Claim Karl Rove was leak in CIA outing

Parent Cafe
461

<p>“Most of what Wilson says is reasoned and reasonable. When he gets to his accusation, that if the Administration ignored his opinion, it has to be manipulating the evidence, he’s all wet. All the authoritative accounts show that the CIA found his report added little new information and filed it with out showing it to anyone in the Administration. Bush and company didn’t ignore it, they never saw it or knew it existed.”</p>

<p>Here’s what Wilson said: “There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.” … "Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president’s office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government. </p>

<p>The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses."</p>

<p>Wilson’s “answer” was that the report that Iraq had a contract to buy Uranium from Niger was bogus. Perhaps it’s accurate to say that that it did not, in fact, add anything new: the fact that the “yellowcake” report was bogus should have been abundantly clear even without Wilson’s confirmation. As Wilson noted, the phoniness of the documents upon which it was based was verified independent of Wilson’s efforts. But the exact level of the Administration which was responsible for burying information which in any way conflicted with the Bush justification for going to war isn’t significant; what is significant is that the facts - set forth in plain language by Wilson in his op-ed piece - were obvious. It was not an unreasonable conclusion to draw, from the facts known to Wilson, that the failure to acknowledge those facts was due not to their lack of clarity, but rather to an unwillingness to acknowledge them.</p>

<p>But even if you’re right - even if Ambassador Wilson is a bad person because he concluded from the facts he set forth in his op-ed piece that the Administration refused to acknowledge the falsity of the Niger Uranium claim because they didn’t want it to be false, rather than because the evidence pointed to truth - how does that justify bringing his wife into the matter? Forget the CIA part - how does Mrs. Wilson’s involvement in the decision to send Ambassador Wilson to Niger - whatever that involvement was - affect the accuracy of what he observed in that country? Would he have been more qualified to have the meetings and ask the questions he asked if he were married to someone else?</p>

<p>Starting the rumor, attacking Wilson through what was essentially a whispering campaign by suggesting that his conclusions were “suspect” because he was “sent by his wife” is a classic ad hominem attack. (The fact that she was a CIA operative was an unfortunate, and I’m sure unintended glitch - I get that.) But the ad hominem attack on Wilson isn’t just a logical fallacy - it’s slimy. And you just dance past that. That is what bothers me. Because it was an illegitimate method of attacking a person whose opinion embarrassed the Administration in lieu of honestly addressing the substance of what he was saying - and that fact should be easy to recognize.</p>

462

<p>

Where do you find evidence of an “ad hominem attack” ? Maybe I missed something but it appears that Roves involvement with Novak was “I heard that too” That’s hardly an ad hominem attack. With Wilson, he attempted to direct him away from the concept that Cheney was directly involved with the request to send Wilson to Niger. While Wilson’s op-ed never claimed this, we all know how stories evolve in the media. Cooper was likely going to take the Wilson piece and grow it along the lines that Wilson started - i.e., that the administration was keenly interested in the findings of Wilson’s trip but then shelved it once he didn’t produce the right results. To this seed, Cooper was going to draw the linkage to Cheney that much more tightly by asserting that Cheney was the one to have personaly sent Wilson on the mission. Rove was attempting to keep the story from erroneously growing in this direction by correctly telling Cooper that it was not Cheney, but rather Plame who suggested that Wilson might be a good representative. As of the exchange with Cooper, I still don’t see any attempt by Rove to sling mud at Wilson and certainly far from an ad hominem attack.</p>

463

<p>CGM–How about a translation of #460? It was apparently garbled in transmission.</p>

<p>Kluge, you seem to have not read the Senate Intelligence Committee report–or even an accurate news account of what was in it. No one in a position to matter…repeat, nobody…cites Wilson’s original op-ed piece, or his subsequent book–except as examples of his incompetence and duplicity.</p>

464

<p>All the speculation about this affair is harmless, and even interesting. Where I have a problem is with those who assert certain things as verities when there is clearly nothing to back it up. Anyway, this is the most intelligent piece on the Plame game that I’ve read in a long time. Short and to the point.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/071405.html[/url]”>http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/071405.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

465

<p>Driver, I did read it - at least, those portions relating to Wilson. I noted (a) it’s obsession with Wilson’s wife (relevance?); (b) it’s straining at gnats and swallowing of camels regarding Wilson and (c) contrary to what Fundingfather would like to believe, the only evidence of an “attempt” by Iraq to purchase uranium was the report that a former Nigerien offical stated that he had been urged to meet with an Iraqi group in 1998 to discuss “expanding commercial relations” which he “interpreted” to mean sale of uranium, although when they met uranium was never mentioned. Not exactly a smoking gun. </p>

