andrew sullivan getting his impeachment on re: plame

[ourbluenation]

Hey - better late than never andrew. edited to add the first paragraph because it's a pretty good assesment of the ordeal.

************
...The bottom line is that there was some doubt about how covert she was - even within the Bush administration. They knew they were very close to the line, if not over it. Hence the bizarre and convoluted downlow media strategy in leaking the information. All that matters to me is their motive. It seems to me clear that at the very least, Rove, Bush and Cheney knew they were playing with fire when they targeted Plame. They thought the journalists would never testify, and they thought they could get away with it. It seems like recklessness to me. The key question for me is why they were so prepared to be so reckless. Was Cheney just furious at being misrepresented in the media? Or did he see knocking down two-bit Wilson as essential to preventing his bad faith with respect to WMD intelligence being exposed? Maybe he feared that if the media pulled at this string, others might get pulled as well. I don't know. Either scenario is plausible. And they're not mutually exclusive. Maybe Cheney was furious and his fury promoted the reckless strategy. And maybe the fury was intensified by knowledge of his own deception.


As time goes by, I'm more inclined to believe that Cheney knew he had deceived the country with respect to WMDs (perhaps with good intentions, fearing the worst, but still knowingly parlaying theories as facts), was alarmed when the military couldn't find even token stockpiles to justify pre-war intelligence, and over-reacted by outing an agent whose covert status was unclear. That's why this still matters. It points to the question of bad faith in persuading a country to go to war. Nothing in this case has added to the evidence of good faith on Cheney's part. And much has pointed in the opposite direction. The charge, if true, is impeachable.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/covert.html#trackback

[The Crazy Canadian]

1. He was a huge supporter of the war and contemplated using nukes against Iraq.

I check out his blog from time-to-time, but don't take much of what he says seriously.

Here is Sullivan on Iraq:

The sophisticated form of anthrax delivered to Tom Daschle’s office forces us to ask a simple question. What are these people trying to do? I think they’re testing the waters. They want to know how we will respond to what is still a minor biological threat, as a softener to a major biological threat in the coming weeks. They must be encouraged by the panic-mongering of the tabloids, Hollywood and hoaxsters. They must also be encouraged by the fact that some elements in the administration already seem to be saying we need to keep our coalition together rather than destroy the many-headed enemy. So the terrorists are pondering their next move. The chilling aspect of the news in the New York Times today is that the terrorists clearly have access to the kind of anthrax that could be used against large numbers of civilians. My hopes yesterday that this was a minor attack seem absurdly naïve in retrospect. So they are warning us and testing us. At this point, it seems to me that a refusal to extend the war to Iraq is not even an option. We have to extend it to Iraq. It is by far the most likely source of this weapon; it is clearly willing to use such weapons in the future; and no war against terrorism of this kind can be won without dealing decisively with the Iraqi threat. We no longer have any choice in the matter. Slowly, incrementally, a Rubicon has been crossed. The terrorists have launched a biological weapon against the United States. They have therefore made biological warfare thinkable and thus repeatable. We once had a doctrine that such a Rubicon would be answered with a nuclear response. We backed down on that threat in the Gulf War but Saddam didn’t dare use biological weapons then. Someone has dared to use them now. Our response must be as grave as this new threat.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/02/23/andrew-sullivans-underbelly-it-isnt-pretty/

[Hamlette]

5. someday someone will explain to me why Arianna Huffington is okay and Sullivan is so bad

I find Sullivan much more reasoned in his approach to so many issues than she is. She used to be a right winger. Is it okay for her to have been a right winger because she got rich off divorcing the guy?

I read Sullivan every day. He is furious at Bush et al and does his homework. Arianna reminds me of Maurine Dowd...she hates everyone and makes her living out of trashing people.

[JohnnyRingo]

2. The constantly expanding definition of "liberal"

Lately it was the right wing darling investor Trump.

A quick cruise through freeperland reveals a host of republican politicians who've recently lost conservative status only to be pigeon holed at various level of liberal from RINO to Far Left because they turned on the administration.

As all these new "liberals" come to light by their refusal to accept White House allegiance, it becomes harder for them to define Michael Moore.

[WinkyDink]

3. Still hedging his bets. Come on, Andrew; you know the score.

[grasswire]

4. he continues to buy the phony narrative

The real story is that Plame was knocked down to stop the CIA's Brewster Jennings from finding weapons sales and deceptions too dark for us to even imagine. Cheney stopped the CIA's people from monitoring WMD. Networks were destroyed, careers destroyed, assets compromised.

That wasn't done to slap Joe Wilson. No, no, no.

And if the investigation so far is all we get, I'm extremely unhappy.

[Hamlette]

6. so, under this theory....

did Cheney pick Wilson to go to Niger so he could bust Plame or was it just dumb luck?

Did Dick think: "Wow, imagine my luck! I can erase all my bad weapons dealings over the years by outing Plame! Then, all the work/information/evidence they have will vanish! And Plame is the only person in the world who could have find out about my evil weapons deals!"

[Bucky]

7. I think we misjudge Cheney when we presume he ever had a logical plan of action for Plame or Iraq

The more I study this, the more it seems that we're looking at the workings of a sick mind... a deeply suspicious, possibly paranoic world view. He was probably convinced Saddam had WMDs (hell, Rumsfeld could show him the receipts!) and saw all the Chalibifications of the facts as simple expedients to getting the job done.

When the facts coming to light before the invasion failed to back up his certainty that the weapons programs were there, he panicked; he began to see demons and conspiracies around every corner. That's when the anger at Ms Plame began to gel. She was supposed to be in charge of processing the intel about Saddam's nuke program, but her department's reports kept saying there isn't a smoking gun yet; there isn't any proof. Add to that that someone at Langley had given him her husband's name as the right guy to send to Niger. So if there was a conspiracy out to get him; she and her husband were at the nexus of it.

Some day someone is gonna piece together the really sick psyche of Dick Cheney and write a book to explain how one man's delusional world view led to the deaths of thousands of people. We'll all be old folks when that book finally comes out, and we'll cry all over again at the horrible horrible waste of this war.

[grasswire]

8. what, you haven't already encountered this news?

No cynicism is required to understand that a deep, sinister backstory exists regarding Cheney and Plame-Wilson. Remember, someone DID steal stationery and DID forge documents on it, knowing that the forgery was so poor that it would be immediately spotted. Someone DID provide these documents to an Italian media entity so it would blow back to the U.S. Someone did concoct lie after lie after lie regarding the matter. Someone did persuade the POTUS to include a lie in the SOU address. Someone DID commit perjury in order to confuse investigators and stop any further investigation. Etc.

Your first possibility is soundly possible. Your second possibility is either naive or just a ruse.

Incidentally, what does this prior statement of yours imply?

"It is what drives me crazy about the left: you say you hate bigotry and engage in it yourself."

[Neshanic]

9. No, he never will get there with this soft ball crap. "deceiving with good intentions."

He's a tool, a power tool, no make that a super power tool.

Why he is listened to still amazes me.

He has to hedge his bets, there are only so many places for him and Hitchens to be invited to.

He's a shrinks wet dream.