September 28, 2003
WHY I HATE BUSH....A PLEA TO CONSERVATIVES....A good night's sleep hasn't made me any less angry about the Valerie Plame bombshell from last night. The more I think about it, the more pissed I get.
But there's a lesson here too: this episode crystallizes the real
reason why I dislike George Bush and his administration so intensely.
Sure, I dislike his policies, and I don't care much for his phony macho
Texas act either, but that's not really it.
The real reason I despise him is the feeling I've had from the
beginning that Bush doesn't really believe in anything. Bill Clinton,
to be sure, was a smooth talker who was more than willing to say
different things to different audiences, but he was also willing to take
risks for things he believed in. NAFTA and welfare reform pissed off
his base, while healthcare and tax increases were widely unpopular with
the country at large. But he pushed them anyway because he believed in
Bush doesn't seem to have anything like this. As former Bush advisor John DiIulio said,
"What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the
political arm." Tax cuts are good for the base. War in Iraq is good
for the base. Steel tariffs might help us in West Virginia. But
talking about the long term costs of the war isn't good for the
base, so it gets soft pedaled. Ditto for Social Security and Medicare
reform, which require genuine leadership and hard choices.
I don't like the hard right agenda, but I dislike the hard right
temperament even more — and George Bush's Texas is ground zero for the
hard right of today. Bill Clinton had Vince Foster murdered? Fine. He
ran drugs while he was governor? Great stuff. We might be able to
smear an opponent by publicly unmasking a CIA operative? Let's do it.
Say what you will about Clinton and his disaster of a personal life.
And there's no question that he fought to win — quite skillfully and
not always fairly. But he didn't do anything like this. In fact, I
can't think of an administration since World War II that would have done
something like this. It would have given pause even to Nixon's
I doubt that blowing Valerie Plame's cover actually did much harm in
the end. But that doesn't matter. This episode exposes the viciousness
and amorality at the very heart of the Bush administration, and I hope
it opens some conservative eyes about the nature of the administration
they support. These guys are not who you think they are and they aren't
pursuing their policies for the principled reasons you think they are.
After all, if they went to war with Iraq because of a genuine
commitment to humanitarian relief and Middle East democracy, don't you
think they would have paid a little more attention to postwar planning?
What does it tell you that they didn't?
Remember: this is not just some run of the mill political dirty
trick. It's perilously close to treason. No truly principled
conservative administration would do a thing like this, and the fact
that they've been trying to dodge it for two months tells you everything
you need to know about them.
There are plenty of honorable conservatives out there who deserve
conservative support, but not the ones running this administration. So
for God's sake, take a good hard look at these guys and get clear of
them while your conscience is still intact. This is going to get ugly.
Posted by Kevin Drum at September 28, 2003 11:12 AM
Come on Kevin, tell us what you really think!
I am starting to wonder if another republican might challenge Bush if these things keep up.
Thank you, Kevin. Very well said.
The only principles these guys understand are the ones spelt "principals."
Was that Howard Drum or Kevin Dean?
Whichever, powerful stuff, I couldn't agree more.
Take a look at the comments in Tacitus'
blog regarding this affair. Even the so-called "moderate"
conservatives there are bending over backward to pretend that the story
isn't what it appears to be. I'm not expecting a huge groundswell of
criticism from conservatives on this.
Yep. I disavow Bush to the same degree that the left disavowed Hillary after the FBI files episode.
It looks like Dan Drezner was thinking the same thing. Very strong words...
Condi Rice on "Fox News Sunday":
Asked if the White House was not concerned that top officials
might have done such a thing, Rice said she did not recall any
discussions about the matter.
"I don't remember any such conversations but I will say this. The
Justice Department ... will determine the facts. They will determine
what happened. They will determine if anything happened. And they will
take appropriate action," Rice said.
Rice also said top administration officials "didn't remember" in
the case of the president's State of the Union address in January, in
which he said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Though the offending phrase had been deleted from an October
presidential speech in Cincinnati, Rice said, "Three-plus months later,
people didn't remember that George Tenet had asked that it be taken out
of the Cincinnati speech, and then it was cleared by the agency. I
didn't remember. (Deputy national security adviser) Stephen Hadley
"We are trying to put now in place methods so you don't have to be
dependent on people's memories for something like that," she added.
And this is explanantion enough? "I don't recall!!!???" For crying
out loud! I cannot believe this kind of runaround excuse for a response
will be good enough for anyone, let alone enabler / lackeys at Fox or
Rice and others have already demonstrated the joke that is their
"memories" and accountabilty. If this isn't the major story this week,
I'm going to have to assume that this kind of crap from the WH will once
again be good enough.
I can barely type right now...
I think once we get the current gang out of power, our first priority
should be to increase transparency of ALL government processes. The
Bush cabal has proven (once again) that a culture of secrecy and
dishonesty does not function in the best interests of the American
There are plenty of honorable conservatives out there who deserve conservative support.
Too many of them, the oh-so-honorable Mr. McCain among them, have
lain down with the dogs so often, and so long, that they can scarcely
complain about the flea problem now.
I'd like to feel their pain...but it remains to be seen if there is any.
Oh, Kevin, Kevin. You just don't get it: it's "too complicated."
You can't expect Bush defenders to get upset if it's "too complicated."
Interesting, isn't it, how people who are obviously unusually smart
suddenly and very conveniently find certain things "too complicated." I
figure that excuse will last for maybe a week. Then they'll find
another one. Don't look for any eye-opening on the part of the diehard
Bush defenders. Ain't gonna happen. (And it's all tied into the
defense of the Iraq war, of course, but that's a longer story...)
Eloquent appeal, Kevin. I'm not sure though that many on the right or
left are going to agree with you that the problem with the Bush admin
is that they "don't believe in anything."
I'm used to thinking of these people as ideologues who genuinely
believe anyone who opposes them is opposing The Truth, and deserves what
in this case she gets. Of course in practice, if the ends justify any
and all means, no matter how crooked, you can legitimately argue to the
voters that these people have no values at all.
What's with the silence from the press? Especially NPR. I mean, I'm
baffled. I've been listening to NPR news for two decades, and I think
there's no doubt they've been drifting rightward for a while -- although
I'm not paranoid enough to think they're being taken over by Bushies.
It's their news judgment that bothers me. They seem to concentrate more
and more on rather innocuous but often insipid middlebrow cultural stuff
and avoid any controversial news items altogether. I still can't figure
out how they managed not to include Trent Lott's pro-segregation
comments on Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign within the
Voices in the News segment of Weekend Edition. Now they have managed to
totally ignore the Wilson/Plame matter. This morning there was not even
an inkling of a mention that the Justice Department is investigating the
matter and the Washington Post is reporting that two White House senior
officials have essentially committed treason. Right now Fox is doing a
better job of covering this mess than NPR. Odd to realize that Murdoch's
biased minions are more fair and balanced -- and relevant -- than NPR
Amen, Brother Kevin!
It's good to see that your proclivity to find the moderate viewpoint
still recoils at such an obvious treachery. I know it's hard to come to
grips with the fact that sometimes America 'elects' people who are
completely at odds with all that makes America good. But that's what we
have these days; these guys have no regard for decency.
I keep tuning into Calpundit because you've always been very
insightful, even though you're nowhere near as angry about this
administration as I thought you should be. Never forget how you felt
last night; this is the feeling that has afflicted your less moderate
brethren for three years now. And we were right.
Kevin, you are still on fire. Keep it up, and remember what Krugman
said at the end of the introduction to his book about the great
revulsion and to keep fighting the good fight.
This is well said, but hasn't the evidence been there all along?
Wasn't the manipulation of the voter rolls in Florida under Jeb Bush and
Katherine Harris prior to the 2000 election just more of the same?
And with the Diebold blackbox voting issue, and potentially a GOP
administration at the helm of the electoral process in CA before the
2004 election, isn't it clear we have a massive problem with our
presumptions about democracy? You don't have to venture into
tin-foil-hat territory to be a little curious about Saxby Chambliss
making up a 10% gap in the polls in GA overnight to beat Max Cleland.
Don't forget--your so-called honorable conservatives, such as James
Baker, also drank the kool-aid. Recall his "we will do what we have to
do to secure the White House" threats in Nov 2000.
all these damaging and potentially criminal/treasonous actions the Bush people took ... just for spite! Just for spite!
These people could be diagnosed as psychopaths. We should not have
them leading the country, and entrusted with very real and important
It's too late for Bush -- he's demonstrated that he just doesn't
care. Being "uncurious" is no excuse. Bush must be held responsible,
and must go.
Welcome back, Your dreams were your ticket out. Welcome back, To that same old place that you laughed about.
Well, the names have all changed since you hung around, But those dreams have remained and they've turned around.
Who'dve thought they'd lead ya? (Who'dve thought they'd lead ya?) Back here where we need ya? (Back here where we need ya?)
Yeah, we tease him a lot, Cuz we've got him on the spot. Welcome back.
Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back. Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back.
A one word reply, Estrada!
The silence of the press is over. It seems that they took the late
Friday revelation of this matter and sat on it for a day, so they could
splash with it on Sunday. Oh, boy, is the administration in deep.
Even Fox is in on the hunt - Tony Snow pounded Condi today. And I
think Kevin's hit on it - many people thought that the Bushistas meant
well. It's clear that they meant well only for their own short-range
interests, and to hell with the rest of the country.
So how do we get Bush off the GOP ticket? Surely it's not too late for someone who isn't George Bush to oppose the Democratic nominee...
Of Course the press is scared and careful with this story....part of the point of the leak was who was willing to do it...
and everybody in DC knows the names
Karl Rove ....and Dick Cheney? Anybody wanna see what Washington looks like if Cheney is accused of a five year felony?
Inciteful, as usual.....But do we really know enough to argue: "I
doubt that blowing Valerie Plame's cover actually did much harm in the
Actually, it's a ten year felony (and/or $50,000), and there are six
of them (one for each reporter notified). Also, you can add conspiracy
charges on top of that. (No doubt, one perp made the original call, and
said to confirm with the second perp.) No doubt an aggressive
prosecution could find a number of additional charges to tack on.
We've all been saying this for months. (Although perhaps not as well.)
doubt that blowing Valerie Plame's cover actually did much harm in the end.
Kevin, you disappoint me when you say stuff like this. You have no
basis for this statement. No information that the rest of us don't
have. The information is not yet available. How can you come to such a
What we can surmise is that it 1) ruined her career, and any further
chances of covert assignments; 2) exposed all operations she has been a
part of over the years, investigating WMD, and certainly tipping off any
interested parties to duck and cover; 3) sent the message that you go along with the manufactured truth or you will be destroyed.
The harm caused by this outage is not known yet. At least to us.
Otherwise, strong post though. Kevin, you're getting pissed!
Alright! Though I'd watch the use of the word "hate". Don't abuse the
discourse. You know that some words shouldn't be used.
I wasn't projecting when I wrote Treason
"Yep. I disavow Bush to the same degree that the left disavowed Hillary after the FBI files episode."-Al
Look over there! Hillary! Hillary!
....Bush doesn't really believe in anything. Bill Clinton, to be
sure, was a smooth talker who was more than willing to say different
things to different audiences, but he was also willing to take risks for
things he believed in.
Where I'm from the willingness to "say different things to different audiences" is condensed to "lie."
I think you're having some perception problems here, Kevin. Clinton
and Bush are very much cut from the same cloth in their lack of core
principles on many things; and if you think Bush is unwilling to take
risks for things he believes in, then I guess you haven't been paying
attention to, well, this whole Iraq war thing. Heck, pushing through on
key components of the agenda regardless of the cost is a hallmark of
this administration. Witness tax cuts; witness education reform. As
for alienating the base, I know you don't move in conservative circles,
but rest assured that plenty of us are plenty alienated over deficit
spending, over tariffs, and many other issues; also, I shouldn't need to
recount the spleen from more than a few on the religious right over the
appointments of gay directors for the Office of National AIDS Policy.
Frankly, I think Clinton and Bush are more similar than not. Which is the pity.
Say what you will about Clinton....But he didn't do anything like this.
Nah, just perjury. Seriously, if someone did purposefully blow
Plame's cover, that person should go to jail. If the President knew
about it, he should be impeached. But until we know those things for
sure -- the first seems likely, but you're making a lot of suppositional
leaps on the latter -- I'd say this rhetoric of yours is a little
In fact, I can't think of an administration since World War II that would have done something like this.
You must be kidding. This is entirely within the moral capacities of
certain members of the Kennedy Administration; it would be par for the
course for LBJ; and Nixon would not have shrank from it for a moment. I
can even think of Reagan personnel who might consider such a thing.
....I hope it opens some conservative eyes about the nature of the administration they support.
Yeah, thanks for the advice. I think I'll wait for the evidence rather than act on the prejudices of die-hard Democrats.
But rest assured, if you're right, I'll be there with you.
Speaking as someone from the same trade, I will be interested to see
how the Crossfire Combover and his six colleagues respond if and when
asked in court to reveal the identity of their sources for this leak.
Hey Tacitus, could you maybe try being a little more obtuse and sanctimonious? You weren't coming through as well as I know you can.
Ah, Billmon's here.
Rachel Corrie screed in 5....4....3....2....
Actually, saying one thing to one audience and another to another
isn't necessarily lying by any stretch of the demagogic imagination. If I
talk about libraries to librarians and hog farming to farmers am I
"lying?" But again, alas, the real point is that its not Clinton and it
will only be perjury if and when the supreme court rules that this
sitting president can be deposed for what he knew, when. And given the
breaks bush has been given (remember when he advanced, in africa, the
notion that we had to go to war because Saddam had kicked out the
inspectors?) no doubt even if he cops to having known Rove wanted to
hurt Wilson we will be told he 'misspoke' or its "just george being
Even my right wing sister in law is refusing to vote for Bush anymore. Wake up and smell the coffee.--aimai
Well, who does the Smirk remind us of?
can everybody say Warren Harding?
If I talk about libraries to librarians and hog farming to farmers....
Do you really think that's what Kevin meant? I don't.
There are two things that Clinton did which pissed me off, and yes
piss me off more than what this Administration is doing and did with
Plame: (1) bombing ex-Yugoslavia to Hell without getting Congressional
approval, which should have been the impeachable offense; and (2)
accepting campaign contributions from the Chinese and looking the other
way when military technology was sold to them.
OK on (2) I confess no one talks about it anymore, so almost
certainly I have the basic facts wrong (because presumably it would be a
pretty big thing if the facts were right, no?). So actually, if
someone did follow this story better than I (which probably isn't
difficult), it would set my mind at ease to know that Clinton wasn't
guilty of what I thought he was guilty of. Providing a link would be
But still, (1) in my mind stinks. Plame stinks, of course, but (1) stinks even more.
I just think it's hilarious that someone (Al in this case) would trot
out Clinton non-scandals and claim equivalency here. Even Ken
"Felonious Blowjob Perjury" Starr couldn't find evidence of wrongdoing
in any other action he investigated in the Clinton White House. That includes the Whitewater non-scandal that took place prior to the Presidency.
So please, if you want to accuse Clinton of something, just stick
with the oral sex. That's the only one he, or his White House, did that
might in the most bizarro of bizarro-worlds be considered equivalent.
If you want to dump Bush, go ahead and Run Connecticut Joe...he's not going anywhere right now...
"I doubt that blowing Valerie Plame's cover actually did much harm in the end. "
Not unless you count putting her in harm's way with possible
associates who didn't know what she was up to; the possible loss of her
job, and most importantly, serving as Example Number 1 as what happens
to people AND their families when they blow the whistle on misdeeds of
the Bush administration.
"In fact, I can't think of an administration since World War II that would have done something like this." -- Kevin Drum
"Yep. I disavow Bush to the same degree that the left disavowed Hillary after the FBI files episode." -- Al
"Look over there! Hillary! Hillary!" -- hgplink
Gee, hgplink, seems to me that KEVIN was the one bringing up prior administrations.
Kevin's post is typical of the psychotic hatred of Bush these days.
The evidence for illegal actions by a senior administration official
consists of one anonymous person quoted in WaPo. But that's enough for
the Bush-haters to go absolutely nuts. Is there any doubt that if the
Justice Department ends up saying "no crime" we'll have 68 Kevin Drum
posts on the "cover-up"? What's next, Kevin, some story about Bush and
drug dealers in Mena?
Kevin, wow. Great rant. You articulate my feelings exactly.
"Even Ken "Felonious Blowjob Perjury" Starr couldn't find evidence of
wrongdoing in any other action he investigated in the Clinton White
And no one has found any evidence of wrongdoing in any action by the White House now either.
The "evidence" so far consists of an anonymous quote in WaPo. Seems
to me that the parallel with "filegate" is pretty clear - a lot of sound
and fury from the President's haters, signifying nothing.
That's right, Al. Cling to your desperate little life-raft. Close your eyes and wish real hard and it'll all go away.
Go listen to Rush or something. You won't hear anything that upsets you.
Great post, Kevin, but I think you're wrong about Bush not believing in anything.
His core agenda is reducing taxes (especially for his wealthy
constituency) and reducing government interference in the operation of
his constituency's businesses. If the reduction of government revenue
leads to the ultimate destruction of large social welfare programs such
as Social Security and Medicare, all the better -- but those would be
welcome consequences rather than fundamental goals. His conservative
social agenda is also something he believes in, but in this case, I
think it is expendable when necessary to achieve his core agenda.
If you don't think Bush has a core agenda, then you would have to
think that he pursues politics simply to stay in power -- and I don't
believe that. He believes he's on a mission from God to set a few things
straight, and will employ any means necessary to complete that mission.
I share your dismay (and, sometimes, horror) in regarding these guys
and what they are doing to our country. Sometimes it leads to emotional
outburts. But I don't think it does any good to just write them off as
political demons without guiding principles. They have an agenda, and
recognizing it is the best way to counter them.
So actually, if someone did follow this story better than I (which
probably isn't difficult), it would set my mind at ease to know that
Clinton wasn't guilty of what I thought he was guilty of.
There was one person. He had years to operate, a budget of over
$80,000,000 and a massive team of investigators combing through every
detail of everything the Clintons and anyone even remotely attached to
the Clintons was ever involved in. Remember Ken Starr? Do you need a
link to know what he finally came up with?
Thumb - Well that would prove my ignorance ! (I didn't think Starr
looked at this; I thought it came out after Starr.) So yes, if you have
a link about what Starr came up with on this, I would appreciate it.
ScottD is, I think, correct.
Al, hackneyed old lies about the Clintons only work when you're
preaching to the converted. The same goes for name calling (psychotic,
nutty haters) and speculation about what someone may say in a
hypothetical scenario. Come up with some real arguments.
Is there any doubt that if the Justice Department ends up saying "no crime" we'll have 68 Kevin Drum posts on the "cover-up"?
Well, now isn't that cute? Here's Al, who still believes that John Ashcroft's Justice Department wouldn't cover this up if they could possibly get away with it... So sweet, isn't it, how naively trusting some people can be?
News flash, Al: the Bush administration has just been put on notice by the CIA that they are not going to be allowed
to cover this one up. There's no doubt that Plame's role was
deliberately made public, and the WaPo story says that at least six
reporters know exactly who did it. Names are going to be named, count on
Gee, hgplink, did you miss the comments above about the "Bush cabal",
the "psychopaths", "Smirk"? About how this is "treason"? Talk about
In any case, it is pretty clear that the Bush Haters are out here,
and now, sadly, include Kevin Drum. As for the term "Bush Haters", I
don't remember the lefties objecting to the term "Clinton Haters"...
Indeed, even the argument in this post by Kevin parallels the old
objection of the Clinton Haters that Clinton didn't have any principles
except staying in office.
The similarities between Kevin (and his pals posting on this thread)
and the old Clinton Haters in, say, the first month of the FBI Files
scaldal are REALLY eerie.
"but you're making a lot of suppositional leaps on the latter -- I'd say this rhetoric of yours is a little overheated."
as atrios would say...."HEH"
one of the things the wingers seem to be clinging to is that this all
means nothing because it's from anonymous sources...since when is
"senior administration officials" the same thing as anonymous?
how do you read your own comment boards without questioning reality
tacitus? the sheer ineptitude of many of your commenters is stunning
both in logic and content.
ScottD: Bush has simply done too many things that don't truly fit a
conservative agenda. Don't get me wrong: of course I think Bush is
basically a hard right conservative, but I truly doubt that this is
because of deep core feelings on his part. I can't prove it, of course,
but that's how he strikes me.
Tacitus: Saying different things to different audiences is normal
politics. Every politician does it. It might be wrong, but in the
world of politics it's a misdemeanor, not a felony.
And I don't expect you to follow my lead, of course, but at this
point I strongly suspect that the Post story is correct. As long as
you're with me if and when that turns out to be the case, that's fine.
Al, 'They do it, too,' is not an argument. I'm beginning to think you have nothing to say.
"I doubt that blowing Valerie Plame's cover actually did much harm in the end. "
Kevin, if you are still reading this thread, this is the GREAT harm that was done to our country.
Plame was a covert case officer. You can bet that foreign
intelligence agencies reviewed every posting her husband ever had and
then reviewed every contact Plame had that they could document. That
means ALL of those operations were compromised and had to be shut down.
But the harm goes further than that. Any foreigner in contact with a
CIA covert case officer now has to worry that they will be exposed as
some sort of act of petty political vindictiveness. This means our
ability to gather intelligence has been harmed. And the damage will last
for years. You can bet everyone at the CIA, from the Director to the
personnel in the mail room are plenty angry about this. Our national
interests have been seriously harmed.
And go read David Erhenstein's posting about anonymous sources,
becuase none of this would have happened if our press insisted sources
go on the record.
I think "too complicated" = "no have talking points"
Kevin's post is typical of the psychotic hatred of Bush these
days. The evidence for illegal actions by a senior administration
official consists of one anonymous person quoted in WaPo. But that's
enough for the Bush-haters to go absolutely nuts.
well, the CIA certainly thinks there's something worth looking into. are they now "Bush-haters" too?
(2) accepting campaign contributions from the Chinese and looking the other way when military technology was sold to them.
OK on (2) I confess no one talks about it anymore, so almost certainly I have the basic facts wrong
First off - I think the burden is on you to first show that their
were in fact the two events and that they were actually causally related
to each other. My understanding, at least with the Chinese money, is
that they didn't know it was coming from the Chinese government and then
it was returned when it was found out. There never was any quid pro
quo proven - that is just something from RNC talking points and right
wing radio that people like you tend to swallow whole as "fact" -
although I do commend the fact that you are willing to admit that you
don't have all the facts.
The story with the "intelligence secrets" involves Loral Space
Communications (or whatever their formal name is - google on "Loral").
All the supporting documentation used to be on their website - I haven't
looked in a few years so I'm not sure if it is there or not. The
following is from my memory, so isn't definitive but should provide you
enough context to do your own searching.
Basically what happened is that a Loral communications satellite was
sold to the Chinese and the satellite failed at launch. The Chinese
demanded a full investigation along with all the technical detail on the
satellite which hadn't been given to them (against national security
policy) and then either intimidated the local Loral people to provide
them, or actually physically confiscated the satellite programs with the
embargoed information. THAT is the "intelligence secrets" that you
claim was "sold" - sort of like claiming that Bush the RNC "gave" the
Chinese all the secrets that they managed to take off the Navy spy plane
back in Spring 2001 - and funny - I NEVER hear anyone on the right
squawk at that - or squawk at the fact that that woman operative in the
chinese fundraising scandal was actually a Republican fund raiser - but
hey... The only real questionable thing about the Chinese satellite
scandal was that permission was given by Anthony Lake to sell an
additional satellite (with additional intelligence safeguards) to the
Chinese while the investigation of the first one was still taking place.
I don't know if you remember what the Clinton administration was like -
but they made all sorts of efforts to advance international trade by US
companies - something that has definitely taken a back seat during the
Bush Administration - so the sale of the second satellite is somehow
being portrayed by the partisans as "proof" that the Clintons were in
bed with the Chinese while the most likely reason of smoothing
international transactions by US corporations is ignored. Regardless, a
"quid pro quo" of supposed campaign contributions and the sale of the
satellites has never been close to be being shown as having any
connection to reality - but like most things advanced by the right
during the Clinton Administration, no one really paid attention to the
actual facts when it was much more fun to play "GOTCHA!"
Do a google on "Loral" and "China" - and try looking for non-partisan
explanations of the episode - especially the part about secrets being
"sold" to them - I think you'll find it quite a bill of goods.
The idea that all would be solved if journalists were forced to divulge their sources is an absurd one.
Whistleblowing cannot exist in some cases unless sources are
protected, look at Watergate. Neither can democracy exist without
anonimity, hence the secret ballot.
This story is not about journalists giving up their sources. It is
about the White House actively handing out the name of a CIA operative
to the press. Hell, the WH had "at least six" goes at different
reporters before Novak bit.
Shouldn't those responsible in the White House have admitted it by now?
"well, the CIA certainly thinks there's something worth looking into. are they now "Bush-haters" too?"
Typical liberal... can't tell the difference between "worth looking into" and "why I hate Bush".
Is the episode "worth looking into"? Sure.
Is the episode a reason to "hate Bush"? Only if you are willing to
believe the word of one anonymous person quoted in WaPo AND put the
worst possible spin on it (heck, we don't even know that Plame was a
"covert" operative, do we?). But if you are a Bush Hater - something
that Kevin now describes himself as - I can see why you do that.
"heck, we don't even know that Plame was a "covert" operative, do we?"
Actually, we do. That she's a covert op is abundantly clear to anyone who isn't armpit deep in frantic denial.
You're very good at reading between the lines when swallowing
preposterous conspiracy theories. How about applying a mere fraction of
that skill here?
I've actually been saying this for quite a while. At heart, I'm a
moderate-pragmatic. I believe that a two-party balance makes the best
policy with a minimum of pork.
But for the last 6 months or so, frankly, I'm ignoring the
conservative POV. They have nothing to say. Absolutly nothing. There's
no difference, no debate. It's just follow-Bush. That's what it's all
I will take the conservative movement seriously again, when I see a serious Draft-Anybody But Bush movement.
I find your "Plea" condescending. Read my full response here.
Kevin, I see you've met my man George Bush. I've known him for a
couple of years now. I don't like him much. I guess you were bound to
bump into him sooner or later.
I also wish GOP commenters here much happiness with their criminal
administration. I guess I would admire them if they go down with the
ship, pretty much the way I admire a suicide bomber: i.e., not very
much. Vote Bush in 2004! He's the man for America!
"Actually, we do. That she's a covert op is abundantly clear to anyone who isn't armpit deep in frantic denial." -- Laertes
Uh, do you even realize that, under the statute in question, "covert agent" has a specific definition? Read 50 USC 426(4).
"In friendship false, implacable in hate,
Resolved to ruin or to rule the state."
This quote may be putting it too strongly, but somehow it seems apt.
Moreover, if Plame was a "covert agent", how does anyone explain the
following from Novak's original column: "The CIA says its
counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to
contact him." If she really is a covert agent, why would the CIA
disclose its own covert agent?
Yes, Al:a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence
agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to
duty with an intelligence agency whose identity as such an officer,
employee, or member is classified information, and
a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information.
What's you're point?
Al - here's the link to 50 USC 426. You're saying it doesn't apply to Plame ... how?
I need to refresh more often.
"The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."
This does not indicate any exposition of her covert status. Keep throwing everything you can get. Maybe something will stick.
hgplink, you really need to address your insight to the CIA, since
they've just concluded their investigation and handed it over to
Justice. I can't believe they didn't think of contacting you.
hgplink, you really need to address your insight to the CIA, since
they've just concluded their investigation and handed it over to
Justice. I can't believe they didn't think of contacting you.
Thanks, Mithras. If I knew how to post links, I would have done that myself.
Um, hgplink, you're leaving out a pretty significant part of the definition:
"(4) The term ''covert agent'' means - (A) an officer or employee of
an intelligence agency or a member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty
with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, AND
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last
five years served outside the United States; ... (emphasis added)
[the other categories are US citizens who reside outside the US or are involved in counterintelligence, and non-US citizens]
So, assuming Plame resides in the US (her husband sure seems to), in
order for her to be a "covert agent" within the meaning of the statute,
she would have had to serve outside the US within the last 5 years. Do
we have ANY evidence on that, either way? Not that I'm aware of.
This, of course, does not even reach the question of whether the
disclosing person knew that "the United States is taking affirmative
measures to conceal [Plame's] intelligence relationship to the United
States," as required by 50 USC Section 421.
"This does not indicate any exposition of her covert status."
Really? Why would the CIA ask Wilson's wife to contact Wilson unless she worked for the CIA?
In any case, if you are going to claim that, then you'd have to
acknowledge that the sentence in Novak's article in which Whiote House
sources supposedly "outed" Plame didn't "indicate any exposition of her
covert status" either? So, is that really the standard? If so, then
both the CIA AND the White House would be cleared.
Al, you are misreading the statute. The following 'or' means that the previous need not apply.
Plame's nominal position was sufficient for her referral. One need not
say, 'Ask Plame, she's a secret agent.' If her covert position was
discussed among people with security clearance, it is not relevant to
her public exposure, but do you really need to be told that? Keep
No, hgplink, you are misreading the statute. There are three
alternate definitions for "covert agent" - which are set forth in
clauses (A), (B), and (C) of subsection (4) of 50 USC 426.
I quoted clause (A). You, on the other hand, quoted part of clause
(A) and part of clause (B), which is incorrect. If you want to use the
definition contained in clause (B), you have to use all of clause (B),
which reads as follows:
"(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and -
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or
informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or
informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign
counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;"
As is clear, the definition in clause (B) related only to persons who
"reside and act outside of the United States". I don't think this
applies to Plame.
Wait a second. Let's talk about viciousness and amorality. Bush
knocked off Saddam because the neocons favored it, as a policy matter.
Clinton--that paragon of virtue--attacked Iraq because Clinton was being
To use war for domestic political needs is the most vicious and
amoral thing imaginable. But--if we accept all that Kevin believes
(Saddam posed no threat, Saddam didn't have WMDs and we knew that, there
was no good reason to go to war with Iraq)--then we must accept that
Clinton's war on Iraq in 1998 was in bad faith (just like the Bush war):
amoral and vicious.
That Kevin missed this tells you all that you need to know about him.
Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998? What was that: Gulf War 1.5beta?
What planet are these freepers on anyway?
Dave is showing the ignorance of the lefties... well done! (Hint - google "Operation Desert Fox")
Howard, of course you are correct. But any mention of Clinton will
automatically bring out the lefties to belittle you as a "Clinton Hater"
- nevermind that the disagreements about the war have literally made
the lefties here, including Kevin, "Bush Haters"...
Dave--a pitch-perfect response. You must be the new prototype.
What's that they say? Smarter monkeys please?
Again, Al, 'or' means exclusive of the former. Its basic English.I grow impatient with your willful ignorance.
Ooooo a scandal! We haven't had a good left wing wacko scandal for
at least, what, two weeks? Is this one going to get Bush impeached like
the last one? This will help the non-partisan electorate take
When are we going to try and win an ELECTION for President. You know
when you run a candidate who has good ideas and people vote for them
because they want that candidate to implement those good ideas.
This administration has been like bizzaro world. But the democratic
response to it has been almost as weird. Rather than run on issues that
democrats win on, we try to manufacture scandals which blew up on the
republicans when they tried it...or the primary candidates get
increasingly bizarre trying to get attention.
If someone committed a crime they will get prosecuted. That doesn't
mean that Bush will be implicated or this will be the end of the Bush
administration. The Bush administration will only end if the democrats
can elect a better leader who has better ideas and can capture the
majority of the ELECTORAL votes.
So far in the primaries there are 10 candidates and counting, it is
like watching a nationally televised democratic euthanasia in very slow
"I can be more shrill and anti-Bush than you!" Sen. Kerry to Gov. Dean
"Oh Yeah, Listen to how stupid MY foreign policy is...I am in favor
of attacking Liberia...but not Iraq!" Gov. Dean to Sen. Kerry
"Wait, I'm going to completely eliminate the U.S. military and create the Department of Peace!" Moonbeam Kucinich
"I'm going to tax corporations out of existance so that I can create jobs!" Rev. Sharpton
"I'm going to provide completely free health care to everyone just
like the French who are dying in heat waves, that is how liberal I am!"
"What are we attacking Bush for? We need to attack each other to win the primary!" Sen. Leiberman
That is how it looks to anyone who is paying attention.
I do this for a living, so please try to follow along. You can
choose between all of clause (A) OR all of clause (B) OR all of clause
(C). You cannot choose part of clause (A) and part of clause (B), as
If part of a clause is exclusive of another part,then your point is
not representative of that clause. As you are an authority on the
subject, I must assume your misrepresentation is deliberate and I will
not argue principia with you anymore. This thread is getting low on the
page, so let's join a higher thread. If you have a last word, I will
read it, but forgive me if I do not respond.
By the way, its hQplink.
Get a grip Kevin you whining leftist parasite!
Try a few facts first before you let your inate leftist mindset take over hands at the keyboard...
'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I
was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's
report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA
employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official
told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years
experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I
called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the
mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration
official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it
would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source
at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert
operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'...
What I hate about Bush: that recurring smug look on his face (and
Rumsfield as well) like he's just holding back the laughter at how many
Americans are buying this; and they way he uses the word 'freedom' so
much in his speeches, as if he's reassuring us that really is his main
Try this link russ, if you want facts:
A quote from that article by Robert Novak:
'Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an
Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior
administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to
Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its
counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to
contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told
Funny. . . that was my take on Clinton. I can't say I "hated" him,
though. I just thought he was an opportunist who would sell his own
mother if the price was right. On the other hand, I think Bush has
actual convictions (e.g, the war in Iraq sure wasn't likely to score him
political points). The old saying pretty much sums it up: "Where you
stand depends on where you sit."
"....Say what you will about Clinton... But he didn't do anything like this."
Ya, all he did was fire some cruise missles into two countries we
weren't at war with, on the day of his impeachment hearing no less.
several make the astute point that kevin's assumption that 'this likely didn't cause any harm' was naive. it is. very much so.
first off, the cia would NOT be getting involved at this level if the
outcome were 'harmless.' second, check out almartinraw.com, on or
around sept. 4, in which he claims the hill buzz is that 70 operatives
had to be liquidated worldwide.
now, bear in mind that this woman's schtick was ... WMDs. even if there
were no, er, collateral damage in terms of the cia operative staff,
there is still the compromise of this major connection for purposes of
snooping into WMD purchases and trafficking.
kevin, dearst, i highly recommend that you save naivete for romance and
children; politics requires suspicion and cyincism regarding those who
govern, and being the citizen of a democratic country DEMANDS it.
6724 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
2285 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?
1781 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com
8604 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com
Wow, I was just saying the same thing to my friend last night. Thanks for posting this!
4711 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com
484 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
6724 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com
As always, spot on! Amen brother!
I disagree, but respect your opinion.
3198 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here
you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~