As far as I can tell, this is Wilson himself trying to keep the story alive with a new "development".

Mr. Bruce is so spot-on. This story is dead and Wilson is attempting to revive it. The public outcry is deafening, wouldn't you agree? I thought not.

I still haven't seen any sign that anyone outside the CIA knew, or was authorized to know, of Plame's covert status. Thus means that only CIA officials - mostly Democrats - can be guilty of violating 50 U.S.C. 421.

And if it was only a leak of classified information, not an intentional outing of a covert agent, then it takes trivial status compared to, say, the New York Times publishing what it believed were Iraq war plans - whether the leaker was Democrat, Republican, or unaffiliated. (Note that there a number of non-Republican "senior administration officials," including George Tenet.)

It may well be that Bush's more aggressive assertions yesterday were due to confidence that no Republicans were guilty of wrongdoing. That was my first thought when I heard of them.

To answer the question, even, of whether the leak was unethical (as opposed to accidental and clumsy), one would have to know the purpose and the context of the leak.

If it came in the way of a senior official explaining the course of events to a journalist, as Robert Novak has intimated, there's nothing wrong with it. For senior officials, especially in a democracy, defending the president's policy and declassifying information to do it is part of the job. One of the senior officials are supposed to do is blow intelligence sources by acting on, and exposing intelligence, either for operational or political purposes. Undoubtedly intelligence types winced when Colin Powell went to the UN, but nobody suggested it was improper.

Was it illegal to name names? If Mrs. Wilson's identity as a clandestine operative was known, it was, but it's not even clear that the official who referred to Mrs. Wilson's employment at CIA knew that she had been a clandestine ovperative (the Washington Post's articles suggest that she was working at one of CIA's analytic "centers" at the time, and Robert Novak suggests that he believed she was an analyst, and used the term 'operative' in another, political, context. Given that he's one of the few parties going on record here, I see no reason to doubt him). If the administration official at issue didn't know the Mrs. Wilson was in Operations, then the story of how Wilson got sent to Africa doesn't seem to be explainable without the family connection, and there's no reason to deny that bit of information.

That said, that the official hasn't come forward, suggests that this wasn't what's been happening, although you never know. The procedure for releasing information to the public is rather murky, and given the political heat, even something relatively innocent may have caused somebody to freeze like a deer in headlights.

I won't go further with the hypotheticals -- we have the luxury of waiting for all the information to come out. There is no urgency to this -- the damage has already been done, and we can afford to be patient for a little while.

It's still a horrific mess. We have a horrible culture of leaks, and I suspect procedures for properly declassifying information (and informing everybody involved) so that senior officials can give detailed defenses of policy may be downright awful. The president's wobbly reaction to the situation isn't pleasing, but if this turns out not to be nearly as bad as hyped, all one could accuse the president of is being a bit slow to react to a tempest in a teapot.

Congrats, Daniel, for continuing to do such a superb job of helping clarify this most murky of Foggy Bottom situations. I must confess, however, that despite your yeoman efforts,and admiration for them, I still have no idea whether this is really a serious matter or a tempest in a teapot (perhaps you don't either). No longer being or feeling affiliated with any political party, far be it for me to give advice in this regard, but as of now what has been revealed would scarcely appear reason to switch from one to the other(unless you assume there is little or no ideological difference between the parties, which is certainly arguable).

I read this earlier today but it really didn't sound very convincing. The other six (or other five?) reporters decided not to go with the story, so why would they have called Wilson anyway? However, after the Novak column came out, then it became a story in its own right and Wilson got a couple of calls.

Anyway, who knows? But this theory doesn't seem especially compelling.

OK, I'll admit: It's possible. But I don't think it matters.

But there's a key piece of evidence that the Newsweek article leaves out. The Time Magazine web article written on 7/17. Here's the relevant quote:

"And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official."

If Newsweek's theory is true, it explains one fact that has been nagging me: how did these reporters know their source also told Robert Novak? If this was pre-7/14, why would the source even mention Novak? The fact fits, so I'll admit the Newsweek story is probably true.

But here's why I don't think it matters: leaking to one reporter and then spreading it around is morally no different than leaking it to six reporters. In fact, it actually makes more sense, since it would be through a reliable, faithful conduit.

Now consider Newsweeks, non-criminal alternative: an innocent administration official accidentally mentions Plame to Novak, without realizing that she is undercover. Novak writes it, and then Rove or whoever just happens to see it, and on virtually the same day (or next day) incorporates it into an already-rolling Wilson smear job?

I guess it's possible. But Occam's Razor sure thinks it was probably coordinated from the beginning. It was just on his mind? In fact, that's probably why our senior administration official got mixed up: it's only a technical, not a moral or legal, difference.

As far as I can tell, this is Wilson himself trying to keep the story alive with a new "development".

Huh? So, Wilson is trying to keep the story alive by providing (supposedly) exculpatory evidence for the White House?

At any rate, I'll admit that it's possible that nobody was leaked to before Novak printed the story. Whether this is actually significantly exculpatory is far less clear to me, for the reasons Alex Parker outlines above.

I was just looking at my post up there, and I realized: It doesn't follow that the quick aside about Novak would confirm Newsweek's speculation. Because in that case, the leaker's conversation to the Time reporter would have been something like: "See this Novak thing about Wilson's wife being CIA? I leaked it! Take a look!" Not likely.

So I'm still not sure how exactly it is that the Time magazine writers are so sure these are the same leakers..maybe they're mistaken. But even so, the mere fact that this story existed when it did seems to blow away the "comedy of errors" explanation, to me.

Interesting. I had mentioned this as a hypothetical last week, but only to illustrate how speculative the whole discussion was.

Alex,

My scenario last week on this didn't require that there be an already-rolling White House campaign against Wilson. It only required that they take advantage of Novak's column after the fact, and claim credit for the unknowing leak about Plame by someone else. "Doofuss didn't leak it - we did!" But Doofus did leak it first. He just doesn't dare claim the credit.

This is still speculation. But it's fun speculation.

What happened was important. For lots of reasons. For reasons of justice to one woman wronged after faithful service to her country - at the very least she should never have been dragged into this. For reasons of honor since those who risk themselves for this nation deserve better treatment. For reasons of integrity because it is never okay to use the defense that it wasn't really so bad when the truth was that you simply didn't care. For reasons of truth, because as Bill Oreilly points out the President owes this nation a personal accounting on pre-war WMD intel and post-war planning.

Does anyone still remember that one person's life was for purely political reasons dragged into the limelight, her privacy invaded, and her career destroyed?

Does anyone still remember that there are still many who serve this nation faithfully who might now fear that their lives will be also ruined whenever the Administration wishes to punish those who speak out?

Those who forget these forget what it is to be American.

OLDMAN: "Does anyone still remember that one person's life was for purely political reasons dragged into the limelight, her privacy invaded, and her career destroyed?"

One person that we know about so far. We do not know if others have consequently been hurt (or worse).

Two thoughts and comments:

(1) None of this would have come out if Wilson hadn't written the Op-Ed in the Times -- what is *his* culpability for disclosing his mission to Niger?

(2) Despite the earlier comment, Occam's Razor would also find favor with the theory that a "senior administration official" with second-hand knowledge that Wilson's wife who "worked at the CIA" suggested him for the mission could very easily have disclosed this information -- not knowing that she was covered under the Agee statute. This could be called the "they aren't malevolent geniuses" defense...

Comment 1: None of what transpired is truly a secret -- the journalists who were called (and presumably know who called them) know *exactly* which officials are involved. Their failure to disclose this information is only prolonging the time and expense required to get to the bottom of it.

Comment 2: Assuming that a specific individual is idenfied (and that the motive wasn't entirely malevolent and/or off-the-reservation), Bush's best play (both politically and ethically) is to pardon the individual for any criminal offenses and take full responsibility.

Tom,

Yes, I'm having a blast.

Let me see if I get your scenerio straight:

Let's assume it is Rove we're talking about. Rove would have seen the column; sometime between July 14 and July 17 he calls up Time and falsely claims he leaked the story to begin with? Just for pride? Why would he want to give Time the impression of an organized smear campaign?

My point is that by July 14, an Wilson smear campaign was already rolling. It's just seems too perfectly timed to be a "coincidence" as the Newsweek piece suggests. A random senior administration official just happens to accidentally leak to a columnist a fact that is perfectly timed for a smear campaign that is already in process. I realize that many in the upper Bush circles may have been talking about Wilson, and perhaps Plame's name was being tossed around a lot, but it still seems a bit unlikely to me.

Man, this just gets more complicated.

But think about it: the leak-to-one-then-spread-around theory makes perfect sense! Karl Rove (or whoever) may be dumb enough to think he can get away with outing a CIA officer, but is he really dumb enough to leave six witnesses walking around in gossipy Washington? Much more efficient to just leak the information through one reliable, loyal conduit (Novak), who won't tell. This explains a lot, like why no reporters have come forward with the name of the leakers.

But: don't forget that an anonymous reporter is quoted in the Washington Post on Sept. 30 as saying that he received a call before Novak's column aired, which supports the WaPo's original confidential source.

Furthermore: Please note that none of this changes the supposed illegality of the act. The "maybe they didn't know she was undercover meme" has been floating around for a while---if you were unconvinced before reading the Newsweek piece, you should still be unconvinced now.

Finally: Does anyone else smell "White House Spin Control?" According to the article, this theory is "emerging among those who are directly involved in the leak case." Really?

snellenr: I still find it hard to believe that, even with the second-hand knowledge, would have accidentally revealed info to Novak at exactly the same time it was needed for a White House smear campaign. And why complaining about the journalists leaked to--according this theory that you are agreeing with, there is only one, Novak, and he isn't likely to rat out his friends soon.

I gotta get some sleep.

1) None of this would have come out if Wilson hadn't written the Op-Ed in the Times -- what is *his* culpability for disclosing his mission to Niger?

None at all. Wilson's mission to Niger was public. Furthermore, while it's true that if Wilson hadn't written the Op Ed column the White House wouldn't have decided to punish him by blowing his wife's cover, that doesn't mean (1) that Wilson didn't have a perfect legal right (Bill of Rights, anyone?) to write the Op Ed, and (2) the White House behaved like scum in going after him for writing it, and like slime in going after his wife because her husband wrote it.

And, even if Valerie Plame had been nothing but a CIA typist, the White House would still be scum for wanting to punish Joseph Wilson because he had the temerity to disagree with the administration publicly: and would still be slime for punishing him via his wife.

The fact that Valerie Plame is a covert CIA operative and the White House's slimy scummy behavior was actually criminal means that the people directly responsible may actually be punished for it. But even if they weren't punished, or if they couldn't be punished, they'd still be slimy scum.

One quibble: Bob Novak isn't "a reliable, faithful conduit," Alex. He's an anti-war paleocon, hardly an administration ally on Iraq.

One fundamental issue here is that if the leaker is really a "senior administration official," by the layman's definition of the term, six journalists are sitting on a huge story by not outing the leaker (imagine the scoop headline: "Rove uncovers secret CIA operative in administration revenge scheme"). That they haven't outed the source suggests he/she really isn't that important at all.

Now, I suppose it could be that the leaker isn't important but the journalists think that he/she was acting under orders from on high (sort of a redux of the vaccine thing, where Dems were trying to hang Bill Frist with something Dick Armey admitted he did). In which case it would make sense for the leaker to get out in front with the FBI investigation and snitch on the higher-up who told them to do it.

My sheer guess, however, is that it was someone freelancing, in which case short of getting phone dumps (home, cell, etc.) of everyone who works for the White House--which the FBI doesn't have probable cause to do in this case, since there's no specific target of the investigation--finding the guilty party is only likely if the identity of the leaker spreads beyond the ~20-50 people in the media who know it. (There is the slim chance that the guilty party will fess-up anyway, but I doubt anyone left of me will believe a confession from anyone lower than Karl Rove--they'll just say it's a coverup.)

The furor over Mrs. Wilson is merely a quintessential example of liberal media bias. This incident would have been buried in the back pages if Bill Clinton were still in the White House. Just about everybody knew that Mrs. Wilson is employed by the CIA. The odds are overwhelming that someone in the Bush administration merely blurted out this fact---and had absolutely no intention of outing her in the manner of Phillip Agee.

This story is quietly dying down. Why is this happening? That is a very easy question to answer: Mrs. Wilson is almost certainly merely an analyst. She probably hasn’t done any deep cover work since she got married. The media know that this is likely the truth of the matter, and realizes the general public will eventually wise up to their con job.

Interesting: First, one "senior administration official" mistakenly blows Plame's cover to Novak, while trying to slime Wilson for telling the truth. Then, a second "senior administration official" -- apparently disgusted by the slime and defend campaign -- mistakenly characterizes efforts to hype Novak's story as additional leaks. In this view, the administration is dishonest, slimy, inept, and riven by dissension, but not quite criminal. Whew -- that's a relief.

I think that the Wilson makes all this noice about the problem...in this way he keeps an interest.

Yeah, I tottaly agree with you, mike

Robert Novak adamantly claims that no one attempted to truly harm Mrs. Wilson. The White House “leaker” merely blurted out the fact concerning Mrs. Wilson’s employment status with the CIA in a casual off handed manner. Her career as a secret agent is ancient history. The liberal media merely saw this as an excuse to slime the Bush White House. This so called scandal has no legs unless Mrs. Wilson is currently a deep cover CIA agent.

The most recent scandalous behavior of the Los Angles Times regarding Arnold Schwarzenegger is another reminder of the vileness of the liberal media. These folks are not to be trusted. Slanting the news and taking things out of context is their specialty.

Current theory assumes the White House is either exceedingly guilty or exceedingly innocent. I'll assume the latter as my current operating theory.

It's curious nevertheless that we are learning about this through extrapolations from extrapolations by a couple of Newsweek reporters rather than from the White House itself. Such coyness seems a bit out of character. I would add that it seems a bit dumb to me to lose a rather significant chunk of public confidence to make the self-satisfying point that the rest of us are chumps.

David Thomson, the idea the Valerie Plame is some CIA "analyst" is a phrase coined for Operation Toothpaste Back Into Tube, in which you are participating.

Here's WaPo report on what Plame really was: a very deep-cover operative, who had travelled the world undercover. Note the quotes from retired colleagues, many of them Republicans.

Here is Calpundit's summary of who says Plame was an "analyst" vs those who say she was deep undercover. It's not much of a contest.

Do you have some fresh reason to say that she wasn't undercover. Your comrade in denial, John Bruce (or is that you under another name) has managed (1) she had kids, (2) she led an active social life and (3) she is female. The rest of us had a hard time understanding why (1) and (2) didn't make her more valuable as she looked even less like a spy. Bruce also suggested that Plame had a CIA parking permit on her car, about which, sight unseen, I dared him to a large cash side bet (no response). I'll issue you the same challenge I issued him: what does a covert agent look like?

It's possible that this story will die down (although I hope not), and if so, it will be through the effort of liars clouding the truth.

To David Thomson:

You write:

"This incident would have been buried in the back pages if Bill Clinton were still in the White House."

What color is the sun on your planet? The news media were All Scandal All the Time during the Clinton administration. If this had happened on his watch, it would have failed to make headlines only if all the other widely publicized accusations and investigations had driven it off the front page.

It's a mistake to see this as primarily a media-driven story. Someone in the administration outed Plame to Novak in July, then the story went nowhere for two months. It re-emerged only when (1) CIA triggered a criminal investigation of the White House; and (2) a "senior administration official" told the Washington Post that two "top White House officials" had orchestrated a campaign of leaks to discredit Wilson. Whatever the truth turns out to be, stories like that make headlines in any administration.

The media love scandal, and I'm sure they love this one. But what's really going on here is a civil war within the Bush administration. We catch glimpses of it when one "senior administration official" or another makes use of the media for his/her own purposes. If the story now has a life of its own, that's because the leakers have given it one.

FWIW, though, I agree that the LA Times' piece on Gov. Arnold was a hatchet job.

Doesn't anyone find it ironic that those who believe the absolute worst case scenario here (that Plame is undercover, has been endangered, has been ruined, was deliberately and knowingly "outed" as part of a "plot" to "get" Wilson) conveniently fail to remember the response to the "Travelgate" scandal?
The Clintons fired innocent people, installed their cronies and concocted a totally phony "embezzlement" charge to cover their actions. Where was the righteous "outrage" from liberals protecting the "little guy" then? Those peoples lives weren't ruined?
If a crime was committed here and the worst case scenario is shown to be true the Bush administration will deserve all the scorn it will most certainly receive. But until then the anti-Bush crowd hyping this "tragedy" for Plume should explain why they were completely silent when the Clintons routinely deystroyed people's careers and reputations.

OLDMAN: "Does anyone still remember that one person's life was for purely political reasons dragged into the limelight, her privacy invaded, and her career destroyed?"

When did this become a story about Linda Tripp?

Another "But Clinton was worse" defense.

Sigh.

Can't you guys come up with something better than that? Lame...

I would like to suggest that none of this would have happened if the damn line about seeking uranium from Africa were left out of the State of the Union Address in the first place.

If American intelligence agencies are telling the White House that we do not believe the British report, the President has no choice but to accept the verdict of his own intelligence agencies...that's why we pay billions of dollars for this information.

The idea that the President was doing the equivalent of information shopping is what bothers me here first and foremost.

Take the line out...and none of this happens.

Jesurgislac,

Let's look at what you said and
examine two dubious assertions. Quote:

"Furthermore, while it's true that if Wilson hadn't
written the Op Ed column the White House wouldn't
have decided to punish him by blowing his wife's cover,
that doesn't mean (1) that Wilson didn't have
a perfect legal right (Bill of Rights, anyone?) to
write the Op Ed, and (2) the White House behaved
like scum in going after him for writing it, and
like slime in going after his wife because her
husband wrote it."

First of all your assertion that the White House
"decided to punish him by blowing his wife's cover"
is what you want to believe, not what we know.

For example, we don't know if the person who gave
that information to Novak knew that Plame was a
covert CIA operative. And for sure we don't know that
the "White House" planned that disclosure -- an
assertion that sounds improbable.

We don't know if there is a conspiracy (that is
more than two people doing this) or this is
simply the act of one person.

We do know, from Novak's original column, that
whoever disclosed this on the surface at least
thought it was about nepotism.

Second, your statement:

"...the White House behaved like scum in going after
him for writing it [the New York Times op-ed]..."

Let's look at what the honorable Joseph Wilson
actually did.

Joseph Wilson told the CIA that he believed
Iraq had tried to buy uranium yellowcake from
Niger.

Quoting George Tenet, CIA director,

"In an effort to inquire about certain reports
involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts,
on their own initiative, asked an individual with
ties to the region to make a visit to see what he
could learn. He reported back to us that one of the
former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was
unaware of any contract being signed between Niger
and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his
tenure in office. The same former official also said
that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and
insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi
delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations"
between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted
the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales."

Joseph Wilson is the "individual with ties to the region"
referred to above.

See http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2003/09/we_try_for_a_co.html

Later, Joseph Wilson, in likely various forums, but
most specifically an article to the New York Times, said:

"I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and
meeting with dozens of people: current government officials,
former government officials, people associated with the
country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude
that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had
ever taken place."

That's a lie; in this context not mention that
he was told that Iraq had attempted to by uranium from
Niger is deceitful in the extreme.

And it went further than that. Quote:

"As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase
uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier,
repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from
Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of
my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring
to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts
as I understood them."

Wilson then goes on to suggest that we invaded Iraq under
"false pretenses."

Joseph Wilson words in the New York Times article show
him to be a pompous, self-important man who thinks everything
revolves around him.

Look at his reasoning:

a) he assumes that his was the only mission from the U.S.
to Niger trying to figure out what was going on (now if
this is indeed the case, how does Wilson know this?);

b) he assumes that his interviews established the absolute
truth and there is nothing else to be discovered;

c) he implies the british report of iraq efforts to buy
uranium is false (from what omniscient viewpoint he comes
to this conclusion is not revealed);

and

d) he implies that the rationale for U.S. invasion of iraq
hinges on his efforts in Niger and the question of whether
iraq attempted to buy uranium in Niger.

(The New York Times article is at
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm)

Finally capping it all, and saying it again, we learn that
he lied, that he actually reported to the CIA that there was
reason to believe iraq had attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger.

So did the White House have reason to be pissed with
Joseph Wilson? Yes, they had abundant reason and
abundant justification.

But does this translate to his wife?

No it does not, but then we don't know that the
"White House" disclosed Valerie Plame's affiliation
to Robert Novak, we only know that one person did, and
we don't even know if that person was aware of
Plame's covert status.

This incident would have been buried in the back pages if Bill Clinton were still in the White House

January 22, 1998: "CNN Special Report: Impeachment of a President".

This was run every half hour on CNN, one day after the Washington Post broke the Monica Lewinsky story and several days before the With-That-Woman speech.

“Here's WaPo report on what Plame really was: a very deep-cover operative, who had travelled the world undercover. Note the quotes from retired colleagues, many of them Republicans.”

The emphasis should be placed on really “was.” Is Mrs. wilson now “a very deep-cover operative?” That is the only question that truly matters.

The liberal media has made a mountain out of a mole hill. This non-story didn’t even deserve news coverage---unless someone maliciously tried to out her. So far, there is not even a bit of evidence indicating that this was the case.

Bill Clinton was almost always given the benefit of the doubt. Have we already forgotten that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was ignored until Matt Drudge splashed the story all over the Internet?

“It's a mistake to see this as primarily a media-driven story. Someone in the administration outed Plame to Novak in July, then the story went nowhere for two months. It re-emerged only when (1) CIA triggered a criminal investigation of the White House; and (2) a "senior administration official" told the Washington Post that two "top White House officials" had orchestrated a campaign of leaks to discredit Wilson.”

I just found this via Instapundit:

“Mike Isikoff and Mark Hosenball on MSNBC (in what seems to be a Newsweek story) [*] pass along a fascinating, though vaguely attributed, suggestion: that the famous phone calls from two top White House aides to six journalists other than Robert Novak before the Novak column appeared never actually happened.

The idea seems to be that Mike Allen's source made a mistake about the timing, and the calls all came after the Novak piece, when Plame's CIA employment was already on the record, though it shouldn't have been.

Isikoff and Hosenball further suggest that whoever gave the information to Novak -- the two reporters like Scooter Libby for the role -- might not have known it was supposed to be a secret. “

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/000979.html

David,

A small point of commenting etiquette -- read the friggin' post before you make a comment. What you "found via Instapundit" was also the topic of the original post. There was a link and everything.

Dave,

The CIA requested the Justice Department to investigate the leak, which means that Plame *had* to be undercover.

The fact that everyone she knew thought she was an energy analyst proves that she was a NOC, non-official cover, which is the highest and most dangerous level of CIA undercover agents.

Morally speaking, it very much matters if she ever was an undercover agent, whenever that was. We already know that Brewster-Jennings is a CIA front--how many other agents have been outed as a result? How many other agents has foreign counterintelligence uncovered by researching Plame's past associations? This has very serious national security repurcussions. Remember, these are the people on the front line of the war on terrorism.

Legally speaking, it matters if she was working abroad in the last five years. True, we don't know for sure, but an overwhelming about of circumstantial evidence points to the fact that she was, including anonymous and non-anonymous CIA sources. Furthermore, the CIA knows the law and probably would not have forwarded it to the Justice Department if she hadn't been abroad in the last five years. As David Corn stated, this is the bureaucratic equivalent of "going nuclear"--don't you think they would have checked that out before proceeding?

I don't understand. You slight the media for not touting the Clinton scandals more when they were merely allegations, and yet you think that this is a non-story that doesn't deserve coverage, despite the fact that there is an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence pointing to White House wrongdoing.

Best,

Alex P.

A small point of commenting etiquette -- read the friggin' post before you make a comment

We don't need to read no stinkin post. It's absoultely clear that Bush never ever does anything wrong, and besides Clinton did stuff that was even worse.

You can try to argue with me, but I'm just going to put may fingers in my ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA"

Without condoning or assuming anything about the leak - I think it is both a little naive and melodramatic to be outraged that Republicans would 'slime' Wilson. His actions in writing the op-d were quite political and a little less than telling the whole truth. Afterall Bush's infamous 16 words relating to Africa were based on more than the debunked Niger story. Wilson wasn't some simple whistleblower. He played a political game in a town that he would have known first hand plays hard ball. I am not condoning the leak - if it was a deliberate outing of his wife it was a despicable act and everyone that did it/condoned/covered it up needs to be held responsible. I just arguing with the sentiment expressed several times here that even if there was no deliberate leak going after Wilson was wrong. Grow up.

I sincerely doubt if even a tenth of the public understands what this story is about or cares. It's simply too complicated and hard to understand. Aside from Mr. Drezner and a few others, I don't think this story has the potential to affect any votes unless Karl Rove or someone else at a high level is exposed as the leaker (and we all know how unlikely that is).

What I'm particularly interested in is how everyone knew that Plame worked for the CIA? How was this "common knowledge" in Washington if its release could be so damaging? I think that, ultimately, the major effect of all this will be an examination of CIA internal security.

This is a comment way up there, but I just wanted to point out:

"Bob Novak isn't 'a reliable, faithful conduit,' Alex. He's an anti-war paleocon, hardly an administration ally on Iraq." ---Chris Lawrence

Chris,

You're right that Novak was anti-war. But note this Milbank column about other times where he has been used by neo-conservatives to relay information. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53226-2003Oct6.html

It seems to me that the reason that Plame came up at all was not to 'slime' Wilson, but to explain why he was the person who went to Niger. I have yet to see an explaination of how Wilson was selected to go. It was first at the request of the Vice-President, which did not pan out. Then it was by someone lower in the CIA, not the Director, could this be someone who spent thier carrer in the WMD area? Maybe Plame? Who knows, but it is strange that Wilson was chosen, and his wife being in the agency and pushing for him to go seems to make sense to me. The White House does not need to 'slime' Wilson he is doing fine on his own, they need to explain why he was the one sent.

Bart

I'm going nuts with these posts, but that's what the blogosphere is for, right?

Anyway, Bart, you probably have a point.

However, this is one thing that has bothered me. If Novak truly believed that Plame was just a lowly analyst, why would he presume that she could have been powerful enough to influence the selection of Wilson? Isn't that a contradiction?

It all sounds so familiar:

"It depends on what the definition of 'covert' is"

"I did NOT leak classified information about that woman, Miss Plame"

Look, even if we take it as a given that Clinton was slimy, so what?

Personally I think that J.W. Gacy was worse than Jeff Dahmer. I wouldn't want to give Dahmer a walk because of it.

Bart,

The only reason the administration needed to "explain" Wilson's trip was to discredit his conclusions. As the administration knew his conclusions were correct (even the administration subsequently agreed that the "sixteen words" were a mistake), that seems particularly dishonorable.

In any event, there have been many explanations of Wilson's role, offered both by Wilson and by reporters. Wilson was a career diplomat, he had served as Bush 41's ambassador to Iraq, he had served as an advisor to the Clinton NSC on Niger, and he was personally well-acquainted with the key figures in the Nigerian government. As Wilson was well-known in the area, his visit was public knowledge there.

The CIA had reportedly approached Wilson through his wife, to follow up on a request for information from Dick Cheney. Wilson says the decision to task him would not have gone as high as George Tenet and that he knew none of the CIA analysts with whom he met before his departure. On his return, Wilson reportedly delivered an oral report, which in the normal course would have been written up by an analyst and passed up the chain.

Wilson accepted no compensation for his week in the desert, but did get his expenses paid.

What's the mystery?

I am missing something here...the key evidence cited by Newsweek says:

"New evidence for this view emerged today from a surprising source: Wilson himself. The former ambassador, who originally called for Bush’s top political director Karl Rove to be “frog-marched” out of the White House, acknowledged to NEWSWEEK that he got no calls from any reporters asking about his wife until he heard from Novak. If he had, he said, he would have vividly remembered it. One reporter, he said, did call him and say “watch out, they’re coming after you”—but that journalist is uncertain whether any reference was made to Wilson’s wife’s employment at the CIA."

If the reporters who were being fed this information on Ms Plame decided to take a pass on it because they thought in inappropriate WHY WOULD THEY CONTACT AMB WILSON?

"Afterall Bush's infamous 16 words relating to Africa were based on more than the debunked Niger story."

Then why did they finally admit those words should not have been in the speech. The revelations about the Niger fraud had nothing to do with it?

None at all. Wilson's mission to Niger was public. Furthermore, while it's true that if Wilson hadn't written the Op Ed column the White House wouldn't have decided to punish him by blowing his wife's cover, that doesn't mean (1) that Wilson didn't have a perfect legal right (Bill of Rights, anyone?) to write the Op Ed, and (2) the White House behaved like scum in going after him for writing it, and like slime in going after his wife because her husband wrote it.

Jesurgislac:

You, and those peddling similar theories, continue to make assertions about motives, and claim a level of knowledge about everything regarding the pseudo-scandal that is literally, impossible to have, unless you're one of the players or have a psychic ability to read their thoughts.

You're still going on the "punishment" theory. Only source for that: Joe Wilson. What a bizarre sort of punishment this would be. His NYT Op-Ed did not significantly undermine the administration's case for war, in the minds of anyone who wasn't against it to begin with. And, wouldn't the effect of leaking this information publicly have the exact opposite effect desired? Wouldn't it lead to more credence of Wilson and his op-ed? After all, if they're willing to go to these lengths to punish him, he must really have done something to damage the administration. He didn't. I guarantee you that as few people outside of this type of political sites have heard of yellowcake and Niger as have heard of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.

As for the idea that this is more of that "crushing of dissent" that we in the neocon cabal like to do every morning in place of calisthenics, you're certainly correct that Mr. Wilson is free to have whatever Michael Mooreian views he wishes. I do, however, think that if those in the intelligence community, state department etc. have views that are radically opposed to those of the Defense Department and the President to the extent that they will actually seek to undermine the efforts of the President and the Defense Department, that does create a problem for fighting a global war on terror.
We are covering old ground here, and you won't budge from your assertions I'm sure, but now that this is dying down It's even more clear to me that the real scandal is that Joe Wilson was ever sent to Niger to begin with, and that he politicized his intelligence gathering role by going out of his way to find nothing there. This is proven with any fair reading of his op-ed, which I know you believe to have been a masterwork of persuasion somehow. Whether he was publicly anti-war in February 2002 isn't really the issue. Very few people were pro or anti the Iraq war at that time on the record, as the public debate hadn't started yet. What is generally known is that the CIA had been pro leaving Saddam in place for a long time.

"WHY WOULD THEY CONTACT AMB WILSON?"

Uh, to try to get a story? Why don't you ask Chris Matthews why he contacted Wilson right after Rove called him?

One other note: Kevin Drum posts above. He seems to have posted about three times a day on the Plame Game, but about this article... SILENCE on his blog. VERY telling, Kevin.

Curious,

I don't know. It didn't make sense to me at the time and it still doesn't. Maybe it was an inept attempt to make the story go away or maybe they had doubts/concerns about the other intel they relied on. It doesn't change the point that Wilson's oped doesn't debunk the 16 words by itself or that Wilson wouldn't have been in a position to question the other intel reports either. (Though maybe his wife was).

Mark Steyn had a wonderful column on this today. Here's the URL:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-10-11&id=3592

His final point merits posting in full:

"If sending Joseph C. Wilson IV to Niger for a week is the best the world’s only hyperpower can do, that’s a serious problem. If the Company knew it was a joke all along, that’s a worse problem. It means Mr Bush is in the same position with the CIA as General Musharraf is with Pakistan’s ISI: when he makes a routine request, he has to figure out whether they’re going to use it to try and set him up. This is no way to win a terror war."

Note also my comment yesterday here, and its concluding paragraphs:

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000799.html

"But Tenet has not adequately protected Bush against political sniping from within the CIA. That Bush is now tightening up his own appointees' leashes does not bode well for Tenet or the CIA.

This could be fun."

Remember, we are also dealing with forged docuemnts here. And, the judgment that the documents were forged was public, after the state of the union, but well before july.

By the time Wilson writes his op-ed, he has the benefit of his own knowledge coupled with the universe of knowledge in existence (including the fact that some of the supporting evidence consisted of documents that were later determined to be forged.)

Although statements about Iraq trying to obtain uranium from Niger were in the NIE in early October of 2002, CIA specifically requested on multiple ocassions that any reference to Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium needed to be removed. The first such occurrence came about in an Oct. 2002 speech that the President was slated to give.

The point of this is that by the time taht Wilson is writing, he is probably aware of the many of the facts above and is upset....but, that by no means, suggests that he had bad intent a full year and half earlier when he made his trip to Niger.

It has been reported that the CIA was always skeptical of the "uranium from Africa" information, EVEN BEFORE THEY SENT WILSON. Does this mean that the CIA was anti-war? No.

Ultimately they doubts about the uranium story were correct. The British government classifies the assertion made regarding uranium as "reasonable."

Classifying the conclusion as "reasonable" is not the same thing as saying that they still "stand behind the conclusion." When I see the word "reasonable" it strikes me that it was ok to draw the inference at the time the inference was drawn.

The "Curious" questioned was posed by the WaPo (IIRC) - how did six reporters get this leak and not say to themselves either (a) I need to check into Wilson's background and CIA conections, and write something, or (b) the White House is sliming Wilson, I should get his reaction.

Following either angle would prompt a call to Wilson. And given the attention surrounding Wilson and yellowcake that week, it seems like something that would have been pursued. As it was the following week.

As an aside, props to Alex Parker on the mysterious WaPo discrepancy which he notes waaay up there at 3:02 AM. And he has some good posts on this at his blog, too - click on his name for a link. (next, I will learn that "Alex" is short for "Alexandra" - just my day).

"The CIA requested the Justice Department to investigate the leak, which means that Plame *had* to be undercover."

"Furthermore, the CIA knows the law and probably would not have forwarded it to the Justice Department if she hadn't been abroad in the last five years."

There are also a high number of liberal CIA employees who hate the Bush administration. They do not care about the law. Their goal is to damage President Bush. Need further evidence for my line of argumentation? Why isn't anyone at the CIA seemingly upset about Joseph Wilson's public statements regarding the Niger issue? Isn't it normal for someone in his position to sign a confidentiality agreement?

Wilson's Niger trip was not confidential.

If you're right and this is bureaucratic warfare, (it probably is), why would the CIA put all its bets on a story it knows wouldn't pan out?

P.S. Tom, you're in the clear, it's short for Alexander.

"A small point of commenting etiquette -- read the friggin' post before you make a comment. What you "found via Instapundit" was also the topic of the original post. There was a link and everything. "

Sorry about that. I shall now whip myself with a wet noodle. Gosh, perhaps I can blame this on the liberal media. They made me do it.

Mr. MacGuire,

A third option could be that the reporters said to themselves outing this woman in this way is not something we want a part of and chose to drop the matter. Guess we will never know since I do not know who they are. Did Ms Mitchell say why she chose not to use this information or did her call come after the Novak article.

My guess was that the forged documents had been traced to Chalabi and the CIA, not in his fan club, sent one of their State ideo-buttbuddies to make a show of researching it. The conclusion was forgone, and the lack of a hard copy to review makes that scenario even more credible.

It is interesting Sponge that you would take a shot at the CIA and at State for not believing Chalabi and the INC people and then suspect the INC people as the document forgers.

And the INC is what is fascinating here. Apparently, the INC people provided us with an awfully large amount of inteligence information. As it has been reported, much of that information was either grossly exaggerated by the INC or is just patently untrue.

I think that the document forgery issue is part of the larger question and somehow influences the motivation to trash wilson. Pure revenge against Wilson seems like a patently stupid motive for such a risky decision. I know that any White House can be petty...but even if this isn't illegal, it is still horribly stupid and ill conceived.

Even if the leak itself was accidental, pushing the information after the fact is horribly stupid and ill conceived.

What I was getting at before is that there is a common interest on the part of the British and the Bush administration to protect the British statements about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa. Imagine the effect on both Tony Blair and Bush had the British walked away from the "45 minute claim" as well as the "uranium from Niger claim."

And that is where the word "reasonable" comes into play again. It seems as though "reasonable" is a compromise word. It could make perfect sense for the British government to no longer believe that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, yet still claim that its decision at the time to publish that information was "reasonable."

Again, the larger motive here is to protect the case for war. Suggesting that Wilson was sent because his wife had chosen him only discredits Wilson's mission by weak indirect implication.

Surely, if he came back from Niger and told the administration that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, the trash-Wilson camp would have nothing negative to say about him. If he wrote an article in defense of the President, they would celebrate.

In an interesting example of rightist group-think, Eric Deamer and Mark Amerman both attack my posts here and here. Both express outrage that I assume the White House was attacking Valerie Plame to punish her husband because of the Times Op Ed article, and then move in to the slime Joseph Wilson routine that (it sometimes seems) right-wingers can do in their sleep.

Both miss the fact that I was responding to snellenr's post: snellenr, not I, is making the claim that Wilson's Op Ed article somehow justifies the outing of Valerie Plame. So, gentlemen, if you wish to attack someone, feel free to attack snellenr for making the wrong connection and not being part of the true Republican groupthink.

Wilson's reputation speaks for itself, whatever the slimers may choose to throw at it, and as in fact Saddam Hussein had not bought yellowcake from Niger and the documents claiming he had done so are now known to be forgeries, trying to claim that Wilson's mission was somehow unsuccessful just makes the slimers look ignorant.

Suppose the person who sent Joe Wilson hadn't been his wife. Suppose it was Super-Secret Director of Operations "S", no relation at all. Would the White House have been justified in revealing that our top secret spy "S" was really mild-mannered Clark Kent?

In this situation, the right-wingers who are having enough trouble as it is defaming the leak-target would be helpless. In the facts as they stand, the WH picks up several bonus points:

(1) The leak punishes the CIA and the Wilson family personally for disagreeing, at the cost of damaging national security. Outing Clark Kent would only damage the CIA and national security. Less retributive effect.

(2) It inserts a nepotism meme that Wilson wasn't qualified, which wouldn't be possible if sent by Clark Kent. Except, Plame wasn't the boss on the Niger mission. Presumably the people who made the final decision were impressed by the fact that Wilson had been Ambassador to Niger and Acting Ambassador in Baghdad, a pretty strong two-fer.

(3) Clark Kent wouldn't have to deal with bat-feces insane misogynists who can't believe we have female undercover operatives.

I'd also like to reiterate that even if we are looking at a bureaucratic war, outing the covert agents is cheating at it. It's the chemical weapons of bureaucratic warfare. And, again, the CIA's and other official agencies' intel on Iraq has at least occasionally been correct. The White House, fed by wishful thinking and Ahmad Charlatan Chalabi, scored a perfect zero.

As an aside, it appears that Bush either does not understand the mission of the DoJ investigation or is deliberately mischaracterizing it.

Parse his comments of Tuesday along with me:

Q Mr. President, how confident are you the investigation will find the leaker in the CIA case? . . .

THE PRESIDENT: . . . Randy, you tell me, how many sources have you had that's leaked information that you've exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a -- is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out.

Aside from the fact that his first sentence is pure GIBBERISH, note what he says here: "And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials."

Bush clearly thinks the Justice Department's hunt is for identification of the "senior administration official" who told the story of the leaks to WaPo. He's speaking about one official who spoke to WaPo. Not two officials who leaked classified info to six or seven journalists.

All those comments refer to the "senior administration official" -- the one who ratted the WH out. Not the two who outed a NOC whose work was a critical part of his war on terror.

So, either Bush doesn't have the capacity to understand what's going on, or this is a cynical and artful parsing for political cover.

Jesurgislac:

I don't need to "slime" Wilson. He's doing a fine enough job of it himself. But, if you are worried so much about his emotional health I'm sure he'll do fine. He's already got a book deal, as I"m sure you've heard. And, I'm sure he'll do the book for free, like his trip to Niger, because everything he does is, you know, for the good of the country, and not just an attempt to "find a way to frog march Karl Rove out of the White House in handcuffs" or have his story made into a movie or anything like that. Anwyay, it's strange that you're now so invested in protecting your hero's reputation, as I believe before you asserted that he was just a peripheral player in this.
As for the rest, the claim was that Saddam had attempted to purchase yellowcake in Niger. Wilson asserted that this wasn't the case, on the basis of what we'll never really know since there wasn't any written report. IN the SOTU address Bush asserted that British intelligence informed them that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium in Africa, not Niger, which is a different claim and which is based on different sources than the forged documents. Wilson for some reason freaked out and wrote his pathetic little op-ed detailing his mint tea drinking etc. If you're still convinced that this was all some diabolical revenge scheme for the little outburst, I'm certain there's no way of unconvincing you.

Eric, you claim you don't need to "slime" Wilson but in fact you don't seem to be able to do anything but slime Wilson. Shame you don't care anything about national security, but I guess you figure that since the President doesn't care about it, why should you?

Eric, you claim you don't need to "slime" Wilson but in fact you don't seem to be able to do anything but slime Wilson. Shame you don't care anything about national security, but I guess you figure that since the President doesn't care about it, why should you?

*yawn* huh? I don't get it. What was your argument again? I remember reading somewhere that the President sent big armies into Afghanistan and Iraq because he thought it would be beneficial to national security. I can't even figure out what you're getting at here, though.

mrp, of course Occam's Razor says that Bush just didn't use the plural by accident. You know, he's not exactly known for his mastery of composing sentences in the English language on-the-fly (as you point out). Hell, he regularly butchers speeches that are written for him and he can read straight off a TelePrompTer.

And, he should find all three of them and fire all of them (if all three even exist). The leakers of Plame should be fired because they broke the law, and the other one should be fired because he's disloyal to the administration. Machiavelli 101.

Jesurgislac,

I've quoted Joseph Wilson; I've quoted George Tenet,
the director of the CIA, on what Wilson told the CIA.
If we assume the CIA has it right, then all of it is
really Wilson's own words. What Wilson's words make clear
(see earlier post for details) is that Joseph Wilson lied
on one of the big issues of the day.

Is it taboo to point this out? Because Valerie Plame
was wronged does that mean we must pretend Joseph
Wilson is virtuous?

Actually as someone allegedly outraged by Valerie
Plame's exposure I'm surprised that you're not
pleased by these facts. After all a sense of outrage,
a sense of betrayel, a sense that they are being
sorely abused, on the part of the White House, surely
that would make it more plausible that someone in the
White House might do something stupid like seeking to
expose what seemed to be an incestuous relationship
within the CIA?

Because as Mark Steyn has pointed out one of the
striking things about all this is what a stupid
reprisal it would be to expose Wilson's wife as a
CIA operative.

Doesn't that give Wilson more credibility? Who
would ever think to the contrary?

Looking at this rationally we must either assume
that whomever leaked this didn't know that Plame
was a covert agent and misunderstood the situation, or
knew (and their brain had taken a leave of absence),
or Robert Novak is telling less than the truth about
where he got this information (a possibility I'm not
discounting).

Finally what really put this all in the news was
an anonymous allegation that there was a conspiracy
to reveal Plame's CIA connection and specifically
that at least six reporters were contacted. Note
that 'anonymous.' Note that the truth of that allegation
has yet to be confirmed. Note that whomever this
all-knowing anonymous source is he clearly isn't a
friend of the White House about which he claims to
know so much.

Jesurgislac, you are eager to believe malicious
assertions about the White House with little or
no evidence, and at the same time you has no compunction
in accusing me of 'smearing' Joseph Wilson IV for
quoting and analysing Wilson's words. Jesurgislac
I notice that you can't be bothered to say what it
is I said about Wilson that was wrong. (And I have
a hunch that even with this prompting you still
won't.)

Plame has been No 2 inside the CIAs WMD office for years now. She has been in contact with political types of both partys in the effort to track WMDs. Bottom line, too many people knew her current status, but not her past as a NOC. She gets burned, and her current job, is over. So very washington, ugh!

Mark, you claimed that the following quote from Wilson's OpEd article was a lie: "I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and
meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the
country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

Which part are you claiming was a lie? That he drank coffee rather than sweet mint tea? That he didn't speak with the people he said he spoke with?

