« A law unto myself | Main | Neal Gabler: Fox News Isn't a Legitimate News Source »

Can't anybody here play this game?

Over the past few years, I've reluctantly come to a conclusion about the Bush administration. They have one huge, gaping, flagrant flaw, one area where they are incredibly inept: they simply have no clue how to deal with certain types of political attack. And as a consequence, they end up getting slammed for doing the right (or, at least, legal) thing -- but utterly and completely bollixing up the whole situation.

We see that in Iraq. There were sound, valid reasons for our invasion and removal of Saddam's regime. Those reasons are still valid today, and I still support it. But critics of the war managed to rewrite the argument into "Bush said Saddam has stockpiles of WMDs to justify the invasion, he didn't, so Bush lied us into war." And no matter how many times you go back to the actual historical record, it's ignored by the critics and their own "reality."

We see that in the Plame/Wilson mess. Wilson out-and-out lied about his CIA-sponsored mission to Niger, saying that he found no evidence Iraq was seeking uranium. Plame lied when she said she had no role in his getting that assignment. And their supporters lie when they say Wilson's report disproved the "16 words" in Bush's State Of The Union speech, when Bush specifically said "British Intelligence" had uncovered evidence that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa. And Plame's identity was not first revealed on orders from Bush, but by bumbling idiot (and war critic) Richard Armitage. But the Bush administration's response to the attacks were so inept that Scooter Libby is now facing prison time for, as someone far wiser than I opined, "lying about telling the truth about a liar."

We see that in the fired US attorneys mess. There should have been no story there. All eight had served their full four-year term; from the moment that anniversary passed, they continued to serve solely at the president's pleasure. And as others have noted far more thoroughly than I ever could, the paper trail on these attorneys (which many media had access to, and selectively excerpted to prove their point and suppress "inconvenient truths") shows that the "political" issues revolving around these attorneys were often a conflict between what the Bush administration held as priorities for prosecutorial resources, and what these attorneys considered important -- or not.

What the Bush administration should have done was to say, simply, that these attorneys' policies and practices were in conflict with the administration's, and as such the president exercised his legal and established authority to remove them and replace them with those more in tune with his priorities. Period. End of discussion.

But no. They let themselves get blindsided, run over by a rampantly partisan freight train, and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is on the hot seat over allegations that he lied and/or misled Congressional inquiries on the matter. And like Scooter Libby, he could get nailed to the all over it.

One of the lasting legacies of the Watergate scandal was the lesson that "it's not the crime, but the coverup" that most often gets people. Now we see that evolved further, where there doesn't even have to be a fundamental underlying crime, or even an orchestrated conspiracy to cover up matters, to trigger legal troubles.

I'm not overly comfortable with this development. It strikes me as getting dangerously close to politicizing the judicial process, turning what should be political matters into legal and criminal ones.

But that doesn't change the fact that such things are reality now, and must be dealt with now. And the Bush administration damned well better get its head out of its ass and learn to deal with it, because it ain't getting any better any time soon.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Can't anybody here play this game?:

» Brutally Honest linked with A deserved Bush bash

» areopagitica linked with Inquiring minds want to know…

» Crush Liberalism linked with Was Plame Covert?

Comments (122)

I'm just praying it's all r... (Below threshold)
kim:

I'm just praying it's all rope-a-dope.
======================

Sometimes I think Bush is j... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Sometimes I think Bush is just too nice, too honest, too polite, too CLASSY to be in DC. Most people there (democrats & MSM) are just too dog eat dog, and he's just not.

On the other hand, Clinton & DC were a perfect fit.

The shear delinquency in th... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

The shear delinquency in this area has hurt Republicans & Conservatives. Probably for several more election cycles, short term, and a whole impressionable voting generation as well, long term.

The irony, is outside of the first few years of response to the WoT and the recent Surge, this has been one of the least Conservative Presidents ever.

He's too adult. Lots of re... (Below threshold)
kim:

He's too adult. Lots of recovering addicts are, God love 'em.
====================================

But buck up; can't you see ... (Below threshold)
kim:

But buck up; can't you see the Plames unravelling? Or ravelling as the case may be?
===================================

JOM is hot on the trail of ... (Below threshold)
kim:

JOM is hot on the trail of Dion, Swartz, Margolis, and McNulty. Check out the Cooper thread.
=====================

I'm not overly comfortab... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

I'm not overly comfortable with this development. It strikes me as getting dangerously close to politicizing the judicial process, turning what should be political matters into legal and criminal ones.

You're only noticing this now?? I saw this trend developing ten years ago, when the Dems politicized the criminal investigation of president #42 and then did the same thing with the court battle over the 2000 Florida vote. And the other side of it started ten years before that, when the Dem-run Congress turned the political argument over some of Reagan's policies into criminal matters by passing laws specifically designed to do so.

I grew to disagree with Democrats on policy matters slowly, over a number of years. But my unrelenting hatred and contempt for the party and all its leaders dates from those days in 1997-98, when I watched a steady parade of Dems stand up in front of the cameras and betray their oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of these United States, by defending a foul excrescence whose only redeeming value was that it belonged to the same party they did. Perjury by a public official should be a crash-and-burn crime, punished by life in prison if not the death penalty. But president #42 was given a walk by his party comrades. The day that they voted "not guilty" in that trial was the day they forever forfeited any claim to honor and integrity. They've politicized the courts and criminalized politics, and the result has been an unmitigated disaster.

Look at all the moles left ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Look at all the moles left in the Department of Justice, though. Comey's gone, McCarthy's gone, but the four above remain, and McNulty's gunning for Gonzales.

Hey, Cowboy. C'mere.
===============

Are Kim and Kim Priestap th... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Are Kim and Kim Priestap the same person?

Kim, I like your Wilson/Plame analysis! Keep us posted. :)

No, I am lower case, double... (Below threshold)
kim:

No, I am lower case, double underline kim. I've thought of changing to avoid confusion, but I'm too old. I'm also a one shot wonder, a plamologist, a plamaholic, a plamisto, and a Jivin' Joe Junkie. Once they go, I'm dead.
=======================

Alberto is a dead man walki... (Below threshold)
kaiser:

Alberto is a dead man walking!!!!!!!!!!!! It's only a matter of time. Personally, I've always thought he was a bumbling idiot. CAN'T WAIT!!!!!!!!!

Well, except for climate, T... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well, except for climate, TANG memoes, Swifties, et many such cetera.
====

After Katrina, I was simply... (Below threshold)

After Katrina, I was simply gobsmacked at the vicious attack on the administration, and BUsh personally, that asserted that absolutely everything that went "wrong" in New Orleans was Bush's fault. Even when Brown stepped up and took it on the chin, it was later said that it was scapegoating. At the same time, the media lauded Nagin and Blanco for ... what, I don't know. But they were made to be heroes.

Not once, ever, did anyone from the admin step up and defend the response, which was faster and more complete than in any other weather disaster! Not once did anyone shine a spotlight on the utterly negligent actions of the mayor and governor.

It was at that point that I figured that the Bush administration must like being a political whipping post.

Watch McNulty go sooner, Ka... (Below threshold)
kim:

Watch McNulty go sooner, Kaiser. He overplayed his hand.
====================================

Per asperum, ad astra, Liss... (Below threshold)
kim:

Per asperum, ad astra, LissaQue.
======================

We didn't go to war over WM... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

We didn't go to war over WMD; we went to free the Iraqi people! Libby was telling the truth, but the Wilson's liars? Katrina was executed with good intentions! Brownie did do a heck of a job! Dubai was a good deal! Meyers would have made a great justice. You can't expect Gonzo to know what his chief of staff is doing.

Denial is a wonderful thing.

Here's Kaiser a few months ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Here's Kaiser a few months ago:

Karl Rove is going to be indicted!!!!! It's a SURE THING!!!!! THE BLOGS SAID SO!!! CAN'T WAIT!!!!

