• 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.

These days, even the boring Republicans are nuts.

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

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

Rupert, come get your orange boy, you petrified old dinosaur turd.

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

We need to vote them all out and restore sane Democratic government.

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

Oppose, oppose, oppose. do not congratulate. this is not business as usual.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

People really shouldn’t expect the government to help after they watched the GOP drown it in a bathtub.

All hail the time of the bunny!

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

The republican ‘Pastor’ of the House is an odious authoritarian little creep.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

Text STOP to opt out of updates on war plans.

My right to basic bodily autonomy is not on the table. that’s the new deal.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Giving in to doom is how we fail to fight for ourselves & one another.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

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 / Pincus’s Plame Piece Poses Potential Problematic Pitfalls, Possible Presidential Political Peril

Pincus’s Plame Piece Poses Potential Problematic Pitfalls, Possible Presidential Political Peril

by John Cole|  July 21, 200512:14 am| 79 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

More information on the Plame front:

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked “(S)” for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame — who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo — is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the “secret” level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as “secret” the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame’s name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame’s identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame’s CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

Drip…

Drip…

Drip…

Flows the information in this case. Things will be fast and furious tomorrow, though, as the spinning goes into high gear.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « More Daylight Savings
Next Post: China Responds to Trade Criticisms »

Reader Interactions

79Comments

  1. 1.

    Bob

    July 21, 2005 at 12:26 am

    Hmm. Rove, Libby, advisors to the President and Vice President. Condi, Ari, Colin… Who am I missing?

    No wonder Ashcroft decided to cover up statues out of the administration this time around.

  2. 2.

    jcricket

    July 21, 2005 at 12:32 am

    I was just reading up on the history of Watergate, Iran-Contra and Bill Clinton’s impeachment – and they all seem to have the same basic trajectory. This one will be no different. The carefully worded denials, the non-carefully worded claims (“it’s ridiculous to claim”), red herrings, smearing the victim, etc. I expect this to culminate with Bush saying “I don’t recall” or “I did not out… that woman” :)

    I wonder why each President seems to think that they can avoid accountability for their various lies, cover-ups and crimes. Perhaps there’s something about the office of the Presidency. I seem to remember some quote about power corrupting…

  3. 3.

    KC

    July 21, 2005 at 12:34 am

    I’m not up to speed on everything, admit to being confused about a lot of stuff respecting what happened/is happening in Iraq and the lead up to the war generally, but I found this sentence from the Post article intriguing:

    It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson’s trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA.

    Already disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger?

  4. 4.

    DougJ

    July 21, 2005 at 12:38 am

    Yawn. Whatever horrible “crime” was committed here, you can bet the “perpetrator” will be pardoned.

    Don’t waste your time, liberals. Get with the program, get behind the values issues that motivate most voters and, maybe, just maybe, you’ll pick up some seats in 2006. Stop tilting at the Rovian windmill.

  5. 5.

    CaseyL

    July 21, 2005 at 12:39 am

    KC – In his NYT Op-Ed, Wilson notes that he met with Ambassador Kirkpatrick-Owens, and that she told him she had already sent a report to the WH debunking the uranium-buying story.

    That’s the only reference I’ve seen to Kirkpatrick-Owens’ report. It has not otherwise been mentioned, commented on, or published. By anyone.

  6. 6.

    SamAm

    July 21, 2005 at 1:14 am

    Also, IIRC, a retired US (Army?) general looked into the matter and concluded basically the same thing as Wilson.

  7. 7.

    KC

    July 21, 2005 at 1:46 am

    I’m just wondering–I’m really not trying to start a slugfest either–why did the administration lean against the State Department’s information? If it’s because they wanted to go to war, why did they lean on something that was knocked down by the State Department, something that might later prove wrong? Or, assuming not all agencies agreed the issue had been settled, why did they use it if it was contested? On the other hand, assuming the CIA (I seem to recall the CIA not pushing it) or some other agency was pushing it and that’s why the went with the story, why did they choose to ignore the State Department’s conclusions? Curious.

  8. 8.

    Mike S

    July 21, 2005 at 2:41 am

    I don’t think the SC nomination is going to have the desired effect on this story. Heightened security alerts are so 2004. We don’t have the troops to start another war. I’m not sure what they can do to change the story.

    Any ideas?

  9. 9.

    ARROW

    July 21, 2005 at 3:07 am

    Does it trouble anyone that we continue to get leaks of classified material? What other information about our precious covert agents is being leaked/sold that we don’t know about?

    a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

    And how exactly do we know who read this “secret” document?

    I assume the drip, drip, drip, is the sound of the chinese water torture this joke of a scandal has become.

  10. 10.

    Jeff

    July 21, 2005 at 3:34 am

    I’m just wondering—I’m really not trying to start a slugfest either—why did the administration lean against the State Department’s information? If it’s because they wanted to go to war, why did they lean on something that was knocked down by the State Department, something that might later prove wrong? Or, assuming not all agencies agreed the issue had been settled, why did they use it if it was contested? On the other hand, assuming the CIA (I seem to recall the CIA not pushing it) or some other agency was pushing it and that’s why the went with the story, why did they choose to ignore the State Department’s conclusions? Curious

    The CIA and State differed on the credibility of the uranium claim. This is actually fairly common, as State tends to be more conservative in their analysis than the CIA, as they have a different function. Also, after the niger trip new evidence came out to support the uranium allegation, including French intelligence services, who controlled the mines in Niger, claiming evidence of a trade. That was later discredited, but at the time the CIA thought it was credible. And therefore WINPAC, the arms control wing of the CIA, cleared the SOTU statement.

