Redstate

whether a crime was or wasn't committed regarding Rove or some other leak, I think Wilson and possibly Plame (mostly he was the one out there spouting the lies) are nothing more than paritsan hacks out to take down the president and willing to lie to do so.

Wilson mischaractarized his own report, he denied his wife had any involvement at all in his trip to Niger.

He was also working for the Kerry campaign when he started leaking to the press as first an anonymous source, then later coming out under his own name.  It has always been a curiousity how he pulled off the trifecta with his story, I think the Kerry campaign may be the answer-they would have had the know how and the pull to get the trifecta off without a hitch.

But the MSM is as much to blame for this as anyone else.  Not once during the whole initial Wilson stuff, did they mention Wilson's association with the Kerry campaign.

...it's in the coverup.

"What did Joe Wilson know, and when did he know it?"

Maybe she reported being retired to retain her covert status with the CIA. Imagine if she had written:

Job: Covert OP

Employer: CIA

Seems like a no brainer to me.

...is that she was not a covert operative, unless her covert assignment was on behalf some agency OTHER than the CIA (such as the Democratic Party, perhaps).

I would say that it isn't a surprise that she donated to ACT.  This would have been after she was "outed" by the Bush administration and probably felt like they dragged her through the mud.  

As for her putting "retired" as her occupation...

Actually, I was going to say something about her being undercover, but I realized that this was after that was "blown."  Hmmmmm...

Is she still working for the CIA?  Maybe she was trying to keep a low profile?  That is a good question.  Are there any penalties for lying on this type of a form?  Or does it just go to credibility?

if pre then I think we have a case for partisan hack, if post, what was the point of putting that down at all?  Writing CIA analyst wasn't going to out her as a CIA operative considering that horse had already been let out of the barn.

Joe Wilson denied she had anything to do with his trip to Niger.

Also, this statement isn't clearly true. In fact the cia spokesman said Plame did not authorize the trip to Niger.

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

stuff got leaked that she was still working in the same job for the same division for the CIA.

But there are other indications Joe Wilson was a partisan hack.

• His Nation article in February 2003.  
• The fact that since May, 2003 he was an advisor to John F. Kerry's campaign.

My question is whether Valerie was helping him out.

didn't have the power to "authorize" the trip.

What is in disspute is whether or not she recommended him for the trip, and the evidence for that fact is very strong, we even have a nice little memo that extolls the virtues of her husbands abilities to do the investigation.

What does the article give for the date of the donation?

The idea of a CIA spokesman kinda cracks me up, but this has been all the rage today:

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

Take it for what you want.  This is all murky for me.  Why is it OK for him to give this information now?  Has this been declassified?

I was worried the suggestion was that she authorized the trip. As long as the final decision didn't rest with her, she should be in the clear, right?

Or is the claim that she used her influence to have him sent which should discredit Wilson's authority in the matter?

Because the Senate Intelligence Committee seems to think otherwise.

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

She certainly was pushing to send her huband to Niger.

It's probably a little joke to herself, with her career ruined as a covert cia operative she probably considers herself retired from that job.

I know if I had received that form from her I'd have laughed.

She donated "last fall" in the article.

This was post.

It's not the donation so much as the clearly misleading disclosure she made - she said she was retired, and the employer was not applicable.  Turns out she's still working for the CIA.

the nepotism, I guess it's fine.

negates her involvement in this.

If I worked for a company and convinced them to hire my husband to do something for them, but the person who signed the check to hire him on was different, that doesn't mean I wasn't involved.

You have to remember that Wilson and Plame were denying all involvement in his being sent to Niger.  That she had absolutely nothing at all to do with it, but she did in fact recommend him, so they are lying about that.

Do you think the CIA should make a rule that says no agents can recommend someone else for an assignment?

That would've solved this problem.

I agree that if Plame was out to discredit the current administration instead of fulfilling the duties of her job, and if Joe Wilson was also out to discredit the current administration, then maybe the fact the Valerie "nominates" Joe should discredit the whole trip.

However, the problem I have, is that where does that justify the national security damaging campaign to publicly discredit Wilson's NYT op-ed?

It's like saying two wrongs make a right. Even at the expense of national security. Isn't it? Or am I way off here?

Or is the claim that she used her influence to have him sent which should discredit Wilson's authority in the matter?

What it discredits is Wilson's statement in his book that, "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." Instead, he avers, Plame's "supervisors asked her to contact me."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that was lie. How many other lies are in that book?

More than anything, she just didn't want attention.  She probably thought it was pretty cute, given the circumstances.  And it kind of is.  I don't see this as a malicious lie.  She wasn't trying to get away with anything...

of could anyone just make up employment on them, and be in the clear?

"Take it for what you want.  This is all murky for me.  Why is it OK for him to give this information now?  Has this been declassified?"

Nothing's been declassified, except for Wilson's report (which shows him to be a lying sack of **).

So if he's talking now, then maybe--just maybe--it was never classified, and he's being economical with the facts.

way off.

I saw that Wilson denied Plame sent him to Niger. I didn't see Plame deny it (though I would if you could point me there.)

