Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Plame affair

I've been watching the news, as many Americans, of the investigation of the leak by the White House about the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. The CIA operative's position with the government, reported by Bob Novak on July 14, 2003 , was political payback for former ambassador Joe Wilson, husband of Plame, who refuted 'evidence' that Saddam was shopping for uranium in Niger in a March 2002 report commissioned by the CIA, a key factor in selling the invasion of Iraq to the American people and the U.N. I've heard conservatives laugh away the implications by stating "she was never in danger" or "this whole thing is actually a smear campaign by the Democrats against the Bush administration." Limbaugh, Snow, O'Reilly and other conservative windbags believe it's much ado about nothing, but I guarantee you these guys know better. One of the reasons McCarthy was so successful at his assault on dissenting views was the ordinary American of the day supported his actions. Plame's husband, former appointee by the elder Bush, dissented publicly with Bush the Younger's advocacy of pre-emptive warfare policy in Iraq and his wife paid the price, despite her work to preserve freedom and the American way of life (isn't that what every conservative American would say about CIA agents?) through the nuclear age. I hope the action by Libby and presumably(though I'm sure the evidence is being destroyed as we speak and for the past two years) Cheney is not acceptable to ordinary Americans, though I believe it is. Olly North's litany of lies during Iran-Contra was acceptable to ordinary Americans until he blamed the White House--not wise to blame the right's champion Reagan, though breaking the Bolen Amendment was perfectly acceptable to GOP cronies. The truth is Americans can act downright UnAmerican if the right buttons are pushed and the right fears exploited. It seems, in honor of Ann Coulter's sinister pronouncement that anyone who doesn't agree with her is treasonous, the GOP has increased the stakes with this bit of political payback, which could be construed as treasonous, as a Paul Krugman column of July 2003 suggests.

The 60 Minutes program of last Sunday(Oct. 30, 2005) explained the Plame affair through the eyes of fellow CIA operatives. Plame's identity as a CIA operative is 'classified' as Non Official Cover, meaning, she has no diplomatic immunity from arrest, prosecution, jailing, or execution if she's discovered as a CIA operative in another country. In other words, her job with the CIA inherently includes risk and now that she's 'outed' as an agent, anyone associated with Plame or her 'company', Brewster-Jennings and Associates might have been exposed to the danger of discovery as covert agents by governments hostile to the U.S. and the free world, Walter Pincus(former associate of Sen. Fulbright) and Mike Allen reported in the Washington Post in October 2003. Novak had no qualms about naming Plame's CIA front employer on CNN and mentioning she donated $1,000 to the Gore campaign (in today's America, proof-positive of Plame's sinister aims on our way of life). Anyone who studies WMD proliferation must have contacts in very dangerous nations to monitor their efforts in acquiring components and producing weapons, so this is no small affair as GOP cronies in the press have been asserting.

There is no doubt the Bush administration was playing hardball against an analyst's husband who wouldn't accept the bullying by the Bush administration and spoke against the 'smoking gun evidence' for invasion and the analyst was fair game. If a Democratic administration had committed this cavalier act, there would be outrage in the conservative windbag community for certain. Hell, Clinton was impeached over a blowjob. Blowing the cover of a CIA analyst for political reasons is a despicable act, particularly by the Vice President's most valued aide and national security adviser in the White House.

If ever there is evidence of GOP hypocrisy, this case is definitive evidence that loyal opposition is intolerable to Republicans. 'Accept the GOP view of the world or else,' is the implication. The intelligence community in America and the free world should be deeply perturbed by the actions from the Vice President's office. If ordinary Americans aren't equally perturbed, then they are complicit too. The guru of 'dirty tricks', Karl Rove, whose activities in Illinois in the 70's for GOP agitators in his 'dirty tricks' school was mentioned(though not his name--he was still a nobody, except to Republican Party chairman George H.W. Bush who was angry about another Republican blowing the whistle on Rove's enterprise to the press) in All the President's Men by Woodward and Bernstein illustrating the scope of Nixon's antics, must be suspected of involvement, naturally, though there might be no evidence to support a conviction for any of the participants in this act of treachery.

I noticed in the news today that an American soldier accused of 'fragging' a superior in Iraq stands the chance of execution. What if Plame was harmed or her field associates aiding her covert work have been or will be harmed, even killed? Would this act of treachery be described as a 'fragging'(though the traditional term means killing a superior, not a lower ranking official--I suppose it would be better characterized as mere murder)? I am astounded at the behavior of the party which I once believed had the best interests of America at heart. I'll never be seduced by their rhetoric again, particularly with George W.'s reckless, inept administration as a glaring example. All the Republicans defending the action are equally as reckless and inept, and throw seditious into the mix of adjectives for this act. Our government has failed us again. The acts from the Vice President's office were indefensible at best, treacherous at worst.

What the hell is happening here? If this type of behavior is tacitly acceptable to the majority of voters, we are in trouble. Our democratic heritage is in serious jeopardy if we allow our highest elected officials to play politics with our national defense and squelch all opposition by ruining careers and possibly causing lives to be lost. The Iraq War was sold to the populus with a litany of lies,half-truths, and legitimate fear of yet another attack within our borders. 2,000+ American military personnel have suffered the ultimate price for this invasion. Possibly 100,000 Iraqis have died in this conflict, though I've seen much lower estimates. The Coalition bombed Iraq at will for years, prior to the 2003 invasion and the 'no-fly' zone had been extended to include most of Iraq. Was this invasion necessary? Obviously, most American voters accepted the pre-emptive policy because they re-elected the man responsible for our troops' presence within Iraq's borders. Where do we go from here? I'm beginning to fear that answer more than ever under the present circumstances.

7 Comments:

Blogger Britt Phillips said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:23 PM  
Blogger Sammy_Finkelman said...

Do you bother to inform yourself of anything?

> The CIA operative's position with the government, reported by Bob Novak on July 14, 2003 , was political payback for former ambassador Joe Wilson, husband of Plame,

Are you trying to tell me that you do not know hiow and why her name came up? Wilson attributed his trip to the Vice President's office and claimed they must have known what he reported back. In reality they knew nothing of the trip. as the indictment makes cklear (Libby was trying to find out who the unnamed ambassador was - ergo he didn't know)

Her name came up as an explanation within the government as to how he got picked to take this trip.

> who refuted 'evidence' that Saddam was shopping for uranium in Niger in a March 2002 report commissioned by the CIA,

He didn't do that. He did say taht it was unlikely amd almost imposisble taht uranium had already left Niger and he brought some evidence that maybe - about two years earlier than the reports Cheny wanted investigated - that is in 1999 - Saddam might have been trying to sound out Niger about selling him uranium.]

If you are interested in the truth about Wilson rather than Democratic Party fictions, read this:

http://roberts.senate.gov/07-09a-2004.htm

This information was excluded from the Senate intelligenece committe report not because Democrats had any dispute with it but because for partisan reasons they could not contradict this nonsense.

The Weekly Standard also has had some good articles. Even the columnists for the New York timesw have read them and been impressed.
(except for Paul Krugman I guess)

One thing that I learned only from the Weekly Standard article
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/217...


was that actually there were different versions of that story, that put
the attempts to import uranium at different periods of time.


Now the story was untrue, yes (in my opinion)


There were 500 tons of yellow cake found at the nuclear research center
of Al-Tuwaitha in Iraq when American tanks rolled into Bagdhad. This
means of course that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no reason to be
interested in importing uranium from Africa\, since he already had
plenty.


But...


He - and countries friendly to him - like France, which a British
newspaper thinks forged the documents that appeared in late 2002 -
might have had an interest in spreading the story that he was
interested in importing uranium


Because....


If he was interested in importing unenriched uranium, that meant he
didn't already have any uranium, enriched or not!


In other words it meant that saddam Hussein was further away than ever
from getting an atomic bomb. Instead of being half a dozen yuears away
from an atomic bomb it would be more than a decade. Especially since
none of the stories claimed that the uranium had actrually arrived in
Iraq.


But it was treated in the U.S. as evidence taht Saddam Hussein was -
well at least revving uop his nuclear weapons proghram again.


Stupid!


Of course there were people in the CIA helping Bush Cheney et al be
stupid.



> In June of 2003, the timeline grows dense. On or about the 11th and 12th
> of June, Scooter Libby was involved in a flurry of activity trying to
> track down how it came to be that Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger on a
> fact-finding trip,


Actually he was trying to find out who in the woprld taht Ambassador
was - BECAUSE HE DIDN'T KNOW IT!


> and why he was telling the press, at first on
> background and later for attribution, that by the time of the State of the
> Union address, the Niger story was already known to be false by the
> administration


Which was not true. It was not known to be false. What was stupid was thinking that it bolstered the case for invasion, when the opposite was the case!

Except for maybe making Saddam Hussein look reckless.

Of all the 16 words the one that was most wrong was "recently" But tahtb was because theer were actually several differenmt versions of this story about Saddam Hussein wanting to get uranium from Niger. This story was not invented by the Bush White House. It was invented most likely by Saddam, Hussein and his allies or partial allies.

2:47 PM  
Blogger Sammy_Finkelman said...

Sorry some of the quotes here are pasted from somewhere else.

2:48 PM  
Blogger Sammy_Finkelman said...

You wrote:

<< 'evidence' that Saddam was shopping for uranium in Niger in a March 2002 report commissioned by the CIA, a key factor in selling the invasion of Iraq to the American people and the U.N. >>

This is also untrue. It was not very important. The unique thing about this was - it was refuted BEFORE THE WAR BEGAN! (although after the decision had been made I think)

The Bush Administration passed some forged documents to the UN where they were immediately detected as false. Somehow though, the CIA was unable to do that. They were passe dion to the UN because the CIA or whoever was in charge of vouching for them did not flag them as false. Wilson at first pretended he had been involved in saying they were false. But those documents came along later.

There was a whole campaign of disinformation to get the US government to assert or believe taht Saddam was interested in importing uranium from Africa.


>> I've heard conservatives laugh away the implications by stating "she was never in danger"

Which of course is true. Now if it was intended to hurt him it could still be bad.

>> or "this whole thing is actually a smear campaign by the Democrats against the Bush administration

Which is of course is also true and extremely obvious. Any other interpretation is nonsense.

>> One of the reasons McCarthy was so successful at his assault on dissenting views was the ordinary American of the day supported his actions.

McCarthy was kind of successful because all people agreed Communism was bad and conspiratorial. Interestingly enough off all U S Senators it was Sen Joseph MCCarthy who most owed his election to the Communist Partry. In 1946 they had gotten some people to register Republican to vote against LaFolette because LaFollette was an internationalist.

>> Plame's husband, former appointee by the elder Bush, dissented publicly with Bush the Younger's advocacy of pre-emptive warfare policy in Iraq and his wife paid the price, despite her work to preserve freedom and the American way of life <<

This is baloney. If she paid any prioce at all it was because she was married to a liar.

Plame's identity as a CIA operative is 'classified' as Non Official Cover, meaning, she has no diplomatic immunity from arrest, prosecution, jailing, or execution if she's discovered as a CIA operative in another country.<<

She hadn't worked in taht capacity for a number of years. The CIA beleived the Russians knew about her. heer marriage toa former diplomat was also compromising. There is no reason Cheney Libhy et al had any reason to suppose she was "covert" in any way.
>> mentioning she donated $1,000 to the Gore campaign (in today's America, proof-positive of Plame's sinister aims on our way of life). >>

A possible indication of partisan motives.

There is not one sentence in your post that is good.

2:59 PM  
Blogger Sammy_Finkelman said...

From Senator Pat Roberts' website:

http://roberts.senate.gov/07-09a-2004.htm

...The former ambassador’s wife suggested her husband for the trip to Niger in February 2002. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on behalf of the CIA, also at the suggestion of his wife, to look into another matter not related to Iraq. ...

But in the New York times article of Sunday, July 6, 2003 as posted on Commondreams Wilson wrote:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

<< For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council. ....

....In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. .. >>

This very strongly implies that he had not been there since at least 1998.

Why did he go so out of his way to imply that there had not been a previous trip? Hew didn;t have to mention it but why hide it like this? Could it be that thereby hangs a tale? I'd like to know that.

3:10 PM  
Blogger AR1836 said...

Nice to hear the GOP position from the Roberts for Senate campaign in Kansas. If this had been a Democratic administration, your story would be the direct opposite of the 'retort' you've provided in support of the White House. I didn't realize the Senator from Kansas was such a fan of McCarthy; talk about your liars, his campaign against LaFollette was full of lies. Maybe YOU should conduct some research about your heroes. I'm thankful AR's Senator Fulbright attacked McCarthy for what he was: A charlatan and a drunk one at that. McCarthy's tirade was directed at New Deal Democrats who tried to alleviate the suffering of America, unlike the Hoover administration whose answer was paper reforms which put no one to work and put food on no one's table. More of Hoover's approach might have led to insurrection, which would have been disatrous with the rise of fascism in Europe.

7:02 PM  
Blogger House Cleaning said...

I surf the web looking for blogs like this one.
Your site was on point and will be back again! Awesome
blog.
Want to see top notch work, peep my ut utah house cleaning blog site for the bomb work!

4:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home