• 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.

In after Baud. Damn.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Polls are now a reliable indicator of what corporate Republicans want us to think.

She burned that motherfucker down, and I am so here for it. Thank you, Caroline Kennedy.

The republican caucus is covering themselves with something, and it is not glory.

There are some who say that there are too many strawmen arguments on this blog.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Trumpflation is an intolerable hardship for every American, and it’s Trump’s fault.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

I swear, each month of 2025 will have its own history degree.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

If you’re gonna whine, it’s time to resign!

Today’s gop: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

Beware of advice from anyone for whom Democrats are “they” and not “we.”

There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

Humiliatingly small and eclipsed by the derision of millions.

Shut up, hissy kitty!

With all due respect and assumptions of good faith, please fuck off into the sun.

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

Republicans cannot even be trusted with their own money.

We can’t confuse what’s necessary to win elections with the policies that we want to implement when we do.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • 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
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Oh No He Didn’t!

Oh No He Didn’t!

by John Cole|  July 16, 20056:50 pm| 41 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

John Tierney just went and got himself in heap of trouble with the left:

We are in the midst of a remarkable Washington scandal, and we still don’t have a name for it. Leakgate, Rovegate, Wilsongate – none of the suggestions have stuck because none capture what’s so special about the current frenzy to lock up reporters and public officials…

The White House felon So far Karl Rove appears guilty of telling reporters something he had heard, that Valerie Wilson, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, worked for the C.I.A. But because of several exceptions in the 1982 law forbidding disclosure of a covert operative’s identity, virtually no one thinks anymore that he violated it. The law doesn’t seem to apply to Ms. Wilson because she apparently hadn’t been posted abroad during the five previous years.

The endangered spies Ms. Wilson was compared to James Bond in the early days of the scandal, but it turns out she had been working for years at C.I.A. headquarters, not exactly a deep-cover position. Since being outed, she’s hardly been acting like a spy who’s worried that her former contacts are in danger.

At the time her name was printed, her face was still not that familiar even to most Washington veterans, but that soon changed. When her husband received a “truth-telling” award at a Nation magazine luncheon, he wept as he told of his sorrow at his wife’s loss of anonymity. Then he introduced her to the crowd…

For now, though, it looks as if this scandal is about a spy who was not endangered, a whistle-blower who did not blow the whistle and was not smeared, and a White House official who has not been fired for a felony that he did not commit. And so far the only victim is a reporter who did not write a story about it.

It would be logical to name it the Not-a-gate scandal, but I prefer a bilingual variation. It may someday make a good trivia question:

What do you call a scandal that’s not scandalous?

Nadagate.

I wonder how many ways his name will be taken in vain at dKos.

Oh, btw- can someone help me out with something. Can someone tell me the origin and meaning of ‘adoring the codpiece’ or ‘worshipping the codpiece?’ I have seen this several times in the past few days, and I was just curious what it all meant.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « More Creationism
Next Post: Matt Cooper on Meet The Press »

Reader Interactions

41Comments

  1. 1.

    Glenn M.

    July 16, 2005 at 6:57 pm

    Well all I can say about the codpiece is that it was kind of like a cup people wear today in sports, to make a man look uhm.. larger.. than he really is.

    Popular around Medieval and post era fashion.

    Adoring the fake? No clue. Speculation.

  2. 2.

    Jimmy Jazz

    July 16, 2005 at 7:02 pm

    One of Bush’s nicknames, acquired following “Mission Accomplished” was “Captain Codpiece” since it appeared he was wearing a heavy duty athletic protector.

    Is that standard equipment O chimperor, or are you just happy to see me?

  3. 3.

    Jack (CommonSenseDesk)

    July 16, 2005 at 7:08 pm

    Tierney makes some good points whatever Rove did or didn’t do to Wilson and Plame who may or may not have been under deep cover. On the other hand, perhaps none of it happened the way it appears it did and we may never know whether it did or didn’t. Oh well.

  4. 4.

    andy gross

    July 16, 2005 at 7:13 pm

    god, what bullshit…

    you’d think one of the first thing the grand jury established was that she was covert – the CIA initiated this whole thing, remember. does tierney think that they’d even be able proceed if a crime hadn’t been committed. although the investigation seems to have widened in scope to perjury/obstruction, it couldn’t have proceeded this far if the initial charges were bogus.

  5. 5.

    Jon H

    July 16, 2005 at 7:13 pm

    “. Since being outed, she’s hardly been acting like a spy who’s worried that her former contacts are in danger.”

    What, exactly, is *she* supposed to do about it? Outed is outed. Was she supposed to have multiple layers of false identities and cover jobs?

    It’d be nice if a Times op/ed columnist slot required more work than rewriting the GOP talking points fax.

  6. 6.

    Mike S

    July 16, 2005 at 7:27 pm

    One side or the other is going to look spectacularly stupid when Fitz finishes his investigation. I’m thinking that it will be the defenders since the investigation is still going and some of the comments from the judge in the Miller priv case. Not to mention the massive spin machine from “Gold Bricks” Luskin.

    My side may lose but my money’s on the defenders looking stupid.

  7. 7.

    ppgaz

    July 16, 2005 at 7:47 pm

    I agree, MikeS, otherwise, why would Miller be in jail?

    Fitzgerald is after somebody, and he has a case, otherwise this wouldn’t be on the radar.

  8. 8.

    Bruce Moomaw

    July 16, 2005 at 7:47 pm

    Dammit, the CIA thought a significant crime had been committed, which is why they referred the case to the Justice department in the first place. Both of the judges who have taken a detailed look at Fitzgerald’s evidence so far — while remaining mum about its actual contents — have said flatly that it indicates the commission of “serious crimes”.

    And, last but hardly least, consider Tierney’s mindblowing statement: “…[T]here’s always the chance that the prosecutor will turn up evidence of perjury or obstruction of justice during the investigation, which would just prove once again that the easiest way to uncover corruption in Washington is to create it yourself by investigating nonexistent crimes.” To which the retort obvious to anyone outside a padded cell is: why the hell would anyone commit “perjury or obstruction of justice” in this case if they weren’t trying to cover up a significant offense?

  9. 9.

    Doug

    July 16, 2005 at 7:54 pm

    So, what? Tierney’s o.k. that Rove was discussing Wilson’s undercover wife in an effort to get back at Wilson for saying that Bush was wrong, and should have known he was wrong, when he told the nation in the State of the Union address that Iraq tried to get yellowcake from Niger for its nonexistent nuclear program?

    The presence or absence of a crime is a little bit beside the point as far as whether Rove should keep his job.

  10. 10.

    Joe Albanese

    July 16, 2005 at 7:56 pm

    I think the non-scandal that Tierney talks about may be a tad more serious. I just read the Appeal’s Court Opinion that ruled on the Cooper / Miller matter and I found something rather interesting. Judge Tatel stated in his/her? opinion:

    “Cooper asks us to protect criminal leaks so that he can write about the crime. The greater public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with. Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks–say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson–the situation would be different. Because in that case the source would not have revealed the name of a covert agent, but instead revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of news value and harm would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower.”

    The plot against Wilson. Interesting phrase. The manner in which it is mentioned in the opinion is rather matter of fact – as if it is an established part of the case. I really thinks this gives an insight into what the Special Prosecutor is pursuing. I don’t know what that means to the legal case but I have a feeling that that is going to be dynamite politically.

    If the Special Prosecutor can demonstrate that there was an orchestrated effort by a number of high ranking White House officials against Wilson which included the leaking of his wife’s covert status, mix in the State Department Memo that included Ms. Wilson’s CIA status, and I think we have all the makings of a full fledged Watergate sized scandal.

    The only question remaining is how high up does it go? Remember that both Cheney and Bush were interviewed by the Special Prosecutor at length and both had their personal lawyers at their side. Did they have knowledge of the plot? Hmmmmmm… the mind does wander.

  11. 11.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    July 16, 2005 at 8:06 pm

    Jon H makes a good point: once her cover was blown, what possible good would it have done Valerie Plame to pretend to hide from the media? For any purpose that matters (e.g., the safety of her contacts) the game was already totally over.

    When you see an argument like this one of Tierney’s, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, it colors those arguments that are at least in the ballpark, like the five-year posting rule. It’s the sort of thing that might motivate one to reflect that (a) the Espionage Act doesn’t have that rule and (b) while Plame wasn’t posted overseas during that time, there isn’t any evidence that she didn’t go temporarily overseas (to see a source?), and that looks like all the law requires.

    Indictments are coming, and I’m thinking that Fitzgerald is using some of these leaks as Fear Up Harsh for recalcitrant witnesses.

  12. 12.

    p.lukasiak

    July 16, 2005 at 8:23 pm

    while Plame wasn’t posted overseas during that time, there isn’t any evidence that she didn’t go temporarily overseas (to see a source?), and that looks like all the law requires.

    This is a key point. We really don’t have any idea when Plame’s last overseas assignment was — we think we know, but consider this…

    Plame married a diplomat, and her NOC cover was reportedly changed to a “State Department” cover (possibly, as the wife of a diplomat.) That’s still considered “covert.” If Plame left the country at any point within five years, and her passport gave her diplomatic status, she had fulfilled the minimal requirements of the law.

    There is another possibility. If Plames identity as an NOC agent was disclosed to someone else (like Judy Miller) within the five-year period, a “conspiracy” charge related to the “covert agent” act might include those who used Miller’s information even though the “five year” limit had passed.

    Bottom line is, as every sane person constantly mentions, is that its extremely unlikely that Fitzgerald would be pursuing this unless he had evidence that a serious crime had been committed — and its even less likely that a court would have have said what it did unless a serious crime had been committed. We know that Rove has lied about his role — we know that Rove confirmed to one journalist, and volunteered to another journalist, that Plame worked for the CIA — and that Rove said Plame was “fair game” right after Plame was outed.

    At the very least, I suspect that Rove is going to be listed as an unindicted co-conspirator….and he may have company from the oval office.

  13. 13.

    carpeicthus

    July 16, 2005 at 9:04 pm

    Tierney is the Lynnde England of logic.

  14. 14.

    Jimmy Jazz

    July 16, 2005 at 9:05 pm

    This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit – the big enchilada, to borrow a 1973 John Ehrlichman phrase from the Nixon tapes – is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That’s why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war, not the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative who posed for Vanity Fair.

    Yup.

  15. 15.

    CaseyL

    July 16, 2005 at 9:31 pm

    The wingers have been “confidently predicting” that this would all go away ever since the news first broke.

    Now the wingers are “confidently stating”:

    1) That Plame wasn’t covert at all (based on their expertise re covert operations, probably gleaned from Clancy novels and GOP talking points).

    2) That, even if she was covert, outing her was necessary in order to:

    2a) reveal that Wilson’s Niger trip was a “boondoggle” engineered by Plame.

    3) And, thus, protect the US from Wilson’s “lies” about whether SH “recently” tried to buy yellowcake from Niger –

    4) Because Bush was telling the truth about WMDs and nukes! Really! And we did have to go to war in Iraq! Really!

    To which I say:

    1) I think the CIA knows who its covert agents are, and whether laws against disclosing their identities apply. I also think Fitzgerald knows the law, being a Federal Prosecutor and all. I think the CIA and Fitzgerald know more about this than RW bloggers and commentators.

    2) Revealing a covert agent’s identity is illegal. Period. If a covert agent has been turned, or was a mole, or otherwise acted against US interests, you don’t leak their identity via a newspaper columnist. You try turning them back, or you leave them in place and feed them disinformation, or you bring criminal charges against them.

    2a) Plame recommended Wilson (or suggested him, or whatever) because he had the experience, expertise and contacts. The CIA, or Cheney, or whoever requested someone go to Niger, was perfectly free to say “Sorry, no; let’s send someone else.” Instead, they looked around and realized no one else was as qualified to go. Who should they have sent instead? Someone with no experience, no expertise, and no contacts?

    3) What lies? I’ve been all over the blogosphere, I’ve even checked RW sites (ugh!) that trumpeted the “Wilson Lied!” story… and none of them actually say what those lies are. The Butler report “confirming” the yellowcake claim relied on forged documents. The “other” sources allegedly also supporting the yellowcake claim have not, SFAIK, been described, much less verified. That much-quoted “Senate Committee Investigation Report” which accuses Wilson of lying isn’t actually the Senate Committee Investigation Report. It’s an addendum, inserted at the insistence of Bush partisans over the objections of the rest of the Committee: All spin, in other words, no facts.

    Wilson lied? About what, exactly? Direct quotes, please, and complete quotes; not some second-hand interpretation of artfully selected excerpts.

    4) Get over it. There were no WMDs.

  16. 16.

    jcricket

    July 16, 2005 at 10:25 pm

    This makes at least four former colleagues of Valerie Plame/Wilson’s to come out solidy on her side and against Bush/Rove, etc.

    The Republicans have been trying to shove this scandal back into the ground since the day the originally peddled the lies that Joe Wilson subsequently wrote about in his Op-Ed.

    I might advise you righties not to get to “far out” on this one. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

  17. 17.

    kenB

    July 16, 2005 at 10:37 pm

    I might advise you righties not to get to “far out” on this one

    I think the same applies to both sides. There’s a lot of info that hasn’t been made public yet, and it’s fairly ridiculous that so many people on both sides are declaring victory already.

  18. 18.

    Jon H

    July 16, 2005 at 10:52 pm

    “Plame married a diplomat, and her NOC cover was reportedly changed to a “State Department” cover (possibly, as the wife of a diplomat.)”

    She married a retired diplomat.

    And I think her cover was in the process of changing at the time of the leak.

    The LA Times has a story about varieties of CIA cover, and estimates that there are only ‘dozens’ of NOC agents. Naturally, the CIA ain’t telling.

    If there are only dozens, in such a huge organization, the CIA probably knows very well the cover status of Valerie Plame.

  19. 19.

    Harley

    July 16, 2005 at 11:26 pm

    I can’t imagine anyone on ‘the Left’ or among Democrats, or whatever left of center group you care to describe cares a fig, whit, or tiny little bit about anything Tierny has to say. He’s merely followed 72 hours of Rove-gang leaks with a few cute rhetorical devices written in a factless vacuum of little or not import.

    You can spin the media, you can spin the party, you can spin Bill Keller, you can even spin yourself.

    You can’t spin a Special Prosecutor.

  20. 20.

    SamAm

    July 17, 2005 at 12:32 am

    Harley, that was beautiful.

    I really do wonder what the rightosphere will say when (and is it really anything but when) Fitzgerald hands down his indictments.

    And I mean that. I really have no idea what their reaction will be, especially after declaring the scandal “over” so many times. Should be interesting to watch.

    I’ll go on record predicting an Enron type defense, “the system worked, the White House wants to get to the bottom of it” with muffled regrets the issue ever went to a special prosecutor. Wilson will continue to be bashed, the the House GOP will propose dumb, Schiavo style legislation aimed at helping the WH and Rove or hurting Democrats, Sandy Berger will be invoked, the left will be criticized for thinking there would be Charge X when only Charge Y is handed down, the issue will be treated as a media critique and otherwise ignored.

  21. 21.

    Jimmy Jazz

    July 17, 2005 at 1:55 am

    OT, but when you really want to stay on the cutting edge of science and tech news, you just can’t do better than Al Jazeera. Heh.

  22. 22.

    mac Buckets

    July 17, 2005 at 3:10 am

    What lies? I’ve been all over the blogosphere, I’ve even checked RW sites (ugh!) that trumpeted the “Wilson Lied!” story… and none of them actually say what those lies are.

    Funny, I Googled “Joseph Wilson lied” and the toplisted sites seemed to be referenced. Give it a shot.

    The Butler report “confirming” the yellowcake claim relied on forged documents.

    Nope, wrong.

    “Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush’s 16 words weren’t based on the fake documents. The British didn’t even see them until after issuing the reports — based on other sources — that Bush quoted in his 16 words. “

  23. 23.

    searp

    July 17, 2005 at 7:02 am

    Someone should actually read the Butler report and Wilson’s editorial, I have. They CONFIRM each other. Wilson says in his editorial that no yellowcake purchase was made. The Butler report confirms that.

    The Butler report goes on to add that they have intelligence that an attempt to purchase yellowcake was made. The report notes that the IAEA disagrees with this assessment, and Wilson is silent on this point.

  24. 24.

    witless troll

    July 17, 2005 at 7:51 am

    Well Clinton got a blow job, so there! You anti-american scum

  25. 25.

    Rick

    July 17, 2005 at 8:26 am

    Good chronology here: http://fatsteve.blogspot.com/2005/07/linkfest-plamewilson-spins_112148930159092049.html

    Not hard to find, since Instapundit linked to it. And Baby Wilson wept.

    John, I’d guess “adoring the codpiece” has something to do with admiring (artificial) manhood. Like booming Kerry’s war record.

    Cordially…

  26. 26.

    Doug

    July 17, 2005 at 8:32 am

    Sort of a side note, but for those who want to argue it was o.k. for Bush to include the yellowcake reference in his State of the Union speech, recall that a similar claim was taken out of Bush’s Cincinnati speech a couple of months earlier.

  27. 27.

    DougJ

    July 17, 2005 at 9:12 am

    This one will go away because Americans don’t care. In the end, any reasonable person cares more about the REAL LIFE disappearance of FLESH AND BLOOD Natalee Holloway and the legal steps we should be taking to find her (sending the suspects to Gitmo being one option) than about some imaginary complicated yarn about Karl Rove and Wilson that took place TWO YEARS AGO.

    Americans’ reaction to Rove/Plame: YAWN……

  28. 28.

    CaseyL

    July 17, 2005 at 10:32 am

    macBuckets:

    Thank you for attempting to answer my request for a link to something that confirms what Wilson “lied” about and what, exactly, his “lies” were.

    However, as my post noted:

    1) the Butler report sources were forgeries; and

    2) the Senate Committee “Report” was actually an addendum, inserted by partisans over the objections of the rest of the Committee, and it contained no verifiable facts.

    Your link is to an opinion piece on a RW site that references both the discredited Butler Report and the all-spin Senate Committee addendum.

    Try to find something else, ‘kay?

  29. 29.

    Bob

    July 17, 2005 at 10:47 am

    Ah, “the plot against Wilson.” When the charges come down, I hope someone lines up all the rightwing talking heads, and those ID’ed as left-wing who keep poo-pooing this, and replay all the crap they’ve dished out over the last week or so.

    I remember getting off duty back in 1973 at Fort Devens and going back to my barracks and listening to the Rethug liars spin the latest revelation on Watergate and why Nixon was innocent and the Dems were making a mountain out of a molehill. Same now as it ever was.

    The game is on.

  30. 30.

    Phil Smith

    July 17, 2005 at 11:38 am

    Casey, I think you’re confusing the Butler report with the original British white paper.

    Go here and start reading on p. 36 (46 of the pdf). Or go here and read the thread. Oh, hell, I’ll save you some time. The highlights:

    The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (“CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,” June 12, 2003) which said, “among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'” Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken” to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged.” He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

    It’s on page 45 of the report, page 55 of the pdf.

    At the time the NIE was written the forged foreign language documents were not available to the IC, but there was intelligence reporting that indicated Iraq may have approached Niger either to procure uranium or for another unidentified purpose.

    This is on p. 125. In other words, Wilson never saw the forged documents. He had no way of stating that he knew they were forgeries, and in fact, he went to Niger several months before anyone in our intelligence community ever even saw the damn things.

    The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.”

    P. 43. That one is key — Wilson met with Mayaki, Mayaki told him that Iraq tried to buy uranium. Wilson said that in his debrief. Wilson said that in his testimony to the SSCI. Wilson didn’t say that in his public writings and statements. Does that make Wilson a “liar”? YMMV.

    Factcheck has it pretty much right.

    None of this, of course, has any bearing on outing Plame. I wanna know one thing, which still isn’t adequately answered in my view: Who told Rove? He didn’t have “need-to-know” on the ID of undercover CIA assets. If he found out where she worked through open-source, then I’m sorry, but nothing comes of it. If he was in possession of classified info on this matter, then somebody broke security protocols, and I want Rove’s head and the source’s head as well.

  31. 31.

    Aaron

    July 17, 2005 at 11:39 am

    “Why else is Judith in jail?”

    I thought she was in there on the PRINCIPLE.

    Are you saying that she wouldn’t do this for a republican leaker?

  32. 32.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    July 17, 2005 at 12:34 pm

    I think Phil Smith is doing a pretty judicious job here. I do have some additions.

    1. I don’t find Wilson’s dismissal of the conversation with Mayaki, which he did report to superiors, implausible. We’re not dealing here with Mayaki repeating something verbatim that an Iraqi told him, we’re talking about inferences that he made. Now, I don’t think those inferences are unreasonable but I don’t think they rise to the level of certainty either. (Indeed, I do think this is a good example where the Administration’s evaluation of the situation was driven by the pre-existant desire to invade Iraq.) Iraq was a pariah state under sanctions. Any trade agreement whatsoever, even swapping Niger sand for Iraq sand, would have been a political triumph of sorts. After all, it now appears that if 400 tons of yellowcake had dropped into Iraq from Mars, they no longer had the technology to do anything military with it, which is something of a counterweight to the claim they were soliciting the stuff.
    2. I’m not 100% what is going on with those forged documents. I don’t think we have anything resembling the full story of when and where they surfaced. For example, is it possible the Cheney’s office had them? The rumor about Niger had to start somewhere. And if so, is it possible that Wilson received (improper?) information about their contents? I’m also interested in why there is so little interest in who was behind these forgeries…perhaps we know and aren’t telling.
    3. How does Judy Miller fit in? As far as I’m concerned, Miller was a Chalabi embed in the journalist community. Chalabi is a known forger.
  33. 33.

    Snitrocket

    July 17, 2005 at 12:38 pm

    My favorite part of all of this is that the family values contingent is so busy defending destroying someone’s wife as just business as usual. Never even mind the NATSEC angle for a second: when did this sort of behaviour become part of The Culture Of Life?

  34. 34.

    Floyd McWilliams

    July 17, 2005 at 1:00 pm

    Would someone please explain to me how those nasty Republicans did any injury whatsoever to Valerie Plame?

    We know that she’s not endangered by this identification, unless the normal reaction to one’s secret identity being exposed is to pose for a pictorial in Vanity Fair.

    And we know that being identified as a CIA agent cannot possibly be insulting or derogatory, given that the Democratic Party has made the sanctity of such agents their top concern for, oh, a good three or four weeks now.

  35. 35.

    Phil Smith

    July 17, 2005 at 1:05 pm

    Thanks, Andrew. On your points:

    1. Even less plausible is the notion that a businessman whose name needed to be redacted from the SSCI report would be pressuring the Nigerien PM to meet with an Iraqi about chickpeas, onions, or livestock. Less plausible than that is the notion that Wilson wouldn’t know that, given his resume.

    2. According to the SSCI, the Italian documents didn’t come into our hands until October. Cheney didn’t have them in February, QED.

    3. Judy Miller’s role in all this makes no sense to me whatever.

    Again, though, the only question that matters (to me) at this point is “Who told Rove?”

  36. 36.

    mac Buckets

    July 17, 2005 at 1:23 pm

    However, as my post noted:

    1) the Butler report sources were forgeries; and

    Look, Casey, if you’re not interested in learning the facts, and just want to assert out of thin air despite evidence to the contrary, go ahead. Just don’t pretend you are being honest.

    But just to make you happy, let’s just all agree for your edification: All the official government reports that agree with me are spin, lies, and red herrings, and your unsupported assertions are the God’s-honest truth.

    Feel better?

  37. 37.

    CaseyL

    July 17, 2005 at 6:04 pm

    macBuckets, Phil Smith was able to come up with source quotes, complete with names, dates, and attributions, in answer to my question. Moreover, he was polite about it. You might want to try that some time.