Three things though. 1, maybe he really didn't know cause her communication was classified (though i doubt that). 2, technically it's true Plame didn't send him/authorize the trip to Niger. 3, where does that leave us? Wilson's a liar so he deserved what he got? I hope not.

I can't find wilson's exact words. So i'll keep looking.

....there was a press release unearthed on Free Republic that showed Joe Wilson making a campaign stop for John Forbes as early as January of 2003, months before the bloody war began.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

I like this line he's being economical with the facts

:)

Do you think the former CIA spokesman is covering for Valerie Plame? Wow, that would be some conspiracy, the whole CIA working together to discredit this administration.

also denied involvement.

Wilson's meme's of "she had nothing to do with it" were on all the various news shows, so look for some transcripts.

Also he denies involvement in his book.

There is plenty on this one to show Wilson was lying through his teeth.

Is there a link to the actual press release?

Seems like a partisan hit-job, all right.

from a WaPo article quoting his book

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

Except that whether or not something was classified will be on the record.  I would think that would be the first determination that Fitzgerald would make in his investigation.  He can't be that incompetent.

maybe not the whole CIA, but I can certainly see them circling the wagons to protect anything that would make them look bad in this whole affair, and let's face it the CIA has not proved itself all that good regarding terrorism.  Basically thier ability to gather intelligience on terrorists and rogue regimes has pretty much sucked.

Tenet was still in charge, and many were calling for him to get the boot.

So in effect there may have been some CYA going on over at the CIA.

"Do you think the former CIA spokesman is covering for Valerie Plame? Wow, that would be some conspiracy, the whole CIA working together to discredit this administration."

The CIA has a history of pursuing various political agendas without reference to the intent of the President or anyone else. Of late, said pursuits have been largely left-liberal.

Will have you gone shortly.

This is your warning.

i think i found the vanity fair article. but it exonerates her more than anything else

Phelps and Royce also cited a "senior intelligence official" who said that Plame did not recommend her husband for the Niger job, adding, "There are people elsewhere in the government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason. I can't figure out what it could be. We paid his (Wilson's) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there." Wilson said he was reimbursed only for expenses.

those are wilson's words from his book. have i done something wrong?

"Do you think the CIA should make a rule that says no agents can recommend someone else for an assignment?"

No, it should be according to the current standard: one cannot recommend an immediate relative for a classified assignment.

...with the same basic organization for over 50 years.

Hey, guess what, kids? After 50 years of various persons engaging in empire-building and jockeying for position, all done behind Top-Secret SCI Codeword clearances, what the DCI wants done and what actually gets done are not going to be at all related to each other...

You're recycling talking points from some time ago. Congress had an opinion on those talking points, that is more than slightly relevant now.

when in government service -- to individuals in parties other than the one that was currently in power.  This is basically evidence of nothing.

I won't argue that larger question of "political hackdom" the Wilsons may or may not have indulged in but this is finding a pebble and inferring a peak.

Do you think the CIA should make a rule that says no agents can recommend someone else for an assignment?

What Plame did there is technically against the law. No one is talking about because it's one of those things that is often honored in the breach. But there are some pretty tough anti-nepotism laws governing federal employees.

We, "Just Me" & I, were looking for Wilson's exact words to highlight the lie he told.

I didn't know that qualifies as a Known Fact™.

My apologies. Is there a list of these that I'm not allowed to write?

"I don't think it is inconcievable"

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

She'd done so in 1999 as well.

Anti-nepotism, though, is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Nick, I really a appreciated your diary You Are Entering a Republican Zone

Thanks for writing it.

--------

I don't think that you are wrong that Wilson lied. You quote Wilson's book, I did too (mistakenly, apparently), and it's quite clear there is a logical disconnect between what he said and what others have said (even Plame herself). But what I don't get is how it affects the whole thing. There is still an investigation going on, I assume there has to be some reason for it, right?

And I suppose if it does, then I'm okay with it, though I hope it does not.

Thomas, you're using the "known fact" limit to debate now (and in other places) completely out of context.  It's now being used not only to shut down assertions-as-fact by the other side (and other side only), but also to shut down what you call "talking points" but what any sane person would call "counterarguments" (especcially when its putting forth a quote as a quote to counter what me and many others consider a "known fact" itself).

If you want to be able to assert your own "known facts" as facts and develop an echo chamber untested by opposition, then fine.  Ban us all and be done with it.  If so, just don't act like you're any more open than Kos, because not even he is so quick with the banning.

But since you insist:

There is a distinction here of some merit. If he were citing relevant facts from today and saying, See? You're wrong, and here's the argument why we'd have a debate on our hands. Instead, he is citing facts that are now discredited in support of his position, which itself is just the same silliness of the last year and change -- it doesn't get more Known Fact than that -- again and again and...

If you cannot piece together the distinction there, then your time here is indeed limited.

half the problem with this story was the over reliance on anonymous sources.

Not to mention that there seems to be that little memo she wrote extolling her husbands virtues.

...the truth is still missing.