Yawn.

Barney in denial is a truly... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Barney in denial is a truly wonderful thing.

Jay sez:And no ... (Below threshold)

Jay sez:

And no matter how many times you go back to the actual historical record, it's ignored by the critics and their own "reality."

And good ole Barney proves him absolutely 100% correct!

kim, I think you should rea... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

kim, I think you should read the letter issued by Samson's attorney. Gonzo and McNutty are claiming ignorance. Samson says that is not the case.

This is going to be good.

I think that should be Samp... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I think that should be Sampson.

There is naught on heaven a... (Below threshold)

There is naught on heaven and Earth that GW could do to combat those that 1. Lie like dogs
2. Have the platform to lie from.

Perhaps the White House dec... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Perhaps the White House decided early on not to play the Public Relations game and try to appear above it -- oops, big mistake, if they are attempting to win at PR they've failed miserably at it --

or perhaps the public doesn't like what they're trying to sell.

Lew Clark at JOM understand... (Below threshold)
kim:

Lew Clark at JOM understands the rope a dope. Powell, Armitage, Comey, McCarthy, Fitzgerald, and of course Joe and Val revealed. Who's next? The MSM and Dems may want to take their ball and go home.
===============================

Jo ... and now that Dick Ar... (Below threshold)

Jo ... and now that Dick Armitage, a vociferous Bush and war critic, has stepped forward and admitted that he is the source of the "leak" ... silence. Dead, utter silence. Except for those that are screaming for Libby's head on a platter still.

Unreal. I guess if you criticize Bush and the war, you have carte blanche to break the law? At least in DC.

Two days of spinning still ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Two days of spinning still does not changed the fact that the Director of the CIA certified Val's status as covert.

But please, do not stop on my account.

So, then, Barney, when will... (Below threshold)

So, then, Barney, when will Armitage be indicted? Will we see him "frog-marched" out of anywhere? Will the CIA director refer the matter to Justice?

If it's a clear-cut, then Armitage is screwed.

If it's the least bit ambiguous, he walks freer than Sandy Berger.

J.

the twisting of facts to su... (Below threshold)
drew phillips:

the twisting of facts to suit your agenda is simply breathtaking -- armitage, libby and rove all released information to jounalists -- armitage got his published. CIA chief says plame was covert and she said -- under oath -- she didn't recommend wilson to go on a "junkett" and had no authority to do so in any case. this junkett, mind you, was to the dust capital of the world for no pay and more than a year before we invaded iraq -- wilson had absolutely no reason lie and cook up any intelligence. his findings, by the way, were backed by the state department and the ambassador to niger.

Whether Armitage broke a la... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Whether Armitage broke a law or not, does not change her status as covert.

What you and Vicky are implying is that no CIA agents are classified as covert until their cover is blown and a conviction follows. Nice circular logic!

Since you know that she was not covert, please show us your evidence that she did serve overseas on missions within the 5-year limit.

The current administration ... (Below threshold)
Li:

The current administration obviously has nothing resembling a professional crisis management staff on hand, even though they have needed one time after time after time to tamp down ridiculous charges and lies by the MSM and the opposing party. In our sound bite /you-tube society it is just essential to have someone who can boldly communicate on the front line supported by competent crisis managers behind the scenes who understand news cycles, blogs, and how opinion is formed and reformed. In my view a perfectly fine presidency has gone down the tubes because they just can't explain to the American people why they do the things they do.

Barneygoole is about as "wi... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Barneygoole is about as "withit" as old "pucker puss" (lee lee). Define covert for us barney' baby.

Barney there is a big honki... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Barney there is a big honking problem with your belief that "leaking" Valerie Plame's name was a crime-namely, the special counsel declined to indict anyone for it.Seems like that could be a problem to your thesis.Plainly the only reason Valerie Plame is still getting attention is because the left believes it is doing damage to the Bush administration-which also is pretty much the only reason why the Democratic party does anything these days.I remember hearing someone say just after Katrina that the lesson the MSM learned from their coverage was that if they all had the same attack message they could do Bush political damage.Bush still hasn't figured out what to do about that.

jhow, I don't have to, Gen ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

jhow, I don't have to, Gen Hayden certified her status as covert. Tenet, Ashcroft and Fitzgerald all concluded or implied that her status was covert. According to the book Hubris, Plame was on a mission to Jordan to intercept the shipment of aluminum tubes.

What do you got?

I totally agree; they don't... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I totally agree; they don't "play" the political game well at all. It can be an endearing quality, because it shows they give a shit about what they are doing, and the country.

On the other hand, if they care that much about the substance, they have to take care of the "PR" game--the two go hand in hand, unfortunately.

"they simply have no clue h... (Below threshold)
groucho:

"they simply have no clue how to deal with certain types of political attack. And as a consequence, they end up getting slammed for doing the right (or, at least, legal) thing -- but utterly and completely bollixing up the whole situation."

Jay, you should have stopped after the first five words. I will give you credit, though, for a somewhat novel apologist spin on the BushCo regime. Forget the front man for a minute and consider the true sources of power: Cheney and Rove. These two are in a class by themselves when it comes to political attacks. From the systematic erosion of individual rights, to their rampant cronyism and its accompanying ineptitude, to their misguided attempt to consolidate the bulk of power in the executive branch, their disregard for the true nature of this country and its government knows no bounds.

Their "one huge, gaping, flagrant flaw" is that they never accepted the idea that they are stewards of the people who are elected to serve, not to remake the government into some perverted modern feifdom in which favors are handed out based on allegiance rather than merit. They have persisted in bending the shape of the government to serve their own selfish interests, as well as those of their corporate masters, instead of the people. With each new "story that shouldn't have been" the public gets a little better glimpse into the utter disregard this bunch has for the principles and the people of this country.

The Bush years have put this country in a deep hole that will take some time to climb out of, but if there's any good that can come of this, it's hopefully a wake up call showing the huge chasm between this government and the majority of its people. This didn't start with Bush and won't end when he slinks out of office in Jan of 09, but maybe this is the bottom and this country can start getting back on the right track.

Those in the court of George II are not victims of purely partisan attacks, media bias, or their inability to deal with these things. They are victims of their own hubris, selfishness and corruption and deserve whatever they get.

jhow, I'm am chuckling here... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

jhow, I'm am chuckling here, with my laptop.

"I love you, man!"

Barney, then what's your point? Then if she's "CovertbecauseHaydensezso," then what?

You've proved in circular logic that "she's covert, because Hayden sez so."

Now what, BarneyBrains?

Wow, the IQ does appear to degrade over time for some people. Is that why Lee is rarely posting anymore?

BarneyG2000:So how can you ... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

BarneyG2000:So how can you intercept a shipment of aluminum tubes from Georgetown? And why would you want to intercept a shipment of aluminum tubes anyway since Bush knew they were regular old general purpose aluminum tubes that had nothing to do with WMD,and if they had been intercepted maybe Joe Wilson would have written an editorial telling the world Bush was lying about them being super-duper nuclear grade aluminum tubes? You know, it has been like four years now since this idiotic non-scandal popped up-isn't about time the left "moved on"?

I have posted several chall... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I have posted several challenges asking the rightie posters to prove me wrong regarding the Wilsons so far, none have been successful.

Now I hear that Val was not covert because Vicky Tongue and Hannity say so? All I want is a little proof. If the Directory of the CIA says that she was covert, I think the burden of proof falls on the righties.

"They let themselves get... (Below threshold)

"They let themselves get blindsided, run over by a rampantly partisan freight train"
The fuel for this freight train is, interestingly 100% Republican ex-US Attorneys. It's not just that the Bush administration didn't know how to respond to a political attack. Their problem was that they actually brought this on themselves by publically giving false reasons for the firings (which Gonzales recently apologized for). Of course, the one original thought (as we know now from released emails) was to just fire all of the US Attorneys. Were they all doing badly? They decided not to go that route and keep all the ones that were "doing a great job, were loyal Bushies, etc."

