There’s an old law in logic called “Occam’s Razor.” It states that, when presented with multiple solutions for a given problem, the simplest one is usually the best one.
I figured I’d apply Occam’s Razor to the Rove/Plame issue, and see what comes out.
Let’s see. Ambassador Joseph Wilson goes to Africa to investigate rumors that Iraq is looking to buy uranium to develop nuclear weapons. He pokes around a bit, drinks some tea, comes home, and writes his report.
Then he starts talking publicly about his investigation, saying that he found no evidence to support those rumors.
The only problem is, his report actually DOES support them.
So, at the White House, they have a dilemma. Wilson is out-and-out lying about his report, but they can’t contradict him because his report is classified.
So, when reporters start calling White House officials for comment, they can’t tell them that Wilson is talking out of his ass. Instead, they try to warn off the reporters from putting too much stock in his statements.
“So, Rove, we have Joe Wilson saying Cheney sent him to Africa, and then completely lied about his report. Does the White House have any comment?”
“You know we can’t comment on classified reports. But I can tell you that Cheney didn’t send Wilson.”
“Oh, he didn’t. Then the CIA Director did?”
“From what I understand, his wife works at the CIA, and she pushed him forward. All I know is, nobody here even heard of him before he was recommended for the job by someone at CIA.”
Again, that’s just speculation. And I have no problems with the ethicality of that. To me, it looks more and more like Wilson exploited his wife’s position for his own political purposes, in effect politicizing her for his own gains. At the point she went along with it, she stopped being an “honest employee” at the CIA and instead became a political operative and forfeited any claim to protection from political retaliation. Once you decide to play political games from your job, you run the risk of people taking similar measures to fight back. It’s the nature of politics.
But let’s AGAIN look at the facts. The evidence against Rove is — as of this writing — virtually nonexistent. Nor is there real evidence that a law was broken. It’s highly questionable at best whether or not the law would have covered Ms. Plame, or Mr. Rove, for that matter. Nonetheless, Democrats are fighting over microphones in order to publicly call for his firing.
This is nothing new. In the summer of 2003, Wilson himself said he wanted to see Rove “frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs” over the publication of his wife’s employment.
And again there seems to be no one who wants to actually get the best evidence in the whole Plame dustup, and talk to Robert Novak. If whoever told Mr. Novak that Plame worked for the CIA broke a law, then his publishing of that name was a crime of at least equal magnitude. He could settle the whole matter in seconds, but apparently no one wants to do just that.
But again, I have no “inside knowledge” of what’s going on, nor do I want any. I’m just one guy sitting back and looking at as much of the big picture as possible, and trying to make sense of it all.
And that last part is what separates me from a lot of people on the left, who have their conclusions already worked out (Rove must go!) and are working backwards from there to try to make the evidence fit their goal.
I’m optimistic the President will stand by Rove.
Jay – would that be called “fixing” the evidence? Funny how that works. I just know the dems would not be that diabolical!
Where’s your evidence that Wilson’s report actually confirmed the administration’s beliefs? A link, citation?
Justin,
It’s been mentioned repeatedly that the Senate Select Committe on Inteligence’s report on the run-up to the Iraq war covered this & found that Wilson was lying through his teeth in his Op-Ed.
Jay your story makes a lot of sense, and it also fits with the Cooper situation, since Cooper did contact Rove, and Cooper also brought up the Wilson issue first.
I actually think it is more likely that Rove was a source contacted by the reporters rather than the whole “Rove was shopping the story around to get back at Wilson through his wife” story.
Also, Wilson was working for Kerry campaign when he published his story and had donated them money-hardly an unbiased source.
Jay,
I think your “spot on.” It’s probably what’s going on behind the scenes that is interesting that the MSM is too blind to see.l
See these comments over at Dean’s World and Roger Simon’s:
Dean Here
and Dean Here and RLS Here
Too funny. I find it almost incredible that you people are defending Rove. Legal and criminal difficulties aside, the email is undeniable evidence that Rove leaked national security information to a journalist to discredit a critic (Joseph Wilson). How does that square with White House policy as it has been previously stated?
