A quick note on the purpose of this. This is not, as some think, an attempt to assign guilt or to determine whether or not Rove should be alternately hanged from neck until dead or given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. It is an attempt to collaboratively agree on a certain baseline of facts, and to determine where our partisan inclinations create a breakdown in a discussion of the topic. As such, I have no real storyline I am trying to advance, I am just trying to provide steps that we all agree on. Therefore, rewrites are going to occur, and you are encouraged to aid in the process in the comments if you disagree with the current statement.
There will be times that one or two people disagree with a certain point- and that is fine. When the vast majority agree, we will have to just move on, as there will always be some imprecision in the language and something to offend someone. We are searching for an overall narrative, and there are things already that I personally disagree with (even though I am writing this).
Next, one small modification to the previous version of step #8:
8.)
It was within the context of renewed media scrutiny of pre-war WMD intelligence and administration claims that Joseph Wilson’s op-ed piece appearedJoseph Wilson’s Op-ed piece appeared in the NY Times on 6 July 2003, and this led to an effort by Republican partisans, including some in the administration, to discredit Wilson personally, as well as efforts by the administration and others to refute Wilson’s charges.
And onward, with step 9:
9.) After the Wilson op-ed appeared, there was a renewed focus on the pre-war WMD intelligence, and within the media at large, a heavy focus on the ‘sixteen words’ that appeared in the President’s State of the Union address.
A little over a week after Wilson’s NY Times op-ed, Robert Novak’s 14 July 2003 column appeared, containing the following paragraph:
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. “I will not answer any question about my wife,” Wilson told me.
Wilson himself muddied the waters and provided more fuel for the fire by stating that his wife had nothing to do with his selection to go to Niger, and by penning several op-ed pieces (most notably on 21 July 2003 in the LA Times) and appearing frequently on news shows attempting to rebut those seeking to discredit him.
This will be a contentious one, but that is ok. If you have a problem with the language, offer an alternative. Also, don’t forget to vote on the new version of Step #8.
I should also note I am unsure where to go from here- if you have a suggestion for Step #10, email it to me.
Defense Guy
I think I can live with the rewrite of #8 and with the general content of #9, so…
Yes and Yes.
Neal
Yes.
And I don’t see what’s so contentious about this step as opposed to several of the previous steps.
-Neal
Mike
Yes and Yes
over it
Yes and yes
sarah
Yes.
db
Yes on Step 8.
No on Step 9 because of the following:
First, what is meant by “muddied the waters?” I think I got the gist of what you are saying; why not say “he escalated the controversy.”
Second, whether he “muddied” or “escalated” things, you assert that his appearances on talk shows is what did this? What about the counter-factual we can never see – what if he never appeared. I think this could have just as easily muddied things, much like the WH’s current state of silence is only muddying things more. That is a total disappearing act on Wilson’s act could have muddied things as much as his media tour did.
What is clear is that his appearances aggravated the other side and escalated the war of words.
Third,
… this is in the same sentence with “muddying waters,” thus suggesting it was a fabrication on Wilson’s part. This is not established. Did Plame directly Wilson to come over? I can’t think that she did. At the least, she did so indirectly by putting the request into her handlers. At the other extreme, she had NOTHING to do with her husband coming over, which I doubt (why not send any other former African ambassador over).
All to say, why not rephrase to something like:
“Wilson stated his wife had nothing to do, wrote op-eds, etc. to further prove his point against those who disagreed with him. This escalated the ire of administration officials.”
Anderson
Yes, tho “muddied the waters” is both inaccurate and unnecessarily biased. Frankly, ANYTHING Wilson did after the Novak column is scarcely relevant, if we’re trying to figure out whether any crimes were committed.
neil
Wilson himself muddied the waters and provided more fuel for the fire by stating…
Subjective. How about “Wilson defended himself by stating”?
…and appearing frequently on news shows attempting to rebut those seeking to discredit him.
Hmm. “Wilson defended himself in a series of media appearances, including an insistance that his wife had nothing to do with his selection for the Niger mission.”
John Cole
So far so good- I am leaning towards Neil’s (although elaborated a touch more). We will let everyone else weigh in before I make an edit, and see if anything else comes up.
Mr Furious
8. Still yes.
9. I’ll essentially agree.
But db’s got a point that really applies to both 8 and 9. The White House smear campaign/leak was clearly designed to shut Wilson up and/or neutralize him by discrediting him. It backfired. Wilson didn’t back down. He responded on air and in print, and this further antagonized (escalated the ire) of Administration officials.
It was a huge tactical error because without Novak’s column, Wilson would likely have gone the way of Richard Clarke
Mr Furious
While I wrote my much longer than a “yes” post, good points were raised. I agree with john, that Neil’s edit is a good one.
I should clarify that I think Wilson was by no means on the same level as the Administration in terms of deception. He was defending himself and his wife, and took some liberties and puffed some things up a bit. They weren’t really relevant beyond the fact that they hurt his credibility in hindsight.
Darrell
yes again to modified #8. Diebold told me I could vote in both threads. Regarding #9, I’m leaning toward db’s suggestions
At that point, was Wilson “defending” himself? Had the administration ‘gone after’ Wilson prior to his op-eds and claims that his wife had “nothing” to do with sending him to Niger? If not, then “defended himself” would be factually incorrect language as he had not yet been ‘attacked’
Sojourner
Wilson was trying to make sure that an honest assessment of the facts was made prior to the war. He was ignored so he took his case to the American people. The Bushies got even by outing his wife. A lovely group of people. It amazes me how many of the contributors to this blog don’t have a problem with that. Apparently, anybody who disagrees with this administration is fair game. This is a truly shameful time for our country.
Steve
Novak’s statement “The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him” could merit its own number, although I don’t have the faintest idea why it should be controversial. But Novak is saying something different here than what the leaker(s) were saying.
John Cole
Thanks for your yes or no vote, Sojourner. And could you tone done the melodrama aboutthe country falling a part to the level of, say, French poetry circa 1942.
Sometimes I just want to scream.
Jeff Medcalf
Yes to 8.
Yes to 9, with neil’s edits.
synuclein
#8 — Yes
#9 — Yes, conditionally depending on how your edits turn out. I’d agree that he was attempting to “defend his honor (and that of his family)”, however — the whole thing seems to have become a rapidly devolving name-calling exercise.
Steve, I agree with your assessment of the veracity of Novak’s statement on Plame and who was responsible for sending Wilson to Niger, but I think it’s safe to stay with it, as it’s the published record (regardless of potential discrepancies between it and the statements from the leakers — which we don’t have — with the exception of the excerpt from Cooper’s e-mail)
Mason
Yep.
Steve
To be clear, I wasn’t suggesting an alteration. John included it as a quote and it should stay a quote. I was just pointing out that there’s an interesting discrepancy between Novak’s article (CIA officials selected Wilson, with help from Plame) and the story spread by the leakers (Plame selected Wilson on her own).
Defense Guy
Sojourner
It has far more to do with a disagreement over the basic facts of the issue, the partisan sniping from both sides is just a ‘bonus’. Maybe this will help. If it turns out that Rove is in fact guilty of a crime, than I am one rightwinger who will be calling for his ouster and prosecution.
Now, if it turns out that Wilson committed perjury will you do the same?
Tulie
Yep.
Tony Alva
As Vinilla Ice once said, “Yep, Yep.”
Catfish N. Cod
First, oh thank God you’re doing this. Kudos to everyone involved. We can hardly proceed until we despin both the red and blue camps and come to a consensus view of reality.
I vote Item Eight be approved as written.
I vote Item Nine be approved with the exception of the final paragraph; additionally, I move that the final paragraph be written as follows:
Wilson himself responded by penning several additional op-ed pieces (most notably on 21 July 2003 in the LA Times) and appearing frequently on news shows. He repeatedly attempted to rebut those seeking to discredit him, causing a perception that he was escalating the war of words. Contentiously, he stated during this period that his wife had nothing to do with his selection to go to Niger.
jcricket
Yes on 8. Yes on 9, although I like Catfish’s rewrite better (rather than your “muddied the waters” phraseology).
