Given that David Broder’s Washington Post column yesterday touches on a theme I addressed in my post yesterday on how the Left continues to spin conspiracy theories about presidential advisor Karl Rove even without any facts to back up their notions, I probably should have linked it in an update to said post. But, for those of you who haven’t already read the column, I wanted to make sure that the link didn’t get lost at the bottom of an old post.
I first heard about the piece while listening to Dennis Prager’s radio show when driving south yesterday on the I-17 in Arizona. Broder, who as Powerline notes, has been called “dean” of political reporters, is one of the most respected liberal columnists.
In his obituary, One Leak and a Flood of Silliness, on l’affaire Plame, he writes:
But caution has been notably lacking in some of the press treatment of this subject — especially when it comes to Karl Rove. And it behooves us in the media to examine that behavior, not just sweep it under the rug.
Instead of sweeping this whole affair under the rug, Broder believes that the publications which savaged the president’s top political aide on this issue “owe Karl Rove an apology.” And concludes, “all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.“
If you haven’t already, just read the whole thing!
–Dan (Back in his cluttered Angeleno apartment)
I could care less about Mr. Roves bruised feelings…that’s a part of “politics” these days…but what about the millions of US Taxpayer dollars squandered in this unnecessary witchhunt; and the untold hundreds of millions of dollars in lost productivity to the National economy wasted in water-cooler discussions on this “matter”. I’m sure that Mr. Fitzgerald’s highly-paid staff of public-funded lawyers and staffers could have been more profitably deployed elsewhere.
Being a left liberal means never having to say you’re sorry (except for being an American).
I’m just amazed that so many of the Drive-By Media, who were openly gunning for both Rove and Cheney’s scalps, are now dropping the Armitage story like a hot potato. To wit:
http://newsbusters.org/stories/matthews_says_plame_story_too_complicated.html
And they say there is no liberal bias? Yeah, right…
Regards,
Peter H.
Two words for Mr. Broder, Karl Rove, and all of us:
Fat Chance!
Newsbusters has a good one today on how Chris Matthews, after months of flogging the Wilson-Plame affair relentlessly, has dropped it like Stalin must have just done a purge: http://newsbusters.org/node/7482
Broder states:
“In fact, the prosecutor concluded that there was no crime; hence, no indictment.”
That’s absurd. Just because there is no indictment does not mean that no crime was committed only that there was not enough evidence against a particular individual to proceed with an indictment. It’s as stupid as saying that because no one has been indicted for the Jon Benet Ramsay death that no crime was committed.
Here’s another take on Broder’s column http://tinyurl.com/mb9wh
I would also add that even under the most benign interpretation of the whole Plame affair, everyone should be outraged at the carelessness and negligence of Rove, Libby, Armitage and likely others in exposing a CIA agent at a time of war which many believe is a threat to western civilization’s very existence.
On the cost of the investigation (#1), well, I’d just say that Republicans set the gold standard for that with their relentless eight year chasing of the Clintons, their friends and their colleagues. The Fitzgerald investigation is a mere pittance by comparison. If you’re going to ask for apologies to Rove (#2) why don’t you start by apologizing to those persecuted by the GOP during the 1990’s? Then we’ll talk about Rove once the results of the civil lawsuit are in.
Per rajiansybilsockpuppetduh – “why don’t you start by apologizing to those persecuted by the GOP during the 1990’s?”
Such as whom?
Slick Willie? Well, if my memory serves me correctly, he LIED UNDER OATH. This is called PERJURY. It is part of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” under Article II of the Constitution. The House and the Senate had the RIGHT to investigate and adjudicate this issue.
If anything, the Clintonistas should apologize to all of those people (on both sides of the aisle) who were fingered in the secret FBI file snitch in the late 1990s in the Clinton White House. Not to mention all of the conservative pundits and commentators whose tax records were illegally audited without merit by the IRS as part of the “scorched earth policy” spearheaded by Mack McLarty, Paul Begala, James Carville and their ilk.
Truth is (and yes, I know it is hard for you to accept the truth) that it was the Clintonistas who orchestrated the politics of personal destruction to an art form. Just as they are probably doing right now with Mr. Iger over at ABC.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
#2. I love the wisdom.
Vote Santorum!!
Media hacks suck as MSNBCs David Shuster and Keith Olbermann, who have endlessly pimped Roves “guilt” (Shuster was even so braven as to stated a Rove Indictment is just around the corner) need to pay a price for their propaganda..
oh wait,,Olbermann already is…his ratings are down over 50% this year and tanking still
Whats gauling is the leftists don’t see or admit the double standards.
Sandy Berger was “sloppey” when he stuffed secret docs in his pants. Oh well slap his hands. Armitage is a fave of leftists and he mentioned Plame by accident and was “careless” and meant no harm. Oh well. Dan Rather and Mapes take made up docs as gospel and accuse a sitting President. Oh well maybe they ll apologize someday. Prez Clinton commits perjury and is caught on TV lying to us. He sexually harasses an employee in the White House and only loses his law license. Prez Bush accepts intelligence reports about a dangerous threat to the USA along with all inteligence agencies in the West and he’s the liar.
The raj ian sockpuppets should apologize for believing the abusive attacks on Libby VP Cheney and Rove. They demonstrate whey America will never allow leftists serious positions of power if we want to remain safe.
#9: “if we want to remain safe.”
Yeah, just keep pimpin’ that fear factor. Boo!! – bin Laden’s coming to get ya! After all, he’s been given protection and freedom of movement by the government of Pakistan.
No mention of Disney and “Path to 9/11?
You guys are slipping like KY on a rubber raft. 🙂
monty
Ian in #5, you have a valid pint about Armitage. He was rather careless, dropping her name as gossip.
As to Rove, he never once mentioned Plame’s name.
If Wilson was so concerned about protecting his wife’s identity, he would have never gone forward with his Op-Ed, knowing that she helped him find his job.
