Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Republican Vindictiveness and Hubris

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:37 PM
Original message
Republican Vindictiveness and Hubris
The entire outing of Valerie Plame makes little sense except as an exercise in Republican vindictiveness and hubris.

Wilson visited Niger and delivered his report to the CIA in March, 2002.

On October 7, 2002, in a big speech Bush delivered in Cincinnati, the CIA, who vetted it beforehand, told Deputy NSC Director Stephen Hadley that Bush should not make any mention in it about attempted Iraqi uranium purchases because the intelligence on the matter was unreliable and weak.

In the January, 2003 State of the Union Speech, Hadley was told again by the CIA to omit any references on uranium purchases from the speech. Hadley negotiated and the reference to "a British report" about the supposed purchases was left in.

The reports were largely based on a forged document that the IAEA deteceted was forged prior to the opening of hostilities in Iraq in March, 2003.

Wilson's op-ed piece in the New York Times was written in May, 2003. As a result of the article, the Bush administration conceded publicly that the reference to the uranium purchases should not have been included in the speech. Tenet was forced to take the blame for Bush's "mistake". Hadley supposedly offered to resign because of the foul up but was kept on board. He now has Condoleezza Rice's old job as NSC Director.

So it was really all over. The Iraqi uranium deal had been shown to be a fabrication and the Administration had already conceded the error. Why then did they feel the need to still discredit Wilson by outing his wife's status as a CIA agent?

Apparently, they still wanted to punish Wilson and his CIA wife and did so because they thought they could get away with it. Vindictiveness and hubris. That's just the way they are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. Have you followed Plame's career path with the CIA?
HAve you considered she, and the CIA, and Brewster Jennings, were the target? Because of her 'outing', some of this is out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. So you're saying that she'd have been outed anyway and
Wilson's article had nothing to do with it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. No, I didn't say that. But there are sly devils in this admin.
Perhaps this brouhaha happened to negate what she was trying to accomplish in her undercover mission w/BJ, CIA, proving there were no WMDs. Who knows, but it's a thought, and not so out of the realm of possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I think it's more likely that in their zeal to punish Wilson, the
Republican's ham-handedly and ignorantly wrecked Brewster-Jennings. I seriously doubt that this was intentional. My guess is that the 8 blank pages in the Court of Appeal's opinion sustaining Miller's being held in contempt has something to do with Brewster-Jennings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. However it worked, they messed up big time!
As far as Brewster Jennings, I would like a full accounting of this place after Plame was outed. I've read some very serious charges but have never heard them backed up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. We'll probably never hear the whole story on BJ.
Probably highly classified stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep 19th 2014, 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC