Not enough votes/revisions to go forward with yet, so here is #11 again:
11.) In a column on 1 October 2003, Novak described his sources. The first source “offhandedly” mentioned the link between Wilson and
his wife. The second source, contacted by Novak, stated, “Oh, you know about it.”According toa NY Times report on 15 July 2005, Rove was Novak’s second source. The report describes a phone conversation between Rove and Novak, initated by Novak, that took place on 8 July 2003. According to the NY Times report, that is when Novak informed Rove of Plame’s maiden name.
A third source described by Novak on 1 October 2003 was a CIA press official. This source denied that Plame motivated Wilson’s selection but agreed that Plame assisted with the selection. The source discouraged the use of Plame’s name. However, according to Novak, the source did not indicate that
the use of Plame’s name would be dangerous.
Yes, No, and revisions, please.
1.) Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, was stationed in Washington at the time of her outing, and previously had been a covert agent.
2.) Joseph Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame and former ambassador to Iraq, was sent by the CIA to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was interested in/trying to buy uranium (ignore precisely what he was doing in Niger for now- we can get to that later).
3.) Valerie Plame recommended her husband to CIA authorities for the job, as he had extensive contacts in Africa from his numerous years of previous service.
4.) Joseph Wilson, either on his own volition, or at the behest of the NY Times, wrote an editorial critical of the Bush administration and many claims made by the Bush administration and was quoted widely in major media outlets prior to the ‘outing’ of his wife.*
5.) After 9/11, the administration advanced the argument that it was no longer acceptable to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, as he had used chem/bio weapons in the past, it was believed (or at least asserted) that he had stockpiles of weapons, he seemed intent on obtaining WMD, etc. Thus, a main argument used to sell the necessity of the war in Iraq was that he should no longer be allowed to possess WMD. This was not the only argument for removing Hussein from power, but it was perceived by many as the focal argument for galvanizing support within the general American public and with the international community.
6.) On 28 January 2003, President Bush, stated the following during the annual State of the Union address:
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
That paragraph was one of 18 paragraphs in the part of speech in which Bush asserted that Saddam Huseein wasa threat and the veracity of the bolded words later became known as the “Sixteen Words” in an ensuing media firestorm later on in the year when no WMD were found in Iraq.
7.) Shortly after the State of the Union Address, Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, addressed the UN Security Council, presenting the administration’s case regarding Saddam Hussein.
The Security Council did not provide the authorization the United States had sought, yet Coalition forces proceeded to initiate Operation Iraqi Freedom on 20 March 2003. In the aftermath of the invasion, no WMD stockpiles were found.
This, and other developments we will discuss in other points, led to renewed focus on the intelligence used to advocate for the invasion.
8.) Joseph 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.
*** Under Review and Scutiny ***
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 responded by publicly and appeared frequently on news shows and in other forums. He repeatedly attempted to rebut those seeking to discredit him, causing a perception that he was escalating the war of words. Contentiously, He also stated during this period that his wife had nothing to do with his selection to go to Niger.
10.) The initial Novak story was not published until 14 July 2003, it hit the AP Wire on the 11th. Also on the 11th (11:07 am), Matt Cooper of Time sent the following email to his supervisor:
Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a “big warning” not to “get too far out on Wilson.” Rove told Cooper that Wilson’s trip had not been authorized by “DCIA”–CIA Director George Tenet–or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, “it was, KR said, Wilson’s [sic] wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD (weapons of mass destruction) issues who authorized the trip.”
Also during this time period, the following (as later described in the Washington Post on 28 September 2003), reportedly occurred:
“Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife. `Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,’ the senior official said of the alleged leak. A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson’s wife as `fair game.’
DougJ
File under: giant waste of taxpayer’s money.
No one, I repeat no one, will ever go to jail for any of this. I doubt any law was broken, and if one was, there will probably be no conviction, and if there is a conviction, there will CERTAINLY be a pardon.
Luckily, the American people know this and are focused on the issues that matter: the war on terror, protecting the sanctity of marriage, and cleaning Hollywood’s culture of sleaze.
Mr Furious
1-10 were pretty clear, now we are in the territory of which leaks and whose spin do you want to believe. At this point, I almost can’t even read #11 with my head spinning off my shoulders.
Have fun in the resulting Darrell v ppGaz flame thread. Count me out.
d
I’m not so sure.
DougJ
“A domestic enemies list in the White House does matter.”
Oh, puleeze! You think Clinton didn’t have one? We know for a fact that Nixon had one. It’s just standard operating procedure in Washington. Politics is a contact sport. What’s the old saying: “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.”
Steve
This has to be a no. Scooter Libby supposedly told Novak “oh, you heard that too,” as well. (Funny how separate administration officials somehow manage to have identical casual conversations with reporters!) We can’t neatly pigeonhole these people into the roles of “first source” and “second source” just yet.
eileen from OH
No. If this one covers mainly Novack and what’s known of his source(s) through his own words, written and otherwise, it also should note that in July 2003,
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me,” he said. “They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.”
Was this someone besides the “two sources” or did he change his story in October?
I knew he said it and just checked the timeline from Catfish Cod – wow, what a lot of work that was. If it’s in an earlier point I missed it.
eileen from OH
Frank
Im joining the chorus of nos here. I think you should also mention by this point in the timeline that Bush said he would fire whoever was involved in this leak, and that even if you believe Rove’s story it is clear he leaked to Cooper and confirmed the leak to Novak.
Catfish N. Cod
On my timeline, Cooper described Source 3, “some government officials”, as sources on his 17 July 2003 report (in my notes, CR2). According to his 17 July 2005 report (CR3), Source 3 was two individuals:
* Source 3A, Rove, who he spoke to at about 11:07 am on 11 July 2003;
* Source 3B, Libby, who he spoke to on 12 July 2003.
But since Cooper called Rove and Libby, Cooper cannot be one of Source 75’s “six journalists cold-called” by Rove and/or Spreader. The news that Libby was Source 3B does not shed light on whether Libby is Spreader.
On the contrary, Libby has called up no fewer than *five* journalists to give depositions that he did not leak Plame Hot Potatoes to them. (One considers that these may be some of Source 75’s journalists, but there is no proof of that.) Libby appears to have done a lot of work to convince the grand jury that he is not Spreader, and he well may not be. There are other suspects, including Rove himself and Elliot Abrams.
Source 75 can’t be completely lying, because at least one of the six journalists has been named: Andrea Mitchell of NBC News.
Defense Guy
Yes.
eileen from OH
And if this is the place to object to some of the others (if not, ignore), I’ll state my recurring objection to #4.
4.) Joseph Wilson, either on his own volition, or at the behest of the NY Times, wrote an editorial critical of the Bush administration and many claims made by the Bush administration and was quoted widely in major media outlets prior to the ‘outing’ of his wife.*
Again, Wilson’s editorial was critical of ONE claim, not many. It is factually incorrect and muddies the water.
eileen from OH (stubborn!)
p.lukasiak
No.
If you are going to do something about Novak’s various claims regarding his sources, it should be a complete catalogue which shows how his story kept changing.
ppGaz
Mr. F, there won’t be any Darrell-ppg flame thread on this topic today.
The story puts us at a different level. We’re talking about the hijacking of this country, and I really don’t care what Darrell thinks about it, or says. He’s out of touch with reality.
I can’t say it any better than this:
DailyKos_Right&Wrong
And in regard to what this is about:
LATimes_today
There you have it. Read those two articles, and weep for your country. It’s been screwed over by these liars, these thugs. Nothing — not even war — is more important to them than having their own way, blind to any view or any information that contradicts them.
Defense Guy
Do not think this is the first time a group in this country has had thoughts like this. At one point in our history, this line of thinking was used to excuse violent activities against ‘the man’. Let us hope that this time we see none of that, and that cooler, saner, heads will rule the day.
DougJ
“The story puts us at a different level. We’re talking about the hijacking of this country, and I really don’t care what Darrell thinks about it, or says.”
I’ve got the world’s smallest violin playing just for Valerie Plame.
What tempest in a teapot. I give it two weeks shelf life. Maybe I’m being generous.
Steve
Wow, I assumed from DougJ’s opening comment in this thread that he was a snarky comedian, since nobody could make those statements seriously. I guess I don’t know the cast of characters around here well enough.
d
Don’t be silly Steve, the Republic must concentrate on defending itself from gay married terrorists in LA. That’s just a given.
ppGaz
Great comment, were it not for the fact that Plame is a legal story, but the real story.
The Plame issue revolves around accountability. How it turn out, remains to be seen. A rather small number of people have control of that story. A prosecutor, a court, a grand jury. A rather large number of people — all the rest of us — are just beating gums about it, and without the facts.
However, the real story is that in the face of uncertainty and completely lacking any smoking gun, your government chose to cherry pick from mixed signals, chose to advance the cherry picked signals, chose to advance the wrong signals, chose to use the offices of the White House to besmirch anyone who proposed attention to other signals. Later, when it became clear that the wrong signals were followed, the president of the United States stood before a crowd and made fun of the whole thing, looking under sofa cushions for WMDs and laughing his ass off …….. at you. At all of us.
That’s the real story.
Mr Furious
I’m with ya, ppGaz, and I’ve already read Kos’ excellent post.
It’s not so much that I dread the back and forth here, it can be informative and entertaining. The problem is now we’re dealing with the part of the story where concensus will be, in my opinion, impossible. Even if everyone could agree on John’s interpretation, there just aren’t enough actual facts in there
ppGaz
I agree, we’re into the hypothetical, and for the reasons I stated in my previous post: A handful of people know the facts and will control the legal outcome here.
But all of this hangs from the wrong branch of the tree. The trunk of this tree is the honesty and integrity at the highest levels of government. This issue, this war, and this country, were jacked around the way a n’er do well former alcholic rich kid would have gamed an oil well deal, amongst the good old boys in the Texas oil business, with no fear of getting caught, and no worries about accountability. A crack in the facade? Call in the Rove-Cheney thugs and break the kneecaps of the unfaithful.
The most important policy decision so far in this century, handled like a gangster movie.
DougJ
President Bush has just said that anyone who committed a crime would be fired. Compare that with Clinton who refused to resign for having committed a crime.
ppGaz
Your “better than Clinton” commentary is not useful.
Clinton is not president, Bush is.
eileen from OH
Phweeeeet!
Gratuitous Clinton reference on the field!
10 yard penalty.
eileen from OH
ppGaz
LOL.
Mike S
I’ll try to avoid a snipe fest and just concentrate on #11.
11.) In a column on 1 October 2003, Novak described his sources. The first source “offhandedly” mentioned the link between Wilson and his wife. The second source, contacted by Novak, stated, “Oh, you know about it.”
I think you need to put something about Novak’s article in which he said that he wasn’t looking for the name, they just gave it to him. I don’t have a link for that article, it may even be from the one you quoted, but I haven’t seen it in any of the consensus posts.
Phil Smith
Here‘s what Cooper has to say about this.
Catfish N. Cod
Mike S: Novak’s claim that it was given to him to use is in the timeline, in report PRR1 (Newsday, 21 July 2003). Novak’s column detailing his sources (NC2, 1 October 2003) is linked in the timeline as well.
The PRR1 report has already been added and subtracted at least once. Do we want it in this point or not? Everyone?
Mike S
Catfish
I’m talking about John’s narrative. I think what Novak said should be included somewhere in it.
Catfish N. Cod
I agree, Mike. The question is: does it go in point 11 or a later point?
p.lukasiak
Even if everyone could agree on John’s interpretation, there just aren’t enough actual facts in there
SamAm
A third source described by Novak on 1 October 2003 was a CIA press official. This source denied that Plame motivated Wilson’s selection but agreed that Plame assisted with the selection. The source discouraged the use of Plame’s name. However, according to Novak, the source did not indicate that
the use of Plame’s name would be dangerous.
Has that CIA press official testified?
Either way, nothing in the above paragraphy merits inclusion as a fact, except as an example of Novak’s statememts on the issue.
Gray
Hmm, I think it’s a good idea to devide the unchallenged facts from the controversial ones to get a clearer picture. But I don’t agre with the classification of your first statement as ‘consensus’, JC.
“1.) Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, was stationed in Washington at the time of her outing, and previously had been a covert agent.”
Hmm, firstly, she didn’t only work for the CIA, but she was in the operational devision, not an analyst. And, “stationed in Washington”, she regularly worked in Langley, too, right?
But, more important, “and previously had been a covert agent”??? Several CIA sources claim that her identity as a CIA operative was hidden until the Novak outing and that she still had the status of covert agent. The fact that the CIA went to the pains of maintaining a fake company for her (Brewster-Jennings) strengthens this. Also, we don’t know if she was or wasn’t assigned to foreign missions during the five years, because this is classified data, of course (five years important because of §426). Sry, but this isn’t consensus, this is controversial, and we don’t have the evidence to decide on this.