Mr. Bush, Have You No Shame?
Whatever happened to the Texas cowboy who would fight to defend the honor of a woman being attacked by bullies? Whatever happened to the Commander-in-Chief responsible for protecting the lives of CIA officers? George Bush, unfortunately is missing in action. He is standing idly by while a legion of Republican operatives fan out on the airwaves in an unrelenting assault on the character and reputation of Valerie Wilson, a CIA intelligence officer. Valerie, who is still a full time employee of the CIA, is not allowed to defend herself against this attack.
At the heart of the matter is the specious claim that she dispatched her husband on the mission to Niger to find out if Iraq was buying uranium. This is the big lie. Didn't happen and here's why:
First, here is what Joe Wilson said in the July 6, 2003 NY Times Op-Ed:
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
Please note that he didn't say, as Republican National Committee operatives repeatedly insist, he was sent by the Vice President.
Second, the Senate Intelligence report on the matter states on pages 38-39:
After reading the report, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for the CIA 's analysis of the issue. In response, the Director of Central Intelligence's (DCI) Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control (WINPAC) published a Senior Publish When Ready (SPWR021402-OS),an intelligence assessment with limited distribution, which said, "information on the alleged uranium contract between Iraq and Niger comes exclusively from a foreign government service report that lacks crucial details, and we are working to clarify the information and to determine whether it can be corroborated. The piece discussed the details of the DO intelligence report and indicated that "some of the information in the report contradicts reporting from the U.S. Embassy in Niamey. US diplomats say the French Government-led consortium that operates Niger 's two uranium mines maintains complete control over uranium mining and yellowcake production." The CIA sent a separate version of the assessment to the Vice President which differed only in that it named the foreign government service-.Officials from the CIA 's DO Counter Proliferation Division (CPD) told Committee staff that in response to questions from the Vice President's Office and the Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD officials discussed ways to obtain additional information. Who could make immediate inquiries into the reporting, CPD decided to contact a former ambassador to Gabon who had a posting early in his career in Niger.
The Senate Intelligence report provides an incomplete and disingenous account of who hired Joe Wilson to go to Niger:
Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former Ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002 , from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.
I say disingenuous for the following reasons. First, the normal procedure when a PDB briefer comes back to headquarters with a request for additional information from the President or Vice President is to inform the Office Chief who in turn informs the Division Chief who then informs the Branch Chief. The Office Chief, the Division Chief, and the Branch Chief are the only decision makers at the CIA outside of the DCI himself who can make a decision to send someone on a trip overseas. Valerie Plame was a member of a branch in the Counter Proliferation Division. She was not and is not the Branch Chief nor the Division Chief nor the Office Chief. She simply was an undercover operative in an operations job that required her to travel under non-official cover overseas.
The memo referenced dishonestly in the Senate Intelligence Committee report neglects to mention that it was written in response to a request from one of Valerie's managers (i.e., the Division Chief or Branch Chief). But the most important aspect of this is that Valerie had no authority to make the decision to send her husband, Joe Wilson, to Niger.
What is really laughable and sad about the White House smear of Valerie Plame is that it is insinuating that the bad news Joe Wilson brought back regarding the absence of any evidence that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger was part of a devious plot hatched by Ms. Plame a full year before President Bush made the mistaken speech claiming that such evidence did exist. Val was a great case officer but not even she could pull off such a sly plan. Moreover, even if she had the authority to send her husband Joe to, she could not guarantee he would return with confirmation that such a plot existed.
I point the reader to one final piece of evidence in the Senate's own flawed report. The U.S. Ambassador to Niger at the time and the Deputy CINC of the European Command (General Fulford) both reached the same conclusion that Joe Wilson did--THERE WAS NO SUBSTANCE TO THE CLAIM THAT IRAQ WAS TRYING TO BUY YELLOW CAKE FROM NIGER.
