And if it’s a full revelation your are seeking, be careful what you wish for. When this investigation is over, some people are going to wind up with egg on their faces.

First, the distinction between the Novak and Corn articles consists not in the words they used to refer to the CIA/Agency, but rather in the words used to describe Valerie Plame’s employment status there. When Novak called her “an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction,” he made no reference to her operational significance, whether covert or not. Corn, on the other hand, called her “an undercover CIA officer” – explicitly stating that she was a covert agent. Corn was thus the fist person to publicly describe Valerie Plame as a covert agent – and he did so on the basis of his interview with “Mr. Plame,” Joe Wilson himself!

Second, as you point out, the Senate Intelligence report concluded that (1) the British continued to stand by their original intelligence on Saddam’s “yellow-cake” purchase efforts (as they do to this day), and (2) whatever info Joe Wilson brought back from Niger failed to change any minds at the CIA about those efforst. Thus, Joe Wilson’s public claim to have “debunked” this intelligence is false.

Third, as you point out, Wilson also claimed to have seen the so-called “forged document” – the only problem being that the document was not available to him when he claims to have seen it.

The double standard here is obvious. The left treats a lying egomaniac like Joe Wilson as a hero, but calls George Bush a liar – and worse – because he relied on faulty intelligence that nevertheless represented an international consensus on Saddam’s current and future weapons capabilities. Until the left proves itself capable of intellectual honesty in these and other national security matters, the voters will never trust them with political power.

Sorry, no. It’s been the practice for over thirty years among both journalists and authors to refer to the CIA as the “Agency”; in fact, this usage is even the norm among the general populace, and has been for some time.

“you obviously have not read the Senate Intelligence report”

The SIC report in its Conclusion 13 says states that Wilson’s report “did not change any minds”. In other words, the INR analysts who already agreed with Wilson believed even more strongly that the yellowcake story was bogus. As for those who didn’t, how could his report of a lack of evidence reinforce their conclusions? So your comment makes no sense.

“or the British report in which the Blair government stands by its original intelligence.”

From factcheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

“…The Butler report’s conclusion that British intelligence was “credible” clearly doesn’t square with what US intelligence now believes….”

“You are also ignoring Wilson’s bogus claim to have seen a “forged documentâ€? that was unavailable to him at the time of the Niger mission.”

Wilson never claimed to have seen the document at
the time of the mission. His claim (NYT Op-ed 7/6/03) was that he found no evidence of the sale (which is true); he does not mention the document at all. He did say at a later time that he saw the document, but that he saw it well after his mission to Niger.

SAR

But the jig may be up for Mr. Moneybag-Eyes; rumor is he made only a limited deal with Fitzgerald to keep his wrinkled hindquarters out of the hoosegow; he may be liable for perjury and — be still my heart — charges under the Espionage Act which, allegedly, aren’t covered in his bargain with the prosecutor. After all, he was party to a treasonous act in time of war. (Even though we are not in a war declared by Congress, it’s generally accepted that, as during Vietnam, these laws can be invoked under certain circumstances.)

It’s possible Karl Rove and Novak may be sharing a cell yet; if they do, my guess is Karl will get the ‘top bunk,’ in the Jeff Gannon sense; Bob probably won’t notice the difference: after all, he’s been bending over for sleazy neocons for decades anyway.

Ryan (346): As yto your three points:

First, if you compare the Corn article with any other article, including Novak’s, Corn was the very first journalist to describe Valerie Plame as “an undercover CIA officer.” Novak merely described her as “an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.” So your beef is with Corn, not Novak.

Second, you obviously have not read the Senate Intelligence report, or the British report in which the Blair government stands by its original intelligence. You are also ignoring Wilson’s bogus claim to have seen a “forged document” that was unavailable to him at the time of the Niger mission.

Third, you misread the last sentence of my third paragraph.

Grade: C- (poor reading comprehension; shallow analysis of facts)

morris1030 (#47): Pssst, hey buddy, your caplock button is stuck! Grade: F (ineffective self-expression; mired in 1960’s Marxist-Leninist anti-Semitism)

How baseless your lies are. First of all the revelations around the Corn article are all myth and lies and were dispelled by Corn as well as the ‘written’ texts from Corn – I suggest you review davidcorn.com to get your propaganda story straight.

Second of all Wilson was in fact proven CORRECT on the Niger case, not false – so that’s yet another propaganda lie you’ve made.

Third of all how would the ‘friend’ of wilson not saying anything to wilson be him giving up the identity of plame? You make a ridiculous jump in logic that a baboon wouldn’t be stupid enough to make?

Are all right wingers this stupid? They appear to be from the level of crap that they post on this site. I suggest you go review some great works from the Greek Philosophers on ‘debate’ and stay away from Leo Strauss and the other Nazi Fascists who CONservatives seem to idolize these days…

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove#Allegations_of_illegal_activities)

“In 1992, Rove was fired from George H. W. Bush’s 1992 presidential re-election campaign for allegedly leaking information to journalist Robert Novak. State campaign manager Robert Mosbacher had allotted Rove only one-quarter of the campaign’s $1 million direct mail contract, after Rove had the entire contract in 1988. As Novak wrote, “Also attending the session was political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher”. Novak’s column described the firing of Mosbacher by former Senator Phil Gramm.

Novak and Rove deny that Rove was the leaker. Mosbacher maintains that “Rove is the only one with a motive to leak this. We let him go. I still believe he did it.”

(Sources: “Karl and Bob: a leaky history,” Houston Chronicle, Nov. 7, 2003, ; “Genius,” Texas Monthly, March 2003, p. 82; “Why Are These Men Laughing,” Esquire, January 2003)”

Comment by Steed Lankershim

Can you actually show that it means ANYTHING? Throwing crap again? You guys are REALLY getting worried aren’t ya’?

Please explain what this has to do with Karl Rove’s actions in outing a CIA operative in time of war.

Just wondering how this fits into the picture.