# Are we going to see Vice President Condi Rice . . . real soon? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 18, 2005, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822 "2005-10-18T23:09:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/101 "2005-10-19T22:12:03Z")
> [@AskNott](#): > > It has been a long time since I have seen Dr. Rice speak without thinking either, “I think she’s lying,” or “I know she’s lying.” In other words, I’m delighted to imagine the Republicans pinning their hopes on that weasel. You were probably delighted to imagine Republicans pinning their hopes to that other weasel, Bush, too. How’d that work out for you? ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/102 "2005-10-19T22:46:58Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Who’d have the ability to start one? The same folks who started the investigation that is the subject of this OP. So I can expect the CIA to request that the Justice department appoint an independant prosecutor to investigate Pentagon contracts? \bullshit\ C’mon John: the only folks that would or could investigate something like that are the Congress. And what’s the likelihood of that under the congressional current leadership? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/103 "2005-10-19T22:47:03Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Grow a penis, Spiro Agnew… He’s right, though. Nothing here is guaranteed, and the bigger the predictions get, the more likely you’re going to be disappointed. I do think this will probably be very damaging in any case. > [@Walloon](#): > > The erroneous intelligence the president and Congress got was _from_ the CIA, Valerie Plame’s employer. I’ve always felt that the CIA was not as enthusiastic about Iraq as the Pentagon and White House were, and gave what support it gave only after some arm twisting. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/104 "2005-10-19T22:49:32Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > So I can expect the CIA to request that the Justice department appoint an independant prosecutor to investigate Pentagon contracts? \bullshit\ > > C’mon John: the only folks that would or could investigate something like that are the Congress. And what’s the likelihood of that under the congressional current leadership? OK, give me a cite from one of the major news outlets (a news story, not an editorial) that makes a case for Cheney having influenced the pentagon’s use of Halliburton. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/105 "2005-10-19T23:07:03Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > OK, give me a cite from one of the major news outlets (a news story, not an editorial) that makes a case for Cheney having influenced the pentagon’s use of Halliburton. I wasn’t arguing that case. I was pushing back that “the same people who investigated the issue in the OP could investigate this” which isn’t remotely true. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/106 "2005-10-19T23:14:37Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > I wasn’t arguing that case. I was pushing back that “the same people who investigated the issue in the OP could investigate this” which isn’t remotely true. Of course it is. There’s no reason that a special prosecutor couldn’t be assigned to investigate Cheney and Halliburton, if a special prosecutor can investigate other executive branch officers for the CIA leak issue. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/107 "2005-10-19T23:36:12Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > The erroneous intelligence the president and Congress got was _from_ the CIA, Valerie Plame’s employer. Can we retire this bullshit please? Judith Miller, who was jailed for contempt for her initial refusal to testify in this matter, [[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16miller.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16miller.html)]wrote in \*The New York Times on Oct. 16 about her testimony: > [@](#): > > I recall that Mr. Libby was displeased with what he described as “selective leaking” by the C.I.A. He told me that the agency was engaged in a “hedging strategy” to protect itself in case no weapons were found in Iraq. “If we find it, fine, if not, we hedged,” is how he described the strategy, my notes show. Consider the implications of that. Cheney’s office, on point for building a case for the invasion of Iraq, is looking for something it can call solid confirmation on the WMD question from the CIA. The CIA cannot provide this, because _the CIA doesn’t actually know._ Why else would they hedge? Why would they try to sit on both sides of the question if they actually have a reasonably solid answer? What’s more, _Cheney’s office recognizes the game the CIA is playing — they **know** the CIA **doesn’t know.** _ The only rational conclusion is that Cheney’s office was trying to push the CIA into providing intelligence it didn’t have, and the CIA, knowing it had nothing to offer, covered its bets. This falls on the Administration, not the CIA. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/108 "2005-10-19T23:37:41Z")
Balls. [Fixed link](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16miller.html). ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/109 "2005-10-20T00:08:07Z")
[U.S. News and World Report](http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040719/19intell.htm): > [@](#): > > The [Senate Intelligence Committee] report rips apart the CIA’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which formed the basis for the Bush administration’s case for war. It concludes that most of the document’s central judgments on the existence of weapons of mass destruction were “either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting.” The final judgment on the intelligence community pulls no punches, calling the flawed analysis “the result of a combination of systemic weaknesses, primarily in analytic tradecraft, compounded by a lack of information sharing, poor management, and inadequate intelligence collection.” [USA Today](http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-11-cia-iraq-report_x.htm): > [@](#): > > A newly released report published by the CIA rebukes the Bush administration for not paying enough attention to prewar intelligence that predicted the factional rivalries now threatening to split Iraq. . . . “In an ironic twist, the policy community was receptive to **technical intelligence (the weapons program), where the analysis was wrong**, but apparently paid little attention to intelligence on cultural and political issues (post-Saddam Iraq), where the analysis was right,” they write. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/110 "2005-10-20T00:59:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Of course it is. There’s no reason that a special prosecutor couldn’t be assigned to investigate Cheney and Halliburton, if a special prosecutor can investigate other executive branch officers for the CIA leak issue. The special prosecutor was assigned in the Plame case at the request of the CIA, a request that couldn’t really be ignored (although they tried, and took 3 months to open an investigation). Under what sequence of events do you see a DOJ opening an investigation of the Halliburton contracts? Certainly the CIA wouldn’t make such a request. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/111 "2005-10-20T01:01:43Z")
