I asked about this in the Pit thread, and got no attempt at an explanation from anyone (although kaylasdad predicted that I probably would not. So, let me make one more try, and I will attempt to frame it more clearly.
For the moment, let’s assume that the prevailing story at the moment is accurate: Karl Rove revealed the identity of a covert agent in retaliation for the husband of that agent having reported that the Niger yellow cake story was not true.
How can this be resolved with the belief that the errors prevalent in the administration’s WMD case for war were simply innocent, well-intentioned mistakes due to faulty intelligence? To my mind, there is no way that both can be true. There is no way that the administration was making a good faith effort at appropriately using intelligence information AND vindictively (and criminally) attacking a person because they presented contradictory information.
I would very much like to hear from either those who continue to put forward the innocent version (that Bush and his administration did not intentionally lie about WMD) as to how such a version withstands Rove’s intentional and criminal attack against Joseph Wilson. If such people are unable to help clarify, I would certainly welcome any advocacy on behalf of the devil from anyone else.
Or, alternatively, does it matter? At innumerable stages during Bush’s administration, many have asked the famous question: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” At every turn, there has been no answer, in keeping with kaylasdad’s prediction. Perhaps that is the answer.
On the third hand, and perhaps more likely, my four letter flourishes have gotten me on so many ignore lists that very few will see the question. If so, I can only say, “Hi kaylasdad! How are you doing?”
I’m going to guess it’ll all boil down to the liberal media. Seriously.
Whatever happened happened without Our Good Guys knowing anything about it. They were all sitting around polishing their halos when this happened. It was all an accident. Not only was it an accident, but it doesn’t really matter. Totally irrelevent. She wasn’t really covert anyways. The fact that she’s married to Wilson is pure coincidence. Did you know that more than 50% of all people have a spouse? Therefore it was really a 50/50 shot of Joe Wilson’s wife being the one to be accidentally outed (not that there was really any “outing” anyways - see above).
It’s all a whole lot of nothing that has been blown out of all sense of scale by the [ECHO EFFECT]Liberal Media[/LIBERAL MEDIA].
The author of Bush’s Brain, a book about Rove, says Rove has top-level security clearance. Granted, the guy is a confirmed Rove-hater, but he’s done a lot of research and would probably know.
Is that author this guy, Nicholas Lemann? He wrote this profile of Rove in the Noo Yawka in 2003 which is worth re-reading now as the guy’s in the news.
Okay, I’ll play devil’s advocate. I think it is quite easy. First, as you ask, we ASSUME that the reports on the WMDs were all innocent mistakes. Next we see that eventhough these mistakes were innocent (again, assume, for the purpose of this thread), that detractors of the war and/or Bush tried, with much effort, to show that the mistakes were not innocent. Now yet another detractor is at it, trying to paint an innocent reality in a false, evil light. Not only that, but they know/believe his assertions about yellowcake to be completely false. So they’re pissed. and say to themselves "Okay Joe Wilson, you want to screw with us, with information that probably even know to be false, well we can play tought, too.
Okay, I’ll play devil’s advocate. I think it is quite easy. First, as you ask, we ASSUME that the reports on the WMDs were all innocent mistakes. Next we see that eventhough these mistakes were innocent (again, assume, for the purpose of this thread), that detractors of the war and/or Bush tried, with much effort, to show that the mistakes were not innocent. Now yet another detractor is at it, trying to paint an innocent reality in a false, evil light. Not only that, but they know/believe his assertions about yellowcake to be completely false. So they’re pissed. and say to themselves "Okay Joe Wilson, you want to screw with us, with information that probably even know to be false, well we can play tough, too.
First, I didn’t ask that you assume that the reports on WMD were innocent mistakes. I asked that you assume the story that Rove outed an undercover CIA operative in retalliation were true.
In your argument, however, how does someone innocently seeking correct WMD information: a) automatically see Joe Wilson as a “detractor”? What did he say or do to put him in the category of detractor other than to report that his investigation suggested the Niger yellowcake story was not true?);
b) know or assume the yellowcake charge to be true when there is no supporting evidence (as we now know that there never was), especially since any recounting of the timeframe would indicate that the White House had acknowledged the erroneous nature of the yellowcake story at least three days before the actual outing occurred*;
c) choose to act vindictively and criminally when contradictory evidence is raised? How is this an appropriate or consistent response of a group of people engaged in an honest search for the truth?
It really isn’t as easy as you seem to have thought. Your argument is inconsistent with the facts and history, and portrays not an administration making honest mistakes, but one responding to any contradictory evidence by labeling people as detrators and attacking them using illegal means. Doesn’t really add up to much of an argument.
*
I misunderstood your post then. I was not–and will not–get into the WMD arguement. I will point out though, since you’re so interested in the facts and history, that there were two pieces of information pointing to yellowcake. One, weak, was from the US. The other, STILL not retracted, was from the British.
But really, let’s not hijack this thread into an old argument. I understand your position completely. That said, back to your post. It seemed that you were asking if it was possible to reconcile two assumptions:
(emphasis mine)
So do you see how I might have been confused? I thought, Assumption One: The Rove story of revenge is true. Assumption Two: the WMD mistakes were innocent. How can one reconcile those two supposed realities.
Isn’t that what you were asking? If not, oops. Maybe someone else will understand what you mean.
This easily has the potential to be at least as big as Watergate. Be not fooled by the fact that the story started in summer, in the shadow of the London bombings. Watergate started in the summer too, and contemporaneous accounts of the '72 campaign make it clear that not a lot of people paid a lot of attention to it at the time. It didn’t really blow up until sometime in '73, if I remember right, which I probably don’t, having been a mere teenager at the time.
This one will probably blow up sometime next year, which would be very bad for Bush, since that would put the peak of this story smack in the middle of the Congressional campaign.
It will probably take that long because you have to keep in mind that ALL of the levers of power are in the hands of Republicans, which means that there are going to be huge obstacles that need to be moved to get to the point where Rove is actually made to confront his treason. But once that point is reached - watch out! All of the issues that make Iraq a hot button are concentrated in this case, and the question posed by Hentor the Barbarian is going to become the front-and-center question. It will demand a confrontation with the actual truth of how we were bamboozled into going to war with Iraq, and that’s the last thing the Admin will want.
Josh Marshall points out that people like Novak never started denying that he had outed Wilson’s wife until after a series of phone calls with the White House and… Rove.
The latest developments will hopefully have ramifications to the Bush administration. And I say hopefully because it would be nice if the US justice system worked like it was supposed to, and managed to punish Karl Rove for whatever underhanded filth comes up in the investigations. Of course he could come up clean, but I’m speculating otherwise for this post.
Pantom, it is awfully tempting for the Democrats to tie the Iraq war into this. But although it seems likely, given how politicians are, I think that might be a mistake for the Democrats. The US is in Iraq, and both parties agree the job has to be done properly before reducing troops strengths. I think the focus should stay firmly on Karl Rove. That a man like that sits that close to the President, and that everyone in the administration basically gives him that power because of his perceived magical election winning bag of tricks, is one of the most troubling things about the Bush administration.
Frankly, I think Bush, and the Republican Party, can only benefit from excising Karl Rove. They might have a hard time winning the next election, being suddenly forced to play like actual upstanding citizens, probably an unfamiliar feeling given recent behaviour, but it may restore some civility in the party, maybe even as an example to not be all-out-no-holds-barred nasty. At least not all the time.
You remember correctly. The break-in by itself never was and probably never would have been a big deal. It was when the threads of the cover-up started to unravel that all hell broke loose.
Be not fooled that it did any such thing. This story started in July of 2003 with Novak’s column outing Plame. It’s been developing for two 2 years now.
All the evidence of a cover-up is on the table. The key administration and administration water-carrying members have all changed their stories multiple times. After a federal investigation began, we know that Novak had several phone calls with the White House, and then started changing his story about his collumn. The White House denials became more and more legalistic and avoidant. It’s hard to buy that they did this because they believed they had done nothing wrong or that, as the Washington Times claims, that they were virtuous whistleblowers. Especially given that this administration has worked hard to seal up classified information even on long defunct agents and projects from decades ago, the idea that it’s somehow now ok to turn around and expose a front company, an agent, and hence all of her international sources and so forth, is simply bizarre and self-serving.
