October 18, 2005
Good comment chatter on a Plamegate posting.
Anybody wanting a refresher course on the facts behind this contretemps (well, it might be a imbroglio, but certainly not a kerfuffle) could do no better than Stephen Hayes's' cover story in the October 24th Weekly Standard, The White House, the CIA, and the Wilsons
It's a long walk through the timetable, the players, and includes the greatest hits. Wilson's description of his take-no-prisoners fact-finding is a personal favorite of mine:
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Wilson was sent by his wife's division which was predilected to disprove these claims. So, a quick junket and a couple of meetings suffice. "Are you guys doing illegal business with a rogue state? No. Okay, pass the sugar..."
Wilson's mendacity is detailed as well. His OpEd story doesn't match his earlier interviews, but "oh, well."
Hayes also compares the MSM narrative (Brave whistleblower, petulant security-threatening character attacks) to the actual story:
ON JULY 22, 2005, the New York Times published a lengthy, front-page article detailing the work of two senior Bush administration officials, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, on the Niger-uranium story. A seemingly exhaustive timeline ran alongside the piece. In 19 bullet points, the Times provided its readers in considerable detail with what it regarded as the highlights of the story. The timeline traces events from the initial request for more information on the alleged Iraqi inquiries in Africa to Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger; from the now-famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union to the details of White House telephone logs; from Bush administration claims that Karl Rove was not involved in the leak to the naming of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and on from there to the dates that White House officials testified before the grand jury.
UPDATE: Also worth a read is Jacob Weisberg's Slate piece
Hold the schadenfreude, blue-staters. Rooting for Rove's indictment in this case isn't just unseemly, it's unthinking and ultimately self-destructive. Anyone who cares about civil liberties, freedom of information, or even just fair play should have been skeptical about Fitzgerald's investigation from the start. Claiming a few conservative scalps might be satisfying, but they'll come at a cost to principles liberals hold dear: the press's right to find out, the government's ability to disclose, and the public's right to know.Politics Posted by John Kranz at October 18, 2005 5:22 PM