And let’s keep an eye on Judith Miller, sitting in jail. She’s clearly not there to protect Karl Rove, so who *is* she covering for? Another reporter? Herself? Bueller?
And let’s keep an eye on Judith Miller, sitting in jail. She’s clearly not there to protect Karl Rove, so who *is* she covering for? Another reporter? Herself? Bueller?
Perhaps Tenet?? Remember, there were two senior officials.
Do you suppose she would go to jail to protect ANY Bush administration official?
RE: Justin Orndorff at July 13, 2005 07:44 AM
Where’s your evidence that Wilson’s report actually confirmed the administration’s beliefs? A link, citation?
Not to belabor the point, Justin, but did you read Jay Tea’s post? There’s a link (that has been posted and reposted as reminded by Cyberludite) that covers this briefly. Check the right margin of that page and you’ll find links to numerous resources. Check out the FindLaw documentation and start reading. Wilson goofed and has since tried to deflect. His book and much of this sideshow is his resurrection tour.
From the WaPo link:
“Wilson’s assertions — both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information — were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.”
Again, get the source docs and skip the speculative talking points.
As usual Jay Tea, you’re the well-written voice of reason here at WizBang. This is pretty much the same conclusion I had reached myself. The whole Rove thing is overblown and there has been no crime committed. The problem is that Rove is being hurt now by the appearance of impropriety, and his lawyer sure isn’t helping matters.
Of course, as you point out, Wilson’s report is actually factual and no one really has any problems with it (it’s his public comments they have a problem with that aren’t backed up by his report), so that also puts the kibosh on Rob’s shrill call to revoke Plame’s security clearance for a fraudulent report. He has so many facts wrong in the last two paragraphs of his “Rove Already Convicted In The Press” story that I’d think he was working for the New York Times.
BTW, for those of you asking for links, here you go (props to Toby928 for previously providing this):
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200407/ai_n9459118
From the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report:
“The former ambassador’s wife suggested her husband for the trip to Niger in February 2002. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on behalf of the CIA, also at the suggestion of his wife, to look into another matter not related to Iraq. On Feb. 12, 2002, the former ambassador’s wife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations which said, “[m]y husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” This was just one day before the same Directorate of Operations division sent a cable to one of its overseas stations requesting concurrence with the division’s idea to send the former ambassador to Niger.”
“Conclusion: Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.”
Read the link for further details.
I suspect that the real source is a Democrat on the Intelligence commitee. There is no way that the MSM would have maintained confidentiality for Rove prior to the election. Example: the see-BS TANG memo forgeries.
Is Occam’s Razor anything like Ockham’s Razor?
Welcome back, Jay Tea!
The 7/10/04 Wapo article linked in the main post above erroneously assumes “classified” in their sentence: ” The disclosure of Plame’s identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name.”
In the days prior to Novak’s first article, which he sent off for publication on 7/11/03, he called the CIA: “The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.”
And more details in Novak’s followup article: “At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson’s wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause “difficulties” if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson’s wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.”
So, how “classified” could her name and the fact that she works for the CIA be, if the CIA spokesperson himself discussed it with a reporter (Novak)?
From what I’ve read, she was already potentially endangered years earlier by Agee, and pulled off her assignment to a desk position at Langley. Unless she has a private underground tunnel from her home to her office, surely anyone could see her go to work if they wanted to.
Novak further wrote:
“How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson’s “Who’s Who in America” entry.”
I believe we’re going to see the Plame Affair unravel into exposure of yet another CIA/left attack on Bush going all the way back to the forged Niger docs.
Re: Wilson, specifically. What African official would ever admit it if he were secretly doing business with Iraq? What if the French company, Cogema, which controls the uranium mines in Niger, were in cahoots? Wilson describes Cogema in his 9/18/03 interview by Josh Marshall.
And that last part is what separates me from a lot of people on the left, who have their conclusions already worked out (Rove must go!) and are working backwards from there to try to make the evidence fit their goal.
In this way, leftists are like creationists. Creationists start with the conclusion (“Bible is literal fact!”) and make up stuf to fit it (“intelligent design”).
I did read the link. However, I’d prefer the actual report and testimony from all parties involved. Since there’s so much the public doesn’t know I’ll move on to my point.
Let’s go with your logic then. (I’m of the opinion that Wilson had no reason to lie in his article or his report, Wilson worked under Republicans and even supported Republican candidates in the past.) Why would he all of the sudden chose to smear the WH?
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that he _did_ lie in his findings. Is Karl Rove’s leak of a CIA official’s identity and exposure of Brewster Jennings & Associates excusable or warranted? If Rove was a Democrat, would you say the same thing?
I suspect that Miller is protecting somebody either in the CIA or State department.
I also strongly suspect that Rove was simply used as a confirming source, rather than an admistration officcial out there shopping around a story to get back at Wilson. For one thing the Cooper story pretty much seems to shoot the “shopping around” bit out of the water, since Cooper called Rove and Cooper brought up Wilson in the conversation not Rove.
arb,
I’d be interested to know what Judith Miller could be protecting “herself” or “another reporter” from. She didn’t even write a story on this and was presumably called because of her appearance in white house administration phone logs. If that’s true, they already know who she talked to, they just want to know what they talked about. If you have an actual theory here instead of just blue-skying, please present it because right now your ideas make about as much sense as saying that the’s protecting the Pope.
Agreed, Just Me. And Cooper called under the guise of asking about “welfare reform” ! Then in the last 2 minutes, suddenly sprung the Niger subject.
Re: Just Me on Cooper’s e-mail with Rove.
Actually, Cooper was discussing welfare reform when Rove switched over to Wilson.
As for who she’s protecting, many reports suggest either herself, ‘Scooter’ Libby or someone higher up. Failing that, the State department is another possibility.
Re: jYt. The NYT have never given any records to the investigators. She’s being held in contempt because she’s failed to divulge who her sources were, despite being given a blanket waiver from her sources.
Snewk: You are presuming that Plame’s identity and job function were actually classified. However, let’s apply Occam’s Razoe to that subject. She’s married to someone who is well known in the State Department and certain international circles (that in itself would generally disqualify her from covert ops). If she really was an undercover op, why wouldn’t she have gone herself? After all, she’s supposed to be the snoop. Additional points: (1) The Vanity Fair photo shoot. (2) An NBC reporter (I can’t find the reference right now, but I think it was on Power Line yesterday) has admitted that Plame’s identity was already known to the White House press corps prior to Novak’s report.
So what does Occam’s razor tell us? She wasn’t a covert op; she was a desk jockey. And she used her position to try to undermine the person who, in effect, is the CEO of her organization. Remember, it’s not the CIA’s job to set foreign policy. The conclusion is that Plame, far from being a valuable undercover agent, was acutally part of a rogue element at the CIA involved in, among other things, abuse of government resources and violations of the Hatch Act. Will she ever be prosecuted for any of this? Not a chance.
Now, as for Judith Miller: This is indeed where it gets more mysterious. I don’t believe for a minute that if Miller’s source were someone in the Bush Administration, that Miller or the NYT would be doing to these lengths to protect that person. That leaves three possibilities:
(1) The source is someone who isn’t very important, but Miller and the NYT have decided to make the point that they are a law unto themselves, and the laws of the Unites States do not apply to them.
(2) The source is someone whose disclosure would be highly embarassing and/or have legal consequences to the Democratic Party. Perhaps a Senator on the Intelligence Committee. Perhaps Jamie Gorelick. Perhaps the whole thing was a trap set up by Wilson himself. (I don’t think it would be Tennant… he’s pretty well discredited on both sides of the aisle, and I don’t think anyone would be going to any length to protect him at this point.)
(3) It started with a reflexive opposition to anything that might benefit Bush, however indirectly. Miller and the NYT didn’t really think it through because they were confident that they would succeed in quashing the subpoena. They didn’t plan for the possibility of losing that round, and now they are stuck for what to do next. So they are stalling for time while they try to come up with a new plan.
Of these two, I think (1) would be a bit brazen even for the NYT. (2) is possible, but a scandal like that just can’t be kept secret very long (especially with the alternative media poking around), and in their heart of hearts, they know that. I think the most likely possibility is (3): they jumped into this without thinking, and now they are caught with their pants down.
Strike that, Cooper switched over to Wilson. But that difference is moot.
David Corn (the Nation reporter who was so quick to point the finger at the White House along with Wilson, right after Novak’s first article) himself contacted the CIA mentioning both Plame and another CIA Officer. Link:
“ So he [Novak] named her in a July 14 column and damaged her career and aided what might have been a White House attempt to punish or discredit Joseph Wilson–an effort that possibly undermined national security and possibly violated federal law.”
“Compare this to my experience with the CIA. After I learned from reliable sources the identity of a current National Security Council staffer who once worked with Valerie Wilson at the CIA in weapons counterproliferation, I wondered whether I should make the name of this person public, and I contacted the CIA.”
“This NSC staffer might–I emphasize, might–play a role in the Wilson leak scandal. …perhaps this individual–whom I was told is a CIA officer assigned to the NSC–mentioned Valerie Wilson’s CIA connection….”
“So should I ID this CIA person working at the White House? As Novak did, I called the CIA. I spoke to Mark Mansfield, a longtime CIA spokesperson. I informed him that I had learned about this CIA officer and mentioned the individual’s name. I asked if the CIA would confirm the person’s employment at the CIA and whether the agency wanted to make a case for not revealing his or her name. He said he would get back to me–and nothing more. Several hours later, he called. … ‘We generally don’t comment upon employment,’ he said. But did he not want to argue against naming this person. Any guidance, off the record? I asked. No, he said. ‘As a general point,’ Mansfield added, ‘we always prefer that CIA employees–whether they are undercover or overt–not be identified publicly because it can limit opportunities to travel overseas and can have unintended consequences.’ “
*****
So there we have a reporter, David Corn, receiving possible classified info on a CIA officer’s name and that he works for the CIA, assigned to the NSC, from “reliable sources.” Why didn’t Corn immediately recognize that as a serious national security breach? In his own words about Novak and the WH – “undermined national security and possibly violated federal law.” And why didn’t that CIA spokesperson, Mansfield, immediately upon hanging up the phone with Corn, inform the Justice Dept?
Investigate Corn’s sources! 🙂
You know, there’s one person who doesn’t get much mention as a possible leak…
Valerie Plame.
A month before the story about her broke, Wilson’s version of the Niger story was going nowhere. Teh, suddenly, three separate news sources got hold of it, and ran with Wilson’s version.
A month later, and “someone” leaks that Plame was a CIA agent, but what if it wasn’t in an attempt to discredit Wilson, but was, instead, a try at making him look more credible? “Wilson said there was no uranium buying, and his wife’s a CIA agent, so he probably has better info than most!”
What if Judith Miller is protecting Valerie Plame?
Good points, Cousin Dave and Cirby!
Cousin Dave – re your (2) being unlikely. No, I think you’re onto it. Plame, Wilson are at the heart of it. Remember, CBSgate (Sept 2004) had not yet happened two years ago in July 2003 when Novak’s first article appeared. So the MSM and Dems had not yet seen the power of the pajama sleuths.
Justin,
Re: jYt. The NYT have never given any records to the investigators. She’s being held in contempt because she’s failed to divulge who her sources were, despite being given a blanket waiver from her sources.
This address 0% of what I actually said. I didn’t say anything about the NYT providing any records or address the waiver. “Phone logs” are a reference to administration phone logs, which were provided to the Grand Jury.
Of course, Cooper didn’t testify based on the same waiver that Miller got. It took a personal verification from the source (Rove) to get him to talk. Miller has basically said the same thing about how she feels about the waiver, so I don’t see why her case is any differnt than his.
My question was, “what could Miller be protecting herself or another reporter from?” Other than just throwing it out there, I’m asking that someone provide a scenario where this makes any sense.
Re: cirby — enjoying your trip to moonbat-land. How does your theory fit in at all with Novak’s story and what we now know about Cooper? Answer, it doesn’t. You guys are worse than Hillary when it comes to comspiracy theories.
It’s funny how much of what you people are citing as sources is rehashed conventional wisdom and out and out misinformation that gets circulated around the web so much that you accept it as fact. First, Susan Schmidt’s WaPo story was erroneous on several counts. In fact, although the Republicans continue to trumpet that a “bipartisan report” found that Wilson lied, in fact the Democrats specifically refused to sign off on the Niger sectrion of the report. Since they went along with the rest of the report, they obviously had strong feelings about it. But of course, the MSM always lies, until they say something that supports your position. Read the comments by Pat Roberts et al in the report. I guess saying “Republicans found that Wilson lied” doesn’t exactly sound so convincing, does it?
Second, as much as you may want to point to circumstantial evidence that Plame wasn’t as undercover as is portrayed (and the evidence is very circumstantial; just because she’s listed as Wilson’s wife doesn’t automatically make ity clear that she’s a CIA operative) since when is is the right or responsibility of anyone in the White House, much less a political operative, to decide that it’s OK to reveal her identity. As long as the CIA considered her role classified, Rove had no right to decide that he could ignore that.
As for the allegation that Wilson’s report confirmed that Iraq was trying to buy yerllowcake from Niger,if you actually read the Senat report, Wilson says that the former PM told him that Iraq arranged a meeting to discuss expanding trade; he took this to mean that they wanted to talk about yellowcake. However, at the meeting, the Iraqis never brought up the subject. Wilson’s report didn’t prove anything, which was hi whole point. But because it didn’t disprove anything, it was used to support the notion that there might be something going on. Hardly enough to merit inclusion in the State of the Union. Incidentally, the Ambassador to Niger agreed with Wilson’s assessment.
Also, I don’t know where Jay Tea gets the idea that no one wants to talk to Novak about this. Many reporters have asked, and Novak refuses to say anything.
Finally, here’s an article by a former CIA colleague ofm PLame’s detailing the damage done by revealing her identity. It was posted on a liberal website (TPM Cafe) so I’m sure most of you will dismiss it out of hand. But I think the writer’s credentials for commenting on this matter are at least as solid as, say, Ken Mehlman’s.
The Big Lie About Valerie Plame
By Larry Johnson
The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans’ talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie.
For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak’s column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove.
Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover–in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport–i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O’Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.
The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that “no laws were broken”. I don’t know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate.
They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson “lied”. Although Joe did not lie let’s follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let’s use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush’s lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world.
But don’t take my word for it, read the biased Senate intelligence committee report. Even though it was slanted to try to portray Joe in the worst possible light this fact emerges on page 52 of the report: According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe’s visit in February 2002), “Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on.” Joe’s findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.
The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not. She was not a division director, instead she was the equivalent of an Army major. Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses.
At the end of the day, Joe Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the Bush Administration that pushed that lie and because of that lie Americans are dying. Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That’s the true outrage.
It would be hilarious if this flipped back onto the the Democrats and especially if it flipped back on Wilson & Plame, but that would be too good to be true.
I believe the sources were kept secret to keep the story alive. Because the story is likely going nowhere. No conviction for Rove because of lack of evidence of his knowledge or non-knowledge of Plame’s status at the CIA and Classified status of some of the information will protect Plame & Wilson.
Regarding Miller protecting herself:
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/k/kincaid/2005/kincaid071105.htm
jYt:
Records include phone logs, e-mail, etc. The New York Times is Judith Miller’s employer.
An alternative reason for Miller’s involvement is if she herself leaked information to reporters, after which reports called administration officials to confirm.
Re; cirby’s theory. It’s very doubtful. Given Judith Miller’s noted past, including her dubious reporting leading up to the war, her ideology would make her the last person that would want to protect Plame or anyone else dissenting from the administration’s views.
Justin Orndoff: But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that he _did_ lie in his findings. Is Karl Rove’s leak of a CIA official’s identity and exposure of Brewster Jennings & Associates excusable or warranted? If Rove was a Democrat, would you say the same thing?
You should ask this question of yourself, Justin. It is a playground activity, after all, to blame your own actions on what other people do.
Strike that, Cooper switched over to Wilson. But that difference is moot.
How exactly do you figure that?
Re; cirby’s theory. It’s very doubtful. Given Judith Miller’s noted past, including her dubious reporting leading up to the war, her ideology would make her the last person that would want to protect Plame or anyone else dissenting from the administration’s views.
Pure supposition. Suggestion: Quit trying to breath vacuum and wait of the facts to come out.
jYt-
Actually, the “Plame leaked” idea fits quite nicely with the Novak story, since it would have led up quite nicely to the info that he had in hand when he wrote it. Novak said he spoke to “senior administration officials,” but never said where *they* got the info – which certainly could have come from another reporter poking around and dropping hints. By the time anyone spoke to Rove on this, it was a good three or four weeks after the initial leak.
Plame told some folks, who told some folks, who tipped Novak and Rove and others. Things went south from there, because someone didn’t think things through before the initial leaks.
Chris-
Besides yellowcake, the only thing Niger exports that Iraq might import in any quantities is goats. Not to mention, of course, that some of the Iraqis in the delegation were known to have worked on the Iraqi nuke program (unless they’re buying Very Expensive Radioactive Goats, there’s something wrong with your theory).
Chris hyperventilates: . In fact, although the Republicans continue to trumpet that a “bipartisan report” found that Wilson lied, in fact the Democrats specifically refused to sign off on the Niger sectrion of the report.
You might add to their shame and disgrace they refused to sign off on the Niger section.
In any case, you can separate out the facts from the conclusions. Every independent reading of the report, be it the WaPo article, the WSJ article, or the factcheck.org research report, have come to the conclusion that Wilson’s editorial (and his book) were erroneous in their conclusions.
Here is my favorite section of the factcheck.org report (entitled “Bush’s ’16 Words’ on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn’t Lying”):
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA’s conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
What I want to know is why Wilson latched onto Rove as the source so quickly (“frog-marched out of the white house”). Especially since Wilson was claiming that Cheney’s office was behind the Niger trip, why not suspect Cheney or his staff? What information did Wilson have that Rove was the leak? What if this was a setup against Rove from the start?
Certainly more probable than any of the evil Rove master planner theories that I’ve been hearing.
JRD
Justin,
“Records include phone logs, e-mail, etc. The New York Times is Judith Miller’s employer.”
Yes, records do include phone logs, and if I was referring to NYT phone logs, then you’d be right. However, I’m referring to White House administration phone logs. I said that explicitly, twice. White House administration phone logs aren’t NYT records and can be provided by the White House (as they were) without any permission from the NYT.
Back to arb — the article from the widely respected news and judicial analyst at Men’s News Daily makes much of the confidentiality waivers. Miller and Cooper always maintained that these blanket waivers were not sufficient. Cooper got his “personal” waiver just before he was to got to jail. Isn’t the more obvious answer that Judith Miller has the same belief as Cooper and is waiting for her explicit permission rather than that reporters are now acting as leakers of classified information to administration officials instead of the other way around? I’d really be interested to hear your Cooper theory in light of your Miller theory.
In any event, you’re free to have your conspiracy theories and I’m free to laugh in your face now and again when they’re proven wrong beyond all doubt.
Strike that, Cooper switched over to Wilson. But that difference is moot.
Moot? How is it moot? If the assertion is that Rove was shopping Plame’s name around town to discredit Wilson, then I would say there is a big difference between Rove bringing up the subject and Cooper bringing it up.
If Rove called Cooper or brought up the subject when Cooper called him, then it *might* fit with the theory that Rove wanted to leak the info. Since Cooper brought up the subject, that sounds more like Cooper was shopping for info and wanted to see what Rove knew.
That’s a BIG difference. It’s not moot.
I’ll have to add a number (4) to my list above. According to an article that Power Line posted yesterday afternoon, Miller and the special prosecutor have some history and don’t like each other. Thus, the possibility exists that the whole thing is the result of personal grudges. I’m not sure where to rank that in the list.
RE: Justin Orndorff’s post (July 13, 2005 10:03 AM)
(I’m of the opinion that Wilson had no reason to lie in his article or his report, Wilson worked under Republicans and even supported Republican candidates in the past.) Why would he all of the sudden chose to smear the WH?
I have no idea but others do provide some insight. An example:
Our Man in Niger
Exposed and discredited, Joe Wilson might consider going back.
Clifford D. May [July 12, 2004]
“In 1991, Wilson’s book jacket boasts, President George H.W. Bush praised Wilson as ‘a true American hero,’ and he was made an ambassador. But for some reason, he was assigned not to Cairo, Paris, or Moscow, places where you put the best and the brightest, nor was he sent to Bermuda or Luxembourg, places you send people you want to reward. Instead, he was sent to Gabon, a diplomatic backwater of the first rank.”
“After that, he says in his memoir, ‘I had risen about as high as I could in the Foreign Service and decided it was time to retire.’ Well, that’s not exactly accurate either. He could have been given a more important posting, such as Kenya or South Africa, or he could have been promoted higher in the senior Foreign Service (he made only the first of four grades). Instead, he was evidently (according to my sources) forced into involuntary retirement at 48. (The minimum age for voluntary retirement in the Foreign Service is 50.) After that, he seems to have made quite a bit of money — doing what for whom is unclear and I wish the Senate committee had attempted to find out.”
“But based on one op-ed declaring 16 words spoken by the president a lie, he transformed himself into an instant celebrity and, for a while, it seemed, a contender for power within the chien-mange-le-chien world of foreign policy. That dream has now probably evaporated. It is hard to see how a President John Kerry would now want Wilson in his inner circle. But if he desired to return to Gabon or Niger I, for one, would not be among those opposing him.”
Wilson’s background from CPS Advisory Group
So, and this is wild speculation by me with some insight from NRO’s May, it’s possible that this was simply a career move. Wilson, a career diplomat, was not going anywhere with the Republican Party and saw a job opportunity with the Democrats. The Iraq war opened a door for his renewed involvement in international diplomacy and, perhaps to curry favor with the Democrats, he took some initiative. He appeared to have higher positions while under the care of a Democratic CiC (though I don’t really know the internal hierarchies of the Federal government). GWBush was not going to insert him as a high-flyer no matter what, but if he could spin his “tea-sipping” work within the new, anti-war sentiment and help Kerry get elected, he could cash in that chit with a receptive and victorious Kerry administration. Recall that Wilson was a foreign policy advisor for Kerry’s Presidential run.
Seeing as Wilson seems to enjoy the limelight, I’d venture to say he was looking for a high profile promotion. Quite basic really.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that he _did_ lie in his findings. Is Karl Rove’s leak of a CIA official’s identity and exposure of Brewster Jennings & Associates excusable or warranted? If Rove was a Democrat, would you say the same thing?
If (a BIG if) he lied and broke the law as determined by a court, and not one of public opinion, then no… it is not excusable and he should punished according to statutes. Warranted? Different matter and some grey area. Given Wilson’s attempt to undermine the Presidency in the single most important issue of the past ten years, then the disclosure is warranted in my mind. I would consider Rove’s revelations patriotic though there might still be legal consequences for the action. He could be seen as doing the wrong (legal) thing and the right (ethical) thing for the right (patriotic) reason.
