is OT and so I guess would belong in a Flame thread, but just out of curiousity.
Let’s just say there are indictments and that it turns out senior WH staffers did knowingly and intentionally blow Plame’s cover. (Note that I am not motives a part of this hypothesis.)
If that turns out to be the case, will your basic position then be that she deserved it?
Cliff
erm, Note that I am not _making_ motives a part of this hypothesis.
Darrell
But Jeff, as it stands now with your “in the context of renewed media scrutiny”, there is a strong implication that the administration would have gone after Wilson anyway. And THAT is unknowable conjecture, is it not? It’s a slant that doesn’t have to be there
db again has another excellent suggestion for you
Darrell
If an attractive girl goes running through the middle of central park (or some other dangerous area) by herself at 2:30 am wearing lots of large gold and diamond jewelry shouting insults and calling attention to herself.. if she is raped or robbed, did she ‘deserve’ it? No, but she certainly asked for it
Cliff
Thanks for the response, Darrell.
Jon H
Darrell writes: “If an attractive girl goes running through the middle of central park (or some other dangerous area) by herself at 2:30 am wearing lots of large gold and diamond jewelry shouting insults and calling attention to herself.. if she is raped or robbed, did she ‘deserve’ it?”
Well, now we know what you think of the character of the people you support: ‘wilding’ thugs, not to be trusted by anyone.
Nash
[apologies for cross post from other Part 8 thread, I wasn’t clever enough to look ahead and see that this had gone up.]
I told you, Rick, that I had retired. Obviously, I lied.
You can assess my credibility accordingly. Zilch is what I come up with on my calculator.
“[Events 1 occurred] [b]and this led to[/b] [Events 2 occurring]”
This claims a causality that isn’t in evidence. We do not agree that Events 2 occurred as described, so we cannot say that Events 1 caused them.
A suggestion for a more neutral and therefore accurate(?) representation:
“It was within the context of renewed media scrutiny of pre-war WMD intelligence and administration claims that Joseph Wilson’s op-ed piece appeared.”
Full stop–that describes what I’ve termed “Events 1.”
Then, for “Events 2,” rather than state flatly that this caused any specific group of people to retaliate, state neutrally something to the effect that in the next few days/weeks various press reports appeared which stated that senior officials in the Administration had subsequently contacted a number of reporters to contest or discredit Wilson’s claims. (Here you could specify Novak, Cooper and the Newsday reporters, for starters.)
Or does that not advance the bar enough, maybe.
Darrell
Yes JonH, that’s EXACTLY what I wrote, isn’t it? And you people wonder why you are thought of as dishonest kooks.. it’s because you *really are* dishonest kooks. Doubt me? Re-read my post, then read how Jon H characterizes it.
It’s too late, but I vote YES on #8 with the final, more neutral changes. And kudos to ‘db’ for his/her suggestions
Jeff Medcalf
Darrell, I think you misunderstand. The first part of the conjecture is: “It was within the context of renewed media scrutiny of pre-war WMD intelligence and administration claims that Joseph Wilson’s op-ed piece appeared.” The ‘this’ in the second part refers to the op-ed piece, not “the context of renewed media scrutiny”.
I don’t want to take over JC’s job here, so John, please tell me if I’m going overboard, but how about this formulation:
8.) It was within the context of renewed media scrutiny of pre-war WMD intelligence and administration claims that Joseph Wilson’s op-ed piece appeared. Publication of Wilson’s op-ed led to an effort by Republican partisans, including some in the administration, to discredit Wilson personally, as well as efforts by the administration and others to refute Wilson’s charges.
Alternately:
8.) It was within the context of renewed media scrutiny of pre-war WMD intelligence and administration claims that Joseph Wilson’s op-ed piece appeared. Intensified media questioning of the administration in the wake of the publication of Wilson’s op-ed led to an effort by Republican partisans, including some in the administration, to discredit Wilson personally, as well as efforts by the administration and others to refute Wilson’s charges.
In my mind, either of those is acceptable, as with the current formulation. I think the first of those two formulations is semantically identical with the current formulation, while the second shifts the emphasis from Wilson’s op-ed (cause of the intensified media scrutiny after publication) to the intensified speculation after publication, itself.
I get the feeling that we’re all pretty close to agreement, with only what I consider semantic quibbles remaining.
OK, I’m going to stop this now. I really don’t want JC’s job. Sorry, John, for overdoing it. Just consider me an overzealous fan of the format.