  11. 11.

    Jeff

    July 21, 2005 at 3:35 am

    Also I’m highly skeptical that the State department said they had “disproved” the niger claim. Categorically conclusive statements like that are hardly ever stated in intel analysis. And if you read the Senate report, most official reports from State said they believed the claim was “unlikely” or they were “skeptical”. But they never claimed they disproved it

  12. 12.

    rilkefan

    July 21, 2005 at 3:37 am

    KC: “why did they lean on something that was knocked down by the State Department, something that might later prove wrong?”

    The most popular liberal theory on this point is that the admin figured that at (politically) worst Iraq would be found to have _some_ nasty stuff to which they could point. They just needed to get in and work their nation-building magic and find a few old canisters of sarin gas and the public would go back to 9/12 fawn mode and no one would ever ask about the scientists who said the aluminum tubes were too flimsy/wrongly coated to use in centrifuges.

    I thought before the war that it was a) nigh impossible that Saddam had any incipient nuclear capability b) unlikely that he had dangerous stockpiles of chem/bio stuff c) unlikely that he had identically zero chem/bio stuff. You’ll remember how the Judith Miller brigade kept breathlessly finding barrels of apparent WMD material – later (say late Friday) announced to be paint thinner or locust spray. And you’ll note Bush’s recent statement that “unfortunately” we hadn’t found WMDs in Iraq. Combo of group think, political think, and let’s-kick-some-ass think from the admin.

  13. 13.

    arnott

    July 21, 2005 at 3:51 am

    whats wrong with you ? Bush nominated Roberts for Supreme court, the media (including u) are supposed to forget Rovegate and talk about Roberts only :)

  14. 14.

    Kimmitt

    July 21, 2005 at 4:36 am

    If it’s because they wanted to go to war, why did they lean on something that was knocked down by the State Department, something that might later prove wrong?

    Partly what rilkefan said, and partly because one defining characteristic of President George W. Bush is a particularly stupid tendency to buy his own hype. He wanted there to be nuclear weapons, so as far as he was concerned, there were. I think Cheney was playing a more subtle game, but the thing you have to remember about Dubya is that he very rarely outright lies to anyone except himself. By the time he gets on stage, he is completely convinced of whatever thing he is about to say, no matter how utterly ridiculous, self-contradictory, or contradictory to his previous statements it may be.

  15. 15.

    Aaron

    July 21, 2005 at 5:10 am

    Sorry, I don’t think Bush WANTED THERE TO BE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

    That’s pushing it very, very far.

    If you read the weapons inspection timelines, I think any rational human being would relize that Saddam Hussein was not to be trusted, that his regime had aspirations to WMD, and had continuously lied about and hidden programs where they could.

    Now, maybe we didn’t find “enough” to back up the potential threat everyone thought was there, but nobody buries centrifuges in rose gardens because they were coming clean to Hans Blix.

  16. 16.

    Joe

    July 21, 2005 at 6:39 am

    the noose tightens.

    Secret.

    State Dept disproved Iraq seeking to buy uranium.

    the noose tightens.

    not only around the leakers… but the whole Bush lies about the reasons for war.

  17. 17.

    p.lukasiak

    July 21, 2005 at 8:05 am

    I’m just wondering—I’m really not trying to start a slugfest either—why did the administration lean against the State Department’s information? If it’s because they wanted to go to war, why did they lean on something that was knocked down by the State Department, something that might later prove wrong? Or, assuming not all agencies agreed the issue had been settled, why did they use it if it was contested? On the other hand, assuming the CIA (I seem to recall the CIA not pushing it) or some other agency was pushing it and that’s why the went with the story, why did they choose to ignore the State Department’s conclusions? Curious.

    There appears to have been a severe disconnect between the CIA’s own analysts on the “Niger yellowcake” deal, and its Directorate of Operations.

    Virtually all of the information on the deal came from a single foreign intelliegence source (presumably, Italy’s), which provided the US with more details on the deal over time. The DO issued its initial “report” on the Niger deal in October 2001. It was sketchy, and not very well sourced, and no one paid much attention to it.

    Then, on Feb. 5, 2002, the DO issued another, more detailed account of the deal. It was this report which started all of the activity, including the issuing (on March 1) of an INR (State Department) report that made it clear that the intelligence was extremely unlikely to be reliable, a briefing that Cheney requested on the subject that was held on March 5, where he was told that the CIA would be debriefing someone later that day with knowledge about the deal, and of course Wilson’s trip itself.

    The reason that Wilson’s efforts may not have been communicated is that his conclusions were the same as INR’s, and based on the same rather obvious facts. It is curious however, that Cheney had asked for and received a briefing and was told that someone (who we now know was Wilson) would be debriefed on the subject that day — and there was (supposedly) no followup from the CIA to Cheney based on that briefing.

    Three weeks later, on March 25, the DO issued a third report based on even more detailed info from the foreign source. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report provides no information regarding how this report was handled — but from the little information that was provided by the SSCI, it does not appear that it included any caveats regarding the reliability of the information from either INR or the conclusions drawn from Wilson’s CIA sponsored trip. There is no indication that these “additional details” were scrutinized, because if they had been, it would have been discovered at that point that two “minor officials” mentioned in this report did not have the positions the report said they had.

    One can logically assume the following sequence…

    The CIA DO creates the Feb. 5 report alleging that Iraq had arranged to buy yellowcake from Niger. Its effectively rebutted by the INR within the bureaucracy. The CIA DO then asks Italy for more details, gets them, and issues another report three weeks later on the same subject, ignoring both the INR’s conclusions, and the conclusions drawn from Wilson’s own trip….

    ….and because the “new details” didn’t make the report any more credible than it was when it had been rebutted earlier, no one bothered to respond to this new report — which is probably what the DO wanted to happen.

    The CIA and INR analysts who knew the report was bogus were being overworked as it was — and there is nothing in the SSCI report that suggests that the report with the “new details” disputed the earlier conclusions, so why would they bother doing an analysis of the “more detailed” report? All the relevant officials already knew the reasons why the report was not reliable — especially Cheney, who we know had been briefed on the subject after the INR had issued its own evaluation.

    The sequence of events strongly suggest that the CIA DO, either on its own or at the urging of someone else (like Cheney, who may have requested “more information” at his March 5 briefing), deliberately created the third report despite knowing that the “new details” provided no information that contradicted the previous rebuttals, in order to have an officially “undiscredited” more detailed report that could be cited.

  18. 18.

    Hokie

    July 21, 2005 at 8:29 am

    That alliteration made my head hurt, John.

  19. 19.

    Stormy70

    July 21, 2005 at 8:56 am

    The terrorists in London are not following the media template for Nadagate today. I guess they’d rather bomb innocents on the damn train. Bloody bastards!

  20. 20.

    Tim F

    July 21, 2005 at 9:19 am

    It’s hilarious that Novak would defend his decision to print based on a CIA source who asked him not to run the article, but called her an ‘analyst.’ You can really imagine a CIA representative telling a reporter over the phone, “yeah, she’s a NOC.” Right.

  21. 21.

    Sojourner

    July 21, 2005 at 9:58 am

    Don’t waste your time, liberals. Get with the program, get behind the values issues that motivate most voters and, maybe, just maybe, you’ll pick up some seats in 2006. Stop tilting at the Rovian windmill.

    Did I just hear the sound of the Bushie supporters giving up all ethical pretenses? Are you really suggesting that outing a CIA agent and protecting the security of this country is LESS important than winning elections? Protecting the homeland is not an important value?

    How weird is this?

  22. 22.

    Rick

    July 21, 2005 at 10:15 am

    The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame’s CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

    Two years of sound and fury, and here we are still at square one. After Cooper-Rove, one must do some powerful wonderation at who Miller is doing time for? Best candidates seems to be Colin Powell, career leaker, or the Wilson-Palme would-be “Avengers” couple themselves.

    Cordially…

  23. 23.

    TIm F

    July 21, 2005 at 10:18 am

    DougJ is a put-on. ARROW, OTOH, is serious. If you want to point out boneheaded GOP excuse-making then start with him and Stormy.

  24. 24.

    Phil Smith

    July 21, 2005 at 10:28 am

    Well, this memo just might tell us “who told Rove”.

    Then again, it might not. It might point Fitzgerald in an entirely different direction.

  25. 25.

    Buckaroo

    July 21, 2005 at 10:42 am

    SO how many “S” paragraphs has Senator Leahy disclosed?

  26. 26.

    Sojourner

    July 21, 2005 at 10:59 am

    SO how many “S” paragraphs has Senator Leahy disclosed?

    Ah, the unsubstantiated everybody does it smear. Not very helpful is it?

  27. 27.

    mil0

    July 21, 2005 at 11:21 am

    i haven’t even read this post yet, but damn john. great title. i just wanted to congratulate you on your awe-inspiring alliterative abilities.

  28. 28.

    Buckaroo

    July 21, 2005 at 11:56 am

    Ah, the unsubstantiated everybody does it smear. Not very helpful is it?

    Helpful to a point. Obviously no one has cared in the past so why should they start caring now?

  29. 29.

    Sojourner

    July 21, 2005 at 12:20 pm

    Helpful to a point. Obviously no one has cared in the past so why should they start caring now?

    When has a CIA operative been outed in the past for political reasons? Please share!

  30. 30.

    don surber

    July 21, 2005 at 12:48 pm

    Nathan Hale

  31. 31.

    Buckaroo

    July 21, 2005 at 12:49 pm

    When has a CIA operative been outed in the past for political reasons? Please share!

    Hmmmm. John Kerry and Fulton Armstrong during the Bolton hearings? (old news, but Kerry is a political moron)

    Leahy and his “leak” of details on the probe into the Achille Lauro hijacking which resulted at least one undercover agent to be killed. His threat to publicise Lybia operations to CIA director William Casey, which news of showed up in the Washington Post weeks later. Leahy was also forced to resign his intelligence committee position after being caught giving Iran-Contra secrets to a reporter.

    Gee, if this stuff wasn’t political then it was obviously criminal! Why do it otherwise?

