Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Judith Miller Follow Up
He's really outlasted his 15 minutes by now, don't you think?
7 Comments:
By 
Catchy Pseudonym, at
Wed Aug 03, 11:34:00 AM:
Cool. That helps. Powerline keeps referencing the Senate report and Wilson's reports to the CIA. I'm going to try to get a hold of those too, since they are the meat of his arguement. This dude seems pretty partisan, so I want to read these myself.
That's the problem with digging into these things. One reference leads to three, those lead to three more. Once I wrap my head around this though, I can ignore the whiney finger-pointing partisan crap that keeps getting in the way.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Wed Aug 03, 11:51:00 AM:
Oh and P.S. I think this Plame outing is very important and shouldn't be dusted under the rug. Whatever happens (Rove vindicated, Bush saves face, Wilson lied) or (Rove jailed, Bush lied, Wilson neat-o kind of guy) this touches on a huge problem many Americans have abot the Iraq war - the perceived false justifications for waging it and whether Bush purposefully mislead the nation. That's why this isn't dying. Wilson is unimportant, but the administration's reactions to his piece is very telling and very important. That's why it's important to me to cut through the crap and get to the truth even if it means vindicating a president and administration that I dislike.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Aug 03, 02:50:00 PM:
It's hard to assess your commentary because at once you accuse others of partisanship while embracing it for your own account. The Power Line guys are conservative. And on the matter of this war, so am I.
The Bush Administration justified going to war with Iraq on 3 major counts: 1) multiple violations of UN Resolutions related to the 1991 cease fire; 2) the risk that Iraq was rebuilding its WMD capability and 3) the nexus of 2) with Iraq's well established ties to various terrorist organs, including certain islamist terror cells, like Zarqawi. Ultimately, the justification which was "signed onto" by the mainstream media was 2). They rejected 1) because they took the view that only a unanimous Security Council should call the shots on enforcing UN resolutions (preposterous in my view) and they rejected 3) because they said this was only relevant if Saddam directly impacted 9/11, which most think he did not.
Here is, in my simple view, the source of Wilson's misrepresentation relative to Bush's speech. Bush said Iraq was pursuing the purchase of radioactive material and evidence of Iraq's intentions and objectives was that Iraqi reps had gone to Niger to try to acquire some. Wilson said no transaction had occurred and therefore Bush had misled the public. Bush never said Iraq had acquired yellowcake in Niger. He said he tried, and was continuing to try. Wilson knew both of these things very well -- he knew exactly what Bush said, and he knew the Iraqis had tried. But he spun his comments very carefully to mislead, and obfuscated the precise facts i laid out. In my opinion, his comments were intended to mislead NYT readers. And this after profusely laying out his credentials, without fully disclosing his partisan allegiances, the facts of his slection to make this journey, and so forth.
So the partisanship sword is a 2 edged blade. And Wilson has been sliced up pretty badly by it by now.
Why doesn't anybody really ask about the peculiar alliance CIA seems to have to Saddam. This is a nonpartisan issue. But an interesting one for sure. Why doesn't anybody ask why the CIA is incompetent, bloated, expensive and "unhelpful", not to mention leaky like the titanic?
Administrations aren't meant to be liked or trusted. They are meant to watch out for our country's best interests, in a very hardheaded way. And after 9/11, that has taken on new significance and proportion.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Wed Aug 03, 04:09:00 PM:
I acknowlege my distrust of this administration. If that's partisan, so be it. I disagree with you though, I think administrations should be trusted. Being liked is useless. But my distrust of Bush isn't based on party affiliation, it's based on my own opinions after trying to filter out some real facts from the constant blast of partisan spin from both sides of the aisle.
What we're dealing with is on paper; it's been said; actions have been taken and I feel that there is a nugget of truth out there in this Plame case that could be a real eye opener. I could be wrong. But I take openly partisan readings of documents and facts with a grain of salt until I get alternative proof.
I'm already hearing misrepresentations of the Senate report from the Right. I've heard the Left try to defend some obvious contradictory things from Wilson. So I'm tired of them both. I'm going to the source to make my own opinion, if I can ever find some free time.
You draw some good points about Niger. I want to read more on Wilson's comments. You're right the CIA needs some major work. I'm surprised nothing big has happened in the U.S. since 9/11 (knock on wood).
The other justifications you mentioned for Iraq are also valid. Whether they warranted an invasion is a matter of opinion. But the fact that some justifications were based on WMDs that were never found, that Bush didn't want to wait for the inspectors to finish (and yes, I know the arguement that will thrown at that statement), Bush's constant connecting of Saddam with 9/11 even when that's been roundly rejected... It all adds up to someting fishy. I just want to know if Wilson busted Bush on using information that he knew to be incorrect and if he did, did Rove try to out Plame in retaliation. Even if it's all about just one justification out of many, using knowingly false information hints at something smelly.
If Bush is vindicated that's fine with me. In fact, I'd like to think this administration is doing what's right for the right reasons. I could relax a little. I'm just finding it very hard to do that.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Aug 03, 05:16:00 PM:
Catchy - it sounds like you have an open mind, but I think you now know the facts. Furthermore, you have the benefit of now knowing how certain things have played out. Do you think we made the right decision to go to war based on these facts? I happen to.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Thu Aug 04, 09:41:00 AM:
I don't feel like I know all the facts. There's a lot of reading I want to do, I just have little time. But yes, now we all have the benefit of seeing how things have played out.
The biggest problem for me was the lack of WMDs. I feel that the threat of WMDs was the cherry on top of the justification cake. Colin Powell holding up a bottle of anthrax, Bush saying Saddam was building back his nuclear program and attempting to buy yellow cake from Niger. I don't believe the American public would have been sold on the war if they hadn't have used that threat. To not find WMDs and to find out that faulty intelligence was used really bothers me. You have to ask, would the public have supported the war if they had not used the WMD threat as a justification. I personally don't think so.
Looking in hindsight, regardless of justifications, I think it wasn't a smart move. It's fueled Al Qaeda (I can never spell that correctly), it's diverted our attention and spread out our Army very thin. I don't equate the war on terror with Iraq. I know everyone keeps saying, look at the big picture if we win, we're spreading democracy which will stop terror... I hope they're right...
But I worry about Bush's leadership. When Bush stands in front of a banner that says "Mission Accomplished" and Cheney says the insurgents are in their last throes, I have a hard time believing these guys know what they're doing. I fear they've started something they don't understand.
I believe when we pull this off, which we will, it's going to be because of the intelligenece and strength of the people on the ground. But putting them in that situation in the first place wasn't very intelligent. I think with Iraq and the war on terror Bush is trying to use brute force to stop terrorism. That's like trying to hit a mosquito with a sledgehammer.
I don't agree with this war, but we're there. We're committed. We have to win. And if they pull out before the job is completed, I'm going to even more angry about this whole mess. So I'm curious as to the reasons you think it was a good decision.
By 
, at
Thu Aug 04, 10:33:00 AM:
Why doesn't anybody ask why the CIA is incompetent, bloated, expensive and "unhelpful", not to mention leaky like the titanic?
The Left has been asking these questions for years, Cardinalpark. We complained constantly about CIA involvement in the most disgraceful episodes in America's post-WWII history. We complained when the CIA put the Ba'th party in power in Iraq in the first place.
When the CIA announced, in the early 1970's, that the USSR was about to undergo a tremendous economic expansion, the left was stunned -- had anyone at the CIA been to the Eastern Bloc?! Reagan "won the cold war" by exploiting the weakness of the Soviet economy. Years of CIA Cold War mischief achieved nothing. The CIA didn't help the Czechs toss out the Soviet puppet government -- they didn't even see it coming.
Go to a library, Cardinalpark, and you'll find plenty of criticism of the CIA -- most of it completely accurate -- and almost all of it from the political left. The response? "The left wants the Communists to win."
All that said, the CIA exists for an important function, which it accomplishes successfully in many ways. It does, in fact, collect important intelligence concerning the activities of the rest of the world -- including those of people who would harm American interests.
The case against the Wilsons is rife with unfounded speculation and factual errors, and really, no one outside the CIA can credibly assess whether or not Valerie (Plame) Wilson was not a valueable intelligence asset. If she was doing her job, it was good for America, and her not being able to do it now is bad for America.
I can't believe I'm defending the CIA. A pox on you conservative bloggers! :D
-- Winston
