For some time now I've been finding the Saga of Joe & Val endlessly entertaining. Much of it I owe to Tom Maguire at Just One Minute for his commentary on the subject. He's been at it for a while. Here in this post he links to this from Jonah Goldberg Indeed, if Plame did in fact promote her husband for the job and he did subsequently distort the facts in an effort to undermine the White House in willful disregard to the facts as he knew them, it sounds to me like Husband and Wife were in on a partisan conspiracy together. That doesn't sound like something CIA analysts are supposed to be doing. No this wouldn't absolve the leaking of her identity, but it would detract from her martyr status quite a bit.
That part about the conspiracy? That was my thought, too. There seem to be three schools in the Saga of Joe & Val.
1. The get to the truth of the uranium from Niger school. On one side of this argument are those who remain convinced that an eight day tea drinking junket was all that was necessary to confirmed that Saddam wouldn't dream of seeking uranium from anywhere in Africa therefore Bush is a liar. On the other side are those like Mr Maguire who encounter difficulty swallowing what Joe Wilson has to offer, and believe that Joe is the liar.
2. The who in the administration outed Valerie Plame and was it a crime school. On one side of this argument are those convinced that yes it was a crime and reaches to the highest levels in the administration. On the other are those who suspect it may not be a crime if the leaker was unaware of Val's covert status.
3. The tin foil hat conspiracy theory school. This consists of your truly and maybe Jonah Goldberg, and perhaps I shouldn't forget Bryan Preston of JunkYardBlog. We suspect the Saga of Joe & Val was planned.
Let me expand on the third school of thought. In the views of Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Preston the conspiracy would seem to have the sole objective of discrediting the Bush administration by attacking the SOTU 16 words. I would argue that the outing of "Jane Bond", as Val is so fondly called by Ambassador Joe, could also be part of the conspiracy. Consider this suggestion left by a commenter on one of these blogs around here somewhere. (I'd attribute it if I could find it again.) When Bob Novak requested confirmation of the pivotal facts for his original story (the one that was the actual leak), the correct response to his queries should have been "Valerie who?" if Val was really covert. That might cause one to wonder who provided confirmation.
Here's an imaginative scenario. Val and pals from the CIA send Joe on an African junket, expenses paid, for the purpose of finding nothing. This, they hope, will weaken any possible case for military action against Iraq. Joe's exhaustive eight day trip culminates in success. Jackpot! He found it - nothing! Unfortunately the administration made their case anyway citing British intelligence. What to do now.
Take it to the press. That's the ticket! Preventive action failed, so now the objective is to attack the administration's argument by switching the nothing to something. Nothing becomes evidence that Iraq could not possibly have been seeking uranium in Africa. Amazingly, this got an incredible amount of play in the mainstream press as, well, credible. What journalists won't do for a couple of bucks and a little fame! Sorry, I guess that's a cheap shot. After all Joe, did have some forgery on which to base his argument. While it hasn't held up well lately, it sounded pretty good at the time. Still, not quite the hoped for traction. What next.
Go public. Ambassador Joe writes his editorial and takes to the airwaves. He becomes the next foot soldier to take up the battle to rescue America from the evil Republicans. Meanwhile the evil Republicans are asking, "Joe who? What the hell is he talking about?" Enter Bob Novak who is conveniently able to identify the major events and the players including our Val. Hmmm. Was she not really covert? Or were Joe and Val and maybe somebody else deliberately playing fast and loose with Val's identity? Somebody who might confirm things?
The last thing on my list is the motive. Mr. Goldberg suggests partisanship, Mr. Preston suggests there may be a little money in it for somebody. I don't know, maybe it could be a combination of both. Given Ambassador Joe's track record on veracity, I'm going to rule out patriotic fervor. In any event, I just can't help thinking that it will be hugely entertaining to see who it is who finally gets to do the Frog March. Do you suppose it's anything like the Fox Trot? Bunny Hop?
Comments