Every American who cares about our national security and the health of our intelligence services should be outraged over the current campaign being directed by the Republican National Committee to continue to smear the reputation and motives of Valerie Plame, an active employee of the, who is not permitted to answer her critics and must sit quietly by while a group of bullies and cowards like Congressman Peter King, RNC Chairman Mehlman, Cliff May, and Victoria Toensing, among others, spread falsehoods about her status and actions. This is wrong and should not stand.
(ed. note: Larry Johnson is a former CIA officer and counter-terrorism expert.)
Advertisement
This justs shows that the main stream media is now controlled by hugh cororations, probably owned by republicans. Remember how Dan Rather was hammered? why isn't this being put on the fromt pages of all of the newspapers across the nation?
The only good that I see coming out of all of this is that by the time the dust settles, maybe, just maybe the American people will of woken up and vote these bastards out of office and a few of them taking a Martha vatcation.
July 16, 2005 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP noise machine is set at 10. The attack on Joe and Valerie Wilson is the most vicious partisan attack by the GOP I can ever recall...
The outing a Valerie was an organized operation within this administration, I feel reaching up to the OVP at least, and likely higher. The way I look at it is Rove is guilty of either outing her on his own...was a corroborating source for the person (Novak) who outed her...and/or was complicit is covering up the conspiracy to out her. Rove is a disgrace!!
The case you lay out (with intimate knowledge of how the CIA works) is a very persuasive one that neither Valerie or Joe Wilson did anything but do their jobs well. I am fully expecting indictments to be handed down to people in this administration from Fitzgerald's investigation.
July 16, 2005 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has nothing to do with shame and everything to do with an extremely serious error made on the watch of GWB regards the decision to attack Iraq. The administration had full access to all the information documenting the pros and cons. The campaign to go to war very much overshadowed any caution in that regard. Bush commentary stating that war was a last resort was nothing less than a lie and in context has been of great consequence.
The administration has been trying for a long time to figure out a way to deflect responsibility for this war from the WH. People ain't buying and rightly so.
The WH was very aware of the con arguments. This is evidenced by hammering on the pro arguments and downplaying the former. There is very little real wiggle room on this, for it is all a matter of public record. That record indicates no ambiguity on the part of the WH. They know it and are well aware of the consequences. Their actions hence are nothing less than a tacit admittance that they screwed the pooch on the committment to war. The mounting demand for accountability on this has them messing their drawers. And the Dems aren't going to let them off the hook. Their real dilemma though is the voters and the next two elections. The republicans stand to lose big because of this and with that reality staring them square in the face and with everybody watching intently, the minefield they must navigate almost guarantees that there will be some blowups. Rove has stepped squarely on one of those mines and is a likely goner.
thepeoplechoose
July 16, 2005 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the liberals start pounding simple, understandable points again and again, the media will follow.
The conservatives have produced an "analysis" that the entire conservative side of the political spectrum is following and they are having an impact on the media.
The liberals have to produce their own points, in a central location that liberals can advance. Liberals would have as much impact on the media as conservatives.
Here are my points. People who are better at this should make better points and then those liberals who want to become involved writing letters to editors or blogs or comments in blogs or calling political shows will have consistent themes that they can hammer until the media begins to respond.
1. George Bush gave his word, more than once, that the parties that identified Plame would be out of the White House.
2. The exposure of Plame was an organized effort. The identity of Plame was "shopped" by more than one member of the White House to several journalists.
3. Rove and the White House have deliberately lied over the last two years with their claims that they did not know who identified Plame.
4. Rove and the White House, partly through leaks, are deliberately lying today about the circumstances around Plame's exposure. (Novak identified Plame for Rove?, Wilson's trip was approved by his wife?)
July 17, 2005 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the Dems aren't going to let them off the hook.
Give me a break. Where are the useless Dems at this critical point? "Deer in the headlights" is the term most often used to describe their performance on the pundit shows. They cannot believe the bald-faced lies the Rovians are peddling. Duh, where have they been the last 5 ll years?
And why is it the bloggers that have to fill in the missing talking points for the Dems?
Come on, when is the Democratic party going to wake up?
Mr Johnson, you and your colleagues deserve better support than this. Frankly, the whole country deserves a better opposition party than this.