Perhaps eventually we'll get a breakdown on how many were actually let go for not doing a great job, how many for not being loyal Bushies, and how many for etc.

Two days of spinning st... (Below threshold)
marc:

Two days of spinning still does not changed the fact that the Director of the CIA certified Val's status as covert. But please, do not stop on my account. Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 18, 2007 12:50 PM

OK barneyRUBBLE, I won't stop on your account.

I'll just point you to this timeline.

Upon your complete reading of that timeline I want you to post with links to any sections you place in dispute.

And BTW, just as an exercise in intellectual curiosity on your part do a search for the name David Corn and a column written on July 17th 2003.

Then lets us all know who was "outted" on that date and by who.

The Bush administration has... (Below threshold)
Charles V:

The Bush administration has had so much mud flung at it, some justified, some not, that their reluctance to confront detractors has left them so buried that the American people can't see them anymore. I have contempt for their lack of political fight. So much could have been untracked with the simplicity of but a timely sentence.

What the hell is Tony Snow's job?

marc, if you have a point, ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

marc, if you have a point, make it. I am not going to do your homework.

Aside from Waxman and Cummi... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Aside from Waxman and Cummings claiming Gen. Hayden said Wilson was covert, has anyone seen any quotes or cites from Hayden himself?

It is odd that the supposedly covert agent says she can't say for sure she was covert, not being a lawyer.

And if Fitzgerald thinks she is covert, as you claim Barney, then why isn't Armitage facing charges or behind bars?

"It is a fool's errand to s... (Below threshold)
Charles V:

"It is a fool's errand to speak up for someone who will not speak up for himself."

I agree. The Bush administ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I agree. The Bush administration has one huge flaw: they cannot cope with and properly spin their countless other flaws.

BarneyG2000: Well So what? ... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

BarneyG2000: Well So what? If Val was actually covert and disclosing her identity broke the law, why didn't the Special Counsul who was assigned to look into just this matter notice and indict somebody? Apparently Victoria Toensing and Mr. Fitzmas agree that no law was broken here.That being the case, what the CIA said about her status is irrelevant-because if no crime was committed then you have no scandal,Barney-just a political hit job.Again-if no crime was committed her status covert or not is irrelevant.This was about a crime wasn't it? Some even said treason-and now we're just playing he said she said about the technical meaning of legal fine print.And I know the left really doesn't care about that because Harry Reid is still their Senate leader.I've now posted twice about this specifically-Barney-and I think the burden lies upon you to prove that her covert status matters since the sainted special counsel beloved by the left found no crime.What say you?

Hubel on the older thread h... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hubel on the older thread has data to indicate Waxman doesn't really have Hayden's statement right. He didn't enter it into the record; apparently he just waved paper in the air. What a farce.
======================================

I can play, Jay.Re... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

I can play, Jay.

Regarding your "Speaking Truth to Pinheads" post:

1) President Bush claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) prior to the invasion, and that was the primary reason for the attack.

Well, Jay, no matter how you slice it, the Bush Admin DID focus on WMD. But pretending that it was the only reason they gave, and that it was all based on some huge conspiratorial lie, well, that's a gross over-simplification of the matter.

WMD may not have been THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION, but they certainly were one of the primary ones. The weakest part of your argument here is the fact that you provide ONE quote by George W Bush to "prove" your case. But the rhetoric coming out of the Bush admin was hardly uniform or consistent. WMD were brought up time and again to make the case against Hussein, which is the reason why so many Americans believe that they are THE reason we went in there. Bush and those around him are partially to blame for this, since they decided to latch onto the idea in the first place.

However, while many on the left attempt to blame Bush for everything under the sun, a more accurate portrayal of the situation includes quotes from him, as well others in the administration. Nothing is ever as black and white as most people want to make it...

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

- Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press
briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

- Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

-George Bush March 18, 2003

Of course, these kinds of statements were NOT limited to the Bush Administration:

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

-Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

The Bush Admin definitely decided to focus upon the WMD as a primary reason to go into Iraq, even as they peppered speeches with talk about freeing the Iraqi people and the like. Sure, there were other reasons, but the WMD were the most dramatic, and certain folks thought that was a good thing to capitalize on. War is more acceptable when people have a certain amount of fear of the enemy.

It was a tactical mistake that they made in using WMD as the focus. The Woodward book makes this whole aspect pretty clear. The information was imprecise, and certain folks pretty much jumped the gun in deciding to use it. But it's not like this is something that can be blamed soley on Bush; many, many people were involved.

Bush and Co. decided to run with it, and it kinda came back and bit them in the ass when those weapons didn't really materialize on the ground.

2) Bush told the American people that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US.

Here again the administration's characterization of the "threat" was hardly clear or consistent. Words like "grave", "immediate" and "urgent" were used. But these words do not hold the same semantic meaning as "imminent". Still, the words used by Bush and others did lend a certain "immediacy" the the threat of Hussein. Although, this was not always consistent either.

The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.

- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

Of course, the word imminent has a particular meaning, and I think that this 2003 post by Ben Fritz makes a good argument about the matter:

As we have pointed out before, many of the arguments for war made by the Bush administration were deceptive or false. However, critics who make it appear that the Bush administration's case relied primarily on claims of an imminent threat distort a more complex argument that painted Iraq as an intolerable, but not imminent, threat. Those unfair attacks do not make it legitimate for Bush supporters to jump on any critic who uses the phrase, however, or claim that nobody in the administration ever suggested Iraq could pose an "imminent threat." Complexity is not an excuse for cheap shots from either side.

That last line is a good one. There is definitely a need to allow for complexities.

3) Bush lied when he said Iraq possessed WMDs.

Going around saying that "Bush lied" is oversimplifying the whole issue. Jay, you make a good argument here, IMO. I think that this particular issue is where the new Woodward book is very revealing. From what I have read, it seems like certain people basically took the WMD idea and ran with it, even though the information wasn't quite rock solid.

But then, it's not like the communication between everyone involved--from the CIA to the DoD to the State Dept to Bush--was exactly stellar. There were miscommunications, and there were blunders.

In a certain sense, it seems like too many eggs were put in the WMD basket, and when that fell through it became a pretty major blunder. That's how I see it.

The other problem is the fact that Hussein was going around acting as if he had WMD, even thought as David Kay and others started to realize, he really didn't. But Hussein was going around acting AS IF he did have WMD, and Bush and his people were trying to find them and prove it. Pretty complex situation there. What were they supposed to do in that situation? Still, his possession of WMD is one thing; the ability to actually deploy them all the way to the US is another. His threat, IMO, was more of a regional threat, and one that we didn't want for a number of strategic/economic/political reasons.

In the end, yes, WMD were a focus, and yes, the Bush Administration did promulgate the idea that there was some kind of urgent need to deal with Hussein on that basis. WMD were used to motivate Americans into supporting the war--that's my take.

While the actual word "imminent" was not used by Bush and others per se, there was a clear campaign to make the situation seem as if it were something that needed to be dealt with promptly in early 2003, so as to protect the American people from some kind of repercussion. The main point is that WMD were used to promote a certain fear of Hussein, and to persuade the American people to support the war. Do you deny that?


OK, Ryan ... so who exactly... (Below threshold)

OK, Ryan ... so who exactly was "lying" to all those folks BEFORE Bush took office? Did he somehow have some kind of influence over Clinton when he planned Operation Desert Fox?

Or did history only begin when Bush was sworn in?

A few last questions: If, a... (Below threshold)

A few last questions: If, as you say, Bush knew there were no WMD, how logical would it be to go and prove himself a liar?

Conversely, why didn't they just plant some there, to prove that they had justification?

