McClellan
So many are abuzz about the excerpt from McClellan's book. Goes like this:
So, although there's a good chance that somebody in this mix was lying, and though it'd be good for the country if this matter were thoroughly investigated, nothing McClellan says here adds to our knowledge of the matter.
Finally, though, it's not clear why McClellan would be so upset about this. It's fairly clear to everyone who is paying attention that it is basically the job of the press secretary in the Bush White House to pass along false information. So c'mon, Scott. You knew the job was duplicitous when you took it. I could be wrong, of course, but I always just assumed that you knew what you were doing. In fact, that's why you weren't a stellar press secretary. Unlike Ari Fleischer or Tony Snow, you seemed to be genuinely embarrassed by some of the hogwash you were spouting.
But, anyway, the main point here is that I just don't see that we now know anything about all this that we didn't know a week ago.
So many are abuzz about the excerpt from McClellan's book. Goes like this:
"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby
"There was one problem. It was not true.
"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."Now, by this time it's hardly a secret that there are all sorts of dirty dealings in the Bush White House. But it's obvious that McClellan's claim here, even if 100% true, does not entail that there was wrong-doing on the part of any of the persons named. What he says is that the five named people were involved in McClellan's unknowingly passing on false information. Nothing in the above entails that any of the five people knew that they were passing on false info.
So, although there's a good chance that somebody in this mix was lying, and though it'd be good for the country if this matter were thoroughly investigated, nothing McClellan says here adds to our knowledge of the matter.
Finally, though, it's not clear why McClellan would be so upset about this. It's fairly clear to everyone who is paying attention that it is basically the job of the press secretary in the Bush White House to pass along false information. So c'mon, Scott. You knew the job was duplicitous when you took it. I could be wrong, of course, but I always just assumed that you knew what you were doing. In fact, that's why you weren't a stellar press secretary. Unlike Ari Fleischer or Tony Snow, you seemed to be genuinely embarrassed by some of the hogwash you were spouting.
But, anyway, the main point here is that I just don't see that we now know anything about all this that we didn't know a week ago.
posted by Winston Smith at
10:52 AM
46 Comments:
I assume the excerpt is about the outing of covert CIA agent Valarie Plame.
Do we know anything now we didn't know a week before? No.
However, McClellan's claim here, if 100% true, entails that there was wrong-doing on the part of Libby and Rove. Rove testified under oath that he revealed Plame's identity as a CIA agent to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. For Rove to then claim to McClellan that he had not done means that he lied to McClellan.
Libby's trail made it quite clear that Libby, too, had revealed Plame's identity to reporters. For Libby to then claim to McClellan that he had not done means that he lied to McClellan.
Libby and Rove reported directly to Cheney and Bush. Cheney's handwritten comments on Wilson's op-ed piece make it unreasonably to believe he was unaware of the concerted effort to damage our nation's security by outing Plame.
The direct evidence on Bush's involvement is lacking. However, given Bush's track record, I see no rational basis to extend to him the benefit of doubt, and, in fact, am convinced that to extend to Bush the benefit of doubt at this point weakens public discourse. Having been shown to be a liar and deceiver in other areas, Bush has earned the presumption of deceit.
It was the liar Joe Wilson who undermined the nation's security, undermining the presidency and the war effort.
His apologists have never acknowledged that fact, and to this day still wring their hands over Plame, whose questionable "outing" damaged nothing.
To impeach Wilson's credibility was necessary and proper, with real lives at stake, not theoretical ones.
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
Washington Post, an acceptable source. You could look it up. But you won't.
You could look it up:
A July 2006 Washington Post news report, however, suggested that Bush's speech and selective declassification gave the impression that the intelligence was more certain than it truly was, supporting Wilson's claims.
[22] David Corn has also supported Wilson's editorial.[23]
Was Plame a CIA agent? Without question, for if she were not, the CIA could not have referred her outing to Justice for investigation.
Did it cause damage? Her ability to speak to this is limited, although she has publicly asserted that the disclosure of her identity "was very serious. It puts in danger, if not shuts down, the operations that I had worked on."
Ex-CIA agents (registered Republicans, no less) are on record as saying:
"This was a betrayal of national security."
and
"This has never been done by the United States government before. The exposure of an undercover intelligence officer by the U.S. government is unprecedented."
No doubt Tom will tell us of his experience as a covert agent that has led him to believe otherwise.
(The content of Wilson's article is, of course, a red herring. Even if Wilson's article had been as shot full of lies as BushCo's call to invade Iraq, this still would not justify retaliation against his wife. Only a scoundrel, lacking all honor, could be so cowardly as to attack a man's wife for what he has said.)
It wasn't retaliation, it was trying to short-circuit Wilson's lies.
But nobody cared. They were hearing what they wanted to hear, and spread his lies. they still repeat them.
And until there's some acknowledgment or concern about the damage Wilson's lies did to the country, this is all just posturing.
"Gee, I'm sorry. I was so happy to have something to bash Bush with, that I didn't even notice that Joe Wilson was lying.
Sorry about making so much noise on his lying behalf."
You know. Something like that.
DA, the Wikipedia, being the Wiki, seems to be missing the part where Joe Wilson is a liar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle
Tom posts:
It wasn't retaliation, it was trying to short-circuit Wilson's lies.
Oh -- Iraq *did* buy Yellowcake from Niger! I missed the announcement that we had found it in Iraq after the invasion. [/sarcarsm]
IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei
was unambiguous in reporting in March 2003:
With regard to uranium acquisition, the IAEA has made progress in its investigation into reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger in recent years. The investigation was centered on documents provided by a number of states that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001.
...
The IAEA was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the government of Niger and to compare the form, format, contents and signature of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation.
Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.
So Wilson's key finding was absolutely correct.
BushCo was so afraid of the American People learning the truth that they blew the cover of a CIA agent in a feeble effort to discredit Wilson's accurate determination that Iraq did not try to obtain yellowcake from Niger.
Not at all. Wilson lied. Read the article.
There were several sources of information about Iraq fishing around Niger for yellowcake, not just el-Baradei's.
And it's sought to buy. You needn't have gilded the lily with your sarcarsm, Jim.
I don't mind disagreement about stuff, but please, read my arguments first, in this case from the Washington Frigging Post:
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts.
Joe Wilson lied, and then hid behind his wife's skirts. If he and Plame cared so much about her status, Wilson should have confined his lies to cocktail parties.
"Gee, Tom, Wilson did lie, but Bush etc., etc., etc."
See, I could go for that. Everything would be back to normal.
Wow, suddenly Tom thinks lying about matters of national security is important. This is progress!
As for whether *Wilson* lied...I still can't see that the evidence supports that claim, though the righties keep saying it over and over again. Will read again, tho.
Tom posts:
Joe Wilson lied, and then hid behind his wife's skirts.
Wilson did not blow his wife's cover. Rove & Libby did. Clearly Wilson was not "hid[ing] behind his wife's skirts."
Tom, I'm happy to discuss the report of the Senate Intelligence committee, and its claims that Plame recommended him for the job in another thread. However, even if Wilson lied in his Op-Ed piece, there was no justification for the Bush administration disclosing the classified information that Plame was a CIA agent.
Why do you claim that Wilson's alleged lies justified releasing the classified information that Plame was a CIA agent, given that Wilson never mentioned his wife until after Rove & Libby blew her cover?
1. Woops. Read the wrong thing.
2. Sure looks like Wilson lied...though I've seen him try to answer some of these claims in at least semi-plausible ways. Still, doesn't look good.
3. Jim b's right, though--it's a different subject. If we use the fact that Wilson lied to screen the admin from blame, then we can use the fact that the administration was lying about WMDs/al Qaeda to screen Wilson from blame...and no matter how we go, we're back to asking about the actual issue in question--the role of top admin officials in outing Plame.
(In fact, I suspect that what happened is pretty much like this:
The admin was, as we all know, distorting the evidence about WMDs/aQ. Wilson got fed up with it, noted that the yellowcake case was weak, and, in response to all the duplicity, exaggerated his evidence. This is the kind of thing that goes on all the time in these cases. Everybody is sure that their opponent is dirty...far dirtier than the evidence actually shows. But instead of saying that, they exaggerate the evidence until it "shows" the opponent to be as dirty as he's suspected of being.
This is an important point, and political discourse would be a lot more reasonable and productive if we could even throttle back on this by 10%)
Winston,
What specific lies do you attribute to Wilson's orignial Op-Ed piece?
Do you base your assessment on:
* Ms Schmidt's account in the WaPo?
* The text of the committee report, or
* The "additional views" by Roberts, Bond and Hatch, which are not part of the report? (They begin on page number 441 of the report, the 453rd page of the .pdf document.)
Wilson's response to the additional views of Roberts, Bond, and Hatch committe's report can be found at Salon. It is only two pages long, but I find it persuasive.
Tom posted:
And it's sought to buy. You needn't have gilded the lily with your sarcarsm, Jim.
Tom is, of course, right on both counts.
The allegation was that Iraq sought to buy, not that Iraq had bought.
The sarcasm was uncalled for. My apologies to all.
Best Wishes,
Jim
You're right, Jim. Suspension of judgment called for right now. Gotta read more stuff.
However, even if Wilson lied in his Op-Ed piece, there was no justification for the Bush administration disclosing the classified information that Plame was a CIA agent.
Justification is a tough word. Joe Wilson threw the nation into turmoil. It should not be contentious to say that he undermined the war effort. I mean, that was his purpose in going public in the first place.
There was an obvious risk to his wife's status---whatever that was---so even if we ascribe good motives, he felt that undermining the war was more important. OK.
But ascribing more than a fit of pique to the administration (tough to do, but stay with me here), I argued, "To impeach Wilson's credibility was necessary and proper, with real lives at stake, not theoretical ones."
So, as a moral conundrum with no bad guys, Wilson and the administration are just different sides of the same coin.
Plame's status is the red herring here, and the couple's behavior after the "outing" supports the proposition that there was little at risk in the real world.
They are not heroes, and I object to them being treated as such, with fawning 60 Minutes features, and continued support from partisans. Joe Wilson did throw this nation into turmoil, becoming the banner behind which the "lies" stuff rallied. Perhaps some believe that such things have no real effect out in the real world, but I am not one of them. Al-Jazeera, etc.
I suppose Kant says lying is always wrong, WS, but when it comes to national security, the difference between theory and practice is highlighted. But that's another discussion.
Tom asserts:
To impeach Wilson's credibility was necessary and proper, with real lives at stake
Tom, why do you believe this?
Publishing the truth about Bush's misuse of known-bad intelligence to promote the war is not "undermining the presidency and the war effort" -- it is a patriotic act.
I tried to leave the truth claims out for the first part of my exploration, that they were all part of the same coin, all operating from patriotic motives.
Putatively and in the abstract.
You think Bush is a liar and I think the same of Joe Wilson. I have learned to anticipate no further progress on such things.
Bush will be gone soon, there's an election coming up, and there will still be Iraq. We'll still have much to discuss.
I like this:
Tom: "I tried to leave the truth claims out for the first part of my exploration"
combined with
Tom: "You think Bush is a liar and I think the same of Joe Wilson. I have learned to anticipate no further progress on such things."
If you're sticking by your convictions regardless of what happens, as your last post suggested, then that's not much of an "exploration", now is it, Tom?
You like to throw terms like that a lot - "inquiry", "exploration", whatever. You never really seem to be doing any of it, though. You just say what you think and, regardless of what anyone else says, you stick to what you think.
That's neither exploration nor inquiry. That's just seeking scraps of evidence to justify your already-held beliefs. It's lame.
I feel a summary is necessary here, but I don't have much time, so this is all I could muster:
Summary:
All I can tell from a quick read of these comments is that you, Tom, think that Joe Wilson came back from his investigation lying about what he found out. You think that this warrants the Bush administration's behavior in outing his CIA agent wife's status as a covert operative because this would "short circuit" his lies.
So basically you think:
1) Joe Wilson lied about his findings.
2) Performing activity x, which is an action that causes Joe Wilson's wife and the CIA harm in order to substantiate an explanation of his lies, is a good way to combat his lies.
3) The Bush administration performed activity x.
4) Therefore, the Bush administration employed good measures in combating the lies of Joe Wilson.
Thus far, the counters I've seen to this position have been critiques of (1) with the suggestion that Joe Wilson did not lie, and (2) that this behavior is an inappropriate response to lies.
Tom seems to not care about the critique of (1). He has said that he will believe that Joe Wilson is a liar, and that he doesn't believe that there is any potential for a change in this belief to be made as a result of discussion here.
As for (2), Tom seems to think that it's ok to hurt Joe Wilson, his wife, and damage the job she was doing in order to damage his reputation and save the nation from the turmoil resulting from Joe Wilson's eggregious lies about the administration's behavior.
For (2), I just don't understand. I don't understand why one would have to do anything but confront Wilson with the facts if it was so clear that he lied. This could've been an actual discussion that led to a more thorough understanding of the issue of the invasion of Iraq. However, instead, the Bush administration employed tactics aimed at damaging the reputation of Wilson which, in the process, destroyed his wife's career and damaged the work she had done for the CIA, a key tool in the fight against terrorists, actually.
How could this be the proper way to go about doing things? If Joe Wilson lied about his findings and was so obviously wrong, why not an actual discussion of the issue?
I think the point is lost when it comes to (2), Tom. It seems pretty clear that that sort of behavior is, in fact, not an appropriate response to lies.
As for (1), I just hope everyone has noted that you don't care about any evidence and you don't expect changes to be made regarding the situation so that they don't waste time "exploring" it with you.
It is you who ignore my evidence. Not a single point was addressed, just your regurgitation of the common talking points. Your "quick read" is unhelpful and discourteous.
And you don't state my position fairly, especially (2). Until you can state my position fairly, we're not discussing anything.
My exploration was assuming everyone was doing what they thought was right. Putatively and in the abstract.
As previously noted, but unfortunately ignored:
It should not be contentious to say that he undermined the war effort. I mean, that was his purpose in going public in the first place.
I had hoped that at least one element of the discussion could take place at arm's length, beyond partisanship.
That he is a liar is admittedly a separate discussion, and one that few have any interest in, except Mr. Bales, who at least argues he is not.
In my view, Joe Wilson is no hero and hurt the country. To discredit him was the right thing to do, because as also previously noted and ignored, there were real lives at stake, not just theoretical ones.
Tom posts:
Joe Wilson is no hero and hurt the country
I don't see it, Tom. How, precisely, did Joe Wilson hurt the country? If you believe it is because he lied about something, please help us see it by:
1) Quoting the lie,
2) Telling us why you consider it to be a lie,
3) Connecting the lie to some tangible hurt the US has suffered, and
4) Explaining why disclosing the classified information that Plame was a CIA agent was preferable to any other response.
Egad, Tom. You still seem to be saying that outing his wife was a legitimate way to respond. Surely you don't mean that.
Perhaps this is the point of contention: you seem to suggest that people act rightly so long as they think they are acting rightly. This isn't true. If x is an outrageously unreasonable way to act, and if that should be clear to anyone upon sufficient reflection, then you are still blameworthy for doing x, even if you thought you were doing right. In Kantian terms (though this isn't a point specific to Kant), you didn't exercise "due care" in your deliberations.
Perhaps more to the point:
The evidence jim b points us to seems to refute the charges of lying. Wilson's rebuttal seems about as solid as a first-person rebuttal can get. It'd take a long time to disentangle and check all the lines of evidence, but it's all got a lot of prima facie credibility.
Have you read the Salon.com piece? You really can't make a rational judgment about this until you do.
I read Wilson's own letter of rebuttal to the senate committee. Does that count? I also read the relevant sections of the committee report.
He did find evidence that Iraq was fishing around Niger in 1999. He also did such a crap job that he had no business speaking on the subject at all. He also lied about his wife's connection in getting him sent there. Charitably, he was confused later when he said he had "debunked" the forged documents, when he hadn't actually seen them until months later.
I don't see why he still has defenders or is thought a hero.
I wrote, "It should not be contentious to say that he undermined the war effort. I mean, that was his purpose in going public in the first place."
I stand by that. I don't see the problem here.
I also wrote "To discredit him was the right thing to do, because as also previously noted and ignored, there were real lives at stake, not just theoretical ones."
I stand by that.
I'm not sure my arguments are being addressed here. Perhaps I'm not making them well enough, but I can't rephrase them any better.
I'm not seeing any support for these claims, Tom.
And it's too bad that the "war effort" (by which I think you mean: "the propaganda/marketing campaign to fool the American public into supporting the war") *wasn't* undermined. It'd be a much better world today if we hadn't invaded.
So far as I can tell, Wilson refutes your factual claims.
I'm going to go back and read all the material again...but it looks like you're just wrong about this.
The war was already on. Troops on the ground. The "lies" talk was all over al-Jazeera. For many months, years, the insurgents [no, terrorists, murderers] thought there was a good chance we would abandon the Iraqi people to them, and that talk fed that belief.
Yes, I know you think my arguments are all bad. Duly noted, as usual. And as usual, I prefer that the participants not double as referees.
Tom,
The Bush administration had the power to silence Wilson if they had cause to believe that Wilson's statements were putting troops at risk (just as in the '70s the Progressive magazine was prohibited from publishing an article on how the H-bomb works). The Bush administration did not do so.
The Bush administration could have published the "truth" to combat Wilson's "lies". The Bush administration did not do so.
In the end, the Bush administration acknowledged that the "16-words" about alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain yellowcake from Niger should not have been in the State of the Union Speech. Sadly, they could not restore Plame's cover, nor remove the doubt cast upon all who had had contact with her.
As to al Jazeera considering the Bush administration to be liars, I think Paul Wolfowitz sealed that in May of 2003 when he said:
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason"
Or maybe it was earlier, when Andy Card said of the post-labor push to invade Iraq:
"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."
Clearly, al Jazeera, just like the American people, had ample cause to consider the Bush administration liars well before Wilson published his NYT piece.
Had Wilson placed US troops in danger, the Bush administration could have stopped him. They did not use their lawful powers to stop him for the simple reason that Wilson did not put our troops in danger.
Tom,
The Bush administration had the power to silence Wilson if they had cause to believe that Wilson's statements were putting troops at risk...Had Wilson placed US troops in danger, the Bush administration could have stopped him.
Um, that's not how we work, even under the fascist Bush administration. Assholes [pejorative, admittedly] like Joe Wilson still get their say without prior restraint. First Amendment and all that.
There is a meme out there that Ted Kennedy can call the US the successor regime to Saddam's inhumanity, that Jack Murtha can call our troops murderers, and Harry Reid can declare the war lost, all to zero effect in the court of world opinion.
I don't think this is so. I think this is non-reality-based fantasy in this age of al-Jazeera.
I don't give a rat's ass what you think of Bush, who somehow got elected twice and now will soon be gone, but any Republican who undermined Clinton's Kosovo after he, as president, committed troops on the ground would have earned my spit.
And Jim, must I restate what I consider my best arguments on this matter for a third time before they're addressed? I will if you ask, but you have been a conscientious correspondent to date, and I do realize you might have been too busy to catch them. They appear above, and I've just added one more with the "meme" thing.
I noted that the US exercised prior restraint in stopping the Progressive from publishing a story on how H-bombs are built.
Tom responded:
Um, that's not how we work, even under the fascist Bush administration. Assholes [pejorative, admittedly] like Joe Wilson still get their say without prior restraint. First Amendment and all that.
Tom, that is exactly what we did to protect our troops and our people. If you root around the language used by the court, they are unequivocal that free speech can be restraint, even prior restraint exercised, when allowing the speech will put troops at risk.
Yet this is Tom's "best argument", that:
"To discredit him was the right thing to do ... there were real lives at stake, not just theoretical ones
Now Tom claims that it would be wrong for the Bush administration to use its lawful powers to protect these real lives at stake, but right for it to destroy the utility of a CIA agent, placeing the real lives of her contacts abroad at risk, by revealing the classified information about her cover.
So, Tom, I have directly addressed your "best argument" and shown that blowing Plame's cover was not needed. If the Bush administration could show that real lives were placed at risk by Wilson's statements, standing case law gave them the power to silence him. (To say nothing of simply declaring him an enemy combatant and sending him to Gitmo.)
Therefore, outing Plame was not needed to save lives had they been at risk by Joe Wilson lying.
Is Jim right about what you consider your best argument, Tom?
In identifying it. Thank you, Jim.
However, a narrow reading of what harm and endangerment is is required to refute it and wins in that narrow sense---we cannot prove to Law & Order standards why soldier x died in Province y on day z.
But did Wilson and the "lies" tide behind him undermine the war effort with zero harm to our troops? I don't see how.
Neither is the law the sole arbiter of what is right. It's a tricky argument in this Rawlsian atmosphere, but I've often dragged in FDR evading the Neutrality Acts as an example of something I'm a-OK with.
The reality of just who was endangered by Plame's "outing" [Plame and Wilson's exhibitionism seems to show no effort on their part to mitigate the "damage"] and if it was an "outing" at all [no one was charged] are practical matters to be examined, altho not as important to me, as I prefer the principles to partisanship.
The meme that leaders of the opposition can say the most awful things and have zero effect is one that I suppose we'll just agree to disagree about. For some reason throughout this, the idea is that only Bush can do harm; those with the pure and good motives cannot.
And I think keeping the H-bomb secret was a good thing, Jim. First Amendment rhetoric these days seems to include anything and everything, but it was designed for political speech, not state secrets. Speech of the kind Joe Wilson exercised. I could be wrong, but I think even lies are protected.
So your position is: U.S. government lies should not be exposed?
Or: U.S. government lies should not be exposed even if they lead to catastrophic policies?
Or: U.S. government lies should not be exposed if they might possibly harm the country or the troops in some indirect way?
and/or: It is permissible for the government to retaliate against family-members in order to cover up its own lies?
(given that Plame, it seems, did NOT, actually, get Wilson the gig, she was not instrumental in all this, and is relevant only as a family-member.)
None of these seem like even vaguely plausible principles. In fact, they all sound a damn sight worse than not-vaguely-plausible...
No, they don't sound plausible because they're mischaracterizations of what I'm saying, and as Paul Newman said to the judge in "The Verdict," if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it.
Joe Wilson is the one who lied.
Should Joe Wilson be able to go out there and lie---or even if he didn't lie, parade his incompetence on the matter---and undermine the war effort with no pushback?
I say no. I have said no. The pushback endangered no one, except theoretically. The harm Wilson did was real, in my view. I really can't restate my position any better and am happy to have had my say. Thanks, everybody.
Joe Wilson lied...
Joe Wilson lied...
Joe Wilson lied...
The mantra isn't working.
Nothing you've said here takes one step toward rebutting Wilson's claims in the Salon.com piece jim b pointed us to.
And pointing out that it is in principle permissible for a government to lie sometimes doesn't entail that they're always permitted to do so...and certainly not in a case like this. Lying to defame the guy who's pointing out your lies simply isn't right. And it bears absolutely no resemblance to the kind of things Roosevelt did re: lend-lease.
I answered Wilson's defense. he found the Iraqis fishing in Niger in 1999 and he lied about his wife's recommendation. You just can't point at a salon.com article and say your case is in there somewhere. Facts not in evidence, they call it in legal proceedings.
More rebuttal of Wilson's salon.com article, altho I have done it myself:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2004/07/joe_says_it_ain.html
Second, I argued "even if Wilson didn't lie..." You can't skip over that.
Third, you don't get to declare FDR is irrelevant---that's playing referee in your own debate. You get to argue why you think FDR is irrelevant, and you must give a counterargument why.
My position doesn't depend on Wilson being a liar, even though he is and you've offered nothing except go look behind that curtain over at salon.com.
I maintain:
The war was already on. Troops on the ground. The "lies" talk was all over al-Jazeera. For many months, years, the insurgents [no, terrorists, murderers] thought there was a good chance we would abandon the Iraqi people to them, and that talk fed that belief.
You can continue to ignore this assertion, but I'd prefer you make some reasonable argument against it.
Just keep repeating your assertions, Tom... He's a liar...he's a liar...he's a liar...
Om...om...om...
The evidence that Bush lied is far stronger than that Wilson lied...yet you're eager--nay, desperate--to reject the first claim and accept the second. Puzzling...
I didn't just "declare" that the FDR case is irrelevant. Try to keep up. FDR was right, Bush was wrong. FDR had overwhelming evidence that the Nazis were a threat. Bush encouraged an atmosphere that promoted the gerrymandering of evidence. Hitler WAS an existential threat to America and Western civilization--Saddam was not. About as different as two cases can be.
You keep pretending that someone here has said that presidents can never lie, but no one has. Rather, I (and others) have merely defended the rather modest proposition that presidents can't lie with impunity for bad reasons in ways that harm the country and the world.
So far your points have been demolished here. Late in the game, you finally introduce some new alleged evidence from another blog...and I'm eager to see what they have to say...but unless there's something pretty new there, it isn't going to help.
Your "boots on the ground" argument is a complete failure. A non-starter, really. "al Jazeera said it" does not mean that it isn't true, nor that we shouldn't say it if it is. Stacked against the real, tangible harm to American democracy perpetrated by the criminal Bush administration of which you are so fond, speculative worries about the beliefs of the insurgents are virtually weightless.
It's a tidy little argument though, I'll admit: if a (Republican) president lies us into a war, we aren't allowed to point out the lies, because it will give succor to our enemies.
Very nice indeed.
One last point before I move on, Tom: you'll note that I was willing to conclude that Wilson had apparently lied before I saw the Salon.com piece. I'm perfectly willing to go with the evidence here. But as jim b rightly pointed out, there's evidence available that trumps the original evidence. And no new evidence has yet been introduced to trump that evidence.
No, my arguments aren't demolished just because you say so, WS. Where did you pick up this habit of talking like that?
I did not relate the FDR example to the decision to go to war itself, but to the "outing." You missed that.
Neither did I go to "Bush lied us into war," which I gave up on a long time ago. This is a religious belief with you, and to give it up collapses your entire worldview.
Neither did you refute my points about 1999 or Plame recommending him. Pointing at salon.com is not an argument, but your argument certainly can't be challenged if you won't actually make it in the first place.
[We should have just posted links to salon.com and justoneminute.com and let them fight it out. Quite a labor-saver.]
The question is what good Joe Wilson, liar or not, was attempting to achieve, with boots on the ground and lives at risk.
My answer is...none that I can see.
Don't try to attribute your own dogmatism to me, Tom. I've long ago ceased trying to reason with you about this stuff. In fact, I'm baffled as to why you insist on dogging the issue. You're the one with the religious belief here, utterly immune to facts and reason. Nothing about my world-view is at issue. I'm fine with changing my mind in accordance with the evidence--but I do require actual evidence.
All the issues about Bush were argued in detail in the past--though it did no good. Now we've got the "Wilson lied" mantra...which has mutated into the "what was he trying to achieve?" argument...which will, no doubt, continue to mutate as it is refuted.
I could go through the Wilson points with you in detail, but you and I both know that wouldn't do any good. And, as I've explained before, I have too many things to do to go over and over the same points with someone who has no intention whatsoever of engaging in actual inquiry about the issue.
You've made it clear that you've got your position, and that it won't change. Under those conditions, discussion is fruitless.
Um, you still haven't engaged a single argument. Of course discussion is fruitless. 1999. Plame's recommendation. Wilson's crap job in Niger that justified nothing he said.
Liar. WaPo ombudsman:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58334-2004Jul17.html
And I didn't move the goalposts, I just tried another tack since you didn't want to read the rebuttal to Wilson.
Your dogma and litany is that Bush lied us into war. I demolished that lie a long time ago, and only the dead-enders are still mouthing it. I don't have time for that nonsense anymore.
[Oooo, I see why you're addicted to this technique, WS. Bigger talk, much less work.]
Tom now casts the justification of the outing of Plame as:
"The question is what good Joe Wilson, liar or not, was attempting to achieve, with boots on the ground and lives at risk."
What Wilson was attempting to achieve was to get general recognition that the evidence available to the Bush administration at that time did not support the inclusion of the "16 words" in Bush's SoTU speech.
Wilson succeeded--the Bush administration acknowledged that the "16 words" should not have been in the speech.
Tom has yet to show any clear and direct connection between Wilson's NYT piece and increased danger to our troops in Iraq, although phrases such as "boots on the ground and lives at risk" appear in most of his comments above.
Tom has yet to acknowledge that Bush administration officials had made statements prior to Wilson's NYT piece that cast doubts upon the sincerity of the allegations that Iraq had (or was about to obtain) WMDs.
Tom has yet to acknowledge that, because Plame's identity was classified, it was "information that has been determined to require, in the interests of national security, protection against unauthorized disclosure." [Link is to .pdf file]
The question is still:
Why does Tom believe that disclosing the classified information that Plame was a CIA agent was preferable to publishing the truth about the evidence supporting the 16-words or using the lawful powers of the government to prevent Wilson from putting the lives of our troops at risk?
Your link to "classified" looks impressive, Jim, but has the same probative value as linking to the dictionary.
You realize, of course, that the "sixteen words" were uttered in 2003, after Congress had already authorized the use of force against Saddam in 2002, right? We didn't go to war on 16 words.
Tom has yet to show any clear and direct connection between Wilson's NYT piece and increased danger to our troops in Iraq
True, and I acknowledged it couldn't be done many posts ago. Do you wish to assert the converse, that the "lies" stuff, as well as the Kennedy/Murtha/Reid blatherings had no effect on the war or insurgent [sorry, terrorist, murderer] morale?
Please, go ahead, I want to hear that. I mean, really. Do.
And if so, then I suppose Joe Wilson opened his ill-informed trap for nothing except academic reasons, unless you want to assert that he actually knew what he was talking about, based on his "sipping mint tea" expedition.
And if that is so, what good was he trying to achieve by delegitimizing the invasion? We weren't about to put the toothpaste back in the tube on July 6, 2003.
I mean, really. What good?
What I can't help but wonder from this last post is when truth ceased to have any intrinsic value to the right. The American people have a right to know that the justification for administration's $2 trillion and thousands of lives squandered in Iraq was based on lies. Period. Why is this not true for Bush-supporters?
Tom:
Why is it bad for Wilson to "endanger" U.S. troops by exposing the administrations lies (which I find fairly dubious but I'll go with it for argumentation's sake), while it's ok for Bush and co. to leak the identity of a CIA undercover operative, putting the lives of people she'd worked with and whatever activities she had been doing at risk. Oh, and she just so happened to be Wilson's wife. Please explain to me why this is justified to you, because it isn't to me.
And you still haven't answered Jim's last question:
Why does Tom believe that disclosing the classified information that Plame was a CIA agent was preferable to publishing the truth about the evidence supporting the 16-words or using the lawful powers of the government to prevent Wilson from putting the lives of our troops at risk?
Tom posts:
Your link to "classified" looks impressive, Jim, but has the same probative value as linking to the dictionary.
On the contrary. The definition I posted to is the DoD's definition. Therefore, the fact that Plame's identity was classified means that the people responsible for protecting our nation determined that revealing Plame's identity as a CIA agent would damage our nation's security. It tells us that because Plame's identity was classified, those of us who lack both the requisite clearance and need to know can reasonably presume that revealing her identity damaged our nation's security.
Tom notes that:
We didn't go to war on 16 words.
I brought up the 16 words to answer Tom's question about "What Wilson was attempting to achieve." Since Tom appears to consider the 16 words unimportant, how could stating the truth about the 16 words have justified revealing the classified information that Plame was an agent (with the concomitant damage to national security that has to be present for information to be declared "classified")?
And the question remains:
Why was disclosing the classified information that Plame was a CIA agent preferable to publishing the truth about the evidence supporting the 16-words or using the lawful powers of the government to prevent Wilson from putting the lives of our troops at risk?
Thx, Tracie, but I believe I answered about "justification" directly somewhere previously.
The American people have a right to know that the justification for administration's $2 trillion and thousands of lives squandered in Iraq was based on lies. Period.
I dispute that, and I think it's key here. It's part of a belief that I think is unwise, that one can do or say anything if "truth" is on their side. Truth is not the same as wisdom or prudence, which is why we have separate words for them. Boots were on the ground and in July 2003, we weren't about to turn around and say "never mind."
Plus Wilson had no real knowledge of the situation, and the administration genuinely believed the British info of the 16 words.
It tells us that because Plame's identity was classified, those of us who lack both the requisite clearance and need to know can reasonably presume that revealing her identity damaged our nation's security.
Not at all, Jim. Telling Matt Cooper, etc. was meant to pooh-pooh Wilson's delegitimization of the war and undermine his credibility. Or why do you think they did it? Pique? Revenge?
And no, we cannot reasonably presume that revealing her identity damaged our nation's security. She hadn't been covert for years. This is a talking point to bash the administration, and not a sincere concern.
[I suppose you don't want to assert that the "lies" stuff, as well as the Kennedy/Murtha/Reid blatherings had no effect on the war or insurgent [sorry, terrorist, murderer] morale.]
"Plus Wilson had no real knowledge of the situation, and the administration genuinely believed the British info of the 16 words."
False.
As Wilson shows in his Salon piece (carefully citing evidence from the body of the Commission report), it seems to have been made clear to the White House (on several different occasions and in different ways) that the CIA had concluded that the British claim about the Niger Uranium purchase was bogus. The CIA had, among other things, faxed the White House about deleting the reference. After the SOTU, a White House spokesman told the WaPo that the sixteen words probably didn't "rise to the level" of being included in the speech.
The evidence available to us indicates that the administration knew it was distorting the evidence here. This is no surprise, of course, since that was their M.O. in the entire lead-up to the war. Without the pattern of distortion, it might be rational to be exceptionally charitable here and conclude that there was some inexplicable slip-up. But in the context, that would be unreasonable.
O.k., that's it for me. No need to go over this for the twentieth time. I'm out.
Conclusion of this thread:
Tom simply likes to talk.
Whenever ANYONE tries to restate his position in any sort of a way bordering on clear, he claims that it's a total misrepresentation of what he was saying and then provides no clarification himself.
So annoying. What a waste of time. I like how half-way through this all, I gave a synopsis of Tom's position, and he of course, went nuts because it too clearly enumerated what he must hold, and then Jim did the same thing about ten posts later, only in a much less clear manner (he only quoted Tom), and Tom was readily accepting of it.
Lol. All I can say is l-o-l. Don't you have something productive to do with your time, Tom? You're sure wasting a lot of it, and ours.
Also, I'd like to note that this barely ever progressed from the original synopsis I left. Basically, this is it:
1) Tom says the administration behaved appropriately by outing Plame in order to stifle the lies of Joe Wilson.
2) Everyone else says, not only is there no reason to believe Wilson lied, but that outing his CIA agent wife is inappropriate as a response to his speech.
3) Tom insists he lies, gives little evidence, refuses to read good evidence (Salon.com), and holds that the administration behaved appropriately EVEN IF HE DIDN'T LIE because his speech was endangering our troops and the war effort.
So basically, even if a ridiculously stupid war is started on a massive set of lies, the government is allowed to hurt its own operatives in order to quelch any speech that might demonstrate that they are lying.
Insane. Purely insane. And I don't think I'm alone in thinking this is where the comment thread leaves you, Tom, so if I'm wrong and "misrepresenting" you again, PLEASE CLEARLY EXPLAIN YOURSELF so others don't have to paraphrase you every time you type some absurdly convoluted post.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home