    Phil – thanks much for the info. I went to Wilson’s original Op-Ed, the one that caused the uproar. Here are some pertinent excerpts:

    “The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger’s uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq

  38. 38.

    Phil Smith

    July 17, 2005 at 8:56 pm

    As far as I can tell, Casey, the documents that precipitated Wilson’s trip are not the same as the later, Italian-sourced documents to which Wilson refers. In order to answer that question, I’d have to have access to an unredacted copy of the SSCI report, and I might not know even then. However, what is relatively certain is that US intelligence did not have a copy of the forged Italian document prior to October.

    The problem with Wilson’s editorial isn’t what he says, it’s what he leaves out. He is correct in asserting that he was able to establish that no uranium purchase was likely — not at all likely, in fact — to have occurred. But that is most emphatically not what the administration claimed. The administration stated that Saddam attempted to buy uranium in Africa. There are, upon reading the SSCI report, several quite good reasons to believe that Saddam tried in Niger and elsewhere. And Saddam’s attempt to buy uranium in Niger is what Wilson knew quite well did, in fact, happen. Wilson appears to be the sole source for the knowledge that Iraq approached the PM of Niger (Mayaki) in 1999.

    Is Wilson a liar? The SSCI was unwilling to put it bluntly, but they chided him for his inconsistency. The following are from pp. 44-45 (the full report, not the addenda):

    When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials’ accounts in some respects.

    Translation: somebody lied to us. . .

    First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium.

    As we have seen, that is unsupported, and Wilson knew better. Perhaps his memory failed him. To wit:

    The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger’s uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge [sic]
    nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.

    Which is what Wilson failed to mention.

    Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki.

    Translation: we call bullshit.

    Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the [redacted] intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no “documents” circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador’s trip, only intelligence reports from [redacted] intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report [redacted].

    There weren’t any documents for him to see or even discuss.

    The committee goes on to say that

    The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (“CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,” June 12, 2003) which said, “among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'” Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken” to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged.” He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

    Okay, now I call bullshit. He “thought he had seen the names himself”? He knew damn good and well he hadn’t seen them. Unless, of course, the documents were leaked to him. I refuse to speculate that that occurred. My take is that he overplayed his hand from the start, and he’s been covering his ass with bluff and bluster ever since. None of which, I reiterate, excuses outing his wife and burning a CIA front company.

    All emphases in the above blockquotes are mine.

  39. 39.

    Ben Regenspan

    July 17, 2005 at 10:15 pm

    As far as I know, Tierney started out in trouble with the left.

  40. 40.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    July 18, 2005 at 12:16 am

    Would someone please explain to me how those nasty Republicans did any injury whatsoever to Valerie Plame?

    Let’s see. People in bad countries known to have associated with her might be in dungeons right now. I suppose that isn’t an injury to Plame but it sure does impact the security of the United States. Of course, she might be personally endangered (either legally as a spy or illegally through violence) if she ever returned to places she used to live and enjoy. Oh, and other American agents who work for her front company, they’re all outed too. Is that enough for you?

    Now let me ask you a question, dimwit. Even supposing Plame was our very best most secret spy in the whole world, once her name had been published, what the hell difference did it make if she appeared in Vanity Fair or even stark naked in Playboy? For her and her contacts it was Game Over.

    OK, type in GOP talking points, but can you skip the ones that make absolutely no sense!?

  41. 41.

    CaseyL

    July 18, 2005 at 1:00 am

    Phil, thank you again for arguing civilly and with real cites.

    Based on the references you’ve provided, I concede that Wilson either misstated or fibbed about how he knew the signatures on the forged documents were forged.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Albatrossity - The Birds of May 3
Image by Albatrossity (7/31/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • NotMax on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 12, 2025 @ 10:48pm)
  • Harrison Wesley on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 12, 2025 @ 10:40pm)
  • Jackie on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 12, 2025 @ 10:39pm)
  • Peke Daddy on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 12, 2025 @ 10:21pm)
  • mrmoshpotato on Saturday Night Open Thread (Jul 12, 2025 @ 10:19pm)

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
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

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

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

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

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

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

Email sent!