?

Log in

No account? Create an account
I think I've finally got the last bit figured out. - John [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
John

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

I think I've finally got the last bit figured out. [Jul. 13th, 2005|02:54 pm]
John
One thing's been niggling at me about the Rove/Novak/Wilson situation. It keeps coming down to "why were there any questions about why Wilson would go to Africa to bang around and ask a few questions, and write a report?" I mean, asking questions and writing reports is part of what ambassadors do!

I started to realize that maybe that's not the *real* question.

Maybe the real question is "Why would the CIA send someone who was likely to gather information that could be used to attack the President?"

And that's a question that might really be on some political analyst's minds. "Why didn't we make sure we had someone more loyal making that trip, to make sure he couldn't use the information to attack the President".

There's just one problem. Wilson's trip was in February of 2002. We weren't *going* to invade Iraq yet. How could Wilson's trip be used to gather ammo against the President?

There are, of course, two explanations. First, Bush's team saw an attack today, and simply thought "He attacks today, so he was attacking yesterday, last week, last year, last decade. Every action he has ever performed was performed to attack the President. Let's prove this."

Not very bright, but understandable, given the attack dog politics currently in vogue.

The other is more sinister. What if someone got his ass chewed for letting someone like Wilson make the trip... because in February 2002, the invasion was already set in stone, and only loyalists would be used in any mission like this, to make sure they wouldn't compromise the push for war. What if someone got their ass chewed clean off for not making sure Wilson was a loyalist before letting him go on the trip. This would say that the lies and the "sexing up" of intelligence goes a lot deeper than I imagined.

I don't think that's right... I hope like *hell* it's not. I hope it was just short-sighted attack-dog instinct, and not this.

But if the latter case *is* true, well... I don't think any ass chewing should have been deserved. Everything I've seen says one thing: Wilson *is* a loyalist.

It's just that he's not loyal to President, or the administration. His loyalty is to his country, and, dare I say it, to the dream.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: kightp
2005-07-13 10:59 pm (UTC)

I'll take door No. 2, Bob...

I've read enough credible reports to believe that at least some of the president's handlers advisors were arguing that the US should invade Iraq long before GWB even considered running for president.

I'm not optimistic enough to to expect the president to honor his promise to fire whoever was responsible for leaking Valerie Plame's identity. But I'm damned well waiting to hear how he spins his refusal to do so.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2005-07-14 01:14 am (UTC)

Re: I'll take door No. 2, Bob...

Nod. But, love, if in February of 2002, they had already been planning to make sure only loyalists were involved in information collection, and were furious that Wilson "slipped through", it doesn't just mean that they were planning Iraq, but that they were already planning a propoganda campaign.

Bob Woodward's book clearly establishes Bush's intention to end the standoff in Iraq, and that, alone, I actually can get behind. The sanctions had to be ended; they were causing too much damage to the people, and not enough to Saddam.

But even the book pretends that the certainty about war didn't occur until January of 2003.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kightp
2005-07-14 01:35 am (UTC)

Re: I'll take door No. 2, Bob...

... it doesn't just mean that they were planning Iraq, but that they were already planning a propoganda campaign.

Of course they were. (By "they," I mean Rove and Wolfowitz and the rest of that brain trust. It wouldn't surprise me if Bush had been entirely out of that particular loop). These guys don't do anything without planning the spin in advance.

Daniel Schorr, among others, is convined Iraq was a done deal in 2002, and that that's why the CIA sent Wilson on his goose-chase.

Woodward, frankly, has grown cautious in middle age.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: johnpalmer
2005-07-14 07:01 pm (UTC)

Re: a link

Yes, I saw that. It's not going to raise any eyebrows I'm afraid.

You see, pusuant to one of the UN resolutions to protect the Kurds, the US and Great Britain decided to establish "no fly" zones in Iraq to prevent arial attacks, and claimed the ability to defend themselves from attack, including pre-emptively.

Now, that's of questionable legality, though nothing could come of it. Any security council resolution would face an automatic veto.

So, what the article probably describes is strikes delivered under the rules for the no-fly zones. Yes, you know, and I know, that they were intended to be part of the war effort, but they weren't (officially) crossing a new line.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: gh4acws
2005-07-14 07:20 pm (UTC)

Re: a link

Oh I am aware that the stuff looks legal enough so they can get away with it. Also the Kurds got screwed again : first The UN gives them some protection ( hey makes us look good ) but not enough indepüendence to annoy Turkey ( our valuable ally with the torture habit and the othet Kurd problem ).
:-(
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)