July 17, 2005 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It amazes me that the press keeps repeating easily disprovable characterizations of the Wilsons and the outing of Ms. Wilson.
(1)What Rove said to Cooper, on its own, is a security violation that should have resuilted in an immediate suspension of his secuity clearance.
(2) The Butler report confirms Wilson's editorial. Wilson's editorial says that Iraq didn't purchase yellowcake; so does the Butler report. The Butler report goes on to suggest that the Iraqis may have attempted to buy yellowcake. Even this is disputed by the IAEA, and that dispute is documented in the report.
(3) The whole "his wife sent him" is absolutely ludicrous to anyone who has ever worked for the government and contradicts public CIA statements on the matter.
(4) Ms. Wilson's status is determined by the CIA. Fitzgerald has obviously convinced a panel of judges and the grand jury that a crime may have occurred.
(5) Questions as to the gravity of what was done are a disservice to the country. Anyone who has worked in a classified environment knows not to publicly identify intelligence agents, period. The damage is not just to Ms. Wilson. Mr. Johnson has eloquently described the damage in other posts.
(6) The continued campaign against the Wilsons, in and of itself, is a traitorous act. Every single intelligence professional now must consider the odds that they will be subject to a similar campaign of lies and intimidation for doing their jobs. This does terrible damage to the security of the country.
July 17, 2005 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
STOP.
Ask yourself a question...
Why is it that the fate of America rests in the hands of the RNC and the DNC to determine which of these illegally-funded organized crime rings can shout the loudest to influence public opinion?
Remember a time not so long ago when a (then respected) guy named John McCain fought tooth and nail for something called "Campaign Finance Reform" designed to take the money out of the political process?
What happened to that effort? What happened to that war hero? What happended to America since the failure of that effort?
Think about how much money the RNC spends to purchase air time from the MSM to sell their products (candidates). Is it really any wonder that those CEOs at the largest media companies go out of their way to please one of their largest customers?
The RNC has purchased the control of the MSM through the mechanisms that continues to allow money to influence the electoral and legislative process. McCain said it most clearly and was defeated. Following his defeat on the issue, he ambled over to the trough and joined the rest of the hogs, lining their pockets with our money.
It's OUR Money!
THE PARTY IS OVER.
This two party system has failed. The slippery slopes that the money and the power and the internal political wars fuel have led to the most extreme of outcomes, WAR FOR POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL GAIN, as one might expect.
This is the RNC's war. They bought and paid for the propoganda that SOLD it using their constituent's money to fund the RNC propoganda machine, under the direction and control of Karl Rove - THE ARCHITECT OF THE PROPOGANDA THAT SOLD THE WAR.
AIPAC and the RNC CONSPIRED to place their own OPERATIVES within the White House and Defense Department, once in place, designed a marketing plan and financed the SELLING OF THIS WAR.
Rove is an operative for the RNC, an ORGANIZED CRIME SYNDICATE, on the payroll of the United States Government.
Feith, Fleisher, Bolton, Franklin, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Libby, Abrams, Zakheim and a long list of other OPERATIVES with AIPAC ties were installed in positions necessary to pull off the most elaborate CONSPIRACY ever conceived...to intentionally set the conditions for the invasion of the Middle East by the Government of the United States (we the sheeple).
Read. Learn.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
July 17, 2005 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read. Learn.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5829.htm
July 17, 2005 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The whole issue is a red herring: Iraq already had uranium for its civilian nuclear reactor.
That Iraq already had a nuclear program -- under US approval -- came as something of a shock to our troops who discovered Iraq's rather glowing nuclear waste repository. They weren't briefed about its location. Possibly because the US didn't care enough about it to monitor the waste and track it. The government definitely didn't alert the troops about it.
We really have to ask what the whole shadow play of inspections was all about. There in plain sight was a facility -- the entire Iraqi civilian nuclear industry -- which produced far more lethal material than the object of our inspections. "Straining at a gnat" indeed. Off and on we've been spooked by reports of dirty bombs and yet Iraq was permitted a civilian nuclear program which produced a terrifying amount of lethal material.
I'd like to ask any White House reporters who might read this to ask McClellan about the issue and to get back to us.
July 17, 2005 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The blockbuster news here is "She simply was an undercover operative in an operations job that required her to travel under non-official cover overseas." This is presumably addresses the specific requirement of IIPA that the exposed agent be covert, which requires serving overseas within the last five years. I have no idea whether Fitzgerald is even still contemplating a prosecution under IIPA, but I am quite sure that the rightwing response will be -- indeed, preemptively already has been -- that "served" means "spent a sustained period of time working" overseas, rather than just "working overseas."
And thanks for the clarification on the VW's role in JW's trip -- your earlier post was somewhat misused by some rightwingers.
July 17, 2005 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just as happy as the next guy to see our administration get into hot water over this. Yet however amoral and incompetent I believe our government is right now, I'm a little worried that the partisan tone of all our conversations is pointing us away from the big enchilada, and that is, how do we keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrrorists?
Part of the answer to this question might be: create fewer terrorists (by not invading sovereign countries); part of the answer, on the other hand, might involve unilateral military strikes. Yet it seems to me that no good answers can arise in a world in which all sides are relentlessly partisan.
Let me throw out an idea: is there a sense in which all our desire to see Rove do a perp walk is harmful to what we need to bring sanity back into our political life?
I know: one can argue that the Bush administration is the prime corruptor of our political life; that it's in charge of the most lethal (and lying) attack machines; that it is macchiavellian and knows no sanity or patriotism; etc. That may be true. I'm inclined personally to believe it is.
But even if the Bush administration is literally the Anti-Christ, is the best way to dethrone His power to try to put him in jail, or to focus on building consensus within the American people for facing our future courageously and clearly?
There is no hope that Rove going to prison will be interpreted by America as a whole as an act of non-partisan justice. Instead, it will be spun to gin up a completely counter-productive culture war. What we need is not the inevitably temporary victory of our side. What we need is a healthier public life in which all sides feel they are participating in decisions that matter (and not shadow boxing games on a sinking Titanic).
Suppose every one of us here at TPM cafe, instead of spending 10 minutes a day unravelling scandals, spent 10 minutes a day trying to redirect public energy towards (for example) the problem of nuclear terrorism, or the question of how to stimulate productive public debate?
I think that would be much more worthwhile than a hundred political court cases, however well deserved.
July 17, 2005 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boy do we libruls have a short memory. I am not suprised at this kind of stuff. My memory is capable of going back to the last election. Remember the Swift boat liars for UNtruth. It was an audacious, relentless pack of trumpt up vicious lies. This propaganda on slaught not only trashed a certified American War Hero it also sullied the US Navy, it's Officers, commanders and the entire Military. They not only HAVE NO SHAME they actually revel in the effective of their ruthless smears and lies. Like charlie brown, the comic character, Dem's keep trying to kick the Ball and the Lucy Repiglicans keep repeating their Shameless, rutless, immoral attacks as long as they work and the Dems keep trying to kick their ball and falling on their Asses!
July 17, 2005 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
the meat of the matter is that a State dept. memo containing information that Valerie Wilson was a CIA operative was at the very least viewed by Colin Powell on Air Force One. That information, along with Mrs. Wilson's maiden name, made its way to Robert Novak and he disclosed it to the public at large. A crime was committed. I don't understand why that is still even a matter of debate. The only question now is can Fitzgerald find the original source(s) of the information and can he prove it. Or, can he prove that the crime was "erased" by a cover-up operation.
Everything else is just meant to cloud the issue and is pure spin. The Rove machine understands that its best strategy at this point is to continue the lie and to put the spin machine in overdrive so that should the investigation go their way (no indictments) they can say "see, told you so." They are accustomed to being able to fool enough people enough of the time to get away with just about anything. When the average American is not attentive enough to string it all together in their own heads people like Rove can rule the day.
July 17, 2005 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of Course Mr. Bush has no shame. Hark back to the endless summer of the Watergate Hearings. If Frank Rich's prediction (and a fine prediction it is) that Karl Rove will resign, "the knight takes the sword for the king" who will start the first pool on when Karl Rove walks the plank? The heart of the matter is, Bush locked us into a war by endlessly lying. Is there any chance, Chaney and Mehlman can line up on the plank right behind Rove?
July 17, 2005 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our goal, as patriotic Americans, should be to remove this cancer from our government. The cancer I refer to is not Karl Rove, who is but a pimple on the government's ass. The cancer is George Bush and his puppet master, Dick Cheney. If we all spent this time lobbying our Congressional representatives to begin impeachment proceedings, we might have some positive effect. Expressing our dislike of the pimple isn't likely to.
July 17, 2005 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
We cannot solve the problem of nuclear terrorism when we cannot trust our government; when our government leads us into unjustified wars using every lie at its disposal; when our ruling party "outs" the very operative that is specializing in WMD intelligence for political gain.
July 17, 2005 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
the meat of the matter is that a State dept. memo containing information that Valerie Wilson was a CIA operative was at the very least viewed by Colin Powell on Air Force One.
I recall that a few weeks ago the Bushes had dinner with Powell and spouse.
At the time I figured Bush was realizing he was in a fix in Iraq and was looking for someone to tell him how to get out.
But with the recent revelations, I'm wondering if he wanted to see what Powell might have said to Fitz' grand jury?
What is Powell's role in all of this? I very much doubt he would be as cavalier as the Rovians with national security.... and it's clear he was a behind-the-scenes player in opposing Bolton, probably with a nod from Scowcroft etc....
BTW I'm convinced Bush is in this up to his ears. As Dirty Harry said about Scorpio, "He enjoys it."
July 17, 2005 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arun:
Your point seems to be that removing the Bush administration from power is a precondition for other progress, and the rejuvenation of public life. I would disagree. The problem with American politics is not that we have a bad government (although that's true). The problem with American politics is that American public life is endlessly disfunctional -- there's no room anywhere for reasoned discussion that goes beyond 'on the left', 'on the right' tomfoolery. This creates an environment where ideologues like Rove thrive.
He, in turn, does everything he can to stir the pot. The question then becomes: do we win by being better pot stirrers, or by encouraging some broader transformation of the public dialog? I'm afraid that if we think that we have to get rid of Bush et. al. to have any progress, we'll merely be setting ourselves up for the next degradation of our politics.
I'm afraid that if we focus too much energy on catching Rove on his shady tactics, we'll lose the greater war. Rove will wither on the vine if the public is engaged with real interests in a complex fashion; it's simplistic ideological bickering that allows him and his shady tactics to survive.
Walk Rove out of the White House tomorrow, and he will be instantly replaced by someone just as pernicious; get the nation talking about real issues, and no one will remember his name.
July 17, 2005 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Bush and the GOP have no shame. They have made a political virtue out of unmitigated gall.
It is long past time for those opposed to the GOP abomination that has seized control of the USA to take the gloves off and fight back. Our failure to do so has lost us the respect of too many Americans. Witness Kerry's failure to fight the Swift Boat Liars for Bush.
The GOP understands what too many on the left do not. Not every American voter has an IQ over 120. In fact, half of the population has an IQ under 100, evidenced by the fact that every standard IQ test has a mean of 100. No slur on anyone is meant by this; it's just reality. The practical implication is that effective communication must be simple, short, and easily understood.
That all this is so is demonstrated by the GOP's present defense mode: complicate the issue so much that the average citizen becomes so confused that they tune out.
The way to counter the GOP defense is to keep pounding at the main issue over and over with a very simple statement that the average citizen can understand. Don't be drawn away from the issue by all the flags the GOP is waving about Plame authorizing the trip, Wilson lying about Plame's involvement, etc ad nauseum.
This is really not about Rove, after all. It is all about the GOP lies that suckered the US into Iraq, where we are bleeding lives and treasure and breeding terrorist brigrades who will bedevil us for decades. It is about those GOP lies, and about GOP willingness to cover up those lies by any method, including treasonously outing a US spy to warn others in government to keep quiet. So whatever the short, sweet message is, the opposition has to make it clear that the GOP, not just Rove or Bush, owns this problem. The goal has to be a non-GOP majority in Congress in 2006.
Here are a couple of off-the-cuff attempts at short messages, offered in the hope that they might stimulate more effective, concise, evocative messages that opponents of the GOP could use uniformly and repeatedly to counter the GOP Wurlitzer:
The GOP is covering up their Iraq war lies,
by selling out U.S. spies.
Republicans are selling out US spies,
to cover up their Iraq war WMD lies.
Bottom line, we've got to make it clear to the public that the GOP lied us into the war in Iraq and even treason is not too low for the GOP to stoop if treason will help them cover up the lies for which American troops are now dying.
July 17, 2005 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Johnson, you and your colleagues deserve better support than this. Frankly, the whole country deserves a better opposition party than this.
YES. At the risk of sailing a little close to breaking Godwin's 'law', I'd say that some of the more strident GOP blatherers have been more right than they meant to be when they've compared current American liberals to some of the 'liberals' from the tail end of the 3rd French Republic ('appeasers', etc.). As often happens when people who project their own ugliness and moral turpitude onto others, these blatherers confuse their metaphor: if the temporizing liberals (notable exception Leon Blum) of the French Governmet in the 30s appeased Hitler, who are the temporizing 'moderates' of today appeasing?
All that being said, some Dems are doing OK. Yes, a lot of them are exasperatingly bad at dealing with the outragous spin coming out of the RNC and the WH (Podesta just did pretty well on Meet duh Press), but the press is just abomidable, just a joke these days. Rove runs a domestic Psy Ops program on them, and is embarrassingly effective.
July 17, 2005 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote ... "Witness Kerry's failure to fight the Swift Boat Liars for Bush."
Let's be fairminded about this. The Democratic Party, especially the most leftist factions of it who could not bring themselves to fully support a candidate who had had the audacity to have picked up a gun and become a decorated military hero in Vietnam, left Kerry out to hang by himself. Few Democrats came to his defense. The Swifties had the playing field to themselves as far as most of the Democratic Party was concerned. Kerry could do only so much against the Bush machine by himself, and what he did was effective. Still, he needed the unwaivering and vocal support of the Democratic Party, and he didn't get it. As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic Party will never be able to command the respect of the American people, and win the presidency, until it rids itself of the far left anti-military naybobs in its ranks. They are a plague on our house.
July 17, 2005 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another excellent article from Larry Johnson -- informative and insightful. I had long had a strong sense, for example, that Ms. Plame Wilson probably could not have "authorized" her husband's trip, as the leakers said and the press accounts such as Novak's dutifully repeated. It just didn't make sense. But this post really nails that down, for me.
Remember the title of Matt Cooper's article back at the time was "A War on Joe Wilson." He confirmed this morning on Meet the Press that he still believes that is what this was. The comment that really crystallizes the whole thing was what Karl Rove said to MSNBC's Chris Matthews just as this was breaking loose: "Wilson's wife is fair game." What a breathtakingly cynical, shortsighted, harmful and ultimately unAmerican attitude for a Presidential deputy to take towards a person who has devoted her career to serving as an undercover operative in our nation's intelligence services.
The only problem I have with this post is that is has convinced me that I now have to read pretty much everything Mr. Johnson publishes for a while!
July 17, 2005 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 23088
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 1256
AUTHOR: Sara
DATE: 07/17/2005 09:47:38 AM
July 17, 2005 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 17, 2005 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Mr. Johnson for keeping us on the main points. It has been a thrill to hear from someone who worked in the CIA. I've been wondering what folks there think about this mess.
I also want to point out that we have to stop begging the Democratic Party to come to our rescue. When will we all get off the computer and stand on a picket line in front of the White House and demand accountability from this administration. It's time for action, not continuous reaction.
July 17, 2005 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever happened to the Texas cowboy…
Of course, Bush was never a real Texan or a cowboy. He bought his ranch after becoming a presidential candidate.
…who would fight to defend the honor of a woman being attacked by bullies?
Defending a woman’s honor, like when he spread rumors that Ann Richards was lesbian? He the bully (I should say, Rove is his personal pit bully).
Whatever happened to the Commander-in-Chief responsible for protecting the lives of CIA officers?
Not a real Commander-in-Chief. But he plays one on TV. Look at what he does (as opposed to what he says) vis-à-vis the troops.
George Bush, unfortunately is missing in action.
Nope. Missing from action. He was never in it. But he will readily sacrifice to achieve political goals.
The point here is that it has always been a political act. Bush acts the Patriot, the Uniter, the Compassionate Conservative Christian or whatever role will obtain desired results. A majority of Americans have been and continue to be taken in by this performance because the media is complicit in its execution. Legitimate criticism is smothered by framing it as partisan attack (the liberals are whining again) or by subtly reinforcing the Bush trump card that all criticism of a “war President” is appeasement.
Iraq was a preventive war. We invaded a sovereign nation (and not in pursuit of those who had attacked us), so we had to have a defensive pretext. But the administration cannot let that become the issue. It exposes them and it exposes the media's endorsement of their policies. Instead, Joe Wilson lied about Cheney sending him to Niger. Okay, if he didn’t lie, Valery Plame wasn’t covert. Okay, if she was, we didn’t intentionally out her. Okay, if we did, it’s a small price to pay in the WOT, right? It’s a catch 22. Until the public collectively acknowledges that Bush has no motives other than selfish political ones, the media will play its part in the program and the spin will continue working. Bush has never been anything other than a sleazy political buffoon (our own Ubu Roi).
No, he has no shame.
July 17, 2005 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Borki9:
The big falsehood of the Bush administration was that Iraq was one such place where terrorists would be able to get their hands on nuclear weapons - your big enchilada. Now, until 2008, if Bush says - its Iran, or Pakistan or North Korea - how are we going to believe him? With American reputation in the crapper, where are we going to get international support from? With the military tied down in Iraq, where are we going to muster the military strength from? If there was a real emergency, the draft could be called up - will Bush be now politically able to call up a draft except after the event of a nuclear terrorist strike?
I have no wish for or against Rowe to do the perp walk. If Bush wants to lead us against the great enchilada, he has to come clean - that he misled the country into a war, that the real threat lies elsewhere, and that it is going to require a national effort to thwart that threat.
Otherwise, you and I can come up with good ideas till the cows come home, but the President can't lead us based on them.
July 17, 2005 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Several weeks ago, Mr. Rich wrote "this is worse than Watergate" in another piece concerning Rove and the Bush Administration's deliberate leaking of classified information.
He's right on the money and that is how we should be framing this debacle.
Nixon and his aides conspired over dirty tricks and spying on political enemies. After he resigned in disgrace, Nixon was granted a full pardon for his crimes, specifically in his case, obstruction of justice.
The present criminal issues make dirty politics a side issue which must neccesarilly be addressed.
Nevertheless, what makes this worse than Watergate is that the American public was knowingly duped into sending American men and women into combat on Iraq. Nearly 1,700 have been killed, thousands more maimed.
We haven't yet seen the entire avalanche of GOP obsfucations and slippery Bush administration denials. Issues will get even more confusing as the smokescreen gets thicker and thicker.
Thank you, Mr. Rich. Thank you for setting our compass points, to wit, "this is worse than Watergate."
July 17, 2005 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Podesta just did pretty well on Meet duh Press
Good lord, I should hope so! He only founded and runs the think tank, Center for American Progress which was founded for the purpose of countering the conservative Repubs with progressive facts and talking points!Yet, in the face of all the ill-prepared "liberal" pundits that one sees on TV every day, I find myself being so grateful for the meeting of such baseline expectations.
(All the CAP need do is read the better blogs to gather and then synthesize the best talking points.)
July 17, 2005 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan Wingfoot, give me a freakin' break!