(Hit submit too soon) Plus, and maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t see the DOJ investigating the Pentagon. Has the Pentagon ever been subject to a DOJ investigation? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/112 "2005-10-20T01:15:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Walloon** : > “The Senate Intelligence Committee] report rips apart the CIA’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq…” That was a campaign whitewash, nothing more. The senate never did examine the administration side of the question, despite promising to do so **after** the 2004 presidential election: > [@](#): > > For eight months, the Senate Intelligence Committee has made little effort to pursue its long-promised probe into whether the Bush administration intentionally misconstrued intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war – an investigation that would have delved into whether White House aides tried to put pressure on CIA analysts. > > The revelation that Karl Rove, a White House political adviser, leaked information about a CIA operative to discredit her husband’s complaints about President Bush’s use of intelligence has focused new attention on the relationship between the White House and CIA. But the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has shown no signs of moving ahead with its investigation. [Boston Globe, July 27, 2005](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/27/senate_probe_of_prewar_intelligence_stalls/) Why would you accept the judgment of people who break their word about undertaking thorough look at the issue when it is so _obviously_ to their party’s benefit to do so? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/113 "2005-10-20T01:28:19Z")
Can someone explain how leaking information about a CIA operative would discredit her husband’s complaints? ---
**Author:** ![drewbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drewbert/32/15890_2.png) [@drewbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewbert)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/114 "2005-10-20T01:40:02Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Can someone explain how leaking information about a CIA operative would discredit her husband’s complaints? I’ve been wondering this too. If it’s not too much a hijack, what would Rove, Libby, et al., hope to accomplish in revealing Plame’s covert status? Was it all just a punitive act, the equivalent of throwing eggs at mean old Mr. Wilson’s house and running away? Or did they have something more strategic in mind? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/115 "2005-10-20T01:52:58Z")
Peering into the writhing mind of Mr Rove is a bit like scrying with entrails. Good guesses: firstly, it being impossible to discredit Mr Wilsons conclusions, as they were based firmly in fact, they sought to undermine Mr. Wilson’s credibility as much as possible. Being legally unable to shoot the messenger, they threw some crap on him by suggesting he was not _really_ some sort of experienced expert but merely some guy who’s wife got him a job. Didn’t change the facts any, but hopefully might change the focus. Trivial? Petty? Yes, precisely so. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I must peruse my Birkenstock catalogue to see if dancing shoes might be ordered. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/116 "2005-10-20T01:56:58Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Can someone explain how leaking information about a CIA operative would discredit her husband’s complaints? They were alleging nepotism: ‘Wilson got the Niger assignment because his wife is with the CIA.’ And, more arguably, getting revenge. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/117 "2005-10-20T01:57:52Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Can someone explain how leaking information about a CIA operative would discredit her husband’s complaints? According to Rove, it was in the context of understanding why Wilson was chosen to go to Africa. Apparently Cheney asked the CIA to send someone to Aftica to check out claims about Iraq and yellowcake. The CIA sent Wilson. Wilson never claimed (I don’t think) that Cheney sent him (ie, that Cheney litterally picked him to go), but somehow that idea was out there. Rove was (supposedly) setting the record straight-- that he was picked by his wife, or at least went because of her recommendation. Anyway, that’s Rove’s explanation. I’m not saying I believe it, but you asked why. Many people, of course, speculate that it wasn’t so much about discrediting her husband’s complaint, but punishing him for not giving info favorable to Bush’s cause. One crazy thing about this whole affair is that Wilson went to Africa, came back, and never actually wrote a report. Apparently he just gave a verbal update. I don’t know much about CIA procedure, but that sure seems strange to me. I mean, how do we even really know exactly what he reported to whom. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/118 "2005-10-20T02:02:40Z")
Slightly evades the point. Wilson reported. To whom, directly? It hardly matters, unless you wish to posit that some underling of Cheney took it upon himself to avoid advising the VP. Whomsoever Wilson reported to, reported to someone else, who reported to someone else, in the traditional fashion. Which is to say, upwards. ---
**Author:** ![Exploding\_Kitchen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Exploding\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exploding_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/119 "2005-10-20T02:18:53Z")
I, for one, am looking forward to a very merry Fitzmas when indictments come around. As far as the GOP base goes…I doubt it will get touched much. While my evidence is only anecdotal, I am the black sheep in a family of Southern Baptists and Republicans, and they all feel that indictments or not, it’s petty political gamesmanship. Seeing as how indicted or not, we won’t see convictions before Nov. 2006, I doubt this’ll affect the 2006 elections. Toss in some actual convictions though, and you could see the GOP party falter for a few election seasons until they rebuild their image. I mean, I’m liberal and all, but I also realize that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich for not having enough mayo. Show me convictions or plea bargains, and then I’ll start crowing about corruption. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822/120 "2005-10-20T02:27:59Z")
I saw it as a shot across the bows of the intelligence community. “Anyone who breaks the party line on Iraq, will get what Wilson and his wife got. Whatever it takes, we’ll get you.” Worked well. You have to give them that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-going-to-see-vice-president-condi-rice-real-soon/326822.md?page=7)