February 26, 2004

Midget Moles Won't Stay Whacked...or, NewsMax of the Left

It's a funny thing about the people who still see the Plame affair as emblematic of the monstrous evil of the Bush Administration. That is, even if the story is true, even if someone in the administration did uncover Plame, there are a whole bunch of other fishy things that happened. But the people who pretend to be appalled by a shocking attack on the brave men and women of the CIA, don't care about ANY OF IT. Not unless it can be used to hurt Bush. In fact the whole story started in just that partisan way, with Wilson instantly accusing Karl Rove of the deed, and later admitting he had not the least evidence of it.

SO, what are some other things that happened, which ought to ALSO be generating outrage, if those "outraged" parties were actually interested in national security?

How about the fact that the original article went almost unnoticed? The person who did the most to reveal that Plame was CIA was her husband, Joseph Wilson, who is bitterly partisan against Bush. It was Wilson who trumpeted the matter to the world. Wilson was using this supposedly sensitive information for partisan purposes. Why no outrage about that?

And the CIA confirmed Plame's identity to reporters. If her identity really was an important national security secret, why no outrage about that? And if it wasn't important, the whole story is nothing.

And Plame was supposedly doing sensitive stuff under her own name! And not living a low-profile life. What kind of national security malarky is that? Where's the outrage?

Wilson was sent by the CIA on a sensitive national security investigation to Niger, requested by the Bush Administration. And the minute he gets back, he writes a virulent anti-administration article in the NYT. Uh, is this how the noble CIA operates? So subtle, so secretive? Where's the outrage from people who claim to care about national security?

And the NYT's James Risen said his contacts in the CIA told him Wilson was sent because the CIA had no interest in finding yellowcake. In fact they apparently sabotaged the mission. Where's the outrage from our national security buffs? And even if Wilson had tried his best, the mission was set up to have almost no chance of success. Without money for bribes, without agents already in place, without even much time, there was no way he was going to pry out such extremely toxic information. Where's the outrage from those who are pretending to care about national security? (And there were some suspicious contacts between Iraq and Niger. It's still perfectly possible the yellowcake rumors were true. But our national security fans seem to have no interest in that either.)

And there's another reason I think the people hammering on this have no interest in truth. And that is (if in fact it happened) the most likely explanation for such a profitless move is pure stupidity. Remember when the Clintons were found to have boxes of the FBI records of Conservative notables stashed in the White House? It sounded dreadfully Nixonian! But in fact the guy who did it was a nitwit, and there was no conspiracy at all. Every administration has some flaky stuff happen—remember there are thousands of hastily-assembled people involved, and all of them operating at manic speed. Serious people let the matter drop—NewsMax is probably still frothing over it.

Serious people know the administration is doing its best in a very complex and difficult situation. And making mistakes like any human organization. Serious people offer constructive criticism and thoughtful commentary on the big picture. Partisan midgets see only the few details that fit their hobbyhorses, and ignore anything else.

Posted by John Weidner at February 26, 2004 07:41 PM | TrackBack
Comments

You really should do a little more research into the Plame affair. You have seriously misrepresented what happened and you seem to have your chronology of events very, very confused.

As an example, you claim: Wilson was sent by the CIA on a sensitive national security investigation to Niger, requested by the Bush Administration. And the minute he gets back, he writes a virulent anti-administration article in the NYT.

Wilson actually went to Niger in February 2002. He spent just over a week there and his finding was that it would have been impossible for Niger to have exported the yellowcake to Iraq. He shared this finding with the US ambassador to Niger and her staff prior to departing.

Once back in the US (early March 2002), Wilson briefed both the CIA and the State Dept as to his findings.

Bush then made the famous SoTU address in January 2003 that involved the now famous "sixteen words."

Wilson's op-ed appeared 6 July 2003.

One could also debate whether Wilson's op-ed was "virulent" or "anti-administration."

But that's just one example of your rather sloppy mischaracterization of the overall Plame story. There are many, many others.

Posted by: JadeGold at February 28, 2004 01:34 PM

This may well be sloppy...I just pulled it out of memory. But you are pointing out errors without showing any interest in the SUBSTANCE of what I was saying.

--The writer PRETENDS to be concerned about natl security, but is only interested in ways to attack Bush.

--Even without the op-ed, Wilson has recently shown himself to be rabidly partisan, to the point where some Democrats have said he is a bit extreme. That's very fishy. that he should be sent on sensitive business for a Republican admnistration. It's just as dubious as the outing of Plame. As ae many other things here.

Bush bashing is just as pathological as Clinton-bashing or Kerry-bashing.

Posted by: John Weidner at February 28, 2004 04:49 PM

There is precious little substance. As I noted previously, you don't appear to have a good grasp of the facts surrounding this issue. Again, I'd urge you to do more research before you comment further; you have many other errors on this issue.

WRT national security--our credibility is part and parcel of national security. If we're misrepresenting or even lying about intelligence--our national security suffers.

Next, it doesn't matter if Wilson is extremely partisan or not. What matters is whether or not his assessment was correct or not. As we now know, his assessment was perfectly accurate.

You seem to be defending the notion that we can compromise intelligence assets if we disagree with their political leanings.

Posted by: JadeGold at February 28, 2004 08:21 PM

I didn't defend compromising intelligence assets. Nor lying about them.

You are just wasting my time, and not even trying to meet my points or argue with what I actually said.

Posted by: John Weidner at February 28, 2004 09:56 PM
Weblog by John Weidner