Since one of the moonbats brought it up, Here’s a screen shot ABC can show in place of the “edited” scenes in ‘The Path to 9-11’
I recall dennis prager defending roves outing of plame on the grounds that it was important to expose “nepotism” in the clandestine services. I bet he still has the article at his site, it was written by barry goldwaters former attorney who’s name I can’t remember. prager is a low level hate monger. neo conservatism is dead. thank GOD. i remember him crowing about “bush was right” after the elections in iraq when there was a let up in violence. then the violence came back. i called him and was like “dennis you said bush was right wwhen the violence stopped, now it’s back. I guess he’s wrong then huh?” he mumbled something about world war 2. a fool
Umm lester, conservatism and neo conservatism will be wounded not necessarily dead, when you people start winning elections. Do you even remember what that is like? What’s interesting about Broders column is he’s a lefty who finally completely blows up Wilson/Plame and wonders why the MSM doesn’t apoligize.
#5 Thanks for validating the views of the the vast majority of those on this blog and tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans when you stated
“Just because there is no indictment does not mean that no crime was committed only that there was not enough evidence against a particular individual to proceed with an indictment.”
We think that every time we see Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, John Kerry, et al.
Nice work IanRaj!!!
#12: “As to Rove, he never once mentioned Plame’s name.”
Dan, even assuming you are correct, Rove DID confirm her identity as CIA. Whether or not he knew she was covert, he should not have confirmed ANYTHING about her. I will repeat: even the most benign interpretation of the events shows Rove and the others who discussed Plame’s identity with reporters to be AT BEST careless, negligent and totally undeserving of holding any kind of security clearance.
“If Wilson was so concerned about protecting his wife’s identity, he would have never gone forward with his Op-Ed, knowing that she helped him find his job. ”
“His job?” Some “job.” I think everyone agrees that he did this “job” pro bono. And last time I checked, even an all-expense paid trip to Niger was not on anyone’s Wish List. But it really doesn’t matter what Joe Wilson did or did not do: the fact remains that his wife was CIA and no one, least of all top officials in the Bush administration, should have been involved in exposing her. Forget the Wilsons, it hurts the country. Especially in time of war. Especially if you believe this war threatens the very existence of the country.
#13: Even your beloved conservative icons are trashing this piece of fictional trash:
from jpod http://tinyurl.com/lxma6:
” Ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s anger is unquestionably justified.” and “The imputation that an actual living person named Sandy Berger refused to give a specific OK to an operation that would have put an end to Osama bin Laden three years before 9/11 is a libel.”
#18 But ABC has the perfect libel defence. Fake but accurate.
#17 Any job for an unemployed, house husband is not bad.
Ian brings up Sandy Berger…why not just avoid all the controversy for ABC and have ole Sandy stuff the tape of the show in his pants and call it a day. No one would ask any questions and just chalk it up to his “sloppeyness”.
Ian–I have very little respect for John Podhoretz. So a link to his piece doesn’t make a strong case to me.
As to Rove, he would only have been careless if he had known Ms. Plame was undercover. At worst he was careless.
As to Wilson going forward, it turns out that nearly all the major points he made were inaccurate. That the CIA believes his mission confirmed rather than rebutted the president’s claim (that Iraq was trying to get uranium) shows that he was more eager to trash the president than hold him to account.
So what if he did the job pro bono? The fact was that he went forward, knowing his wife helped him get the job and knowing she worked for the CIA. He more than anyone would have known her status and if he was concerned about her being exposed, he should have kept silent.
If he opposed the war, he could have stood up and opposed and should not have taken the mission when he did if he were opposed to the idea of going to war in Iraq. And then spoke out against it as he saw fit.
#21 GayPatriotWest — September 9, 2006 @ 9:35 pm – September 9, 2006
So what if he did the job pro bono? The fact was that he went forward, knowing his wife helped him get the job and knowing she worked for the CIA.
What job? He did the work pro bono. “Job” suggests a relatively long-term commitment with pay. And there was neither in this case. It was a short term assignment, with no pay.
And, so what if his “wife helped him get the” assignment? Apparently you have never worked for an organization in which people who have a task to be performed ask around the organization’s current employees, “Do you know somebody who might be able to perform this task?” Well, I have. If someone who has the requisite skills can be identified quickly, it saves a lot of time and effort in trying to find someone to perform the task. That can actually be quite important when (a) the assignment is only a couple of days, and (b) results are required fairly quickly. That is what appears to be precisely what was the case here.
Moreover, in the case of corporations, it can save headhunters’ fees, but that’s another story.
What is it supposed to prove that she (Mrs. Wilson) suggested her husband as a qualified candidate for the task, and that the agency agreed? Since the task was pro-bono neither she nor he would have made any money out of the deal. In other words, it is not apparent that she would have benefitted from the agency sending her husband to Niger.
He more than anyone would have known her status and if he was concerned about her being exposed, he should have kept silent.
I’m sorry, DannyBoi, but this is silly as heck. Let us understand a few things.
No. 1. What leads you believe that Mr. Wilson had any reason to suspect that the Bush malAdministration would have revealed her CIA affiliation as a result of his NYTimes OpEd piece, and in doing so make use of her maiden name which she apparently had used as a covert operative, instead of her married name? (Note that I referenced affiliation without regard to whether or not she was covert.)
No. 2. Why, if Bush or Cheney had “declassified” Valerie Plame/Wilson’s status before the disclosure of her affiliation with the CIA to the press, or even shortly thereafter, did Bush or Cheney not mention that early on? I haven’t read all of the material regarding the case, but, if memory serves, a few weeks or months after Novak’s column was published, Bush was running around spouting off that if someone in his administration had broken the law (regarding the disclosure) he would be fired. And it was not until many months thereafter that they claimed that her status was not classified.
I’ll parse that for you gently. “If someone in his administration had broken the law (regarding the disclosure).” Um, OK. If Mrs. Plame/Wilson was not a covert operative, presumably the law would not have been broken. But, if Mrs. Plame/Wilson was not a covert operative, why didn’t Bush just come out and say so immediately after the controversy erupted? Instead of waiting for a few years to say that he or Cheney had declassified that information? I’m sure that you, being a graduate of an elite law school, know what a smell test is. And, quite frankly the long ex post facto claim that Mrs. Plame/Wilson’s status was not classified because he or Cheney had declassified it notwithstanding his earlier statements, just does not pass the smell test.
No. 3. Why, if Mrs. Plame/Wilson was not a covert operative, but instead was just a desk jockey at the CIA, was her career at the CIA substantially ended after Robert “No-Facts” Novak’s disclosure? If she was just a desk jockey, presumably her “cover”–or lack thereof–would have been irrelevant to her career at the agency. It strains credulity to believe that every desk jockey who works for the CIA is under cover. The inference is that she was not just a desk jockey, and that, after her cover had been blown, her usefulness to the agency was nill.
No. 4. AFAIC, the truly disgusting aspect of the Plame “outing” by the Bush malAdministration has rarely been ignored. That aspect is the fact that, if she, in fact, was a covert operative handling a number of local sources, the local sources may have been immediately put at risk. Plame/Wilson might have lost some income, but her sources might have been put to death. The point being, since it appears to be so obvious that an American malAdministration, such as Bush’s, appears to be so willing to put local sources at risk, why would they agree to become sources? It might very well lead to a shrinkage of HumInt (human intelligence) in the very places where they need it the most. If you bois don’t care about that, who am I to complain?
As to Wilson going forward, it turns out that nearly all the major points he made were inaccurate. That the CIA believes his mission confirmed rather than rebutted the president’s claim (that Iraq was trying to get uranium)
When did the pResident make that claim? As far as I can tell, the pResident made the claim that “British intelligence has learned” (or something to that effect) that Iraq had been trying to get uranium from Africa. One thing that you might want to consider (but I know that you won’t), is what was the basis for Tony Blair’s “British intelligence” believing that Iraq had even moderately successful in trying to get “yellowcake” (an oxide of uranium) from Africa (let’s face it, Niger). “British intelligence” was based on the same discredited documents that had already been obtained by the US government via Italy, that had been discredited by the CIA, and the information therein had been discredited by Wilson’s visit to Niger. In other words, the reference to “British intelligence” was nothing more than a “bait&switch” operation at your local Wal-Mart.
On the other hand, if you really do have evidence that Iraq was trying to get uranium from other sources, please post links thereto. Not to blogs–to original sources. Preferably to sources that are not linked back to the discredited Italian documents.
If he (Wilson) opposed the war, he could have stood up and opposed and should not have taken the mission when he did if he were opposed to the idea of going to war in Iraq.
Come, come, be honest for a moment. Neither you nor I know whether or not Wilson was opposed to the US war on Iraq* before he went to Niger,
* Full disclosure: I was opposed to the US war on Iraq, largely because of the fact that the US mission in Afghanistan had not been –and still hasn’t been–completed and that it was obvious beyond peradventure that the diversion of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq would mean that the US mission in Afghanistan would not be fulfilled.
AFAIC, the US gov’t screwed Afghanistan at the end of the Afghanis’ war against the Soviets (American participation in which–started by JimineyCricket Carter), but after the Soviets left with their tails between their legs, the Americans left them to their own warlords’ devices. Americans should learn to try to solve one problem at a time. Saddam was contained after GWI, but Afghanistan was not.
BTW, regarding Broder. AFAIC, he must be suffering from OldTimers Syndrome. I don’t read his bloviations in the WaPo, but I’ve seen him on NPR’s dreadfull Washington Week In Review. He’s dreadful. As have been all of them on that program that we’ve watched in recent years.
Ah, sockpuppet RajIan has joined us. This should be fun.
No. 1. What leads you believe that Mr. Wilson had any reason to suspect that the Bush malAdministration would have revealed her CIA affiliation as a result of his NYTimes OpEd piece, and in doing so make use of her maiden name which she apparently had used as a covert operative, instead of her married name?
Perhaps because he himself had published her maiden name as part of his Who’s Who listing.
Furthermore, as I already pointed out, SuperUltraSecretDemocraticSpyWoman Plame had on her previous so-called “undercover” missions abroad used the US Embassy as her address.
Finally, as I also note, why was SuperUltraSecretDemocraticSpyWoman Plame brought back to the United States in the ’90s so quickly?
Because the CIA determined that her identity had been compromised by Aldrich Ames and that her life was potentially in danger.
So what you are asking us to believe is this, RajIan:
1. The CIA used Valerie Plame’s maiden name because it kept her covert and sent her on continued covert missions despite:
a) her name being easily available in a public source
b) the clear record showing that, when she had lived abroad, she used the US Embassy as her address
c) her identity already having been compromised to numerous foreign intelligence services
Finally, do you want proof of Wilson’s actual mission? Aside from the obvious — that everyone in Niger KNEW he was a former US diplomat and married to an agent of the CIA — he told everyone to whom he spoke that he was there on behalf of the US government.
How much information do you think they would tell him after that? They’d probably tell him only what he wanted to hear — that they’d never heard of Saddam in their lives. If police did the same thing, they’d yell down the street before making a drug bust, “HEY, ANYONE, THIS IS THE POLICE! WE’RE COMING TO SEE IF ANYONE IS DOING DRUGS!”
And finally, puppet RajIan, let’s deal with this last statement:
When did the pResident make that claim? As far as I can tell, the pResident made the claim that “British intelligence has learned” (or something to that effect) that Iraq had been trying to get uranium from Africa.
As this source points out, the “16 words” had nothing to do with the Italian documents, and in fact, were confirmed by Wilson’s trip, in which he reported that the Nigerians admitted that a delegation from Saddam had come to them to discuss “opening trade relations” — codespeak for yellowcake sales.
Game, set, match.
Now start your puppet raving and spinnning about sources, about whatever, to cover up your ignorance on the subject and the blind partisanship you substitute for any knowledge of the fact.
And, since you opposed the war in Afghanistan, don’t even pretend to do an analysis otherwise.
Two points:
1. The Butler report has been further investigated. It seems, based on the British Intelligence and Security Committee, that it relied on two main sources as the basis for it’s conclusion. The main source’s assertion, although not the forged Italian documents themselves, rely on the Italian documents for substantiation.
The Undersecretary of State, Bill Rammell, confirmed that the intelligence relied upon was not of British origin, as previously purported, but produced by another country. This FIS, Foreign Intelligence Service, provided the same information to the IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, which dicredited the intelligence. The Butler Report specifically consulted the IAEA for their input to the report and the specifically left out the IAEA’s findings.
The CIA itself challenged the findings of the British Intelligence White Paper written in 2002 about the assertions. The French intelligence the British often cite also seems to have relied on other fake/forged documents beyond the Italian forgeries.
