Alright, here is what we agree on, for now:
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.
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 Huseein wasa 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.
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.
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.
Time to move forward:
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 see how this goes. ‘Yes” if you agree, and “No” if you disagree and why.
Mr Furious
Yes, I agree. Though I wouldn’t give the media, at the time, credit for anything close to “scrutiny.”
Brad R.
Yes.
Blue Neponset
Yes
Francis
yes, but it’d be helpful to continue giving dates at this point, since the timeline (who contacted whom when) becomes critical. so please add the date on which the op-ed appeared.
Ian
Yes
Andrew J. Lazarus
Yes.
chris m
Yes
db
No.
I would like to say Yes but I will say No for this picky reason:
“this led to a concerted effort by Republicans and the administration to discredit Wilson.”
I would not want it to be confused that ALL Republicans were complicit with the administration in this if the administration is determined to have been involved.
Can we be more precise about Republicans (i.e., the RNC, Mehlman, Gillespie, John Cole, etc)? Do we need to be precise about who in the administration, too?
Rick
No; please establish what was “concerted,” as opposed to telling the story of how the African safaari came about, and what the finding were. Of course, the admin and Pubbies generally were fine with diminishing Wilson, the “stand up guy” (and Kerry advisor).
Cordially…
Frank
Yes, but don’t you mean Wilson’s op ed reappeared? Wilson’s views became current/interesting again? (Though oddly, few people in the media were yet willing to state the obvious: “President Bush decieved the nation into an unnecessary war.” I don’t suppose you are yet willing to face the facts and add that last.
Defense Guy
No, for the reasons pointed to by both Rick and db. It is an assumption of facts not yet in evidence.
over it
Yes.
Frank
Would the rightwingers prefer a formulation more like: “Republican talking points began to circulate questioning Wilson’s credibility?”
Mr Furious
John, in order to get Rick and db to sign on, you could modify it to say “many Republicans and the Administration…” or “the Administration and its supporters.”
Or you could be completely honest and say “plenty of Republican loudmouths in office, the Administration and its supporters, lackeys and minions, the rightie blogoshere and talk radio propaganda arm, as well as its official news branch, FOX.”
waddayaknow
Yes
CaseyL
Yes.
jcricket
I’d say Yes, but putting in the timeline (when did the op-ed appear) and some details about the efforts to discredit Wilson (name names) would be more precise.
For example, Rove called 6 reporters trying to discredit Wilson. That’s a fact. There are enough specific instances of Rove, Libby, McLellan, etc. that I think it would help.
Tom Delay sent a mail bomb to the president with a return address of Joseph Wilson’s house trying to implicate him in a crime. That’s not a fact.
Tim F
Yes.
Tim F
Yes. You knew this was where you’d start losing the ‘base.’
Tim F
Airheaded button-pushing. Of course I compound it by posting a third time. Grumble.
Anderson
Yes.
mimi
Yes, they were attempting to discredit the discrediting of 16 words.
Marcus Wellby
Ha! My answer exactley
Aaron
“Concerted” is a loaded word. If you remove it, the tone changes and yet the statement remains essentially true.
I also wonder about the word “discredit” which has the aura that original Wilson claims deserved “credit.” Perhaps refute is more neutral.
db
Quoting Furious:
“John, in order to get Rick and db to sign on, you could modify it to say “many Republicans and the Administration…” or “the Administration and its supporters.””
Or it could be modified to completely remove reference to Republicans (unless we get specific about which Republicans). Unless we are going to get specific about which Republicans (generally and broadly referenced in this statement) then why refer to them so generally? Otherwise, it should follow that we could include Democrats in this “concerted” effort because I am sure we could find at least one Democratic reporter who, knowingly or unknowingly, was involved in the effort to peddle this crap. So does that mean we should also assign blame generally to ALL Democrats because a handful were unknowingly buying into the story?
It may appear that I am being too sensitive but I am sure Democrats don’t enjoy being labeled as ALL being complicit in the bad actions of a few.
p.lukasiak
YES! YES! YES!
note to Francis…(Wilson’s piece appeared July 6, 2003)
Jeff Medcalf
No. I could agree with this:
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.
p.lukasiak
I also wonder about the word “discredit” which has the aura that original Wilson claims deserved “credit.” Perhaps refute is more neutral.
discredit is the correct word, because
1) The Times piece was being presented as “credible”
2) The effort was not to “refute” Wilson’s factual account of his trip, but to impeach Wilson’s credibility.
Think of it in “courtroom” terms. The White House was making very little effort to disprove what Wilson had actually written — they didn’t try to provide other facts that drew the reliability of Wilson’s tale into question. Instead, they tried to present Wilson to the “jury” as someone who was not credible.
Go back and read some of the right wing blogs from that period, and you will see the effort to discredit WILSON, and not “refute” Wilson’s story.
neil
Yes
sidereal
I haven’t commented on any of these yet. Just assume my abstention = yes.
I just wanted to point out that one of the amazing things about this exercise, besides the tedious frustration it must cause John, is that it’s pushed people, at least temporarily, from going for the Kos/Freeper-style most extreme possible formulation of any assertion to recommending the most neutral formulation, just to get people from the other side to come to agreement. I swear, there’s a kernel for the revitalization of the Republic in there somewhere.
aaron pacy
sidereal..I feel similar.Because of this thoughtful discusion…this…laying of a groundwork of facts… I’ve had this amazing feeling of CLARITY in the middle of a very heated national debate. It’s…a rather warm and fuzzy feeling….or is that the Long Island Iced Tea I’m drinking?
Nash
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.
ron
1.) Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, was stationed in Washington at the time of her outing, and previously had been a covert agent.
_______the way I understand it.. she was between covert jobs…
saying she had previously been a covert agent makes it seem like she was
no longer a covert agent.
If a car salesman goes home for supper is he still a car salesman?