There would be a "moral responsibility" in this matter only if Plame had been under cover, and the so-called "leaker" knew this and deliberately blew the cover. Otherwise, the so-called "leaker" was pointing out only that a spouse was responsible at least in part for the decision to hire a spouse as a consultant. If you're talking about widget marketing studies, this would be a conflict of interest. There is a moral issue here on the other side, which the so-called "leaker", it seems to me, was raising with Novak and possibly others.

One thing that interests me is that there's a great deal of interest on the side of the CIA and the angry left to make public any circumstances that would support the idea that a crime -- or even a moral offense -- had been committed. We've been waiting for days to hear of Plame's overseas assignments, for instance. If she's been blown anyhow, where's the problem in saying she was attached to the US Consulate in Munich in 1999? Hasn't happened. (And this would have to be made public in an indictment and trial in any case.) Where's the shadowy background source telling WaPo (or whomever) that, well, we can't go into the details, but she was running agents in the Middle East in 2002? Hasn't happened.

I'm a little disappointed that Kristol would buy into what seems to be the mass hysteria applying here. I'm apparently far enough beyond the beltway (but spent time there a long time ago, enough to get an idea of what life is like there) to question the overall balance of everyone involved at this point.

There would be a "moral responsibility" in this matter only if Plame had been under cover, and the so-called "leaker" knew this and deliberately blew the cover.

Plame was undercover: at least until (someone in) the Bush administration decided to blow her cover.

The person who called Novak may not have known Plame was covert. But if not, someone who was aware must have told whoever did the leaking. (Plame wasn't listed anywhere as a CIA employee prior to Novak blowing her cover.)

I thought we were over this, but evidently there are still plenty of Gollums out there clinging to their need to believe that senior members of the Bush administration couldn't possibly have committed a felony.

So please inform us: where was Plame employed overseas? What measures did the CIA intentionally take to conceal her identity? How would a White House staffer learn about this, when such information is usually sanitized so those outside the "cutout" don't know about it?

You would need to show probable cause for all three before you could even have an indictment. This would need to be made public. How come we aren't hearing any of this? Is it possibly because there's nothing there?

"How come we aren't hearing any of this? Is it possibly because there's nothing there?"

Maybe because it involves top-secret still-classified information.

John Bruce:"Otherwise, the so-called "leaker" was pointing out only that a spouse was responsible at least in part for the decision to hire a spouse as a consultant."

Wilson undoubtedly had high-level CIA contacts for longer than his wife has worked there. He's an ex-ambassador and has worked in national security in Africa.

He's a good pick for the job, no matter what his wife does. It's not proven that she was responsible at all for the decision, but if she suggested him, it was a good suggestion.

David Kay agrees with Wilson's findings, so what's your complaint, exactly, about Wilson's performance?

Your remark about the CIA being in open revolt resonates with me. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but Joe Wilson smells funny.

I watched Joe Wilson on C-Span 09/29/2003 and besides hitting all of the main arguments against the Iraq war with rote precision, he volunteered some interesting affiliations.

At 1:20.20 in Washington Journal Program - loose quote:

“I have associated myself with an email campaign at MoveOn.org and with the Win Without War coalition which urges congress not to appropriate 87B until the administration fires Donald Rumsfeld and senior members of his staff. Also they should transfer authority (in Iraq) to the UN ASAP.”

At 1:24.00 in the same program – loose quote:

(in response to a caller’s question about appearing with Ray McGovern) – “I appeared with Ray McGovern who is head of the VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) and was pleased to do so.”

An interesting footnote on WWW coalition is found at http://www.rockwoodleadership.org/gossip/archives/000039.html which shows the founding of the org at an interesting “activist training” organization that apparently services many ‘usual suspects’.

Info on VIPS and a pretty good layout of the personal animosity of Wilson’s cronies is at www.counterpunch.org/vips07142003.html

So my skepticism is aroused. Is Joe Wilson just ‘some guy’ who went to Niger and reported fairly, or was he part of a machination to stop the Iraq war that was sore enough at Bush to set up a scandal afterwards? The missing connection is between the CIA hand that sent Wilson (an amazingling stupid move, in hindsight) to Niger and the entitie(s) that made the leak.

Well, in that case, there's a chance that even if you had an airtight case against the "leaker", the judge would simply dismiss the case. The evidence has to be public.

We're back to shifty-eyed paranoia here, it seems to me. A crime has been committed. What evidence? Can't say. Secret.

I'd say this is something I'd have a hard time taking on faith. I've been around the block enough times to take a view of human nature that says Wilson and his trophy wife are basking in their 15 minutes of fame, and those who are likely to believe Jenna Bush is beaming rays at them anyhow are joining the general hysteria that these folks are somehow victims of a conspiracy.

This is weird.

Andrea Mitchell was on CNBC last night. She said that, among journalists who cover the intelligence community, it was "widely known" that Plame worked at the CIA. But she did not know Plame was covert.

It is likely that the leaker(s) was similarly situated in terms of knowledge. That means no crime, because the statutes require knowledge by the leaker that the agent was covert.

And, if it is in fact that case that the leakers didn't know Plame was covert, I think it was legitimate for them to point out to the press that Wilson was an odd pick for the job (partisan, not working in the agency, Tenet didn't know he was sent, etc.) and may have only been picked because his wife worked at the CIA.

But, in any event, the president needs to take affirmative steps to get to the bottom of this, come clean, and create some sacrificial lambs if necessary. In other words, clean up this mess so he can move on to deal with the numerous serious issues that abound.

The general public is not going to get into the details of this matter. It is too complex and the nightly news broadcasts are not disposed to giving the president the benefit of the doubt. Heads will have to roll before this can be put behind the administration.

So my skepticism is aroused. Is Joe Wilson just ‘some guy’ who went to Niger and reported fairly, or was he part of a machination to stop the Iraq war that was sore enough at Bush to set up a scandal afterwards?

JDWill, there's literally no evidence at all that Wilson (a) did anything but a fine job in Niger or (b) that he was anti-war at any time in 2002. So where is your rampant speculation coming from?

"Surely he should do his utmost to restore the White House's reputation for honor and integrity by calling together the dozens of more-or-less "senior" administration officials and asking whoever spoke with Novak to come forward and explain themselves."

I've read this suggestion many places but no one has yet explained why the guilty party, facing a mandatory sentence of 10 years, would voluntarily come forward.

What measures did the CIA intentionally take to conceal her identity? How would a White House staffer learn about this, when such information is usually sanitized so those outside the "cutout" don't know about it?

The WH staff includes the NSC. NSC staff could reasonably have "access to classified information" which included her identity. The CIA doesn't provide such access to people who wouldn't be presumed to know that the CIA wanted that information kept secret. That person, presumably, told someone else in the WH, who didn't have such access, who she was. That was the point at which the crime was committed

"Andrea Mitchell was on CNBC last night. She said that, among journalists who cover the intelligence community, it was "widely known" that Plame worked at the CIA. But she did not know Plame was covert."

I'd love to see a link for this one. I'd be willing to bet that Andrea said that some people were reporting that it was widely known. After all, fellow CIA officers didn't know she was CIA.

Jesurqislac,

My speculation is pretty much here, not rampant.
Consider this piece done by Joe Wilson in Feb 2003. My take is that the guy is smart, not a moonbat, and definitely against the war in Iraq.

I think he is a State Department Internationalist, and his war is with the neocons as much as anything else.

From http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030303&s=wilson

"Then what's the point of this new American imperialism? The neoconservatives with a stranglehold on the foreign policy of the Republican Party, a party that traditionally eschewed foreign military adventures, want to go beyond expanding US global influence to force revolutionary change on the region."

Simply not done, old man.

This guy did not form his views on Jan 1, 2003, he is a career diplomat and he was against having a war in Iraq when he went to Niger.

jdwill writes: "This guy did not form his views on Jan 1, 2003, he is a career diplomat and he was against having a war in Iraq when he went to Niger."

What war in Iraq? The trip was February of 2002. In any case, the war went on, and he didn't make a fuss until well after Bush declared 'Mission Accomplished'.

If he were anti-war, wouldn't he have made a fuss before the war actually, you know, started?

What's the point of waiting until afterward?

flory writes: "I've read this suggestion many places but no one has yet explained why the guilty party, facing a mandatory sentence of 10 years, would voluntarily come forward."

This is a good hint that it wasn't an innocent leak. If the persons thought they could make a good case that they didn't know she was undercover, they'd be able to get off.

If they are staying in hiding, then they must feel confident that they've broken the law.

Mr. Bruce might want to review the rules for introduction of secret classified evidence in security trials. Or does he think those rules apply only to trials of people with funny last names, not (former) White House employees? Heck, you could make an argument for treating the leaker with the same indefinite incommunicado detention as Jose Padilla.

As far as the measures to conceal Plame's identity, wouldn't setting her up in a day-job cover qualify all by itself? It sounds like you think it's necessary to erase her fingerprints with acid or something. There's no need for her to use a pseudonym as long as your secret job isn't exposed. It's also rather curious to note that the White House hasn't said much about the family connections of people who supplied intelligence it liked (much of it found to be false when once we arrived in Iraq), which leads me to think that exploring intel bias is the least of the motives for the leak.

Yet another thing that gets missed here is that in the factual disagreements between the White House and the CIA, we now see from evidence on the ground that the White House scored a zero. Now they announce their intention to burn anyone who brings that to the public's attention.

In Mr. Bruce's view, the Wilson's committed lese majeste. In mine, someone in the Bush Administration came close to treason.

Dear Lazarus,

You are correct. A secret identity is not something you put on or off like a Halloween Costume or a Ball Gala in Grand Paree. You live it, breathe it, etc. And in the day and age of email, mail, and jets - not to mention a diplomat husband - Valerie has treked all over the world *using her cover* to gather information on WMD innocuously.

Furthermore, even if no particular damage was done in this case this has to go all the way. The simple reason why is CIA morale. If people under cover believe that if they find and report WMD evidence that is contrary to Admin public policy then they will get hung out to dry, there will be a marked deterioration of our National Security.

Considering the importance of WMD issues and intel in resolving ambiguities in NK and Iran facing this nation in the short term, pure expediency would tend to indicate that an example has to be made. If the President isn't serious about this, he is going to signal to the entire CIA and black ops community that the United States of America is not interested in supporting people who take risks for it.

Is that the kind of security that we want? If not, somebody will have to get taken out and "shot". Otherwise things are going to get really messy. Pissed off spooks don't file lawsuits. They have more interesting ways of getting even.

Dear Jesu,

You are right of course. Even if Wilson was a partisan gunslinger, what difference would it make? Where does it make it right in any code of conduct to *burn his wife*?

Besides, he seems to have turned out to be correct thanks to the evidence provided conveniently by Kay. Namely, there wasn't any such Niger-Iraq link.

These people are just yapping it up because they're lost. They don't know what else to do except make a big stink about the story, and hope the American public doesn't follow things too closely because there is a big stink about this.

Mark my words however. This better go all the way. If not, there are going to be serious consequences for this nation and this Admin. The President has a chance to turn the tide yet. If he follows Bill Kristol's advice, and I haven't heard anyone call *him* a Democratic partisan recently, he can restore the faith in the CIA officer core.

Either that or from here on out, you just won't see officers and assets going the limit on National Security cases if it might result in them getting burned.

And we can't afford that. Or have all the hacks here forgotten a little thing called 9-11? We need those people. They deserve better treatment than this. And they'll get it, if we want the best intel and National Security.

This guy did not form his views on Jan 1, 2003, he is a career diplomat and he was against having a war in Iraq when he went to Niger.

How do you know? He went to Niger in February 2002. Prove to me by quoting some public utterance from Wilson dated prior to February 2002 that says he's against war with Iraq. Or quit yapping: Wilson went to Niger unpaid, because his country asked him to, and found the information he'd been asked to get, which has proven out to be completely accurate.

And the fact that he disagrees with the administration now (as many Americans do) about the war with Iraq, still doesn't justify anyone in the Bush administration blowing his wife's cover and revealing her to be CIA operative.

And we can't afford that. Or have all the hacks here forgotten a little thing called 9-11? We need those people. They deserve better treatment than this.

They do. But 9/11 was the best thing that could possibly have happened to George W. Bush: it turned him from a nothing-President who couldn't even win an election into a President with the highest-ever recorded approval ratings for, basically, doing nothing. So why should Bush & Co care if there's another 9/11? Whoever dies, I doubt if they imagine it will be them, and it was good for their team last time.

Rep. Peter King over on Human Events has a much more appropriate take than Kristol's media-popular "Disarray in the White House line. Is the CIA a Rogue Agency putting its interests a head of the Nation's?

The article link and Rep. King's list of particulars is below:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2006

"Consider the following:

In the spring of 2002, when the CIA was coming under increasing scrutiny for its pre 9/11 failures, a memo was leaked suggesting the CIA had warned President Bush of the terrorist attacks more than a month prior to 9/11 and that he failed to take any action.

The resultant political firestorm succeeded in diverting attention from the CIA. It took several days to realize that this supposed warning consisted primarily of a 3-year-old intelligence report indicating that terrorists might hijack planes to obtain the release of prisoners and that no time frame was given.

In May and June of this year, when weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, CIA sources began to leak that Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials had pressured its WMD analysts prior to the war, causing them to inflate their estimates, though these estimates were almost identical to those of previous years.

In July of this year, Wilson charged in print and in repeated TV appearances that President Bush had lied to the American people in his State of the Union speech when he said the British government had learned that Iraq was attempting to purchase enriched uranium from Niger for its nuclear program. Wilson claimed he was basing his allegations on a secret mission to Niger he had carried out for the CIA last year.

The Wilson incident raises troubling issues and serious concerns. Why did the CIA entrust a non-CIA man with such a sensitive assignment? Wasn't the CIA aware that Wilson opposed the Bush policy in Iraq? How extensive was Wilson's investigation? Why didn't the CIA take action against Wilson when he went public against Bush and revealed the details of his mission?

Why didn't the CIA point out that Wilson's investigation never addressed what the president said in his State of the Union speech, that the British source was separate from the CIA's and that the British stand by their finding to this day. In other words, that despite Wilson's posturing and outrage, everything the president said about Niger was true."

Tom Holsinger's theory in the other thread of a pair of CIA and White House "damp squib" media volley's followed by a Democratic trap seems a better fit for available facts given the above than anything the "Bush Lied Brigades" have unearthed.

Rep. Peter King over on Human Events has a much more appropriate take than Kristol's media-popular "Disarray in the White House line. Is the CIA a Rogue Agency putting its interests a head of the Nation's?

The article link and Rep. King's list of particulars is below:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2006

"Consider the following:

In the spring of 2002, when the CIA was coming under increasing scrutiny for its pre 9/11 failures, a memo was leaked suggesting the CIA had warned President Bush of the terrorist attacks more than a month prior to 9/11 and that he failed to take any action.

The resultant political firestorm succeeded in diverting attention from the CIA. It took several days to realize that this supposed warning consisted primarily of a 3-year-old intelligence report indicating that terrorists might hijack planes to obtain the release of prisoners and that no time frame was given.

In May and June of this year, when weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, CIA sources began to leak that Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials had pressured its WMD analysts prior to the war, causing them to inflate their estimates, though these estimates were almost identical to those of previous years.

In July of this year, Wilson charged in print and in repeated TV appearances that President Bush had lied to the American people in his State of the Union speech when he said the British government had learned that Iraq was attempting to purchase enriched uranium from Niger for its nuclear program. Wilson claimed he was basing his allegations on a secret mission to Niger he had carried out for the CIA last year.

The Wilson incident raises troubling issues and serious concerns. Why did the CIA entrust a non-CIA man with such a sensitive assignment? Wasn't the CIA aware that Wilson opposed the Bush policy in Iraq? How extensive was Wilson's investigation? Why didn't the CIA take action against Wilson when he went public against Bush and revealed the details of his mission?

Why didn't the CIA point out that Wilson's investigation never addressed what the president said in his State of the Union speech, that the British source was separate from the CIA's and that the British stand by their finding to this day. In other words, that despite Wilson's posturing and outrage, everything the president said about Niger was true."

Tom Holsinger's theory in the other thread of a pair of CIA and White House "damp squib" media volley's followed by a Democratic trap seems a better fit for available facts given the above than anything the "Bush Lied Brigades" have unearthed.

Opps! Sorry about the double post. My system froze up and I didn't see the first post.

Rep. King's slime-and-defense (as presented above, I didn't check), are at variance with both common sense and the facts.

The Wilson incident raises troubling issues and serious concerns. Why did the CIA entrust a non-CIA man with such a sensitive assignment? Wasn't the CIA aware that Wilson opposed the Bush policy in Iraq? How extensive was Wilson's investigation? Why didn't the CIA take action against Wilson when he went public against Bush and revealed the details of his mission? [snip] In other words, that despite Wilson's posturing and outrage, everything the president said about Niger was true."

2. To the dismay of some, it's still permitted for persons opposed to Pres. Bush, and even members of the opposition party, to work for the US Government. I wonder if complaints along these lines stem from "projection" how pro-Bush civil servants are expected to distort their work, or even worse, from the Republicans following the Communists and the Mugabe ZANU into complete identification of Party with State.

3. The SOTU address didn't neutrally say that the British believed Saddam had tried to acquired yellowcake from Niger. This would have been bad enough, since our own intelligence agencies had specifically investigated the claim and refuted it, even to the extent of identifying its source as forged. And, indeed, nothing we have learned from captured Iraqi scientists and documents shows any evidence that the British belief has any foundation in fact whatsoever. But Bush said "The British have learned...", and that phrasing implies an endorsement that the speaker agrees with the British, and the truth of the statement depends on the truth of the British belief. If you don't see this immediately, try parsing: "Adolph Hitler learned that an International Jewish Conspiracy planned to take over the World." Is the person saying that neutral and truthful, or pro-Nazi?

I do indeed agree that the Plame leak is part of a war between the White House and the CIA. The White House, is, however, cheating (outing agents). Moreover, this war is really a continuation of an argument that should be long-settled: whose Iraq intel was better. Since the White House scored a flat zero on this with its combination of wishful thinking (war cost: $50bn; war duration: down to 40K US troops by Fall 03) and dependence on swindler/charlatan Ahmed Chalabi (likely source of Rumsfeld's "We know where they [WMD] are. Between Tikrit and Baghdad."). Sure, the CIA didn't score 100%, but everyone can see it did better than the White House, and it would have done much better still if Cheney and Rumsfeld hadn't insisted repeatedly that they were missing something and had to go back and beef up their reports.

Well ...

I've got a few questions.

If Plame was covert, how did it become common knowledge that she was covert and who needs to go to jail for those leaks?

Just how much of the original story constitutes "spin" or "construction" by Novak? There is a lot of that in stories, and often journalists try to cover when it causes problems in ways that do not explain the issue of spin.

Did Wilson ever leak his wife's (covert) status to anyone?

The interesting irony of this particular flap, one of a number triggered by "leftists" (i.e. left of the hard right) in the CIA and State, is that the primary people who will probably be at risk for prosecution are Plame and Wilson, both of whom had to be to blame for it being "common knowledge."

The reason the CIA has been so easy to push around is that they have been *wrong* so very, very many times.

The reason that State has been marginalized so much is that when we got all the Soviet intel it became very apparent that "red scare" hatemongering aside, they really were riddled with communist sympathizers who leaked intel and who collaborated -- and they haven't had much of a better record since. Keith Laumer really got it right.

While they've picked up an interesting attack on a president they despise, I rather think that it won't be Rove being frogmarched in handcuffs -- and that Wilson is at extreme risk for that treatment -- not that he didn't ask for it, but it is going to come as a real surprise for him.

Anyway, read my questions in context with the following comments:

[quote]

Andrea Mitchell was on CNBC last night. She said that, among journalists who cover the intelligence community, it was "widely known" that Plame worked at the CIA. But she did not know Plame was covert.

It is likely that the leaker(s) was similarly situated in terms of knowledge. That means no crime, because the statutes require knowledge by the leaker that the agent was covert.

And, if it is in fact that case that the leakers didn't know Plame was covert, I think it was legitimate for them to point out to the press that Wilson was an odd pick for the job (partisan, not working in the agency, Tenet didn't know he was sent, etc.) and may have only been picked because his wife worked at the CIA.

[/quote]

Not to mention he might only have been sent as part of the leftist movement in the CIA that sought to attack the President and his hard right gang. Not that it is easy to blame them (kind of like the secret service guys who were leaking things right and left during the Clinton era), but guys -- are you professionals or not!?

This is the sort of thing that only blows up in your face eventually. Wilson should know better, and shouldn't be surprised when he gets frogmarched off in handcuffs.

Should be interesting to see what everyone says then about a traitor who outed a CIA consultant.

Just deserts for the conspiracy and aggresiveness is all I say. Though too bad they couldn't have just acted like grown adults and professionals.

I disagree. I have a lot of confidence that President Bush will smoke out the traitors in the White House just like smoked out Osama bin...

Oh, I see your point.

Jesu and Jon,

Hope you're still reading the thread.

First, I don't make light of revealing a CIA operative that by extension may compromise several resources worldwide. But, I wonder at the nature of this leak.

A) There is no evidence that Joe Wilson's work in Niger was of any value to the decision to topple Hussein. I really can't believe that he could bop in, chat up a few folks, and have any hard inteligence to show for it. To me, the burden of proof lies with him.

B) You folks can attempt to prove to me that Joe Wilson was even handed about the Iraq war before Feb 2002. I reiterate his own words about his affiliations with the like of MoveOn.org and WinWithoutWar - which were active in one guise or another shortly after 9-11. I have read enough about our State Department vis a vis the Saudis and other items to have a very healthy suspicion of any one steeped in this culture.

C) A careful reread of the original article by Novak at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml convinces me that Joe Wilson's trip is being over-hyped as a proof of anything, at best.

I have no direct proof, but Joe Wilson's acknowledged associations and State Dept culture make me suspect him in context against the neocons, who are his natural mortal enemies since as a member of State, he is almost assuredly a stability junkie. If you don't believe this, listen to his C-Span interview.

So my scenario is: Joe's buddies sent him; when the WH rightly ignored his weak intelligence he got testy; Novak inadvertently outed Plame in trying to explain just what the SamHill was going on; and here we are.

Joe Wilson's qualifications: (1) former ambassador to Niger; (2) former foreign service officer in Baghdad, Iraq (for which he was commended by Pres. Bush41); (3) through his wife, he would have access to any technical information needed to evaluate intel on WMD. I can't imagine that any other person on the planet could match all three of these qualifications? So what could he be missing? Ah, yes: membership in the Republican Party. He doesn't have that!

But what gives jdwill's "slime and defend" comment its surreal, Orwellian aspect is that if you didn't know the facts, you would think we were inquiring into failures in Wilson's "weak" [sic] intelligence. We have the facts on the ground now, and Wilson was completely correct. Why aren't we inquiring into how and why the White House's intelligence [sic] was all wrong about (1) Saddam's nuclear capability, which they said was one year away from a bomb; (2) Saddam's attempts to buy the Yellowcake; (3) that we knew where the WMD were, "between Tikrit and Baghdad"; (4) that Saddam was hardening aluminum tubes for delivery of nuclear weapons; (5) that two rusty canvas-covered trucks were mobile bioweapons labs; (6) that Iraq had pilotless drones capable of delivering WMD as far as London (they were more like children's models); (7) that Ahmed Chalabi's embed with the NY Times, Judy Miller, witnessed a genuine Iraqi scientist pointing at places in the ground where WMD were stored; (8) the cost of the Iraq War, estimated at $50 billion; (9) the duration of the Iraq War (40,00 troops by Fall 2003); (10) the number of troops necessary for the occupation of Iraq, despite correct advice from General Shinseki; and many other mistakes. This is the strong intelligence that jdwill wishes to defend??? I suppose he feels it's strong in the twin senses that it was used for aggressive and belligerent purposes, and was used to strengthen the bloat Administration he blindly supports, but the only really strong thing about this unending sequence of erroneous—even mendacious—claims is the strong aroma of bullshit.

[Postscript: one problem with cover-ups is that some little piece of truth always sticks out. How could Robert Novak's outing of Valerie Plame be inadvertant, when six other journalists report have been approached with the same story? Inadvertant use of a speed-dialer? What rubbish.]

Andrew,

I'm not arguing against Joe Wilson'c credentials, but against the possibility of his trip meaning anything more than: Did you sell Saddam yellowcake? - No Sir. - Well Okay then.

Is this "slime and defend"?

Did Novak know who had allegedly been contacted? I don't think so.

The rest of your rant is very impressive, but I think it is misdirection from my original suspicion the leak was not necessarily engineered, but the scandal may have been (or at least embellished). I confess that I have neocon leanings and that my trust of the media is less than that of the current administration (as in next point).

How often do we get a meme into circulation from the media that was the result of hasty and improperly checked reporting - and then refuses to die? Where is the follow up on the six reporters contacted?
I haven't seen anything since the first few flurries.

BTW -
I think you are overreaching with some of your 10 points such as:

(4) that Saddam was hardening aluminum tubes for delivery of nuclear weapons; - the tubes are for centriguges to make weapons grade uranium.

(5) that two rusty canvas-covered trucks were mobile bioweapons labs; - seems to me there have been multiple, documented (pictures) finds of mobile bio labs (fermenters)

(6) that Iraq had pilotless drones capable of delivering WMD as far as London (they were more like children's models) - I saw these; my kids should have such toys

Some of the other points look like the standard trick of putting words into your opponents mouth and then attacking him for saying them. But rather than chase each one down, lets step back and ask the question - Given Saddam's (and his sons) history, would he eventually have produced and USED WMD?

If don't believe that, you are ignoring a lot of generally accepted history. If you do, then ask what was the best window of opportunity to remove Saddam?

That's my context, and the hysterical carping over details looks like partisans who have lost sight of the larger enemy. And in the end, that's what matters: How will the crowd with the pitchforks and torches look to the general electorate in 2004?

You're behind the times, jdwill; more accurately, you have been suckered by the initial Bush shout-out to the press, and missed the retractions that came later.

The aluminum tubes are at the very least dual use. Most scientists are skeptical of whether they were intended for nuclear weapons. (The best article I can find on this, by John Judis and Spencer Ackerman, isn't free.)

The case of the rusty trucks is even more outrageous. Here's David Kay, shooting off his mouth months ago, while GWB crowed about finding the weapons.

Kay said most of the alternative uses that have been suggested "didn't pass the laugh test."
"The silliest one," Kay said, was the suggestion that they had been designed to generate hydrogen for meteorological balloons.

The British review comes amid widespread doubts expressed by scientists on both sides of the Atlantic that the trucks could have been used to make biological weapons.
Instead The Observer has established that it is increasingly likely that the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987.

Just these two examples alone should give a flavor of how uninterested Bush (and Kay) are in the truth.

Time to clue up, jdwill

Kay himself:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

"We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile BW production effort. Investigation into the origin of and intended use for the two trailers found in northern Iraq in April has yielded a number of explanations, including hydrogen, missile propellant, and BW production, but technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers. That said, nothing we have discovered rules out their potential use in BW production.
We have made significant progress in identifying and locating individuals who were reportedly involved in a mobile program, and we are confident that we will be able to get an answer to the questions as to whether there was a mobile program and whether the trailers that have been discovered so far were part of such a program."

Funny how I see selective quoting around that drops the "nothing rules out" part. We'll just have to wait and see.

A little further on, Kay sums it up:

"I have covered a lot of ground today, much of it highly technical. Although we are resisting drawing conclusions in this first interim report, a number of things have become clearer already as a result of our investigation, among them:

Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons.

In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program about which we have much still to learn.

In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre.
"

As they say, read the whole thing.

Anyway, Andrew, it seems to me that we are talking past each other. I really don't want to debate what WMD proof exists as yet and as you seem to ignore the points I am debating - i.e., the larger picture about Saddam, I see no point in continuing this conversation.

Nothing rules monkeys flying out of my butt, either, I suppose. I mean, nothing rules out my making botulin toxin in my kitchen; twenty Americans a year still get sick from incorrect home canning techniques. That didn't stop Kay and Bush from jumping on one vial of the stuff as their long-awaited evidence. "We didn't find diddly-squat, but that doesn't rule out the possiblity." Wow, talk about Alice in Wonderland thinking. "What WMD proof exists yet"?! Kay himself said none. You couldn't make my point for me better. But rather than confess the whole search is a charade, they hold out the hope of finding them tomorrow. Sort of a 4-1-9 scam, keeping us on the hook.

I see Kay didn't bother to deal head-on with the European companies that identified the trucks.. I mean, why deal with facts.

Let's remember: in this intel war, the CIA sent a former ambassador to Niger (perhaps he hasn't told us all of what he did there for a reason!), a former acting ambassador to Baghdad, and the spouse of an expert in WMD. How did the White House reach the literally terrifying conclusion that Saddam was a year away from nukes? In part, the White House relied on a forgery so clumsy UN officials and news agencies debunked them with a 15-minute Google search. But to you, that intel is good, because it leads to the conclusion that we had to make war on Saddam. The correct intel is "weak" because, well, not fighting is weak. Why let the facts get in the way of a good war?

I assume there's no point in continuing this conversation either. We simply don't agree on what empirical reality is.