I am quoting Joe Wilson from his book to help show he may have lied. To put the facts into this record. Not in support of my position.

If I had asserted that what he said was the truth, after it has been discredited, than you are probably right to object. But nowhere did I say Joe Wilson is right when he said... (the thing i can't write).

It's not just the quote itself, it's how it is used, and i think you jumped the gun here and made a distinction that, while valid, does not apply in this case.

You wrote: Look for the Vanity Fair piece I think Plame also denied involvement.

Do I have the wrong Vanity fair piece? This is what I am looking for, the part where Valerie denies her involvement.

You said: Wilson and Plame were denying all involvement in his being sent to Niger

I knew Wilson denied it, as i pointed out (though clearly shouldn't have) above. But I didn't know Plame denied it.

Can you post the quote or link? Thanks!

The point of the Known Facts rule is that we've all seen this silliness a thousand times before. There is no need to repeat ad nauseam assertions and facts that we've seen so many times we recite them in our sleep. There is no need to put those assertions in this or any other record on this site, because we're well aware of them. The point of the ban on this sort of thing is not to shut down argument, but to shut down arguments that we've had 1.6 times 10^19 times before.

I think the federal nepotism laws would only apply if Plame actually hired Wilson, or directly authorized his trip to Niger.

I don't think a recommendation violates any federal nepotism law and that is why no one is talking about  it.

sorry to be repetitive.

the vanity fair piece-it was possible that she didn't make any comment regarding her involvment.

Like I said most of the denials have come from Wilson on a variety of Sunday Morning talk shows and news programs.  And his denials have been an unequivocal "no involvment at all" which to me is much different than "wasn't involved in the authorization" and the nepotism angle is troubling.

Let's pretend for a moment that Rove's wife is contractor of some sort.  Then let's pretend that something needed doing that was tangentally related to Rove's wife's business-although not completely (ie while Rove's wife could somewhat be considered qualified for the job, there were others who would likely have been a better choice).  Then Rove told Bush or whoever was in charge of choosing the company for this job, that his wife was suited for the job, and wrote a memo extolling her virtues to the guy in charge of the decision.  And Rove's wife gets the nod.

Do you think that would have been ethical?

Funny to a certain degree you can sort of make the claim regarding Halliburton contracts, and we all know how much the leftie's love Halliburton.

It cannot be considered nepotism because Joe Wilson was not payed for his mission; he was only given expenses.

a ring of unethicalness to it.

Not to mention that those expenses were still payed by the taxpayer, and was essentially a "free" trip to Niger at taxpayer expense whether he made a profit on it or not.

You could almost argue that he did, considering the trip put him in a position to play the attack dog and write himself a book.

Does anyone think he would have made tons of money selling a book, had Plamegate not occurred?

completely in error.  It's the collapsed distinction of the imbalance between "known facts" on one side and "known facts" on the other.  You complain that "assertion A" can't be brought up (even as an assertion backed by what you call talking points but what is functionally "the best arguments to back up the assertion", from a debate standpoint) (itself going WAY BEYOND the original point of the known facts rule, which was only that assertion A can't be brought up as if it were undeniable truth when it is not) by liberals because it leads into oft-traveled paths.  But by applying Known Facts to both opposition assertions AND to the first rebuttal of what, by definition, is (the original version) of "known facts" brought up by conservatives, then what you get is that one side of the debate gets to determine the facts AND the arguments that both sides play with.  

This of course devolves to the level that a liberal couldn't post anything AT ALL other than showing agreement, because if there are no facts-in-contention or opinions-in-contention, there's nothing really left.  What I've noticed is selective enforcement of the rule is what keeps any opposition around, although that opposition must play by the "selected" facts and opinions by the moderators.  While this, unlike full enforcement, leads to a level of liberals posting here at equilibriums that are not zero, it drives off any intelligent liberal that isn't shown special favoritism, and it also leads even further to the narrowmindedness of conservatives who get their news and information from here, because after seeing conservative "known facts" not rebutted, they assume they are "actual facts", and the result is an ignorance that perhaps (depending on your views of political discourse) puts conservatives on a political disadvantage the more important RedState gets for conservatives.

The press would have us believe two things that may not be true. One is that "the investigation" is focused on the question of how reporters found out that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. The second is that "Karl Rove" is the answer to the first.

This investigation has been going on for two years. I seriously doubt that it is confined to a single leak of classified information. In addition, virtually no one believes that Karl Rove could ever be convicted under the statute in question, which raises the issue of why Fitzgerald would go to all this trouble — including sending a reporter to jail — if he doesn't think he is pursuing actual criminal activity, and doesn't think he could get a conviction.

All this stuff about, "Well, maybe they'll get Rove on perjury" is just people who want to "get Rove" and so that is what they are focused on. More likely, it seems to me, is that Fitzgerald has stumbled upon, or been pointed at, something else.

There is an ever-widening circle of candidates, and I do not claim to know where to square the circle. There is no doubt that since Wilson's op-ed (which was pre-cleared with the CIA) appeared, there have been numerous instances of classified information falling into the hands of reporters. Ambassador Wilson himself may have said a few things he could be regretting now. All of these would be legitimate reasons for Fitzgerald to keep investigating. Who is doing all this leaking of classified information?

One line of thinking is that Wilson, who had served in Clinton's National Security Council, started sucking up the Kerry campaign in early 2003 in hopes of getting a similar or better position in any eventual Kerry Administration.

This led him into contact with the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, whom he addressed in May 2003 on the subject of Iraq. It was one of the stated goals of the SDPC to discredit Bush by impugning his motives in invading Iraq. So into their hands falls this guy who has a very credible resume and a plausible story about Bush misleading the country about WMDs. "Let's get this guy in front of the media," is what they're all thinking, and the next thing we know, he is all over the media.

So one plausible line of thought is that Wilson was used as a tool by the Democrats to insert a spear into Bush at a time when they wanted to do that, and Wilson went along because he wanted to impress Kerry and the Democrats so he could be a foreign-policy big shot if Kerry got elected. In this scenario, the probable cause of the "Plame leak" is Wilson and the Democrats trying to sell Wilson to guys like Tim Russert as somebody they needed to get in front of the public. In that venue, "his wife is a CIA agent, and she sent him on the trip" is a credibilty-builder.

A much scarier line of thought is that this originated in the CIA, specifically within the Directorate of Operations, which has in the past done some very odd things when the elected government does not share its opinion about what needs to be done.

In this scenario, Wilson was a participant in a CIA plan to discredit the Bush Administration, because The Directorate did not share the goal of regime change in Iraq, which had been US policy since 1998. In this scenario, Wilson was sent to Niger for the express purpose of coming back empty, with the intent that at the appropriate time, he would go on a media jihad as a "whistleblower," which none of the CIA types could do openly. There is some evidence for this in the form of the behavior of certain retired members of the CIA who have been participants in this matter as well, and in the fact that the CIA did not take the elementary step of having Wilson sign a confidentiality agreement when he went on his CIA-funded trip.

Certainly if there is a rogue element in the CIA that wants to conduct its own foreign policy in defiance of the elected government, and stages media events and leaks classified information to make that happen, we need to know about that. That's pretty scary stuff. It's even scarier if they subsequently made false written statements to the Justice Department in order to stimulate this "investigation."

So I'm inclined to give Fitzgerald all the time he needs.

"It cannot be considered nepotism because Joe Wilson was not payed for his mission; he was only given expenses."

1. Given that he was already on a business trip to Niger, covering his expenses is payment. (He would've eaten the expenses out of hide without the CIA picking them up.)
   
2. With respect to handling and dissemination of classified material, the nepotism rules apply 100% of the time, no matter what, even if it's technically unpaid (this was a reform that was instituted after the Walker "Family of Spies" scandal). This applies in all phases of the operation, including premission planning & recruitment (i.e., before the question of consideration ever comes up).
   
3. The rules regarding handling and dissemination of classified material are there for very good and proper reasons. Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson saw fit to violate them. The Soviet GRU handled such traitors with the appropriate seriousness; perhaps we should take a page from their book.

My apologies. I didn't mean to press you on the Plame denial. I thought it actually existed and I am interested in the truth. You posted a lot of smart things I didn't assume you were wrong.

As for your scenario seems like a pretty grey area ethically. I would say it's ok. What wouldn't be ok is if Karl Rove's wife after getting the job payed Karl a salary (say deferred until 2009) as kickback, especially since that salary would be coming out of the pockets of taxpayers.

Do you think it's ethical?

And you'll be honored to know that your argument is part of The Great Dialogue we had when we discussed how to handle the fact that we kept getting liberals in here who'd yell, Joe Wilson is a hero and here's why! a thousand times, and the equivalent.

We discussed it. There was a roundtable. There was pizza. Well, I ordered pizza, I can't speak for anyone else. Many emails and IMs were exchanged. Action committees were formed and dissolved, because everyone was too busy to be on one.

Briefly, then:

(1) I don't "complain" anything. I assert.

(2) I assure you, as one of the fellows who helped craft the Original Known Facts standard, my comment above is at least as good an explanation as any. You might even call it original intent.

(3) what you get is that one side of the debate gets to determine the facts AND the arguments that both sides play with

You are learning, grasshopper. We don't want to have the same freaking arguments over and over again. We have been there and done that. We are tired of it. If you want to have the old arguments again, go somewhere else.

(4) This of course devolves to the level that a liberal couldn't post anything AT ALL other than showing agreement, because if there are no facts-in-contention or opinions-in-contention, there's nothing really left.

Actually, having had discussion with liberals before, I found that the smart ones are capable of moving past repeating the same idiocy again and again and moving to where the argument is now and defending ground there. My supposition is that you don't deal with many smart liberals.

(5) What I've noticed is selective enforcement of the rule is what keeps any opposition around, although that opposition must play by the "selected" facts and opinions by the moderators.

Actually, this shows the power of a limited observation sample on a mind predisposed to a certain conclusion. The selective enforcement is based on behavior, not on opinions. The liberals who get a little more wiggle are the ones who've spent time developing good will by arguing from the facts as they currently exist or by picking topics that don't get their blood all riled up, engaging in substantive debate there, then pushing the envelope. Thus, I could name some off the top of my head who've stated in no uncertain terms that they "oppose [my agenda]. Full stop," after an explanation of why, but who had the foresight to actually lucidly explain why, who post here even today.

(6) While this, unlike full enforcement, leads to a level of liberals posting here at equilibriums that are not zero, it drives off any intelligent liberal that isn't shown special favoritism, and it also leads even further to the narrowmindedness of conservatives who get their news and information from here, because after seeing conservative "known facts" not rebutted, they assume they are "actual facts", and the result is an ignorance that perhaps (depending on your views of political discourse) puts conservatives on a political disadvantage the more important RedState gets for conservatives.

This presumes (1) that listening to the same garbage from the left side of the spectrum actually decreases (further!) the narrowmindedness of conservatives (I'd debate that); (2) that this is a place for liberals to come and preach; (3) that we care; and/or (4) that there is no value in taking an argument already developed and not rehashing the same thing again and again.

Call that unproven.

The Soviet GRU handled such traitors with the appropriate seriousness; perhaps we should take a page from their book.

What was the appropriate seriousness they handled traitors with? Execution? Torture? I'm not familiar with the soviet GRU.

Part of the reason we have nepotism laws, is the fact that appearances mean something.  It is possible that there are very good and altruistic reasons to recommend a relative for a job, but the appearance still means something.

I think the fact that Plame was involved to some degree in her husband getting the job (who in reality doesn't appear all that qualified to be investigating such matters of intelligience) just reeks of a lack of ethics here.  

I think the federal nepotism laws would only apply if Plame actually hired Wilson, or directly authorized his trip to Niger.

I think you are speculating as to what the federal nepotism law says, instead of looking it up before telling us what it does or does not cover. That's a cheap debate tactic.

It also overlooks something you can only learn over time, the hard way, which is that I hardly ever do that. If I say it violated the law, it's because I already peeked. I sometimes don't post the links with those things just to smoke out the BS artists.  

BTW, I don't know if you've noticed lately, but at least a third of the posts lately have been from trolls.

I think that we should at least consider re-opening the rating system.

The problem is starting to get out of hand.

the current one, of my point, its now been asserted about 40 times that Valerie Plame reccomended Wilson for the Niger trip.  This fact (however described) was a point of contention in the SSIC report, which is the only significant report on either side to address the matter.

The reason, I hypothosize, that so many people believe it is because it became a known fact.

Now if you reminded EACH side of a debate (and granted, its hard to do with the majority) that something is a known fact and let it drop, then people are reminded that we don't know, and can't resolve through debate, the facts that underlie the dispute.  Okay, fine.

But if you only silence ONE side, then the known fact or the contra to the known fact gets repeated, unopposed, to such a degree that it becomes engrained as an "actual fact", to the point that pointing out that there's actually dispute:

a) here, gets you silenced or banned

b) in the real world, returns the conversation to the point where each side thinks the other's speaking gibberish, being intentionally dishonest, etc.

Now that might just be the way politics is (see, for instance, Thurman Arnold's Folklore of Capitalism, Chapters 1-2).  But if debate is to have a higher purpose, the rules of them should be done with some level of evenhandedness to avoid unintended results.  

DailyKos doesn't have to resort to a known fact doctrine because, for better or for worse, the sheer numerosity of liberal voices can drown out the conservative voice.  Maybe here that's not the case.  But I suggest the sheer number of smart conservatives who post here provide enough advantage in the debate to frame it the way your side chooses that you do not need one-sided "known fact" rules, at least those that go beyond shutting down asserted facts as asserted facts and into:

a) actual facts that are put forth in defending the veracity of a known fact that is not asserted as true based on its own merits

b) facts or arguments that contradict a conservative's claim that some disputed (or factually incorrect) point is an actual and undisputed fact

I understand you do not want some debates to be delved into (the old delete or ignore disucssion that every chat board, particularly sports related chatboards in the offseason, must go through).  However, at minimum, perhaps you would consider creating a seperate rule, one that is either (or better yet, both) equal-sided or provides more of a "this is a legitimite dispute but one that's uninteresting or unresolvable" air to it.

sorry but I think it is hard to say that Wilson was truthful when he says his wife "had nothing" to do with him going to Niger, when there is a memo about his qualifications and her signature on it.

That's the best analysis I've see yet, thanks. I see validity in the scenarios you laid out, and that is important.

I think we could go round and round with plausible scenarios and who's guilty and where crimes have been committed. As you say the circle is ever widening. Truthfully, it's fun speculation.

But I'm still not sure where discrediting Valerie Plame and painting her as a dishonest person — which is the purpose of this particular "story" — plays in this exercise. It certainly does not amount to a legal defense of Karl Rove (not that he is even on trial).

What I take this to be about, then, is the media's handling of the story. Their clinging to the fabulous central character that is Karl Rove and presenting a poor picture of what the investigation really could be about. And it's that disgust (with corporate media) that leads to things like "Valerie is no saint, she lied on a form."

I'm right about that much, aren't I?

I'm inclined to give Fitzgerald all the time he needs, too.

"The Suspense is Killing me...I hope it lasts!" - Willy Wonka

Wilson is a partisan and he may very well have lied to the press but what profit do we garner from proving that he lied?

Does it in anyway alter the investigation into the possible leak? Or is it being used to distract from the investigation that has become embarrassing?

As one who does not always share the majority opinion around here, I'm genuinely interested in questions along the lines of, "how do you hold opinion A in light of fact B?"

Perhaps what's needed is a FAQ of sorts for such Known Facts.

How exactly that could work, I'm not sure.  It may well be outside the scope of this site.  Nevertheless, it'd be nice for the harried refusers of Known Facts to be able to reply to them with a definitive document as in, "You think blah blah is true?  Well this is what we have to say about that.  Reply only after you've read that, or take the discussion there."

Perhaps the refutations of Known Facts could be a section on the site with regular features written.  You could have a place (a diary, maybe) where your antagonists suggest topics for the next Known Fact refutation piece.  I'm just throwing out ideas.

We are willing to address the nonsense in the Known Fact File™ one time.

For instance, a true fact is that Plame recommended Wilson for the Niger trip. This is documented in the Senate report. It is simply not an item that needs debated any more than the idea that a compass needle points to magnetic north.

The second time it is brought up it becomes disruptive.

Add to that the true fact that this is a Republican/conservative site, why would anyone put up with this nonsense in their own house?

all of which a line has still been classified, has been attacked as taken out of context by the minority report on the SSIC.  Since the memo itself is still classified (and since we have absolutely no idea if it would be fair to say that Plame would remember that line, much less that Joe Wilson would be aware Plame wrote it, given the context), the various assertions made on the assumption that Valerie Plame singlehandedly suggested, fought, and decided (I'm only using examples of "known facts" used over the last few days by commentators) for Joe Wilson to get the Niger trip is conjecture.

Now, I'm not against conjecture (and, indeed, I posted to that effect on the Kevin Drum post, as I found his conjecture more than reasonable.  But I can understand Thomas wanting to get away from this debate (assuredly, you'll have a rebuttal, and I'll have a response to that, etc.).  I just think that the right way to do that is to do so in a way that informs the reader that the question is dropped, not ceded.

Yeah, we have talked about adding a Wiki for just that purpose. So far we have not gotten a Round Tuit.

Joe Wilson once coached a little league team. It is unclear what it has to do with the Plame-Rove-Niger story.

story developing...

And the obvious response to the "this is documented in the Senate report" is that this part of the Senate report was agreed to by no Democrats at all.  If assertions of the majority of Congress were to be accepted as facts, always, then I think actual facts would take on different meanings.  Surely you would not accept, pre-1994, a statement by a Democratic-led committee report that was signed on to by not a single Republican as fact, and that anyone still contesting the point is nonsense, right?

About your tenure at RedState is that it has lasted as long as it has. You've contributed precisely zilch to any substantive discussion, insulted serveral of the editors, complained about the way we run things in our own "house", and ignored repeated warnings.

Welcome to The Pile™, you won't be missed.

Seems we have come to a conclusion.

I'll agree with this:

I think the fact that Plame was involved to some degree in her husband getting the job (who in reality doesn't appear all that qualified to be investigating such matters of intelligience) just reeks of a lack of ethics here.

:)

as his wife, the CIA agent at the heart of this entire scandal, donating money to a rabid moonbat organization, and lying about her occupatoin and employer on the FEC form.

Being snarkily obtuse is no safer than being snarkily snarky. Consider this your One Bite™.

In your scenario, who acted unethically?

Rove for recommending his wife, or Bush for hiring her?

Does it in anyway alter the investigation into the possible leak?

The screaming that he has been doing about the subject amounts to a claim that he was not the leaker. If he is a known liar, that throws his claim into doubt. A known liar who is also screaming "He did it!" is especially suspect.

I think we'll just have to wait and see what Fitzgerald concludes.

legal issues aside, let's consider the climate.

Wilson comes out with his story (that misrepresents his own conlcusions and makes some claims that just weren't fact, and he over exaggerated the importanceof the trip and his report-to hear it from his mouth-especially when he was an anonymous source he was sent to Niger at the request of VP Cheney, he wrote a report saying "no way" and that report with his name on it got sent to the VP so the VP and Bush both knew for a fact the story wasn't true.  The reality is that Cheney's office had some questions about some intelligience reports.  The CIA decided the answers were to be found by sending somebody to Niger to investigate the information.  Wilson was sent with some degree of invovlement from his wife.  He wrote a report which actually seemed to confirm the idea that Iraq was seeking yellowcake, and that information was compiled along with other information into a general CIA report that was sent back to the VP and didn't include Wilson's name at all.

So you have Wilson out there saying all this stuff.  The WH knows he isn't being truthful.  The fact that his wife was involved with sending him (and not the VP's office or Tenet) does to some degree impeach his information.  The funny thing is that was about all they could impeach him with at that moment-since the reports Wilson was discussing were classified.

to my post as in the third, I hope that my presence here (despite this tangent) isn't considered trolling.  I understand trolling to mean those who come for the pure purpose of interfering with the discussion, who provide no insight or reasoned opinion, etc.  I'd like to believe I try to open myself to response and discussion (I have many conservative friends who believe I am thisclose to joining "the dark side").  

If I am not accomplishing this (generally, without the requirement that every post be a work of art and completely on topic), I absolutely do think you should ban me.

So you're are saying that Valerie Plame DID violate nepotism laws eventhough you have NO IDEA what sort of influence she ACTUALLY had in the hiring of Wilson to perform this task?

Did your "peek" look a Title 5 Section 3110 Emplyment of relatives;restrictions.  Cause if it did I have a real hard time seeing where she violated a law, even if she did make the initial recommendation....

[blockquote]A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance,

    or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement,

    in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving

    or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual

    who is a relative of the public official.  An individual may not be

    appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian

    position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion,

    or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in

    or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a

    relative of the individual.[/blockquote]

has denied any involvement at all for his wife.

Sorry, but no involvement to me means no involvment either in the recommending or referral stage right up to the authorization stage.

Now we know for a fact that there is a memo with her listing her husbands qualifications to go on the trip-this means that there was at least some degree of involvement.

Therefore your idea that her involvement in this is something up for debate is just plain ignoring the real facts.

Well, count this as encouragement to Do So.

As I sit and noodle over this, I think you could "get the effect" with Scoop as-is.

First, have a story/diary in which you call for topics.  These would be questions or just "refute this talking point."  When you write an answer, you put a reply with a link to it.

After that, it's just writing the stories.  Each one would have a link back to the "call for topics" story ("if you have other topics you'd like to see treated this way, submit them here...").  After the discussion on the story has gone a while, you'll probably have fresh things to refute, so post a revised story on the same topic, update the old one with a link to the new one, and update the link in the "call for topics" story.

It's probably a lot harder to keep things as orderly as I have it in my head, but it might be worth a try.  If it's well-done, folks from other sites would be referring to the arguments here.  Come to think of it, this all sounds like it could be a site unto itself, so I wonder if someone's already done it.

this isn't 1994.

Now there are plenty of places to go play if you don't like the way things are here. It's totally in your hands.

Rove for recommending her, and Bush (or whoever authorized it) for not telling Rove to take a hike on the issue.

Both have ethical obligations here, and both failed, so both acted to some degree unethically in their positions.

and it was a crime for Joe Wilson to have lied about whether or not his wife did something, why would your case, if you could only show that a memo existed that said that his wife did do something (no matter how great or little she did it), be thrown out?

Food for thought.

And the numbers are down over time. It's less than ten percent right now.

The ratings issue is off the table for right now.

fewer trolls or fewer posting by trolls? I mean do we have less of them but the few that we have are posting a ton so it seems like we are infested? Cuz it seems to me that we have had more over the last week or so... (most posts, not necessarily more trolls)

Ok,

1.  She did not list her occupation on her contribution form because she was a COVERT CIA AGENT whose sensitive clandestine identity protects the security of all CIA operations she's ever been involved with.  Do you realize they had to roll up ALL CIA operations her name or face is attached to?  Do you understand the implications to your and my security?  Jesus people!  Stop apologizing for Rove's calculated and evil act that has such serious implications for our national security.
   
2.  To say that Valerie "had nothing to do with" Wilson's trip to Niger is commensurate with her "suggesting" her husband's name.  She's not a decision maker, maybe she dropped his name passing someone at the water cooler.  It's also possible that it was such a small detail she forgot or never told her husband.  It is not nepotism when Wilson is eminently qualified.

Let's not forget that two, that's right TWO, entirely separate investigators went back after Wilson and came to the exact conclusion.  

3.  Where is the outrage about what Rove did?  Don't you see the damage he's done to our safety?  He cut an arm off of the WMD intelligence service, and created a HUGE disincentive for people to take on clandestine work.  They can't trust that their name won't be leaked, their lives, their families lives, the lives of their contacts, and the effectiveness of their operations automatically put in jeopardy.

Then the issue is why.  Why did Rove do this.  Political vengeance.  Rove should be removed immediately for such ignorant, dangerous arrogance and replaced with someone who thinks more about the good of the people than the veracity of his peddled lies.  (I could say the same for Bush, but that's another conversation).

This is not Red and Blue, this is right and wrong.  The reason your party is losing favor with the American people is you're putting your loyalty for your president before common sense.  Stop it before you run yourselves off a cliff.  

there is a cogent argument in here somewhere but I'm probably wrong.

Say hi to our old comrades on The Pile™

this is our dilemma.

We deal with them as fast as we can but sometimes we just can't keep up.

She donated some money to some organization after the events of the leak when she was no longer a Brewster and Jennings "employee", is it is not obvious she was maliviously lying. If she was lying, why should I care? Whether she is a raving leftist or not doesn't seem to have any baring.

The rest of the thread moved on to the more basic facts of the case.

If you see some connection, why don't you just tell us. What does her donating money supposed to mean?

I don't understand what "One Bite" is supposed to mean but it isn't exactly unsnarkadidaly.

And the new liberals still get one bite, which means they're not trolls until that bite is taken.

It's a lot cleaner than it was, say, a month ago.

1 - The "business trip to Niger" was his cover for the trip.  There wasnt really a business trip, it was his 'if anyone asks' reason for going.

2 - The issue of nepotism has nothing to do with 'handling classified information'.  Nepotism, by definition, is giving employment to a relative.

3 - Umm, regarding the violation of the rules of classified information, unless I am completely misinformed regarding Fitzgeralds probe, I do not believe that Plame or Wilson are either Subjects or Targets of the probe.

btw, someone was kind enough to post the text of the relavent law below.

To which I'd add:

Possible criminal negligence or outright giving of classified memos to Reporters on Air Force One, by Powell or others on his staff.

Lying to investigators by members of the Press, including Cooper, Miller, Novak, Russert, Pincus, and others.

Lying to investigators by CIA, State, and yes perhaps even White House Staff including Libby and Rove. Can't discount anything yet though my money's on the Press or CIA/State. White House folks have all the Watergate/Iran-Contra/Clinton scandals as "what not to do" guidelines.

Don't forget Miller had some highly placed source, perhaps Tenet or Powell, in Iraq WMD reporting, perhaps Fitzgerald is after that prize.

A case could be made either way at this point.

I think it might be a combination.  Plame wanted to discredit, but the fact just were not there to do so.

But when Wilson signed on with Kerry, he figured that he could go in with a twist.  He sold himself as someone who was married to a CIA agent, and how the Niger claim was thought to be bogus.

It went to Kerry people, he went to the Democrats in the Senate, and the ball started rolling.  The media was looking for a reason no WMDs had been found, the Dems wanted a reason that could hammer the President, and Wilson gave both of them what they wanted.

Now, the media cannot go after him, since it would show that they got suckered by Wilson and the Democrats and did not bother to look into what Wilson's past had been (in the age of Google, his article should have been noticed).  They should have even checked him out more.  Instead, at best, they got suckered.  At worst, to get at the Administration, they embraced a lie.

The Dems are also, in a sense, forced to defend Wilson.  If they don't they are either suckers or they embraced a lie and crossed big lines (i.e. revelaing classified information and bolstering the anti-war movement - which the insurgents are now counting on) for political gain.

I think he's in the clear.

Tenet might also be in the clear.

I think the targets are Plame and Wilson... as to who else, we need to see.

is Karl Rove without the fancy title?  He's capable of the most devious machinations with no one ever realizing they are being duped?

just because flyerhawk (who I assume was previously sent to The Pile a time or 3) sees the need to respond to everything in sight, without adding much to the debate.....

"The CIA allows its employees to donate to political groups, and so she faced no repercussions for that donation.  Yet she chose to claim she was retired.  Why?"

The way clearances, classifications, and NDAs work, just because something has been revealed or is otherwise available through open sources doesn't mean you are released from the relevant classification requirement. It seems stupid, but that is the way it works.

I am currently involved in all of 3 discussions.  This one, a Tancredo discussion, and the Dean quote thread.  In each one I have primarily responded to Republican positions that are of the extreme variety.  

Sorry if my points make you uncomfortable.  If you don't like that I have pointed out that Valerie Plame did NOT violate nepotism laws that is your right.  Doesn't change the fact that it is true.  Or maybe it was my criticism of the belief that Joe Wilson somehow played everyone in Washington like a guitar and now the truth isn't coming out because everyone is too embarassed.  That is nothing more than wild speculation to fit a pre-conceived notion.

No, I have never been sent to the Pile.  If you guys do so that is your right.  I certainly won't try and come back under some other guise.  

Last Paragraph of this Time article

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1087227,00.html

"It was great," Joe Wilson said, returning a call for his wife. "Remember, this was a year and a half after the Administration compromised the identity of my wife, and it was no great secret that I was doing my bit to educate the American public as to the flaws in the Bush Administration's foreign policy."

Diary topic:

Why America is great

...[text, text, text]...

first post (by flyerhawk, who else):

No it's not.  Who's with me?

------------

He jumps in just to skew the debate.  He's like an annoying ex-girlfriend that feels the need to hang around you every waking hour despite how obvious it is that he is unwanted.  He must get a charge out of the fact that he hasn't been banned yet.

"Sorry if my points make you uncomfortable."

nope, not at all uncomfortable, just irritated at the level of ignorance you display for all to see.

You have opened your mouth and removed all doubt....

from finishing my paper (which was due two weeks ago).

Excellent illustration of the problem.

The solution: mail out user passwords (via snail mail) to the user's home address.  As soon as the user has been outed as a troll, that address is permanently banned.  Other political blogs don't have this problem.  They solve it by giving users the right to rate others and by giving some users the power to ban others.  Some checks and balances should be in place, of course.

But this site will never reach its potential as long as every diary gets dominated by trolls.