Were Rove a Democrat, I think I would still feel the same way considering the totality of all that I know. As more becomes known, I may shift positions, but as it stands that seems unlikely.
Now let me put the shoe on the other foot. What should be done about Wilson’s actions? Should there not be some repercussions beyond what has happened already? Does he not bear any responsibility for originating (or partaking in) this cascade of events?
jYt:
“Of course, Cooper didn’t testify based on the same waiver that Miller got. It took a personal verification from the source (Rove) to get him to talk.”
There’s a complicating factor regarding Cooper that makes the story even muddier. He is, apparently, the son-in-law of Time’s publisher. (Ahh, nepotism — regarded as unethical everywhere in corporate America. Except, apparently, the MSM.) One wonders whether or not Time would have been willing to give an average staff reporter or stringer the same cover that they have given Cooper.
You all can spin this all you want.
The problem is that it is not up to the people reading your blog, it is up to Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury.
so suck on that.
What Novak has said, and I believe he wrote in his column a few days after the intial Plame name dropping, is that everyone in Washington media knew Plame worked at Langley as a WMD specialist and several Washington columnists and others have backed Novak on that statement
gee could Ms. Plame have been one of those CIA leakers the NY Times and other liberal media rags were using to bash Bush, hmmmm……and might that explain why her position at the CIA was common knowledge
don’t forget Plame was not working covert operations then she was an analyst for the WMD division……..
so how come it wasn’t a secret in Washington in the first place, are perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Wilson not very discreet……..
ergo no secret, no crime
Wilson especially LIED about the nuclear threat and the WMD Sadam had acquired, didn’t he… Oh wait, it was Bush who lied. Put that “razor” to your throats, losers.
yes, it’s all a Liberal conspiracy to bring down the righteous, infallible, god-fearing…
… all this lying is nauseating me. how you neo-cons do it all the time is beyond me.
Funny.
That’s what most of us on the right have been saying in response to the lynch-mob mentality of the Democrats.
So if the Grand Jury fails to return an indictment on Rove, are you lefties going to suck on it?
In case the rest of you nutbags don’t notice the correction ran by the Washington Post that is present right there on the webpage Jay Tea has linked to claiming Joe Wilson was full of shit I will paste it here:
_____Correction_____
In some editions of the Post, a July 10 story on a new Senate report on intelligence failures said that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV told his contacts at the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from the African nation of Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that was interested in making that purchase, but no contract was signed, according to the report.
So in essence it is Jay Tea That is full of shit!
i think both sides are stupid on this matter
but why if Rove did not do anything illegal, why did the white house try to cover up his participation to begin with? why 2 years ago when questioned about it, couldnt they just bring it out in the open ?
So in essence it is Jay Tea That is full of shit!
Did you actually read the article or just the correction? The 1998 incident was not the only transaction discussed in the piece. The location of the paragraph and its brevity would indicate that it was a relatively unimportant issue. In fact, in the paragraph just before the mention of the Iran attempt to by yellowcake, there is a reference to a June 1999 incident in which an Iraqi inquired about a purchase, but Niger refused to sell it because of the sanctions (so says Niger.)
You really should read the whole article before shooting your mouth off.
why if Rove did not do anything illegal, why did the white house try to cover up his participation to begin with? why 2 years ago when questioned about it, couldnt they just bring it out in the open ?
Posted by: politics suck at July 13, 2005 04:15 PM
It’s 6:50 EST and this stopped everyone!
This just goes to show you that you can’t trust Libs. Plame and Wilson were known Libs in Washington. Why is a Republican administration using a Lib to investigate something so important? By the way, according to sources I believe are reliable, Wilson had mentioned his wife’s career at the CIA on his website way before anyone outed her. Also, after all the info came out about Wilson’s lies, Kerry’s people removed Wilson’s bio and info from Candidate Genius’ website.