pageok
pageok
pageok
Valerie & Joseph Wilson's Suit Dismissed:

Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph Wilson sued Vice President Dick Cheney and several other Executive Branch officials for their alleged complicity in the disclosure of Valerie Plame's work for the CIA. Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the claims. The opinion is here. Howard Bashman rounds up preliminary news coverage here. Whatever one thinks of the whole Plame affair, I do not think there was ever much argument that this lawsuit was a bit of stretch.

Benjamin Davis (mail):
Scope of duties to block the civil suit - along with all the other doctrines and privileges what else is new? Never can seem to get to the merits in these cases. I hear that wrongful death actions against private contractors by families of persons sent to Iraq are having more luck getting around the government contractor doctrine used from agent orange days. Distinction being made between products like agent orange and the services the contractors do (sort of a deficient service argument).
Best,
Ben
7.19.2007 6:51pm
Kazinski:
I'm glad that the court didn't get to the merits of the case as they can't seem to get even basic facts right. From the background section of the opinion:

Upon the conclusion of the Niger trip, and well before the State of the Union address, Mr. Wilson advised the CIA and the State Department that the allegations were based on forged documents and were wholly untrue.


While Joe Wilson at one time claimed he debunked the forgeries he later admitted that it was impossible for him to have even seen the forgeries, let alone debunk them:


Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself.


Now it may be that Joe Wilson in his became re-"confused about his recollection" when he filed the suit, but it shouldn't be stated as fact in the background of the decision.
7.19.2007 9:05pm
John Jenkins (mail):
@ Kazinski: I don't think that matters. The court is just looking at the pleading filed by the Wilsons, and not extra-judicial facts. (See n.1 in the Opinion)
7.19.2007 9:49pm
DBL (mail):
The judge stated: "[t]here can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism ... by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level executive branch officials." Further deponent sayeth not.
7.19.2007 10:03pm
Steve:
Further deponent sayeth not.

The sentence immediately prior was, for the record: "The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory." The court hardly endorsed Plame's outing as the sort of thing any Executive Branch official would do.
7.19.2007 10:13pm
Andy Freeman (mail):
Why are they suing Libby? Armitage was the original source.
7.19.2007 11:17pm
Steve:
I dunno, it's crazy, right? Like if you get run over by more than one car, obviously you're only allowed to sue the first driver. Quite clearly, once Plame's employment was leaked to any one human being outside the government, it's as if the whole world instantly knew, and everyone else was free to leak it with impunity. Yet they insisted on suing other defendants as well as Armitage. Rule 11, I say.
7.19.2007 11:44pm
Andy Freeman (mail):
Libby's reveal didn't result in publication, which is the mechanism by which the injury occurred. Armitage's prior reveal did result in publication.

To use the car analogy, there's a difference between running over a live person and speeding past a dead one.
7.20.2007 12:25am
Steve:
Oh, you were serious? The allegation is that they acted in concert.
7.20.2007 12:29am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
Oh, you were serious? The allegation is that they acted in concert.
That would have been interesting to prove - Armitage working with Libby to out Plame. Of course, the Wilsons can now claim that if only they had had their day in court, they could have proven their case.

I think that there are good public policy reasons that this didn't get to trial. While the Wilsons were deposing the top members of the Administration in this fishing expedition, we would still be on high alert for terrorist strikes w/i this country, we would still have troops in combat in Iraq and Afganistan, etc. All to salve the Wilsons' egos.

The reason that they wouldn't have been able to prove a real conspiracy here is that even if Libby and his boss had been out to get the Wilsons, they failed. Rather, it was a bureaucratic fight between the CIA and State that did in her covert status, to the extent that she had one then. And that had almost nothing to do with Cheney, Libby, or Rove.

The fact that it was the State department that outed Plame and not the White House would have meant that the Wilsons would have had to try to tie the untieable together, and that is why it would have been a fishing expedition. And that is why it is good that their case was preempted.
7.20.2007 1:03am
Hoosier:
(I'm not a lawyer.) Is "reveal" a noun, per Andy Freeman's post? How is it defined in law? I haven't heard this before.
7.20.2007 1:11am
neurodoc:
"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory."

Armitage's reason for first telling Bob Woodward, who didn't publish it, then Robert Novak, who did publish it, that Wilson's wife Plame worked for the CIA was what? Dick thought that was harmless information to share with these journalists, but Libby shared that same information with other journalists (Cooper and Miller?) for the malicious purpose of "punishing" Wilson by outing his wife as a non-covert CIA agent? It had no bearing on what Wilson had to say and how it should be weighed whether his wife had a hand in arranging his trip or he was chosen by someone(s) unrelated to her, e.g., Cheney's office, who didn't like the report he delivered to them?

I do understand why some partisans might view it all as "highly unsavory." I don't know, however, what evidence compels others to conclude that the "means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility" were "unsavory" given what has been disclosed to us about the relevant circumstances. What evidence in this regard am I overlooking or incorrectly assessing?
7.20.2007 1:28am
neurodoc:
Bruce Hayden, who you accept, "...it was a bureaucratic fight between the CIA and State that did in her covert status, to the extent that she ever had one then, or at any time, as "covert status" is defined for purposes of the relevant law"? It seems that not only was her last overseas assignment sufficiently recent to fall within the ambit of that law, but also she did not come under it because she was represented to be a private party and was not operating as someone posing as a US diplomat or other non-agent federal employee.

And how in any event was it "a bureaucratic fight between the CIA and State that did in her covert status," if Armitage's disclosure was not publicized, rather it was Libby's and Rove's(?) that were? Did Armitage mean to "out" Plame, though neither Woodward or Cooper did anything with it?