Perhaps there were a few, or even many, on the far left who didn't vote for Kerry because he was too hawkish or too corporate establishment for their tastes. Most leftists and progressive, such as myself, voted Kerry not only because he was a highly acceptable candidate, but mostly because compared to the alternative, he was the glorious essence of the American ideal . But you can't tell me that the left were responsible for his ultimately ineffectiveness as a political campaigner and for his failure to stand firmly on issues, particularly the Iraq war. And they certainly were not responsible for that sickeningly lame "positive" national convention, at which no ill words about the Bush administration were allowed.
Had Kerry played more to the left, more to the progressives, more to the base and more to the average working stiff, he could have won the election going away. Instead, he too decided to win over the Republican lite swing voter.
Anyway, I apologize to Larry Johnson for getting OT from his fine post. But the blaming of the left for Kerry's loss is almost Rovian in it's diversionary tactics and Bushist in it's avoidance of accountability. It too is wrong and should not stand.
July 17, 2005 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
in the face of all the ill-prepared "liberal" pundits that one sees on TV every day, I find myself being so grateful for the meeting of such baseline expectations.
God, ain't that the truth?!
July 17, 2005 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling people Rovian is not a defense of the anti-military Left's indefensable silence during the Swifties attacks. Many on the left are about as absent when the going gets rough in politics as they are absent when the going gets rough in defense of America on the front lines of combat. America can sense this lack of toughness, and it's our Democratic downfall in election after election, even when we run genuine heroes.
July 17, 2005 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.
None of these beliefs are based in fact.
--Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," New York Times, July 10, 2001.
"She has been undercover for three decades"
--Larry C. Johnson, appearance on "Newshour," Sept. 30, 2003.
July 17, 2005 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was never deluded enough to think the George W. Bush would defend my honor. He has never, by his past or present actions, struck me as being an honorable person.
"Whatever happened to the Texas cowboy who would fight to defend the honor of a woman being attacked by bullies?"
July 17, 2005 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"None of these beliefs are based in fact."
--Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," New York Times, July 10, 2001.
"She's been undercover for three decades . . ."
--Larry Johnson, "Newshour with Jim Lehrer," Sept. 30, 2003.
July 18, 2005 5:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hell no, he has no shame. Anyone that could have captained the mess we're in now COULDN'T have any. But at last, it appears, the press and the public are awakening.
July 18, 2005 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed - Johnson is saying here that Plame's duties included overseas travel while a NOC. If that included any travel between July 8th, 1998 and July 8th, 2003 - it would seem to me that even a single trip would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the IIPA.
As it is, I think the IIPA may apply regardless as the revealing Plame's identity in turn revealed the true nature of the cover company she 'worked' for and in therefor revealed the identies of all the other "employees" of that company.
July 18, 2005 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's keep it simple for the red staters.
The Bush administration was upset with Joe Wilson.
What did they do? They went after his wife.
What type of scumbags go after a man's wife?
July 18, 2005 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see where Bush has come out and lowered his standards for firing someone on his staff in the Plame Affair. Now, the person has to be found guilty of the crime. Before it was being involved with leaking information about CIA agents. ABC political page has the gall to say Bush is "reiterating" his vow. News to ABC, changing your vow is not reiterating.
July 18, 2005 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the points #1-4 listed above, but I'd subsume them under point #5:
The Bush gang damaged national security by exposing an undercover agent (who was fighting against WMD)... they undercut our war effort to try to save their own skins.
Anybody with a "Support Our Troops" sticker on their car (including me) can relate to this... and can then ask the next questions about how and why.
Ed
July 18, 2005 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Johnson:
I appreciate your efforts to get to the bottom of this issue. But, how do we know that *you* don't have some hidden agenda here that dovetails nicely with righting this wrong that was inflicted on Ms. Plame, Mr. Wilson and the American people?
Besides some generalities that you worked at the Directorate, there's no way we'll ever know the nature of your work at the CIA unless Congress or the president act to make it public. A highly unlikely scenario. So why should we trust you? For all we know you could have been involved in one of dozens of infamous CIA projects of the past and asked to leave the agency.
July 18, 2005 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink