![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnpalmerOne thing's been niggling at me about the Rove/Novak/Wilson situation. It keeps coming down to "why were there any questions about why Wilson would go to Africa to bang around and ask a few questions, and write a report?" I mean, asking questions and writing reports is part of what ambassadors do!
I started to realize that maybe that's not the *real* question.
Maybe the real question is "Why would the CIA send someone who was likely to gather information that could be used to attack the President?"
And that's a question that might really be on some political analyst's minds. "Why didn't we make sure we had someone more loyal making that trip, to make sure he couldn't use the information to attack the President".
There's just one problem. Wilson's trip was in February of 2002. We weren't *going* to invade Iraq yet. How could Wilson's trip be used to gather ammo against the President?
There are, of course, two explanations. First, Bush's team saw an attack today, and simply thought "He attacks today, so he was attacking yesterday, last week, last year, last decade. Every action he has ever performed was performed to attack the President. Let's prove this."
Not very bright, but understandable, given the attack dog politics currently in vogue.
The other is more sinister. What if someone got his ass chewed for letting someone like Wilson make the trip... because in February 2002, the invasion was already set in stone, and only loyalists would be used in any mission like this, to make sure they wouldn't compromise the push for war. What if someone got their ass chewed clean off for not making sure Wilson was a loyalist before letting him go on the trip. This would say that the lies and the "sexing up" of intelligence goes a lot deeper than I imagined.
I don't think that's right... I hope like *hell* it's not. I hope it was just short-sighted attack-dog instinct, and not this.
But if the latter case *is* true, well... I don't think any ass chewing should have been deserved. Everything I've seen says one thing: Wilson *is* a loyalist.
It's just that he's not loyal to President, or the administration. His loyalty is to his country, and, dare I say it, to the dream.
I started to realize that maybe that's not the *real* question.
Maybe the real question is "Why would the CIA send someone who was likely to gather information that could be used to attack the President?"
And that's a question that might really be on some political analyst's minds. "Why didn't we make sure we had someone more loyal making that trip, to make sure he couldn't use the information to attack the President".
There's just one problem. Wilson's trip was in February of 2002. We weren't *going* to invade Iraq yet. How could Wilson's trip be used to gather ammo against the President?
There are, of course, two explanations. First, Bush's team saw an attack today, and simply thought "He attacks today, so he was attacking yesterday, last week, last year, last decade. Every action he has ever performed was performed to attack the President. Let's prove this."
Not very bright, but understandable, given the attack dog politics currently in vogue.
The other is more sinister. What if someone got his ass chewed for letting someone like Wilson make the trip... because in February 2002, the invasion was already set in stone, and only loyalists would be used in any mission like this, to make sure they wouldn't compromise the push for war. What if someone got their ass chewed clean off for not making sure Wilson was a loyalist before letting him go on the trip. This would say that the lies and the "sexing up" of intelligence goes a lot deeper than I imagined.
I don't think that's right... I hope like *hell* it's not. I hope it was just short-sighted attack-dog instinct, and not this.
But if the latter case *is* true, well... I don't think any ass chewing should have been deserved. Everything I've seen says one thing: Wilson *is* a loyalist.
It's just that he's not loyal to President, or the administration. His loyalty is to his country, and, dare I say it, to the dream.