I might alter it to:
Wilson himself responded by penning several additional op-ed pieces (most notably on 21 July 2003 in the LA Times) and appearing frequently on news shows. He repeatedly offered arguments rebutting those seeking to discredit him, creating, to some, a perception that he was escalating the war of words. Wilson also stated, during this period, that his wife had nothing to do with his selection to go to Niger.
John Cole
I really like your re-write, Catfish.
Sojourner
Depends on who defines perjury. The Bushies think that anybody who catches them on their lies is committing perjury. By that definition, the answer is no.
Francis
yes on 8 (thanks for the change) and yes on the catfish re-write with the following recommendation — please quote some of the language used by Wilson during the summer of ’03 that the republicans believe is most clearly wrong.
where to go next? bush’s statements on the leak? the leak from the other SAO that the plame leak was for the purpose of revenge? the controversy as to who else was leaked plame’s name and the dates? the hiring of fitzgerald? the senate report and the republican minority report?
you are doing yeoman’s work. best of luck on staying sane.
Tom Johnson
Yes to 8.
Yes to 9, with Neil’s edits.
Andrew J. Lazarus
8. Yes.
9. I prefer the “Catfish” version.
Jim Dandy
Yes to 8
yes to 9
I think 10 is where the questions begin.
Darrell
Still no for me on #9, echoing what db said. Regarding catfish’s suggested rewrite:
I have a serious question. Can it be fairly argued that Wilson was merely “responding” or “defending himself”, if he was the one initiating the partisan attacks. Or maybe he had already been attacked first. I honestly don’t know for sure. I’d like to see some sort of a timeline on when the sh*t started flying.
I ask, because I was under the impression that Wilson was the one who first came out slinging mud with his op-ed and talk show appearances. If that is not correct, please provide other information.
Catfish N. Cod
It’s not that simple, Darrell. It’s a question of what you define “mud”, and of course each side will claim that it was the other party who crossed the line. Unless you have an objective description of what is “beyond the pale” all that can be done is to describe who said what and what was done.
For that reason I described Wilson’s actions as “response” (which all can agree it was) rather than “defense” or “attack” (which are dependent on one’s point of view).
JG
Slinging mud? Is saying that the administrations contention that Iraq tried to acquire yellowcke is false, mud slinging?
I have a suggestion for #10.
Can we agree that outing Valerie Plame effects more than just Valerie Plame? A whole network was outed so its really irrelevant if she was NOC at the very moment Rove outed her?
Trevor
8.) yes
9.) yes, to catfish’s
Darrell
Thanks, but let me ask it another way. What from the administration which could IN ANY WAY possibly be construed as mud, was thrown at Wilson prior to his flamethrowing op-ed? Just a couple of specific examples will do.
Catfish N. Cod
John, a serious issue: I have been unable so far to locate a July 21 2003 LA Times editorial. Indeed, reference to Wilson’s own webpage does not list a 21 July 2003 LA Times editorial. It does have a 22 July 2004 LA Times editorial, which makes the statements indeed listed in the current text of Point Nine. It appears that a couple of typos have made this editorial appear to be part of Wilson’s original response when it was a year later. For reference, the title of this editorial is “A Right-Wing Smear is Gathering Steam”.
Is it your intention to cover the entire period of July 2003-2004 in this point? Or should text regarding this editorial be moved to a later point?
I further move that Point Ten deal with what appears to be the next major round of discussion of Plamegate, which (I believe) was initiated by Novak’s defensive column of 1 October 2003 and followed by several commenters on 2 and 3 October 2003.
JG
What did he say in his ‘flamethrowing op-ed’ that required the retaliation of the administration? What kind of administration tries to knee-cap people who speak out? You seem to trying to justify their retaliation. Why?
Darrell
I’m asking for one or two specific examples of anything which might be interpreted as mud coming from the administration about Wilson, because if there was nothing from the administration prior to his op-ed, then Wilson wouldn’t be “responding”, would he? I’m not trying to be nitpicky, I’m genuinely curious.
Darrell
Wilson lied about the “forgeries” and he lied when he said his wife had “nothing” to do with his Niger trip, and he lied when he said there was “nothing to the [uranium]allegations”. Wilson initiated these lying smears and made the media talk show circuit and wrote a book to promote them. Of course the White House would want to respond.
Again, I’m curious if the White House ever said ANYTHING derogatory about Wilson prior to his op-ed
Catfish N. Cod
I can’t report on what WAS “mud”, or when it occurred, but I can describe what was PERCEIVED as “mud”.
From Wilson’s point of view, the “mud” was threefold:
1) An attack on his honesty (his report to the CIA and his op-ed to the NYT reputably disagreed);
2) An attack of nepotism regarding his wife (the suggestion that his wife, with little or no input from other CIA officers, caused him to be sent to Niger);
3) An attack of impoverishment, by “ruining” his wife’s career.
From Rove’s point of view, the “mud” consisted of:
1) Publicly disagreeing with what were, at the time, confirmed CIA and/or British intelligence findings, involving intelligence data in Wilson’s possession that were suspect and/or unreliable.
2) Supposedly exaggerating the degree to which the requests from the vice president’s office for information was connected to the directive for his trip to Niger.
3) Exaggerating the importance and/or serious nature of the release of Plame’s name.
From the CIA’s point of view, the “mud” consisted of:
1) Releasing the name of a CIA officer recently under non-official cover, thus reducing CIA confidence that further releases of NOC officers’ names for political purposes (and subsequent endangerment of such officers) would not be forthcoming.
2) The indirect revelation of an undercover CIA front, namely Brewer-Jennings Associates, and the indirect revelation of all non-official cover officers populating said office.
3) The implication that, in the turf wars between the CIA and the White House, covert and/or undercover officers were considered “fair game” according to rules other than those they were accustomed to. This rule change was perceived by the CIA as a disadvantage either for the CIA or for the United States Government as a whole.
These are the matters of contention between the players as of late July, 2003, before the matters of legal culpability or journalistic privledge entered the picture. If I missed anything, please speak.
Andrew J. Lazarus
I’m not aware of any mud thrown at Wilson before his NY Times piece (or at least before the Administration realized such a piece was imminent). I think Wilson wrote that piece in response to what he saw as a deliberate attempt to fudge the facts of the yellowcake claims. The Administration certainly wasn’t very forthcoming about its sources for the yellowcake claim, nor for that matter any of its other WMD claims that were all beginning to look overstated (at best) around the same time. And the Administration wasn’t mentioning how thoroughly the CIA had investigated the Niger claim (i.e., he had gone on their behalf, as well as other CIA analysis) and found it essentially baseless.
You have to remember, the Administration—and this is its style—concedes nothing. Ari Fleisher once suggested that the heavily Jewish districts of Palm Beach gave Pat Buchanan his highest totals in Florida not because they were confused by the butterfly ballot but out of genuine desire to vote for Buchanan (a borderline anti-Semite). The Administration hung tough on the aluminum tubes long after engineers discounted their potential bomb-making use. The Administration hung tough on the “mobile weapons labs” that were for meteorological purposes even after a British company produced the sales receipt for the trucks, which were available on the open market. And they wanted to hang tough on yellowcake. Somewhere at The Weekly Standard the Cheney/Chalabi flacks are probably still writing up Iraq’s nuclear program, which they will claim was spirited away to Berkeley in the dead of night.
JG
This is ‘mud’? This is what causes the administration to attack? They’re a bit more sensitive than is safe if you ask me. I thought only scientolgists attacked for weak transgressions like that.
Cliff
Yes and yes.
OT side note: Darrell, you say that Wilson lied about two things above. I disagree, but let’s say he did lie.
You put the “nothing” in quotes in “he said his wife had “nothing” to do with it”, presumably because that was a direct quote of the word he used, which was a lie.
Why did you put “forgeries” in quotes? Is it your opinion that the documents were not forgeries? Alternately, do you believe the forgeries were “accurate but fake”?
Again, I ask out of curiousity about your position and appreciate your replies.
Darrell
Why did you put “forgeries” in quotes? Is it your opinion that the documents were not forgeries? Alternately, do you believe the forgeries were “accurate but fake”?
Again, I ask out of curiousity about your position and appreciate your replies.
Page 45 of the report, page 55 of the pdf. “bipartisan approved” and all
Joseph Wilson is, in point of fact, a lying piece of sh*t. It would help your side Cliff, if at least one or two of you guys would acknowledge that Wilson *really is* a lying piece of sh*t. Are you willing to do that Cliff? I would say that you can’t, and you won’t, because your side is dishonest as hell.. any other explanation? Waiting your reply
Darrell
Catfish, I am astounded. You have not one quote, not one f*cking single shred of evidence that the Republican admin said one negative thing about Joe Wilson until he decided to launch his dishonest PR jihad against the Bush administration in the form of his high profile (and dishonest) op-ed. Unless you can come up with ANY evidence, anything at all, which so far you can’t, then by any honest standard, you cannot claim that Wilson was “responding” to attacks from Republicans, as he was the one doing the initial attacking. If you can’t come up with a single piece of evidence that Repubs ‘went after him’ prior to his flamethrowing op-ed, then please be honest enough to acknowledge this very important point, ok?
Catfish N. Cod
Darrell, I am astounded. I take, arguento, a nonconfrontational viewpoint (so that I may make assertions that cannot be disputed or attacked), and you savage me for not taking a more partisan viewpoint. I don’t see how I can win.
Negative commentary is not like mass or electric charge. I don’t have some objective standard that states that a comment was negative. I can’t measure the negative content of a comment and have everyone agree on it. And, more to the point, neither can you.
For example, I know that Wilson interpreted the statements made by Novak, Rove, and others in the period 7 July – 14 July 2003 as negative. I know that Novak, Rove, et al. did not interpret those same statements as negative. Obviously, this is a matter on which people can disagree.
Your primary goal, as best I can tell from your comments, is to assert that Wilson was the first to ‘go negative’. Since I am not trying make such assertion for either team, all I can do is note the series of statements made by either side:
^ State of the Union: Bush states “sixteen words”.
V July 6: Wilson disputes “sixteen words” and alleges improper consideration of data by Bush administration intelligence
^ July 14: Novak, using sources including Rove, disputes Wilson’s allegations, describes Plame, and details the interrelationship between Plame, Wilson, and the CIA.
V late July: Wilson continues to dispute the “sixteen words”, and further alleges that the release of Plame’s name was illegal and an attack on himself and Plame.
You allege that the first negative move was made on July 6. Wilson alleges that the first negative move was made on July 14. Current Republican talking points allege that the first negative move was made in late July. Many Democrats believe that the first negative move was made in the State of the Union speech, or before.
Who’s right? Who knows? Who cares?
My use of “response” applies simply to the fact that Wilson responded to Novak. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Catfish N. Cod
Darrell, I am astounded. I take, arguento, a nonconfrontational viewpoint (so that I may make assertions that cannot be disputed or attacked), and you savage me for not taking a more partisan viewpoint. I don’t see how I can win.
Negative commentary is not like mass or electric charge. I don’t have some objective standard that states that a comment was negative. I can’t measure the negative content of a comment and have everyone agree on it. And, more to the point, neither can you.
For example, I know that Wilson interpreted the statements made by Novak, Rove, and others in the period 7 July – 14 July 2003 as negative. I know that Novak, Rove, et al. did not interpret those same statements as negative. Obviously, this is a matter on which people can disagree.
Your primary goal, as best I can tell from your comments, is to assert that Wilson was the first to ‘go negative’. Since I am not trying make such assertion for either team, all I can do is note the series of statements made by either side:
^ State of the Union: Bush states “sixteen words”.
V July 6: Wilson disputes “sixteen words” and alleges improper consideration of data by Bush administration intelligence
^ July 14: Novak, using sources including Rove, disputes Wilson’s allegations, describes Plame, and details the interrelationship between Plame, Wilson, and the CIA.
V late July: Wilson continues to dispute the “sixteen words”, and further alleges that the release of Plame’s name was illegal and an attack on himself and Plame.
You allege that the first negative move was made on July 6. Wilson alleges that the first negative move was made on July 14. Current Republican talking points allege that the first negative move was made in late July. Many Democrats believe that the first negative move was made in the State of the Union speech, or before.
Who’s right? Who knows? Who cares?
My use of “response” applies simply to the fact that Wilson responded to Novak. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Sojourner
Why then did the Bush administration retract the part of the speech that Wilson challenged?