Crucial to my argument? I merely asked how the Times could read the NIE and see it contradicting what Libby testified he conveyed. We can stop beating this dead horse any time. I hold that simple English and common sense says that “intent on acquiring” described someone who is beyond the navel-gazing, “hmm, should I or shouldn’t I?” phase of thought. It describes someone who is, well, intent on acquiring something. If you feel this is an important distinction, I’ll continue to snicker at this semantical grasping at straws, and you can continue to believe it.
But you know what? Who cares. It’s silly at its source, since the “vigorously pursuing” phraseology is not a direct quote. It’s from a NY times articicle paraphrasing a filing from the man prosecuting Libby, a paraphrase describing the earth-shattering information Fitzgerald believes he has discovered. So, there’s your smoking gun. The Times describes the wording in Fitzgerald’s filing as saying Libby was authorized to say that Iraq was vigorously pursuing nukes. The NIE says Iraq was intent on acquiring them. The Times’ paraphrase of a paraphrase is clearly a smoking gun we should debate endlessly.
I’m not saying it’s fucking navel gazing. I’m saying that it’s somebody who’s deciding to do something, but is not in the act. There’s a difference. I’ve said this in several posts, and every time you say intent means ‘navel gazing’ again I’ll say ‘intent’ means you’re jacking off.
Oh, bullshit. Not everyone who is “intent on acquiring” is necessarily in the act of acquiring, but everyone who is in the act of acquiring is “intent on acquiring.” You’re trying to make this mutually exclusive and it just isn’t.
How do I know? Before he invasion I was told that Hussein was “vigorously pursuing” nuclear weapons. Hussein doing a needlepoint sampler that says “Allah I wish I had some nukes” does not qualify.
Can you now see how much damage Dubya’s hardon for attacking Iraq is now causing our dealings with Iran? Notice how North Korea, who no longer needs to be “vigorously pursuing” nor “intent on acquiring”, is no longer even mentioned? We have a new boogeyman, and like the last one this one is also incapable of harming us for the moment.
Can I now see? I’m not making the argument for or against the rationale for the Iraqi war. My point is that the information that Libby testifies he conveyed to Miller is unremarkable–i.e., more of the same and not worthy of all the outrage.
I haven’t been around lately, and this is a very long thread. On page one it turns out that the news story was erroneous and Bush did not authorize the Plame leak.
Is that still the case?
If someone could answer that and save me from reading this whole thread that would be just capital. Thanks in advance.
Well we don’t know whether Bush authorized the leak of Plame’s name. There’s certainly no proof available that he did. On the other hand, Cheney’s position is looking a little dodgier tonight.
It’s a new leak of a different classified document. We don’t know yet whether Bush did his verbal declassification on in yet, or if Cheney took the initiative.
It ties Cheney to discussions of Plame’s identity immediately prior to the outing.
It seems that this does cause the leak to point more to Cheney, but it is still all circumstantial, correct? Or am I missing something? Because countering all this is Libby saying that neither Cheney not Bush, nor anyone else instructed him to make disclosures regarding Plame. I was under the impression that if he lied at this point he gets royally fucked. Isn’t that right?
My guess is that he already knew that Plame was CIA, and when he got the instruction to release the classied info in order to counter Wilson’s claims, he probably thought, “Oh this other little tidbit of info will help, too, so I’ll help my boss, the President, and my country and just throw it in.”
By the way, does anyone know how secret Plame’s agent status was? I’ve heard that at the time she was both 1) an undercover operative, in every sense of the word, and no one knew except those super high up and 2) her days as an actual undercover operative were behind her and that her CIA involvement was known by more people. Is there a consensus as to which it is?
A little of both. Ms. Plame was “undercover” in the sense that her status as a covert operative was secret, but she carried niether a Walther PPK or a cyanide capsule. In her overt capacity, she had plausible reason to contact weapons experts, etc. She had not actually functioned in this capacity for some considerable time but her activities were still classifed. Primary reason: the people she had spoken with and contacted in her previous duties could plausibly be at risk. In most cases, probably not much risk, but few of them were likely pleased to have it be known to their respective governments that they had had contact with a covert CIA agent.
Apparently, (and I use the word advisedly), the only reason her name came up at all was in an effort to portray Mr. Wilson’s Niger trip as somehow tainted by nepotism, which is to say, the revelations had no other purpose but political propaganda. Thus, however criminal this behavior may or may not be, it was undertaken for nothing other than to besmirch a man telling an uncomfortable truth.
Wilson’s truthfulness aside, (he may or may not have been), I agree with your assessment. But we still don’t know where Libby learned it or who told him to share that info. For me, the most plausible explanation is that he is lying,. But on the other hand, he’d be completely screwiing himself. Do you think he is lying? Because that is what it comes down to, right? Or is there another explanation I’m not seeing?
Here’s my take: I think Scooter is trying to muddy the legal waters enough for him to skate without having to defend himself in ways that will annoy Team Bush.
You remember that minor brew-ha-ha about the airplane trip wherein the intelligence assessment was discussed and copies distributed to the parties concerned? IIRC, there was some tangential reference to Mr. Wilson and his blushing bride. Its possible…possible…that Scooter is trying to imply that because portions of that document were declassified he is then safe to assume that all information relative to it were similarly declassified. Bit of a stretch, to be sure.
The defense won’t hold up to skeptical scrutiny, in my estimation, but is brought forth for two reasons. Numero uno, he ain’t got shit else. Numero two-o, he’s hoping that it will create just enough plausibility to tie the case up while lawyers feast on the nitpicks. At the very least, keep it out of the courts and the papers until after the Nov tsunami, while the WH maintains the plausible deniability of refusing to comment on a case before the courts. Thier pristine ethical standards being, as they are, legendary.
Personally, I no longer much care, the main facts are out, whether or not Scooter gets to play house with Bubba at Club Fed is of no further consequence. The WH behavior in this instance stinks up the room, and the truth is out. Since the truth favors my politics, I am in the happy position of being able to say, with utter sincerity, that the truth is all I want, while batting big, brown, innocent eyes.