  32. 32.

    don surber

    July 21, 2005 at 12:49 pm

    We got freakin Nathan Hale here telling us where X, Y and Z are

  33. 33.

    JG

    July 21, 2005 at 12:50 pm

    Best.Title.Ever.

  34. 34.

    JG

    July 21, 2005 at 12:58 pm

    Get with the program, get behind the values issues that motivate most voters

    Republican strategy in a nutshell. Blind them with values arguments. So what if I can earn enough to feed my family. There’s no way I’m voting for a democrat who’ll let homos marry.

  35. 35.

    JG

    July 21, 2005 at 12:59 pm

    So what if I can earn enough to feed my family.

    ‘CAN’T’ dumbass. Learn to type someday.

  36. 36.

    ARROW

    July 21, 2005 at 2:09 pm

    “DougJ is a put-on. ARROW, OTOH, is serious. If you want to point out boneheaded GOP excuse-making then start with him and Stormy.”

    Wilson is an apparent political hack, and it appears his wife was aiding and abetting his political hackery. This whole thing stinks of foul politics. And for what, to remove one element of a case to act that was based on intelligence from the British, intelligence that the British have subsequently said was well founded.

    What was the purpose of Wilson’s NYT editorial and subsequent network appearances? IMO, he was running a political ad for John Kerry. He certainly wasn’t acting to prevent the U.S. from getting into the Iraq war. And if he was so concerned about his wife’s cover, why was he highlighting an issue where she was directly involved, an issue that held the opportunity for her “secret” status to be exposed? Spare me the faux outrage of a critical intelligence operative being outed. This is a political witch hunt.

    Where was the liberal outrage about the U.S.’s intelligence capabilities when they were being neutered by President Clinton and his buddies? Oh, I know, they were standing by to sooth the beast as its nuts were being cut off. The recent restructuring of our nation’s intelligence agencies was done for a reason. And the fact that Joe Wilson was the best we had to send to Niger gives you a tiny inkling of why that reorganization was so necessary.

  37. 37.

    Veeshir

    July 21, 2005 at 2:11 pm

    As to outing CIA operatives, as has been mentioned elsewhere, remember the NY Times outing a secret CIA mission, complete with pictures of the planes including reg numbers? Why aren’t they screaming about that leak? Oh yeah, that hurt the US.

    As for the spin, allow me.
    First we have this sentence The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the “secret” level, two sources said.

    Okay, the paragraph had secret info. What was that secret info? Was it her name? Where she worked? Nothing to do with her? We don’t know as all we have are unnamed sources. How convenient. I’m getting deja vu all over again. Is that the lefty style of martial arts? Deja-fu?
    Then, immediately after, comes this sentence, The CIA classifies as “secret” the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.
    Non sequitor alert!!! The two are not related but the juxtaposition leaves a nice impression, doesn’t it?

    Okay, next paragraph
    Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame’s name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said.
    Wait, are they saying that her name and status were not specified as “secret”? Yup. This is starting to look like a little bit of Wash Post carrying water for their donk masters. What else was in that paragraph? Did it mention that Niger is a country in Africa? Is that secret too? Outing a secret, CIA nation is against the law you know.
    Let’s see the next non-sequitor sentence and tie it all together,
    It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

    Yeah, we got that. Now tell us how this new “memo” from “unnamed sources” is supposed to prove anything?

    I’m getting pretty sick of refuting anonymous, unsourced memos. Was this one copied or did they see it this time? We know they will never let us see it as it was probably done in crayon and has chocolate fingerprints on it.

    Let’s assume there is such a memo and it has that information on it. I still don’t see any proof that her name was labeled ‘secret’ but anyway.
    Let’s try some conjecture, notice that it is a State Dept. memo. Also remember that the leaker has been described as “not a partisan gunslinger”.
    Hmmmmmmmmm, now who, until this year, was in the State Dept who has lots of friends in the media and who might also have wanted to show that Joe Wilson didn’t disprove his… errr, somebody’s presentation to the UN?
    That scenario has the added attraction of accounting for why Judith Miller is willing to sit in jail instead of outing her source.

  38. 38.

    Sojourner

    July 21, 2005 at 2:26 pm

    As to outing CIA operatives, as has been mentioned elsewhere, remember the NY Times outing a secret CIA mission, complete with pictures of the planes including reg numbers? Why aren’t they screaming about that leak? Oh yeah, that hurt the US.

    That story had appeared well before the NYT printed it. And the mission involved moving prisoners to other countries where they could be tortured. Not exactly the same thing as outing operatives and a company that was a CIA front. And Plame’s job involved monitoring other countries’ WMD, which presumably would be of interest to some in this country.

    So outing Plame hurt this country a whole lot more than repeating information about prisoner torture. Funny how you’re more upset about the torture mission being disclosed than the anti-WMD one. Looks like you’re the one who wants to hurt the US. I’m less concerned about the US being embarassed yet again for its torture policy – but then I don’t think torture is an American value.

  39. 39.

    Sojourner

    July 21, 2005 at 2:28 pm

    Wait, are they saying that her name and status were not specified as “secret”? Yup. This is starting to look like a little bit of Wash Post carrying water for their donk masters. What else was in that paragraph? Did it mention that Niger is a country in Africa? Is that secret too? Outing a secret, CIA nation is against the law you know.

    Sorry but your arguments carry a whole lot less weight than former CIA colleagues of Plame’s who are coming forward and describing the damage. Go ahead and try but you’re defending the indefensible.

  40. 40.

    Mike S

    July 21, 2005 at 2:43 pm

    First we have this sentence The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the “secret” level, two sources said.

    Okay, the paragraph had secret info. What was that secret info? Was it her name? Where she worked?

    Gee, maybe they should have found out what part was clasified.

    Quick. Call Ken Melman and find more talking points. You may want to skip the “vindicated” one he used a million times on Sunday. It made him look pretty stupid.

  41. 41.

    Mike S

    July 21, 2005 at 2:47 pm

    Wilson is an apparent political hack, and it appears his wife was aiding and abetting his political hackery. This whole thing stinks of foul politics. And for what, to remove one element of a case to act that was based on intelligence from the British, intelligence that the British have subsequently said was well founded.

    Hey spARROW. Maybe you can explain why the WH said that the 16 words shouldn’t have been in the speech.

    Oh, that’s right. That would refute your typical spinning of the real facts.

  42. 42.

    ARROW

    July 21, 2005 at 3:04 pm

    “Hey spARROW. Maybe you can explain why the WH said that the 16 words shouldn’t have been in the speech.”

    I have no idea. With hindsight, it was apparently unnecessary. A brilliant person, such as one that could come up with “spARROW,” must certainly have an answer?

  43. 43.

    Sojourner

    July 21, 2005 at 3:07 pm

    I have no idea. With hindsight, it was apparently unnecessary. A brilliant person, such as one that could come up with “spARROW,” must certainly have an answer?

    Gee, maybe because those 16 words did need to come out?

  44. 44.

    Mike S

    July 21, 2005 at 3:10 pm

    Thanks for the compliment. As an answer, maybe they said they shouldn’t have used it because it was BS. Seeing as it has been proven to be BS, even before Wilson went to Niger, I can’t think of a better reason.

    Time to flit to the next spin point like the good little spARROW you are.

  45. 45.

    ARROW

    July 21, 2005 at 3:18 pm

    Mike S, Sojourner:

    I have no idea why I waste my time responding to your nonsense. Are you two actually arguing that the original British report did not exist, and that its substance was not subsequently confirmed? Get a clue boys….

  46. 46.

    Mike S

    July 21, 2005 at 3:23 pm

    Confirmed? Maybe in FOXworld it was but the fact that there was no active nuke program seems to have escaped your spARROW sized brain.

    You may be the most disinformed person I have ever read.

  47. 47.

    ARROW

    July 21, 2005 at 3:36 pm

    “Confirmed? Maybe in FOXworld it was but the fact that there was no active nuke program seems to have escaped your spARROW sized brain.”

    You need to focus my friend. The “16 words” were about seeking to acquire yellow cake from the Nigerians. Changing the subject does not make your point. And remarks about the size of my brain, makes yours look smaller yet in the comparison.

  48. 48.

    Tim F

    July 21, 2005 at 3:51 pm

    The reports were “confirmed” by the Butler Report and then “unconfuirmed” by the final report of the Iraq Survey Group. It turns out that when Kay’s people interviewed the actual Iraqis involved in Niger diplomacy they found out that there had been contacts but they had nothing to do with Uranium. The Butler Report, which had no access to Iraqis besides Chalabi’s dissembling exiles, found that Iraqis had visited Niger. In the absence of any knowledge they assumed that the contacts concerned Uranium.

    Firsthand accounts versus argument-from-ignorance. ISG wins.

  49. 49.

    Bjob

    July 21, 2005 at 3:54 pm

    At the top of this comment stream I asked who was missing from the list of suspects? Clearly the Prez and the Veep.

    In between there seemed to be a lot of nervous righties trying to justify treason. What I was actually looking for was someone who could logically connect the dots: Who knew what and when did they know it? It’s hard to believe that with Scooter and Karl in the middle of this that Cheney and Bush weren’t in on this very soon after it happened, if not before.

    I know that Bush is incurious to the point of absurdity (and does not have Reagan’s medical excuses for his lapses), but he would have to be mentally deficient to the point of being unable to reason to not notice for two years that someone on his staff was involved in exposing a CIA operative, and that this seriously damaged an undercover operation that was searching for WMDs. Bush’s ratcheting down the bar to convictions before they’re shown the door clearly shows that he is now aware of what is happening. That is, he’s part of the coverup that continues.

    Why am I going through this exercise? Because I lived through Watergate and I heard these excuses, these protestations all before. I heard the same crap during Iran-contra, and a few of that cast of characters have returned for an encore here.

    The current Bush is not extremely bright, but he is competent. People have been sent to the electric chair with less awareness, some by this very same Bush. So let’s all agree here that while George Bush may not be an intellectual giant, he is not retarded and he’s not completely a pawn of Cheney, Rove and the plutocracy he represents. Forget the future firewalls that will be constructed in order to protect the presidential fanny. He knew.

    An unindicted co-conspirator is still a co-conspirator.
    And, excuse me Karl for using using a term from psychological counseling, but Mehlman and the GOP and every politician who has stood up to repeat a lie or make an excuse for this is an enabler.

  50. 50.

    Tim F

    July 21, 2005 at 3:55 pm

    I cannot tell whether I’ve double-posted or posted nothing at all. The post protocol seems completely screwed.

    If that’s not only happening to me, it could explain why a juicy Plame thread struggles to break 50 comments.

  51. 51.

    Bob

    July 21, 2005 at 4:03 pm

    And since the memo that Jeff Gannon referred to in his interview of Wilson sounds very much like the memo circulating on Air Force One, does anyone know whether Mr. Guckert has been called in to chitchat with Mr. Fitzgerald?

    Gannon/Guckert functioned as an outlet for slander against Administration “enemies” and his knowledge of this heretofore unknown document suggests a parallel to Rove/Novak and the other leaks.

    Back in the days of Watergate, when the Segrettis and Colsons of the Nixon Administration were sighted in troubled waters, one could expect someone to ask them some uncomfortable questions. Is Gannon so undercover now that no one can find him?

    If I were in Washington, DC and I had press credentials, I know who I’d want to interview.

  52. 52.

    Mike S

    July 21, 2005 at 4:06 pm

    You need to focus my friend. The “16 words” were about seeking to acquire yellow cake from the Nigerians. Changing the subject does not make your point. And remarks about the size of my brain, makes yours look smaller yet in the comparison.

    Sorry spARROW, but there are only two options. One is that you are stupid enough to believe that the statement about Niger was true and has been proven so.

    Two is that you are a lying sack of sh**.

    Simply amazing.

  53. 53.

    ARROW

    July 21, 2005 at 4:34 pm

    “Sorry spARROW, but there are only two options. One is that you are stupid enough to believe that the statement about Niger was true and has been proven so.”

    The following is from the WSJ Opinion Jounal, July 15, 2005, TheYellowcakeCon

    So now the British government has published its own inquiry into the intelligence behind the invasion of Iraq, with equally devastating implications for the credibility of the Bush-Blair “lied” crowd. Like last week’s 511-page document from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the exhaustive British study found some flawed intelligence but no evidence of “deliberate distortion.” Inquiry leader Lord Butler told reporters that Prime Minister Tony Blair had “acted in good faith.”

    What’s more, Lord Butler was not ready to dismiss Saddam Hussein as a threat merely because no large “stockpiles” of weapons of mass destruction have been found. The report concludes that Saddam probably intended to pursue his banned programs, including the nuclear one, if and when U.N. sanctions were lifted; that research, development and procurement continued so WMD capabilities could be sustained; and that he was pursuing the development of WMD delivery systems–missiles–of longer range than the U.N. permitted.

    But the part that may prove most salient in the U.S. is that, like the Senate Intelligence findings, the Butler report vindicates President Bush on the allegedly misleading “16 words” regarding uranium from Africa: “We conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.” (Click here for more excerpts.)

    “Two is that you are a lying sack of sh**.”

    Unlike you, I don’t get my insights from a political party.

  54. 54.

    Sojourner

    July 21, 2005 at 4:39 pm

    Unlike you, I don’t get my insights from a political party.

    You must be kidding. The WSJ opinion page is the written version of Fox News.

  55. 55.

    Mike S

    July 21, 2005 at 4:52 pm

    Remarkable. Even the White House isn’t attempting this line. What’s next, there WERE tons of WMD’s found in Iraq?

    Every time I think I’ve seen it all, someone comes up with an even bigger line of BS.

  56. 56.

    Buckaroo

    July 21, 2005 at 5:27 pm

    In between there seemed to be a lot of nervous righties trying to justify treason. What I was actually looking for was someone who could logically connect the dots: Who knew what and when did they know it? It’s hard to believe that with Scooter and Karl in the middle of this that Cheney and Bush weren’t in on this very soon after it happened, if not before.

    It happens! Billary had no idea about the 300 FBI files collected by that bar bouncer Livingston. Burger had no idea it was wrong to stuff his shorts with documents from the archive.

  57. 57.

    Mike S

    July 21, 2005 at 5:38 pm

    Typical GOP cultist response. “Look at the Clenis!”

  58. 58.

    Bob

    July 21, 2005 at 5:55 pm

    Buckaroo, regarding Sandy Berger, as soon as it became known that Sandy Berger had removed files from the National Archives John Kerry immediately fired him from his advisor’s role with his campaign staff.

    In fact, there were people on the right side of the spectrum shouting “treason.” Did something happen to give you a more liberal view of sharing secret information with the rest of the world?

    More to the point, a simple question: Does Bush know anything about what his advisor did? When did he find out?

  59. 59.

    ARROW

    July 21, 2005 at 6:09 pm

    “You must be kidding. The WSJ opinion page is the written version of Fox News.”

    That’s right, shoot the messenger. Did you take the time to look at the report behind the editorial, or is that just too much for your partisan logical to handle. How many people do you think are buying your bullshit replies?

    “Remarkable. Even the White House isn’t attempting this line. What’s next, there WERE tons of WMD’s found in Iraq?”

    You keep trying to put words in my mouth so you get to an issue where you might know something. I wonder if it is worth your time, since you haven’t come up with much yet. Keep on shovelin’…

  60. 60.

    Halffasthero

    July 21, 2005 at 6:43 pm

    TIm F Says:

    DougJ is a put-on. ARROW, OTOH, is serious. If you want to point out boneheaded GOP excuse-making then start with him and Stormy.

    Not sure how the whole bold and blockquote thing works but I am giving it a try.

    Incidentally, I don’t know ARROW but in defense of Stormy, he/she is not a lunatic self-serving flamer (which I gather from your post you meant to imply). If you have a difference of opinion to share, you can do so without personal attacks. It isn’t difficult.

  61. 61.

    Mike S

    July 21, 2005 at 7:27 pm

    Spectacular stupidity is the hallmark of a spARROW response.

  62. 62.

    Sojourner

    July 21, 2005 at 8:42 pm

    Unlike you, I don’t get my insights from a political party.

    I was simply responding to this statement. You were claiming that the WSJ opinion page was somehow more respectable than a political party position. I simply corrected you on that.

  63. 63.

    Halffasthero

    July 21, 2005 at 9:52 pm

    This just came in on the Plame issue. Its from Bloomberg.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/21/breaking-bloomberg-reporting-that-rove-libby-may-be-subject-to-perjury-charges/

    Apparently, the WSJ is also going to print an article that the memo regarding Plame was, in fact, marked “Top Secret”. I am not what the source was for the WSJ article but supposedly, Olbermann caught ind of it and talked about it.

  64. 64.

    ARROW

    July 21, 2005 at 10:51 pm

    “Spectacular stupidity is the hallmark of a spARROW response.” Mike S

    Yeah, I was the one that said the 16 words about Niger were true and were confirmed by the British. And then I referenced a WSJ article that offered support for my conclusions. You were the one that was wrong, and took to making comments like the one quoted above. (cause you have nothing else). If I’m stupid, you must be sub-stupid, meta-stupid, if you will. Stupid so dense, that nothing can escape its grasp.

    “I was simply responding to this statement. You were claiming that the WSJ opinion page was somehow more respectable than a political party position. I simply corrected you on that.” Sojourner

    You attacked the messenger, the WSJ. Did you read the message from the British Government? The British Government, not the Republican Party, was the subject of the article. Are you saying the WSJ spun what the British reported? Do you think anyone places much value in your word games? Why do you bother if this is all you got?

  65. 65.

    Mike S

    July 21, 2005 at 11:19 pm

    heh. spARROW called me “meta-stupid.” How will I live?

  66. 66.

    ARROW

    July 21, 2005 at 11:29 pm

    “heh. spARROW called me “meta-stupid.” How will I live?” Mike S

    Meta-stupidly?

  67. 67.

    Sojourner

    July 21, 2005 at 11:50 pm

    Why do you bother if this is all you got?

    Thanks for the laugh!!! Coming from you, this is hugely funny. If anybody needs insults and hot air, you’re the man!

  68. 68.

    ARROW

    July 22, 2005 at 12:09 am

    “Thanks for the laugh Coming from you, this is hugely funny. If anybody needs insults and hot air, you’re the man!” Sojourner

    I’m sorry if I offended your tenny tiny little brain. I was only trying to keep you from further embarrassment. You were the one that was pushing hot air when you played your little game of “it’s from the WSJ, man… You can’t trust it, its GOP talking points.” I was just responding to you limp-dick comment, that was of little (no, if I was brutally honest) consequence. But then, most of what you post is in the same category. As I said, you got nothing, and you just proved it again.

  69. 69.

    Buckaroo

    July 22, 2005 at 11:35 am

    Buckaroo, regarding Sandy Berger, as soon as it became known that Sandy Berger had removed files from the National Archives John Kerry immediately fired him from his advisor’s role with his campaign staff.

    Kerry never fired Berger, he resigned. Kerry would have kept him on since he knows Lefties can do no wrong and even if they do it’s “unfair” to blame them. Why is Kerry still in office after outing an undercover agent? Why is Leahy still in office after outing undercover agents and spilling secret testimony to the press? It seems to me the Lefties need to clean their house a bit after positive connections have been made that their (*cough*) leaders violated laws and yet they continue to harp about things that are still all conjecture. Typical leftist double standards.

  70. 70.

    Mike S

    July 22, 2005 at 2:46 pm

    Just in case spARROW is still reading, lets ask the ISG.

    Iraq Survey Group Final Report

    Investigation Into Uranium Pursuits and Indigenous Production Capabilities
    Foreign Pursuits

    ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program. As part of its investigation, ISG sought information from prominent figures such as Ja’far Diya’ Ja’far—the head of the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.

    * According to Ja’far, the Iraqi government did not purchase uranium from abroad following its acquisition of yellowcake from Niger in 1981. However, Iraq also purchased uranium dioxide from Brazil in 1982. Iraq declared neither the Brazilian purchase nor one of the Niger purchases to the IAEA—demonstrating that the Iraqi Regime was willing to pursue uranium illicitly.

    Regarding specific allegations of uranium pursuits from Niger, Ja’far claims that after 1998 Iraq had only two contacts with Niamey—neither of which involved uranium. Ja’far acknowledged that Iraq’s Ambassador to the Holy See traveled to Niamey to invite the President of Niger to visit Iraq. He indicated that Baghdad hoped that the Nigerian President would agree to the visit as he had visited Libya despite sanctions being levied on Tripoli. Former Iraqi Ambassador to the Holy See Wissam Zahawie has publicly provided a similar account.

    * Ja’far claims a second contact between Iraq and Niger occurred when a Nigerian minister visited Baghdad around 2001 to request assistance in obtaining petroleum products to alleviate Niger’s economic problems. During the negotiations for this contract, the Nigerians did not offer any kind of payment or other quid pro quo, including offering to provide Iraq with uranium ore, other than cash in exchange for petroleum.

    * ISG recovered a copy of a crude oil contract dated 26 June 2001 that, although unsigned, appears to support this arrangement.

    So far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down. In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters related to an offer to sell yellowcake to Iraq. The document reveals that a Ugandan businessman approached the Iraqis with an offer to sell uranium, reportedly from the Congo. The Iraqi Embassy in Nairobi—in reporting this matter back to Baghdad on 20 May 2001—indicated it told the Ugandan that Iraq does not deal with these materials, explained the circumstances of sanctions, and said that Baghdad was not concerned about these matters right now. Figure 1 is the translation of this document.

  71. 71.

    ARROW

    July 22, 2005 at 7:54 pm

    “Just in case spARROW is still reading, lets ask the ISG.” Mike S

    What the hell does this have to do with the “16 words” and their later confirmation as being well founded? The issue relates to the 2003 SOTU and the 16 words therein. Remember? You were the one that held out the fact that the Administration apologized as evidence of something. I held out that it was a mistake to have apologized for those 16 words, since they had subsequently been confirmed to have been well founded. You have a focus problem, don’t you.

    This has never been about what’s actually went on. Nobody knows the answer to that! I have no interest in this sort of mental masturbation… maybe some of your fellow moonbats will join you.

  72. 72.

    Mike S

    July 22, 2005 at 9:07 pm

    Little spARROW you are too fucking stupid to breathe. In your FOX addled mind maybe it was well founded. Pathetic little morons like you are the lifeblood of the current GOP. Our agencies disproved the niger claims so the man you worship added “the british have learned.” Pathetic imbiciles like you have no problem with that so you say it is “well founded.”

    You are a GOP cultist. No brains, just worshipfull. Without a doubt the dumbest Republican I have evr dealt with.

  73. 73.

    ARROW

    July 22, 2005 at 9:32 pm

    Right back at you, SHIT FOR BRAINS. You were the brain dead piece of shit that said what you said. Then, when you couldn’t win that argument you go for a change. You are beyond an idiot. Like I said before, you are meta-stupid.

  74. 74.

    Mike S

    July 22, 2005 at 10:13 pm

    Like arguing with a ten year old with a learning disorder. I feel sorry for you spARROW. With a mind like your’s I’m sure you’ll need a mail order bride in order to not grow old alone.

  75. 75.

    ARROW

    July 22, 2005 at 11:54 pm

    Right back at you, SHIT FOR BRAINS. You were the brain dead piece of shit that said what you said. Then, when you couldn’t win that argument you go for a change. You are beyond an idiot. Like I said before, you are meta-stupid.

  76. 76.

    Bob

    July 23, 2005 at 2:18 am

    Okay, so Berger resigned and Rove didn’t. But then again, it looks like just about everyone, Rove, Libby, Cheney, the lot of them, are facing indictments.

    To tell you the truth, I’m glad they’re not resigning. Stink spreads among the treasonous lot of them. America is beginning to get a whiff.

  77. 77.

    Mike S

    July 23, 2005 at 2:23 am

    Too stupid to even write something different? The special olympics will be around soon, sign up and beat the rush.

  78. 78.

    ARROW

    July 23, 2005 at 2:53 am

    Mike S:

    Look, it should be apparent to you that I feel the same way about you. All these childish little comments of yours are a waste of time. You know nothing about me, except that I am conscious enough to sniff out the bullshit partisan positions you throw around to impugn the character of others. And when I point out your shortcoming, you go into this GOP talking points routine or engage in ad hominems like the one in your last couple of comments. Not only is this a very weak debating style, you minimize yourself in the process.

    All of this crap about whether Bush had enough justification to go war is just that, crap. You certainly have a right to your OPINION, but recognize your positions for what they are. You bandy about your conspiracy theories like they are some sort of objective fact, they aren’t. This whole episode began because I called you on one of your SPECIFIC wet dreams. And after I proved my point, you denigrate the source (the British) and try to make a larger point. I have no interest in participating in your conspiracy theory wet dreams…DO YOU GET THAT?

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Right Wing Nut House » WILSON COVER-UP: TIP OF THE ICEBERG?: Politics served up with a smile… And a stilletto. says:
    July 21, 2005 at 12:08 pm

    […] […]

Primary Sidebar

Image by MomSense (5/21.25)

Recent Comments

  • NotMax on Wednesday Night Open Thread (May 21, 2025 @ 10:28pm)
  • JaySinWA on Wednesday Night Open Thread (May 21, 2025 @ 10:27pm)
  • VeniceRiley on Wednesday Night Open Thread (May 21, 2025 @ 10:26pm)
  • schrodingers_cat on Wednesday Night Open Thread (May 21, 2025 @ 10:26pm)
  • Jackie on Wednesday Evening Open Thread: An Exemplar for Our Global Embarrassment (May 21, 2025 @ 10:24pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

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
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

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

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

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

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

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

PA Supreme Court At Risk

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

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

Email sent!