Comments on: MS-NBC: Plame was working on Iranian nukes

By: clarice

clarice — Thu, 11 May 2006 03:59:32 +0000

Shuster’s credibility is on a par with Wilson’s. Byron York reports in NRO today that at Friday’s hearing Fitzgerald stated that he was not standinf by Wilson’s credibility. That may be his only truly smart move in this ridiculous case.

By: Tom Maguire

Tom Maguire — Thu, 04 May 2006 11:16:13 +0000

From Hal:
“Tom had precisely the reaction to this that I expected he would have to this.”
Very few true believers from the other side surprised me with their reaction either.
Mark Kleiman, from the post:
“… it’s possible that Shuster and MS-NBC would run a false or poorly sourced story…”
Mark Kleiman in comments:
“Neither one convinces me that Shuster and Alexandrovna both decided to invent out of whole cloth multiple intelligence-community sources agreeing on the claim…”
Gee, I liked choice the first choice better – is any one else open to the possibility that multiple intel sources are continuing their war with the White House by, hmm, exaggerating or making stuff up?
As to the notion that I, or anyone, thinks Shuster invented the story, be careful – a steady diet of straw is best left to horses and donkeys.
As to the Armitage theory – Bruce Moomaw will want to check the Emptywheel at The Next Hurrah, a proper, left-approved site. Somewhat predictably, not every lefty site has trumpeted this, so it remains a bit of a Dirty Little Secret.
Well. Since folks are probably not actually reading my response, let me note that Dana Priest is also on the “no damage done by the leak” list. Hal can now explain why she lacks credibility and substance.
Walter Pincus nearly made the cut – his comment to the CJR was this:
Pincus believes that the Bush administration acted obnoxiously when it leaked Valerie Plame�s identity, but he has never been convinced by the argument that the leaks violated the law. �I don�t think it was a crime,� he says. �I think it got turned into a crime by the press, by Joe� � Wilson � �by the Democrats. The New York Times kept running editorials saying that it�s got to be investigated � never thinking that it was going to turn around and bite them.� The entire Plame investigation, he says, has been a distraction from a more fundamental conversation about how the White House handled evidence before the war.
That is not quite on point – “not a crime” does not mean “no harm was done”. However, he certainly passed on a chance to mention the harm done, and it would be odd for him to have failed to mention it in that context.
But, I predict Hal will not be impressed.
I further predict that Hal is unaware of, and unconvinced by, the “sloppy tradecraft” argument, the gist of which is, Ms. Plame and the CIA press office did such a miserable job of concealing her secret that their behavior is much more consistent with the theory that her identity was No Big Deal.
And I predict Hal will explain, to his own satisfaction, the recent examples I cite of mis-reporting by Shuster that is so inaccurate and anti-Cheney/Libby that a conclusion of “in the tank” seems to be justified.
Well – actually, I predict; *if* he were to confront the facts, I predict he would invent some rationalization for them.
Hmm, the links are being dropped by the software – here is Emptywheel:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/03/my_new_and_impr.html

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 02 May 2006 20:36:46 +0000

Is it worthwhile going over to Tom’s page, Mark? I gave up months ago, which was a year or so after it was clear that Tom was never going to accept reality on this matter.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 02 May 2006 19:17:30 +0000

Why won’t this come out in court? Plame has been outed and is no longer under NOC. There’s no secret that needs to be hidden.

By: wcw

wcw — Tue, 02 May 2006 17:46:10 +0000

Going after any whistleblower as hard as possible (“..we will fuck him like he has never been fucked!”) is both characteristic Rove and classic deterrent tactics.

By: Bruce Moomaw

Bruce Moomaw — Tue, 02 May 2006 16:46:33 +0000

On the surface, the idea that Armitage is the source seems implausible to me. He and the Cheney gang were not exactly close friends. Why would he leak Plame’s identity for their benefit, and why would Libby take such steps to try to cover up for him?
And — to ask another question that’s been burning a hole in my pocket for some time — if, as the Senate Intelligence Committtee report insists, the CIA knew that Wilson’s account of his Niger findings to them differed radically from what he said in his NYT column, then why didn’t the White House simply discredit him by revealing that fact, rather than by taking the irrelevant and legally dangerous step of trying to do so by leaking Plame’s identity?

By: Hal

Hal — Tue, 02 May 2006 14:01:09 +0000

So Andrea Mitchell – the person who “misspoke” about her assertion that she new Plame’s ID, the one who said “The fact is that I did not know [Plame's identity] before the Novak column”, she’s somehow an unimpeachable source? And Woodward, the gentleman who’s apparently hanging from a very thin thread at the Post because he didn’t bother to tell his editors about his own involvement in the stinky mess, the guy who has been hiding his own information and involvement is again the more believable. Oky doky.
Still, Tom had precisely the reaction to this that I expected he would have to this.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 02 May 2006 13:20:37 +0000

According to Tom we should believe the reporters who tried to cover up the leak in the first place. Yeah, they are the believable ones.

By: Mark Kleiman

Mark Kleiman — Tue, 02 May 2006 08:01:57 +0000

Apologies to Tom Maguire. A hyperactive spam filter caught his original comment, which I’ve now restored to its rightful place at the top of the queue. I’m also leaving up his second comment. Neither one convinces me that Shuster and Alexandrovna both decided to invent out of whole cloth multiple intelligence-community sources agreeing on the claim that Valerie Plame Wilson was working covertly on the Iranian WMD account when Novak’s column put her out of business. Let’s hope the journalistic heavy hitters who worked on the Plame story early on — Mike Allen, Walter Pincus, Timothy Phelps, Douglas Jehl, Mike Isikoff — will rattle the cages of their intelligence-community sources until someone known to them to be trustworthy says “yes” or “no.”

By: Tom Maguire

Tom Maguire — Tue, 02 May 2006 06:30:33 +0000

Am I missing some special trick, or are my comments not being accepted for some reason?
I have posted my thoughts on Shuster’s dubious credibility.
I also question this from the post – “her CIA connection was unmasked by Robert Novak, based on information supplied by Karl Rove and others in the Bush White House”.
A safer formulation would be “Bush Administration”. There is a good chance that Richard Armitage, then-Deputy Secretary of State, was Novak’s initial source, as well as Woodward’s.
Let’s see if this takes.

By: Hal

Hal — Tue, 02 May 2006 05:49:56 +0000

Hmmm. Maguire would seem to be risking an awful lot. He’s swallowed quite a bit up to this point and I’m not sure precisely what the reason this bit wouldn’t be swallowed with equal ease. My pappy said to never underestimate the ability of our species for self delusion and rationalization of data which doesn’t fit our preconceptions. Especially when precious links and hits are on the line.
Still, it would be pretty interesting to see the fault lines reveal themselves so clearly. But I’m pretty sure we can already see their outlines with a high degree of certainty.

By: PainterWoman

PainterWoman — Tue, 02 May 2006 05:44:05 +0000

Good grief… didn’t anybody read Joe Wilson’s book? (The Politics of Truth: A Diplomat’s Memoir: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity by Joseph Wilson (Paperback – April 10, 2005) The hardcover was out in April 2004. It was there to read. It’s not too late to catch up. He isn’t a blowhard, in my opinion. He was a commited foreign service officer who deeply (and appropriately) resented short timers who thought they knew more than he did after years of studying Middle Eastern, African and European cultures and languages. Certainly he had more experience and diplomatic savvy than Bush and his cronies. As 25 year Texas resident, I can tell you that most of the natives think Massachusetts is a foreign country, let alone Dubai, Niger or… France.

By: Tom Maguire

Tom Maguire — Tue, 02 May 2006 04:49:03 +0000

So you consider Chris Matthews and David Shuster to be real journalists carrying the full weight of MSNBC News? How about that. Does this mean the boycott of Matthews for being a Bush lap-dog is over?
Anyway, I am giving this story about as much thought as I give Chris Matthews other rantings, which is to say, roughly zero. I have little doubt that somewhere in the intel community there is someone willing to repeat the story told to Raw Story’s Alexandrovna Dostoevsky, but that does not make it true.
And against David Shuster we have Bob Woodward and Andrea Mitchell.
That said, I am gloomily expecting a Rove indictment (call it a 70% chance, but who knows?).
Obviously, the indictment will tell an interesting story – from what we have so far it does not look like a strong case, but time will tell.
Oh, in your post you say that “her CIA connection was unmasked by Robert Novak, based on information supplied by Karl Rove and others in the Bush White House.”
“Bush Administration” would be safer – there is a good chance that Richard Armitage, then Deputy Sec’y of State, was Novak’s first source.