For overspill and rehashing of off-topic or unaddressed points.
Try to keep it somewhat civil.
This post is in: Politics
For overspill and rehashing of off-topic or unaddressed points.
Try to keep it somewhat civil.
by John Cole| 52 Comments
This post is in: Politics
There seems to be some general agreement so far, with the exception of one or two people. Let’s rehash (note- some slight edits):
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* (updated).
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 HUSSEIN WAS A 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.*
Asteriks denote updates to the generally agreed upon statements to date. If you have a problem with 1-6, please note it in the comments. And now, one more for the day:
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.
Unmoved,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.
Again, yes or no. Let’s clear all this up before we move on to the really thorny stuff. This is the last one for tonight, and tomorrow we will start anew, with revisions to Step #7, if necessary.
by John Cole| 27 Comments
This post is in: Politics
These remarks from Bush are going to cause a veritable s***-storm:
President Bush said today that his nominee for the Supreme Court may be someone who has never sat on the bench before.
“Would I be willing to consider people who had never been a judge?” Mr. Bush said. “And the answer is, ‘You bet.’ ”
Mr. Bush said he had had “a very good meeting” on Tuesday with Senate leaders of both parties, who had encouraged him to look beyond the federal judiciary for candidates to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
“We’re considering all kind of people,” Mr. Bush said after a Cabinet meeting today. “Judges, non-judges. Laura gave me some good advice yesterday, which is to consider women. Which, of course I’m doing.” First Lady Laura Bush said she would be pleased if the president nominated a woman to fill Justice O’Connor’s seat.
This is not going to fly well with those who want to do opposition research within the Democratic party, and it sure as hell is not going to amuse the right, who are pretty adamant about “no surprises:”
On the left, People for the American Way blasted 400,000 e-mails to supporters, urging them to contact U.S. senators and demand a moderate replacement.
On the right, the conservative Family Research Council hired three new lobbyists to work over senators during the confirmation battle. Progress for America blitzed cyberspace, sending an e-mail ad that reached 8.7 million inboxes, decrying the smear tactics Democrats plan to use against the eventual nominee. The ad was sent just 45 minutes following Mrs. O’Connor’s announcement…
Mark W. Smith, a legal expert and author of the New York Times bestseller The Official Handbook of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, says Justice O’Connor’s departure gives the Republican president a unique opportunity to change the court’s direction. Nominating and confirming a true conservative would give the court four committed conservatives, four committed liberals, and one left-leaning moderate in Justice Anthony Kennedy.
But he warns that Republican presidents have historically been very poor at choosing justices to strictly interpret the Constitution. After all, seven of the nine justices were Republican nominees. It was President Gerald Ford who nominated noted liberal Justice John Paul Stevens to the court. Mr. Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, put left-leaning David Souter on the bench.
“The history shows conservatives have got to do a better job in picking judges,” Mr. Smith said. “If you pick anybody that you have any doubts about
by John Cole| 72 Comments
This post is in: Politics
Alright- there are only 30+ comments on Step #5, but it appears we have some general consensus. If not, it can be edited, but I am going to try to keep the ball moving forward. Again, A rehash of what is generally agreed upon:
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* (updated).
Time for step #6:
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 speech that focussed on the perceived threat of Saddam Hussein and WMD, and the veracity of the bolded words quickly became known as the “Sixteen Words” in an ensuing media firestorm. The reference to aluminum tubes also came under scrutiny shortly after the speech.
Again, this is a long one, but it is necessary. Answer only “Yes” if you believe that the statement is accurate, or “NO’ if you find it is inaccurate. If you believe it is inaccurate, please state why.
by John Cole| 46 Comments
This post is in: Politics
Alright- I am getting frustrated as hell with our progress in the Plame step-by-step approach. First things first- I do not have an end narrative planned, so I would appreciate it if some of you would quit implying that I am simply spinning for the White House. I am offering up statements, when we all agree with a basic statement, we move forward. That is it.
If I had an overall narrative I was advancing, I would just write it, post it, and shut down the comments. So, no more bitching about what facts are included- yes or no on why a statement should or should not be included. If you have a possible statement you wuld like included, mail it to me.
Now, on to what we agree on:
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.
Previous attempts at moving forward have failed miserably, so here is another stab:
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 was the focal argument for galvanizing support within the general American public.
I am treating points one through 4 as established points of agreement. Commentary should be limitied to “Yes” if you agree with statement #5, or “No” and the reasons you disagree. The statement should be analyzed for the veracity of that stament alone, and not for how it may be used in the future (and yes, Paul Lukasiak, I am talking to you). This Rove/Plame issue is not going anywhere, there will be plenty of time in the future to deal with it thoroughly.
by John Cole| 16 Comments
This post is in: Politics
Looks like it will be a recess appointment, after all.
by John Cole| 21 Comments
This post is in: Open Threads
The Instapundit touches on why Arlen Specter may be a little ‘uncooperative’ regarding judicial nominees, and points to stem cell research as one cause:
Specter’s voice was rough from chemotherapy treatments. He said he is angry that stem-cell research is still being delayed by lack of funding.
“I’ve been waiting too long already,” Specter said.
Specter has introduced a bill that would overthrow President Bush’s executive order, which limits federal funding to a small number of human embryonic stem-cell lines. Specter’s bill would open up funding to unused embryos donated by couples after in vitro fertilization. The House has already passed the bill, and the Senate was expected to do the same.
But the president has promised to veto it.
Not to mention that certain members within the social con movement took it upon themselves to personally savage Arlen Specter, calling him a member of the ‘culture of death’:
Senator Specter apparently wants a place on your wall. Here’s why he shouldn’t get the chance.
Pick your poster child: Arlen Specter, bald from chemotherapy treatments for Hodgkin’s disease, saying that he is Exhibit A for embryonic stem-cell research … or those cute little kids in the AP photo with this caption: “President Bush appeared at the White House with babies and toddlers born of test-tube embryos, some wearing shirts that read ‘former embryo.'”“I look in the mirror every day,” says Specter, “barely recognize myself. And not to have the availability of the best of medical care is simply atrocious.”
Meanwhile, President Bush was busy praising a Christian agency that helps couples adopt frozen embryos. Amidst 21 babies and toddlers who began their lives as frozen embryos left over after fertility treatments, the president said, “there is no such thing as a spare embryo.”
So, again, pick your poster child. The man with a disease who thinks there is vast medical potential in destroying babies described as embryos, or the children who developed from their embryonic state to roll around on White House carpet.
That might have angered him a touch. Add to it the sheer hell the hard right put Specter through simply to get the position he had wanted as Chairmen of the Judiciary committee:
One focus when the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday will be the efforts of Specter, R-Pa., to convince his fellow Republicans that he deserves to be the next Judiciary Committee chairman. Opposition has arisen to the moderate Republican, who supports abortion rights, as a result of his postelection statements that nominees with anti-abortion views would have a tough time winning Senate confirmation.
He has since stressed that he would be a team player if he succeeds the current chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch (search), R-Utah, who must step down because of GOP-imposed term limits…
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Specter must still make his case to Republican senators.
A chairman, Frist said on “FOX News Sunday,” is responsible to “the feelings, the beliefs, the values, the procedures that are held by the majority of that committee,” which overwhelmingly opposes abortion.
Frist added that he would expect the committee’s head “to have a strong predisposition” to supporting the president’s nominee in committee and the full Senate.
A litmus test to install a chairman who will allow litmus tests, if you will, again with cheerleaders within a certain wing of the Republican party. I can’t imagine why he would engage in a little foot dragging or be a little bitter. Not at all.