<p>And Driver, for future reference, the logical fallacy you use when you cite “no one in a position to matter” as a basis for the correctness of your opinions is “appeal to authority”. </p>

<p>Fundingfather - fear of what a reporter might be thinking about doing as a basis for fingering Plame? Pretty weak. The fact is, Plame’s role in the decision to send Wilson was not that of a decision maker - that’s clear. She knew her husband was qualified for the job (he was) and listed his qualifications in a memo requested by whoever did have the authority to send him. She didn’t “send” Wilson; it is a gross distortion to say so. So what’s the point of bringing her up at all? </p>

<p>Well, this is what Karl Rove told Matt Cooper, the <strong>other</strong> reporter we know Rove chatted with about Wilson’s wife: “it was, KR said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.” … "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there’s still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger … "</p>

<p>“The genesis of the trip is flawed and suspect” What, exactly, was it about the “genesis” of the trip which was “suspect?” And what the heck does that have to do with the soundness of Wilson’s conclusions?</p>

466

<p>You still have not answered my question, in your opinion, has this administration ever done anything wrong?</p>

<p>Depends on what the meaning of “wrong” is. :smiley: </p>

<p>Of course. I’ve linked to articles from SpinSanity and FactCheck.org. They’re hardly soft on the Bush Administration or anyone else. I may occasionally quibble with their interpretation of things, but they make sense a surprising percent of the time. Bringing up things that Bush and Co. did wrong is your job, not mine though. ;)</p>

<p>I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government. </p>

<p>I don’t think anything in Wilson’s op-ed piece portrays him as a “bad man”. I do think the assumption he made, that if the Administration ignored his report, it was because they were manipulating the evidence, is extremely arrogant. Worse, he specifically asked to know how he might be wrong. Enough has been written to show that his assumption, that the Administration knew about his report before the State of the Union Address in 2003, was simply wrong. He has never, apologized for the accusation, acknowledged that there might be good reasons the Administration didn’t react to a report it never saw, or tried to moderate what he said given that he his conclusion in the op-ed piece was wrong.</p>

<p>Instead he’s been on the attack ever since. He claims that someone told him that two Administration officials were calling reporters to deliberately smear is wife. There’s no evidence of anyone calling reporters or anything that could conceivably be considered a smear (I’m sorry, I can’t imagine anyone upset over his wife recommending him for the trip to Niger. What’s the smear? Exploiting her contacts? Nepotism? When Colin Powell’s son was running the FCC?) He’s accused everyone but the Pope of being “the leaker” on the flimsiest evidence. He’s lied on more than one occasion about is wife’s involvement and other things. He exploit the situtation with a book and tried to exploit it to his political advantage buy joining the Kerry Campaign last year, though for reasons we don’t know, the Campaign began to distance themselves from him shortly afterward.</p>

<p>So, I don’t think he’s a bad person because his opinion differed from that of the CIA analysts who took report or the Admininstration’s. I think he’s been less than honest and has let an accusation against the Administration that he should know is untrue, at least as he states it, hang over the Administration. If he had the integrity I thought I read in his op-ed piece, he would have admitted he was wrong about that. I wouldn’t mind if he continued to believe evidence was manipulated, but he’d need a different reason to believe it that that the Administration was never aware of him or his report.</p>

467

<p>Nevermind, I can see that some people think our government and the administration and all the Republicans and Bush’s people are perfect. That is pretty damn scary. NO body is perfect and because people refuse to answer the question, that is the conclusion I make.</p>

<p>People preach that everyone else is wrong- the press, the critics, the people that show the government made some bad decisions, and yet the Adminstration is flawless. And if the Administration is flawless, then anything they do deserves no questions or explanations.</p>

<p>So don’t answer the question, because people refuse to even see the possiblity that the Administration might have made some errors.</p>

<p>You ask us to answer questions about Wilson, well answer some about about the people accusing Wilson, and Clark and Plame and all the others who have been smeared</p>

<p>There is no point in even having a discussion with someone who sees no wrong in an organization made of humans, who by just percentages must make mistakes. And in Government to deny making of mistakes, well that is the ultimate of arrogance.</p>

<p>It is almost a worship/cultlike mentallity, a religion of faith, and with that, there is no questioning.</p>

468

<p>“There’s no evidence of anyone calling reporters or anything that could conceivably be considered a smear (I’m sorry, I can’t imagine anyone upset over his wife recommending him for the trip to Niger. What’s the smear? Exploiting her contacts? Nepotism?”</p>

<p>Check out Patuxent’s post #199.</p>

469

<p>

That may be how they explain that expression in the self-help books, but in the context I used, it referred to the people who actually have jurisdiction over the matter, rather than the chatterers–all of us on CC included in that latter group.</p>

470

<p>

NO … this is NOT correct. The evidence to that fact comes from British intelligence as specified by the State of the Union address and as verified by the Butler report to be factual. The fact that Wilson also reported the same thing was just additional evidence that Iraq was indeed out there scouring the market for uranium. </p>

<p>I know that you would like to sweep the evidence away to make your case, but it keeps coming back. Watch out or we’ll sick the CGM morals squad on you for willfully ignoring information in order to smear a person for political gain.</p>

<p>So, as a prudent person what would you conclude from this evidence? a or b? (see #459)</p>

471

<p>This is what you said: “No one in a position to matter…repeat, nobody…cites Wilson’s original op-ed piece, or his subsequent book–except as examples of his incompetence and duplicity.”</p>

<p>Thank you for your clarification: When you say “no one in a position to matter” you mean “No Republicans in power…” </p>

<p>I’m sorry to see that you can’t tell the difference between a “self-help” book and standard text on logic and deceptive rhetoric… Try googling “logical fallacies” and do some reading.</p>

472

<p>Even the Dems in a position to matter, i.e. those who have to sign their names to an official report, have distanced themselves from Wilson’s op-ed and book. It would be a logical fallacy to do otherwise.</p>

473

<p>The Butler report is a political whitewash aimed at preventing embarrassment for the Blair government. It cites no basis for its conclusion and IAEA has concluded–conclusively–otherwise. And there’s the overlooked fact that the production of Nigerian “yellowcake” is more or less “spoken for” by various purchasers and that the amounts alleged for purchase by Iraq comprise the greater amount of Niger’s annual production.</p>

<p>The Butler report doesn’t mean jack. It’s as if you used memos by Bush to clear Cheney and memos by Cheney to clear Bush.</p>

474

<p>FF: The Butler report re: Niger (in toto): </p>

<p>From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:</p>

<p>a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.</p>

<p>b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.</p>

<p>c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.</p>

<p>I’m underwhelmed.</p>

475

<p>Of course, Bush only said b. And since the Butler report doesn’t agree with your pre-conceived opinions/desires, it , like the Senate Intelligence Committee report, and the report of the 9/11 Commission, are all bunk. We’d better go see what the KosKids or Juan whatsisname are putting out.</p>

476

<p>*Nevermind, I can see that some people think our government and the administration and all the Republicans and Bush’s people are perfect. *</p>

<p>RFLMAO, citygirlsmom, that’s funny. Why should we spend any time being critical here when there are so many who will do it for us?</p>

477

<p>Should Bush fire Rove? I don’t know but he should certainly fire Plame for nepotism.</p>

<p>Ok, but that’s the worse we could do? No comments about dragging a $10 bill through a trailer park, no IRS audits, just that Plame used her contacts to get someone the CIA considered qualified to make the trip?</p>

<p>Like I said, I don’t quite buy that stands up as a smear campaign. That’s not even softball in DC, that’s T-ball.</p>

<p>When you say “no one in a position to matter” you mean “No Republicans in power…”</p>

<p>Do you consider George Tenet, who was appointed by Clinton, a Republican? How about Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>He’s on the Senate Intelligence Committee and is one of 3 Senate Democrats who signed their report on the matter, right? You’ve read what the main reports says, not what the Republicans added, just the main report. It does not agree with what Wilson wrote in his op-ed, especially with his brazen assumption that any saw his report.</p>

478

<p>“Brazen assumption?” If I were asked to go to Niger to look into something the Vice President had questioned, and brief four people on what I had found, it would seem natural to assume my findings were reported to the Vice President.</p>

<p>I still believe that to be true, by the way, in view of Cheney’s circumlocutions.</p>

479

<p>Greybeard, there’s no evidence it ever was reported to the VP and substantial evidence it was spiked. You seem to believe on faith alone.</p>

<p>I don’t believe it’s true and I believe that Wilson owes the President an apology. I believe he was more incensed that HE, Joseph C. Wilson IV, had been ignored than anything else.</p>

480

<p>I believe it based on Cheney’s circumlocution. “I’ve never met Joe Wilson, and if he wrote a report I never read it.”</p>

<p>Wilson said in his NY Times op-ed piece that he hadn’t written a report -he had give four oral briefings.</p>

<p>Cheney’s a careful man. It would have been simple to deny having been briefed on the trip. I think it’s telling that he didn’t do so.</p>