The one thing you cannot be claiming was a lie was that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction (purchase of yellowcake from Niger by Iraq) had ever taken place. It is highly doubtful. The documents that launched the investigation that included Wilson have been conclusively established to be forged, and poorly forged at that. Post the invasion of Iraq, we can be certain that Saddam Hussein did not have the massive and unhidable processing plant that would be required to make yellowcake usable. So what exactly were you claiming was a lie?

You asked, having claimed that Wilson lacks credibility (yet Wilson has a highly impressive career history) Because Valerie Plame was wronged does that mean we must pretend Joseph
Wilson is virtuous?

Valerie Plame was wronged. Someone inside the Bush administration leaked her identity as a covert CIA operative. From the context of the leak (Novak's original column decrying Wilson) I think it a fair deduction, even without the further anonymous allegations, to say that the reason her career was ruined, and national security damaged, was because her husband publicly contradicted the Bush administration.

Whatever your opinion of Joseph Wilson (George H. W. Bush said he was a real American hero) and whatever your opinion of his work in Niger, Wilson's credibility or otherwise is utterly and completely irrelevant to the crime committed by the traitor who betrayed Valerie Plame. So why do you want to keep bringing up Joseph Wilson? Wilson could have committed theft and mopery in Niger, rather than doing pro bono work for his country, and it would still not have justified anyone outing Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative. So why this harping on Wilson?

Jesurgislac,

I'm wondering if you can come up with a sarcastic response
to what I really said rather than a misconstrued portion.

I hope no reading this is surprised when I reassert:

"Jesurgislac, I notice that you can't be bothered to say
what it is I said about Wilson that was wrong."

Mark, I see you do not wish to answer my question: So what exactly were you claiming was a lie?

In fact, Mark, I asked a number of questions - none of which you evidently wish to answer. I am not surprised by this: I've written a fuller explanation of why I think you don't want to answer my questions, and why you want the focus in the Affair Plame to be on Wilson, rather than on the leakers, on my own journal.

Can we stop the childish bickering and move on to rational adult debate?

Mark - I'm assuming the "lie" you are referring to is Wilson's statement that "no transaction had ever taken place" - when in fact he admitted that overtures had been made?

Well, sorry, but that isn't a lie. Economical with the truth, maybe, but not a lie. Making overtures is a long way from executing a transaction.

Wilson is a career diplomat, an ambassador to 2 of the involved countries, and a former member of the national security council - I hardly think he deserves the rampant character assassination being used to deflect attention from the real issue. Whatever his motives were before, you can’t deny that the damage done to his wife’s career gives him reasonable motivation to go on the warpath now. Wouldn’t you do the same for your wife?

Simply put, the fact that he might have pissed off the WH doesn’t give them “justification” to commit a felony. And no, we don’t yet know for sure that a felony has been committed, but it certainly seems like there are a lot of people around the WH – press and officials – who are getting nervous and artfully phrasing their public statements. Bush’s mantra “I don’t know of anybody that leaked ~classified information~” is suspiciously precise. And where there is this much smoke, there tends to be fire.

I don’t even care if a crime is proved. For me, it isn’t about Wilson or Iraq or Bush or the administration or establishing that a felony was committed – it is more about setting some standards of decency in political debate and discourse. Involving Wilson’s wife – whether to punish him, or simply to create the perception of nepotism and incompetence – was a low blow and totally inappropriate. Whoever did that has no business helping to run our country.

Tommy Tune,

It would be bad enough if that were all Wilson did. If
he had said, "no transaction had ever taken place" or
even better said what he didn't say, "I found no evidence
that a transaction had taken place" [that is if he had
not presented himself as omniscient] and had said nothing
more then I would still say that he was being disingenous,
dishonest, and so close to lying as to make no difference.

It's the context that makes it so disturbing. The big
issue of the day after all was whether Saddam Hussein
and company were attempting to acquire them. For Joseph
Wilson to publish an op-ed on his visit to Niger and
not mention that he discovered evidence that an Iraqi
delegation had gone to Niger in an attempt to buy
yellowcake -- well it's clear what's going on. It's
not like this is a side-issue; it's not like for one
moment Wilson could have not know what he's doing.

What Wilson actually did, if you read the whole op-ed
again:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

No naive reader, no reasonable first-time reader is ever
going to read that and think that Wilson is not asserting
that he found no evidence that Iraq had attempted to
buy uranium in Africa (and for that matter he comes
awfully close to asserting that no one else find it
either.)

Moving on, Tommy Tune, you said:

"Involving Wilson?s wife -- whether to punish him, or
simply to create the perception of nepotism and
incompetence -- was a low blow and totally inappropriate.
Whoever did that has no business helping to run our
country."

Yes.

But I don't agree that Joseph Wilson is not relevant.
For one thing there you are like pretty much everyone
giving Joseph Wilson as the triggering cause for all
this and at the same time you don't want to talk about
Joseph Wilson (which is a bit of overstatement. Thanks,
Tommy Tune for saying what you have).

I know I can't prove this, but at the same time I have
a gut level feeling that if the media, say Michael Isikoff
and Mark Hosenball, had the choice of juxtaposing
Wilson's report to the CIA and his op-ed to the New
York Times, that is making the point I made earlier,
along at the same time pursuing the rest of the White
House leak of CIA operative story or dropping the
Plame story entirely, I believe they would drop the
story entirely.

I don't think the Valerie Plame story is really about
Valerie Plame -- not for a great many people. The
Joseph Wilson story should have been told some time
ago; it wasn't. That doesn't mean it should be told
now, especially since it's intimately part of the
other.

Also did you notice in the Newsweek story the main
message is that anyone that says something bad about
Joseph Wilson is evil.

Mark, thanks for your careful explanation of what you see Joseph Wilson doing with the Op-Ed piece he wrote for the New York Times I don't disagree with your analysis of what Wilson is saying.

What I don't understand is why you think it was wrong for him to say it, and would appreciate, if possible, a clear explanation of why you think so.

The Op-Ed was published on 6 July 2003 - two full months after Bush had declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Surely any citizen of the US has a perfect right to comment, as publicly as they like, on the past actions of the administration?

"two full months after Bush had declared 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq."

A banner declared that, Bush said that only MAJOR combat operations were over but it clearly was far from over in Iraq.

Mark, as you pointed out, I never said that Wilson wasn’t relevant to the discussion. Yes, he was the triggering factor, and that makes him a player.

What I am saying is that I’m not convinced that ad hominin attacks on Wilson’s character are relevant. So what if he is pompous AND a liar? Most of the people in government are self-important spin doctors. And op-eds are by definition his opinion, subject to his perspective and spin. And it is perfectly within his rights to publish an op-ed - nobody claimed his trip to Niger was classified.

The WH could have taken the high road and disputed his story on the merits and facts of his argument - as you have done. They could have simply said that Wilson was only one of many sources, and that he didn’t have the big picture.

Most people seem to be choosing the path of discrediting him and his findings – and by extension, the CIA - on the basis of his qualifications and motive. Some other blog (can’t find it now) has a whole discussion on factual vs motive arguments, specifically why the later type get us nowhere, so I won’t waste space here.

But the facts of his years of public service and experience with the countries in question don’t support the argument that he was an incompetent partisan hack. So the WH (allegedly) took the calculated and sleazy step of discrediting him on the basis of nepotism and desperation, insinuating that he wouldn’t have even gotten the assignment without his CIA wife’s sponsorship. Public criticism of Wilson isn’t "evil", but where is the factual basis and why is it relevant to the crime in question?

We may never be able to PROVE whether bringing his wife into the debate was a purposely criminally act of payback, an ethically suspect act of intimidation, or a stupidly incompetent act of outing an operative. But appearances suggest it was likely a hatchet-job on Wilson, unnecessarily involving an innocent wife/career spook, and now seems to be followed by a WH obfuscation and cover-up.

Jesurgislac,

I don't see anything wrong with Joseph Wilson writing
an op-ed. I don't see anything wrong with Wilson
being opposed to the war, and by that latter statement
I don't mean that I would necessarily agree with him
on this, but rather my sense that an injustice
had been committed would be not at all on the same order.

Now it's worth noting that if Wilson had been an employee
of the CIA he would by contract have given up the right
to write such op-eds, but in fact Wilson was not a CIA
employee.

The problem is if Wilson misrepresented to us, the public,
what he knew.

Quote:

"In an effort to inquire about certain reports
involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts,
on their own initiative, asked an individual with
ties to the region to make a visit to see what he
could learn. He reported back to us that one of the
former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was
unaware of any contract being signed between Niger
and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his
tenure in office. The same former official also said
that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and
insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi
delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations"
between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted
the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales."

The person speaking above is George Tenet, director
of the CIA. Joseph Wilson is the "individual with ties
to the region."

As you know this contradicts with what Wilson said or
implied in the New York Times op-ed.

Actually, no, Mark: it doesn't contradict what Joseph Wilson said. In Wilson's OpEd in NYT, he's writing about a specific trip he made to Niger in February 2002, not about an approach made to him in June 1999. Presumably, Wilson reported this approach to the CIA at the time it occurred. Why do you feel that his failure to mention an incident of nearly 4 years ago invalidates his report of an investigation 17 months ago?

Tommy Tune,

You said,

"The WH could have taken the high road and disputed
his story on the merits and facts of his argument - as
you have done. They could have simply said that Wilson
was only one of many sources, and that he didn?t have
the big picture."

Yes, exactly. Wouldn't you have done that? Wouldn't
I have done that if I were in their shoes?

On the other hand what sense does it make to point
out his wife is covert CIA agent working on WMDs?

How exactly does that take away his credibility?
Actually wouldn't it give legitimacy to his implicit
claim to knowing more than a retired person in his
shoes should?

One of the assertions running around is that there
was a conspiracy in the white house. Does that really
sound credible? It's hard enough to believe one
person would pull such a boneheaded move, let alone
several.

You go on to say,

"But the facts of his years of public service and
experience with the countries in question don?t support
the argument that he was an incompetent partisan hack."

Well I don't think people come in all good and all bad
categories. We are all mixtures of each depending
especially on perspective. Regardless of whatever
good things he did in the past, he's been playing
some serious hard-ball deceptive politics lately.

Also it may be relevant that Wilson is in his 70s.

You ask, "...why is it relevant to the crime in
question?"

I see three relevancies:

1) This is an important piece of information that has
been inadequately reported and that most people seem
completely unaware of. From this perspective I'm just
using the Valerie Plame incident to give it legs, and
since they go together I don't think there's anything
wrong with that.

2) I believe a number of actors in this are not really
concerned for Valerie Plame or the general issue of
CIA agents being exposed. When they really, really
want to suppress the Joseph Wilson angle I think it's
a pretty good tip-off to what's going on. I hope
some others will spot that also.

3) It's a 'why,' every crime needs a 'why.' It may seem
axiomatic to people that hate republicans that they
just do things like this for little reason. I don't
believe that's a healthy attitude.

Jesurgislac,

It was in February 2002 during his trip to Niger at the
CIA's request that an acquaintance told him that an approach
had been made by an Iraqi delegation to Niger in June 1999.

As far as has been publically reported the only time
Wilson ever did anything for the CIA was in that one week
in February 2002.

Even if this all had occurred in 1999, the only problem that
I can see, is that it wouldn't have been as fresh in his
memory. The key question was whether the Iraqi government
was trying to build weapons of mass destruction after
they had committed not to. The op-ed would have
been just as false.

3. Certainly every crime has a “why” – the motive. It explains, but not excuses, the crime. Can I understand their motive to undermine Wilson’s story? Yes. In fact, that is what makes the crime credible – it absolutely explains why the WH (any WH, not just a Republican one) would initiate a hatchet job, however boneheaded.

But that doesn’t make it right. When people use Wilson’s faults as a debating device to EXCUSE the activity – he lied, he had it coming, he got what he deserved, etc – then it is sort of like blaming the victim of a rape. Which is why courts don’t allow sexual history in rape trials – it isn’t relevant to whether a crime was committed. But of course, lawyers realize that it DOES influence jurors, so I understand why they attempt to make these ad hominin attacks.

2. I think most people are using this incident to chip away at the moral pedestal Bush has erected for his administration. For one, it establishes that he is a bully – not just on the world stage with Iraq but also at home with his political adversaries. It also potentially makes him a liar, trying to cover his tracks by omission and obfuscation – the same sins he rallied against the previous administration. And, btw, the same sin you are accusing Wilson of committing in his op-ed.

1. As long as we are keeping the debates separate, fine. But blurring the two together stinks of debate trickery, trying to make the illogical argument that “The WH couldn’t possibly have leaked Plame’s name because Wilson lied in his original op-end.” Makes no sense.

This is an important piece of information that has been inadequately reported and that most people seem completely unaware of.

Why is it an important piece of information? Decry Joseph Wilson as you like (I don't see how his age is relevant, but since he graduated in 1972 I really doubt that he's older than late fifties) the fact is, that his report back from Niger in February 2002 corresponds to the much more detailed information we now have about Iraq's WoMD (such as they were) in the Kay Report.

) I believe a number of actors in this are not really concerned for Valerie Plame or the general issue of CIA agents being exposed. When they really, really want to suppress the Joseph Wilson angle I think it's a pretty good tip-off to what's going on. I hope some others will spot that also.

What "Joseph Wilson" angle? Just what are you claiming is going on?

3) It's a 'why,' every crime needs a 'why.' It may seem axiomatic to people that hate republicans that they just do things like this for little reason. I don't believe that's a healthy attitude.

How considerate of you. ;-) I don't see this persistent focus on Wilson rather than on the White House traitors who blew Valerie Plame's cover as a particularly healthy attitude, but I wasn't going to mention that.

Incidentally, I misunderstood your quote from George Tenet initially - sorry about that. I still don't see how it contradicts Wilson's Op-Ed.

But Tommy Tune you have absolutely no evidence
that George Bush did this. Quote:

"I think most people are using this incident to chip
away at the moral pedestal Bush has erected for his
administration. For one, it establishes that he is
a bully -- not just on the world stage with Iraq but
also at home with his political adversaries. It also
potentially makes him a liar, trying to cover his
tracks by omission and obfuscation -- the same sins
he rallied against the previous administration. And,
btw, the same sin you are accusing Wilson of committing
in his op-ed."

It's quite a serious allegation. The only thing we
actually know is that Valerie Plame was named as
as a CIA agent in a Robert Novak column. Everything
else is anonmyous allegations. For that matter not
even the anonmyous allegers allege what as you point
out many people are trying to do with this.

The question I wish you'd ask yourself, why are you
so eager to believe this?

1. As long as we are keeping the debates separate, fine. But blurring the two together stinks of debate trickery, trying to make the illogical argument that “The WH couldn’t possibly have leaked Plame’s name because Wilson lied in his original op-end.” Makes no sense.

Tommy, it makes perfect sense when you realise that to people like Mark, the issue still continuing appears to be (I await confirmation from Mark on this) that Bush & Co didn't lie about the WoMD in Iraq. Now, with the publication of the Kay Report, it's evident that they did. But for Mark and his ilk, I think, the issue is not "Who the hell blew Valerie Plame's cover, and why doesn't the President care if the person who did it is ever found?" but "Wilson gave the lie to the President - what's Wilson's angle on this?" It's a WoMD issue for them - a pride issue, if you will. The President must not be proved to have been lying, and that is, in their eyes, much more important than any issue of national security.

Jesurgislac,

Have you read the Kay Report?

Yes, indeed I have. Have you?

Here's the key quote: "Despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. However, Iraq did take steps to preserve some technological capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program." That's it. Note the emboldened text.

David Kay says that (as far as five months of looking have established) Saddam Hussein didn't buy yellowcake from Niger any time in the past five years. In short, as far as the best intelligent currently available says, Joseph Wilson's report in February 2002 was accurate.

I think the whole reason this story has legs is the underlying possibility that the Plame leak was a sleazy intimidation/payback by somebody in the Bush administration. There would be no story without the perception – and accusation by Wilson - that this was sponsored by people close to Bush. We aren’t talking about what we can prove – in fact I seriously doubt anything will ever be proved. This forum has the freedom to float allegations most of the press is shying away from. Even Wilson backed away from his public allegation of Rove as the leaker, although I’m sure he still expects Rove had a hand in it.

But I don’t think I’m alone in feeling like we should discredit this publicly held meme that we should blindly trust the governing administration – any administration. They are neither the holders of the absolute truth or the pillars of morality. This story chips away at that concept, especially with regard to Bush (but trust me, I’m no fan of Billary either), who campaigned loudly about bringing respectability back to the office. Starting a sleazy smear campaign against a former ambassador and his wife is not respectable. And if his carefully worded comments on the issue are an indication of his deeper complicity, then the generally gullible public should consider what a bully and a liar he is the next time he wants to use the public trust to sell us a lipstick coated pig.

btw, before you make any accusations on my political leanings, I think what we did in Iraq was right, just that the case was oversold.

What is your rational for defending him so vehemently?

I just came back in and saw a post by someone careful not to leave identification that Valerie Plame was No. 2 in the CIA's WMD office. That raises the following question, whether or not this point is true:

How could Joe Wilson have expected his wife's employment not to become public due to his NY Times op-ed on Niger?

He knew his wife was a CIA employee and had been covert at one point, even if she wasn't when they married (a point which some here dispute but is likely). He probably knew her job related to WMD. Assuming she has a senior position, he might have known about that too.

And he knew, along with what seems to have been a fair number of D.C. denizens outside the CIA, that her CIA employment was not really a secret. This would be especially true if she had a senior position in its WMD office.

So then he goes public big-time in the NY Times? Is there something wrong with this picture?

There is not a credible expectation of confidentiality in this situation. Spouses of people in confidential government positions are supposed to be discreet. Joe Wilson is anything but discreet.

It is time to consider that the Plame affair, like the CIA's boneheaded choice of Wilson for the Niger investigation, was a setup. Before I thought that was just silly speculation by GOP zealots.

There are other possibilities. Strange things happen in marriages. It is not unknown for one spouse to be jealous of the other spouse's career.

My father was No. 3 with the California Superintendent of Public Instruction when the wife of incumbent Superintendent Bill Honig cost Honig his job and a felony conviction by refusing to admit that his job created a conflict with hers. The wife of a California appellate judge cost her husband his job by growing marijuana in their backyard. It was said of the latter instance that a new reason had been discovered for wife-beating.

Jesurgislac,

I thought these quotes were interesting also:

[begin quote]

With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have
obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials
should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to
obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn
remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These
officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons
development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption
after Iraq was free of sanctions. At least one senior Iraqi
official believed that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience
with waiting for sanctions to end and wanted to restart the
nuclear program. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC)
beginning around 1999 expanded its laboratories and research
activities and increased its overall funding levels.

[and]

According to documents and testimony of Iraqi scientists,
some of the key technical groups from the pre-1991 nuclear
weapons program remained largely intact, performing work on
nuclear-relevant dual-use technologies within the Military
ndustrial Commission (MIC). Some scientists from the pre-1991
nuclear weapons program have told ISG that they believed that
these working groups were preserved in order to allow
a reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program,...

[and]

Several scientists - at the direction of senior Iraqi
government officials - preserved documents and equipment
from their pre-1991 nuclear weapon-related research and did
not reveal this to the UN/IAEA. One Iraqi scientist recently
stated in an interview with ISG that it was a "common understanding"
among the scientists that material was being preserved for
reconstitution of nuclear weapons-related work.

[end quote]

Ok, what am I missing? Where did Bush lie?

How could Joe Wilson have expected his wife's employment not to become public due to his NY Times op-ed on Niger?

Why would he have expected her cover as a covert CIA operative to be blown in revenge on him for writing an honest Op-Ed column on Niger? I think this "surely he should have expected it" meme is bizarre: why would anyone have expected the Bush administration to do something that was both sleazy and stupid?

And he knew, along with what seems to have been a fair number of D.C. denizens outside the CIA, that her CIA employment was not really a secret.

That is a claim that has yet to be proven. As far as I'm aware, the original source claiming that Valerie Plame's status as a covert CIA operative wasn't "really" a secret is Clifford May. He failed to offer any concrete evidence proving that anyone except those cleared to know it, prior to Bob Novak's column, knew that Plame was a covert CIA operative. Unless you're claiming that you knew Plame's identity before Novak published the leak, or unless you can provide some reference to Plame as a CIA operative published prior to Novak's column, I'll assume you're just repeating recycled unattributed claims sourced via Clifford May, shill for the PNAC neocons.

So then he goes public big-time in the NY Times? Is there something wrong with this picture?

Yes. What's wrong with this picture is that nowhere in Wilson's Op-Ed column does he mention his wife. At all. Your claim that Wilson was indiscreet falls by the wayside. It's absurd.

Tommy Tune,

It's easy to make accusations, anyone can do it, and many
accusations are of such a nature that they can never be
disproven. For instance if you believe the possibility that
George Bush might be involved is sufficient grounds to
act like he is involved, then it is hard to imagine any
circumstance where outside the principals involved, whoever
they are, anyone could ever prove that he wasn't guilty.

It's guilty until proven innocent. That's the principle
you define.

But if you think about that, why everyone should be assumed
guilty, of this and like things. There isn't one of us
that couldn't be accused of doing vile things that we
would be unable to prove we didn't do.

Is this the kind of world you want? It isn't what I want.
Sounds like a horrible world to me.

You're worried that you might miss knowing that a wrong
has occurred. Well, of course, bad things happen that we
will never know about -- but how does it help things to
assume something bad of someone without knowing?

You're worried that you might miss knowing that a wrong has occurred. Well, of course, bad things happen that we will never know about -- but how does it help things to assume something bad of someone without knowing?

We know someone blew Valerie Plame's cover to Robert Novak, and destroyed her career. Unless Novak was lying, that "someone" was a senior Bush administration official.

And various people, on both right and left, have made allegations that Plame's career was destroyed because her husband wrote an Op-Ed for NYT pointing out that the Bush administration was well aware that Iraq hadn't managed to obtain yellowcake from Niger.

Where did Bush lie?

Those famous "16 words", remember? In Wilson's Op-Ed, he pointed out that Bush knew, well before January 2003, that claims that Iraq had obtained yellowcake from Niger were highly improbable.

My turn. Given what the Kay report says, are you going to retract your claim that Wilson was lying? The Kay report backs Wilson's report.

Jesurgislac,

First, would you please address me when you're
speaking to me. I believe that would make it
easier for anyone else reading this to follow
what's being said.

Below is the section of President Bush's State
of the Union speech that laid out the reasons
for a possible war with Iraq. It was one of
surely dozens that Bush gave on the subject,
but hopefully it touches on all the territory
that those other speeches did.

You'll notice it's quite long and that many
rationales are offered. I suspect it's been
some time since you read or heard that section
of the speech. With the benefit of hindsight
please read it again.

Quote:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of
being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost.
To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of
mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically
violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological,
and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his
country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit
of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation
from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes
on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security
Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He
has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations,
and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors
were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger
hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of
California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that
Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly
where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out
for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing
like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein
had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000
liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million
people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given
no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials
sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum
toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by
respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material.
He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein
had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin,
mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical
agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted
for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has
destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards
of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.
Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's
recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein
has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited
munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late
1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are
designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved
from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein
has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence
that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s
that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development
program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on
five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our
intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons
production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these
activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he
is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance,
that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding
documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing
inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.
Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate
witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the
United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as
the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real
scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to
say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has
ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors
in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths,
spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons
of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation,
the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to
dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological
weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest
in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And
this Congress and the America people must recognize another
threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications,
and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein
aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.
Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his
hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam
Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses
and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine
those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this
time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister,
one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror
like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power
to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.
Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions,
politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat
is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words,
and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity
and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not
an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons
has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of
his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell
us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children
while their parents are made to watch. International human rights
groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers
of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on
the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues,
and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people
of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy
is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime
are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will
not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our
friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N.
Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the
facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State
Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's
legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide
those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam
Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and
for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm
him. (Applause.)

Jesurgislac,

Now with hindsight there are a few sentences in that
rationale that don't seem quite right, but for the most part
it seems almost ordinary now, because so much of what was
known imperfectly back then has been confirmed to a
certainty, and more so, now.

The sixteen words you speak of don't exactly stand out
as being wrong. They are a truely minor part of the whole.

The sixteen words you focus on are,

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa."

Is that a false statement?

The British government still maintains they are true.

Has the CIA or another part of the US government seen
the evidence on which this is based? No, they have not.

The inclusion of this statement in the State of Union
was an assertion of trust in the competence of
british intelligence. Was that a wrong thing to do?

I don't see how. It's labeled pretty clearly where the
information comes from.

And note there is no reference here to Joseph Wilson
or anything that he did.

But, Jesurgislac, as you've seen, Joseph Wilson actually
told the CIA of evidence that a delegation from Iraq
had sought uranium from Niger, recently.

Where, oh where, is the lie?

Mark, I find your analysis of President Bush's SOTU compared with your analysis of Joseph Wilson's OpEd in NYT very interesting.

You claimed that Joseph Wilson lied because he didn't mention something he'd told George Tenet: that in 1999 someone probably from Iraq had approached a public official in Niger with the intent of buying yellowcake.

But you refuse to say that George W. Bush lied, though he didn't mention that all American intelligence said that it was highly improbable that Iraq had bought uranium from Niger.

The following sentence from SOTU adds "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

This is not so: the aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were shown to be not suitable for nuclear weapons production. While you can claim that it's formally true that the CIA still held by its opinion that the aluminum tubes could be used for centrifuges, independent experts from the nuclear industry concluded that there was no way they would be so suitable. Yet the President doesn't mention that in fact the CIA is a lone opinion against industry experts.

Another quote: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."

This is another distinctly dubious statement. There never was any very convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein had any links with al Qaeda - al Qaeda considered Hussein, a secular dictator, to be an enemy. This was widely known. Yet Bush didn't mention it.

Granted, in SOTU Bush carefully gives the provenance of his bits of information. And so does Wilson in his Op-Ed in the NYT. Yet you claim that Wilson lied, but you deny that Bush lied.

Why do you hold the President of the United States, addressing the combined Houses, and through them the nation, to a lower standard of truth than you do an Ambassador writing as a private citizen in the New York Times?

And again, Mark: why do you consider an OpEd written by an Ambassador in the NYT to be of more importance than a significant breach in national security: a covert CIA operative's cover being blown by a senior member of the Bush administration?

Mark Ammerman wrote: It's a 'why,' every crime needs a 'why.'

Leaving aside the fact I have no problem finding a motive for smearing Wilson and Plame, namely to salvage as much as possible the Administration's reputation for honesty and infallibility, the premiss above is rubbish. Proving motive has never been a requirement for proving the existence of a crime, or for obtaining a conviction.