The Butler report itself concludes that there was no sale of uranium ore and once other false assumptions are stripped away from the report, cannot credibly confirm that the Iraqi visit was to obtain uranium ore.
2. The CIA itself has confirmed at the time of the revelation of Valerie Plame’s identity that she was still of covert status. Neighbors and good friends of the Wilson’s had no idea of her work, thinking her to be in economics. Even at more in-the-know levels of Washington, there may have been those who knew Ms. Plame worked for the CIA but not in what role or capacity. For all they knew, she could have been a secretary or office manager. Covert does not necessarily mean that people didn’t know she worked for the CIA. Unless she rode a pole down to a secret cave and only appeared in public in her superhero outfit, it’s easy enough to follow someone’s car to the parking lot at Langley.
Plame, like tens of other agents were recalled to the US because there was the possibility, not the probability, that her identity had been revealed to foreign agents. However, she still continued to work in a covert capacity at the CIA occasionally taking trips on behalf of the agency under the status that would allow the CIA to disavow any association to her had she been caught. She worked in one of the highest priority agencies within the CIA. The CIA was as confident of her covert status as of hundreds of similar agents. She was working, despite the heresay to the contrary, in a covert capacity. Any purported story of her identity being common knowledge is fully unsubstantiated.
Just An Answer, you provide much information in point 1 to comment #25, little of which is relevant to the issue at hand. The issue here is Wilson’s report. And the CIA believed that it lent credence to the famous 16 words.
In your second point, the issue is whether or not those in the White House knew of Ms. Plame’s undercover status. If there was any carelessness, it was Armitage who was the most careless. And given how thoroughly Fitzgerald investigated this, it is clear no Administration official, at the White House or State Department, violated the law. Some believe these officials were careless. And while I disagree as to Rove, those individuals may well have a point as to Libby and Armitage.
Also, notice how JAA’s claims about Plame’s covert status are basically a lot of “Because I say so”.
It takes quite a bit more authority and reputation to carry off that type of argument in the face of the huge contrary evidence that has built up, than JAA would possess here.
I believe the CIA confirmed her status was classified, i.e., that they would neither confirm nor deny anything about her. That’s SOP for most CIA employees – even the ones who visibly drive into headquarters each day and have husbands who can’t stop boasting of their “CIA wife”, such as Plame. To argue that Plame was a “covert” agent in any significant way, pre-Novak article, is a different matter altogether.
According to Wikipedia: “Joe Wilson, Plame’s husband, stated… ‘My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.'” Notice the operative word, NOT.
This comment facility is in no danger of running out of space nor comment numbers, so JAA can type what he/she wants. But it won’t make it so.
(P.S. Wilson, apparently realizing the damage he had done to his own case with his disclosure, did later go on to spin his verbatim comment as meaning something different than what it obviously means. I know spin when I see it.)
We all know spin when we see it, Cal. It went on through eight years of the Clintonista regime. Any (mal)adminstration that uses focus groups and polling to determine national policy becomes adept at wagging the dog.
Regards,
Peter H.
The sixteen words in question are:
Neither official US sources or, as ND30 linked as evidence, British sources can substantiate the veracity of that statement with any factual evidence now. It’s possible the Iraqis went with the intention of securing uranium, but at this point we can’t even say it was probable. We have no real, concrete evidence other than forged documents and the wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know-what-I-mean assumptions of the intelligence community.
To the Plame issue, it’s clear from a number of sources that the administration knew exactly who Valerie Plame was.
The Vice President’s hand-written note on his copy of the Wilson editorial makes it clear that not only did he know who she was but also what she did and this is immediately after the op-ed was published but before official inquiries began into how Wilson was sent.
On July 7th, the day after the op-ed was published, Scooter Libby shares the information about Wilson’s wife with Ari Fleischer. Cheney Aide Catherine Martin and Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman are also known to have shared the information about Plame to Scooter Libby about the same time.
Colin Powell has a memo from the INR that evening that is circulated among the delegates on Bush’s Africa trip (Ari Fleischer is specifically seen reading it). The memo contains detailed information about Plame and the entire memo is noted as classified. Delegates on the trip include the President, Condoleeza Rice, Andrew Card as well as White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett.
It seems also that the Vice President worked in conjunction with the White House Iraq group to craft the response to the Wilson op-ed. Karl Rove also worked with Libby to craft Tenet’s response to Wilson’s piece.
There were a number of people at the most senior level who certainly knew who Valerie Plame was and conveyed that information to others, both official and non-official. In the indictment of Scooter Libby it states:
I read all of this to mean that a number of senior officials, with access to information about who works as the CIA, were aware of who Valerie Plame was. They knew what division and in what capacity she worked. And by extension, they should also have known that that information was to have been kept confidential.
The administration, more likely the Vice President’s office, also knew that this was the most damaging piece of information to refute Wilson’s claim. Without this, he looks far too unbiased and reputable given his former government service. Hence the secret and deliberate tip-offs to reporters. The administration couldn’t legally announce the information but they could leak it without getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Frankly in my opinion, the administration took a huge gamble that they’ve actually won. They initially thought they’d be protected by journalist confidentiality. Up until the Fitzgerald inquiry, the courts have not forced journalists to reveal sources and testify against those sources. But that all changed. The Bush administration was in big trouble. But now they’re getting off with a slap on the wrist with Libby’s indictment. We still have the trial to go through. And it frankly doesn’t matter if he’s convicted anyway. The administration’s dominance of congress and the courts makes it clear that President Bush would pardon him at the first opportune moment.
The only area that has been compromised is in public perception. The insight to how things are done in the administration has truly resonated to the grass roots and won’t soon be forgotten. It’s really only that that’s been affected, not the operations of the administration, but it’s something they may not be able to do anything about.
#30 – “Neither official US sources or, as ND30 linked as evidence, British sources can substantiate the veracity of that statement with any factual evidence now.”
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer.
The British stand by it to this day. Because – IT WAS TRUE. Insofar as anything can ever be proven, Saddam did send representatives to 2 African countries (Niger and Congo) to ask about, i.e. SEEK, uranium. Christopher Hitchens summarizes the factual record excellently here.
As for the rest of your stuff about Plame: It hardly makes any sense, JAQ. You’re completely out of date. It’s been proven now that Richard Armitage, an Iraq war opponent, was the primary leaker. And that Fitzgerald knew it from practically the beginning of his investigation – meaning his whole investigation for the last 3 years has been a collossal waste of time. You don’t even mention Armitage’s name!
#31 cont –
(unless you are playing sock puppets on us JAQ, also being JAA perhaps??)
As for this claim:
“The administration couldn’t legally announce the information but they could leak it without getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar.”
Again, rubbish. The Administration would have been perfectly legal to announce the information, because:
(1) the President by law, and the VP by Executive Order, have the authority to declassify information they deem necessary and proper for public debate. And
(2) Plame wasn’t covert, or at least not enough for the Intelligence Identities Protection Act to kick in. Please get that through your head. There was NO underlying violation of the IIPA – period.
So your proposed “motive” for the Administration’s supposed actions is non-existent.
Just A Question in #30, you can ramble on and on and on, but the fact remains that all the Administration was doing was trying to rebut, albeit in a clumsy way, a dishonest Administration critic.
It is significant that you don’t mention the Senate Intelligence Committee report which discredited Wilson, that Wilson had been working on the Kerry campaign. Nor the fact that the CIA believed Wilson’s mission reached a different conclusion than that dishonest man claimed in his NYT Op-Ed.
Your suggestion about the Administration taking a gamble is mere partisan spinning.
“but what about the millions of US Taxpayer dollars squandered in this unnecessary witchhunt; and the untold hundreds of millions of dollars in lost productivity to the National economy wasted in water-cooler discussions on this “matter”.
How much was spent by Kenneth Starr’s office?
The British stand by it to this day.
Not true. If anything, they’re as partisan and divided as we here in the United States. This should be fairly evident by Tony Blair’s recent ousting.
Please don’t misunderstand. One main part of what the Butler report deduced at the time of publication was absolutely true. Iraq had not purchased uranium ore from these visits to Niger. No agency or intelligence has been able to find any evidence as such. I believe this was also Ambassador Wilson’s conclusion.
The substantiating evidence for the other assessment, that Iraq had sent a delegation specifically to Niger to purchase uranium ore, has once again been reduced to speculation. Firstly, the United States has confirmed that they relied on British intelligence as their source for the assumption that Iraq went to Niger to buy uranium ore. This was investigated by the Butler Report to assess the collection of intelligence and to guage the accuracy of said intelligence. It states that it has reliable evidence that that was Iraq’s intention that is not based on the forged Italian documents.
However, two issues. First of all, there are no citations within the report itself. The report is a conclusion of the committee assessment but they give no details. They simply state that the British intelligence relies on “the intelligence service of another Government” and that the information does not rely on the forged Italian documents.
Secondly, there is inquiry after the fact to get to the bottom of what these sources actually were. MP Lynne Jones has led an effort to know what this intelligence was. You can read her letter to the Butler Review here. As she says, “The information available to us causes us to have grave doubts about the veracity of the UK Government claim.”
The ISC concluded it was reasonable to include their assessment that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium ore because no other organization had challenged that assessment. That is patently untrue. When they consulted the IAEA before revelation of the forgeries, the organization stated that it found the claim highly unlikely and had no evidence to confirm the claim.
In fact, in general, from all accounts, the ISC more often chose to agree with secretive, secondary intelligence sources rather than experts in the field like UNMOVIC and the IAEA. The ISC doesn’t even make it clear that they saw relevant primary evidence. The ISC later admitted that it only had two sources of information on which to base its claim and that one was being reconsidered in light of the known forgeries.
In Parliamentary answer, requests for details about the second source were not provided. Requestors were referred to the Butler report, which we know contains no such details. The ISC report on the matter does not confirm it saw primary evidence in the matter and again requests to government were answered that it had no further details to add to the ISC report.
So it comes down to the UK government relying on two sources – the documentary one, which continues to be “under review” because of the relationship to forged documents, and the other which the ISC and UK government will reveal no details about to establish veracity but from all accounts come from secondary foreign intelligence services. This secondary source seems to be the French DGSE agency. The CIA through Italy’s SISMI already knows the French intelligence to be false. Even the French don’t stand behind it anymore. The Iraq Survey Group found the claim of seeking uranium ore baseless. There are no other intelligence organizations, including our own CIA, that continue to regard the assertion that Iraq was trying to establish obtaining uranium ore as anything but speculative.
Just as the information had been purported in the first place – a kind of circle-jerk of speculation regarded as fact – so has it unraveled.
I think your claim that the British continue to stand behind it to this day is as speculative as the uranium claim in the first place.
Hitchens’ article seems speculative on several points. The first is why would Zahawei travel to Niger in the first place? From all accounts, as ambassador to the Holy See, he was attempting to invite other nations to visit Iraq to help broker against US imposed sanctions. During the Niger visit he also visited a number of other neighboring African countries that do not have uranium ore deposits. Is Zahawie’s claim true? I don’t know but it’s as speculatively factual as the uranium ore claim. Hitchens’ “witness” speculates why an opera lover would visit Africa. I speculate why there wasn’t any follow-up to Zahawie’s visit. Mainassara, the head of state Zahawie visited with, was assasinated in 1999 and there seems to be no follow-up by other agents of Iraq to the country. His other “witness” is just as speculative.
In another article, Hitchen claims that indeed the forged Italian documents were actually forgeries of real documents that exist and were sent to the US. OK, sure. Hitchens also speculates on a follow-up by a Nigerian delegation seeking to buy petroleum. Hitchens speculates it was another cover-up in furthering a sale of yellowcake. However, what he left out was that Iraq seemed to have lots of enriched uranium already. 2 tons were left after the 1991 Gulf war and the remainder was removed by American forces in 2004. It was there all along if the Iraqis truly wanted to use it.
I know I’m rambling, but the point of all of this is that no one has concrete proof of anything in regard to the Iraqi delegation trip to Niger. For the United States government to use it as a cornerstone of reasoning to invade Iraq is assinine. For foreign governments to continue to defend their blatantly speculative and inconclusive evidence is idiotic as well when every major Western government intelligence organization involved in the first place cannot confirm its veractiy. For Hitchens then and others, it only become obviously partisan to continue quoting the assertions as fact.
GPW,
In regards to your Senate Intelligence Committe comment, I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the term “discredit.”
Going back to Wilson’s original op-ed, the conclusions I draw from it are such. The CIA said the Vice President’s office had concern about a rumored yellowcake sale between the Nigerians and the Iraqis. The CIA asked if he would travel to Niger to check out the story. Through his contact network, which were extensive due to his ambassadorial work in the region and the Mideast, he concluded it was highly doubtful that any transaction had taken place.
The committee interpreted two facts. The first is that Wilson’s trip only confirmed their assessment that the Iraqi delegation was to purchase yellowcake. This hinges on the statement of country’s former prime minister, related by Wilson in his debreifing, who said he interpreted the Iraqi delegations “interest in expanded commercial contracts” to mean the purchase of yellowcake. He also confirmed the Iraqis, however, never mentioned yellowcake. Were they there to buy yellowcake or not? We know no sale ever resulted. No other delegation followed up with the Nigerians. No primary evidence or intelligence has been produced to confirm this delegation was sent to buy or truly indeed bought yellowcake. Iraq had over 1.5 tons of yellowcake in the country already if they truly wanted to use it. Pure speculation on behalf of the Senate Intelligence Committee from the former prime minister’s interpretation of events.
The second fact, based on a memo written by Plame that confirms his qualifications for such a trip, was that Valerie Plame was behind the decision to have Wilson sent. It’s known, however, that Plame had no particular authorizing power for such a trip. CIA officials dispute the claim. It seems that the only confirmation that Plame selected Wilson was purported by administration officials and Robert Novak that have been exposed by the Fitzgerald inquiry. This was an essential, untruthful key the administration attempted to use to discredit Wilson. If his wife sent him, then it put his entire set of conclusions under the shadow of political gamesmanship.
It was Senate Republicans that were pressing the committee to condemn Plame as selecting her husband for the trip solely based on the memo she drafted confirming Wilson’s qualifications. Sens. Orrin Hatch and Kit Bond wrote additional appedixes saying as much to the report. The three committee Democrats refused to endorse this point and were criticized by their Republican counterparts. It was completely partisan. Wilson wrote a six-page rebuttal to the committee addressing Hatch, Bond and Roberts’ additional insinuation of wrongdoing in Plame’s role that went unanswered.
The events in question as related by Wilson have borne out to be true. There was no sale and there was no evidence the Iraqi envoy came to Niger to buy yellowcake. That’s not to say they didn’t. It’s just that there’s no evidence to support such an assertion.
Calarato
(1) the President by law, and the VP by Executive Order, have the authority to declassify information they deem necessary and proper for public debate. And
I am familiar with this point. It is true that the President would be within legal boundaries to declassify this information. However, it’s not as clear, even in light of the President’s authorization allowing the Vice President declassification abilities, that the Vice President is also with that same legal realm. And this is important as the Plame information was disseminated mostly from agents of the Vice President.
Within that though, it seems a point of a gross miscarriage of the law using sensitive intelligence data for politcal gain. It would be lawful to do so but in stark contrast to the spirit of the law. As I’ve pointed out, Plame did not select Wilson to go on the trip (except in the version purported by the administration and disseminated to reporters) and his marriage and relationship to her have not otherwise changed the truthfulness of his conclusions which have been born out by further investigation into various countries’ intelligence conclusions.
(2) Plame wasn’t covert, or at least not enough for the Intelligence Identities Protection Act to kick in. Please get that through your head. There was NO underlying violation of the IIPA – period.
That point has not been established. There have been no official conclusions to that point and most of the media outlets concur that the issue has not been settled nor will it be by Scooter Libby’s indictment. However, I’m sure it will be explored in the civil suit being brought by the Wilson’s. Perhaps we should wait to hear the more authoritative voice of the courts on this matter.
It’s not worth my time, Just a Question, to address all the points you raise. Some are inaccurate, others incomplete and yet others irrelevant to this post.
I’ll just say this, in response to your last paragraph in #36, no the events in question as related by Wilson have not come out to be true. You hide behind the statement this is “no evidence the Iraqi envoy came to Niger to buy yellowcake.” Perhaps there is no evidence, but that’s not what the CIA believed when they heard his report. And the primary issue with Wilson — and the only reason he came to prominence — was his contention that the president lied when he spoke those 16 words because he had seen Wilson’s report.
If the president has indeed seen that report (and, to use words that you use, there is no evidence that he had), he would have seen confirmation of those 16 words.
The issue here is Wilson’s veracity — and whether or not Karl Rove and the Administration were orchestrating a campaign of payback against him. Nope, all they’re guilty of is a clumsy attempt to discredit a dishonest critic.
Gee, does anyone else see similarities between Just a Question/Answer’s framing of issues and postings and those of rajiansybilsockpuppetduh’s, or is it just me?
Hmmm………..
Regards,
Peter Hughes
and vaara’s got just a touch of that syntax and structure too… nope, it’s well documented the GayLeft here is found of sockpuppets Peter… no surprise at all.
Touche, M-Matt.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
If the president has indeed seen that report (and, to use words that you use, there is no evidence that he had), he would have seen confirmation of those 16 words
If the President had been privy to Joe Wilson’s report in whole, rather than in part, he would have seen foremost Wilson’s conclusion that he found no evidence of a sale and that there was no evidence supporting the claim the Iraqi delegation was attempting to purchase yellowcake. Wilson’s full conclusions were never really considered.
It was the intelligence officer who debriefed Wilson that advanced former Nigerian Prime Minister Mayaki’s supposition of why the Iraqis were visiting. He concluded this to be the most important aspect of Wilson’s trip as it circumstantially “provided some confirmation of foreign service reporting.” Despite Wilson concluding that no sale had taken place and confirming that the Iraqis never discussed yellowcake at all before leaving, the CIA chose to advance the Prime Minister’s interpretation of “expanding commercial relations” rather than factual events. This is how the Senate Intelligence Committee came to support that Joe Wilson’s conclusions actually bolstered the administration’s claim that the Iraqi visit was to purchase yellowcake.
Again, I reiterate that it truly could be the case that the Iraqis were seeking a sale of Yellowcake. However, there is no primary evidence or conclusive witness statements to back up this claim.
Leading into the State of the Union address in which the President used the “16 words,” it’s known that several agencies had expressed concern about the veracity of the alleged Iraqi yellowcake sale.
In October 2001, US intelligence agencies receive information from SISMI (Italian Intelligence) alleging a sale of yellowcake between Niger and Iraq. The State Department found the report “highly suspect” and issued a report stating there is no corroborating evidence to the claim.
SISMI has been implicated as advancing the story of a yellowcake sale to both the CIA and British Intelligence. The CIA dismissed the claim in 2001 and again rejected the claim in 2002 so Nicolo Pollari, head of SISMI, traveled to Washington and met in secret with Stephen Hadley to convey his convictions.
George Tenet asked Stephen Hadley to remove reference to the yellowcake sale in a speech that the President gave in Cincinnati in October 2002 with follow-up memos expressing the CIA’s concern that the claims were false.
Information about aluminum tubes purported to be used for the enrichment of uranium came under scrutiny in September 2002 despite the administration trying to “quiet dissent among its own analysts.”
Also in February 2002, the deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford, traveled to Niger and concluded much the same as Wilson about the possibility of yellowcake being diverted to Iraq. So did Ambassador to Niger Owens-Kirkpatrick.
The IAEA concluded in March 2003 using a Google search that the Italian documents previously used as evidence were forgeries. With the confirmation so easily discredited, it seems likely that the CIA knew all along that the Italian documents were suspect.
One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told me, “These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking.”
But what about the British Intelligence? As I’ve shown in previous postings, the British Intelligence is easily discredited after the fact. Rather than “numerous sources,” there are only two main sources they rely on. The one piece of documentary evidence has since been discredited. It’s a forged letter purportedly from Zahawie indicating Iraq’s interest in buying yellowcake. The French, who were given the document by the Italians, refused to let British intelligence pass it on to the Americans. However, the Italians turned it over personally to the CIA which concluded it was part of the Italian forgeries and said so before the SOTU. However, the CIA didn’t know that the SISMI document, that they knew was fake, was the same thing the British were promoting.
So it comes down to one source of information, British non-documentary intelligence in the form of a White Paper. The Deputy DCI was questioned by Senator Jon Kyl in October 2002 if he read and agreed with the British reports. TheDeputy DCI replied “…the one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. We’ve looked at those reports and we don’t think they are very credible….”
Also in October, the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs replied to Senator Fred Thompson about disagreement with the British White Paper documenting non-documentary sources:
Also in October 2002, the ADDI put together a memo sent to the Deputy National Security Advisor:
Remember, this is all now based on the two pieces of British evidence, one of which the CIA knows to be a forgery but doesn’t know that’s what the British are basing part of their assertions on. The other is intelligence commentary from the British that several sources are questioning in October, several months before the SOTU.
So was Wilson’s assertion’s that the administration was twisting intelligence or lying? It seems pretty evident that a number of credible sources voiced dissent on every piece of evidence used by the Bush administration as support for the 16 words. And though they couldn’t know it at the time, every piece of this evidence has been totally discredited or has become seriously questionable beyond probability. So if anything, it seems the administration was willfully oblivious. They cherry-picked intelligence that at the time was deemed credible until it was questioned then moved on to other intelligence that seemed credible until it was shown uncredible ad naseum. It shows a pattern of deliberately searching for support for a previously established conclusion rather than the other way around.
What would you call that?
It shows a pattern of deliberately searching for support for a previously established conclusion rather than the other way around.
What would you call that?
Exactly what Plame and Wilson did.
You see, what you miss in your attempt to twist and manipulate the evidence is that Wilson and the CIA deliberately sabotaged his mission so that they could “prove” that Saddam had never sought uranium, as they and their Democratic masters insisted.
How?
He told everyone that he was working on behalf of the US government.
That is also aside from the fact that his wife deliberately recommended him, ostensibly “because he knew people” — which also meant that people knew he worked for the US government.
Now, consider the facts.
If the Nigerian government had in fact sold uranium to Saddam, would they tell a representative of the US government?
If they had in fact engaged in protracted negotiations with Saddam, would they tell a representative of the US government?
Of course not. Doing so would subject them to swift and immediate sanctions that would cripple their economy and topple their government; furthermore, it would expose the officials who were talking with Wilson to the possibility of being brought up on international criminal charges.
Unfortunately for Wilson and Plame, the Nigerians didn’t completely deny any knowledge of Saddam. They told the truth — that Saddam had sent delegations to them to discuss increasing Iraq’s purchases from Niger — which, coupled with the fact that Niger’s major exports are chickens and uranium ore, would easily lead one to conclude, which they did, that the Iraqis were looking to purchase uranium.
If the CIA had wanted to get good information, they should have used covert sources. The fact that they sent someone who was blatantly likely to be identified as working for the US government — and who confirmed the fact with everyone with whom he spoke — demonstrates that CIA administrators like Plame were interested only in confirming their own beliefs and not getting good information.
Furthermore, you need to provide your sources for your diatribe. This source, with references, demonstrates that you are willfully manipulating and twisting the timelines to prove your insinuation that Bush lied.
He told everyone that he was working on behalf of the US government.
That is also aside from the fact that his wife deliberately recommended him, ostensibly “because he knew people” — which also meant that people knew he worked for the US government.
Yes it was clear to those he spoke with that he was acting on behalf of the US government. As was the case with General Fulford and Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick. They also came to the same conclusion. Wilson’s role and mission were quite clear in that he was to visit the country to question former business and government service colleagues and friends to learn what he could about the supposed sale. As a former ambassador in the region with a long service in government, he couldn’t have pretended he was there on any other reason. His mission was not to spy in some undercover manner which would frankly be impossible given how well known and what circles he had traveled in in the area. He was there to learn the official record of the events in question and had the contacts to ascertain if this official version left anything to doubt.
Even in intelligence circles the sale was considered unlikely. The State Department concluded as much in March 2002 in a now declassified memo. It cited French control of the industry the the importance Niger placed on remaining in the good graces of the US to continue the supply of foreign aid to the country.
From what we now know of the supposed sale, Wilson’s conclusion, like Fulford and Owens-Kirkpatrick, were completely accurate. The Nigerian uranium stock is tightly controlled by a French consortium that makes it extremely difficult for such a sale to have occurred without being noticed. We also know that the described meeting that was the connection point for such a sale didn’t follow the usual pattern followed by Hussein in acquiring black-market weapons. In other such moves he would typically engage a third party to act as the conduit for such a sale rather than use a government official as a conduit.
It’s also recognized that Zahawie by this time had moved into more outer orbits from Hussein’s circle of advisors and confidants. The official stated mission of the Iraqi delegation was to discuss expanding trade between the two countries. The delegation also met several other countries on the same mission, countries that have no natural uranium sources. Zahawie maintains that the delegation was attempting to foster the intercession of African countries in regard to the US embargo against Iraq. The delegation came and went without ever discussing uranium with Prime Minister Mayaki.
Again, that’s not to say the Iraqis didn’t come with more sinister intentions. But given that a uranium sale was never brought up before the Iraqi delegation left, noting that the Iraqis already had a uranium ore store in excess of the amount they allegedly were seeking and that there was never any follow-up after the 1999 visit leaves the whole affair currently in speculation.
———————–
The CIA officially maintains to this day that Plame had no role in choosing Wilson for the mission except in that, when asked for recommendations for someone to accomplish such a mission, she knew her husband to have a unique background that suited the inquiry. The memo written by Plame listing Wilson’s qualifications is cited by the Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans as proof of some conspiracy she had a hand in or even was the driving force in sending Wilson. Not only did the committee Republicans insist on this point, Hatch and Bond wrote further appendixes of conviction. This is one significant issue that committee Democrats flatly deny and refused to support. For such a significant bipartisan effort as the SIC report, this breakdown of cooperation is notable.
The request for such a mission came from Administration channels in the first place rather than being concocted by the CIA or most especially Plame. And it’s almost certain that anyone they sent that had knowledge of the region and the industry would come to the same conclusion as Wilson as evidenced by the conclusions of the State Department and other nuclear oversight organizations. Even if the issue of why the Iraqi delegation visited Nigeria remained in question, the control and oversight of the industry in the country and the amount of alleged purchase would have led one to easily ferret out factual conclusions matching Wilson’s.
Did Plame have a Machiavellian hand in sending Wilson? It seems to be a partisan red herring in that, no matter who they sent, the conclusions would be the same and the same doubts and interpretation of conspiracy would have resulted.
—————————-
If the Nigerian government had in fact sold uranium to Saddam, would they tell a representative of the US government?
It would have been very difficult to have accomplished such a purchase in the first place due to the tight control the French consortium holds over the industry. There are also significant oversight by worldwide nuclear proliferation agencies. Just the logistics of such a sale would have been significant. The New York Times recently said:
Could it have been done? Possibly. Was it likely to have occurred? When you consider the oversight of the consortium and other agencies and the logistics required to carry it out, it becomes the plot for the latest installment of the Mission Impossible spy movies.
The Nigerians had a need to stay on the good side of the United States and the Iraqis already had a store of uranium ore in excess of the amount they allegedly were seeking. Why take the risk?
Your logic precludes that the Nigerians would be able to hide such a sale in the first place. All knowledgeable parties know this would be extraordinarily difficult to keep secret.
——————————–
f the CIA had wanted to get good information, they should have used covert sources.
A now declassified State Department intelligence memo concluded the sale was unlikely in 2002 as related in the New York Times in January 2006 (I can’t link as the article is archived but you can search and purchase it yourself. A free version is hosted here). The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded “The language in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that “Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellow-cake” overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq’s possible procurement attempts. “At the time of the SOTU, no domestic intelligence agency had primary documentation or witness accounts to support the “16 words” as related in the SIC report. The Administration claims though it was relying on British Intelligence. The Butler report, while offering no details about its documentation, is known to rely on two pieces of evidence, specifically a letter alleged to be written by Zahawie and the culmination of intelligence reports in a White Paper. The letter has now been “reconsidered” as it seems to also be a forgery citing a future event within the letter. The White Paper, as shared with the CIA, has been criticized by domestic agencies for overreaching on points with which they could not agree. So essentially the administration not only relied on only British intelligence, it did so in spite of domestic intelligence.
So I would assume, given all the confusion between domestic agencies, between foreign agencies (see my posts above for further description) and between our domestic agencies and other foreign agencies it wouldn’t have made a single bit of difference.
Furthermore, you need to provide your sources for your diatribe.
If it were as simple as that. For such a small issue, I’ve spent an enormous amount of time doing online research and it’s not as easy as referencing “page 12 of the Butler report.” It’s an amazingly large breadth of materials and pertinent information is hard to come by due to the classified nature of much of it. You also need to survey the timelines of many different sources. With Freedom of Information act initiatives, more and more declassified documents are becoming available for review and in the near future I think you may see more comprehensive reports. It’s a story that puts the best spy novels to shame in complexity. That’s why it’s so difficult to understand and why it made the intelligence community look like it couldn’t find it’s own a**hole with both hands and a flashlight.
I suggest you review several things. Firstly, look into what information the CIA was relying on as the basis for their back and forth, contradictory stand on the Iraqi visit. Much of it comes down to the Italian forgeries which is why they attempted to withdraw support of the claim in the SOTU. Also, investigate other domestic intelligence agencies’ positions along the way. The State Department had serious doubts early on relying on what they knew of the industry and controls in place in Niger. Look into domestic assessments of foreign, specifically British, Intelligence on the matter. Look into the role SISMI, the Italian intelligence organization, played in being the purveyors behind the forgeries and the Italian>French>British connection while at the same time having a direct connection to the Americans. Research what information the Butler report actually relied on. Research where that information came from and the role the DGSE played in passing on information to the British while withholding it from the Americans. I think you’ll find much of the same information I did and realize the complexity yourself if you choose to investigate it.
Thank you for confirming the following, Just A Question:
— Wilson’s trip was a sham, meant to “confirm” the decision the CIA had already made by deliberately sending someone who would receive nothing different than “official accounts”.
— You believe that the CIA should not carry out undercover operations to confirm if official accounts are true when official accounts coincide with what they want to believe
— A French company, with ties to other French entities that were already aiding and abetting Saddam’s smuggling of oil and transfers of funds to him, was in the perfect position to sell him uranium
— You spin and cover up for the fact that Plame selected her husband, recommended her husband, and wrote numerous memos to other CIA administrators to ensure that her husband got the job
— You cannot cite sources for your allegations.