A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
July 13, 2005More thread (rope?) for Rove issuesGiven the level of comment activity, now seems an appropriate time to hit "refresh." So here is a new Plame/Wilson/Rove/Novak/Miller/Cooper et al. thread. Posted by Todd Pearson at July 13, 2005 05:33 PMComments
Not for me, I'm done. Tully laid out the truly known facts very clearly in the last comment section. Anything else is going to be a whole lot of heat and very little light. And the discussion started attracting a bunch of new people who didn't seem that interested in rational discourse toward the end there. Posted by: PatHMV at July 13, 2005 05:58 PMRational discourse, Pat? The mastermind behind the most evil, arrogant, bullying, thoughtless administration in our nation's history could be had here! ;-) Posted by: Scott at July 13, 2005 06:13 PMThere's are some serious fundamental flaws in Tully's analysis, Pat. I think perhaps it's something I'll write up over at PK. It deserves a full on blog post, IMO. Posted by: carla at July 13, 2005 06:25 PMScott; But on the positive side we haven't heard the name "Hitler" bandied about (yet) Posted by: C3 at July 13, 2005 07:25 PMYeah I know. I'm such a pimp for the Republican lie machine. Amazing that I allowed them to coerce me into voting Democratic twice in the primary and general last year (just for their own sh*ts and giggles!) Posted by: Scott at July 13, 2005 07:39 PMDid anyone see Ken Mehlman defend Rove on the Chris Matthew's show? It was very convincing. I don't know if Tully is completely in the right either, Carla; however, I am not sure that there is really any evidence that what Rove did was illegal. I am of the opinion he should resign anyway, for the good of his boss, but I got a feeling W is going to stick this one out and in the end nothing will change much. I do feel that the immediate calls for Rove's resignation were obvious political ploys... A tactic we see too damn much of from both sides. Hey Scott, Do your arms hurt when the Republicans pull on those strings? :) Posted by: Mathew at July 13, 2005 08:35 PMYES!....uh no, they're telling me to say no. Posted by: Scott at July 13, 2005 08:46 PMMathew, Tully, et. al..feel free to head over to PK to read my rebuttal to Tully's analysis. It's lengthy..which is the main reason I didn't bother with comments here. But it also includes a bunch of hyperlinks and blockquotes and other crap like that. It's just easier to deal with it in a blog post. Posted by: carla at July 13, 2005 08:52 PMI often butt heads with one of the "right leaning centrist" Centerfield contributors (don't even get me started on that), Tully. Just reading the second paragraph, Carla, and unrelated to "Plamegate", I remember that Tully mentioned a few weeks ago that 6 of the last 7 candidates he worked for were Democrats. Shocked, just shocked, you are I'm sure coming from the how oxymoronic right-leaning centrist. lol Posted by: Scott at July 13, 2005 09:06 PMScott: Are you somehow of the opinion that there aren't some "right leaning" Democrats out there? Do you actually need me to create a list for you? And even if he had worked for Democrats..does this somehow keep Tully from having opinions that generally lean to the right? Jeez. Posted by: carla at July 13, 2005 09:21 PMMy opinions lean to the cyncial/factual, Carla. Of course, that's just my opinion. :-) It was actually four out of seven, not counting my three years of freeby work lobbying against the Kansas anti-gay marriage amendment. Posted by: Tully at July 13, 2005 09:41 PMAre you somehow of the opinion that there aren't some "right leaning" Democrats out there? Yes, there are. Do you actually need me to create a list for you? You are so incredibly condescending. And even if he had worked for Democrats..does this somehow keep Tully from having opinions that generally lean to the right? If I'm not mistaken, Tully wants Karl Rove to be indicted to the fullest extent of the law if he committed a crime -- in leaking (meaning revealed the previously unknown identity of, as opposed to "stating" if her identity was known) the name of a covert CIA employee. The fact you would preface your arguments about Plamegate, to your mostly left-leaning readers, by citing your foil as a "right-leaner", someone who desired justice served regardless to whom it's served, speaks tomes about the partisan cocoon in which you live. Posted by: Scott at July 13, 2005 09:46 PMI posted this in the other Rove thread but it bears repeating. Let's try to be centrist here. It seems like half the people on this thread think Rove is the devil incarnate and the other half think Wilson is a traitor. cengel said it best... we need to wait for the facts to come out. Right now no one here knows anything for certain. You may think you know, but you don't. You don't know what Rove's intentions were. You don't know what Plame's status was or who sent Wilson to Niger (unless you yourself are a covert CIA agent, in which case I implore you, don't out yourself here!). This has become a partisan political battle that has very little, if anything, to do with justice or the truth. Much like the Whitewater and Lewinsky affairs. We can only hope that Fitzgerald is not blinded by the political lights the way some here obviously are. Posted by: Tractarian at July 13, 2005 10:09 PMScott: If you feel I'm being condescending..perhaps you might look at your own posts to me. I tend to mirror stuff like that. If I'm not mistaken, Tully wants Karl Rove to be indicted to the fullest extent of the law if he committed a crime -- in leaking (meaning revealed the previously unknown identity of, as opposed to "stating" if her identity was known) the name of a covert CIA employee. The fact you would preface your arguments about Plamegate, to your mostly left-leaning readers, by citing your foil as a "right-leaner", someone who desired justice served regardless to whom it's served, speaks tomes about the partisan cocoon in which you live. I believe Tully's premise that the leak isn't a crime is incorrect and I've gone out of my way to show that. Based on my observations of Tully's comments and posts to this blog, I believe he has a great tendency to lean to the right. This is my opinion. Yours is obviously different and to that, you're entitled. As am I to mine. I have no evidence that Tully is arguing this from the perspective of seeing "justice served". I also have no evidence that he isn't. I merely addressed Tully's points as he made them. If you'd care to post a rebuttal, I'd be more than happy to debate you on it. Why you felt the need to come back here and poke at me over my perception of Tully is a mystery. Posted by: carla at July 13, 2005 10:09 PMAlso from the other thread: Nice straw man, SRR -- that "No one in a rational voice worthy of respect or consideration should argue that Mr. Rove's actions were ok." I think most people would argue, leftloony, wingnut or what have you, that his actions were politically-motivated. But no, according to you there are people out there who think his actions ok, by which you are clearly suggesting such people condone those actions. Actually, Scott, that's not a straw man argument. Many in the right-leaning media (including the WSJ editorial page and John Gibson of Fox, both of whom called for Rove to be awarded a medal) have indeed said that what Rove did was "OK". Posted by: Tractarian at July 13, 2005 10:11 PMPlease cite my condescending post or posts to you previous to my last post. Thank you. Based on my observations of Tully's comments and posts to this blog, I believe he has a great tendency to lean to the right. What most of us are interested in finding out here is if an individual leaked the name of a covert CIA agent to the press, endangering the agent's lives, his/her associates, and U.S. intelligence plans. Such a move would not only be criminal, it would be as unfaithful to America and American values as it gets. I want justice served to such a person. If it's Karl Rove, lock him up, and lock him up for a long, long while. If by the same token this stances mean I'm right-leaning too (which is the biggest LO effing L of the year), so be it. I am reading your post and multiple links (time-consuming) at Preemptive Karma. Posted by: Scott at July 13, 2005 10:18 PMMany in the right-leaning media (including the WSJ editorial page and John Gibson of Fox, both of whom called for Rove to be awarded a medal) have indeed said that what Rove did was "OK". I was not aware of them. Thank you for pointing them out. Posted by: Scott at July 13, 2005 10:20 PMPlease cite my condescending post or posts to you previous to my last post. Thank you. I responsed with condescention to your previous post, not posts. If you do it again, I will very likely respond in kind again. Beyond that..I really don't care. What most of us are interested in finding out here is if an individual leaked the name of a covert CIA agent to the press, endangering the agent's lives, his/her associates, and U.S. intelligence plans. Agreed. I believe after reading the evidence that I can find that this indeed did take place. What difference could it possibly make to you if I consider you right leaning, left leaning, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy? You are what you are. You believe what you believe. My perception of you isn't all that big of a deal unless you make it one. I am reading your post and multiple links (time-consuming) at Preemptive Karma. Yeah. That's why I did it in a blog post. I felt it would be easier to do it there with all the hyperlinks and italics and blockquotes...than a comment thread. This is not a topic conducive to brevity. Posted by: carla at July 13, 2005 10:26 PMTully, I think you're the next Karl Rove...lol. It appears that this thread has become as much about you as it is poor old Karl. To all who call for a moderate approach, I couldn't agree more. I honestly refuse to even bother with anyone who refers to me as a "right winger" again, they are obviously speaking from ignorance. Yes, I've been outspoken in my opinions in this matter, but only because I feel that the media (and many who appear to be visiting this board for the first time) have abandoned all pretenses of moderation. There is no "innocent until proven guilty." They've got their sites set on Karl Rove, and whether or not a law was broken has become irrelevant. It's not even about ethics...it's about revenge. I don't like Karl Rove...never have. Still hold the SC primary crap in 2000 against him. That aside, I believe in letting investigations play out before we hang anyone. I believe very strongly in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." I've grown increasingly disgusted with the American media's image of themselves. Somehow, they now view themselves as judge and jury. They convicted Gary Condit, Michael Jackson, and now they are moving on to Karl Rove. In my opinion, a moderate approach dwells on the facts as they are currently known. Sure, it's okay to speculate and make a few educated guesses, but before someone is crucified, there have to be facts to back that up. It truly has become all about the seriousness of the charge today. Whether or not the charge is valid is irrelevant. Posted by: AR at July 13, 2005 10:28 PMSure, it's okay to speculate and make a few educated guesses, but before someone is crucified, there have to be facts to back that up. I completely agree. That's why I've been investigating this. :)
I responded mockingly above to your condescension in this sentence on PK: I often butt heads with one of the "right leaning centrist" Centerfield contributors (don't even get me started on that) What difference could it possibly make to you if I consider you right leaning, left leaning, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy? It's important because you prefaced a piece discussing the merits of the case against Karl Rove, and the lack of merit in the case for his innocence, by stating that your foil in the other side of the argument is "right-leaning". What matters is truth, and only truth. It was an entirely unnecessary citation to an argument. Let the argument speak for itself instead of whipping your left-leaning readers into a frenzy. Why you felt the need to come back here and poke at me over my perception of Tully is a mystery. My response to that was this: I am reading your post and multiple links (time-consuming) at Preemptive Karma. I wrote this merely to say I was looking at your argument in its entirety, not nitpicking in order to cite one thing I objected to in the preface. However, I thought this one thing would best be posted here for Centerfield to see. I freely admit that I am to "the right" of Carla. I submit that this is not a difficult position to achieve, nor does it place me in either a minority or extreme position. :-) I believe that crimes should be prosecuted, regardless of who commits them. I also believe that they should be prosecuted on factual evidence, not on partisan hyperbole. Call me silly that way. Posted by: Tully at July 13, 2005 10:50 PMTouchy bunch these days. Anyway, I'm not a big fan of old Karl. And just when I think I turning into some kind of leftist over what looks like a potential downfall, the real leftists come out of the woodwork to pile on and turn my political stomach more so than the Right's mastermind and his mudslinging antics. Now I will bask in the warm glow of my own Centrism. I welcome all of you to share in it as well. Posted by: WHQ at July 13, 2005 11:10 PMSeems to me, the more I read about the Plame affair, everybody had ulterior motives in this case, and no one is completely innocent. That said, unless/until someone can prove that actual harm was done by this story, I think it sounds like nasty political infighting and they all deserve each other. Rove shouldn't resign, Miller can get herself out of jail any time she wants, and we can all just go about our normal business. But maybe that's just me. Posted by: stephanie at July 14, 2005 12:23 AMNobody answered my question in the other thread so I’ll ask it again. To those of you who are worked up about an agent being outed: Name similar incident that concerns you. Do you really care about agents being outed or are you just looking for an excuse to blame Bush? I suspect the latter. Any comments? Posted by: Alf at July 14, 2005 07:39 AMThat's why I've been investigating this.Funny, I thought Patrick Fitzgerald was the one "investigating this".
You know, I can't help but think that Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, Karl Rove, Robert Novak, Carla, Scott, Tully, and even I are, in the context of this scandal, very much like Hitler and the Nazis.> There. we can all move on now. The thread's over. I'm more than happy to put this one in my loss column if it means we can let all the hot air out of the windbag. Posted by: bk at July 14, 2005 09:00 AM"I completely agree. That's why I've been investigating this. :)" Carla, investigate away but..... unless you have a security clearance with the CIA, subena power to seize electronic records or some sort of special in with Judith Miller, I'm not sure how much value there is to be had with such an investigation. ANYTHING we have or hear is neccesarly going to be 3rd hand information and is likely to be missing some very relevant context due to security concerns. That's the point I was trying to make in the other topic. Don't get me wrong, I think you did a GREAT job with the Washington election stuff..... however, don't you think this is a little different? How, for instance, do you plan to verify Plame's status at the CIA at the time of the article. Do you expect thier going to give you a straight answer about whether she was "covert" or not.... and how, when and to what extent her cover was blown if she was? How are you going to obtain Miller's and Roves phone records to see who they might have been talking with? Heck do you even have a way to find out what Rove's SecClR is to see if he COULD have been privy to a covert operatives identity through legitimate channels? Tully, I think you're the next Karl Rove... So where's my check? I want my check! And the Air Force transport service executive Gulfstream. And those dancing girls! OK, keep the plane. Send the check and the dancing girls. I don't have to do press conferences, do I? LOL. Sorry, Bryan, you forgot the corollary--intentional invocation of the Law negates the Law. The Niger section of the Senate Select Intelligence Report can be found here in PDF format. Posted by: Tully at July 14, 2005 10:46 AMI really was a little PO'd last night -- sorry to all. On another note, I've since made 3 comments (so far) to Carla's post on her website. I suppose part of my frustration is I'm getting all set to read an argument-making, factual piece when the second paragraph is a reference to how the analysis and facts presented by the person who the writer thinks is incorrect comes from, by implication, a "right-leaning" viewpoint. Therefore, take it with a grain of salt, or it must be discounted, etc. Not to mention the problem isn't even about policy, it's about crime and truth. Posted by: Scott at July 14, 2005 11:17 AMYou know, I can't help but think that Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, Karl Rove, Robert Novak, Carla, Scott, Tully, and even I are, in the context of this scandal, very much like Hitler and the Nazis. Okay Brian, you win the day...Lol! Posted by: AR at July 14, 2005 11:55 AMI went over to carla's site, but it's just an anti-Tully screed with no new insights, and a little outdated on the facts. I think she felt stifled by the lack of ad hominem vitriol here. Posted by: Literally Retarded at July 14, 2005 11:57 AMShe is also censoring replies to her screed. She is used to being in an echo chamber and can’t handle the fact that other people have different views. Posted by: Alf at July 14, 2005 12:00 PMI would point out that it is Carla's blog, and her right to do with it exactly as she pleases, and that I fully support that right with no reservations whatsoever. Carla and I disagree all the time, and have for a coupla years now. Sometimes we even agree wholeheartedly on some things. But it is not something that I worry about. Posted by: Tully at July 14, 2005 12:09 PMShe is also censoring replies to her screed. She is used to being in an echo chamber and can’t handle the fact that other people have different views. Not true. They've been getting spammed lately and only recently changed the comments to "approval mode". Posted by: Scott at July 14, 2005 12:18 PMWhat Scott said. I have never noticed Carla to censor out anything but spam or sheer meaningless obscene rant aka babblespam--and I'm not even sure about the babblespam. If she has problems with what you say, she will tell you so, not "lose" you via editing. Please, if you are going to argue, do so on substance and not on personalities and innuendo. Posted by: Tully at July 14, 2005 12:27 PMShe did allow my comment so I guess I have no complaint other than the fact that she is still dodging the issue. Posted by: Alf at July 14, 2005 12:37 PMIt seems to me that the possibility that Rove knew she was a CIA but not undercover is highly unlikely. The whole point of undercover is no one is supposed to know. So how did Karl know? And how could he know without knowing also she was undercover? And if he didn't know she was undercover, why the double-secret super background? Why not just trash her publicly like they do to everyone else they disagree with? Also, while only one e-mail has been leaked, the evidence goes way beyond that. As it has been previously reported, 6 different reporters were contacted by two seperate white house officials over a period of three days revealing this information, with some of those calls originating on air force one. This was an orchestrated campaign, not one inadvertant slip. It's maybe understandable that the White House wouldn't want to act immediately on this until they have all the facts, but it is fair to ask, why doesn't the White House have all the facts already? Sure, the rest of us will have to wait for the investigation to know all the details. But Rove knew then he was one of the parties reponsible. He denied it. The White House denied Rove was involved. Is it really the moderate position that Karl Rove - who now admits he leaked the info, knows where he got it but hasn't said, and lied about being involved until he was caught - shouldn't be critized or questioned, or even asked to resign, because he hasn't yet been charged with anything in an ongoing criminal investigation? Shouldn't there maybe be a higher standard for someone to hold a job in this administration than whether they've technically commited a federal crime? How about the standard the White House explicitly promised: "if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration"? I'll let Carla do her own talking on her own blog. I learned long ago not to argue theology in someone else's church. I will however take exception to her repeated statement that I have offered no proof of what I have said. I have repeatedly posted the link to the Niger section of the SSIC report. Anyone can read it, and find therein their findings that while inquiries from Cheney's office spurred the CPD to originate the trip they did so on their own authority and not by any direct request, that Wilson got the assignment on Plame's suggestion and recommendation, that Wilson's assignment predated the Italian forgeries by over eight months, that Cheney did not know of Wilson's trip until a later report was filed and passed on to the White House, that said report did NOT mention Wilson as the investigator, and that said report as filed was considered by the CIA as "mild confirmation" of attempts by Iraq to obtain yellowcake. Their evidence included Plame's own memo suggesting Wilson for the trip, and sworn testimony from CPD staffers (in Plame's office--and Plame) which indicated CPD staff held a meeting where they discussed ways to confirm the intel Cheney had asked about, that Plame both offered and suggested her husband as a resource during that meeting, and followed it up with a written memo suggesting him for the assignment. The report also confirms that Wilson has told at least three different stories--one in public, one in the SSIC hearings, both of which differ from each other AND from the official report and testimony concerning his initial post-trip debriefing. If anyone knows of a more reliable and publicly available source for the information cited than the sworn testimony and internal documentary evidence presented to the bi-partisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee hearings, I'm all ears. Posted by: Tully at July 14, 2005 02:09 PMPut Wilson's three different stories with his scheduled appearance with Chuck Schumer at a news conference today to call for Rove's resignation, and I start getting a little suspicious of Mr. Wilson's motives. Pardon me, I've been suspicious of him since day one, especially after he immediately shows up as a consultant to the Kerry campaign. I hate conspiracies, but it does make one wander where it truly all started. Posted by: AR at July 14, 2005 03:23 PMOops! "Wander" should be "wonder." Posted by: AR at July 14, 2005 03:24 PMYou knew it was coming; now it's official. Tradesports odds on Rove's resignation: by 7/31/05 6.5% Acerimusdux, "It seems to me that the possibility that Rove knew she was a CIA but not undercover is highly unlikely." It's not entirely clear that she even WAS "undercover" at the time of the leak. The CIA knows of course, and I'm sure that point will become clear in the SP's report.... but right now it's pure conjecture on everyone elses part. The Washington Times reported that her cover had been compromised way back in the 90's by the Russians and again (later on) by the Cubans. Which might explain why she was assigned a desk