A few days ago I blogged about a David Corn column in The Nation in which he suggested that the White House had exposed Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative in order to discredit Wilson himself. But Corn’s column was hedged and it was unclear exactly who exposed Plame and exactly what Plame’s role at the CIA was. Today, Wilson provides some additional information:
In an NBC News exclusive, Wilson says his family is the subject of a smear campaign. Wilson tells NBC News the White House deliberately leaked his wife
Nick
“Check out Kevin Drum two posts down in the comments section saying that this phrase: “We don’t know whether or not he (Saddam) has a nuclear weapon” is a lie. Bullshit. We didn’t know. We probably thought he didn’t, but we didn’t know.”
So this is our standard now? I can’t wait for the 2004 election then. I can just see the ads now.
“George Bush sponsored the ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act. He claims to care about America’s children. But maybe he cares about them a little too much. We don’t know whether or not George Bush is a child molester. Can we trust him to be President of the United States?”
All of those statements are true, right? So anyone who objects is just sniffing out partisan advantage.
John Cole
Nick- Quit being so damn foolish. There had been years of evidence of Saddam pursuing nuclear weapons. There has been no evidence or accusation of Bush being a child molester. Quit being a blockhead.
FWIW- IN 1991, it turned out that the first Bush had radically underestimated how close Saddam was to having a nuclear weapon. Intelligence is not always accurate- or was Bush 1 lying too?
Your attitude is exactly what I discussed in this post, so it is pretty damned funny that you jumped right into the comments to prove me right without anything I wrote sinking in.
Moe Lane
“is there really anyone who thinks that ANY of the Democrat candidates would make this country safer”
I wouldn’t consider the election of Lieberman to be a complete disaster… but, hell, there are two chances that the Democrats will nominate him: fat and slim.
Brandon
“At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
cs
I wonder which is the cause and which is the effect: are you unable to consider supporting the Democrats because their rhetoric is so grating, or does the Democrats’ rhetoric sound so grating to you because you are naturally disinclined to support the Democrats?
Don’t get me wrong, I agree that your blog has pointed out plenty of examples of silly and overblown rhetoric coming from Democrats on the WMD issue (and other issues), but I think anyone who says that the rhetoric from the left wing is worse than the rhetoric from the right wing is saying more about their right-wing sympathies than about the relative quality of the rhetoric.
AnswertheQuestion
John:
I have to say that I too am extrememly disappointed in the domestic policy area of this administration. I had hoped for so much more, especially with control of Congress and the White House. From the ridiculous farm and education bills, to giving up on federal judges, to giving up on ANWR, to this outrageous Medicare prescription bill and everything else in between. Did I help elect Bush for him to sign off on Democratic issues? Hell no.
You are right about the lefty blogosphere though. Reading OW and those skulls of mush who post there is always good for a few laughs, especially when it’s yet another “(fill in the blank) LIED” post they’re yapping about. No need for proof, mind you, just reckless and mindless partisan sniping is all that counts.
Perry
I agree with you in being somewhat disappointed with Bush’s failure to run a more conservative administration, but I’m holding out hope that there’s a good reason for it.
The Democrats have clearly run to the (lunatic) left. Leaving a big void in the center of the political spectrum that the Republicans can hopefully fill. Most political science types will tell you this is a proven strategy. Hell, Clinton did it in the 90’s when the Republicans moved rightward with Newt.
Once the President is a lame duck second termer, I’m hoping he will then push a more conservative agenda. Maybe it’s a foolish, misguided hope, I know, but I’m hanging on to it.
Ted Barlow
“Politicization of intelligence and this sort of retribution is anything new, as it has been going on for ages, even during the Golden Age of Clinton”
Really? I would think that if Clinton had outed an undercover agent as part of an effort to get back at one of his critics, that would have been a very big deal. I’d think that the special prosecutors would have picked up on it. I’m pretty familiar with the accusations that Clinton faced, but this one isn’t ringing a bell. Could you remind me of the parallel case or cases that happened under Clinton?
John Cole
slate.msn.com/id/2085805/
Ted Barlow
Huh? From that Slate article, I got that Clinton acted on bad intelligence with the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory and the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia. I don’t see any part where Clinton politicized intelligence or outed undercover agents.
John Cole
Throughout every administration, intelligence has been politicized- threats to haul people before committee were genuine career stoppers, Ted.
You know this, but you are feigning ignorance, for whatever reason- this is not a new phenomenon:
From Evan Thomas, “The road to September 11,” Newsweek, October 1, 2001.
It is possible, however, that case officers, made cautious by scandal, “no longer dare to launch operations that could get them hauled before a congressional inquisition.”
Tom Daschle, Interview transcript: Meet The Press, NBC News, December30, 2001.
As Senator Daschle has stated, many who lamented Clinton’s inability to eliminate bin Laden, lambasted Clinton efforts to strike at the Al Qaeda leadership as attempts to divert attention from his own domestic political concerns. “He was criticized for those cruise missile attacks,” the Senate Majority leader stated. “He was accused of doing things that had nothing to do with foreign policy as he was trying to respond.”
HH
Somerby continues to warn his fellow lefties, including on relying on Wilson, as the mainstream press, for some inexplicable reason (oh, what am I saying, the answer’s rather obvious), acts as stenographer for him, despite his past of inaccurate statements.
AnswertheQuestion
I’m with you, Perry.