I mean, if a moron like Bush was smart enough to pull off blowing up 3 buildings, making it appear that they were hit by planes, and fake the crash of a 4th, don't ya think he would be clever enough to plant some WMD in the desert of Iraq?

marc, if you have a poi... (Below threshold)
marc:

marc, if you have a point, make it. I am not going to do your homework. Posted by: BarneyG2000

OK barneyRUBBLE... so now we know you're intellectually lazy (but we KNEW that) and you refuse to use Google to research David Corn.

However, the timeline is all researched and placed on a silver platter for you. All it would take is for a couple minutes to read thru it and post any disputes you may have with it.

A couple minutes, I might add, you waste posting the same comment over and over in thread after thread on an almost daily basis.

So what's the problem? Don't have the time? If so does it mean you will disappear from this thread to do "more important" things?

Or does it mean you post another whine about how you have to do someone elses "homework?

Excellent post ryan. I was... (Below threshold)
kim:

Excellent post ryan. I was in the 20% before the war who thought that No-Fly Zones, and UN inspections and sanctions were keeping Saddam under control. I expected the Iraqi people to depose him with our help. I thought Powell was full of shit with his 'there are things we can't tell you' schtick at the UN. However, I've read Duelfer on Saddam's intentions, and Rosset on his methods, and I want to know why the CIA, maybe Plame's unit, didn't tell the administration about the forgeries.
====================================

While the actual word "... (Below threshold)
marc:

While the actual word "imminent" was not used by Bush and others per se, there was a clear campaign to make the situation seem as if it were something that needed to be dealt with promptly in early 2003, ryan a at March 18, 2007 03:52 PM

And your point is?

Are you denying most if not all previous U.S. wars were "advertised" based on worst case? Wolfowitz himself said WMD's were selected as the prominent reason on a purely political basis.

So what. So much of the "Bush lied" tripe is nothing more than buyers remorse.

The war was sold just as many others were (Serbia - hundreds of thousands in mass graves when the number turned out to by much, much less. But Clinton didn't "lie.") and when "stockpiles" of WMD's weren't found (at least not yet, not until Syria is searched) many felt "fooled" or "lied to."

And the ultimate "insult" is they were "duped" by someone who they consider dumber than a box of earthworms.

marc, why should I do your ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

marc, why should I do your work?

As far as her status, I have asked repeatedly, how is an agent's status classified by whether a law was broken? You people keep bringing this up like there is valid point you are making, but each time a call for proof, you people move to something else, so once again, what evidence do you have that contradicts the certification of the Director of the CIA?

Here is a little hint, if you don't understand the talking-point, don't repeat it.

Barney, Waxman waved paper ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Barney, Waxman waved paper in the air. Did you see what it said?

Or is the hand quicker than the eye?
=========================================

Your observation is right o... (Below threshold)
George:

Your observation is right on. Free Frank Warner picked up on this and gives several examples in his piece The price of ineloquence.

You see, that asshole isn't... (Below threshold)
kim:

You see, that asshole isn't under oath.
=======================

Barney ... give it a break ... (Below threshold)

Barney ... give it a break already. And take your own advice, re: understanding talking point.

You come in here, post up your twaddle and expect everyone to just say,"Oh, OK, Barney said this, so it must be so."

You refute someone else's points and demand they provide citation. They do, you say not good enough - they cherry-picked their source. So, as Marc did, they post suggestions for Google search, so that you can see the results for yourself. Again, not good enough. They quote the source ... not good enough, you want it in their own words. So we do write it out, and you accuse people of paraphrasing other people's ideas.

Enough with the bullshit from you. Your garbage has been repeatedly shot down, kicked and stomped and flung against the wall. Yet you persist in nitpicking the most irrelevant details to death.

Plame was not covert ... covert agents do not work in CIA offices. Plame had an office in a CIA building. Simple logic there. Can you deal with it?


marc:And your p... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

marc:

And your point is?

My point is that the process of convincing the "public" that war is neceeary isn't always fact-filled, which you seem to understand quite well. Not a new story there.

Are you denying most if not all previous U.S. wars were "advertised" based on worst case? Wolfowitz himself said WMD's were selected as the prominent reason on a purely political basis.

I'm not denying that at all. This isn't some game that George Bush invented, by any means.

I know what Wolfowitz said, and I understand why they chose to focus on WMD. It wasn't about giving the American people "the facts", it was about convinving the American people that invading Iraq was the right course of action at the time.

So what. So much of the "Bush lied" tripe is nothing more than buyers remorse.

First of all, I'm not one of the "Bush lied" crowd, which should be apparent if you read what I wrote.

And just for the record, I never bought into this whole thing. That's been my position from the start. But now we're in it, and that's a reality that we all have to deal with.

And yes, this war has been "sold" just as other wars have. Clinton, in fact, did some of the early advertising in making the case for this current war. He was going around talking about the dangers of Hussein, etc. This isn't me sitting here saying that this is all GW's fault; not by any means. It's the continuation of a long held foreign policy, one that goes pretty far back.

And the ultimate "insult" is they were "duped" by someone who they consider dumber than a box of earthworms.

While I might disagree with GW on many counts, I certainly don't think he's stupid. In fact, I probably have more disagreements with Cheney and Rumsfeld and than Bush per se.

I think that Bush was dealy a rough deck of cards, and that he didn't exactly have the most efficient support team of all time.

That said, I do think that Bush's rhetoric about the war, and about foreign policy in general, leaves a lot to be desired. I would prefer to see a great deal more nuance in his assessments geopolitics, history, and so on. In a certain way, it seems pretty clear that Bush was a little out of his league when it comes to foreign policy and international politics.

I certainly do not characterize him as the source of all that is evil, as many over-reactive liberals do. They have to remember that there were MANY people involved in this war, and that there have been many people--both Democrats and Republicans--who have been involved in shaping our policies and actions in the middle east during the past 30 or so years.


OK kim, Waxman just made it... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

OK kim, Waxman just made it up and nobody has called him on it yet, except you, and you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

How come none of the Republicans on the panel objected to Waxman's pronouncement? Not one Republican disputed her status. Why not?

Again, someone show one little piece of evidence that proves Val was not covert.

Once again, another excelle... (Below threshold)
kim:

Once again, another excellent post, ryan a. I think Dubya is a great deal more alert, intelligent, and nuanced than you do, but I agree he's not great at expressing what's in his mind. Not in public, anyway.
=================

Sorry barneyRUBBLE, but who... (Below threshold)
marc:

Sorry barneyRUBBLE, but who are "You people?" Damn sure isn't me, I've never argued her status as related to the law.

That is a sadly thought out misdirection from the fact you are too lazy to comment on the timeline I posted a link to.

When will that occur? And remember it will only take time, the homework is complete, you only have to "grade" it.

You've posted numerous times in the many threads on this topic and you've been reduced to being a one trick pony and must hang your hat on a single remark by the Director of the CIA.

There's a larger issue at hand, the timeline addresses that.

I CAN give you some homework though, do you know who Larry C. Johnson is? Or what his organization, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is about or how it is connected to Plame?

Out of office, Bush may be ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Out of office, Bush may be a sight to behold. You know, the poor guy thinks he's representing all of us, not just Republicans. That restrains him a lot from speaking his mind.
===============================

Again, someone show one... (Below threshold)
marc:

Again, someone show one little piece of evidence that proves Val was not covert.
Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 18, 2007 05:16 PM

"little piece?" read the time line barney

Barney, only 2 of the 19 Re... (Below threshold)
kim:

Barney, only 2 of the 19 Republicans on the committee were there. Look on the last Plame thread for hubel discussing Waxman waving a paper in the air while purportedly quoting Hayden. I didn't make this up.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, Larry C. Johnson, Scary Larry to his intimates, has called me an ignorant soul, and I've told him that it is only his ignorance that is saving his soul.
================

I don't think you can claim... (Below threshold)
kim:

I don't think you can claim ignorance to save your soul, Barney. Maybe good intentions. The only road to heaven is paved with them.
====================================

LissaKay:OK, Ry... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

LissaKay:

OK, Ryan ... so who exactly was "lying" to all those folks BEFORE Bush took office? Did he somehow have some kind of influence over Clinton when he planned Operation Desert Fox?

Clinton and others went around saying the same things about Hussein, indeed. That was also when folks like Wolfowitz and Cheney were saying pretty much the same things, and they were trying to convince Clinton to go after Hussein at that time.

Hell, read what Hillary was saying before the war. Or what Kerry said.

Don't read me as saying that this is all Bush, because it's not. Bush got stuck with the culmination of a long ordeal, one that began at least as early as the 1970s when the US decided to increase its presence in the Middle East (b/c of the OPEC ordeal/gas crisis, in part).

9/11 opened the way, in the minds of people like Cheney and Wolfowitz, that the time was right to deal with Saddam. If you read the Commission report, among other things, you'll see that it took some time to convince GW.

Or did history only begin when Bush was sworn in?

Not in the least. All of this has deep roots, and blaming Bush for everything under the sun is not only short-sighted, it's also pretty inaccurate. If you want to talk about the history of Iraq and how it relates to this current war, I'd at least start with the end of World War I and go from there. But that's just me...

To be fair, we have to talk about a lot of other decisions and actions that were made in the past, and also about how our current policies have been shaped and reshaped by certain people. So no, history did not begin, by any means, when Bush was sworn in.

Sing it, ryan a. Hear, hea... (Below threshold)
kim:

Sing it, ryan a. Hear, hear.
===============

Oh, this one too LissaKay:<... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Oh, this one too LissaKay:

A few last questions: If, as you say, Bush knew there were no WMD, how logical would it be to go and prove himself a liar?

I'm not sure what Bush knew or believed. How can I know? It does seem clear to me that he was under pressure from certain people to say things about WMD before all the facts were in, and that the facts themselves were not exactly reliable.

What I think is that he and others jumped the gun with the WMD thing, and then had to back away from those claims.

I think Bush could have been a little more vigilant about the information he was given...but then, in a perfect world he would be able to rely on the info that his staff gave him. But with issues like war, I think that's it's important enoough to get something like that as correct as possible, at least before you start releasing that information to the public.

Conversely, why didn't they just plant some there, to prove that they had justification?

Good question. I've wondered about that. But I can't answer that one.

I mean, if a moron like Bush was smart enough to pull off blowing up 3 buildings, making it appear that they were hit by planes, and fake the crash of a 4th, don't ya think he would be clever enough to plant some WMD in the desert of Iraq?

Hahaha. Well, I can't speak for you, but I don't buy into any of that conspiratorial nonsense.

The WMD card was a bad move, and it created a certain characterization of the situation that was misleading. It was a mistake for Bush and others to use that card the way they did, IMO.

Bush isn't some moron. Hell, I wouldn't have wanted his job. He was thrown into something that was unbelievably complex. And geopolitics wasn't his forte by any means. I think he did the best he could, and that many of the situations were pretty impossible. It's easy to sit here and look at them after the fact and criticize, of course.

The media can't report and ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

The media can't report and chew gum at the same time, so several big stories are on the back burner. Brother Jeb's involvement with the defective NOLA flood pumps, which were all installed without hydrotesting is WHACK! (Wait'll Paul get wind of it ! Hoo-wee!) And the timed-fuse bombshell of the Plame hearings is that White House Office of Security chief Knodell was never tasked to do the presidents supposed will, namely to find the Leaker! Never even talked to the staff; Don't ask, don't tell! Bush lied in the Most Obvious Way this time. Even the folks in Rio Linda will grasp this fact. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/white-house-plame-leak/...Lissa Kay: all members of the Directorate of Plans wing of the CIA are covert. (Yeah, I know: you'll wait for History to call you back.)

Yo Kim...Once a... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Yo Kim...

Once again, another excellent post, ryan a. I think Dubya is a great deal more alert, intelligent, and nuanced than you do, but I agree he's not great at expressing what's in his mind. Not in public, anyway.

Thanks for that.

Now, it't not that I don't think GW is alert or intelligent. Reading the Woodward book and some other things of late has given me some more insight into the guy. I know that he has been working his ass off, and that he tried to deal with situations as well as possible. He's no idiot, IMO.

I have no idea how he expresses himself when he's not in public, so I cant really say anything about that. But if you read his speeches about Islam and Muslims, you can see that he has made an effort to revise his rhetoric about certain things, which is good.

To me, things like "The Axis of Evil" didn't get us anywhere as far as how we are perceived--or how we teach American kids to understand world history and politics. It's probably true that the rhetoric of his accolytes is often far worse than anything he has ever said.

BarneyG2000:Wise choice to ... (Below threshold)
xennady:

BarneyG2000:Wise choice to make no response to what I wrote.I know you have none.All you got for Fitzmas was a lump of coal!

Very "informative" link bry... (Below threshold)
marc:

Very "informative" link bryanD, about as much as most of your posts. Need help learning how to use HTML and linking to an article?

The error is very simple, lets see how long it takes you to find it.

As for your whine about the MSM not covering the "pump issue" just stop.

Google "jeb bush corps of engineer pumps" and note the links to The Guardian, MSNBC and Yahoo news (actually AP) among others.

How much more coverage do you need, neon lights over Times Square?

Now we see that evolved ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Now we see that evolved further, where there doesn't even have to be a fundamental underlying crime, or even an orchestrated conspiracy to cover up matters, to trigger legal troubles.

First instituted by the Republicans and Ken Starr, investigating Clinton's non-crimes. You reap what you sow.

And BTW, what is it about t... (Below threshold)
marc:

And BTW, what is it about this statement: "MWI is owned by J. David Eller and his sons. Eller was once a business partner of former Florida Gov.
Jeb Bush in a venture called Bush-El that marketed MWI pumps," that you fail to understand?

Note the past tense, "once a business partner."

If you want to argue over owner J. David Eller and his sons Republican connections feel free. You can take your Jeb Bush connection and pack sand with it.

marc, xen and kim, I have r... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

marc, xen and kim, I have read your comments, but you have not provided any evidence that Gen Hayden is wrong. marc, if you would include why I should review your timeline, I might, but I am not going to waste my time just because you say so.

The best you got is what Vicky said, but she has not said why, or she would know. Sorry, but take the word of Gen Hayden and not some FOX hack.

After the verdict, someone ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

After the verdict, someone asked Fitzgerald about her status and he said she was classified.

Classified, not covert. Oops, looks like Barney loses again.

If she was covert UNDER THE LAW - then we'll see a prosecution. If not, we won't.

Case closed. Barney can write all the posts he want, but it doesn't matter. She wasn't covert. Period.

And Barney can write all po... (Below threshold)
Jo:

And Barney can write all posts he wants in Joe's defense and it doesn't change the fact that the BI PARTISAN senate panel basically said Joe Wilson lied SEVERAL times.

BWahahahahahahahahahhaha.....

Truth is devastating to the left.

Here you go BarneyGoogle:</... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Here you go BarneyGoogle:

Evidence Hayden is wrong:::

1. Fitzmas does not indict anyone on outing a covert operative.

2. Wilson himself outs wife as operative at CIA in discussions with Wolfowitz (see transcript of telecon. with Woodward).

End of story.

This is old, and cold. And you, Barney, are a Logician Magician.

Oh xen, if don't know why i... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Oh xen, if don't know why it was wrong to out a covert agent, I'll let Valerie explain it to you in her own words:

The harm that is done when a CIA cover is blown is grave but I can't provide details beyond that in this public hearing.
But the concept is obvious. Not only have breaches of national security endangered CIA officers, it has jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents who, in turn, risk their own lives and those of their families to provide the United States with needed intelligence.

Lives are literally at stake. Every single one of my former CIA colleagues, from my fellow covert officers to analysts to technical operations officers to even the secretaries, understand the vulnerabilities of our officers and recognize that the travesty of what happened to me could happen to them.