analyst position at Langley and why they didn't seem overly perturbed about protecting her identity. Of course, all this could be inaccurate conjecture too..... which is why I think it's important to wait for the SP's report before jumping to too many conclusions. USA Today is reporting today that a close reading of Wilson's book indicates that neither he nor Plame was stationed overseas anytime after their 1997 wedding, and that both returned to the US in June 1997 for their wedding. If true, then the 1982 CAIPA statute would not have applied to Plame in July of 2002, and no CAIPA indictment of any July 2002 leakers would be possible under the five-year time limit of the statute. Not having read Wilson's book, I'll have to take USA Today's word for it. Posted by: Tully at July 14, 2005 06:15 PMbabblespamTully; Did you just make that up!? Posted by: C3 at July 14, 2005 07:24 PM Acerimusdux, Is it really the moderate position that Karl Rove - who now admits he leaked the info, knows where he got it but hasn't said, and lied about being involved until he was caught - shouldn't be critized or questioned, or even asked to resign, because he hasn't yet been charged with anything in an ongoing criminal investigation? No, its not a moderate position and if you closely read the posts you would find that most everyone agrees with that statement. I think what's happened here is a group of moderates trying to step out of the shouting match and look at the info that we know so far. What hasn't happen is an "amen" choir. Reasoned dialogue is a GOOD thing. "right leaning" DemocratsThis term really caught my eye. If I'm a Democrat and you are too but you're a bit closer to the "center" does that make you a "right leaning" democrat. If not, then at what point does a "moderate" democrat stop being "right leaning" and become "left leaning". I just love how we all like to "peg" each other and how we often lose sight how our own biases affect our judgement of who leaning what way. Posted by: c3 at July 14, 2005 07:34 PMInvented by moi a coupla years ago, Chris. Not that it can't be also invented independently by others, and multiply. Babblespam--a long, mindless, meaningless rant, often laced with or based on profanity, bearing only tangentially (if at all) on the subject thread and symptomatic of the poster's tenuous grip on reality. Found in all blogs that allow open replies from time to time. Babblespam respects no political lines at all, but the major source vectors appear to be extremist echo-chambers. An extremely positive indicator of KoolAid Drinking. Posted by: Tully at July 14, 2005 07:37 PMCarla, investigate away but..... unless you have a security clearance with the CIA, subena power to seize electronic records or some sort of special in with Judith Miller, I'm not sure how much value there is to be had with such an investigation. Cengel: You'd be surprised what you can find out by doing some searches both on Google and Lexus. Not to mention a few phone calls. People told me I shouldn't bother with the WA Governor contest either. (shrug) Posted by: carla at July 14, 2005 08:14 PM
I don't think I said that, Tully. I believe what I said is that Scott asked me to provide links to back up my statements and I hadn't seen where he was asking that of you. I have repeatedly posted the link to the Niger section of the SSIC report. Anyone can read it, and find therein their findings that while inquiries from Cheney's office spurred the CPD to originate the trip they did so on their own authority and not by any direct request, that Wilson got the assignment on Plame's suggestion and recommendation, that Wilson's assignment predated the Italian forgeries by over eight months, that Cheney did not know of Wilson's trip until a later report was filed and passed on to the White House, that said report did NOT mention Wilson as the investigator, and that said report as filed was considered by the CIA as "mild confirmation" of attempts by Iraq to obtain yellowcake. The SSIC report doesn't mention the fact that the CIA directly disputes the claim that Plame recommended Wilson for the job. I've got a link to that information at PK, if you're interested. Their evidence included Plame's own memo suggesting Wilson for the trip, and sworn testimony from CPD staffers (in Plame's office--and Plame) which indicated CPD staff held a meeting where they discussed ways to confirm the intel Cheney had asked about, that Plame both offered and suggested her husband as a resource during that meeting, and followed it up with a written memo suggesting him for the assignment. The memo in question was written by an individual, according to documents filed by the CIA, who couldn't have possibly attended that meeting.
Tully and Scott: Thanks for backing me up on the "Carla is censoring replies", thing. I'm a lot of things...but afraid to the point of deleting debate comments isn't one of them. :) And Tully..yes, you are to the right of me. Lots of people are. Many are to the left of me as well. It's all about perception..which was kinda my point to Scott. Posted by: carla at July 14, 2005 08:25 PMC3 Bush Family Tradition: Ducking Scandal Carla, the SSIC report specifically states: Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minsiter of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." --SSIC report, page 39 IOW, the SSIC had the actual memo from Plame, who was indeed at the original meeting according to the sworn testimony of the CPD reports officer and others who were present. Plame herself testified to the Committee that she was the person who approached Wilson and brought him into the loop after her suggestion was accepted and approved. This wasn't the first time that Plame had suggested Wilson for a foreign inquiry. She had suggested him in 1999 for another Niger assignemnt at a time when his business travel would put him in Niger, which suggestion was accepted. The purpose of that trip was redacted from the report, and the SSIC report notes that since no usable intel came of Wilson's 1999 visit, no intel report of the visit was ever prepared. I'm sorry this doesn't fit with your beliefs. But it is the official results of the only published government investigation into the origins of Wilson's assignment. It is not an anonymous "sources said" allegation about a totally different report bandied about in a newspaper over eighteen months ago (as your link is), it's an official account of the actual events based on the actual sworn-testimony-on-pain-of-perjury-prosecution of the principals involved and the actual documents involved, and is NOT based on media speculation, blog hype, or self-serving unsworn statements from self-interested and/or anonymous parties. And it indisputably says that Plame suggested and secured the Niger assignment for Wilson. End of story, by the most definitive evidence available. The other: No problem, and any time. While we may vociferously disagree at times, I have never known you to be a blog weasel. I believe that kind of behavior would be totally foreign to you except in the cases I cited, and I don't know that you've ever done the second (remove babblespam). I know I wouldn't find either case unacceptable or reprehensible at all. Posted by: Tully at July 14, 2005 09:53 PMCoverman, we've gone over that a LOT. The single-axis model is VERY misleading and inadequate. There are some alternate multi-dimensional models available. Wikipedia has a good article that goes into it a bit. Aaron? Blah blah blog. Posted by: Tully at July 14, 2005 09:59 PMThe following is a url for a site that has an interesting 3-dimensional political model. Take a couple ibuprofens before trying to get through the whole thing. You might get a headache. http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm Two Alleve. And a cold washcloth. But it's a good construction attempt, it's just painful presented flat. Now, with a rotating 3D computer model..... Posted by: Tully at July 14, 2005 11:13 PMOk, no matter what you believe is the truth you gotta admit this is funny! Check out this picture... Posted by: Damien at July 14, 2005 11:34 PMSource: Rove Got CIA Agent ID From Media: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071500209.html If Rove was lying, we'll see a perjury charge at some point. Until then, to reiterate...let's wait til the facts are all in, then punish the leaker and conduit who made Plame's identity public. Posted by: Scott at July 15, 2005 07:57 AMI just love how we all like to "peg" each other and how we often lose sight how our own biases affect our judgement of who is leaning what way. It's often referred to as laziness. Sometimes it's easier to peg someone than to actually listen to their analysis and determine if it holds some validity. That being said, it's not always wrong to do it. For example, if someone on here repeatedly takes positions that can only be held to why wearing a tinfoil hat, after a while, it does become safe to assume that they are coming at issues from a plane other than our own. Posted by: AR at July 15, 2005 09:45 AMThe WaPo story is a hasty rehash of the original story in today's New York Times, here. If Plame's identity was already so widely known to the Washington press corps and society and to her friends and neighbors, if she did not even remotely fit into the CAIPA statute framework as a "covered agent" (as apparently she did not), then wasn't she pretty much "outed" when her husband went on the op/ed page of the NYT with CIA tales? The connection could not escape the press, and apparently didn't. So, what if the "leaker" was actually a member of the media, or Wilson or Plame themselves? And (as appears extremely likely at this point) no law at all was violated? Who do we crucify then? Hmm? If her identity was well known, if the press is completely responsible for revealing it in print, if no crime attaches to that revelation, if all that admin people did was fail to protect her from the foreseeable results of her husband's public actions against the administration, who's to blame? And for what? A circus, indeed. We probably won't get the "best evidence" facts until after Fitzgerald wraps up. Until then we've got the howling mob with torches marching on the castle, demanding a blood sacrifice. Posted by: Tully at July 15, 2005 10:04 AMIt just reminds me of being out on the board with a little cut on my finger...afraid to dip it back in the water because of the potential for a shark to be close by. In this case, Rove appears to have nicked himself and the sharks are circling the board just waiting for him to put one foot back in. Posted by: AR at July 15, 2005 01:31 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