Again, what is it that I am missing in all this?
7.20.2007 1:49am
Christopher Cooke (mail):
As usual, the posters are dwelling on the underlying controversy and repeating talking points bandied about regarding it, instead of the merits of the judge's opinion.

I think the court's opinion is likely correct under the precedent cited in it.
The only discretionary part of the opinion is the "special facts" jurisprudential doctrine that the Court discusses as to why he is finding no remedy. Still, I think it likely that the district court will be affirmed.
7.20.2007 2:07am
Steve:
Gawd, it never ends. Armitage was the leaker, Plame wasn't covert, blah blah blah. What a movement.
7.20.2007 2:16am
K Parker (mail):
Enough of the legal analysis. What I desperately want to know is, are these people going to slink off quietly from public view now?

No???

Darn....
7.20.2007 2:22am
Kazinski:
John Jenkins:
I don't think that assertion was in the Wilsons' pleading. I think that the pleading cited an article that contained the assertion that Wilson debunked the forgeries. I can't imagine that a lawyer with the stature of Erwin Chemerinsky would file a pleading with an assertion that not only could be demonstrated as false, but that his client had already make an embarrassing public admission that he "misspoke". I think the Judge must have read the article cited in the pleading and took it as gospel, without realizing that Joe admitted later that he was blowing smoke at the reporter.

Chemerinsky suffers from full blown BDS (and CDS too) but he isn't going to go out of his way to highlight his clients all to obvious credibility problems.
7.20.2007 2:57am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
kaz: "he later admitted that it was impossible for him to have even seen the forgeries, let alone debunk them"

Uh, not quite. It was not necessary for Wilson (or the CIA) "to have even seen the forgeries" (if by that we mean page-image copies of the documents) in order to "debunk" them.

As Kristof reported, Wilson had decided the documents were forged. There's nothing remarkable about this, because CIA had verbatim text of the documents prior to Wilson's trip, and this text was enough to indicate the forgery. More details on this are here.

Later on, Wilson makes some coy statements regarding whether or not he had seen the documents, around the time of his trip. It's not hard to understand why he did this. I explain that here.
7.20.2007 5:54am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
bruce: "That would have been interesting to prove - Armitage working with Libby to out Plame."

The reason Armitage knew about Plame was because he read the Carl Ford memo. The reason this memo existed is that Cheney was running around asking questions about Wilson.

"it was the State department that outed Plame and not the White House"

There are four known leakers: Libby, Rove, Fleischer and Armitage. Until recently, I thought that those first three worked for the White House, not State. Thanks for setting me straight on that.
7.20.2007 6:02am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
neuro: "I don't know, however, what evidence compels others to conclude that the 'means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility' were 'unsavory' "

There are many indications that Libby's behavior was "unsavory" (to put it mildly). Here's one indication: he instisted that Miller hide his indentity. If he was just doing his job, what was he ashamed of, or afraid of? Likewise for the coverup that ensued (Scottie coming out and telling us repeatedly that Rove and Libby weren't involved).
7.20.2007 6:07am
David M. Nieporent (www):
There are many indications that Libby's behavior was "unsavory" (to put it mildly). Here's one indication: he instisted that Miller hide his indentity. If he was just doing his job, what was he ashamed of, or afraid of?
Of all the arguments you've raised, that's perhaps the lamest one (although your "Wilson didn't lie about reading the memos; he did read them but lied about it later because his wife was guilty of espionage" was kind of creative). You are aware that you can pick up the New York Times every day of the week and twice on Sunday and pick about eight stories off the front page where someone from the government (or otherwise) tells a reporter something while insisting his name not be used, right?
7.20.2007 8:15am
Hoosier:
Just to piggy-back on David's point: The Times under Howell Raines was /incredibly/ reliant on unnamed "administration officials," especially by the end of his time as editor. I just don't think that one can deduce any motive of any kind from a "deep background"-type interview, other than that the official doesn't want to be named.

There were other issues with Libby. But I've heard the "if-he-wasn't-hiding- anything-what-was-he- trying-to-hide?-huh?!!" case made against him by some talking heads (though not by any Talking Heads), and I've not found it convincing. We'd have to convict every "unnamed official" in every White House, and a number of legislators, if we went by that standard.
7.20.2007 10:31am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
david: "he did read them but lied about it later"

You should identify which of his statements you claim is a lie, and show proof that it's a lie. Hopefully you'll also share with us your private copy of the transcript of his interview with the senate committee. The rest of us are working only with some cryptic snippets of text that the committee chose to share with us, but you apparently know what his complete statement was, and what exact question he was responding to.

"because his wife was guilty of espionage"

I think he heard details about the contents of the documents, around the time of his trip, either via his wife or someone else. This is pointedly unremarkable. Those documents triggered his trip, and they were highly relevant to his trip. What's bizarre is not that he was familiar with them, but rather that certain people apparently made a fuss about hiding those documents, from him and others. I think they had obvious reasons to do so, but those reasons are not good. And those reasons seem to be connected to the following non-accident: righty sources work overtime to dishonestly convey the impression that we didn't have the documents, in any form, until months later. I've documented this in detail.

Anyway, those documents (or at least some very closely related documents) have been public information for years, and the republic still stands (sort of), so good luck convincing anyone that Wilson's knowledge of them involved some grave form of "espionage."

"You are aware that … every day of the week … someone from the government (or otherwise) tells a reporter something while insisting his name not be used, right?"

Anonymity can be legitimate, or it can be abusive. In this instance, it was the latter.

You are aware that there are certain classic, obvious reasons why anonymity is used (when talking to the press), and that not all of those reasons are honorable? And you are aware that there are no honorable reasons that conceivably apply in this instance?

Here's one classic reason: the person is some kind of a whistleblower. In other words, I think my boss is doing wrong, and I'm leaking information which paints him in a bad light, and I want to limit his ability to find me and harm me. This may or may not be honorable in some particular circumstance, depending on the facts. But this scenario is obviously not relevant here.

What's true in that situation and in every situation is that the leaker wants to avoid being held accountable for the leaking. Why? This could be because the information is tainted or false. It could also be that I'm leaking on behalf of my boss and my team, with their knowledge and consent, but we don't want to be held accountable for the information. There are many such situations. For example, I could be predicting that my candidate's opponent is going to run out of money and drop out of the race. Or I could be predicting that some terrible skeleton is about to jump out of the opponent's closet. Or I could be claiming that the opponent's debate performance was terrible. Or I could be an anonymous general claiming (with my boss's encouragement) that the war is at yet another turning point. I could be harmlessly offering something that's obviously only an opinion, or I could be offering what I claim are facts.

Each such situation has its own character. Reporters and readers, if they're awake, understand the potential for abuse and make judgments accordingly, and behave accordingly. Responsible reporters avoid being exploited. Likewise for responsible readers. Skilled leakers know that many reporters and readers are not awake and responsible.

In the instant matter, the Bushist narrative has repeatedly insisted that Libby et al were just doing their job, and using factual, unclassified information to make a legitimate, appropriate, necessary response to Wilson's claims. Trouble is, if all that is true, then there is no legitimate purpose served by anonymity. In retrospect, we understand the purpose of the anonymity: to escape accountability for wrongdoing. It was wrong to leak classified information, and it was wrong to make a claim that was counterfactual (that Plame "authorized" Wilson's trip). No one seriously denies that there was a leak of classified information, and no one seriously denies that a false claim ('she sent him') was made. Those are two separate matters.

It's not sufficient to wave your hand and say that since anonymity is common, it must always be considered legitimate. That's asinine. It's legitimate, or not, depending on the circumstances. In this circumstance, there's no conceivable justification for the anonymity (let alone the lying and hiding which followed). If you can conceive of such a justification, you should let us in on the secret and tell us what it is.
7.20.2007 10:51am
Anderson (mail) (www):
N.b. that Libby didn't even want to be identified as in the White House; usually, anonymous sources are "senior administration officials" or something else that identifies their ballpark.
7.20.2007 10:59am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier: "The Times under Howell Raines was /incredibly/ reliant on unnamed 'administration officials' "

Indeed. And this goes hand-in-hand with the way Miller sat on Libby's knee and took dutiful stenography regarding aluminum tubes and other scary fairy tales. This created a remarkable and highly useful echo chamber where Bush et al fed bogus stories to the press, and then quoted the press as a form of corroboration for those stories. For the quintessential example, pay close attention to what happened on or about 9/8/02, regarding aluminum tubes, Miller, and Cheney. That day Miller published a breathless story about tubes, quoting "Bush administration officials" and "American intelligence experts." The next day, Cheney was on MTP saying this:

Specifically aluminum tubes. There's a story in The New York Times this morning-this is-I don't-and I want to attribute The Times. I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge. And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium, which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.


Never mind that a year earlier, our top nuclear scientists at DOE/Oak Ridge had determined that the tubes were for rockets, not centrifuges. That key fact was successfully suppressed.

There are other examples, but this one is classic. How to sell a war, in 10 easy steps. That darn liberal media.

"I just don't think that one can deduce any motive of any kind from a 'deep background'-type interview, other than that the official doesn't want to be named."

If one wants to be incredibly naive, one can assume that "the official doesn't want to be named" for no darn reason whatsoever. On the other hand, if one is paying attention, one realizes that there is always a motive behind such behavior, and the motive can be legitimate or not.

"We'd have to convict every 'unnamed official' in every White House, and a number of legislators, if we went by that standard."

We should indeed end our tolerance for "every 'unnamed official' " who abuses anonymity for the purpose of exploiting reporters and readers. This requires paying attention, and it requires applying good judgment, which are scarce resources, unfortunately.
7.20.2007 11:21am
Hoosier:
jukebox--Since you've implied that my words were naive, I'll repeat them: You cannot extrapolate a motive from the simple fact that an official speaks on condition of anonymity. How is that naive?

Also, you failed to address the Talking Heads.
7.20.2007 11:26am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
anderson: "Libby didn't even want to be identified as in the White House"

Good point. He instructed Miller to describe him as a "former Hill staffer" (she might as well have identified him as a former child). Some humorous comments about that are here.

This extra level of deception on Libby's part is a sign that he knew the material he was handling was radioactive.
7.20.2007 11:31am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier: "Since you've implied that my words were naive, I'll repeat them: You cannot extrapolate a motive from the simple fact that an official speaks on condition of anonymity. How is that naive?"

It could be that I misinterpreted you, so let me make my point more carefully.

If all we have is "the simple fact that an official speaks on condition of anonymity," then you are correct to state that we are perhaps not in a position to judge the motive. However, we are in a position to believe that some kind of motive is present, because most human behavior, including this sort of behavior, is driven by a motive.

In the instant matter, we know a lot more than just "the simple fact that an official [spoke] on condition of anonymity." We know enough to conclude that there was no good motive to do so. If you can imagine a good motive, you should tell us what it is.

"Also, you failed to address the Talking Heads."

Maybe that's your way of telling me that you want me to Stop Making Sense.
7.20.2007 11:37am
neurodoc:
jukeboxgrad: What was Armitage's motive for "sharing" first with Woodward, later with Novak? Did Armitage tell either of them that they should feel free to identify him as their source should they use the item he was giving them, unlike Libby, who directed a reporter not to identity him as her source? Can you explain what role, if any, you believe Plame played in choosing her husband for the Niger assignment?
7.20.2007 1:07pm
Andy Freeman (mail):
> The allegation is that they acted in concert.

Libby and Armitage acted in concert?

Since Libby was supposedly trying to discredit Wilson, "in concert" means that Armitage was as well.

Not.
7.20.2007 1:38pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
neuro: "What was Armitage's motive for 'sharing' "

Your guess is as good as mine, or anyone else's. The common speculation, which sounds plausible to me, is that he was simply gossiping for the pure pleasure of it.

"Did Armitage tell either of them that they should feel free to identify him as their source should they use the item he was giving them"

Part of what Armitage said to Woodward can be found here. I think there isn't enough information in the public record to answer your question with anything other than worthless speculation.

We know a lot more about what Libby said to Miller. Miller wrote about this at length, and Libby testified about this, at length.

"Can you explain what role, if any, you believe Plame played in choosing her husband for the Niger assignment"

I think she played a minor role in supporting a plan that was conceived and carried out by others. This is consistent with Wilson's statements, her statements, and a bunch of other publicly available material.

The White House promoted the false idea that 'she sent him,' that she "authorized" the trip.

I hope you find these answers helpful. Earlier you asked some other questions that I didn't answer simply because I couldn't comprehend what you were asking. If you ask them again, I'll try to answer.
7.20.2007 2:12pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
andy: "Since Libby was supposedly trying to discredit Wilson, "in concert" means that Armitage was as well. Not."

You should indicate how you know that Armitage had no possible motive to discredit Wilson.

It's become fashionable to talk about Armitage as if he's somewhere to the left of Mao, but that's pure revisionism. He was a member of the Bush administration. He worked for Reagan, Poppy and Dubya. He was a confirmed neocon. He was one of 18 people who signed the important PNAC letter, along with other American heroes like Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, Kristol, Perle, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Quite an elite group.

Yes, Armitage ended up speaking up against the war, but as far as I can tell he didn't do that until last year. He worked for the Bush administration until 2004. In 2003, the relevant period, there's little or no reason to believe that his attitude about Wilson was any different than Libby's or Rove's.
7.20.2007 2:27pm
Kazinski:
The whole point about the forged documents is that Joe Wilson publicly repudiated his earlier claims that he debunked the forged documents, but somehow that claim made its way into the Background section of the opinion as a fact.

The documents themselves were nothing more than part of Wilson's smokescreen. He was trying to make it appear that the Adminstration got suckered by some crudely forged documents, but the Butler report makes clear the forgeries played no role whatsoever in the assessment of whether Iraq was trying to get yellow cake:

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:
'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa'

was well-founded....

From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:
a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.

d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.


The Niger forgeries are often cited as evidence of how the Bush Adminstration tried to manipulate the intelligence, but the only thing they illustrate is how Joe Wilson successfully manipulated the press.
7.20.2007 2:36pm
Kazinski:
Jukeboxgrad:
"I think she played a minor role in supporting a plan that was conceived and carried out by others."

We don't need to speculate, we know that she is the one that came up with the idea of sending Joe to Niger.

In Valierie Wilson's own words:

So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.

Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on ... my husband has good relations with both the PM 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. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency's sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.
7.20.2007 2:51pm
John Burgess (mail) (www):
Jukeboxgrad: Your naivety on how the egos of Washington work with/against/through the media is charming in its way. But still naive.

Washington bureaucrats leak for lots of reasons, but the major one is ego: 'I know something and I'm going to show you just how important I am (and think you are) by sharing it with you.'

The other major theme is: 'I know I'm right, but those SOBs in wherever are stupid and they shot down my idea/plan/analysis. Judge for yourself Mr/Ms reporter if I'm not brilliant.'

Anonymity doesn't equate with 'radioactive'. It equates with 'I don't want certain people to know I'm talking with you for a reason that is sound to me.'
7.20.2007 6:22pm
neurodoc:
jukeboxgrad: It's become fashionable to talk about Armitage as if he's somewhere to the left of Mao, but that's pure revisionism. He was a member of the Bush administration. He worked for Reagan, Poppy and Dubya. He was a confirmed neocon. He was one of 18 people who signed the important PNAC letter, along with other American heroes like Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, Kristol, Perle, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Quite an elite group.

You fail to mention that not only did Armitage serve as Colin Powell's deputy at State, but Powell, whom you probably hold in much higher regard than those you mock as "American heroes," has described Armitage as his closest friend, the person he would expect to care for his wife and family if something should happen to him. And Powell wasn't exactly coming at matters from the same direction as the White House, in particular Cheney and his minions. So maybe the most plausible speculation as to Armitage is not that he is simply some garrulous, guileless, loose-lipped naif who never expected Woodward or Novak to do anything with his "slip" about Plame.
7.21.2007 12:53am
David M. Nieporent (www):
Never mind that a year earlier, our top nuclear scientists at DOE/Oak Ridge had determined that the tubes were for rockets, not centrifuges. That key fact was successfully suppressed.
If by "successfully suppressed," you mean "reported on the front page of the New York Times before the war," then yes. (Hell, even the evil Judy Miller reported, the same week as the story you posted, that there was a dispute among US intelligence experts about the tubes.) Incidentally, your use of "determined" is misleading in exactly the same way that Bush's use of "learned" in the "16 words" is. DOE analysts "concluded" this; they did not "determine" it.

You are aware that there are certain classic, obvious reasons why anonymity is used (when talking to the press), and that not all of those reasons are honorable? And you are aware that there are no honorable reasons that conceivably apply in this instance?
Actually, the reasons are virtually never honorable; the ratio of conscientious whistleblowers to anonymous sources is infinitesimal. They're generally for personal political gain. (By "political" I don't necessarily mean elective office; I include office politics in that term.) Most of the time it's just because the leaker is trying to cultivate reporters; hell, people regularly "leak" information that's going to become public in a few days (or even hours), just to earn credit with reporters looking for scoops, and they ask for anonymity simply because they're not authorized to reveal the information. Or they do it because they think it will be more credible if coming from someone other than themselves. Rarely, including here, is it for nefarious purposes, though.

(The idea that it was to "retaliate" against Wilson is, frankly, somewhere between Roswell aliens and 9/11 inside job loony.)
7.21.2007 2:53am
Hoosier:
jukebox--

1) OK, I think you just misunderstood. Perhaps I could have been clearer.

2) Re: Talking Heads--Great comment. I suspect that some riff on Life During Wartime would have worked, too.
7.21.2007 6:19am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Sorry I had to disappear for a couple of days.

kaz: "Joe Wilson publicly repudiated his earlier claims that he debunked the forged documents"

Your source is a page in SSCI with some cryptic phrases that he supposedly uttered. I'm not convinced they mean what you claim they mean. I discussed this above.

"He was trying to make it appear that the Adminstration got suckered by some crudely forged documents"

I think it's more like this: Bush knowingly used forged documents to sucker the rest of us. No one has ever explained how and why the CIA didn't notice the forgery in 2/02. It took them more than year to figure out what should have been obvious immediately.

"the Butler report makes clear the forgeries played no role whatsoever in the assessment of whether Iraq was trying to get yellow cake"

I'm quite familiar with the Butler report, and your assertion is utterly and obviously wrong. The Butler report proves only that Bush has a friend in Blair and Blair has a friend in Butler. UK, even at this late date, has never offered anything remotely resembling proof for the claim. You might be impressed by Butler, but CIA is not, and Robb-Silberman is not:

Intelligence Community agencies did not effectively authenticate the documents regarding an alleged agreement for the sale of uranium yellowcake from Niger to Iraq. The President referred to this alleged agreement in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003-- evidence for which the Intelligence Community later concluded was based on forged documents. ...

the NIE ... did note that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake' from Africa. This statement was based largely on reporting from a foreign government intelligence service that Niger planned to send up to 500 tons of yellowcake uranium to Iraq. ... For reasons discussed at length below, several months after the NIE, the reporting that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger was judged to be based on forged documents and was recalled ... In addition to recalling the reporting, CIA briefed the congressional intelligence committees in June 2003 that, given the recall of the earlier reporting, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Iraq had recently sought uranium from Africa.


(Emphasis added.) Please notice what R-S is telling us. Bush's 16 words were based on "reporting" which in turn was based on forged documents. And in the absence of those documents, it was no longer reasonable to conclude that "Iraq had recently sought uranium from Africa."

The 2004 SSCI report says essentially the same thing (p. 72):

K. Niger Conclusions ... (U) Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.


The passage is delicately phrased, but it's clear what it means. Once we obtained the forged documents, it was no longer "reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa." This is the exact same point that R-S made, except R-S was slightly more blunt. (It's too bad that this SSCI passage glosses over this important point: we had the verbatim text of the documents in 2/02, and this should have been enough to reveal the forgery. R-S makes this point in a passage separate from what I cited above.)

"The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it."

You quote that key sentence from Butler (pdf). This statement is a classic of nonsense and double-speak. Yes, they didn't have the forged documents. They had even less. All they had was rumor and speculation that eventually traced back to the forged documents. That's what CIA and R-S concluded.

Simple question: if the 16 words were not ultimately based on the forged documents, why were those words retracted? If Bush ever held any non-forged evidence, then he could have safely ignored Wilson. Wilson was a big problem for Bush only because Wilson was right: there was no evidence outside of the forged documents.

Bush conducted a secret campaign to smear Wilson only because Bush was not in a position to engage Wilson in a substantive way, because Bush had nothing non-forged to back up his yellowcake allegations. Bush obviously took a lot of ultimately self-destructive risks in going after Wilson this way. It's hard to understand why, until we realize that the stakes were high, and Bush had nothing else to work with.

The stakes were high because Nigerien yellowcake was at the heart of the nuclear claim, and the nuclear claim was at the heart of the WMD claim, and the WMD claim was the key rationale that was used to sell the war.
7.22.2007 4:43am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
kaz: "we know that she is the one that came up with the idea of sending Joe to Niger"

You're joking, right? I guess you managed to not read the second sentence of the passage you cited (pdf, p. 207):

As you may recall [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently [2001] approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [redacted] [a separate Niger matter].


She is explicitly stating that someone else, not her, was apparently first to start raising the idea that CIA might have reason to send Wilson to Niger.

By the way, here's a simple question about that memo. The key paragraph contains an ellipsis, in a key place. Is that ellipsis in the original? The context seems to indicate that the answer is no. But it's essentially impossible to answer this question, because for some strange reason, Bond gave us a retyped version of Plame's email, rather than a photo of a printed original. How odd. Here's something else that's odd: he used two different redaction techniques (or three, if the ellipses is yet another redaction). It's hard to imagine why, unless he wanted to obscure the length of certain particular redactions.

The normal way of conveying such a document in a senate report is via a redacted page-image copy. Providing documents in the form of redacted photographic images is exactly what's widely done throughout the rest of the pdf. For example, see pages 14-51. In fact, about two-thirds of the whole pdf consists of such photographic images. Bond should have simply printed the email and redacted it. Instead, he retyped it.

This is how many other examples there are of Bond's technique (i.e., an entire document being completely retyped rather than being incorporated photographically) being used elsewhere in the pdf: zero. The 2004 SSCI report contains 524 pages. This is how many examples there are in that document, of Bond's technique being used: zero. It would interest me greatly if anyone can present a single example of the Senate Intelligence Committee ever using Bond's technique, anywhere, anytime. The way Bond did this is highly unusual and suspect.

I think it's also interesting to notice that two-thirds of Bond's R colleagues on the committee decided they didn't want to touch his analysis with a ten-foot pole.

One more oddity, with regard to Bond's retyping the email. He apparently made one obvious error. One sentence from this email is cited in 2004 SSCI (p. 39). Bond's text fails to match, in a fairly obvious way. The error does not change the meaning, but it makes one wonder about other "errors" that we don't know about.

"she is the one that came up with the idea"

Something else about this formulation. When the White House put out the story, they went further. They said 'she sent him,' that she "authorized" the trip. Bond now gives us more proof that his was a falsehood. The reports officer cited by Bond said she wasn't "involved in the decisionmaking" (p. 210).

Bond also treats us to this bit of disingenuous backpedaling (same page):

The Committee report never claimed that Mrs. Wilson made the decision to send him, only that she suggested him.


Yes, "the Committee report" didn't make that claim. But Rove and Libby did, on various occasions.
7.22.2007 5:11am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
burgess: "I know something and I'm going to show you just how important I am (and think you are) by sharing it with you"

The emotions embodied in that statement have nothing to do with anonymity. On the contrary. It makes perfect sense to approach a reporter on-the-record and say 'I know something and I'm going to show you just how important I am (and think you are) by sharing it with you.' And I'm sharing it with you first, and maybe only with you. And it's between just me and you until you decide to print it. And when you do, make sure to spell my name right. Needless to say, there is extra ego-enhancement when I see my name in print.

"Anonymity … equates with 'I don't want certain people to know I'm talking with you for a reason that is sound to me.' "

That still dodges the question: what is the "reason that is sound," in the situation with Libby? It's not hard to think of a "sound" reason (his desire to escape accountability for wrongdoing); it's just hard to think of an honorable one.
7.22.2007 5:23am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
neuro: "Powell, whom you probably hold in much higher regard than those you mock"

Given Powell's execrable performance on 2/6/03, it's hard to overstate how wrong you are.

"has described Armitage as his closest friend"

I know, but I can't imagine the relevance.

"Powell wasn't exactly coming at matters from the same direction as the White House, in particular Cheney and his minions"

As of 2/6/03, which is essentially the relevant timeframe, Powell was sitting on Cheney's lap helping Cheney do ventriloquism. So Powell was indeed "exactly coming at matters from the same direction as the White House, in particular Cheney and his minions." It takes a very close look to notice a few quibbles that Powell raised here and there, during that period.

"So maybe the most plausible speculation as to Armitage is not that he is simply some garrulous, guileless, loose-lipped naif who never expected Woodward or Novak to do anything with his 'slip' about Plame."

I'm trying to understand what you're truly trying to say about Armitage, but you're being a little too cryptic for me, and I can't.
7.22.2007 5:33am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
david: "If by 'successfully suppressed,' you mean 'reported on the front page of the New York Times before the war,' then yes."

You have your facts exactly backward. This is what you are claiming was "reported on the front page of the New York Times before the war:"

a year earlier, our top nuclear scientists at DOE/Oak Ridge had determined that the tubes were for rockets, not centrifuges


SSCI contains a very interesting passage, on this subject (p. 94):

A September 13, 2002 New York Times article which discussed the IC debate about the aluminum tubes, noted that an administration official said, ". . .the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments." The [redacted] contractors told Committee staff, however, that before September 16, 2002, they had not seen any of the intelligence data on the Iraqi tubes. DOE officials, including the Director of the Oak Ridge Field Intelligence Element, told Committee staff that the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs did not agree with the CIA's analysis.


(Emphasis added.) Some helpful context is here:

On Sept. 13, The Times made the first public mention of the tubes debate in the sixth paragraph of an article on Page A13. In it an unidentified senior administration official dismissed the debate as a ''footnote, not a split.'' Citing another unidentified administration official, the story reported that the ''best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the C.I.A. assessments.''

As a senior Oak Ridge official pointed out to the Intelligence Committee, ''the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts'' in the Energy Department's laboratories in fact disagreed with the agency. But on Sept. 13, the day the article appeared, the Energy Department sent a directive forbidding employees from discussing the subject with reporters.

The Energy Department, in a written statement, said that it was ''completely appropriate'' to remind employees of the need to protect nuclear secrets and that it had made no effort ''to quash dissent.''


What apparently happened here is Libby sat Miller on his knee and lied to her. And she printed the lie. The lie was to state that DOE had concluded the exact opposite of what it had actually concluded.

The NYT article SSCI is talking about (9/13/02) can be found on a list here. And guess who co-wrote it? Miller, of course. And the unnamed AO who was apparently telling a blatant lie about Oak Ridge? My money is on Libby. (By the way, a very comprehensive timeline on the tubes is here. Very intelligent further analysis is here.)

Speaking of exact opposites, you should tell us where we can find "on the front page of the New York Times before the war" a statement indicating that "our top nuclear scientists at DOE/Oak Ridge had determined that the tubes were for rockets, not centrifuges." The NYT page I cited lists a bunch of key articles, including one that says the exact opposite of what you claim. I can't find what you claim exists. Hopefully you can tell us where to look.

"Hell, even the evil Judy Miller reported, the same week as the story you posted, that there was a dispute among US intelligence experts about the tubes."

As far as I can tell, the article you're talking about is here. Here are the parts relevant to the claim you made:

the White House asserted that Iraq's efforts to buy specially configured aluminum tubes was evidence that President Hussein was still trying to make nuclear fuel for a bomb.

Senior officials acknowledged yesterday that there have been debates among intelligence experts about Iraq's intentions in trying to buy such tubes, but added that the dominant view in the administration was that the tubes were intended for use in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium.

George J. Tenet … has been adamant that tubes recently intercepted en route to Iraq were intended for use in a nuclear program, officials said. They also said it was the intelligence agencies' unanimous view that the type of tubes that Iraq has been seeking are used to make such centrifuges. The Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency support the C.I.A. view, the officials said.

Although the C.I.A. position appears to be the dominant view, officials said some experts had questioned whether Iraq might not be seeking the tubes for other purposes, specifically, to build multiple-launch rocket systems.

Specifically, Washington officials said, some experts in the State Department and the Energy Department were said to have raised that question. But other, more senior, officials insisted last night that this was a minority view among intelligence experts and that the C.I.A. had wide support, particularly among the government's top technical experts and nuclear scientists.

"This is a footnote, not a split," a senior administration official said.

The government has shown great sensitivity about suggestions that intelligence experts differ over Iraq's intentions, because Mr. Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is the centerpiece of the argument for planning a military campaign to topple him.

The New York Times reported on Sunday that the dominant view was that the tubes were for Iraq's nuclear program and that it was only one of several indications that Iraq was reconstituting and expanding its effort to acquire nuclear weapons. …

An administration official called discussions about the aluminum tubes and Iraq's intentions "a normal part of the intelligence process." The administration has stopped Iraq several times from buying such tubes. Officials said yesterday that earlier shipments differed from latter ones and that the specifications of the earlier shipments were not as clearly suited for nuclear purposes.

"There are tubes and then there are tubes," the administration official said. He added that the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the C.I.A. assessment.


(Emphasis added.) Yes, she acknowledges "there was a dispute." But just barely. And the last sentence is an outright falsehood, and the exact opposite of the truth. The same falsehood is emphatically repeated about halfway into the story.
7.22.2007 6:22am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Perhaps the most thorough insider account of the tubes story, by nuclear scientist David Albright, is here (pdf). Albright is a former UN weapons inspector and has often testified before Congress on nuclear issues. Here's some of what Albright says:

Long before the war, the US intelligence community knew enough to raise serious doubts about the assertion that these aluminum tubes were specifically intended for gas centrifuges. Key experts of the US intelligence community and experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) contested the claim that the tubes were for centrifuges, which was being pushed by the CIA. ...

Review of the CIA assessment started soon after the tube order was discovered. An influential set of experts was at the Department of Energy (DOE). Oak Ridge, Livermore, and Los Alamos national laboratories all had knowledge of the CIA assessment.

Many of these scientists and experts were deeply knowledgeable not only of gas centrifuges but also of the Iraqi gas centrifuge program. They rejected the CIA view that the tubes were specifically intended for use in a centrifuge, although many agreed that the tubes could have been modified for use in an inefficient centrifuge. Some gas centrifuge experts believed that the centrifuge could work poorly in a cascade. ...

Members of the IAEA Action Team, responsible for inspections in Iraq under the UN Security Council, started to learn about the aluminum tubes early in the summer of 2001. The Action Team, now called the Iraq Nuclear Verification Office (INVO), became deeply skeptical of Joe's assessment about the purpose of the tubes.

IAEA experts quickly realized that Iraq had imported in the 1980s large numbers of tubes with identical dimensions for use in short-range rocket motors in multiple rocket launch systems (MRLS). Inspectors had seen thousands of these tubes in the 1990s. ...

... all of the characteristics fit a use in a rocket that Iraq was known to have produced or planned to produce indigenously. The tubes' length, wall thickness, and diameter in particular are identical to a use in this rocket.

... the exact same type of aluminum ordered by Iraq is used in US rockets. ...

In July 2001, Joe traveled to Vienna with a DOE expert and gave a presentation about his results to IAEA experts, according to a knowledgeable official. ...

... participants in the meeting spent a considerable amount of time explaining to him the flaws in his analysis. ... One knowledgeable expert complained to me later in the summer of 2001 that Joe's analysis was "really bad." ...

After a year of debate, virtually all of the gas centrifuge experts in the United States and abroad who evaluated this case rejected the CIA's case and did not believe that the tubes were destined for gas centrifuges. ...

Judy Miller had called me at home and left a message before her September 8th story, but I was out of town and only got home on the day the story appeared. I called her back and alerted her to the internal expert criticism of the administration's public claims. Partly in response, she decided to do another article, which appeared on September 13. In a surprising development, however, the article was heavily slanted to the CIA's position, and the views of the other side were trivialized. An administration official was quoted as saying that "the best" technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessment. These inaccuracies made their way into the story despite several discussions that I had with Miller on the day before the story appeared— some well into the night. In the end, nobody was quoted questioning the CIA's position, as I would have expected.


That darn liberal media.
7.22.2007 6:24am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
david: "they ask for anonymity simply because they're not authorized to reveal the information"

That explanation fits. Libby was not authorized to leak classified information.

"they do it because they think it will be more credible if coming from someone other than themselves."

That explanation doesn't fit very well. A "former Hill staffer" is supposed to be "more credible?"

"Rarely, including here, is it for nefarious purposes, though"

You're still beating around the bush (as it were), and not telling us the purpose.

"The idea that it was to 'retaliate' against Wilson is, frankly, somewhere between Roswell aliens and 9/11 inside job loony."

Tell it to Judge Tatel, who described the matter as the "plot against Wilson" (pdf). Fitz saw it that way too.

If you have some reasoning to support your claim, you should let us in on the secret and tell us what it is.
7.22.2007 6:38am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier: "Life During Wartime"

Good idea. I wish I had thought of that.
7.22.2007 6:39am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
david: "DOE analysts 'concluded' this; they did not 'determine' it. "

Good point. That was careless writing on my part. "Concluded" is the better word. Thanks for pointing that out. I hope that's the biggest mistake I ever make.

Now you can tell us why you made a claim that is the exact opposite of the truth.
7.22.2007 12:01pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Oops. My sentence above (7/22 4:11 am) that reads like this:

Bond now gives us more proof that his was a falsehood.


Is supposed to say this:

Bond now gives us more proof that this was a falsehood.
7.22.2007 4:28pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
david: "The idea that it was to 'retaliate' against Wilson is, frankly, somewhere between Roswell aliens and 9/11 inside job loony."

It's bizarre that you're claiming that " 'retaliate' against Wilson" is not a fair way to describe exactly what the White House was doing. "Retaliate" means "to make an attack or assault in return for a similar attack."

According to Libby's grand jury testimony, the White House viewed Wilson's statements as "a very serious attack." Libby said that Cheney was "upset" because he felt that Wilson had "attacked his [Cheney's] own credibility." Libby said that in response, "there was lots of effort to get a statement out to discredit what he [Wilson] was saying."

Libby is explicitly telling us that the White House felt attacked and discredited, and felt that it had to mount a counterattack, by discrediting Wilson.

How does this not fit the dictionary definition of "retaliate?"
7.22.2007 5:02pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
david: "I apologize for not continuing to follow a thread days later"

I appreciate the apology, but with all due respect I am taking it with a grain of salt. You posted a false claim here, at about 2 am on Saturday, and I responded to you here, about 27 hours later. That's not exactly an eternity, especially on a weekend. And most people wouldn't call that "days later."

And you were up even earlier than I was on Sunday, posting a series of comments on the newer thread, starting at 5:11 am. You were at VC repeatedly on Sunday, which makes it hard for me to believe that you never checked the prior thread, where I had already replied to you.

"I know the Times reported the dispute"

The word for this is backpedaling. Your earlier claim was not that "the Times reported the dispute." You made a much more specific claim, which happens to be utterly false. I had said this:

… a year earlier, our top nuclear scientists at DOE/Oak Ridge had determined that the tubes were for rockets, not centrifuges. That key fact was successfully suppressed.


Your response was this:

If by "successfully suppressed," you mean "reported on the front page of the New York Times before the war," then yes.


In other words, you made this claim: that "the front page of the New York Times before the war" reported that "our top nuclear scientists at DOE/Oak Ridge had determined that the tubes were for rockets, not centrifuges."

That claim is simply and utterly false (even completely putting aside the gratuitous flourish about "the front page"). I demonstrated here that the NYT actually reported the exact opposite.

Now you backpedal and say "the Times reported the dispute." It's true; they did, except just barely. They utterly trivialized the extent of the dispute. Which is exactly what you're still attempting to do.

"By October 2002, Michael Gordon reports that some intelligence specialists believe that the tubes are for conventional weapons programs."

On 10/5/02, Gordon wrote this, quoting the CIA:

Most intelligence specialists assess this [centrifuges] to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs


He was only doing what he and Miller had already done: acknowledging the dissent, while also trivializing it. Please recall, one more time, what SSCI said:

DOE officials, including the Director of the Oak Ridge Field Intelligence Element, told Committee staff that the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs did not agree with the CIA's analysis.


Let us know if you're really claiming it's fair to describe "the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs" as "some … intelligence specialists." We happen to be talking about the top nuclear experts in the world, not just "some … intelligence specialists"

"In November 2002, William Broad reports that David Albright said they were for 'benign uses' "

What Broad actually said is this (11/19/02):

Some private experts, like Dr. Albright, say that the aluminum tubes have benign uses


That phrase ("benign uses") was not necessarily Albight's phrase, as you implied. Anyway, this is just what we've seen before: the dissent is trivialized. "Some private experts" is about as lame as "some … intelligence specialists." Both are an exceedingly poor substitute for the truth: "the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs."

"In January 2003: Michael Gordon, James Risen, and others report, *numerous* times, that the IAEA says they're for rockets."

I can find six such reports; I'm not sure that qualifies as "numerous," especially because this had been preceded by at least nine other articles promoting the CIA view. Anyway, of course NYT reported the IAEA view. How could they not? Unlike the DOE conclusion, which was successfully suppressed, the IAEA view was public information. NYT didn't have much of a choice. And, needless to say, the IAEA view had much less impact on US opinion than the DOE view would have had.

"you completely distort the SSCI report on the DoE's views"

Baloney. I did not. I quoted it verbatim, several times, including just above. It's very simple: our top nuclear scientists at DOE disagreed with the CIA analysis. That's a very simple factual statement. You claimed that NYT reported this on their front page. They didn't, on any page whatsoever. They reported the exact opposite.

"Like many people, you're confused about the difference between conclusions of fact and assessments in intelligence work. … The latter type of assessment is obviously very important in decisionmaking, but is by definition less accurate than the former."

I can't imagine what you're trying to say, unless you're disingenuously suggesting that the CIA analysis was "the former." Hopefully you're not suggesting that, because that suggestion would be utter nonsense.

"The DoE factually concluded that the tubes could be used for enrichment; it assessed that this wasn't likely for various reasons."

Again, you're trying to trivialize what was actually concluded by DOE. Yes, they said the tubes "could be" used for centrifuges. Trouble is, a lot of things "could be" done. A full-scale model of the Eiffel Tower "could be" built from popsicle sticks, given enough determination. It's nevertheless not likely to ever happen. "Could be" doesn't necessarily mean much.

Incidentally, CIA also said the tubes "could be" used for rockets (and this was consistently glossed over, like when Cheney described the CIA finding as a matter of "absolute certainty"). The difference is that the folks at DOE had a lot more expertise than Joe at the CIA. And what the NYT hid from us is this (pdf):

virtually all of the gas centrifuge experts in the United States and abroad who evaluated this case rejected the CIA's case and did not believe that the tubes were destined for gas centrifuges


This is essentially what you said you once saw in the NYT. On the front page, no less. Still waiting for you to either show that to us, or to retract your bogus claim.

PS: your nonsense about " 'retaliate' against Wilson" is just as bogus.
7.24.2007 2:04am