We in the CIA always know that we might be exposed and threatened by foreign enemies.

It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover.


Bush said that he would launch an investigation, and the chief of WH security said an investigation would be appropriate over and above the investigation by the DoJ or the special prosecutor.

Bush never launched an investigation like he said he would (lie).

He said that anyone involved would be fired. Rove told at least three reporters, and he still has a job. Armitage told at least two reporters, and he was never fired.

Members of the White House staff have to sign a confidentiality agreements. Releasing classified information is cause to loose your security clearance. Ignorance of the status of the information is not a defense.

Why does Rove still have his clearance?

Oh, Barney Logician, citati... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Oh, Barney Logician, citation for my info is the link posted by marc, which you refuse to read, because the Truth Will Set You Free--

and you enjoy the Prison of Your Empty Mind.

jo and mitch, the lack of a... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

jo and mitch, the lack of a prosecution does not establish Val's status. I have ask you people to explain this to me. Show me the logic. Go and read the law. There are two parts:

The definition of covert which Valerie meets.

The definition of intent and knowledge which Fitz could not prove due to Libby's lies (sand in the eye).

What you people are saying is that conviction of a crime is the key factor in classifying an agents status. That is crazy.

If you think that it was OK to out CIA agent that spent the last 20 years serving this country, than I feel sorry for you.

marc, if you would incl... (Below threshold)
marc:

marc, if you would include why I should review your timeline, I might, but I am not going to waste my time just because you say so.Posted by: BarneyG2000

Waste your time? How much time is that, the less than a second to click them view the links contents?

You MUST be a very BUSY man. Of course that runs counter to the fact you spend so much time here.

For the sake of playing your game... the link provides the timeline of all the events that led up to the Libby conviction.

Included in that timeline (oh look another link to save you TIME, no need to waste it looking back in the thread) is the very real, consistent and logical possibility of when Plame was actually "outed," that is to say, other than the outing by Armitage.

Have you recalled the name of Larry C Johnson or his group VIPS yet? It doesn't take time to search your memory.

marc, what does the timelin... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

marc, what does the timeline have to do with Valerie's status? Nothing! My question is: prove to me that Gen Hayden is wrong when he certified Val's status as classified. Your links has nothing to do with Val's status. It is nothing more then conjecture and assumptions. There is no proof to back up the author's acquisitions.

It is a wast of my time.

barneyRUBBLE, perhaps you c... (Below threshold)
marc:

barneyRUBBLE, perhaps you can explain this change in Wilson's attitude:

February 6, 2003"

There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.

And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.

He will use them, Joe seems very sure Saddam had WMD's

March 3, 2003:

Then what's the point of this new American imperialism? The neoconservatives with a stranglehold on the foreign policy of the Republican Party, a party that traditionally eschewed foreign military adventures, want to go beyond expanding US global influence to force revolutionary change on the region.

March 8, 2003:

WILSON: I have no idea. I'm not in the government. I would not want to be doing damage control on this. I think you probably just fess up and try to move on and say there's sufficient other evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade.

At this point Wilson very much believed Saddam had WMD's

That changed barneyRUBBLE, do you know why?

6 weeks after these statements and 6 weeks after toppling Saddam no WMD's were found AND Wilson signed onto the Kerry for President campaign as an advisor.

Funney howthat works isn't it barneyRUBBLE.

And BTW, this is also where Larry C Johnson, VIPS group and Plames connection to both.

Reality is a bitch. Luck for you barneyRUBBLE you won't ever come close to getting it bitch slap because you don't live within that world.

marc, and what is your poin... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

marc, and what is your point regarding Larry Johnson and VIPS? Other than they were 100% correct and you were 100% wrong?

Oh that's right. They found a few chem shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war. That must have been the Smoking Gun Condi, Cheney and Bush were talking about.

Now we are entering our fifth year of the war where we were greeted with flowers and chocolates.

As a conservative I hate to... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

As a conservative I hate to admit it, but it's inescapable that Gonzales lied to Congress; right when he addressed them as honorable. You know when you tell a lie often enough people start believing it's the truth. Sure enough many of those fools actually think they're honorable. Of course Gonzales is not the only one guilty of such lies. In fact it's so common there seems to be a diabolical conspiracy afoot. Congress needs to investigate this and make special note of any witness appearing before them who opens their testimony with that lie.

"author's acquisitions" bar... (Below threshold)
marc:

"author's acquisitions" barneyBARNEY?

Do you mean "authors assumptions?

Or perhaps "authors presumptions?

Contrary to your delusions every date and every quote are fact not "conjecture and assumptions"

The wide brush you attempt to paint with only covers the links conclusion of why Wilson had a "change of heart" with regards to WMD's, why he never discounted the validity of the "16 words" until after becoming a Kerry operative.

As said earlier you've become a one trick pony and relgated to Gen Haydens statement contained in a paper waved to the crowd at the hearing by Waxman.

I assume Hayden didn't lie or what was said wasn't taken out of context.

But neither you barney nor I or anyone else knows do they?

Geebus barneyRUBBLE:<... (Below threshold)
marc:

Geebus barneyRUBBLE:

Oh that's right. They found a few chem shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war. That must have been the Smoking Gun Condi, Cheney and Bush were talking about.

You really don't have a clue do you? Let me guess, you did a quick google and found some of their quotes but none of the groups overall and well stated objectives?

Here's a bit of help, their overall objective is/was to recruit employees inside the Central Intelligence Agency to break the law by leaking classified material because of their anti-Iraq war, anti-Bush stance.

First, Barney, Aldrich Ames... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

First, Barney, Aldrich Ames exposed Plames status long ago. That's why she was brought back to Wash, DC.

Second, Joe Wilson was on a campaign in early 03 about his op-ed, and he exposed her status to back up his claims on WMD.

Third, the Special Prosecutor was specifically appointed to find whether there was a violation of the statute; there was none. Fitz could not say she was "covert."

Fourth, we don't prosecute people for things like this in the ordinary course because the Bill of Rights grants us the right of free speech, and we don't tread lightly on that right. It was quite relevant what Plame's role was in sending her husband on this little junket.

Fifth, you truly are a miserable fool.

Regards, Mitch

marc, so you are going from... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

marc, so you are going from Val was not covert and a lier to "who knows"? Well Gen Hayden knows (Director of the CIA) and he certified her status as classified.

Again no one has proven me wrong. Game over I win. You're wrong.

As far as your link, the assumption by the author is since Val joined Joe on some trips, she was out in the public, and if she was out in the public, everyone would know that she was a CIA agent.

I think that you have watch too many movies. CIA agents live normal lives. The take their kids to school, they attend church, they go on vacations. The only difference is that their work protect the American people against foreign aggressors, and they do so under cover and with their asses on the line.

The right thinks it is fine to hang some of our best out to dry to cover for their own mistakes.

Like they say, Clinton got a BJ, Bush got a ticket to hell.

Oh, and Sixth, don't hide b... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Oh, and Sixth, don't hide behind some status you're not even sure of, and can't define, to try to protect yourself from truthful criticism.

And sure as hell don't use my government to defend your petty little game with your hubby and the journalists.

Barney, how did this woman ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Barney, how did this woman protect us against aggressors?

From all accounts, her dept. at cia was rancid.

The take their kids to ... (Below threshold)
marc:

The take their kids to school, they attend church, they go on vacations. The only difference is that their work protect the American people against foreign aggressors, and they do so under cover and with their asses on the line.barneyRUBBLE

Correct, without living a "normal life" they would be exposed at most, or at least questions asked.

What you don't understand and never will for partisan reasons is part of that normal life should not include contributions to political campaigns or use the name of their "cover job" in any reference outside the CIA.

And BTW, I missed this keyb... (Below threshold)
marc:

And BTW, I missed this keyboard misdirection, or was it a strawman barneyRUBBLE:

"marc, so you are going from Val was not covert and a lier to "who knows"? Well Gen Hayden knows (Director of the CIA) and he certified her status as classified."

Ah...NO. That isn't what was said. And I'll repeat for [near im]possible cranial penetration:

Plame wasn't covert, didn't fall under the law as being covert, (2002 Jordon trip wasn't a "stationing" but a visit and falls outside the law) and my assumption about Gen Haydon was based solely on Waxman's stunt of waving a piece of paper around that claimed one thing was there is no proof of that.

Not even the loonbatted far left liars like dKos and atrios haven't even come up with a link to Haydens real statement.

If you can, have at it. Til then I assume based on all available evidence the quote was pulled out of context.

P.S.From all a... (Below threshold)
marc:

P.S.

From all accounts, her dept. at cia was rancid.
Posted by: Mitchell at March 18, 2007 08:49 PM

Funny isn't it? The Bush lied crowd bases most of that position on no WMD's, yet Plame was at the center of a department that produced the faulty evidence Bush went to war with.

But they all jump on Plames bandwagon in defense of this "covert spy" yet ignore her miserable job performance on WMDs.

Funny that!

" (2002 Jordon trip wasn't ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

" (2002 Jordon trip wasn't a "stationing" but a visit and falls outside the law)" marc

Thank you for showing us all how truly stupid you are. The "LAW" does not say "stationed". It says SERVED. But you wouldn't know that because you are too stupid to look it up

Another point, you really believe that a Congressman would make such an important statement attributed to the Director of the CIA and think that he could get away with it?

Ha Ha what an ass you are. That is unbelievable stupid. Like no one would ask the General. Like the General would just let that pass.

What an ass you are. Ha HA What an ass. I can't believe that you made such a statement. I just can't stop laughing. Ha Ha.

Another point, you... (Below threshold)
Another point, you really believe that a Congressman would make such an important statement attributed to the Director of the CIA and think that he could get away with it?

When the meaning of this statement really hits you, you'll really be laughing.

Oh wait ... no, that would be us.

Barney, give it up. Your posts have the debating skills of a slightly retarded 5 year old, and that is being generous. You've slid into personal attacks, which of course, is a clear indicator that you have nothing of substance to contribute. Never have. Never will.

But thanks for playing.

"..yet Plame was at the cen... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"..yet Plame was at the center of a department that produced the faulty evidence Bush went to war with." by marc

Oh really?

I hate to keep picking on you marc, but you make it so easy.

The CIA (including the Wilsons) the DOD and the State Departments all concluded that the Niger story was false, so Bush used "British Intelligence" as the source.

The "mobile labs" story was cherry picked from the Germans (after the CIA and State Department certified curve-ball as a drunk and unreliable).

The aluminum tubes BS was contradicted by Defense and the Nuke scientists at Three Ridge.

The White House Iraq Group fabricated the "unmanned drones" and other bullshit from Chalibi.

So again you made a complete fool out of yourself because you allow yourself to be lead as a sheep, and not strike out on your own like a man.

Thank you for showing u... (Below threshold)
marc:

Thank you for showing us all how truly stupid you are. The "LAW" does not say "stationed". It says SERVED. But you wouldn't know that because you are too stupid to look it up

And "served" doesn't mean a visit to Jordon.

Served and stationed is used by those in the military and other Gov service interchangably. But you would know thatl, however a smart person, possibly not you, would take the word of a 20 Navy vet on the matter.

But I don't expect you to. And BTW, keep picking. The more you do the more ignorat you look. Here is just one example.

barneyRUBBLE: The White House Iraq Group fabricated the "unmanned drones" and other bullshit from Chalibi.

The U. N.

In fact, almost all of the discoveries by UNMOVIC from November 2002 to March
2003 - empty chemical weapons shells not previously declared; 2000 pages of
undeclared documents on uranium enrichment in a private home; undeclared remotely piloted vehicles with wing spans of 7.5 meters; 35 and cluster bombs that could be used with chemical or biological agents - could have been interpreted as evidence of noncompliance."

Gee barneyRUBBLE, I never knew Chalbi was part of the U.N.

Who'd a thunk it, Chalbi made the story up and then magically produced them so UNMOVIC could find them.

A bet with "powers" like that Chalbi could "find" you a clue.

Wanna bet?

BarneyG2000:You still don't... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

BarneyG2000:You still don't have an actual response to what I wrote.Claiming that "outing" Plame was "wrong" may be true but it is certainly irrelevant.Yet again the the issue is whether or not a crime was committed.You allege none and merely quote Plame's self-serving testimony.Obviously Plame is going to claim all manner of harm to herself from what happened but it made her famous and wealthy.If she isn't happy that Karl Rove wasn't "frog-marched out of the White House" then she should be complaining about Peter Fitzgerald not George Bush.If Plame or her husband were so worried about her identity being compromised writing fraudulent editorials for the NY Times is a strange way to safeguard it.So is talking to David Corn-who may well have been the first person to "leak" her name to the public.That,by the way, is what I consider wrong-CIA officials making partisan attacks using classified information and in this case,lying about it.I find it contemptible that she has the nerve to complain about leaking classified info when so many of her CIA pals do the same thing-but it's OK as long as the target is Bush, Right?

marc, you are killing me. ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

marc, you are killing me. Let's see:
-Empty shells?
-Cluster bombs that COULD?
-Weapons Documents

Tell me marc, was the drone modified to carry and deliver a weaponised chemical or biological device? Because that is what Chalibi said, and that is what Powell told the UN.

Those are some pretty lame reasons to go to war. Here are some other quotes from your link:

For the approximately three months of inspections, inspectors reported that the Iraq was cooperating on access, with a few minor delays.

Director General ElBaradei reported that inspections since November2002 have identified no prohibited nuclear
activities but urged states to continue to provide intelligence information. ElBaradei specifically suggested that the inspection process "should be allowed to run its natural course" and that credible assurances could be provided within the next few
months.

So marc, what was the White House's response to the above?" (from your link):

The White House spokesman said that the "report...clearly shows Iraq is not complying."


What a bunch of asses (like you).

Case Closed!This i... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Case Closed!

This is what Byron York wrote about Plame's status:

At the hearing, Waxman said that he had spoken with CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden, who approved a statement Waxman read to the committee. "During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover," Waxman said. "Her employment status with the CIA was classified information...At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information."

HERE IS THE MONEY quote:

A CIA spokesman later told National Review Online that Waxman's characterization of the matter was "entirely correct."

Ha Ha, blow it out your ass kim, marc and the rest.

Barney, you poor thing. Wh... (Below threshold)
kim:

Barney, you poor thing. Why do think selectively quoting York is going to fool any of us? I do understand why you think selectively quoting will convince some peope, though, you sorry sack of sophistry.

Besides, the definition of 'covert' has now become a joke. What about this new story, which rings with some truth to me, about the upset junior officer, the solicitous fellow worker, and the supervisor who wanted Val to write an email on the 12th. This new and very interesting story, already disputed by a Senator on the SSCI, kills two birds with one stone; it gets the onus for sending Joe off of Val and back on to Cheney.

What Joe and Val with their tissues of transparent lies don't realize is that when you are selling a story to a hungry and biased reporter, or to a bunch of sick and dishonest Senators, you don't have to remain as consistent as you do when there are dozens of knowledgeable fact checkers listening in.

Yesterday, the vignette about the junior officer being upset seemed like an authentic detail, and it might be, or it might be the touch of a sophisticated liar. I'd like to know if queries about yellow cake actually provoked anxiety, and if so, why.
==========================================

The problem for Sweet Val, ... (Below threshold)
kim:

The problem for Sweet Val, butter wouldn't melt in her mouth, is that she has now identified three characters in the drama, who probably have names.

What are they?
=======

My Boykin Spaniel, Lily, is... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

My Boykin Spaniel, Lily, is now covert, and hiding in a secret location (my bedroom).

Even if Gen. Hayden said it was so, it would not make it a crime.

I think I'm going to make myself covert. It's all the rage, apparently.

Wish we could make BarneyGoogle covert, in Jordan.

Tea,You got close,... (Below threshold)
JohnMc:

Tea,

You got close, you get the brandy, but not the cigar.

The problem with the occuptants of Washington DC is that most have the impression they are smarter than everyone else. Rules for thee but not for me. Hubris maximus. Presidential libraries. 'Select lists'. On and On.

Before my time, but in a different era, doing the government's work was considered 'public service', not a way to pad your resume. Dollar a year men. Going back into private life was considered a blessing. But alas not any more and we are sorrier for it.

As to conduct of the GWOT. Bush I am afraid adopted the wrong model -- the Cold War. His assumption being that one can utilze a cadre of professionals (CIA, NSA, DSA) and military to tamp down the Taliban and AlQaeda. But he miscalculated in aspects related to technology change and societal forces. Bush should have mobilized and made it a battle of civilizations. Possibly instituted a draft. Mobilized Civil Defense on par with the PostWar period. Made the populace actively involved in their own survival. Sealed the borders.

The key failing with Bush is his style. Lived in Texas when he was governor and he did the same thing there that he is doing in DC. Bush is and always will be an operator. It's the art of the wheel and deal. No principles are involved. When he holds the strong hand he stands pat and signals just enough that there is no successful opposition. When he holds a weak hand he's 'come-along-git-along', trade anything to stay afloat. That expains:

- Education bill with Kennedy.
- His strong performance right after 9/11.
- His hold then fold on Miers.
- His current trip thru the tulips with Polesi.
- His veto pen being so dusty.
- His continuing love fest with Mexico and comprehensive immigration reform.

When you are always in the deal, no component of conviction will be utilized. And that is very sad indeed.

You don't think it his his ... (Below threshold)
kim:

You don't think it his his conviction that this is a battle of civilizations, or, rather, the Enlightenment vs an archaic religious civilization?
==================================

You don't seem to think it ... (Below threshold)
kim:

You don't seem to think it is possible for a business professional to have convictions or to operate within ethical strictures? How foolish you are.

There was a fella once whose sidekick once opined that among the elite of business and politics, he never met a man he didn't like.

Now that was a Wiley Post.
=================

See, it is precisely his st... (Below threshold)
kim:

See, it is precisely his strength that makes him vulnerable to the sort of politicians who'd exploit it. In fact, Bush is running an honest administration. What can they hang on him? Val Plame? This attorney bullroar? C'mon guys, get a grip. JayMac got a jaundiced eye. Prawly jalousie. Kinda yallowish.
=========================

Sad, 'cuz he's foolish. C,... (Below threshold)
kim:

Sad, 'cuz he's foolish. C,mon, JayMac, open the other eye.
====================================

Mitchell, I'd like full dis... (Below threshold)
kim:

Mitchell, I'd like full disclosure from Val Plame, Joe Wilson, and Larry 'Scary' Johnson about what she did during that trip to Jordan, that putative 'overseas service'. What happened to a man named Foley, who worked for USAID, at that time. Why, he died, and his murderer found. Or so it is said. Inquiring minds find the means to inquire.
=========================

By the way, Larry Johnson h... (Below threshold)
kim:

By the way, Larry Johnson has said that the CIA has sent Joe Wilson on other trips to Africa besides the two well known ones in 1999, and 2002. When quizzed about that he clammed up.
================================

barneyRUBBLE:S... (Below threshold)
marc:

barneyRUBBLE:

So marc, what was the White House's response to the above?" (from your link): The White House spokesman said that the "report...clearly shows Iraq is not complying." What a bunch of asses (like you).
Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 19, 2007 09:20 AM

There you go,hanging your hat on an unnamed "White House spokesman."

But what does the UN quote I posted say?

Here's a refresher: "...could have been interpreted as evidence of noncompliance" with 1441 because Iraq retained "2000 pages of
undeclared documents on uranium enrichment in a private home," and the unmanned drones.

Drones that were illegal because of range and wingspan capabilities that exceeded UN mandate.

So no barney you don't "win" you're sadly misguided and an even bigger buffoon than previously put on display.

<a href="http://usinfo.stat... (Below threshold)

A Legal Authority Exists for a Strike on Iraq

Valid then, valid now.

Meanwhile, Barney continues to yap ...

jhow, I don't have... (Below threshold)
jhow, I don't have to, Gen Hayden certified her status as covert.

Did we ever get proof of this alleged "certification" from Barn? I read the entire thread and never saw him provide it.

But as I read, I noticed that ol' Barn started substituting "classified" for "covert". Either a tacit admission that his earlier assertion about her "covert" status being "certified" was in error or an effort to conflate the two terms.

As far as I understand, people who work at Langley are, by definition "classified". However, there is no law on the books that says revealing a name of someone who works at Langley is illegal.

I heard Hugh Hewitt interviewing an expert on this subject yesterday on his show and this person put it succinctly (and I paraphrase): "The second a covert agent drives through the gate at CIA headquarters, they are, by definition, no longer covert."

In other words, if a covert agent even goes through the gate, they have effectively outed themselves.

What Barney does not seem to realize is that hanging onto a flimsey statement about Plame being "classified" as if this is the same as "covert" is to stand on shifting sand.

ALL the evidence as well as common sense, dictate that Plame was not covert, had not been for many years, was known in the DC community as a CIA employee, had been "outed" by many other people long before Cheney and Libby came around, and in the end, this whole story fabricated by Plame, Wilson, and the left is a bumbling attempt to divert attention away from the real issues at stake.

Leftists really do believe if they repeat a lie often enough that others will believe it.

Personally, I am not even addressing this comment to Barney since he is either a dolt or dishonest, and thus, not worth any of our time. I AM addressing this to the lurkers on this thread who are interested in whether there is a truth here. Well, there is. The left want to criminalize policy (it worked well in the Iran Contra hearings after all) and nothing will prevent them from spewing their dishonesty over and over if it furthers their quest for power.


Leftists really do belie... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Leftists really do believe if they repeat a lie often enough that others will believe it.

Of course, idiots like you won't believe that George Bush is a liar. So, I'll bite.

Prove to me Henry Waxman is a liar. Go ahead. Prove it. Because, you know, if you can't that must mean it's true.

Leftists really do belie... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Leftists really do believe if they repeat a lie often enough that others will believe it.

Of course, idiots like you won't believe that George Bush is a liar. So, I'll bite.

Prove to me Henry Waxman is a liar. Go ahead. Prove it. Because, you know, if you can't that must mean it's true.

Hansel, Waxman proves i... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Hansel, Waxman proves it himself like most Democrats do , HIS MOUTH IS MOVING LIKE YOURS .

"HERE IS THE MONEY quote:</... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"HERE IS THE MONEY quote:

A CIA spokesman later told National Review Online that Waxman's characterization of the matter was "entirely correct."

Ha Ha, blow it out your ass kim, marc and the rest."

Hey Stupid, Barnable,listen to how stupid you sound.

A Cia Spokesman tells
National Review Online
Waxman's characterization
"entirely correct."

Characterization: the act of describing distinctive characteristics or essential features.

He said she said he said. No where does anyone come close to stating that Waxman is telling the truth , regarding this bogus hearing and his Party's false accusations. Huh Barney? What was that? Speak up can't hear ya.

Hey dummy , here is a "TRUE MONEY QUOTE" by dummycrat standards.

"I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN........"

STRAIGHT FROM HORSES MOUTH.

Maybe he's learning to play... (Below threshold)
kim:

Maybe he's learning to play. McNulty's gone. Where's Fitz?
====================================

Once again, Rob, you never ... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Once again, Rob, you never fail. Can't answer a question, so you post snide remarks and call up Clinton.

Stop embarrassing yourself and go back to your sandbox. You're not adult enough to play with us.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy