Hitchens: "Plame Out" A Ridiculous End to the Paranoid Myth
 

Where are the abject, prostrate apologies from the willfully ignorant, partisan venom spewers? Have you no shame for your prior errors? If you can't acknowledge prior lapses-- especially of this magnitude -- how do you learn and not make similar mistakes in the future?

Plame Out
The ridiculous end to the scandal that distracted Washington.
By Christopher Hitchens

I had a feeling that I might slightly regret the title ("Case Closed") of my July 25 column on the Niger uranium story. I have now presented thousands of words of evidence and argument to the effect that, yes, the Saddam Hussein regime did send an important Iraqi nuclear diplomat to Niger in early 1999. And I have not so far received any rebuttal from any source on this crucial point of contention. But there was always another layer to the Joseph Wilson fantasy. Easy enough as it was to prove that he had completely missed the West African evidence that was staring him in the face, there remained the charge that his nonreport on a real threat had led to a government-sponsored vendetta against him and his wife, Valerie Plame.

In his July 12 column in the Washington Post, Robert Novak had already partly exposed this paranoid myth by stating plainly that nobody had leaked anything, or outed anyone, to him. On the contrary, it was he who approached sources within the administration and the CIA and not the other way around (Y'all read this Novak column, right? Sure you did --JP). But now we have the final word on who did disclose the name and occupation of Valerie Plame, and it turns out to be someone whose opposition to the Bush policy in Iraq has—like Robert Novak's—long been a byword in Washington. It is particularly satisfying that this admission comes from two of the journalists—Michael Isikoff and David Corn—who did the most to get the story wrong in the first place and the most to keep it going long beyond the span of its natural life.

As most of us have long suspected, the man who told Novak about Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department and, with his boss, an assiduous underminer of the president's war policy. (His and Powell's—and George Tenet's—fingerprints are all over Bob Woodward's "insider" accounts of post-9/11 policy planning, which helps clear up another nonmystery: Woodward's revelation several months ago that he had known all along about the Wilson-Plame connection and considered it to be no big deal.) The Isikoff-Corn book, which is amusingly titled Hubris, solves this impossible problem of its authors' original "theory" by restating it in a passive voice:

The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone.

In the stylistic world where disclosures are gleaned and ironies underscored, the nullity of the prose obscures the fact that any irony here is only at the authors' expense. It was Corn in particular who asserted—in a July 16, 2003, blog post credited with starting the entire distraction—that:

The Wilson smear was a thuggish act. Bush and his crew abused and misused intelligence to make their case for war. Now there is evidence Bushies used classified information and put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score. It is a sign that with this gang politics trumps national security.

After you have noted that the Niger uranium connection was in fact based on intelligence that has turned out to be sound, you may also note that this heated moral tone ("thuggish," "gang") is now quite absent from the story. It turns out that the person who put Valerie Plame's identity into circulation was a staunch foe of regime change in Iraq. Oh, that's all right, then. But you have to laugh at the way Corn now so neutrally describes his own initial delusion as one that was "seized on by administration critics."

What does emerge from Hubris is further confirmation of what we knew all along: the extraordinary venom of the interdepartmental rivalry that has characterized this administration. In particular, the bureaucracy at the State Department and the CIA appear to have used the indiscretion of Armitage to revenge themselves on the "neoconservatives" who had been advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein. Armitage identified himself to Colin Powell as Novak's source before the Fitzgerald inquiry had even been set on foot. The whole thing could—and should—have ended right there. But now read this and rub your eyes: William Howard Taft, the State Department's lawyer who had been told about Armitage (and who had passed on the name to the Justice Department) also felt obligated to inform White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. But Powell and his aides feared the White House would then leak that Armitage had been Novak's source—possibly to embarrass State Department officials who had been unenthusiastic about Bush's Iraq policy. So Taft told Gonzales the bare minimum: that the State Department had passed some information about the case to Justice. He didn't mention Armitage. Taft asked if Gonzales wanted to know the details. The president's lawyer, playing the case by the book, said no, and Taft told him nothing more.

"[P]laying the case by the book" is, to phrase it mildly, not the way in which Isikoff and Corn customarily describe the conduct of the White House. In this instance, however, the evidence allows them no other choice. But there is more than one way in which a case can be played by the book. Under the terms of the appalling and unconstitutional Intelligence Identities Protection Act (see "A Nutty Little Law," my Slate column of July 26, 2005), the CIA can, in theory, "refer" any mention of itself to the Justice Department to see if the statute—denounced by The Nation and the New York Times when it was passed—has been broken. The bar here is quite high. Perhaps for that reason, Justice sat on the referral for two months after Novak's original column. But then, rather late in the day, at the end of September 2003, then-CIA Director George Tenet himself sent a letter demanding to know whether the law had been broken.

The answer to that question, as Patrick Fitzgerald has since determined, is "no." But there were plenty of senior people who had known that all along. And can one imagine anybody with a stronger motive to change the subject from CIA incompetence and to present a widely discredited agency as, instead, a victim, than Tenet himself? The man who kept the knowledge of the Minnesota flight schools to himself and who was facing every kind of investigation and obloquy finally saw a chance to change the subject. If there is any "irony" in the absurd and expensive and pointless brouhaha that followed, it is that he was abetted in this by so many who consider themselves "radical."

(all emphases added)

So JP, how do you and Christopher Hitchens believe that we got into the fiasco of invading Iraq if all of the supposedly fabricated rationales were actually true?? I attended a debate pre-war between CH and a couple of detractors, (plus another hawk), and they never mentioned any real down-side to invading. I will have to say that CH's reasons for wanting to invade were better than the ones the administration was giving at the time, but still; it was obviously a massive mis-step based on trumped-up assessments of Saddam's threat to the U.S., you can't be so vociferously attacking a couple of journalists because you still support occupying Iraq, can you??

Say it isn't so. I thought you were a real conservative. :cool:

Hilarious.

" I have now presented thousands of words of evidence and argument to the effect that, yes, the Saddam Hussein regime did send an important Iraqi nuclear diplomat to Niger in early 1999. And I have not so far received any rebuttal from any source on this crucial point of contention."

What pray tell, is a "nuclear diplomat?" Does he glow in the dark?

Iraq sent a trade representative to Niger in either '98 or '99 who vaguely discussed 'opening up trade' but did not mention nuclear materials.

All old news, all thoroughly settled fact; all brought up again and again for the exploitation of people with short term memory problems.

Re: Hitchens: "Plame Out" A Ridiculous End to the Paranoid Myth
 

maybe he didn't receive a rebuttal since no one takes him seriously. why do you?

Mul presented thousands of words of evidence too. :rolleyes:

next.

All of the defenders of the administration would be up in arms if someone on "our side" betrayed a soldier in the field.

But somehow betraying someone who spent 20 years in service to this country as a CIA operative is supposedly defensible because her husband made claims that were proven to be true, albeit in conflict with official positions... It's a twisted bit of logic, even for our logic-challenged neo-conned friends.

Oh, you mean like Whitewater?

Re: Re: Hitchens: "Plame Out" A Ridiculous End to the Paranoid Myth
 

The only "scandal" that I'm concerned about is an unnecessary, strategically stupid war that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives.

For nothing. A war that has made us militarily, strategically, financially and politically weaker than before we began.

Funny how you continually ignore that particular "scandal," but are keenly interested in what Mr. Hitchens writes about events of 4 years ago.

Rodeo, I recall you being quite interested in this topic until recently. I wonder why that would be?

If you mean the war, where another 4 Americans died yesterday, I am still very interested. How about you?

No, the Plame affair. I recall you posting often of it. No longer interested?

Why trying to change the subject, you dislike this one so much now? So much that you break into discussions about it purely to claim it's not worth discussing? INteresting indeed.

We lost the war in Iraq ... If you are so interested in "letting it play out," send your son or daughter for the final act.

I have never heard you address the simple and central issue of Iraq -- we are fighting FOR the enemy. In the face of this tragic stupidity, your solution is to "let it play out?"

I just realized that "let it play out" is code for "stay the course."

You've been programmed well.

Give me one Iraqi leader you believe your son or daughter should risk their life for. Give me one moderat, secular Iraqi leader.

Oh heck, just give me one not aligned with our enemies in the Middle East.

Just one.

Simplistic would also refer to any slogan like "stay the course" without some level of detail. Simplistic would apply to entering into a conflict without an exit strategy. Simplistic would ALSO apply to anyone screaming "cut and run". SImplistic would be attributing the lack of attacks on US soil after 9/11 to ANYTHING concocted in Washington. Individual initiative is what will save us, just look at New Orleans for evidence of governmental capacity to deal with calamity.

Governments, as they become more complex, also become less capable of action and react after the fact, and not always in an effective manner. Our government, in my opinion, has reached that tipping point.

Your silence speaks volumes.

I'll never understand how you or anyone else can continue to support our men and women being forced to put their lives on the line every day, to prop up an enemy state led by radical Muslims that hate America.

What a dork, I wouldn't give my chiilds life for anyone. You would? When did you stop beating your wife?

Man you gotta be smarter than you come off here.

You wouldn't want your child fighting in Iraq, yet you continue to support others' children being ordered to fight there, some on 3rd or 4th deployments.

Maybe I'm not too smart, but I'm smart enough to know what you are.

I would certainly support my child going if they volunteered, I would not "send them" or "sacrifice them".
And no, no parent wants their child in harms way for any cause. I thought you had kids?

Not one of the big 'war supporters' here want any of their family's blood spilled in Iraq, but I never see them express a moment's regret about the sacrifices of thousands of others.

What war did you want your families blood spoilled in?

liberals continue dancing on the graves of our brave men and women in the military.

This thread was about... what, again?

Rodeo changing the subject after his Plame orgasm flamed out:D

If you would not try to talk your kid out of going to fight in Iraq, you are even more callous than I imagine.

Why don't you answer the question daddy.

Tell me one Iraqi leader that is not allied with an enemy of the United States. Tell me one Iraqi leader it is in America's interests to fight for.

Just one.

You wouldn't know a liberal from a conservative if your life depended on it.

Since you are not in the military, it doesn't, so you can continue to spout your pro-Bush, anti-American drivel.

I don't know the biographies of all the leaders and what's more it's not who/what our guys are fighting for so it's irrelevant. You cannot honestly believe that is our mission, so why claim it?

Fine, if you want to play that way, only those who have served our military are allowed to talk about such issues.

Didn't think so. You are the perfect Bush supporter ... uninformed and proud of it.

I did serve in the military and that's not what I said.

You and daddy are pretty casual with everyone else's lives ... it's a shame you don't value them as much as your own.

That might lead you to investigate WHO our soldiers are fighting and dying for (you know, daddy, the "biographies")

Good grief are you pathetic, we are not fighting for the leaders of Iraq. Why would you claim such an obviously incorrect thing?

Might as well claim our guys are fighting to raise Haliburton stock......oh wait you do say that too:D

Yes we are. See, daddy, the leaders guide the country. The leaders set Iraqi policy. The leaders align themselves with Iran and Syria, and the leaders send money to Hizbollah and condemn Israel.

So when we pull out, after one more or one hundred thousand more deaths, and the leaders declare their allegiance to Iran and the cause of radical Islam, then Iraq will have become an official enemy of the United States.

Right now, it's still unofficial. To keep guys like you (the ones not interested in who is leading Iraq) supporting their climb to power.

Got it? (probably not, that would mean a disagreement with the president, and we all know you would never do that).

You're one of the youngest, most vocal supporters of the war; so what's keeping you from enlisting? A debiliating hangnail? Does cammo make your ass look too big?

Forget it Thom, the mouth breathers are gone ... they'll be on the next thread, at least until someone wants to discuss this "course" they urge us to "stay."

Details like who we are fighting and dying for are apparently too hard ... these guys stick with the pithy slogans :(

not enlisted = cannot support

Interesting.......... mind-blowingly stupid.........but interesting.

Funny how everyone is stupid but the guy that knows nothing about the government he has pledged OTHERS' lives to support.

:D :D http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/wat4.gif http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/wat3.gif

You're not fighting/dying for anything, so shut your suck-hole and double bill some clients.


Those that are fighting know what they are fighting for and so do those that support them. Your short-sightedness would be comical if it weren't so damaging to our our men and their mission. The men that currently sit in Iraqi government positions are not their mission. Hint.....think more than one election cycle ahead.

Next we are going to send US troops to prop us Hamas. After all they have another election in a couple of years, and maybe they'll vote the current crop of terrorists out of office. What should we commit to Hamas' survival, daddy? Let's start with 5,000 American lives and $500 Billion ... see how it goes, ok?

You are tragically lacking in wattage where it counts daddy.

Like I said, the perfect Bush supporter.

You just don't get it, and that's fine. But I wish there was a way for you to be so ignorant and partisan without damaging our men and their mission (remember supporting terrorists is NOT the mission). But alas this does not concern you.

Does it bother you that your sentiments embolden and energize those killing our troops? I doubt it, just crocodile tears for the political gain.

Carry on.

Yea, daddy. I'm a traitor because I dont want American troops and money supporting the terrorist leaders of Iraq.

This is one fcuked up country Mr. Bush has created. With a lot of help from guys like you. Guys that should be opposing the terrorist leaders of Iraq, but instead turn on their fellow Americans.