Powered by TypePad

« Reporters Who Knew Valerie (We Are Looking For Sam...) | Main | Don't We Still Trust The CIA? »

November 02, 2005


Jim E.


Does this refer to senior CIA official listed on page 4 (pt #7)? Or the one on page 5 (pt #11)?

And if true, is the rawstory headline even that important? I'm not grasping the significance. Unless, that is, the CIA official told Fitz that he told Libby how sensitive/classified the info was.

Appalled Moderate


Um, this isn't a serious suggestion is it? 'Cause the Rove church bulletin suggestion only works if he were Novak's first source, or he provided the bulletin to Novak's first source. (Or Novak's source is someone else who goes to the same church.)

Is there an assumption out there that Novak does not know how to use Who's Who?

Jim E.

"Is there an assumption out there that Novak does not know how to use Who's Who?"

Novak has never said he got the name from Who's Who. He said it was given to him, and that he used it in his column.

Gabriel Sutherland

Jim E. said "Novak has never said he got the name from Who's Who."

10/01/2003 Novak column.

Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

Silly rabbit.

Jim E.

Er, I know the quote. Where in that quote did Novak say that's where he got it? Hint: he doesn't. Sad to see you fell for such a transparent headfake. Try again, Bugs.

How about this Novak quote: "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." That's him talking about how his sources gave him the Plame name.

Florence Schmieg

Rove'e entire conversation with Novak was leaked months ago to the NY Times who published it. He was the confirming source, not the primary source. He did not use the name to Novak but was told by Novak that Novak would be writing a story about the nepotism angle of who sent Joe Wilson to Niger.Rove's jeopardy with Fitzgerald appears to involve the forgotten email and his conversation with Cooper, at least from what has been discussed in the press. Most couples use their married names in their churches, but that's not guaranteed.

Jim E.

Rawstory has got Bolton in the mix. It reports that Fleitz, who has CIA connections, was in a position to know Wilson's wife's maiden name. Fleitz gave the name to Bolton, who gave it Wurmser and Hannah, who, in turn, gave it to Libby. This was happening late May to early June. The stories implies that the name "Plame" was being delivered from person to person, but it never explicitly says the name was being used.

Still, I'm lost on the significance of this.

Appalled Moderate

You know what I miss? Those stories that got Jeff Gannon into the mix. Those showed far more creativity (and a tad more plausibility) then the stories involving angry moustache man.


Um, this isn't a serious suggestion is it?

Not entirely, err, hardly. But if she is in the church guide as "Plame" folks will be intrigued. Better go back to 2003, though - Wilson may have changed it.

As to Rove, it does not appear he gave a name to Novak (but maybe they are both lying about Rove's one sentence answer), and Cooper says he didn't get a name either, either.

As to Novak and Who's Who - go with Jim E - Novak never said that was his source, just that it could have been.

I've thought maybe some feminist staffer got fed up with hearing about "Wilson's wife" - she is not his chattel, after all - and looked her up, but who knows.

Florence Schmieg

Isn't Raw Story the publication that has led many hear on several goose chases these last few months? Why put credence into another of their red herrings?


Maybe Novak got the "Plame" name from the EPIC dinner program.

Maybe he got it from the same place he got her CIA employment, which he claimed way back when was "no great secret."

Maybe he got the name from Harlow?

With Novak, there has always been coyness about where and when he got the name. If he already knew it from at least a year before, as in within the 5-year window, then Novak could be protecting someone who really did violate the IIPA.

cathy :-)

Gabriel Sutherland

Is Raw Story breaking the law?

Here's what they write.

The attorneys also said that Frederick Fleitz, Bolton's chief of staff and a CIA official, supplied Bolton with Plame's identity.


Fleitz is named in the indictment as an unnamed CIA senior officer, they added.


I posted this last night, I think it is interesting that Wilson said this...he is the one that set the "Valerie Wilson" smell test, but refers to a newsletters, that in 2003 that would have no meaning to Rove.

I think that Wilson used the church thing as a bragging point in Spring 2003 and that he is doing pre-damage control spin for something that may come out.


Not sure what you are asking, Gabriel. Fleitz is WINPAC, and thus known non-covert. rawstory couldn't be violating anyway -- the violator is the government employee with legit access to classified info who passes it to someone without legit access.

cathy :-)


thought it might be helpful to track down the first reporting of attending the same church...not sure if this the first, but it comes from Wilson July 2005:

"Rove has maintained he neither knew Plame's name nor leaked it to anyone. In an interview yesterday, Wilson said his wife goes by Mrs. Wilson, so it would be clear who Rove was talking about, and noted how Rove attends the same church as the Wilson family. Wilson said Rove was part of a "smear campaign" designed to discredit him and others who undercut Bush's justification for war."

Another Wilson peculiarity...always says she goes by Wilson, yet he always includes her in bio's as Plame



I think that Wilson used the church thing as a bragging point in Spring 2003

I heard that, too. I don't feel like looking it up, but it is highly probable.

I think Raw Story is a bit of a misleading title - they should be called "Half Baked".

Anyway, I guess it is interesting because it revives the Bolton connections.

Of course, we might note that Fitzgerald did have an investigation, and did not indict Bolton...


A freakin' church bulletin outed Plame? That would be interesting. Is some minister going to be frog-marched out of his church now?

If the name "Valerie Plame is in that newsletter, then any suggestion that Plame's name was secret is shot to hell.


I don't know, I got a brother who works in one of those terrorist "gulags" the WAPO reported on this morning. I feel, so .....I don't know, 'outed'.

Is Wilson starting a "Outed Family Member Support Group?"?



Gabriel Sutherland has a lot of catching up to do.

As for PaulS, it's not her name that was secret, silly. It's the fact that she was a covert operative at the CIA. The reason it seems significant that Novak used "Valerie Plame" is that that was not in fact her name at the time (her name, as the EPIC dinner thing and Wilson's online bio and maybe Who's Who indicated, was rather "Valerie Wilson"), but was rather precisely the name she had used when she was apparently working more often overseas (as she was not then married to Joe Wilson). Also, it is significant because apparently it's not in the INR memo and a number of other possible sources, so it means we've got a mystery on our hands about several sources for Novak.

macranger, don't give up your day job.

Gabriel Sutherland

Joe Wilson's Middle East Institute bio">http://www.mideasti.org/html/bio-wilson.html">bio mentions "Valerie Plame" as his wife.


It is Wilson exploiting the church connection

October 2, 2003 MODO (gag)

"The Ambassador and The Spy Who Loved Him"

"...Wilson, 53, refers to his 40-year-old third wife as "the real-life Jennifer Garner," the actress who plays an intrepid CIA officer on TV and who will star in an agency recruitment video. He teased his wife that she would be better cast: " 'You should get out there."'

His wife, he said, "sees this as an out-of-body experience."

Plame and Karl Rove attend the same Episcopal Church, and she joked to her husband that she should just go up to the president's strategist and ask if he really considered her "fair game" to be outed -- a phrase Wilson says reporters told him Rove had used..."


Jim E.

I don't get how he's "exploiting" the church connection. I'm not being snarky, I don't get it. They go to the same church. Kinda interesting.

Speaking of church, didn't Rove tell an audience that while they go to the same church, they don't attend the same mass. Didn't Rove say Wilson went to the "weird" mass? Rove is such a dick.

Gabriel Sutherland

Jeff: It's likely that I have some catching up to do. However, the MEI bio I just posted is from 07/20/2003.

But after running the original URL for the MEI Wilson Bio, you come across previous comments made here at JOM. In September 2003 a reader posted another URL with the Wilson Bio. It dates back to 02/08/2003.">http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html">02/08/2003.

The two separate sources for the bio are verbatim. They both inform the reader that Wilson is married and his wife is "Valerie Plame".


Jim E, I think the term Rove used was "wacky" mass. You'd have to be an Episcopalian (which I am) to understand the insider joke - involves Rite I v Rite II Communion Services.


wilson seems a bit desparate to me. why all these talk shows recently? He's getting ready for his civil suit and Friday's indictment ain't going to help him. No charge on the outing at all.

What will public pressure do? He's pushing for Fitz to do something with Rove. Like the 3 sneakies, only out in the open.


I said exploit --or smear--because it really make no difference does it? The Wilson's are the ones advertising this. This would seem to me, personal information that has nothing to do with anything, does it? So essentially they are no better than what they accuse Rove of. Is what I think at least.

Also, Rove said the "wacky mass" when asked about going to the same church.

Involves Rite I v Rite II Communion Services.

what does it mean?



I think he is trying to spin what was not the outcome he wanted and maybe sway public opinion for a civil he will never win (which he is only threatening...he won't do it, and he knows it)


As a former Episcopalian acolyte, I'm pretty sure Rite II was a page shorter. Rite I came in Lent, IFIRC.



"Rite 1, Rite 2
The 1979 Book of Common Prayer provides the services of Morning and Evening Prayer, the Holy Eucharist, and the Burial Office in both traditional language and contemporary language rites. The traditional language rites are known as Rite 1, and the contemporary language rites are known as Rite 2." From the Episcopal News Services

My guess would be that the Rove's attend Rite I services and the Wilson's attend Rite II. An old style conservative Episcopalian (which I am and which I surmise Karl Rove is) might refer to Rite II as "wacky," hence the insider joke.

CAVEAT: The Wilson's have young children and probably attend a later service which would include Sunday School (10am). The 10am services at most Episcopal churches are generally Rite II. The 8am service generally uses Rite I.


"As a former Episcopalian acolyte, I'm pretty sure Rite II was a page shorter."
- Thomas -

Thomas, I laughed so hard when I read that! Spoken like a TRUE former acolyte. Thanks for making my day.


Lesley and Thomas...thanks. I suspected that is what he was referring to...very interesting.


If you guys really want to know what Wilson, the Democrats, CBS, and TPM are up to, come on over to my blog and read about the Niger Conspiracy.

In fact, Wilson just admitted knowledge of the TPM/CBS story, and the Senate Democrats busted a move and shoved the Republicans into a closed session.

Did the Democrats tell the Republicans that they had something "fresh" on Bush and that they should do what they say... or else?

The timing of Wilson's whitewashed Larry King interview does spike some interest...


The things you learn on the IT! %^)


Fleitz gave the name {Valerie Plame} to Bolton, who gave it Wurmser and Hannah, who, in turn, gave it to Libby.

This whisper-down-the-lane scenario explains how the name 'Ethel Grundwald' appeared in Matt Cooper's notes as Wilson's wife.



Why has not one media type ever even broached the Epic Speech and corresponding bio to Wilson? He did call the admin a bunch of assholes.


Gabriel - Do those sources say that Wilson is married to Valerie Plame, or that Wilson is married to the former Valerie Plame? If he is married to the former Valerie Plame, doesn't that mean that his wife's name is "Valerie Wilson"?

Others have already noted your other errors, so I'll just say one thing you learn looking at this stuff is that it pays to be precise, especially since so many of the players, like Novak, are very good and practiced at misleading their audience via careful legalistic use of language, making it sound like they're saying one thing (Novak: I got Plame's name from Who's Who) when in fact they don't actually say that, usually because it wouldn't be true (Novak: I could have gotten her name from Who's Who, and I'm going to remain silent on whether I actually did or not, thereby suggesting that I did not but I want you to believe that I did).

If you want a massive set of examples of other rhetorical techniques for misleading readers without actually telling an out and out lie, take a look at the SSCI report (phase 1).


EPIC (June 14, 2003)says VAlerie Plame. So does that Saudi "think tank" that employs him.Jeff.


Jeff, who died and made you king of TM's site?

Do those sources say that Wilson is married to Valerie Plame, or that Wilson is married to the former Valerie Plame? If he is married to the former Valerie Plame, doesn't that mean that his wife's name is "Valerie Wilson"?

It is not Gabriels fault that Mr and Mrs Wilson were extraordinarily fraudulent in Plame importance, irresponsibly negligent in protecting all the associates of Brewster Jenning or just dumb...

If this is a semantic debate, then why didn't the Ambassador with impeccable bona-fides ensure in all of his internet bios and his 1999 Who's Who submission was VALERIE WILSON if that's what they MEANT?


Others have already noted your other errors, so I'll just say one thing you learn looking at this stuff is that it pays to be precise,

Who does this pompous arrogance remind you of?


If you want a massive set of examples of other rhetorical techniques for misleading readers without actually telling an out and out lie, take a look at the SSCI report (phase 1).

Talk about not passing the giggle test.

So, the dastardly neocon Republicans pulled the wool over the entire staffs of the Democratic senators. And all of these Senators have staffs consisting of very talented, very smart, very dedicated people.

And all the Democratic Senators signed off on it too.

But they couldn't fool old Jeff. He sees through it.

A few more posts like this my friend and we're going to have to all get bigger shovels. Because you're dropping it faster than we can shovel it out of the barn.



Um, didn't Raw Story "break the story" that we were getting 22 indictment? I guess they were only 21 indictments off?

Anyway, next up for TM: an analysis of Nick Kristof's WebSelect mia culpa regarding his May 6 column! Assuming, that is, that TM gets WebSelect? Well, Jack Shafer at Slate mentions it anyway...


Wow, TimesSelect doubles as firewall to obscure!



"Kristof wasn't sure that a correction was in order for a number of reasons. For one, he said was sure his piece accurately reflected what his sources told him. For another, he couldn't think of an example where a Times column or article was corrected after six months. The news pages do correct "ancient errors," but Times op-ed columnists have only recently been made subject to a uniform correction policy.

No correction...is he saying, I have nothing to correct, my sources are liars, not me? Well, maybe that makes sense if no correction is like debunking Wilson's claim of being misquoted. Citing the lame "it's old" is that convenient snotty elitism the times get railed on repeatedly and deservedly.


Isn't that F*&^ing amazing? For a while I kept taking the Sunday edition because I love the crossword puzzle, but I finally gave it up even that because of revulsion at their lies.


clarice - Could you link to the EPIC site, I saw it once but I can't find it now. I could've sworn it said that Joe Wilson was married to the former Valerie Plame.

topsecretk9 - Look, Novak wants the reader to believe he got her name from Who's Who, but that's not actually what he says, and that makes a difference. So it pays to be precise when, say, you're characyerizing what Novak said. Otherwise you just fall into his trap and spread confusion.

SMG - Rockefeller got rolled, he's a wimp, among other things. The story of how the first report got produced is starting to come out. And why do you think all that bipartisanship has broken down over phase II? Part of the reason is because the Democrats -- including the Democrats on the staff -- were not going to let what happened with Part I, or worse, happen again. Also, it looks to me like Part 1 basically took a kitchen sink approach to disagreements; that is, both sides got to toss stuff in there, rather than the two sides actually ironing out a coherent story. That was a huge mistake on the Democrats' part. And whatever else, there just are numerous instances where the report suggests something that is misleading that it doesn't actually come out and say, that other sources lead you to believe are incorrect.



Makes no nevermind what Novak says or doesn't say...indisputable that Valerie Plame, former, once, used to be or otherwise is listed as such in multiple easily found spots.

Additionally, Wilson is the one who at some point asserts the smell test to be Valerie Wilson...which is odd since he prepares or signs off on the Who's Who. So he talks out of 2 sides of his mouth. If he thinks "former" qualifies as a waiver of culpability then he both derelict and dumb.

And thirdly, the report is unanimous and if Democrats want to advertise that they are chumps and ineffective, then by all means they should.

Although with statements like these (Rockefeller) that illustrate hypocrisy then that would be fine by me too

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."


Jeff--the cite is in this article:http://tinyurl.com/9ktbc


TS9 wrote:

::Makes no nevermind what Novak says or doesn't say...indisputable that Valerie Plame, former, once, used to be or otherwise is listed as such in multiple easily found spots.::

Exactly. The name and the conjugal relation is flat out a known fact, legally speaking. Too many sources in the public domain to support a beyond reasonable doubt conspiracy theory.

That said, it would just be plain fun to get a 2003 circa church pamphlet publishing Valerie Plame's name.

Out of curiosity, did anyone look into the National Cathedral as a possible conjoint house of worship? It is Epicopalian.


I don't understand the spy business. If I had a NOC working for me and I had sent her husband to Africa on a mission to sip sweet tea, why would I allow that husband to bring unwanted attention to himself? Forget the WH looking at him. Wouldn't foreign governments also check him out? And if Valerie Plame was the name she used during her 'covert' operations, how hard would it be for some foreign agency to find that out? It doesn't make sense. From sending him, to letting him talk, to claiming she is 'covert'. Someone that worked with Valerie earlier in her career said her days as a 'covert' operative ended the minute she said I do with Wilson, a former ambassador, with ties to the government.


It would be fun, because regardless how she is listed it does nothing in regards to Rove...if she is listed as Wilson, then it comports with Roves assertion (and Coopers too!) he was not pedaling a name (because that name would be WIlson, no?) and actually bolsters Novaks "whos who"

if she is listed as Plame, then well, the covert agent wasn't very careful in protecting her cover was she?


If nothing else comes out of Plamegate, the thought that our intelligence agencies are down to sending husbands on fact finding missions does not make me sleep better at night. I guess I read too many Clancy novels. I thought spies were trained professionals. Those in the Clancy novels don't come home and write about their missions.


indisputable that Valerie Plame, former, once, used to be or otherwise is listed as such in multiple easily found spots.

And so what? That explains exactly nothing. It does not answer the question, "why did Novak use 'Valerie Plame'?" And it certainly is neither here nor there with regard to the fact that the first sign of the exposure of a covert CIA agent was Novak's column. The key claim, again, was not "Valerie Plame is Wilson's wife's name," though it is extra suspicious that that's how Novak identified her. The key claim is, "She is an Agency operative."

they are chumps and ineffective

What can I say? They are. Agreed. A more effective opposition party would not have let what has happened in this country in the last several years happen.

The only thing I will say in defense of that quotation from Rockefeller is, assuming it comes from the run-up to the war, the unmistakable evidence was not just mistaken but downright twisted by the Bush administration, so what do you expect him to say?

clarice - Thanks for the confirmation that the EPIC site says, as I thought, that Joe Wilson is married to the former Valerie Plame. This makes it all the more mysterious why Novak identified her as "Valerie Plame," since references like the one on EPIC, which I suspect was just taken from Wilson's online bio, make clear that his wife's name is "Valerie Wilson." Which, by the way, is how Scooter Libby was referring to her on or about June 14, 2003, when he was complaining to a CIA briefer, according to the indictment of Scooter Libby.

Oh yeah, by the way, that indictment makes pretty clear that both Libby and Rove leaked classified information, in the form of Wilson's wife's affiliation at the CIA. I was under the impression that the Bush administration had made clear that anyone involved in that was not going to be a part of the Bush administration. So much for that.

Jim E.

Do people think covert agents are supposed to be invisible?



You are so right in the shear curiosity in Valerie allowing her husband to engage in what he was if her sole concern is protecting her employment, let alone her cover. Additionally, she seems to be totally unconcerned that this will ultimately lead to her in terms of the information Wilson was spreading. That's why I really think this whole charade was really a scam concocted to GIVE her cover...cover from being nailed on suppling her husband with classified info to pedal.

Wilson and Plame allowed too many details that it would be impossible NOT to identify them. Kristof confirms his story with a source present at the de-briefing, but we learn that only 4 people were present.

I think that Valerie realized that she was in a precarious position at work ( I am sure would be a few confounded with her) and ultimately something had to cloud what she had done.




And so what? That explains exactly nothing. It does not answer the question, "why did Novak use 'Valerie Plame'?" And it certainly is neither here nor there with regard to the fact that the first sign of the exposure of a covert CIA agent was Novak's column. The key claim, again, was not "Valerie Plame is Wilson's wife's name," though it is extra suspicious that that's how Novak identified her. The key claim is, "She is an Agency operative."

A question that did not compel Fitzgerald.


and as far as Rockefellers quote coming solely from Bush twisted intelligance ...expect him to say? Well he could start by telling us these people have been lying to us as well

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


A question that did not compel Fitzgerald.

From my reading of the indictment, it almost certainly did compel Fitzgerald. What didn't happen was Libby or someone else getting indicted for the exposure of classified information having to do with Wilson's wife's affiliation with the CIA, or for IIPA violation. But Fitzgerald made it perfectly explicit in his press conference that it was impossible to determine whether the exposure that happened was criminal because Libby lied. So there's no way to determine that, according to Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald claims that the relevant interests will be served by the prosecution of Libby even though it will be for different offenses. Which to my mind begs the question, What about potential other wrongdoers involved in underlying crimes who are protected by Libby's lies -- the proverbial sand in the face of the umpire. Unless Fitzgerald is utterly convinced only Libby was even potentially subject to criminal prosecution for underlying crimes, I don't see how he can say that the relevant interests are served by the prosecution of Libby for perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice.

As for your other post, topsecretk9, two comments. 1998 is not 2002-3. And I find little that is objectionable in those comments from all those Dems, with the possible exception of Berger's comments, though I'd like to see the larger context they came from, and a mistaken implication that might be taken pretty naturally from Pelosi's. But then I don't see much in the way of an argument for the necessity of preventive war in those comments either. And again, it won't do to cite beliefs from 1998 - the public justification of the war relied, as it rightly should have, on intelligence -- and its twisting, which it should not have -- that was more recent.

Gabriel Sutherland

One of the targets of the initial bombing campaign in Iraq in March 2003 was the home of Mahdi Obeidi. Obeidi was Saddam's chief nuclear weapons scientist. His responsiblity was to find the means to acquire nuclear weapons for Iraq.

After the initial bombing campaign he returned to his home with his son to see if his home was still there. It was still standing. However, in his yard was a bomb that never detonated. It was an american bomb.

Buried beneath his property were barrels with documents that explained how to reconstitute the Iraqi nuclear weapons program. The chief aim of the documents was to enrich yellowcake for ballistic missiles.

Obeidi explains in his book that the clear mission of Saddam was to skate on the UN sanctions and then reconstitute his nuke program.

There is no denying this fact no matter how many times the revisionists wish to rewrite history.



Rewriting history may be you bag. Not mine. Yes, in just five years sanctions had paid a significant part of the world under the table, Saddam had become a reasonable dictator content to dispense with developing and using WMD as he had in the past and was rather impolitely firing routinely on US servicemen patrolling the no-fly zone. An act I consider far more egregious and grounds for war than simply playing cat and mouse with inspectors.

But yes you are right. That many in the Clinton Administration had warned us of Saddam and his WMD should absolutely be dismissed because it relied on intelligence...what did you say...looked at the evidence they had and made the best independent judgment they could.


Oh brother. Nobody cares about this except me BUT Rove's comment about "wacky mass" bugged me. I thought, no one could be THAT irked by Rite II.

Ok, here is what I "think" it is:

Assumption followed by more assumption: Both the Roves and the Wilsons go to Grace Episcopal Church, 1041 Wisconsin Ave NE Washington DC 20007. This church is very near the area in which the Wilsons live (see Cathy's map).

Checking Grace Church's Homepage we find:
Saturday Service
6:00 PM Holy Communion with Taizé song and meditation

Bingo! Wacky Mass! This might be what Rove is talking about (and why the heck its being celebrated at an Episcopal Church is beyond me, but that's the ECUSA these days). So, are the Wilsons main line Episcopalians or part of the Taize group, which is clearly NOT Episcopalian? Thus, the Roves and the Wilsons may "attend" the same church, but it does NOT mean they are of the same denomination.

"Taizé, in the south of Burgundy, France, is the home of an international, ecumenical community, founded there in 1940 by Brother Roger. The brothers are committed for their whole life to material and spiritual sharing, to celibacy, and to a great simplicity of life. Today, the community is made up of over a hundred brothers, Catholics and from various Protestant backgrounds, from more than twenty-five nations.

At the heart of daily life in Taizé are three times of prayer together. The brothers live by their own work. They do not accept gifts or donations for themselves. Some of the brothers are living in small groups – “fraternities” - among the very poor.

Since the late 1950s, many thousands of young adults from many countries have found their way to Taizé to take part in weekly meetings of prayer and reflection. In addition, Taizé brothers make visits and lead meetings, large and small, in Africa, North and South America, Asia, and in Europe, as part of a “pilgrimage of trust on earth”.

Taize Mass

All speculation on my part, and yes, I do fixate on the strangest things but there is a place for everyone on Tom's blog. (wink)


Surely, Lesley , you are the only obsessive personality in this place..ROFL



How did you know which one?


topsecretk9 - I can't make sense of how most of your post is meant to be a rejoinder to mine. For instance, I was very far from dismissing all those things you quoted from 1998. My point was twofold: 1) they don't add up to a recommendation of war, much less preventive war -- which seems obviously true, since we didn't go to war. 2) The whole question of what was believed in 1998 regarding intelligence on Iraq's WMD and nuclear programs in particular is not particularly relevant to the debate of 2002-3, much as the Bush administration in today's talking points (which, shockingly, you seem to have picked up on) would have us believe otherwise. The point is that the Bush administration had a bunch of intelligence in 2002, and made use of it as they did. What the Clintonites believed in 1998 is irrelevant to that.

Here's something I could understand better from your post:

An act I consider far more egregious and grounds for war than simply playing cat and mouse with inspectors.

Fine. Take it to the American people and persuade them to go to war over it. I may or may not agree, but that's fine too. I may lose that argument, fine. It's called democracy. But when you bs your way into war, that's called a betrayal of democracy.


Clarice - hee

Tops - I googled Washington DC area Episcopal Churches and then set up some parameters for my own data mining operation (wiggling eyebrows) using Cathy's map identifying the Wilson's neighborhood as a starting point, then scanned Episcopal Church homepages and looked for anything which smacked of wacky.


One last thing and then I promise I'll stop. The Wilsons probably are Episcopalian because the Episcopal Church does "do" blended services: for instance, in South Dakota, native Americans (which comprise about 50% of the Episcopalians in the state) hold a Tiospaye Wakan Holy Eucharist (English/Lakota). This Holy Communion with Taizé song and meditation at Grace Church could be one of those blended type of church services.

I'm fully expecting that someday the Episcopal Church USA will have a blended Protestant/Islam-lite service. Some elements within my denomination have fully embraced Flip Wilson's "Church of What's Happening Now."

Ok. I'm done.



The only thing I will say in defense of that quotation from Rockefeller is, assuming it comes from the run-up to the war, the unmistakable evidence was not just mistaken but downright twisted by the Bush administration, so what do you expect him to say?

Well, the sticking point of contention for Phase II is that the Democrats only want to analyze quotes from Republicans in the lead-up to Iraq. The Republicans want quotes from Democrats, too. But...

NOT just in the lead-up to Iraq. Also quotes from everyone during Clinton's administration.

The Democrats stamped their feet at that because they want to show that it's all Bush's fault.

See, the problem the Democrats have is that all the sh*tstorms they've caused by accusing Bush of this or that come flying back in their faces when their accusations are shown to be false.

Yet the Democrats keep trying anyway. And it is becoming more and more transparent how they think they can 'get away with it'.

I would suggest that if the opposition party wants to discredit the party in power, they actually accuse them of something the party in power actually did wrong.

The notion that the accusations are enough to discredit is losing its potency.



Clinton Administration:

Intelligence says Saddam has WMD and is a danger to the region and his people. Regime change is now our official policy.

But let's kick the can down the road.

Bush Administration:

Intelligence says Saddam has WMD and is a danger to the region and his people. Regime change is our official policy.

I grabbed the can! Let's go!

What changed? NOT the intelligence.

9/11 happened and we were looking at threats and possible threats much more seriously.

The Democrats claiming we twisted intelligence is a loser.

They should be arguing why the Bush administration didn't decide to just kick the can down the road like the Clinton administration did.

That may or may not have legs.

It's an argument that only depends on swaying opinon.

The twisted intelligence bit depends on verifiable facts and can blow up in their faces.

Why the Democrats insist on taking that chance is beyond me.


Brilliant, Syl! Bravo.


Arguing against the war is arguing for Saddam, delusionarily ignoring the Iraqi people. That doesn't have legs. It wriggles. And its tongue forks.


Jim E,

No, undercover agents are not supposed to be invisible. Plame was not a "covert" agent, but she did have Non-Official Cover.

You don't think that publicly identifying "Valerie Plame" with a former US ambassador, and a former Clinton administration official would get the attention of foreign governments?

I mean, think about it. Let's say Plame had some super secret assignment in some foreign country, and identified herself as Valerie Plame (which is how the story goes, that this was her cover name).

Now, fast-forward to 1999, when her name appears in Who's Who in America, and soon named on many websites before she is "outed".

In other words, let's say I am a foreign government official who is wondering about this Valerie Plame person I met in connection with something, or who my intelligence agents have identified.

I type it into Google, and what do I find?

I find that she is the wife of a former ambassador to the USA, and a former NSC (NSA? forget which one) official from the Clinton administration.

You seriously think that wouldn't raise an eyebrow?


I always thought the Bushies were "in" with the CIA. George I was head of CIA, wasn't he? If everything in the gummint is cronyism, how come George I's own rank and file were doing this to his son? This is the part that truly has me wondering out loud.

However, the whole concept of Wilson joining the FrankenKerry campaign, with his wifey putting him up to the jobs, surely brings to light exactly what is going on here.

Gotta love Washington.
But why does the CIA hate George II when George I was their man?


It slithers. Its forked tongue darts. It hisses.



Not just any former US ambassador, but one who keeps showing up in Niger, asking about yellowcake.


The viperish pits align the heat, it strikes, misses, but the toxic tooth sinks into Vallely's shield, pumping the poison in between the layers of Joe's lies which cover it.


It's not particularly important exactly when Bob Woodward first learned about Valerie Plame. It also does not matter one bit that she was in the church newsletter (...or did the church present her as a CIA undercover "operative" like Novak did?).

As of July 14th 2003, the CIA still considered Valerie Plame to be an undercover agent working for an undercover front company, investigating WMD proliferation, etc. - thus the investigation! Do you really think that the Bush DOJ did all this without damn good reasons forcing their hand? They clearly did not want a SP - and "W" was riding high in late 2003, when the SP was appointed!

According to Federal law, the fact that secret info appears in the press (or wherever) does NOT give a Federal employee (e.g. Rove/Libby/Cheney) the right to spread this info even FURTHER AFIELD! The law requires them to assist with damage control on the leaked covert info by immediately notifiying their supervisors of the discovery, etc.

Clearly, serious FELONIES were committed, by at least Libby, plus Rove and undoubtedly others, even higher in the WH. As Fitzgerald so eloquently explained, both the leak AND all attempts to cover it up are serious CRIMES (i.e. good for up to 30 yrs in prison, in the case of the Scooterizer).

It's funny how conservatives treated perjury as such a serious offense during the Clinton years. Now they try to liken it to Jay-walking! They were right the 1st time.


Someone here (Lesley?) suggested that the Espiscopal church Wilson attends is "wacky". Doesn't George W. Bush Jr. attend the very same church (once or twice a year that is)??


My mistake on the Episcopal church. It was not "W". Rather, Valerie and Joe Wilson attend the very same Washington-area church as does wacky-guy KARL ROVE!


The comments to this entry are closed.