• 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.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

How can republicans represent us when they don’t trust women?

When we show up, we win.

Baby steps, because the Republican Party is full of angry babies.

You are so fucked. Still, I wish you the best of luck.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

“Cheese and Kraken paired together for the appetizer trial.”

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

“I never thought they’d lock HIM up,” sobbed a distraught member of the Lock Her Up Party.

If you’re pissed about Biden’s speech, he was talking about you.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

When do the post office & the dmv weigh in on the wuhan virus?

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”

If West Virginia and San Francisco had a love child.

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

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

This really is a full service blog.

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

It’s a new day. Light all those Biden polls of young people on fire and throw away the ashes.

Republicans don’t trust women.

Fani Willis claps back at Trump chihuahua, Jim Jordan.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Open Threads / Plame, Step #8

Plame, Step #8

by John Cole|  July 14, 200510:02 am| 33 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads

FacebookTweetEmail

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.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Gitmo/Abu Ghraib Connection
Next Post: Bush ‘Honesty’ Ratings »

Reader Interactions

33Comments

  1. 1.

    Mr Furious

    July 14, 2005 at 10:04 am

    Yes, I agree. Though I wouldn’t give the media, at the time, credit for anything close to “scrutiny.”

  2. 2.

    Brad R.

    July 14, 2005 at 10:05 am

    Yes.

  3. 3.

    Blue Neponset

    July 14, 2005 at 10:05 am

    Yes

  4. 4.

    Francis

    July 14, 2005 at 10:08 am

    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.

  5. 5.

    Ian

    July 14, 2005 at 10:13 am

    Yes

  6. 6.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    July 14, 2005 at 10:14 am

    Yes.

  7. 7.

    chris m

    July 14, 2005 at 10:17 am

    Yes

  8. 8.

    db

    July 14, 2005 at 10:19 am

    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?

  9. 9.

    Rick

    July 14, 2005 at 10:19 am

    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…

  10. 10.

    Frank

    July 14, 2005 at 10:30 am

    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.

  11. 11.

    Defense Guy

    July 14, 2005 at 10:30 am

    No, for the reasons pointed to by both Rick and db. It is an assumption of facts not yet in evidence.

  12. 12.

    over it

    July 14, 2005 at 10:36 am

    Yes.

  13. 13.

    Frank

    July 14, 2005 at 10:37 am

    Would the rightwingers prefer a formulation more like: “Republican talking points began to circulate questioning Wilson’s credibility?”

  14. 14.

    Mr Furious

    July 14, 2005 at 10:37 am

    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.”

  15. 15.

    waddayaknow

    July 14, 2005 at 10:39 am

    Yes

  16. 16.

    CaseyL

    July 14, 2005 at 10:40 am

    Yes.

  17. 17.

    jcricket

    July 14, 2005 at 10:43 am

    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.

  18. 18.

    Tim F

    July 14, 2005 at 10:44 am

    Yes.

  19. 19.

    Tim F

    July 14, 2005 at 10:44 am

    Yes. You knew this was where you’d start losing the ‘base.’

  20. 20.

    Tim F

    July 14, 2005 at 10:46 am

    Airheaded button-pushing. Of course I compound it by posting a third time. Grumble.

  21. 21.

    Anderson

    July 14, 2005 at 10:46 am

    Yes.

  22. 22.

    mimi

    July 14, 2005 at 10:47 am

    Yes, they were attempting to discredit the discrediting of 16 words.

  23. 23.

    Marcus Wellby

    July 14, 2005 at 10:55 am

    Yes, I agree. Though I wouldn’t give the media, at the time, credit for anything close to “scrutiny.”

    Ha! My answer exactley

  24. 24.

    Aaron

    July 14, 2005 at 10:57 am

    “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.

  25. 25.

    db

    July 14, 2005 at 10:59 am

    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.

  26. 26.

    p.lukasiak

    July 14, 2005 at 11:10 am

    YES! YES! YES!

    note to Francis…(Wilson’s piece appeared July 6, 2003)

  27. 27.

    Jeff Medcalf

    July 14, 2005 at 11:16 am

    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.

  28. 28.

    p.lukasiak

    July 14, 2005 at 11:26 am

    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.

  29. 29.

    neil

    July 14, 2005 at 11:41 am

    Yes

  30. 30.

    sidereal

    July 14, 2005 at 1:07 pm

    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.

  31. 31.

    aaron pacy

    July 14, 2005 at 1:43 pm

    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?

  32. 32.

    Nash

    July 14, 2005 at 2:57 pm

    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.

  33. 33.

    ron

    July 15, 2005 at 5:48 am

    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?

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • JML on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:35pm)
  • schrodingers_cat on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:29pm)
  • Msb on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:29pm)
  • Geminid on Take the Fucking Win (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:27pm)
  • lowtechcyclist on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:27pm)

🎈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

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

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)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

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

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

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

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

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

Email sent!