The Modulator has today’s version of the Ark (massive loads of pet-blogging) posted.
The Ark
This post is in: Excellent Links
This post is in: Excellent Links
The Modulator has today’s version of the Ark (massive loads of pet-blogging) posted.
by John Cole| 10 Comments
This post is in: Humorous
The Bull Moose gets snarkier than usual:
Santorum is Latin For Fool
To paraphrase Leon Trotsky, the Moose acknowledges that Senator Santorum has the right to be stupid, but he is clearly abusing the privilege.
The Moose is referring, of course, to Santorum’s charge that Boston liberalism and its alleged libertine academic environment was responsible for the Catholic Church’s child sex abuse scandal…
You have to give Santorum credit. You really have to put your mind to it to be this clueless. If there was a Nobel Prize for ignorance, Santorum would be the hands down winner. If there was a Super Bowl of Stupidity, Santorum would win the trophy. If there was an Oscar for being dumb, Santorum would get the statue. If there was a book about Santorum’s intellect, it would be titled the “Unbearable Lightness of Being.”
Again, heh.
by John Cole| 28 Comments
This post is in: Politics
Bush’s numbers appear to be getting worse, according to this AP poll:
1. Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?
-Right direction, 36 percent (35)
-Wrong track, 59 percent (59)
2. Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
-Approve, 42 percent (43)
-Disapprove, 56 percent (55)
6. When it comes to handling the situation in Iraq, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
-Approve, 40 percent (41)
-Disapprove, 59 percent (56)
7. When it comes to Social Security, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
-Approve, 35 percent (37)
-Disapprove, 61 percent (59)
Gutshot. If these numbers don’t turn around, the best way to know they are accurate is to watch candidates in 2006 run from Bush, fearing reverse coat-tails. I just don;t know of any event that could change these numbers, but I could, as I frequently am, be wrong.
by John Cole| 38 Comments
This post is in: Politics
I have a hard time guessing what exactly Judith Miller knows, and why she is in jail. I still can not reconcile the Miller role in all of this, so, if you lean towards the “Rove Did It” camp, Kevin Drum might be closer to the truth than he realizes:
Here’s the latest spin from the White House: a lawyer involved in the Plame case says that Karl Rove did talk to Robert Novak about Valerie Plame, but only after Novak brought it up first! Today’s rather carefully orchestrated story claims that Novak called Rove and told him about Plame, after which Rove is alleged to have said innocently, “I heard that, too.”
And how is it that Rove was able to confirm Novak’s story? The Washington Post, working from the same source, says Rove heard it from a reporter. “I don’t think that he has a clear recollection,” the lawyer said. “He’s told [investigators] that he believes he may have heard it from a journalist.”
Well, maybe so. Maybe he heard it from Judith Miller. Who knows?
That would make a great deal of sense, if true and if Rove really is behind all of this. Miller had been a reporter many on the left view as little more than a flak for the administration, and her reliance on Ahmad Chalabi and frequent (as the left describe it) parroting of administration talking points are pointed to as evidence. Thus, this possible scenario:
Rove learns about Plame. He starts with a friendly reporter (Miller), and starts the Plame bit. Either he gave the name, or Miller finds it out on her own. Miller tells Novak about this, and Novak contacts Rove.
Seems feasible. This could also incorporate the Toensing ‘Martha Stewart’ theory, in that Fitzgerald thnks Rove has perjured himself in the Grand Jury. Miller is taking the hit to keep Rove out of trouble on the leak issue, but Fitzgerald is on to the perjury and what is going on between the two. In other words, Miller is protecting Rove, and Novak is playing things straight. The only problem is that Novak claims his first source was from someone he stated was an administration source, and if the reports today are to be believed, someone who is not a ‘partisan gunslinger.’
Also possible is that Libby or someone else was the one who spoke to Miller, Miller spoke to Novak, Novak to Rove (who confirmed it), etc.
One thing is clear- the left seems to be rejecting the “Novak told Rove” defense pretty uniformly:
So suddenly Plamegate — which no one at the White House will talk about on the record, because it might get them indicted . . . I mean, because it might compromise Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation — has sprung a whole shitload of leaks.
And whaddya know! They’ve all appeared on the same day (document dump Friday, no less), they all help shore up Karl Rove’s alibi, and they all seem to have come from either Justice Department officials who’ve been “briefed” on case, or from attorneys who are very familiar with Karl Rove’s defense.
Funny how that works.
by John Cole| 10 Comments
This post is in: General Stupidity
Monica Crowley, in a discussion on shark attacks and how to avoid them on MSNBC’s Connected Coast to Coast:
John, what should swimmers look out for? (paraphrased)
How about a big f-ing fin, for starters?
by John Cole| 6 Comments
This post is in: War on Terror aka GSAVE®
The Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan connection to the London bombings and the possibility that the Bush administration blew the cover of a double agent connected to the London attacks has temporarily pushed aside the Plame/Rove debate and is currently getting the blog equivalent of the full-court press from the left-wing of the debate.
Mahablog has a pretty decent (albeit by now out of date) rundown of reactions from the left.
I, as always, cowardly suspend final judgement and issue the usual terse statement: “If this is true, something should hit the fan.”
Maha is also not buying the latest turn of events regarding Plame/Rove/Novak.
by John Cole| 6 Comments
This post is in: Politics
If you are wondering where we are to date, it is all below the fold
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.’
*** Currently Being Voted On and Subject to Revision ***
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 to testimony given by Karl Rove to the investigating grand jury leaked on 15 July 2005, Rove was Novak’s second source. The conversation, initated by Novak, took place on 8 July 2003. According to Rove, Novak informed Rove of Plame’s maiden name at this time.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.Novak’s ‘first’ source, the individual described as ‘not a partisan gunslinger,’ remains unidentified to the general public.
* In #4, an objection was raised that Wilson made one specific claims, and not many claims. This has been duly noted, although the majority concurred with the current version.