Good Morning America and Special Report aired nearly identical, misleading reports on Plame lawsuit
SUMMARY: Fox News' Special Report and ABC's Good Morning America featured nearly identical -- and misleading -- stories about a lawsuit filed by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, ex-CIA officer Valerie Plame, against Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and White House senior adviser Karl Rove. Both segments uncritically reported columnist Robert D. Novak's claim that he "saw no such campaign" by White House officials to discredit Wilson, ignoring assertions by the special counsel in the case of a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" to "discredit, punish, or seek revenge against" Wilson.
The July 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume and the July 14 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America featured nearly identical -- and misleading -- stories about the decision by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, ex-CIA officer Valerie Plame, to file a lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and White House senior adviser Karl Rove. Both segments uncritically reported Fox News analyst and syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak's July 12 claim that he "saw no such campaign" by White House officials to discredit Wilson, as well as the response from Rove's attorney that the lawsuit was "absolutely and utterly without merit," without offering any rebuttal to Novak or Rove's attorney. Specifically, both the ABC and Fox News reports ignored the assertion in court filings by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald of the existence of a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" to "discredit, punish, or seek revenge against" Wilson. Nor did either note that Novak himself has by no means been consistent in his comments about the motivations of his sources. Finally, neither report mentioned that Fitzgerald secured the indictment of Libby on charges that he lied about the fact that he disclosed Plame's identity after being informed of it by Cheney and others.
On Good Morning America, ABC Washington correspondent Sonya Crawford reported on the lawsuit, noting:
CRAWFORD: The Wilsons accuse the defendants of conspiring in an anonymous whispering campaign designed to discredit them. They believe the White House retaliated after Joseph Wilson wrote an article accusing the Bush administration of twisting pre-war intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Crawford then reported that Novak claims "a senior administration official inadvertently mentioned Plame, as a part of a larger conversation about her husband," and aired a video clip from Novak's July 12 interview on Fox News' Special Report in which Novak asserted that he "saw no such campaign" by White House officials to discredit Wilson. Crawford concluded: "A spokesman for Karl Rove responded to the lawsuit, saying the allegations are 'absolutely and utterly without merit.' "
Crawford's report was nearly identical to a segment aired the previous evening on Special Report, in which host Brit Hume also discussed some of the lawsuit's contentions, Novak's claims, and then Rove's response.
Neither report offered any further analysis of the lawsuit (though later in Special Report, the lawsuit became a topic of discussion during a roundtable conversation), nor did either note Fitzgerald's assertions that a coordinated campaign to discredit Wilson did indeed appear to exist or even that Libby was indicted on charges stemming from the investigation into Plame's outing.
As Media Matters for America has previously noted, in court filings including the indictment of Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice, Fitzgerald has asserted the existence of a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" Wilson. According to the indictment, Libby discussed Plame's CIA employment with New York Times reporter Judith Miller on two occasions prior to Novak's column -- on June 23 and July 8, 2003. Further, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper claimed that Rove disclosed her CIA identity to him on July 11, 2003. And an unnamed administration official reportedly leaked the information to Post staff writer Walter Pincus on July 12, 2003. It was this pattern, among other things, that led Fitzgerald to assert the existence of a concerted effort to smear Wilson after the publication of his July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed -- in which he cast doubt over President Bush's claims about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Niger. Novak revealed Plame's CIA identity in a July 14, 2003, column.
Further, by uncritically reporting Novak's assertion that he "saw no such campaign" to discredit Wilson, both Hume and Crawford ignored Novak's apparently contradictory statements about the motivations of his sources. As Media Matters noted, initially, far from describing the disclosure as inadvertent, Novak reportedly told Newsday shortly after the publication of his July 2003 column naming Plame that his sources thought Plame's identity "was significant" and that "they gave me the name and I used it."
In an October 2003 column, Novak seemed to change his account, reporting that his primary source had not come to him with the information, but instead had mentioned Plame's role at the CIA in an "offhand" way. Four days later, during an October 5, 2003, interview on NBC's Meet the Press, Novak again claimed that his original source had mentioned Plame's role at the CIA "offhandedly." When asked by host Tim Russert to "explain" the discrepancy between his quote in Newsday that his sources had regarded the information as significant and his more recent claim that the disclosure was "offhand," Novak said his earlier statement was not "very artfully put" and insisted that there existed "no inconsistency between those two."
As noted by Media Matters, during an interview on the July 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Novak provided yet another explanation for the apparent contradiction between his assertion that Plame's identity was disclosed purposely and his subsequent claims that the disclosure of her identity was inadvertent. This time, rather than characterizing his assertion in Newsday as not "very artfully put," Novak instead accused Newsday reporters Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce of misquoting him.
From the July 14 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
JUJU CHANG (ABC correspondent): Now to the lawsuit targeting Vice President Cheney and members of his inner circle. The case stems from the controversy over the leak of a CIA agent's name. ABC's Sonya Crawford has the details.
CRAWFORD: Valerie Plame Wilson, the woman at the center of this controversy, is breaking her silence. Three years after her CIA cover was blown, she and her husband are suing Vice President Dick Cheney, his former chief of staff Scooter Libby, and presidential adviser Karl Rove. The Wilsons accuse the defendants of conspiring in an anonymous whispering campaign designed to discredit them. They believe the White House retaliated after Joseph Wilson wrote an article accusing the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The lawsuit states, "As their chief method of punishment, the White House officials destroyed Plame's cover by revealing her classified employment with the CIA to reporters." Columnist Robert Novak, who first published her name, says a senior administration official inadvertently mentioned Plame, as part of a larger conversation about her husband. In an interview on Fox News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume, he said he doesn't believe there was a coordinated effort to discredit the Wilsons.
NOVAK [video clip]: I saw no such campaign. Nobody in the administration ever said anything critical about Wilson to me.
CLAIRE SHIPMAN (ABC senior national correspondent): A spokesman for Karl Rove responded to the lawsuit, saying the allegations are "absolutely and utterly without merit." For Good Morning America, Sonya Crawford, ABC News, Washington.
From the July 13 edition of Fox News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: Former CIA employee Valerie Plame, whose work for the agency was exposed in 2003, is suing Vice President Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, and former vice presidential adviser Scooter Libby. Her husband is also a party to the action. Plame, seen her with her husband Joe Wilson arriving for a policy luncheon with Senate Democrats today, claims White House officials conspired to destroy her career. Last night on this program, the columnist Bob Novak, who first revealed Plame's identity, said he saw no sign of any effort or any conspiracy by the Bush administration to discredit Iraq war critic Wilson by disclosing his wife's name.
A spokesman for Rove calls Plame's allegation, quote, "absolutely and utterly without merit."
As I understand the specifics involved here, it will be the burden of Plame and Wilson to PROVE by preponderance that defendents acted specifically to blow her cover as a CIA agent in order to harm her professionally. It would seem self evident that defendents have the absolute right to defend themselves against what they may have viewed as an inaccurate and partisan attack in the original Joe Wilson article and its findings. If I were a juror and plaintiff was able to establish that defendent forwarded the allegation that Wilson was suggested by his wife, who happened to work for the CIA, for this trip and that there was a clear political connection, I would view that as completely acceptable and relevant information within the political discourse in which they voluntarily and willingly involved themselves. Just as it is reasonable and acceptable for Wilson to suggest that somehow Bush lied or manipulated, it is reasonable and acceptable for defendents to reveal or expose issues that might mitigate or explain Wilson's allegations as partisan or otherwise dubiously motivated. As a juror, I would view it as a willing entry into the political fray by Plame by suggesting the her husband be sent to Niger to begin with, and that she should have reasonably expected that those they were accusing would indeed push back. She was complicit in her own "outing" by willingly getting herself involved in politics in such a meaningful way.
Bottom line: Wilson and Plame decided to get into the political fray and when they pushed, the administration pushed back. There is NOTHING actionable, at least in my view, about that and their lawsuit will likely be dismissed, as it should be.
"As a juror, I would view it as a willing entry into the political fray by Plame by suggesting the her husband be sent to Niger to begin with, and that she should have reasonably expected that those they were accusing would indeed push back. She was complicit in her own "outing" by willingly getting herself involved in politics in such a meaningful way."
As a condition of her employment with the CIA Valerie Plame was obligated to maintain her role as a CIA agent secret. Likewise, she had a reasonable expectation that her employment would be maintained a secret by her employer. Even assuming that Valerie Plame recommended her well-qaulified diplomat husband to go to Niger and report back his findings how do you find anything political in that action? It was not until Bush, despite what we now know were warnings by the CIA, disregarded the CIA's findings and alleged the Iraq/Niger yellowcake connection that Joe Wilson went public. And I coomened his courage as a true American for doing that.
The trouble is, Sir, that you Republicans politicize everything and accordingly any legitimate dissent is attacked as partisan politics. Joe Wilson was okay by George H.W. Bush. Are we to believe that suddenly, after a career of serving his country, he turned into a traitorous liar? Go tell it someone else, Sir...
Are we to believe that suddenly, after a career of serving his country, he turned into a traitorous liar? Go tell it someone else, Sir...
Actually, the same can be asked of Cheney. You certainly expect ME to believe that after a career of serving his country, HE has turned into a traitorous liar. Having said that, I did NOT call Joe Wilson a traitorous liar, you introduced that phrase, not me. I am merely pointing out that as a defense, which the defendants are certainly entitled to, they will try to show where there was a political agenda at work here. The will also try to show that Valarie Plame's own actions make her somewhat complicit in the revelation of her occupation. I think they will additionally try to show that her employment status was NOT covert and that her future with the CIA was not impeded, as her covert cover had likely already been exposed, so her future use by the CIA in a covert operation was non existent, and her employment or career with the CIA was only impeded by her own resignation or retirement, she was NOT fired. I think Wilson and Plame are burdened with a preponderance of proof that Cheney, Libby and Rove acted with explicit intent to harm her career, NOT understandably defend themselves and the administration against what THEY perceived as a slanted, unfounded report by Joe Wilson.
The burden is on Plame and Wilson to prove intent and based on what I've read, that will be almost impossible to do. Also, as plaintiffs, they will also have to provide discovery in the form of past political contributions and affiliations, as well as sit for depositions themselves, under oath, probably long before Cheney, Rove and Libby are compelled, if at all, to do so. The contradictions in Wilson's story will have to be reconciled, as well as the erroneous information that was in his report, that was later corrected by a Senate Committee. This is NO cakewalk for them, and anyone thinking that it will be is seriously misinformed. Cheney, Rove and Libby are perfectly capable of defending themselves, and by filing this lawsuit, Wilson and Plame can no longer cast stones from afar, with little liklihood of open retaliation by the administration. They have put themselves up for scrutiny, under oath, and you can fully expect defendants to take full advantage of that fact!
Regardless what you may think of Joe Wilson here are two truths you must deal with:
1. Wilson's report was ultimately correct. There was no credible evidence, as Wilson found, that Iraq was actively securing yellowcake from Niger; Bush retracted that allegation.
2. Valerie Plame did nothing wrong. Unless you are aware that she was part of a conspiracy within the CIA (as Rush Limbaugh has alleged) to take out the Bush administration everything thus far indicates that all Valerie Plame did was her job in WMD counter-proliferation.
Valerie Plame was required to maintain the secrecy of her CIA employment. Likewise she was reasonably entitled to the government maintaining the secrecy of her employment. Unlike in the criminal statute involved in Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation it will not be necessary for Valerie Plame to show that her employment qualified as "covert" under the specific terms of that criminal statute.
True, the Wilsons will have to show the intent of defendants. Intent, however, can be imputed by circumstances and does not have to constitute a vebal admission of such. Considering that what Wilson reported about the alleged Iraq/Niger connection was true, and considering that the CIA repeatedly attempted to no avail to get Bush to remove the false allegations from his speach, I think Rove and Cheney's assertion that they were simply trying to get the truth out when they authorized the outing of Valerie Plame will not hold water.
In my opinion the right wing pundits who have labelled Wilson a liar will be rudely awakened by the trial. The good thing about litigation (perhaps the only good thing) is that the claimants are allowed to develop and present their evidence in an organized, logical fashion... as opposed to how things are presented in the media. And remember... all the Wilsons have to show is that it is more likely than not that Rove and Cheney outed Valerie Plame out of revenge.
My prediction is that the right wing will be pulling out its hair screaming how it's already been "proven" in the right wing media that Joe Wilson is liar. Then, if the Wilson's win, I guess we'll have to hear all over again about how those damn liberal judges and juries are out of control. Why? Because Republicans are never at fault. You're perfect...
Wilson's report was ultimately correct. There was no credible evidence, as Wilson found, that Iraq was actively securing yellowcake from Niger; Bush retracted that allegation.
"Securing" is one thing, "seeking" is something else altogether. The correctness of Wilson's report is a matter of great debate, but is NOT really relevant in this case. Bush never retracted the statement, he merely conceded that PERHAPS it shouldn't have been in his SOTU address. The statement was fundamentally correct in that he stated that "British Intellingence has learned," and the British to this day stand by that statement. But that's really not relevant in this case and I have no desire to re-debate that long since dead issue.
I would HATE to be Joe Wilson in a deposition trying to square his many positions and dubious motivations. A good lawyer can make the Pope look guilty.
My prediction is that this case will suffer a quick dismissal in the courts based on a failure to show direct damages to either Plaintiff. I'm afraid it will be yet another defeat for the far left. Remember when you all were anticipating "Fitzmas," certain that Rove, Libby and Cheney were about to be indicted? The eager anticipation of the "perp" walk? I would be prepared for some more disappointment just to be safe if I were you.
Remember when all the cons were predicting that there would be no indictments? Libby's facing the music and the obfuscation that protected his buddy rove.
Wilson has been completely consistent. The cons haven't made their case, and neither have you.
Remember when all the cons were predicting that there would be no indictments?
There were no indictments related to anyone "outing" Plame. The only indictment dealt with perjury about the recollection of a 3 year old conversation. Remember "Fitzmas?"
The cons haven't made their case, and neither have you.
The "cons" don't have to make a case, they are NOT the accuser here. Unfortunately for them, now Wilson and Plame are compelled to make a case while at the same time, enduring a little scrutiny themselves with under oath!!
More likely... long before the Wilsons give sworn testimony Rove will have orchestrated a full blown character attack on them. History would indicate this is how the Bush team operates. However while character assasination may have proven effective for the Bush team in political elections attempting the same in a civil case may very well backfire on them. While I see Cheney being slick enough to talk his way out of liability in the civil proceedings I don't think Rove will be as effective. Cheney is a polished politician who knows how to connect with (some) people). While Rove may be the political brains behind Bush he is not a natural politician who connects with people. If he was I suspect he would be president rather than Bush. As they say. those who can, do; those who can't, teach. I see a jury hating Rove and Wilson both; but loving Valerie Plame and finding a way to make her win. Anyway, I'll bet Rove has already been on the phone with the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.
Wilsons report WAS accurate, there is NO debate outside Great Britians intelligence agency and desperate rightwingnuts anymore. There isnt a scintilla of evidence Iraq even TRIED to get uranium from Niger which couldnt have delivered any even if they HAD tried. Not even a good try
"I would HATE to be Joe Wilson in a deposition trying to square his many positions and dubious motivations. A good lawyer can make the Pope look guilty. "
But you, nor anyone else, have shown even the slightest evidence of "dubious motivations" or "many positions". You have shown no inconsistencies, and you have not shown anything to even remotely suggest that anything he did was an act of partisanship. It's completely your unfounded assertion and nothing more. Because his findings didn't support the case for war, he was deliberately acting against the president - that is your argument in total. That may fly as brilliance in the right-wing blogosphere, but in a court of law it's a different story.
Meanwhile, "a good lawyer" can bring up the inconsistencies of Novak and the "dubious motivations" of Rove in revealing this information "to correct the record". And these are two people who actually do have a history of partisanship. Objectively, in a fight between two good lawyers, the plaintiff has infinitely more to work with in the areas you yourself cited. If a good lawyer can make the pope look guilty, then one can make Rove and Cheney look guilty with extreme ease...yet you expect it will be quickly dismissed, "as it should be".
Please, try thinking logically instead of just wishfully.
The burden is on Plame and Wilson to prove intent and based on what I've read, that will be almost impossible to do.
What?!? Read this article (and any others you want to....you'll find the same thing.)[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
"Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.
Bluntly and repeatedly, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign. Citing grand jury testimony from the vice president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald fingered Cheney as the first to voice a line of attack that at least three White House officials would soon deploy against former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV."
If nothing else, INTENT is clear.
But Cheney is a traitorous liar who has started a war so his Halliburton stock can go up....he's killing our soldiers and the Iraqis for his share portfolio. Attacking countries for personal gain is a war crime, ala Nuremburg. He's never served our country, he's only ever served himself. His policies have always been total crap and detrimental to the American people....but always good for his bank account. Yup, he's a traitor.
...but Cheney has parlayed a career in politics into a net worth of almost $90 million. It's heart warming to see someone as nice a s Cheney rewarded for a career in public service.
It is NOT established that Plame suggested her husband for the job. The story the CIA tells is one of her superiors ASKED her about her husband in connection with this job and when she agreed he would be a good choice was TOLD to write up a memo about this. Even more ridiculous is some sugestion that Wilson brought ON the outing of his wife by writing an ACCURATE ARTICLE about Bushs dishonesty in connection with the uranium from Niger claim. As IF he was supposed to KNOW that by exposing the truth the Bush administration would compromise National Security and do something that breaks the law in exposing her identity as an undercover agent. Any SANE juror would have to ask himself how attacking Wilsons WIFE had anything to do with fighting back against Wilsons accusations. What you have done here is repeat warmed over propaganda parrot talking points and pretended they actually have something to do with any lawsuit filed against those who exposed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, they dont.
I would have several COMMON SENSE questions to be answered.
1. Was Plame employed? What was her job?
A: Yes, by the CIA, she had classified employment tracking WMDs. She "spied" under the cover of a dummy company, Brewster Jennings & Associates.
2. Was she still doing that job? Was Brewster still operating as a CIA front?
A: Yes, and yes ... until Novak exposed her true identity.
3. Has exposure prevented her from doing the same job? How about others who associated with her?
A: It has ended her covert career, and anyone still in place with Brewster was exposed as undercover CIA op. The entire cover was blown, the international operation fatally compromised.
4. Why was she exposed as a CIA op?
A: Because a report by her husband had to be discredited by the Administration.
5. Was the report WRONG?
A: No, the report was CORRECT. That was the problem; it exposed statements by the president as being false.
6. Why did exposing her as a CIA agent help discredit her husband's report?
A: The reasoning is unclear, but apparently the injection of NEPOTISM hinted at a conspiracy to somehow "get" the president.
7. So, was her employment still classified at the time it was exposed?
A: The CIA claims it was; they should know.
8. What compelling reason did the White House have to override the classification and expose her position?
A: The White House claimed the public HAD to know the evolution of this investigative trip made by Plame's husband; particularly that his wife had a hand in his being chosen for the trip.
9. Why?
A: Apparently, if Wilson (the husband) could be discredited, then the White House would look to be CORRECT. Exposing his wife was part of that plan; they claimed SHE "sent him" ... which suggests nefarious motives.
10. What motives?
A: That the husband and wife ... and the CIA ... conspired to embarrass the president.
11. Is there evidence of this motive?
A: No. The evidence only shows a desire to discredit Wilson in order to avenge the President being contradicted, and his wife was "fair game" in this attempt.
12: So there WAS a malicious motive, but on the part of the White House, seeking to harm a man (and his wife) who returned a report that the White House agreed was correct, but didn't like?
A: No other motive has been suggested, since exposing his wife had no bearing on the correctness of the husband's report: the White House had to RETRACT that part of the President's speech.
13: So, how has Plame been harmed?
A: She can no longer do the job she specialized in; a national security position aimed at keeping us safer. The operation she worked in was exposed, and can no longer function gathering intelligence. Further, both she and her husband were being portrayed as liars, conspirators, and un-American agents.
14: By whom?
A: By the White House, many of its agents, by the Vice President, and as a result by much of the MEDIA.
ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS, The Wilsons have a great case, that the POWER of the Executive branch was abused in order to smear them, that the smearing was maliciously motivated, and that national security was compromised to acheive a purely political vengence. I would award them whatever figure ... in actual and PUNITIVE damages ... they could propose.
PUNITIVE damage awards are geared towards making sure the perpetrators NEVER AGAIN engage in the behavior they demonstrated in this case.
Is a thing of beauty Tex, succinct, incisive, covered all the bases.
When reporting on the facts of a story, e.g., Robert Novak says blah, blah, blah - how does the reporter qualify what Mr. Novak has said without seeming to editorialize. Should they follow their report of his comments with facts that belie those comments ? e.g., Patrick Fitzgerald in his indictment alleges that Lewis Libby lied when he denied the existence of a whispering campaign to discredit the Wilsons. Once a reporter starts to argue the verity of a subject's statements he is wandering onto the thin ice of the editorial page. The Times usually handles this with an adjacent column reporting on other information which contradicts the info in the first story. However, TV people have a harder time doing this because of the nature of the brief and fluid format.
I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of Wilson being well qualified. He said he knew some of the former ministers. Sending a unemployed diplomat to ask questions of former diplomats doesn't sound like a very good way to get covert information. He was sent on the recommendation of his wife not because he was well qualified. Ask yourslef, if it were undercover snooping why didn't the CIA send their own people? Why send someone's husband? ( I read where Joe Wilson was let go because he was only at a certain diplomatic level after many years. )
Being Ambassador to Gabon, (before being let go), although nice, is not exactly a distinguished career. Wilson's only got that job because he parlayed being left behind in Bahgdad when the embassy evacuated during the Gulf War as a reward for the Gabon gig. He said he wanted France. :-)
I think you forget that the partisanship was first displayed by Wilson and the major Dems on Capitol Hill. They used this specious attack by Wilson to undermine the Presidency in their cowardly attempt to deligitimize the war. It take two to tango. I'm of the opinion that the Dems politicized this issue and they are the partisans.
Yes, I believe Wilson to be a liar and a self serving promoter.
I guess the CIA is a bunch of lying traitorous libs too, eh? After all they tried to dissuade Bush from publicly the false assertion (i.e a lie) that Iraq was actively engaged in securing yellowcake from Niger, a major justification for the Iraq war. I guess the CIA was trying to "deligitmize" the war because of political partisanship too, eh? Aaaaahh, traitors under every bed! Where's Ann Coulter whne you need her?
"Yes, I believe Wilson to be a liar and a self serving promoter."
I bet you file that away with your other baseless beliefs so evident in the bile you spew on this site. Belief without evidence is simply not credible nor should it be even acknowledged.
First Wilson was an ambassador to Gabon, South Africa, and the Congo among other countries, those are the other three countries WITH domestic supplies of Uranium, second he had gone on a fact finding mission to Iraq before with a similar mandate and was familiar with all the Players having also been a with the foriegn service in Iraq. He had been an ambassador for 23 years, which IS a pretty good resume. Third an ambassador without portfolio is EXACTLY who does this kind of thing. As for what YOU think about Wilson, or more accuratly what you NEED to think about him to pretend Bush wasnt lying about all this really isnt material, you can think the sky is green if you want lets see you SHOW him to be a self serving liar. In fact when he has told half as many lies as Bush you can get back to me
"I think you forget that the partisanship was first displayed by Wilson and the major Dems on Capitol Hill."
For the sake of argument, even if I consider that Wilson attacked Presidency, the white house could make its own point by counter arguments. Instead, they decided to out Plame's name secretly. Another way to say, if Wilson went low, white-house went lower. Right? I would consider it as "two for tango" if it was limited to Bush administration and Wilson, because Joe Wilson is the person who criticized white-house, certainly not Valarie Plame.
Basically, white house played dirty politics. To take revenge against Wilson, they destroyed his spouse's career. Anotheramerica, this is America. White house and all its stuffs are public servents. We don't vote and elect president and a vice-president to take revenge. They are supposed to serve country.
"They used this specious attack by Wilson to undermine the Presidency in their cowardly attempt to deligitimize the war."
You have that backwards. The administration ignored the evaluation of the evidence (aluminum tubes, the trailers, the yellowcake report) in an attempt to legitimize the war. Based on the evidence the war is not legitimate. Furthermore there is no "attack" by Wilson. He was asked to investigate, he filed his report, and the administration sounded the war trumpets ignoring his (and everyone else's) findings. The American people deserved to know that we were going to war on trumped-up and plain false evidence, and Wilson's op-ed was completely warranted for that reason.
There is simply nothing to suggest that Wilson was acting politically when he filed his report or wrote his column. He did exactly what he should have done as a public servant and as an American. You have no argument otherwise.
In the State Dept Foreign Service, people are elevated in a triangle scheme. After a certain amount of years at one position, you must either rise or be removed. Wilson was an ambassador, and so he could only be placed as an ambassador since he couldn't rise higher in the triangle scheme. However, since many ambassadorial posts are filled for political reasons - rewards for support - it is becoming increasingly hard to reach the ambassadorial position by years of service and experience. So Wilson was forced out, not as a result of poor service or incompetence but because the State Dept employment layout isn't - well, it just isn't very smart.
So there are no questions to his competence because he "as let go after many years". It's just policy. Called "tenure clock", if there's a definition somewhere you'd like to look up.
The thing that bugs me about this story is that Mrs. Wilson was an CIA operative that would have made her about a military major/lt col or below (GS 11 to 14 maybe). Yet her husband was of Ambassadorial rank, the same as a military general officer. It seems odd to have a major sending a general to do a task that seemed to require security cover.
I don't challenge what Wilson found. But, the whole investigation process could use some major explanation. The husband/wife relationship in putting the trip together is something of a conflict of interest.
It seems that if Mrs. Wilson wanted a creditable report she would not have sent her husband to avoid the illusion of wanting a controlled report. Litigation that opens up the whole case and explains more that just the release of a name would be most welcome.
Valerie Plame did not SEND her husband anywhere. She didnt have the authority to do so. The CIA's story is when the VPs office asked them to look into it, one of her superiors ASKED her if he might be a good choice, she said yes and was instructed to write up a memo indicating why. All of this overlooks the fact that Joe himself might have been CIA also, at least at one time. I mean many embassy officials are, everyone knows that. At any rate that might clear up any confusion you seem to be having.
Did anyone notice that Brit Hume referred to Plame as former CIA employee? Makes her seem a little less important, doesn't it, as if maybe it was her job to change the toner in the copy machine and to restock the coffee filters. They are crafty, those FOX newsies.
that tommy and all the right wingers keep talking about? repeat after me, it was u-n-p-a-i-d. it involved a long plane ride to sit around some second rate hotel to have several days of meetings. and he was more than qualified to take on this.....unpaid.....mission. it goes right to the qualifications of this administration that their best defense is that they were so careless with classified info, which her identity was, that they "inadvertently" revealed it. and they "inadvertently" did this how many times to how many reporters?
I mean they act like it was a junket to Bermuda or something. Does anyone ANYWHERE lust after the nightlife in Niamey?
To show there was a campaign it'is necessary is to show there was a concerted effort in the direction over an extended period of time. Concert - coordianted. Not all that coordinated, they got caught. Extended period of time - still going on, never ending character assinations. Now it's bloggers they want to assinate. Well, not those that expound the glories of his most royal.