The Libby/Rove/Plame scandal for dummies
November 1, 2005 7:45 AM   Subscribe

The Libby/Rove/Plame scandal for dummies courtesy of Der Spiegel.
posted by huskerdont (110 comments total)

 
Can someone explain to me how outing Plame could be considered retribution directed at Wilson? It just doesn't make any sense. Kind of like shooting the cat because the dog crapped on the carpet.
I guess I don't understand politics.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:57 AM on November 1, 2005


Because they're married?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:59 AM on November 1, 2005


1. They're married
2. It's a case of the White House vs. the CIA and Wilson/Plame both represent the CIA
posted by rxrfrx at 8:03 AM on November 1, 2005


The funny part is that in the end the plame scandal is going to turn out to be for dummies.
posted by srboisvert at 8:06 AM on November 1, 2005


Still too cerebral an article for the likes of me. Keep the "Plamegate for Dummies" links coming, though! I'm still trying to figure this thing out. (On this one, I could barely hack my way through the delayed-identification gimmick explaining Chalabi. It lost me.)
posted by Possum at 8:11 AM on November 1, 2005


"The very fact that Washington's hopes are once again pinned on such a charlatan says a lot about just how desperate the situation in Iraq has become. In the middle of last week -- a week which quickly became one of the darkest of the 250 weeks US President George W. Bush has occupied the White House -- American deaths in Iraq reached the symbolic threshold of 2,000 victims."

Wow. That wasn't at all biased... It'd be a worthless FPP, even if it wasn't so redolent with that particalar stench of smugness all to common in the European press, considering all the posts already related to the Plame affair.
posted by Heminator at 8:12 AM on November 1, 2005


It may be biased, but it is also pretty accurate. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I could write a very biased article ridiculing all the idiotic flat-earthers out there, but it would not change the fact that the earth is indeed round.
posted by bashos_frog at 8:19 AM on November 1, 2005


In fact, I would welcome more articles that were biased towards reality and truth, rather than the typical he-said/she-said crap that passes for 'objective' coverage these days.
posted by bashos_frog at 8:22 AM on November 1, 2005


Stinking Euros. Here in America, we prefer our stench of smugness to come from the government.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:23 AM on November 1, 2005


Ya hear that, Europe? No more of your continental smugness because it hurts Mark's feelings.

*shakes fist whilst rolling eyes*
posted by joe lisboa at 8:32 AM on November 1, 2005


Oh COME ON. Can you people not see the forest for the trees here?

I think Scooter should hang by his entrails here for lying and obstructing especially because it was unnecessary.

But that doesn't mean that everybody involved here doesn't need a good smack.

"Consider: Assuming that Valerie Plame was some sort of genuinely covert operative -- something that's not actually quite clear from the indictment -- the chain of events looks pretty damning: Wilson was sent to Africa on an investigative mission regarding nuclear weapons, but never asked to sign any sort of secrecy agreement(!). Wilson returns, reports, then publishes an oped in the New York Times (!!) about his mission. This pretty much ensures that people will start asking why he was sent, which leads to the fact that his wife arranged it. Once Wilson's oped appeared, Plame's covert status was in serious danger. Yet nobody seemed to care.

This leaves two possibilities. One is that the mission was intended to result in the New York Times oped all along, meaning that the CIA didn't care much about Plame's status, and was trying to meddle in domestic politics. This reflects very badly on the CIA.

The other possibility is that they're so clueless that they did this without any nefarious plan, because they're so inept, and so prone to cronyism and nepotism, that this is just business as usual. If so, the popular theory that the CIA couldn't find its own weenie with both hands and a flashlight would appear to have found some pretty strong support."


That makes a lot of sense to me. Nevermind that the original british intelligence report on Yellowcake in Niger was never discredited or disowned and Wilson's meager oral report to Congress wasn't exactly convincing.
posted by Heminator at 8:37 AM on November 1, 2005


Ah yes. Instapundit. Home of the unbiased.
posted by srboisvert at 8:43 AM on November 1, 2005


... And it would be nice if those reporting on this, would spend any time at all objectively assessing everyone's motivations and report accordingly. Der Spiegel certainly didn't do that. Forgive the generalization of the foreign press, but I think Der Spiegel here is right in line with most of the foreign press and the way the cover the war and administration.

I actively like this administration and am not happy about the war, but lets at least be honest.
posted by Heminator at 8:45 AM on November 1, 2005


The theories I've heard amount to:

1) The White House guys thought the fact that Wilson got the Niger job through his wife would be embarrassing to Wilson and would reduce the impact of his critique with the public.
2) The White House wanted to get back at Wilson by ruining his wife's career (by blowing her cover).

I guess I assume some kind of combination of the two.
posted by gubo at 8:46 AM on November 1, 2005


srboisvert, I guess I'll refer you to Bashos Frog a few posts above:

"It may be biased, but it is also pretty accurate. The two are not mutually exclusive."

srboisvert, so do you think the CIA handled the Plame/Wilson investigation well, given what Instapundit said? Or are you just content to shout Bias! I at least attempted one example of said bias before I began to generalize.
posted by Heminator at 8:48 AM on November 1, 2005


Agggh, that should be "dislike this administration"...
posted by Heminator at 8:49 AM on November 1, 2005


Heminator: Instapundit? Really? Why not just quote Rush Limbaugh?

A couple of points about Glenn's commentary:

Wilson was sent to Africa on an investigative mission regarding nuclear weapons, but never asked to sign any sort of secrecy agreement(!). Wilson returns, reports, then publishes an oped in the New York Times (!!) about his mission. This pretty much ensures that people will start asking why he was sent, which leads to the fact that his wife arranged it.

First of all his wife didn't 'arrange' it. She didn't have the authority to do that, what she did was recommend him, and someone else made the decision.

Secondly, it would in no way lead back to his wife, unless someone was going to leak classified information, which is what ultimately happened (and no at least one person has been indicted for it)

Thirdly, without the leak it's not really that odd that Wilson would be sent to Niger. He was the Ambasidor to Iraq before the first gulf war, and was later an Ambasidor to some African country near Niger. You don't need nepotism to explain why Wilson would be sent.

[conspiracy theory or] ... The other possibility is that they're so clueless that they did this without any nefarious plan, because they're so inept, and so prone to cronyism and nepotism, that this is just business as usual.

This seems like a rather odd statement. The only 'incompetence' on the CIA's part was assuming that the administration wouldn't out a NOC in order to get some political payback, which is a somewhat resonable assumption, IMO.

Glenn Reynolds is an idiotic hack. You're talking about a guy who was speculating that John Kerry had some kind of disease because of a stuffed zipper grabber on his ski-jacket.
posted by delmoi at 8:51 AM on November 1, 2005


The problem is that I don't think we can say how much influence that Plame had in sending her husband. I'd think in this case the rule of thumb would be avoid the appearence of evil, especially if he's going to criticize the administration in the NYT and say the Vice-President sent him.

Nevermind that this still doesn't answer the question of any underlying motivations that the CIA might have had in trying to undermine the administration. Or do you believe that they were wholly altruisitic in their motives to undermine the case for war? I don't; the CIA and altruism are rarely words that appear in the same sentence.

And please, Glenn Reynolds is an idiotic hack? Based on what exactly? Not like every left-wing blog in the universe didn't speculate about Bush because of that bulge in his jacket during the debates.

The guy is a respectable libertarian-minded law professor who routinely attacks Republicans.
posted by Heminator at 9:00 AM on November 1, 2005


here's the article 'speculating that Kerry had either rheumatoid arthritis or 'Marfan's Syndrome' because of his flower zipper pull.

He also thinks a single Sarin Shell IED as proof that the admin was totaly right about WMDs the whole time...
posted by delmoi at 9:02 AM on November 1, 2005


Yeah, Glenn Reynolds isn't a hack so much as a pure idiot.

You seriously believe that this is a plot by the CIA to disrupt the case for war?

Are we talking about the same war here? The CIA didn't need to do anything to disrupt the case for war; reality itself handled that job just fine, don't you think?

Sheesh
posted by Cycloptichorn at 9:05 AM on November 1, 2005


I agree with Hemiator that instapundit should be smacked.

Another significant reason they so actively sought to harm Wilson was their fear that other members of the CIA, FBI, and other, former high ranking intelligence officers that have left their posts because of their frustration with the ineptitude of this administration, would come out with information against the administration. This was a warning shot to others: mess with us and we'll mess with you. Before submitting his Op-Ed to the New York Times, Wilson was saying to other people in the intelligence community that he knew they were going to try to come after him, but since his background was clean, he knew they would go after his wife.

The right is trying to obfuscate this, but they're not doing a good job of it. At the end of the day, you've got a guy who lied repeatedly to a grand jury in an effort to divert attention from... what? Hopefully we'll find out.
posted by billysumday at 9:08 AM on November 1, 2005


Did you actually read those posts Delmoi?

As for speculation that Kerry had 'rheumatoid arthritis or 'Marfan's Syndrome'" he was referring to other people you were speculating because Kerry hadn't come clean about his health records. His response?

"Now readers are talking Marfan's Syndrome. Er, whatever. Given doctors' difficulty in diagnosing illness when the patient is right in front of them, I'm not convinced that non-doctors are especially good at diagnosing patients who aren't. But this sort of speculation and worry will only grow if Kerry doesn't make a clean breast of it, especially in light of his past behavior where medical issues are concerned."

And the other post?

"Listen, if the Left believes that 7 soldiers out of 150 thousand abusing Iraqis detainees can sully the honor of the whole military, then this one shell is proof that Saddam had an extensive WMD program.

Sounds fair to me!"


It's clearly sarcastic. I think you're taking it just a wee bit out of context. In fact, reading these posts makes me wonder if are you completely tone deaf to nuance.
posted by Heminator at 9:10 AM on November 1, 2005


Nevermind that this still doesn't answer the question of any underlying motivations that the CIA might have had in trying to undermine the administration. Or do you believe that they were wholly altruisitic in their motives to undermine the case for war?

The "case for war" was to remove the imminent threat caused by Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of WMDs. Since the case for war was entirely incorrect, how was it "undermined"?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:10 AM on November 1, 2005


The guy is a respectable libertarian-minded law professor who routinely attacks Republicans.

What kind of libertarian supports Tony "big brother" Blair? One with no principles, that's who. Glenn pushes the neo-conservative, war-hawk agenda with zeal, which puts him right with the republicans most of the time. He may not agree with them 100% but on stuff like the Plame Affair he backs them to the hilt.

It almost seems like he gets all of his information from other right-wing blogs, and lives in his own fantasy universe or something. He tents to take right-wing rumors as unequivocal facts, like that Plame 'sent' Wilson to Niger, or that the Martinez memo on Terri Schiavo was a Democratic forgery.

Look, you can believe and say whatever you want about him, just like you can about Rush Limbaugh, just don't go around posting links to his commentary and expect anyone to believe it. He has zero credibility with most educated people.
posted by delmoi at 9:11 AM on November 1, 2005


Nevermind that the original british intelligence report on Yellowcake in Niger was never discredited or disowned

I keep forgeting that the complete lack of evidence supporting these claims is only relevent in the the reality based community. My bad.

I find it funny how these days people on both american poltical sides commence their spinning well before they reach their graves. Very pro-active.
posted by srboisvert at 9:11 AM on November 1, 2005


...the original british intelligence report on Yellowcake in Niger was never discredited or disowned...

FACT – N.I.E. CONTAINED CLAIM THAT URANIUM EVIDENCE WAS “HIGHLY DUBIOUS”: The N.I.E. “noted reports that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in Africa but included a warning from the State Department that the reports were ‘highly dubious.’” [NYT, 7/19/03]

FACT - THREE SEPARATE REPORTS CONCLUDED INTELLIGENCE ON URANIUM WAS WEAK: In addition to Wilson’s claims, former US Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, and her staff had already concluded the intelligence was false by the time he arrived in the country. Four-Star Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr. met with Niger president in February 2002 to check the security of the country’s uranium. Fulford reported that he was “convinced it was not an issue,” and passed his findings to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. [Washington Post, 7/15/03; NYT, 7/6/03]

FACT – FINAL WMD REPORT COMMISSIONED BY BUSH FOUND NO URANIUM WAS SOUGHT BY IRAQ: The final Iraq Survey Group report concluded, “ISG has uncovered no information to support allegations of Iraqi pursuit of uranium from abroad in the post-Operation Desert Storm era.” [Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD, 9/30/04]

posted by bashos_frog at 9:13 AM on November 1, 2005


Heminator: First you complain about me confusing a readers words for glenn's, then you do it yourself. The second article, you quote a quoted reader without any indication it's a quoted reader (and no difference between the reader's words, and glens).

Anyway, most of the time all he does is quote people and make witty comments, which make it rather difficult to pin him on particular bad quote. The point is that he trades in all this sort of speculation, posts it to the front of his page and so on.

As I've said, he's just not credible, and insulting me isn't going to change that.
posted by delmoi at 9:20 AM on November 1, 2005


So Delmoi, you completely misrepresent the guy, don't address that fact and then respond simply by saying "He has zero credibility with most educated people"?

Nice. Good work on that.

And Bashos I'm still dubious for several reasons, but I do appeciate the facts you presented (with references!) and will look at them.
posted by Heminator at 9:22 AM on November 1, 2005


Yes Delmoi, I posted that last thing without seeing your just prior post, and I apologize for my hasty editing - but the point was that Reynolds wasn't simply saying these ridiculous things the way that you presented it. There was far more balance involved. You made him sound like a nutjob.
posted by Heminator at 9:25 AM on November 1, 2005


Nevermind that this still doesn't answer the question of any underlying motivations that the CIA might have had in trying to undermine the administration. Or do you believe that they were wholly altruisitic in their motives to undermine the case for war? I don't; the CIA and altruism are rarely words that appear in the same sentence.

I don't think you can claim that Joe Wilson spoke for the entire CIA with that op-ed, but maybe he did speak for a faction of it. Either way, what difference does it make what they're 'motives' were? History shows that they were correct. Why, exactly, is it unreasonable to think they might have wanted to undermine the case for war because it was constructed entirely out of bullshit?
posted by delmoi at 9:27 AM on November 1, 2005


Yeah, Glenn Reynolds isn't a hack so much as a pure idiot.

I don't know about that; the bar for right wing blogs is pretty low. Instapundit is a genius compared to the guy who defended the neo-Nazi Olsen twins because he thought they were just "rebelling against multiculturalism".
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:29 AM on November 1, 2005


I suspect the situation around Plame is deliberately kept vague as to minimize the damage to whatever operation(s) she was or was not involved in, maybe.

This kind of thing isn’t a binary yes/no. Agents in NOCs are deliberately kept in a sort of eigenstate and can even be disavowed. Or maybe not.


The original british intelligence report on Yellowcake in Niger was completely bogus.
Heminator I am astonished that you could believe what you posted.
Even a cursory examination of Wilson’s background reveals he was the best man - perhaps the perfect man - for the job.

Why would the CIA - an agency proven to do whatever it is asked of by the civilian government including overthow popular democraticly elected heads of state - attempt to disrupt the war in Iraq?

The administration end ran them and tried to spin the intel - the company didn’t kick. The admministration tried to blame the CIA for screwing up the intelligence the administration itself distorted (”faulty intelligence”) - and they took the hit. Tenet even resigned. Why? Because they’re the CIA - they will do anything the civilian government tells them to.

It’s clear Plame was outed as revenge for Wilson not playing ball. It’s that simple.

She could have been killed, but her career is over forever.

Cheney wanted to "know" if Saddam wanted Yellowcake from Niger. The CIA who finds out such things sends Wilson. Wilson comes back and says “Nope, nada.” The admin makes an asshole out of him and goes on T.V. saying :”Yep, lots.”
He doesn’t want to take the blame for this (since it’s his baby) so he goes public with his end of the story and says that he told the administration there was no yellowcake deal. They get pissed since this bares a number of other lies they have going. The only leverage they have on Wilson is his wife. They out her.
How is this complex?


Wilson’s wife happens to work for the CIA. I know a guy who works for Microsoft, that doesn’t mean he runs errands for Bill Gates.

I agree there are permutations in how that scenario could have played out. But the basic story is right there.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:31 AM on November 1, 2005


/weird synchroncity - eigenstate is the featured article today on wiki...checked to make sure I was using the term properly...lousy leaky consciousness
posted by Smedleyman at 9:32 AM on November 1, 2005


hehe. Just a note, the Olsen Twins are not, in fact, Neo-nazis, rather two twin girls who are neo-nazis happen to look a lot like the Olsen Twins.
posted by delmoi at 9:33 AM on November 1, 2005


Was the case for war constructed ENTIRELY out of sixteen words or whatever referencing yellowcake in Niger?

I agree the WMD case has fallen completely apart. But who prior to the war could credibly say that Iraq didn't have them? Certainly not the CIA. Yellowcake was very, very small part of that. It only seems like a big deal because hindsight is 20/20.
posted by Heminator at 9:33 AM on November 1, 2005


Here's the juicy part.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:34 AM on November 1, 2005


It certainly says a lot about this administration when the freaking CIA is considered left wing.
posted by JackFlash at 9:38 AM on November 1, 2005


It only seems like a big deal because hindsight is 20/20.

It also seems like a big deal because of 2,000 dead Americans and 100,000 or so dead Iraqis.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:38 AM on November 1, 2005


Heminator: There were those sixteen words, and then there were the numerous mentions of Iraq's potential nuclear arsenal, the worry that a "smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud" on television shows and news programs for months by Cheney, Condi, Mehlman. This doesn't bother you? You don't feel manipulated? During the entirety of the time those comments were being made, they knew that this intelligence was bad. But they wanted to scare, scare, scare. And we were scared.
posted by billysumday at 9:38 AM on November 1, 2005


“But who prior to the war could credibly say that Iraq didn't have them?”
posted by Heminator at 9:33 AM PST on November 1 [!]


U.N. Weapons inspectors.
In fact lots of CIA folks said they didn’t find anything. They were marginalized. The bureaucracy was re-worked to funnel the info the White House wanted.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:41 AM on November 1, 2005


I agree the WMD case has fallen completely apart. But who prior to the war could credibly say that Iraq didn't have them? Certainly not the CIA. Yellowcake was very, very small part of that. It only seems like a big deal because hindsight is 20/20.

