<p>'tux, you’re embarassing yourself in your need to spit bile at those whose political opinions you disagree with. “Dingleberries?” “Herr Wilson?” What is your problem? She was “known as Plame” before her marriage because — that was her name. The fact that she was married to Wilson was public record, whether published in “Who’s Who” or not. Whether referred to as Plame or Wilson there was no reason for Novak to mention her – at all. The motive for dragging Wilson’s wife into the story (whether or not she was a CIA operative) is the point Novak – and you – seem to be trying to obscure.</p>
<p>Kluge, asserting that “there was no reason for Novak to mention her [Plame/Wilson],” tends to “obscure” “the motive for dragging Wilson’s wife into the story…”</p>
<p>Novak has stated that his curiosity was piqued after Wilson’s op-ed by the question “Why Wilson?” He wasn’t CIA, he wasn’t a State star, he had no WMD expertise. Novak, with a lot of beltway experience, knows quite a bit about the conflict that goes on beneath the radar between the White House (any White House) and the entrenched non-political employees at State and CIA. It was a logical question to ask. He found an interesting answer.</p>
<p>Why is the answer “interesting?”</p>
<p>Got awfully quiet in here all of the sudden… 7 posts on “intelligent design” since 6 PM but no explanation about why the answer to Novak’s “logical” question was “interesting?” Driver - are you just letting the suspense build?</p>
<p>Metaphysics always takes precedence over politics, kluge. Novak’s question (and answer) were interesting because they addressed the bona fides of the “Niger mission.” First, there was a good deal of disagreement between CIA/State employees with the Bush administration over policy. Policy, not just disagreements over intelligence assessments. So, why did CIA send Wilson–no diplomatic star, not CIA, and a Bush opponent–on a trip to Niger, allegedly at the administration’s behest? Why Wilson? The fact that his wife, a CIA employee had suggested him to the agency, is interesting. They could have sent someone else. Someone more qualified, and with less of an axe to grind.</p>
<p>Well, it’s a nice theory - until it hits the facts. Why Wilson? Wilson was a former ambassador to two African nations (and former acting ambassador to Iraq) – appointed by G.H.W. Bush – with extensive contacts in Africa, and he’d been sent on a similar fact-finding mission to Africa relating to Niger uranium before, in 1999. He was knowledgible, experienced and credible: a very well qualified person to send on this mission. And the basis for your opinion re: his “star” quality is — what? </p>
<p>No, that’s not why Novak’s curiosity was “piqued”. Occam’s razor suggests the real reason that Wilson’s wife was dragged into the discussion is more basic:</p>
<p>“July 12, 2003 Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus is told by an administration official that that White House had ignored Joseph Wilsons 2002 trip to Niger because it was a boondoggle set up by his wife. (” Anonymous Sources, Nieman Reports 27, Summer 2005). Pincus did not report his conversation because, as he would later describe, Plame’s name was never mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to generate an article, but rather to undermine Wilson 's report. <a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html[/url]”>http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html</a></p>
<p>–In other words, classic Rovean slimeola - you can’t beat the facts, so you “undermine” the messenger. I repeat what I said before: whatever Wilson’s wife’s role was in the decision to send him to Africa was, it doesn’t change the “bona fides” of his observations and conclusions. Dragging her into it didn’t have anything to do with the CIA, but a lot to do with contemporary Republican “debate” tactics. </p>
<p>I recognize that anyone who’s not an absolute Dubya love slave is considered a Bush “opponent” - but remember, Wilson actually donated $1,000 to the Bush campaign in 1999!</p>
<p>Kluge, simply using your factcheck link, here is why Wilson is no State department “star” : 1988-1991: deputy ambassador (charge-d’affaires) in Iraq under the famous April Glaspie (who left Saddam with the impression it was OK to invade Kuwait); The braggadocious Mr. Wilson loves to tout the fact that he (Wilson) was praised by Bush 1 for his performance when things fell apart there, and Glaspie was recalled…and he may well deserve praise, for helping Americans get out, etc. But, he was considered so talented and essential that the grateful Bush 1 sent him to the vital African nation of Gabon…and to the the critical but miniscule offshore nation of the Democratic Republic of S</p>
<p>You seem to think being appointed a U.S. Ambassador is the equivalent of being named hall monitor. Other than the twenty or so guys who have been named as ambassadors based on the sterling qualification of having given a lot of money to the Bush campaign, being named ambassador as a career appointment - to any country - is actually the mark of being considered pretty good at your job. The only thing that smells in this scenario is the strained effort to belittle a man whose only sins are a failure to kowtow to your political favorites - and being right.</p>
<p>Except that he was wrong. That pesky bi-partisan Senate report blew his credibility.</p>
<p>Here’s a good timeline of the story:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html[/url]”>http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html</a></p>
<p>I’ve seen the timeline. It and I both missed a interesting fact in the Senate Intelligence Committee Report that I saw on a blog just tonight. It turns out that the day Cheney was briefed a second time after asking about the Niger report was the very day Wilson returned to the CIA and was debriefed. </p>
<p>Yep, just looked at the report and it’s there in black and white on page 43. Cheney asked for an update on his Niger question on March 3. On March 5, he was briefed that Niger was doing everything to make sure its uranium was being used for peaceful purposes (not the question he asked, btw). Then the report continues, “Later that day two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day.”</p>
<p>If true, it explains why Wilson’s report never made it to Cheney. The CIA had already responded to him and deciding there was no new information in Wilson’s report, they didn’t do an update.</p>
<p>Interesting that this story has largely disappeared from the headlines. Is it because everyone in Washington goes on vacation in August?</p>
<p>Possibility A: The press can chase only one sensational anti-Bush story at a time and with the competition from Cindy Sheehan and the John Roberts smear campaign, the Rove issue loses out.</p>
<p>Possibility B: The press is letting the special prosecutor do his business, knowing that eventually the truth will come out and justice will be served.</p>
<p>My money is on “A”.</p>
<p>I find it interesting that its smear John Roberts and not smear Sheehan. I guess she can be questioned about everything and he cannot be, even though he will be one of the most powerful people in the world.</p>
<p>We can search her history, her marriage, her statements, and that is okay, but we can’t ask questions about or to Roberts.</p>
<p>Possibility C - There are so many stories out there that reveal Bush to be a terrible president and only so much newspaper space.</p>