Joe Wilson's carefully calibrated '"courage"
Originally posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004
For a year Amb. Wilson reveled in his persona as a courageous truth-teller who stood up to power and then warned the American people about the lies of the neocons. The factual case he presented in his book and in interviews has been shredded beyond repair. Less discussed is the curious timing of his courageous stand.
The New York Times op-ed that ignited the firestorm over "the 16 words" appeared on 6 July 2003. This was months after the SOTU speech where the words appeared.
Most importantly, it was after the war, after the capture of KSM, and after the Coalition called off the intense search for WMDs. Wilson knew that he was unlikely to be refuted by captured stockpiles or documents.
A courageous, public-spirited man who was certain that he really had debunked the case for war in 2002 would have gone public before the war. That way he might have prevented a grievous mistake by the government.
Evidence of opportunism? Certainly, and no great surprise. But it also suggests that Wilson was less certain of his conclusions in March 2003 than he now pretends he was.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Well, that's one way to get a gig with the network
The court also strongly rebuked then-prosecutor Nancy Grace -- now host of Court TV's "Closing Arguments" -- of engaging in "inappropriate and, in some cases, illegal conduct in the course of the trial."Article here.
This included, Carr's appeal said, an illegal search of Carr's home to allow one of Grace's expert witnesses to view the crime scene and allowing, before the trial, a CNN television crew to enter Carr's home while filming a feature on her.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Plame, Rove, and Cover
If we are to believe the anti-Rove hardliners, KR found out that Valerie Plame was a covert operative at CIA because he had access to classified material at the White House. It does not seem reasonable, however, to think that the name of a covert operative would be in a written report sent to the White House. That's what code names are for.
To go farther, the CIA officer would never be the source of intelligence; they would merely be the conduit. The source would be the spy, electronic bug, or loquacious bureaucrat that produced the information. Hence, the NSC might receive a top-secret report that stated that HIGHBALL, an Iraqi general in Basra, had reported that no sarin gas labs were in his city. It would be absurd for that report to say that HIGHBALL reported this information to Linda Smith a CIA officer who operated under cover as Penny Jones a German archeologist.
So it is with Plame. It does not make sense that CIA sent over material to the White House that identified her as a covert agent. Yet, if they did not share such information with the White House, then it is hard to see how Rove could have broken the law or done anything immoral.
If we are to believe the anti-Rove hardliners, KR found out that Valerie Plame was a covert operative at CIA because he had access to classified material at the White House. It does not seem reasonable, however, to think that the name of a covert operative would be in a written report sent to the White House. That's what code names are for.
To go farther, the CIA officer would never be the source of intelligence; they would merely be the conduit. The source would be the spy, electronic bug, or loquacious bureaucrat that produced the information. Hence, the NSC might receive a top-secret report that stated that HIGHBALL, an Iraqi general in Basra, had reported that no sarin gas labs were in his city. It would be absurd for that report to say that HIGHBALL reported this information to Linda Smith a CIA officer who operated under cover as Penny Jones a German archeologist.
So it is with Plame. It does not make sense that CIA sent over material to the White House that identified her as a covert agent. Yet, if they did not share such information with the White House, then it is hard to see how Rove could have broken the law or done anything immoral.
Everything bloggy must converge
In this post, I noted that one reason the Watergate cover-up received all the attention (as opposed to the burglary itself) was that only Nixon could direct an Oval Office cover-up. By focusing on that crime, the media and Congress could keep Nixon, and only Nixon, in their sights. I think the same thing is happening to Karl Rove in the Plame/Wilson matter.
Right now, the only question the MSM is interested in is did Rove use the words "Wilson", "wife", and "CIA" in a sentence spoken to reporters? The press corps acts as if the answer, in and of itself, is a modern day smoiking gun. They completely ignore the equally critical question-"did Rove learn about Plame from a classified source?" If Plame's employer was an open secret among reporters and pundits, then Rove did nothing wrong.
In fact, I do not think that Rove could have known about Plame from classified sources if she was really covert. Her identity, in that case, would never show up in any document sent outside CIA.
There is another interesting Watergate parallel. In his book Secret Agenda, Jim Hougan argued that the press missed a blockbuster story in Watergate: widespread domestic spying operations conducted by CIA. In his view, Nixon failed in his attempt to use CIA to stop the FBI investigation. OTOH, CIA was successful in using the Plumbers as a cover for their own (illegal) domestic activities and then managed to deflect investigators away from their operations and onto Liddy, Dean, Mitchell, and Nixon. In Plame/Wilson, the ignored question has been the role of Plame and her co-workers in feeding misleading information to the press and into the intelligence stream.
Right now Washington is obsessed over what Rove said and whom he said it to. It might also be useful to find out what Wilson said to Pincus, Judis, and Kristof about Plame and if she spoke to anyone else in the MSM.
In this post, I noted that one reason the Watergate cover-up received all the attention (as opposed to the burglary itself) was that only Nixon could direct an Oval Office cover-up. By focusing on that crime, the media and Congress could keep Nixon, and only Nixon, in their sights. I think the same thing is happening to Karl Rove in the Plame/Wilson matter.
Right now, the only question the MSM is interested in is did Rove use the words "Wilson", "wife", and "CIA" in a sentence spoken to reporters? The press corps acts as if the answer, in and of itself, is a modern day smoiking gun. They completely ignore the equally critical question-"did Rove learn about Plame from a classified source?" If Plame's employer was an open secret among reporters and pundits, then Rove did nothing wrong.
In fact, I do not think that Rove could have known about Plame from classified sources if she was really covert. Her identity, in that case, would never show up in any document sent outside CIA.
There is another interesting Watergate parallel. In his book Secret Agenda, Jim Hougan argued that the press missed a blockbuster story in Watergate: widespread domestic spying operations conducted by CIA. In his view, Nixon failed in his attempt to use CIA to stop the FBI investigation. OTOH, CIA was successful in using the Plumbers as a cover for their own (illegal) domestic activities and then managed to deflect investigators away from their operations and onto Liddy, Dean, Mitchell, and Nixon. In Plame/Wilson, the ignored question has been the role of Plame and her co-workers in feeding misleading information to the press and into the intelligence stream.
Right now Washington is obsessed over what Rove said and whom he said it to. It might also be useful to find out what Wilson said to Pincus, Judis, and Kristof about Plame and if she spoke to anyone else in the MSM.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Here's a perspective that you won't hear on CNN
Denounced but not disproved. Powell was not the last iconoclast to receive such treatment. How did this become the standard debating style among our chattering classes?
In 1968, the British Tory MP Enoch Powell made a prescient speech about the dangers of mass immigration to Britain that has been infinitely denounced ever since, although never disproved.
Denounced but not disproved. Powell was not the last iconoclast to receive such treatment. How did this become the standard debating style among our chattering classes?
Priceless
Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit on that dangerous DC gang the White House Press:
Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit on that dangerous DC gang the White House Press:
Big Tough Guys With Perfectly Coifed Hair
They sounded a bit like playground bullies, but ones with too meticulously styled hair and a little too much whine in their voices and prissy shoulder and hand motions to come across as exactly tough guys.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Plame/Wilson
PoliPundit: "Big Tough Guys With Perfectly Coifed Hair"
Cliff Kincaid: "Why Judith Miller Should Stay In Jail"
Junk Yard Blog: "A FIRST-CLASS SNAFU"
Also, here is a possible outing that the MSM does not have time for:
"Richardson could take prominent position in Wen Ho Lee lawsuit"
And just to keep the story straight and to help the MSM with their long-term memory problem, this is what Susan Schmidt wrote about in Wilson and Plame in the the Washington Post on Saturday, July 10, 2004:
PoliPundit: "Big Tough Guys With Perfectly Coifed Hair"
Cliff Kincaid: "Why Judith Miller Should Stay In Jail"
Junk Yard Blog: "A FIRST-CLASS SNAFU"
Also, here is a possible outing that the MSM does not have time for:
"Richardson could take prominent position in Wen Ho Lee lawsuit"
And just to keep the story straight and to help the MSM with their long-term memory problem, this is what Susan Schmidt wrote about in Wilson and Plame in the the Washington Post on Saturday, July 10, 2004:
Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.
Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
Monday, July 11, 2005
9/11 Report and US sleeper cells
In light of the atrocity in London, this section of the 9/11 Commission's report is a cause for grave concern:
In light of the atrocity in London, this section of the 9/11 Commission's report is a cause for grave concern:
7.1 FIRST ARRIVALS IN CALIFORNIA
In chapter 5 we described the Southeast Asia travels of Nawaf al Hazmi, Khalid al Mihdhar, and others in January 2000 on the first part of the "planes operation." In that chapter we also described how Mihdhar was spotted in Kuala Lumpur early in January 2000, along with associates who were not identified, and then was lost to sight when the group passed through Bangkok. On January 15, Hazmi and Mihdhar arrived in Los Angeles. They spent about two weeks there before moving on to San Diego.1
Two Weeks in Los Angeles
Why Hazmi and Mihdhar came to California, we do not know for certain. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the organizer of the planes operation, explains that California was a convenient point of entry from Asia and had the added benefit of being far away from the intended target area.2
Hazmi and Mihdhar were ill-prepared for a mission in the United States. Their only qualifications for this plot were their devotion to Usama Bin Ladin, their veteran service, and their ability to get valid U.S. visas. Neither had spent any substantial time in the West, and neither spoke much, if any, English.3
It would therefore be plausible that they or KSM would have tried to identify, in advance, a friendly contact for them in the United States. In detention, KSM denies that al Qaeda had any agents in Southern California. We do not credit this denial.4 We believe it is unlikely that Hazmi and Mihdhar-neither of whom, in contrast to the Hamburg group, had any prior exposure to life in the West-would have come to the United States without arranging to receive assistance from one or more individuals informed in advance of their arrival.5
KSM says that though he told others involved in the conspiracy to stay away from mosques and to avoid establishing personal contacts, he made an exception in this case and instructed Hazmi and Mihdhar to pose as newly arrived Saudi students and seek assistance at local mosques. He counted on their breaking off any such relationships once they moved to the East Coast.6 Our inability to ascertain the activities of Hazmi and Mihdhar during their first two weeks in the United States may reflect al Qaeda tradecraft designed to protect the identity of anyone who may have assisted them during that period.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
i got nothin' to match this
Just One Minute is still the indispensable blog on Plame/Wilson/Novak/Miller. It has been since the whole scandal started. As an example, check out this post and the comments. If Valerie Plame actually leaked to reporters under the guise of a "CIA analyst" then she had no covert status to protect after her hubby wrote his op-ed.
Ace of Spades just skewers the press for its gullibility in reporting the charges of systematic torture at Gitmo and elsewhere. If this doesn't pique you interest, you must be in a coma.
Just One Minute is still the indispensable blog on Plame/Wilson/Novak/Miller. It has been since the whole scandal started. As an example, check out this post and the comments. If Valerie Plame actually leaked to reporters under the guise of a "CIA analyst" then she had no covert status to protect after her hubby wrote his op-ed.
Ace of Spades just skewers the press for its gullibility in reporting the charges of systematic torture at Gitmo and elsewhere. If this doesn't pique you interest, you must be in a coma.
This is a Penthouse Forum fantasy, not a credible ....charge. This is the sort of fantasy concocted by a sexually-repressed Islamoretard who believes such things are possible in the decadent US.
Friday, July 08, 2005
We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst -- and we will do our best.
Winston Churchill July 14, 1941
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
"The Set Up"
Edward Jay Epstein writes about Felt, Woodward, and a story they got wrong. As always, a must read. Epstein has forgotten more about the press and Watergate than the average journalism professor will ever know.
Edward Jay Epstein writes about Felt, Woodward, and a story they got wrong. As always, a must read. Epstein has forgotten more about the press and Watergate than the average journalism professor will ever know.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Wasted opportunity / looming problem
By all rights, MSNBC should own cable news. They have the marvelous combination of vast resources and low marginal costs. NBC News already has the reporters and producers on staff. Using them on MSNBC is much cheaper than the costs faced by CNN or FNC who have to support their infrastructure with only a cable audience. ISTM that MSNBC should be able to create a quality line-up, draw a large quality audience, and laugh all the way to the bank.
Instead they are mired in third (sometimes fourth place) with a line up that echoes and mimics the Fox/CNN products.
It's a puzzle. Olbermann and Carlson are distinctive personalities. That should be a plus. Their shows are sometimes funny, sometimes insightful. But both shows are fast-paced, knowing, smirky and crowded. Consequently, they are superficial even when they are entertaining. That is, they are distinctive in a way that does nothing to leverage the advantages they should have by being part of NBC.
It is possible that there simply is not a cable audience for quality news programs. Maybe those who want depth go to the internet because TV cannot compete. It probably is true that words on a screen will always do a better job at going deeper than will words spoken by a reporter. A long television story has fewer words than a short magazine piece. Yet we can read the article faster than a reporter can speak her story. Churchill warned that the ear was only one-tenth as powerful as the eye and so, speakers should never attempt the sort of intricate, nuanced arguments possible in a newspaper column.
While all that is true, I am left with an undeniable fact. GE, under Jack Welch and now Jeffrey Immelt, is usually intolerant of excuses that rely on the inevitability of failure due to the unchangeable nature of the marketplace. That just isn't the GE Way of legend, HBS case studies, and Fortune cover stories.
Whatever happened to '#1 or #2' in every market?
MSNBC's failure is a looming problem for NBC and GE. The audience for broadcast news is falling which means that big NBC News infrastructure is becoming a drag on profits. Ideally, MSNBC would pick up the slack by growing its audience and revenue. If they do not do so, GE will have two white elephants on their hands.
By all rights, MSNBC should own cable news. They have the marvelous combination of vast resources and low marginal costs. NBC News already has the reporters and producers on staff. Using them on MSNBC is much cheaper than the costs faced by CNN or FNC who have to support their infrastructure with only a cable audience. ISTM that MSNBC should be able to create a quality line-up, draw a large quality audience, and laugh all the way to the bank.
Instead they are mired in third (sometimes fourth place) with a line up that echoes and mimics the Fox/CNN products.
It's a puzzle. Olbermann and Carlson are distinctive personalities. That should be a plus. Their shows are sometimes funny, sometimes insightful. But both shows are fast-paced, knowing, smirky and crowded. Consequently, they are superficial even when they are entertaining. That is, they are distinctive in a way that does nothing to leverage the advantages they should have by being part of NBC.
It is possible that there simply is not a cable audience for quality news programs. Maybe those who want depth go to the internet because TV cannot compete. It probably is true that words on a screen will always do a better job at going deeper than will words spoken by a reporter. A long television story has fewer words than a short magazine piece. Yet we can read the article faster than a reporter can speak her story. Churchill warned that the ear was only one-tenth as powerful as the eye and so, speakers should never attempt the sort of intricate, nuanced arguments possible in a newspaper column.
While all that is true, I am left with an undeniable fact. GE, under Jack Welch and now Jeffrey Immelt, is usually intolerant of excuses that rely on the inevitability of failure due to the unchangeable nature of the marketplace. That just isn't the GE Way of legend, HBS case studies, and Fortune cover stories.
Whatever happened to '#1 or #2' in every market?
MSNBC's failure is a looming problem for NBC and GE. The audience for broadcast news is falling which means that big NBC News infrastructure is becoming a drag on profits. Ideally, MSNBC would pick up the slack by growing its audience and revenue. If they do not do so, GE will have two white elephants on their hands.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Monkey see, monkey do
Cable TV's obsession with a missing person case in Aruba is disappointing on so many levels. It confirms the fact that Fox prime time has become pure tabloid TV with no pretense of aspiring to anything higher. But who can argue with success? Their ratings crush the competition night after night.
What is interesting is that CNN and MSNBC have decided to follow along behind fox. They also devote hundreds of hours to Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, and Natalee Holloway. If Fox has Greta von Sustren, well, then, CNN must have Nancy Grace while MSNBC settles for Dan Abrams.
Doesn't anyone want to be different? Why are they so sure that there is not an audience out there for real news? Why are they afraid to try to find it?
It is easy to understand cable's obsession with this kind of journalism. These shows are cheap to produce. All you need are a bunch of talking heads who are willing to speculate about stuff they know little about.
It's still a cowardly way to do news.
Cable TV's obsession with a missing person case in Aruba is disappointing on so many levels. It confirms the fact that Fox prime time has become pure tabloid TV with no pretense of aspiring to anything higher. But who can argue with success? Their ratings crush the competition night after night.
What is interesting is that CNN and MSNBC have decided to follow along behind fox. They also devote hundreds of hours to Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson, and Natalee Holloway. If Fox has Greta von Sustren, well, then, CNN must have Nancy Grace while MSNBC settles for Dan Abrams.
Doesn't anyone want to be different? Why are they so sure that there is not an audience out there for real news? Why are they afraid to try to find it?
It is easy to understand cable's obsession with this kind of journalism. These shows are cheap to produce. All you need are a bunch of talking heads who are willing to speculate about stuff they know little about.
It's still a cowardly way to do news.
So what's changed?
Back during the Schiavo case most of the MSM were pretty supportive of the courts. They were certain that a judge in Florida was the best person to decide this matter of life and death.
Suddenly, though, the courts are error prone, out of control, and a threat to freedom. Life and death for a disabled woman is one thing, but confidential sources are important.
Terri Schiavo's parents were somehow wrong for petitioning Congress to redress their grievances and Congress was wrong for responding. It is funny now to see that journalists want that same Congress to write a law to give them rights that an ordinary citizen does not possess.
I wonder if Tom Delay is in any hurry to bring that measure to a vote?
BTW, Beldar just slices the pro-reporter legal arguments to pieces here.
Back during the Schiavo case most of the MSM were pretty supportive of the courts. They were certain that a judge in Florida was the best person to decide this matter of life and death.
Suddenly, though, the courts are error prone, out of control, and a threat to freedom. Life and death for a disabled woman is one thing, but confidential sources are important.
Terri Schiavo's parents were somehow wrong for petitioning Congress to redress their grievances and Congress was wrong for responding. It is funny now to see that journalists want that same Congress to write a law to give them rights that an ordinary citizen does not possess.
I wonder if Tom Delay is in any hurry to bring that measure to a vote?
BTW, Beldar just slices the pro-reporter legal arguments to pieces here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)