More like 20/20 hindsight in reverse.
posted by srboisvert at 9:43 AM on November 1, 2005


All this talk about the CIA being clueless and giving bad information to the White House annoys me. Did anyone pay attention a couple years ago? At all?

THE CIA AND IRAQ FOR DUMMIES:

  1. How Dangerous Iraq Really Was
  2. How Dangerous the CIA Said Iraq Was
  3. How Dangerous the White House Said Iraq Was
Look closely at it and ponder it for a moment. Iraq was a complete military non-threat. It wasn't even a paper tiger -- it was a paper badger. The White House, though, thought it was super-duper holy bejeebus let's blow stuff up dangerous. This was the argument favored by Sadaam, of course, who had a vested interest in telling everyone he was supremely dangerous.

The CIA, though, disagreed. The CIA is charged, mind you, with finding out stuff -- not acting as the White House's marketing agency. They still over-estimated the danger posed by Sadaam and Iraq, but based on what they knew they insisted the situation was nowhere near as dire as the White House insisted it was. In response, the White House pretty much stopped listening to the CIA and started generating its own intelligence data from sources that confirmed its view of things.

When the dust finally settled and it turned out that Sadaam was a threat to his own people and no one else (like the vast majority of dictators currently in power around the world), the CIA took the blame. Because, y'know, they overestimated how dangerous he was.
posted by verb at 9:44 AM on November 1, 2005


verb, that's what's happening.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:51 AM on November 1, 2005


I agree the WMD case has fallen completely apart. But who prior to the war could credibly say that Iraq didn't have them?

Hans Blix?
posted by delmoi at 9:54 AM on November 1, 2005



It also seems like a big deal because of 2,000 dead Americans and 100,000 or so dead Iraqis.


Duh, those people are only dead in hindsight.
posted by delmoi at 9:56 AM on November 1, 2005


Scott Ritter also claimed there were no WMDs.
posted by billysumday at 9:56 AM on November 1, 2005


TomPaine.com has a diagram showing the people involved in the case and how they relate to one another.

Assuming that Valerie Plame was some sort of genuinely covert operative

Matt Cooper claims that Scooter Libby told him that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative.

The problem is that I don't think we can say how much influence that Plame had in sending her husband.

Maybe we can:
The claim that Plame authorized -- or even suggested -- Wilson's trip is unproven, if not demonstrably false. The Senate Intelligence Committee closely examined the issue but did not reach a conclusion about how the CIA made the decision to hire Wilson, noting [PDF] only some "interviews and documents" indicating that Plame "suggested his name for the trip." But even if Plame did "suggest" her husband, she could not have "authorized" it; only the heads of CPD could do that. The Senate report describes "a memorandum to the deputy chief of CPD, from the former ambassador's wife" [p. 39] touting her husband's credentials. But if Plame herself had the power to "authorize" Wilson's trip, as Rove told Cooper, such a memo would hardly have been necessary.
One CIA source said she didn't recommend Wilson and other CIA officials said "the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting."

I'd think in this case the rule of thumb would be avoid the appearence of evil, especially if he's going to criticize the administration in the NYT and say the Vice-President sent him.

Wilson never said the Vice President sent him.

Not like every left-wing blog in the universe didn't speculate about Bush because of that bulge in his jacket during the debates.

Well, there actually was a bulge to speculate about, and it was a bulletproof vest.

posted by kirkaracha at 10:16 AM on November 1, 2005


Also, a nice CIA press release clarifying their intel based on public dissection of their documents.
posted by verb at 10:23 AM on November 1, 2005


I've taken the liberty of bolding the passages from Instapundit which were Republican talking points that had been conclusively debunked at the time he wrote it, or purposefully misleading.

"Consider: Assuming that Valerie Plame was some sort of genuinely covert operative -- something that's not actually quite clear from the indictment -- the chain of events looks pretty damning: Wilson was sent to Africa on an investigative mission regarding nuclear weapons, but never asked to sign any sort of secrecy agreement(!). Wilson returns, reports, then publishes an oped in the New York Times (!!) about his mission. This pretty much ensures that people will start asking why he was sent, which leads to the fact that his wife arranged it. Once Wilson's oped appeared, Plame's covert status was in serious danger. Yet nobody seemed to care."

1. It's obvious from the fact that there was an investigation at all that the CIA maintained her status as covert.

2. Wilson's oped in the NYT was a long time after the mission, not, as the sentence structure suggests, immediately consequent.

3. His wife didn't arrange it.

4. There is clearly, obviously, no causality between Wilson writing an editorial and his wife being unmasked as a CIA agent, unless you presuppose that his enemies will engage in treason.

5. Obviously, everyone cared.
posted by felix at 10:23 AM on November 1, 2005


Also, from paragraph 1F of the Libby indictment [PDF]:
At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:33 AM on November 1, 2005


That diagram that kirkaracha linked to makes me want to draw one of where I work, just so I can say that people are being just as stupid as the administration and have proof.
posted by Talanvor at 11:02 AM on November 1, 2005


Thats another thing about glenn reynolds, he spouts republican talking points as facts. Its like he dosn't know what the truth is, or he just dosn't care.
posted by delmoi at 11:04 AM on November 1, 2005


Well, that wasn't even close to the "Plame Scandal for Dummies." The CIA and Iraq for Dummies wins hands down.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:04 AM on November 1, 2005


oh, if it only it was as sexy as the monica lewinsky scandal.

then people would actually, yknow, care and stuff.
posted by huskerdont at 11:08 AM on November 1, 2005


Hey, where did the conservative guy go? Come back, Heminator!
posted by billysumday at 11:08 AM on November 1, 2005


oh, if it only it was as sexy as the monica lewinsky scandal.

then people would actually, yknow, care and stuff.


I think people are tuned out because it is pretty damn scary to think that your elected government is lying to you so that thousands of people can get killed for some reason or other.

You can't watch Lost and enjoy yourself while that kind of shit looms over you. So you dismiss it.
posted by srboisvert at 11:22 AM on November 1, 2005


He took his ball and went home.
posted by Talanvor at 11:22 AM on November 1, 2005


That Tom Paine map is fantastic.

Nicolo Pallari should be in the news more.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:30 AM on November 1, 2005


C'mon, Hemi, stop pretending that you're anything but a shill for the National Review talking points. Or at least buck up to a Chris Hitchens level and make this interesting.
posted by klangklangston at 11:39 AM on November 1, 2005


Heminator, how could this theory from Reynolds make any sense? It's illogical, leaves out major details, and skews the timeline. It blames the CIA and Wilson for telling the admin what the didn't want to hear.
Wilson returns, reports, then publishes an oped in the New York Times (!!) about his mission. This pretty much ensures that people will start asking why he was sent, which leads to the fact that his wife arranged it. Once Wilson's oped appeared, Plame's covert status was in serious danger. Yet nobody seemed to care.
...as if Wilson's report happened in a bubble.

Some major pieces of timeline are missing there. In between "Wilson returns, reports" and "publishes an oped" should appear:

"a year passes while Cheney and admin officials make unsubstantiated allegations about Saddam's nuclear programs, culminating in the discredited 16 words in Bush's 2003 SOTU, followed by invasion in March 2003."

But Reynolds doesn't seem to care...
This leaves two possibilities. One is that the mission was intended to result in the New York Times oped all along, meaning that the CIA didn't care much about Plame's status, and was trying to meddle in domestic politics. This reflects very badly on the CIA.
So Reynolds proposes that the CIA, who was out to embarrass Bush, was so prescient that they sent Wilson to Niger in January 2002, six months before the admin began the drumbeat for war, a full year before Bush's SOTU, and 14 months before the invasion...all to discredit sclaims that Bush and Cheney hadn't even made yet?

Neat trick, that.

(If they had that sort of prescience, I'd posit that quite to the contrary, it would reflect quite well on the CIA.)
The other possibility is that they're so clueless that they did this without any nefarious plan, because they're so inept, and so prone to cronyism and nepotism

blah blah blah
No, Glenn...the other possibility is that you're completely full of it, you illogical sycophant.

That's the fatal flaw of the elite neocons -- when reality doesn't jibe with their theories, they think it's reality's fault.

To them, when Wilson couldn't substantiate the Niger sale (because there wasn't one) -- that's Wilson's fault. When the CIA told them not to use discredited intel, that's the CIA's fault. Any cockamamie theory will be advanced, no matter how ridiculous, to shift blame from the people to whom it belongs.

Here are the facts: There was no uranium deal. There was no ability to refine uranium anyhow. There was no nuclear weapons capacity. Wilson was right. Cheney and Bush were wrong. They exaggerated and fabricated a case for war. There were no WMD, Iraq couldn't pass WMD to terrorists because they did not possess them.

Simple as that. It's an insult to our intelligence to weave complicated, illogical fantasies about how this is all someone else's fault. It's horseshit.
posted by edverb at 11:54 AM on November 1, 2005


Ok, this is getting pretty damn tiresome. Useless apologists like Heminator astound me with their contempt for the plainly evident.

The Administration build a case for war on lies. They lied to Congress, they lied to the UN and they lied to the public about Iraq possessing or attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The Plame affair is all part and parcel of the same lie.

If this isn't obvious to anyone who can read and has the interest to do so, that person is an idiot blinded by ideology. It's as clear as an unmuddied lake, as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:17 PM on November 1, 2005


felix: Nice scalpel work.

To further parse, the only reason Wilson wrote that article was that he'd exhausted the avenues of people who seemed to care. I'm quite sure that at the time he decided to go public, he and his wife discussed the issue and the risk to her -- and decided to go ahead anyway. That, to me, speaks volumes about who cares. Even if you ascribe this -- tinfoil-hat style -- to CIA machinations, which isn't really supported by any record (unlike, say, the phone records of one I. Lewis Libby), it says again how important they considered the issue.

The people who cared more about the political game than somebody's life? I don't think they were in Langley.

What spin. What obfuscation. What hackery.

Can someone explain to me how outing Plame could be considered retribution directed at Wilson? It just doesn't make any sense. Kind of like shooting the cat because the dog crapped on the carpet.

The story has been played that way. It's not completely accurate, and you're right that it doesn't make a lot of sense. There were better ways to accomplish destroying someone, without putting our national intelligence apparatus at risk. Plus, it doesn't really scale -- why would they risk top officials' careers over an op-ed?

The answer seems to lie in what is coming out of Italy these days (at least, in Italian papers -- few American media have examined it closely as yet). As Billmon noted last week, Cheney and Libby began amassing a Wilson dossier well before the op-ed.

This discovery may help answer two of the Big Questions raised by the Plame affair: Why did the Niger uranium claim keep drifting (Judy Miller-like) into the president's speeches during the Iraq War sales campaign? And why did the White House geek out so thoroughly when Joe Wilson started talking to reporters about his little trip to Niameys?

As Laura Rozen said (and he referenced):

The White House's war on the CIA and on the Wilsons --the extent of which has been revealed in recent news reports emerging from the Fitzgerald investigation -- has always had an excessive and almost hysterical quality. Why was the White House so worked up over Wilson and the Niger hoax, when there was so much evidence that the administration had based its drive for war on claims that were so thoroughly discredited from top to bottom? Why did Wilson and his CIA wife become the primary targets, when Wilson was hardly alone in pointing out that the White House should have known better about the Niger claims?

News of the secret meeting between the Italian Sismi chief and the White House deputy national security adviser -- during the period when the White House was assembling its flawed case for war -- provides an important new piece of that puzzle.


In other words, one inference we can draw is that the administration had been involved in manipulating the intelligence by having its tools drop the forged yellowcake documents into the intelligence stream, and when it turned out that Wilson was talking these documents up as forged -- months before they were public and shown to be -- they panicked. They were concerned the entire operation would be blown.

Now, I don't know that's what happened. But it makes more sense to me that they had some kind of sphincter pucker factor that made destroying Wilson at any cost imperative, than that they felt the need to slime a guy who at the time was just one more critic without the goods. I'm worried that as the onion peels on this one, it's going to make the JFK assassination look simple, but that's the general outline.
posted by dhartung at 12:18 PM on November 1, 2005


“Hey, where did the conservative guy go? Come back, Heminator!”
posted by billysumday at 11:08 AM PST on November 1 [!]


Not all conservatives are knee jerk in favor of everything the adminstration, the republicans, etc. does.
I’m one of them.

Orwell’s ‘duckspeaker’ might work instead.
Labels tend to chaffe tho. I try avoid them.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:22 PM on November 1, 2005


"...and say the Vice-President sent him."

When did Wilson ever claim that Cheney sent him to Niger? Or rather, when did this lie come about? It's new to me anyway. And it's easily countered with the truth from Wilson's own op-ed.
posted by NoMich at 12:27 PM on November 1, 2005


Democrats Force Closed Meeting on Iraq
"Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that led to the Iraq war and deriding a lack of congressional inquiry.

'I demand on behalf of the America people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted,' Democratic leader Harry Reid said."
posted by ericb at 12:37 PM on November 1, 2005


"The Democrats have forced the Senate into a closed session, to shut down the Senate and go behind closed doors for national security reasons, in order to discuss what the hell happened with Rove and ScooterGate.

Holy shit. CNN just said that by invoking Rule 21, Reid just shut down the Senate, all 100 Senators are called to the Senate floor, they have to turn over their cell phones, blackberries, etc." [source]
posted by ericb at 12:39 PM on November 1, 2005


There are conservatives, and the Coulter/Malkin/Rush/Hugh/Savage/Glenn/AEI/Heritage-axis conservatards. On the internets the ratio is about 1:50, if that. Same ratio holds in the Senate. Diogenes would be a very tired dude today. Follow the money; it's coming from the conservatards and going towards minting more of 'em. Goldwater wouldn't recognize today's Republican party of allied interests, it's basically Reaganism on crack.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:39 PM on November 1, 2005


I think you guys bitchslapped Heminator with the lead-lined velvet glove of Truth.

Poor boy is probably down on the floor looking around for his teeth.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:43 PM on November 1, 2005


Matt Cooper claims that Scooter Libby told him that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative.

kirkaracha -- I think you meant to say Matt Cooper claims that Karl Rove told him that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative -- as that's what the article to which you link states: "Time Reporter Says He Learned Agent's Identity From Rove."
posted by ericb at 12:44 PM on November 1, 2005


ericb - this can mean only one thing: Impromptu steel cage battle royale
posted by AllesKlar at 12:49 PM on November 1, 2005


Battle Royale indeed: GOP furious at closed Senate session.

Looks like the Democrats may just be getting their cojones back. Let's hope.
posted by ericb at 12:51 PM on November 1, 2005


At least a nice maneuver to temporarily overshadow the news cycle regarding Alito and the avaian flu...and keep the focus on the Libby/Rove/Plame affair.
posted by ericb at 12:52 PM on November 1, 2005


The Senate shut-down -- and newsfilter discussion -- has become it's own FPP.
posted by ericb at 12:55 PM on November 1, 2005


*its*
posted by ericb at 12:55 PM on November 1, 2005


Goldwater wouldn't recognize today's Republican party of allied interests, it's basically Reaganism on crack.

Goldwater ended up a liberal. He was none-to-happy about this crew.
posted by delmoi at 1:09 PM on November 1, 2005


ericb: I think you meant to say Matt Cooper claims that Karl Rove told him that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative

The second paragraph of the article says, "Matt Cooper also said...Libby confirmed to him that Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative."

The ABC article doesn't have the word "covert" now. It did earlier, but it looks like it's been edited since it was posted. (The claim is also inconsistent with Cooper's original account in Time, which I didn't realize when I posted my comment.)
posted by kirkaracha at 1:28 PM on November 1, 2005


The ‘covert’ business is irrelevant. It’s like publishing a picture of an undercover cop. “Well, he wasn’t undercover at the time” - yeah, well, now he never can be again and everyone ever associated with him is going to take it in the ass.
No such thing as a non-covert CIA agent who’s been to the farm. You’re either too old, dead, or you’re in the front office.
...Not to sure about too old.

--
Yes, the “conservative” label has been co-opted. Which is why you have Neo-Con to delineate the folks who have taken the philosophy of incremental change, conservation of nature, tradition vs. the cult of personality, into this Straussian/Jacobin on amphetamines, hero-worship, back door, universalistic nonsense.
(e.g. I disliked Reagan and Clinton equally for their use of celebrity)
Please don’t associate those folks with those of us with some modicum of wisdom.


“this can mean only one thing: Impromptu steel cage battle royale”
posted by AllesKlar at 12:49 PM PST on November 1 [!]

Man, I’d’ve loved to see Abraham Lincoln in a cage match. He would have kicked serious ass.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:52 PM on November 1, 2005


Some background on the CIA report into Wilson's trip.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:19 PM on November 1, 2005


"Poor boy is probably down on the floor looking around for his teeth."

Nope. Just had to work. And getting tired of having to respond to six different threads of ideas at once, and tired of being tarred and feathered for pointing out the obvious:

Joe Wilson is a liar and ultimately disingenuous, as was the CIA here. It's just that you all believe theWhite house are bigger liars and more disingenuous.

Which is fine, I just would like to see some more scrutiny on Wilson and the way the CIA handled this whole matter.

I do not like this war, and I don't give a rats ass if they hang Scooter Libby or George Bush for that matter. But Wilson's granstanding rubs me the wrong way; he never made a compelling factual case and the fact his wife was technically a covert agent is more of an inconvienent fact than an endangerment to National Security. Then again if Wilson prepared about protecting her identity maybe he shouldn't have driven so much attention to himself and diverted theinformation elsewhere.
posted by Heminator at 3:36 PM on November 1, 2005


the fact his wife was technically a covert agent is more of an inconvienent fact than an endangerment to National Security

Can you explain the difference between a "technical" covert agent and a regular covert agent?

Then again if Wilson prepared about protecting her identity maybe he shouldn't have driven so much attention to himself and diverted theinformation elsewhere.

Damn rape victims and their slutty clothes.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:52 PM on November 1, 2005



“And getting tired of having to respond to six different threads of ideas at once, and tired of being tarred and feathered”
posted by Heminator at 3:36 PM PST on November 1

Sorry you’re being dog-piled Heminator. Seriously.

...but...


“Joe Wilson is a liar and ultimately disingenuous, as was the CIA here. It's just that you all believe theWhite house are bigger liars and more disingenuous.”
posted by Heminator at 3:36 PM PST on November 1


Wilson was an ambassador with oodles of trust attached to his name and having what he had to say about issues believed.
But what’s past is not always prologue. If you can see an angle wherein it’s advantageous for him to lie - beyond the “they hate our freedom” eqivalent of he hates the GOP or Bush or some such partisan tripe, I’d be happy to entertain it.


“But Wilson's granstanding rubs me the wrong way; he never
made a compelling factual case...”
posted by Heminator at 3:36 PM PST on November 1 [!


Matter of taste. You’re free to dislike him. I think he was fighting for his life - that is his job and reputation - and went about it the only way he could. Perhaps he could have done better. We’re none of us Joe Wilson.


“the fact his wife was technically a covert agent is more of an inconvienent fact than an endangerment to National Security.”
posted by Heminator at 3:36 PM PST on November 1 [!]


That’s what folks in the intelligence community call - completely wrong. To use the analogy again, compromising an agents identity is the rough eqivalent of compromising the identity of an undercover police officer. You’ve watched cop shows - what happens to the cop when the mob finds out he’s undercover? What happens to the investigation?



“Then again if Wilson prepared about protecting her identity maybe he shouldn't have driven so much attention to himself and diverted theinformation elsewhere.”
posted by Heminator at 3:36 PM PST on November 1 [!]


It’s not Wilson’s job to protect her identity. It is the job of anyone who knows of her identity to keep it secret.
I had a very high level security clearance. If I did this or something like it I would have gone to prison for the rest of my life next to Bob Hanssen (from Chicago, by the way, good friends with Robert Novak, went to church with Rick Santorum, n’ stuff. Isn’t it super how stuff looks, y’know, related).


Aaaaaanyway, Wilson doesn’t have the juice to bring that much light on himself without there being some heat from somewhere. He certainly wouldn’t have thought someone would compromise his wife. It would never occur to someone - who knew the ramifications - at all sane to do that.


It appears your missing the point so again - Wilson gave a straight answer to people who were looking for a crooked one. He was doing his job investigating what the real world picture was. People didn’t like that he was doing that and interpreted it as an attack as so many people like this do. So they attacked back.


I’m more than willing to listen to whatever you think is actually going on as a rebuttle.

Some questions first:
Why is Wilson a liar?
What is he lying about?
What is his motive for lying?

What is the difference between the White House being bigger liars and Wilson lying?
What factual case is Wilson trying to make other than he didn’t see something the administration said was there?
Does the White House have a motivation to lie or not?


What is it the CIA does?
What would constitute a danger to our national security?
posted by Smedleyman at 5:33 PM on November 1, 2005


Republican Seantor Trent Lott Questions Whether Karl Rove Should Keep His Job
"The question is should [Rove] be the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy under the current circumstances? I don't know all that's going on, so I can't make that final conclusion. But, you know, how many times has the top political person become also the top policy advisor?

...is he in the right position? I mean, a lot of political advisors, in fact, most presidents in recent years have a political advisor in the White House. The question is, should they be making, you know, policy decisions. That's the question you've got to evaluate."
Cracks in the seams?
posted by ericb at 6:32 PM on November 1, 2005


Heminator, you never addressed the central flaw in Reynolds's cockamamie smear...

How could Joe Wilson have been sent by the CIA with the purpose of undermining something that Bush and Cheney had not even said yet?

Please explain how "that makes a lot of sense" to you.

I have a better explanation for this irresponsible, deadly rhetoric than Reynolds or yourself: "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards." Typical of the entire Iraq debacle.

We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." -- George Orwell

Do you realize that Wilson and Plame have received death threats? Are you aware that they have requested (and receive) armed bodyguards around the clock, on the taxpayer's dime? Do you understand that the irresponsible rhetoric of Novak and his fellow right-wing smear merchants like Reynolds are responsible for that?

But nobody, least of all you, seems to care. Off with their heads, right?
posted by edverb at 6:27 AM on November 2, 2005


Do you understand that the irresponsible rhetoric of Novak and his fellow right-wing smear merchants like Reynolds are responsible for that?

Whoa! You lost me there when you started dancing on Free Speech with your responsibility boots.
posted by srboisvert at 8:12 AM on November 2, 2005


Whoa! You lost me there when you started dancing on Free Speech with your responsibility boots.

What exactly are you saying? Am I oppressing their free speech or something?

What Novak did was irresponsible at best and criminal at worst (or more likely, irresponsible journalism in the service of criminals.)

And the White House smear merchants lie, while people like Reynolds (and apparently MeFites like Heminator) swear to it.

I think we're long overdue for a "have you no decency" moment.

And to embrace their irresponsible smears (which are demonstrably ridiculous on their face -- claiming things like Wilson and CIA pre-emptively discredited something Bush hadn't even said yet -- which is utterly inane) is reckless and cruel.

It's not enough they ruined Plame's career and smeared Joe Wilson for telling them what they didn't want to hear. it's not enough they need armed bodyguards around the clock as a result, it's not enough that there were no WMD, there was no uranium deal, that we've been taken to war on the basis of lies, that the war is a grand clucsterf*ck of epic proportions. It's not enough 2000 servicemembers are dead, 15000 maimed, our reputation in tatters, countless innocent lives ended in the service of these lies. When will it be enough?

Their spin kills. I don't think it's excessive to say that their lies and smears aren't worthy of such a lofty defense as "free speech", but this being America they enjoy that protection.

There is plenty of irresponsible rhetoric that qualifies as "free speech", that doesn't make it moral to embrace it. And it's not censorship to suggest how irresponsible their rhetoric is, and how dire the consequences have been.
posted by edverb at 8:47 AM on November 2, 2005


Yesterday, it was Trent Lott questioning a continuing role for Rove in the Bush administration. Others join the chorus:
Some conservatives question Rove's future
"[William] Niskanen [of the Cato Institute] said any White House shake-up should 'start' with Rove because of his association with the leak case."
posted by ericb at 5:36 PM on November 2, 2005


Rove may lose his security clearance.
posted by ericb at 6:23 PM on November 2, 2005


William F. Buckley (himself a former "deep cover agent" starting in 1951):
"We have noticed that Valerie Plame Wilson has lived in Washington since 1997. Where she was before that is not disclosed by research facilities at my disposal. But even if she was safe in Washington when the identity of her employer was given out, it does not mean that her outing was without consequence. We do not know what dealings she might have been engaging in which are now interrupted or even made impossible. We do not know whether the countries in which she worked before 1997 could accost her, if she were to visit any of them, confronting her with signed papers that gave untruthful reasons for her previous stay — that she was there only as tourist, or working for a fictitious U.S. company. In my case, it was 15 years after reentry into the secular world before my secret career in Mexico was blown, harming no one except perhaps some who might have been put off by my deception.

The great question here is Robert Novak. It was he who published, in his column, that Mrs. Joseph Wilson was a secret agent of the CIA. I am too close a friend to pursue the matter with Novak, and his loyalty is a postulate. What was going on? If there are mysteries in town, that surely is one of them, the role of Novak.

The importance of the law against revealing the true professional identity of an agent is advertised by the draconian punishment, under the federal code, for violating it. In the swirl of the Libby affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got themselves into. But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted."
posted by ericb at 7:09 PM on November 2, 2005


Public Says CIA Leak More Important than Iran Contra, Whitewater, and Monica
CIA Leak (11/05)

Great importance- 51%
Some importance - 35%
Little/no importance - 12%

Clinton-Lewinsky (1/98)
Great importance - 41%
Some importance - 21%
Little/no importance - 37%

Whitewater (3/94)
Great importance - 20%
Some importance - 29%
Little/no importance - 45%

Iran-Contra (2/87)
Great importance - 48%
Some importance - 33%
Little/no importance - 19%

Watergate (5/73)
Great importance - 53%
Some importance - 25%
Little/no importance - 22%
posted by ericb at 8:37 PM on November 2, 2005


The Washington Post: Rove’s future role under discussion.
posted by ericb at 10:30 PM on November 2, 2005


so i'm watching the daily show and jon shows a clip in which the president is nominating miers, doing the media circus gambit: "and someone said why don't you nominate someone from outside the judiciary... i think it was a democrat senator who called it the 'judicial monastary' ...so that's what I did." [paraphrased]

and it occurs to me someone very close to him must have made a bitingly sarcastic comment in response to whatever judicial croney Bush first wanted to nominate: "Oh why don't you just nominate someone completely unqualified" [sneer, dripping bile].

and then realized he'd just fucked himself but good by mouthing off like that. and in a desperation move managed to sweet talk it like it was a brilliant idea. "You know, show everyone you're willing to shake things up a little, show them you're gonna put the common man in control! Someone who really represents them, someone they can connect to!"

and by god if it didn't work.

at least for a couple weeks.

i imagine his ass is grass. shoulda just kept his mouth shut in the first place.

posted by five fresh fish at 10:43 PM on November 2, 2005


Thanks for the entertainment, delmoi and all. Seldom have I so enjoyed seeing the relentless logical trouncing of outrageously nonsensical arguments.

Oh, and ericb, thanks for keeping us up as always.

*its*

I'm sorry, you're a little late, we've already selected someone for the role of the insane bearded man. Next!

posted by soyjoy at 10:50 PM on November 2, 2005


Oh, and ericb, thanks for keeping us up as always.

Your most welcome.
posted by ericb at 10:56 PM on November 2, 2005


*You're*
posted by ericb at 10:56 PM on November 2, 2005


I *heart* soyjoy. BTW -- no beard here.
posted by ericb at 10:57 PM on November 2, 2005


BTW -- no beard here.

Unless you want me too have one!
posted by ericb at 10:58 PM on November 2, 2005


*to have one*
posted by ericb at 10:58 PM on November 2, 2005


You are such a pleasant and compliant user, ericb, that I simply must ask you to go to your bathroom mirror, bitchslap yourself, then stare yourself in the eye and say in a calm, clear, cold voice: "You will stop correcting every moot typo you make on MetaFilter."

luvu
kthx
posted by five fresh fish at 11:03 PM on November 2, 2005


New York Times: "Press Secretary on Trial in the Briefing Room."
posted by ericb at 11:04 PM on November 2, 2005


"You will stop correcting every moot typo you make on MetaFilter."

Well - the "errors" and "corrections" above were made on purpose and intended as jabs at soyjoy's relentess pursuit of my tendency for correction.

It is highly unlikely that I will abstain from my practice of correcting my errors -- often made late at night. Sorry if that offends you (or his/her) sensibilities.
posted by ericb at 11:10 PM on November 2, 2005


Seattle Post Intelligencer: Who will follow Libby out the door?
posted by ericb at 11:12 PM on November 2, 2005


*your sensibilities*
posted by ericb at 11:17 PM on November 2, 2005


Et tu, Bolton?
posted by homunculus at 12:17 AM on November 3, 2005


Your self-corrections are rapidly making you one of the most annoying users on MeFi, eric. PLEASE consider the rest of us before you correct yourself. This habit is making it very difficult to read the thread as a conversation.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:31 AM on November 3, 2005


seriously, ericb, it was cute the first couple times, but now it's like shoving people off their feet and saying "Get it? Get it?"

We love the links. Nobody's trying to beat you to them. Just take an extra 20 seconds to read over your post before clicking. And if there's a typo that gets through, take a deep breath and tell yourself "I can do it - I can let this one go..."
posted by soyjoy at 10:10 AM on November 3, 2005


Italian lawmaker: U.S. told of WMD forgeries -- Senator says Bush administration was warned Iraq documents were fake.
posted by ericb at 11:03 AM on November 3, 2005


Rolling Stone magazine: The New Web Slingers -- Political bloggers scoop the mainstream media on Plamegate .
posted by ericb at 11:49 AM on November 3, 2005


Thanks for that Buckley link.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:51 PM on November 3, 2005


and other links here.....you know who you are!
posted by Smedleyman at 4:51 PM on November 3, 2005


ABC News Poll: Majority of Americans (59%) say Rove should resign.
posted by ericb at 6:39 PM on November 3, 2005


« Older Would you pay $9000 for speaker cables? No? Ok, ho...  |  2005 World Beard and Moustache... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments