Robert Novak, Joseph Wilson, and the Uncooperative White House

[1X83Z]

I was leaning toward not posting this, but I've decided to as I think it's one of the most important and most interesting issues facing the Bush presidency, and it very well has the ability to take its future place next to Iran-Contra, Whitewater, and the Lewinsky scandal in the US president hall of fame.

The way this issue has been playing out recently is like this - several days ago, a "source" leaked some information to right-wing Republican journalist Robert Novak that he then printed in a column. Novak's information was actually a major leak - somebody, somewhere giving up the classified information revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative called Valerie Plame. This alone would be bad - leaking this information is violating a 1982 act of Congress known as the Identities Protection Act, which made this sort of thing a major felony.

It gets worse though - Valerie Plame is married to former United States Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was one of the people sent to Africa to find that uranium Iraq was "buying" from African countries (the same uranium President Bush alluded to in his State of the Union address). Thing is that when Wilson returned to the US, his conclusion was that there was no uranium, and when President Bush claimed there was in his State of the Union address, Wilson went public, practically calling President Bush a total liar. It was later found out that President Bush was a total liar, but it was Wilson's allegations that sparked those discoveries.

So now the media is speculating on who leaked the information, and speculation is perhaps it was leaked as revenge against Joe Wilson for his public words about the president. Their speculations fall very high up - President Bush, and his extremely smart political strategist Karl Rove have been named for at least doing nothing to stop the leak, one which they supposedly knew about. Worse yet is tonight's White House announcement that they will not be seeking an independent investigation, instead letting the Justice Department handle it - a clear conflict of interest, according to several top Democrats.

Though this issue is still developing, it'll be extremely important - if it continues to snowball, say goodbye to President Bush - he'll be slaughtered in next November's election.

 

[milefile]

I heard about this in detail last night (on BBC of course). Sounds pretty sticky for Bush. I'm very curious to see how it pans out. I have no opinion to share, other than it was a terrible thing to do, even if we have to wait to see who is responsible. But I wouldn't put it past Bush and his heavy-handed administration.

I also heard some guy representing an organization of retired intelligence workers interviewed. According to him there are more than mere allegations, but clear facts proving the Bush administration is responsible.

We shall see.

Why do I feel so giddy?

 

[Danoff]

It was later found out that President Bush was a total liar, but it was Wilson's allegations that sparked those discoveries.

Wrong answer. He was not found a total liar. Everything he said about uranium and africa was totally unquestionably and undistputedly true. You are the first person I have heard to claim that it was not.

I don't think this thing is going to be a big deal. I think the news media is hyping it and that it was a mistake on the part of someone in the white house who's job it is to talk to the press. That seems a little more plausible to me than presidential conspiracy. But whatever let's just assume that the president is evil. Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
Wrong answer. He was not found a total liar. Everything he said about uranium and africa was totally unquestionably and undistputedly true. You are the first person I have heard to claim that it was not.

No it wasn't. It was all false. It never happened. This has been proven. The source of the forged documents is under investigation.

This is a much bigger deal in Britain right now than it is here, and Blair is getting raked over the coals for it, but the American media is intimidated by the Bush administration (and apparently for good reason, but like I said, we shall see) so we don't hear much about it.

 

[Danoff]

At issue here is the content of Bush's State of the Union Speech where he said something to the effect of:

Brittish intelligence reports indicate blah blah uranium blah blah.


Totally factual. Completely undisputedly true. Brittish intelligence reports DID indicate that. If Bush had been certain the reports were true he simply would have stated it as true. Instead he stated it as a Brittish finding and left it to the viewing audience to determine how much stock they wanted to put in Brittish intelligence (especially when the president wasn't able to say that the CIA or whatever had confirmed Brittish findings).

So YES. Bush did NOT in fact lie. What he said was completely true.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
So YES. Bush did NOT in fact lie. What he said was completely true.

"I did not have sex with that woman." Same thing. Dignity back to the White House my ass.

It was the State of the Union Address. It was not some impromptu, off the cuff comment. Every line in that speech was scrutinized, reviewed and ultimately approved by Bush. If he is so incompetent that he is unable to discern "darn good" intelligence from fake intelligence . . . wait . . . scratch that, because we all know he can, and did know, and chose to say it anyway when he knew everybody was watching, when it would have the most impact. He manipulated public opinion with fake intelligence. He scared America into supporting his war. It is also worth mentioning that Blair is in very deep over that little piece of fake intelligence. Bush will be in just as deep, next November.

For someone who has lost faith in democracy you sure are putting a lot on the average TV watching American to "decide for themselves".

 

[Danoff]

I’m glad you see the subtlety. Yes it is along the lines of “I did not have sex with that woman.” Though I would claim that since what Clinton did do with that woman was a category of sex, it should still be considered sex.

You are correct in stating that the fact of the matter is that he relied on British intelligence in the state of the union address while everyone was watching at a time when it would influence people the most. You could claim (unfairly I think) that Bush mislead the American people by including intelligence gathered from sources outside of our country. But since he did say that it was from sources outside of the country you cannot claim that he lied .

That piece of intelligence was the only piece (to my recollection) that was collected outside of the US and the British are not exactly a non-reputable source. I still don’t think he should have been discussing any of that business about WMD because we were more than justified to go in without that argument at all.

And yes, I do put a lot of responsibility on the American people to be well informed and make up their minds carefully. I do not, however, expect them to. I fully expect (and have faith in them) to reach the conclusions that the media tells them to. I don’t, however, like politicians who pander.

 

[Talentless]

I'm not sure of the details, but I've heard that Wilson's investigation is dubious as to its level of confirmation. And that the Niger issue is not the only bit of evidence in Africa.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by danoff
Wrong answer. He was not found a total liar. Everything he said about uranium and africa was totally unquestionably and undistputedly true. You are the first person I have heard to claim that it was not.

Laughable - both Ari Fleischer and Donald Rumsfeld admitted it was false, David Kelly effectively admitted it was false, and Joe Wilson and other members of his team have found the statement to have been entirely false.

So YES. Bush did NOT in fact lie. What he said was completely true.

Well yeah - but that depends on what your definition of 'is' is.

I can't remember if I authorised those arms to be sold to Iran.

Vincent Foster committed suicide.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman; Miss Lewinsky.

In effect: quit spinning!

 

[Kent]

I've been learning all about this over the last day and one thing that really bothers me about it is this...

After being asked about his source this morning, Novak responded with the typical, humminna humminnna hummiana...

Then upon confronting his statment that it was a white house official, Novak responded, "not necessarily white house officials, just someone in the white house."

I really don't buy this story at all.

If you ask me... jason blair. (right wing or not, jason blair and peter arnet all the way.)

(*btw, its not a good thing if you ask me to reffer to the "what your def of is is" when people may have an impression of you as a person falling to the left before the right.) (of course, Im a touchy a$$hole, so dont get too upset with me )

 

[Danoff]

Laughable - both Ari Fleischer and Donald Rumsfeld admitted it was false, David Kelly effectively admitted it was false, and Joe Wilson and other members of his team have found the statement to have been entirely false.

I am not spinning. I'm standing up for the truth. I have no special ties to Bush, I don't like many of his policies including the patriot act, his stand on the do not call list, his insistance on including religion in everything and many other issues. I'm not trying to protect bush, I'm trying to protect the truth.

Just because you thought bush asserted that british intelligence was true, don't blame him. He didn't assert that, he just listed his evidence and the evidence of one of our closest allies. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Keep in mind that I am not a republican.

 

[TurboSmoke]

Originally posted by milefile
I heard about this in detail last night (on BBC of course).

Why do I feel so giddy?

yes...we always get the america news before the americans....before Bush does infact....

as for the giddy thing...maybe youve been at your mummy's cheap cider..





















j/k

 

[vat_man]

I can't imagine the CIA would be particularly pleased that one of its agents was 'outed' for the sake of political expediency.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by danoff
I am not spinning. I'm standing up for the truth. I have no special ties to Bush, I don't like many of his policies including the patriot act, his stand on the do not call list, his insistance on including religion in everything and many other issues. I'm not trying to protect bush, I'm trying to protect the truth.

As you see it.

I love people who apologise for every mistake their heroes make, be it the left or the right. Either way, that isn't the topic of this thread, and I am well-versed in your rightist political opinions.

I can't imagine the CIA would be particularly pleased that one of its agents was 'outed' for the sake of political expediency.

Maybe. More and more fire comes down on the CIA and loser director George Tenet every day - perhaps it relieves a bit of the pressure (ie 'one screw up that wasn't our fault').

 

[Danoff]

I am well-versed in your rightist political opinions.

More party crap. I don't know why the labels have to fly. If you were well-versed in my political opinions you'd know that about half of them are leftist.

... and I haven't done any apologizing.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by danoff
More party crap. I don't know why the labels have to fly. If you were well-versed in my political opinions you'd know that about half of them are leftist.

Okay - the ones you talk about are far-right, and at every turn you're exclaiming your love and happiness at the conservatives. Once you're pressed, you give the 'I'm a moderate; I have diverse views' stuff that everybody spouts. I'm not buying it, nor do I care to continue a discussion you're so dying to bring into an argument. Forget it - I don't care about your views that much.

... and I haven't done any apologizing.

No - just excuse-making.

 

[Danoff]

No - just excuse-making.

I don’t see it that way. I see accusations by others who are blinded by party lines.

Okay - the ones you talk about are far-right, and at every turn you're exclaiming your love and happiness at the conservatives. Once you're pressed, you give the 'I'm a moderate; I have diverse views' stuff that everybody spouts. I'm not buying it, nor do I care to continue a discussion you're so dying to bring into an argument. Forget it - I don't care about your views that much.

Good for you. Ignore anyone who disagrees with you, it’s a good way to learn…. And I do not claim to be a moderate or have diverse views – I’m a libertarian - not that you care.

 

[Danoff]

How is the white house being uncooperative? Is it because Bush didn't assign an independent investigation? Maybe Bush wants to give the Justice Department a chance to do their job.

I think someone on here said that there was a conflict of interest for the Justice Department to look into the leak case, but since bush has been saying nothing but this is a serious issue and we’ll turn over whatever information is necessary to find out who the culprit is, I don’t think there is a conflict of issue. Besides, not everything has to be a conspiracy.

It looks to me like ridiculous unwarranted attacks on the president’s character as people immediately assume that he ordered a criminal action to pursue some sort of vendetta I’m sure he wasn’t aware of.

I think the moral of this whole ordeal is that the press is looking for a story and everyone here who suggests that it is likely that Bush had something to do with it gobbled up the bait.

Now, that having been said, I’m not sure Bush didn’t have something to do with it. But I’ll go ahead and wait until more information comes out before I start throwing stones.


Anyway, where am I wrong? Is the White House being uncooperative?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by danoff
How is the white house being uncooperative? Is it because Bush didn't assign an independent investigation? Maybe Bush wants to give the Justice Department a chance to do their job.

Fact is though that if the White House wants to avoid any suspicion, they should give the hypocrite Democrats what they want and let some aspiring Ken Starr take this one over.

I think the moral of this whole ordeal is that the press is looking for a story and everyone here who suggests that it is likely that Bush had something to do with it gobbled up the bait.

You're too quick to jump on the conservative bandwagon. Look - we've got a senior White House official leaking the identity of a classified CIA operative. That's a felony - that's nothing to pass off as the media 'looking for a story.' Any time the White House is under suspicion, it's very, very major.

White House Press Secretary Scott McLellan is doing a wonderful job of simply shutting up about the matter, and presently the administration is doing a fair job cooperating. But the whole thing's snowballing. The leaker will be discovered, and she will be prosecuted. Count on it. Bob Novak actually screwed his party over on this one. Unbelievable.

 

[Danoff]

You're too quick to jump on the conservative bandwagon. Look - we've got a senior White House official leaking the identity of a classified CIA operative. That's a felony - that's nothing to pass off as the media 'looking for a story.' Any time the White House is under suspicion, it's very, very major.

It's not really about conservative for me.

I was watching a show a few weeks back where they made fun of the term senior white house official, because like almost all ofthem are considered senior.

I understand it's a felony and a big deal. I just really doubt that it was ordered by the president, that's the part where I think the press is looking for a story. Why do I doubt it's the president? I think it was more likely a mistake than a deliberate action.

Fact is though that if the White House wants to avoid any suspicion, they should give the hypocrite Democrats what they want and let some aspiring Ken Starr take this one over.

Agreed. Though it would cost taxpayers more.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by danoff

I understand it's a felony and a big deal. I just really doubt that it was ordered by the president, that's the part where I think the press is looking for a story. Why do I doubt it's the president? I think it was more likely a mistake than a deliberate action.

Though I don't think it was a mistake, I agree the president wasn't involved - most Democrats I've heard on the subject have admitted the same thing, excepting Socialist Nancy Pelosi who says it's too early to speculate. That may be true, Nancy, but shut the hell up - for the good of humanity.

 

[Danoff]

Though I don't think it was a mistake

Why not? Why would someone deliberately do that?