Conspiracy theory sans tinfoil
July 22, 2005 7:58 AM   Subscribe

Robert Parry disentangles the Plame game. He uncovered the Contra/Cocaine story. Now he's got a very sensible hypothesis on Plame. Lots more good stuff at Consortium News.
posted by warbaby (64 comments total)
The Plame stuff is bullshit on stilts, raised there by a self-aggrandizing liar who did more to endanger his life than anyone.

A look at the Non-story Pushed by an Agenda

But [Wodehouse] was essentially correct in his lampooning of the McCarthy hearings, since even the most convinced anti-communist would not learn anything from the spectacle that he did not already know, and since the show trials managed to go on without producing either any evidence of any crime, or any evidence of any perpetrator, or any evidence of any victim...

But the coverage of this non-storm in an un-teacup has gone far beyond the fantasy of a Rovean hidden hand. Supposedly responsible journalists are now writing as if there was never any problem with Saddam's attempt to acquire yellowcake (or his regime's now-proven concealment of a nuclear centrifuge, or his regime's now-proven attempt to buy long-range missiles off the shelf from North Korea as late as March 2003). In the same way, the carefully phrased yet indistinct statement of the 9/11 Commission that Saddam had no proven "operational" relationship with al-Qaida has mutated lazily into the belief that there were no contacts or exchanges at all, which the commission by no means asserts and which in any case by no means possesses the merit of being true. The CIA got everything wrong before 9/11, and thereafter. It was conditioned by its own culture to see no evil. It regularly leaked—see any of Bob Woodward's narratives—against the administration. Now it, and its partisans and publicity-famished husband-and-wife teams, want to imprison or depose people who leak back at it. No, thanks. Many journalists are rightly appalled at Time magazine's collusion with a prosecutor who has proved no crime and identified no victim. Far worse is the willingness of the New York Times to accept the demented premise of a prosecutor who has put one of its own writers behind bars.

posted by dios at 8:10 AM on July 22, 2005

So Rove's still guilty? Funny, he doesn't seem to have been fired yet.

I wonder how deeply Cheney and Bush are involved?

Hero? No, traitors aren't heroes, they're footnotes in history. These myopic asshats didn't give a damn about outing a CIA agent during a time of war and are trying to turn the tables and make Rove into a hero for his heroic act of leaking her status to the press. Bush would probably knight Rove if he had that power.
posted by fenriq at 8:13 AM on July 22, 2005

The Plame stuff is bullshit on stilts, raised there by a self-aggrandizing liar

We agree! How awesome. Oh, you were referring to Wilson.
posted by norm at 8:15 AM on July 22, 2005

I'm not following this story regularly but it seems to me that there is some kind of larger story behind the White House leaked Plame's name as revenge aspect. Can someone explain to me how Wilson came to write the op-ed in the first place?

I'm not a wonk so maybe this is obvious to the rest of you but wouldn't there have to be an interesting story on how Wilson decides to publicly step out and call bullshit when the agency his wife works for is using the phrase "slam dunk"? I mean is that the kind of thing an ambassador whose wife is a spook just decides to do as a good citizen or is he the public face of some faction that isn't being publicly discussed? I haven't been paying close enough attention I guess but on the surface it seems delightfully like fifth column spymaster stuff.
posted by well_balanced at 8:20 AM on July 22, 2005

Shorter Dios: It's OK to commit treason to attack your wife if the Republicans think you deserve it
posted by Space Coyote at 8:23 AM on July 22, 2005

Dios, we are still in Iraq for bullshit-on-stilts
posted by poppo at 8:24 AM on July 22, 2005

It'll be fun to watch your scramble and rationalize and reframe and reword in the coming years, dios, once Fitzgerald releases his findings. Just keep muttering to yourself "third-rate burglary... third-rate burglary..." But look on the bright side: Maybe you can get a job in the Nixon Library.
posted by digaman at 8:24 AM on July 22, 2005

This is going to be another one of those scandals that walks right up to the line of a final resolution and then collapses on itself. Leaving Rove and the others still standing and hardly scratched and lots of angry people wondering how they slipped through the net yet again. I hope I'm wrong, but if I were betting money on it I wouldn't bet on justice being served on this one.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 8:32 AM on July 22, 2005

Space Coyote: It's OK to to misuse words if you don't understand their meaning.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:33 AM on July 22, 2005

Justice or not, anyone who looks up to this cabal of chickenhawks and mouths the word "hero", has serious, serious self-image problems.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:34 AM on July 22, 2005

Dios, ever the fan of the "The CIA and The DOJ have no idea what they are talking about" excuse.

Why is there an investigation?

"The CIA got everything wrong before 9/11, and thereafter."
Like that part about Iraq not really having any WMD. The CIA was dead right about that. It was Fieth and Wolfawitz in the OSP that continued to "stovepipe" questionable information about nonexistent WMD from everybody's favorite con-man: Chalabi.

But beyond that, dios, this isn't about the Iraq war. Put away your axe, there is nothing to grind here about Saddam. This is about an NOC working on nuclear non-proliferation, and an administration willing to out her, destroy her network, and put us all in danger for petty political revenge.
posted by Freen at 8:37 AM on July 22, 2005

Space Coyote: It's OK to to misuse words if you don't understand their meaning.

Which word?
posted by Space Coyote at 8:38 AM on July 22, 2005

Where are the real Republicans? Where are those principled people who care about protecting the country instead of protecting message? Where are the people who care about traditional conservative values as opposed to the new borrow and spend authoritarian values?

These people undermined our national security. It's treasonous behavior, or at least it has the appearance of that. We'll find out for sure eventually, but all we get from Republicans is message discipline and attempts to dump more shit in the water to try to obfuscate.

These people have proven that they have no credibility at all about even the most basic principles they claim to hold. It's sad.
posted by willnot at 8:38 AM on July 22, 2005

I'm still waiting to see if anybody has actually read Bob's piece.
posted by warbaby at 8:38 AM on July 22, 2005

People can try and spin this anyway they want, whether it be in the news or in the blogsphere. This isn't something like the Swift Boat Veterans. This investigation isn't going to be won or lost based on who can influence the most people into believing their version. It is a guessing game by all people who are not involved in the investigation. What we think here won't matter. Wagging the dog won't matter. Eventually the chips will fall.

However, the evidence coming to light on a daily basis doesn't look good for the Administration. And if we have learned anything over the last 30+ years since Watergate, it is that the coverup is usually worse than the crime. Supporters of Rove (and the President) may be right that the way the law is written Rove is blameless, but the evidence seems to indicate that there was a deliberate and orchestrated movement to coverup their involvement.

We'll learn eventually what happened.
posted by terrapin at 8:46 AM on July 22, 2005

I read far enough to understand what the main plot points his theory relied upon are, and I have to agree that they are only a few among many of important details that have been overlooked by lazy journalism in lieu of sensationalism and name-calling.
posted by odinsdream at 8:49 AM on July 22, 2005

warbaby, you mean Parry's or Novak's?

Parry is just rehashing what we already know (yes, I read it). I, for one, am jonezing for more after reading Bloomberg this morning.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:50 AM on July 22, 2005

if we have learned anything over the last 30+ years since Watergate, it is that the coverup is usually worse than the crime.

That is the lesson, yes. The GOP's focus on Wilson is a step behind the game; the point is not what Wilson said but rather on how the administration pulled out all stops to discredit him, including the possible use of leaks of classified evidence. And what seems mostly likely to get Rove or Libby or Fleischer into hot water is not the leak itself but the extent to which they attempted to hide evidence of what they did afterwards. Obstruction of justice or perjury is far easier to indict and convict on than the 1982 law that was the original basis of the investigation.

I do admit to being a little gleeful about the whole thing, though. This is not (mainly) because I disagree politically with the administration; it's because I enjoy the irony of the rank hypocrisy of the GOP on the parsing of words and the treatment of an independent counsel investigation. That Rove is getting investigated for lying to a grand jury, and that his explanations are so darn... Clintonian.
posted by norm at 8:54 AM on July 22, 2005

I'm still waiting to see if anybody has actually read Bob's piece.

I started to read it, but unfortunately as a late-breaking scandal piece it's already dreadfully behind the times. Posted on Tuesday, it's ignorant of even further damning elements such as the portion of the memo that mentions Plame being explicitly market "S" for secret, meaning that there could be no doubt that facts contained therein were classified.

I will look forward to Parry's next entry, though. Thanks.
posted by soyjoy at 8:55 AM on July 22, 2005

I'm still waiting to see if anybody has actually read Bob's piece.

It doesn't say much that hasn't been said first and more lucidly by Daniel Schorr.
posted by Rothko at 8:55 AM on July 22, 2005

Maybe you can get a job in the Nixon Library.

Do they pay people to break into that place?
posted by trondant at 8:56 AM on July 22, 2005

I'm still waiting to see if anybody has actually read Bob's piece.

Reading the article never gotten in the way of a MeFight before, why start now?
posted by mkultra at 8:57 AM on July 22, 2005

There appear to be discrepencies between the administration's testimony (Rove & Libbey) and some reporters. This itself could lead to obstruction of justice or perjury charges. Also, What Did Bush Know, And When Did He Know It?
posted by caddis at 8:58 AM on July 22, 2005

warbaby: Oh, yes, it's quite a well-written piece--though I didn't get quite as much out of it as I had hoped.

"But two new facts contradict that assertion and show that Rove was coordinating his leaks about Plame with officials in Bush’s National Security Council and Vice President Dick Cheney’s office."

When I see someone using terminology like "new facts contradict that assertion", I expect something a little more definitive than what's already been said on the matter. This article was a good summary of the situation, but the "new facts" were a bit lackluster.

Dios: this investigation doesn't hinge on whether or not Iraq was attempting to procure said materials. It hinges on whether or not White House staff revealed classified information to "avenge" themselves against a dissenting voice. Even if the dissenter was mistaken, acting out some faux-vendetta against him was absolutely inappropriate.
posted by voltairemodern at 9:02 AM on July 22, 2005

The CIA got everything wrong before 9/11, and thereafter.

Nice patriotism.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:03 AM on July 22, 2005

Also, What Did Bush Know, And When Did He Know It?

Doesn't matter. If Bush can weasel out of 9/11 testimony using angry indignation, and he gets out of impeachment hearings for misinforming the public about WMDs in Iraq, and lying to the public about the non-existent connections between Hussein and Al Qeada, then there's no limit to the amount of lying he can get away with — and this is certainly chump change in the light of everything he's gotten away with so far.

Even if Rove gets fired or incarcerated, you can be sure he'll continue working for the GOP in the background in one capacity or another.
posted by Rothko at 9:05 AM on July 22, 2005

"In their haste to counteract Wilson’s New York Times op-ed article, which accused Bush of twisting the WMD evidence to justify the Iraq invasion, Rove and other administration officials appear to have jumped the gun. Instead of waiting for declassification, they simply started divulging secrets that they thought would undermine Wilson. "

So Wilson came back from Niger, said that yes at one time Iraq asked to buy yellow cake but Niger politely refused, but Rove wasn't satisfied with that so he actively sought to undermine Mr. and Mrs. Wilson's lives because they refused to twist this as grounds for going to war. Am I on the same page yet? Maybe the real reason why the main media isn't properly covering this is cuz it's just not easy to wrap this up in a bow and present it to the American people. It just makes me feel stupid trying to keep up with it all.

In the senate hearings going on right now, someone just pointed out that CIA operatives have their cover blown all the time, but to have a cover blown deliberately by individuals in the center of government, "this is unprecedented." Is it literally true this has never happened before? In over two hundred years of the executive branch of american government? Is this literally unprecedented? Anyone know?

Though Plame was "sitting at her desk" she was still covert through correspondence and the Internet.

Norm: "I enjoy the irony of the rank hypocrisy of the GOP on the parsing of words and the treatment of an independent counsel investigation. That Rove is getting investigated for lying to a grand jury, and that his explanations are so darn... Clintonian."

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, but what concerns me is IF the Bush Administration gets away with this with little more than a slap on the wrist, yet Clinton got impeached for essentially not keeping his Willie in his pants*, it screams a greater hypocrisy in this country than what's going on now.

* yes I'm aware it was technically purjury
posted by ZachsMind at 9:06 AM on July 22, 2005

Oh! Air America has been calling for Rove's removal from office. There's a petition you can sign. Lotta good that'll do maybe, but supposedly they have over fifty thousand signatures already.

Bush is obviously not gonna fire the guy, cuz Rove was instrumental in getting Bush in the Oval in the first place. However, is Rove's resignation impending? Seems the republicans could get a lot of this weight off their back if they just disciplined Rove in some way. Wouldn't that put an end to it? Or would that be an admission of guilt, and the investigation would continue?
posted by ZachsMind at 9:13 AM on July 22, 2005

I'd like to see a link to Schorr's stuff if there is one. I liked Parry's analysis. The story has legs so it will keep breaking until the grand jury returns their results.
posted by warbaby at 9:14 AM on July 22, 2005

The CIA got everything wrong...

I wonder where you got this idea? Oh yes! It came from George Tenet himself. Bad, bad CIA -- no donuts for you! But now, of course, it comes out that Tenet's statement -- so damning of his own agency, so protective of the White House -- was written by Rove and Libby themselves. From the NYT:

"Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby Jr., were helping to prepare what became the administration's primary response to criticism that a flawed phrase about the nuclear materials in Africa had been included in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address six months earlier. They had exchanged e-mail correspondence and drafts of a proposed statement by George Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, to explain how the disputed wording had gotten into the address. Mr. Rove, the president's political strategist, and Mr. Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, coordinated their efforts with Stephen Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, who was in turn consulting with Mr. Tenet."
posted by digaman at 9:16 AM on July 22, 2005

It is a far from implausible description of possible hypothetical events. This administration is well known for its addiction to extreme revenge. Oh, I thought the diatribe quoted above was directed at Robert Parry not Robert Fizgerald.

...Wait a minute--he linked to that Christopher Hitchens rant ? Comedy Gold !

It's funny how Hitchens now clings to the Saddam-harbored-terrorists-and-thus-was-a-dire-threat line. I went back to read all I could find that he wrote about this threat in real time, and there really wasn't much. His April 16, 1983 piece in the Spectator about meeting with Nidal raised none of the alarms that he raises today, and that's when Nidal was still operating (as Hitchens then noted). It's much like his continual (and false) contention that he turned in favor of regime change in Iraq in early 1991. When you read his stuff from that period, no such turn is mentioned. There's a good reason for that: it didn't happen until 11 years later.

In other words, Hitchens, post-invasion, is trying desperately to find any justification that will stick. His original defense of the invasion, "just you wait" till you see all that WMD, is no longer useful...

Lower and lower
posted by y2karl at 9:17 AM on July 22, 2005

The Plame stuff is bullshit on stilts, raised there by a self-aggrandizing liar who did more to endanger his life than anyone.

Just curious, does actually writing or saying that change any of the facts of the matter, or is it just noise?
posted by psmealey at 9:19 AM on July 22, 2005

The Wilson's attorney, Christopher Wolf, wrote a letter to the editors of the Washington Post that was published today. A good response to the claims of the RNC that Rove is the whistleblower here:
The July 15 editorial "Mr. Rove's Leak" said that Joseph C. Wilson IV does not deserve to be called a "whistle-blower."

But until Mr. Wilson went public, the administration stood by the "16 words" in the 2003 State of the Union address that exaggerated Iraq's nuclear intentions. Precisely because of Mr. Wilson's report, George J. Tenet, Condoleezza Rice and President Bush admitted that those 16 words should not have been included. They have not retracted that retraction, notwithstanding the Butler Commission and Senate reports that the editorial cited.

Mr. Wilson was the first to blow the whistle on the administration's exaggeration of the supposed reasons for war. When the administration retaliated, his wife and family suffered.

posted by terrapin at 9:20 AM on July 22, 2005

Sorry, that NYT link should be here.
posted by digaman at 9:21 AM on July 22, 2005

Although supposedly in a rush to leave on vacation, Rove e-mailed Stephen J. Hadley, then Bush’s deputy national security adviser (and now national security adviser). According to the Associated Press, Rove’s e-mail said he “didn’t take the bait” when Cooper suggested that Wilson’s criticisms had hurt the administration.

While it’s not entirely clear what Rove meant in the e-mail, the significance is that Rove immediately reported to Hadley, an official who was in a position to know classified details about Plame’s job. In other words, the e-mail is evidence that the assault on Wilson was being coordinated at senior White House levels.
posted by warbaby at 9:22 AM on July 22, 2005

Is it this Schorr from July 15 CSM?
posted by warbaby at 9:27 AM on July 22, 2005

If Bush can weasel out of 9/11 testimony using angry indignation, and he gets out of impeachment hearings for misinforming the public about WMDs in Iraq, and lying to the public about the non-existent connections between Hussein and Al Qeada, then there's no limit to the amount of lying he can get away with — and this is certainly chump change in the light of everything he's gotten away with so far.

You should be right. These should be more serious. However, we seem to focus more on the technical violation of the law rather than the harm against the nation in these things. For Clinton it was the crime of perjury. Here it could be the crime of outing an undercover agent. Who knows where public outrage could take this? I am not predicting impeachment, nor am I sure that I would want one, even despite my dislike of GW. Such a showdown puts a pretty big rent in the fabric of our democracy.
posted by caddis at 9:28 AM on July 22, 2005

Man, I can't wait till Karl Rove gets the punishment the Bush administration will certainly be handing down to him.

Maybe he won't get to sit in the cockpit of Air Force One and play with the controls for a whole two weeks.
posted by wakko at 9:31 AM on July 22, 2005

And, dios, I flat-out refuse to take any article that uses the phrase "non-storm an in un-teacup" seriously.

Sorry try again.
posted by wakko at 9:34 AM on July 22, 2005

Such a showdown puts a pretty big rent in the fabric of our democracy.

Sorry, but the rent is already there - and has been since Dec. 12, 2000. Now all we're trying to do is thoroughly expose it so we can get back to sewing.
posted by soyjoy at 9:36 AM on July 22, 2005

Despite assertions of some that Valerie Plame was merely a desk jockey who was not working undercover, eleven former CIA officers sent a letter this week to Congress disputing the continuing smear campaign by Republicans.

There are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who work at a desk in the Washington, D.C., area every day who are undercover as Plame was when her identity was leaked, the 11 former officers said in a three-page statement [PDF]:
"Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs....In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor."
posted by ericb at 9:41 AM on July 22, 2005

You know, the koolaid drinkers are incredible, hiding behind semantics about what is and isn't treason. Such short memories...didn't they want to string up Sandy Berger for stuffing his pants?
posted by rzklkng at 9:41 AM on July 22, 2005

the memo that mentions Plame being explicitly market 'S' for secret

The paragraph about Plame is marked "S," and we've already had Republicans claiming that you can't tell what part of the paragraph is secret. I guess it depends on what the meaning of "s" is.

According to today's Wall Street Journal (subscriber link) [via] the whole memo was Top Secret:
A key department memo discussing Joseph Wilson's Niger trip was classified "Top Secret," and the passage about his wife's CIA role was specially marked "S/NF" -- not to be shared with any foreign intelligence agencies.
"S/NF" means "Top secret. No foreign." here's an example of security markings in a U.S. Navy message. The Bush administration showed their Top secret/No foreign plans for attacking Iraq to Bandar Bush in January 2003.

A group of former CIA officers wrote a letter [PDF] to the Republican and Democratic leadership in Congress:
The disclosure of Ms. Plame’s name was a shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, may have damaged U.S. national security and poses a threat to the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources.
Also, former CIA agent Larry Johnson, who was a colleague of Valerie Wilson, wrote to Congress that:
We must put to bed the lie that she was not undercover. For starters, if she had not been undercover then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department.
Robert Novak's compromise of Valerie caused even more damage. It subsequently led to scrutiny of her cover company. This not only compromised her "cover" company but potentially every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company or with her.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:46 AM on July 22, 2005

Not that the link dump isn't welcome - just a little more courtesy there, buddy...
posted by soyjoy at 9:46 AM on July 22, 2005

Cool. Maybe they can subpoena pictures of their dicks too, for the hell of it.

I can't believe some of the same people who spent 3 years trying to have the last President removed from office are balking when the same kind of crap happens to them. Hilarious stuff.
posted by wakko at 9:47 AM on July 22, 2005

kirkaracha, while it's true some have attempted to make the case that you can't tell what part of it makes it secret, others have made clear the well established protocol that anything in such a section must be assumed to be classified unless and until notified otherwise. So I don't think that gambit's gonna have much in the way of legs, unless they're gonna run all the way with it and turn it into "Karl Rove doesn't understand how National Security works."
posted by soyjoy at 9:52 AM on July 22, 2005

Oh, let's sum up facts.
  • The White House won't comment on the case on the record, but off the record, via leaks, Dan Bartlett someone in the WH is sure making it a point to leak the positive.

  • The menu in question that the name came from was leaked from AF1.

  • Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent.

  • Joe Wilson's being an a55hole doesn't excuse the administrations actions.

  • The smokescreen about blaming this on the press will fail (and it should).

  • posted by rzklkng at 9:56 AM on July 22, 2005

    What is really incredibly bothersome about this entire fiasco is that Rove continues to have access to top secret information.

    At the very least he should be put on administrative leave until the matter is cleared up.
    posted by fenriq at 9:58 AM on July 22, 2005

    rzklkng, can you expand on Joe Wilson being an asshole? I'm not sure where that's coming from (and granted that I haven't been able to read all the links).

    I'm not disputing it but as I understand it, he reported that Iraq tried to get nuke materials from Niger and failed and that it wasn't an excuse to go to war. And, because he wouldn't give ShrubCo the excuse, they smeared him and outed his wife as revenge.
    posted by fenriq at 10:01 AM on July 22, 2005

    fenriq, it's not so much that he is or isn't, but a defense or disarming of the right's tactic of somehow saying "he deserved it". It's more along the lines of him being overly dramatic and a bit of a grandstander (see the Daily Howler), and the fact that this needs to focus on the facts of the administrations actions and NOT a defense of Wilson.
    posted by rzklkng at 10:11 AM on July 22, 2005

    fenriq, you'll have to ask Bob Novak.
    A friend informs Wilson that Novak believes that his wife had something to do with Wilson's appointment to investigate the Yellow Cake claim
    "He asked Novak if he could walk a block or two with him, as they were headed in the same direction; Novak acquiesced.
     Striking up a conversation, my friend, without revealing that he knew me, asked Novak about the Uranium controversy.  It was a minor problem, Novak replied, and opined that the administration should have dealt with it weeks before.  My friend then asked Novak what he thought about me, and Novak answered:  "Wilson's an asshole.

     The CIA sent him.  His wife, Valerie [Plame], works for the CIA.  She's a weapons of mass destruction specialist.  She sent him.""

    Wilson's friend went right to Wilson's office and documented the exchange.
    posted by Space Coyote at 10:12 AM on July 22, 2005

    Wow, you know if Robert Novak called me an asshole I would take it as a compliment.

    But thanks for the explanations, Space Coyote and rzklkng (damn that is hard to type). I'd figured it as smear and noise.
    posted by fenriq at 10:23 AM on July 22, 2005

    Excerpt of Wilson's book starting with Novak's "Asshole" quote, for further study.
    posted by obloquy at 10:24 AM on July 22, 2005

    Joe Wilson did not come back from Niger saying that Iraq went sniffing around, looking for yellow cake. He said that it was Iran.

    The Washington Post's correction:
    In some editions of the Post, a July 10 story on a new Senate report on intelligence failures said that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV told his contacts at the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from the African nation of Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that was interested in making that purchase, but no contract was signed, according to the report.
    posted by NoMich at 10:31 AM on July 22, 2005

    I think a point that is often missed is that this wasn't just about discrediting Wilson. It wasn't even simple "revenge". That makes it sound like the administration is just mean and spiteful. It's more about discipline -- keeping people in line. Wilson wasn't a team player, so he had to be dealt with or else others would follow his lead. The administration has burned every single whistleblower that has come forward, and rewarded every single "good soldier". They are remarkably consistent. Here's a list of whistleblowers and how they've been treated.
    posted by jimmy76 at 11:00 AM on July 22, 2005

    Another thing to point out about Joe Wilson: he's a true American hero.

    At least, according to President Bush.
    posted by felix at 11:45 AM on July 22, 2005

    Lawrence O'Donnell says "When the prosecutor has his day, he is going to make new news."
    "Rove is obviously in charge of the day-to-day strategy of what Luskin leaks to the press. Rove is stealing a page from the Clinton scandal management playbook. He is trying to set the stage for the day the prosecutor turns over his cards. Rove-Luskin will then call it all "old news."

    Everything Rove-Luskin has leaked has been printed in a form most favorable to the Rove defense without a word of leaked input from the prosecutor. When the prosecutor tells his story, don't expect him to accept Rove's currently uncontested claim that he does not recall who told him that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent and don't expect the "old news" spin to work. When the prosecutor has his day, he is going to make new news.

    posted by madamjujujive at 11:48 AM on July 22, 2005

    I guess it depends on what the meaning of "s" is.

    I just want to comment that that was freakin' brilliant.
    posted by fungible at 12:18 PM on July 22, 2005

    hey, put back that supposedly "misplaced" nambla comment... this IS a nambla thread, isn't it?
    posted by twiggy at 12:59 PM on July 22, 2005

    Ok, again, how is dios not a troll? One steaming dump as first post in thread, then disappearing. Languagehat?

    On topic: Good article. His "two new facts" was stuff at least I hadn't noticed before: Rove's saying he had insight in material "going to be declassified in the coming days" and his email to Hadley.

    And read NoMich's comment.
    posted by mr.marx at 2:27 PM on July 22, 2005

    You can't fuck with Bob Parry's reporting. He's legendary.
    posted by inksyndicate at 1:28 AM on July 23, 2005

    Hear ye, hear ye, partisan attacks on Benedict Arnold begin in liberal press! Tom the Dancing Bug hits it on the head this week.

    How would this administration handle America's best known traitor?
    posted by zaelic at 7:19 AM on July 23, 2005

    « Older Flash Friday!   |   Within Uke Without Uke Newer »

    This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments