Bloodless Coup

Yes, how can we doubt the CIA when it comes to having definitive intelligence (read: slam dunk case)?

the downington memo speaks pretty well to the circumstances when the CIA is leveraged into saying what serves the administration. the let osama go meme, however, disserves the admin, and has come from an ever increasing number of sources. i know it's hard to believe we'd get so far under the covers with anyone (ahem, pakistan) that we'd let our super-villain get away for political reasons, but then it's hard to believe we'd sell out a clandestine officer just to exercise a grudge. the truth is, this is just more playing fast and loose by the administration voted most likely to ride naked down the street thinking it looks just fine.

At the minimum it shows a huge gap in effective communication within the relevant agencies.

I am not surprised this stuff is starting to come out. The publishing and CIA approval pipelines being what they are, it's clear that it would take time for this kind of information to emerge. And sure, the people who write these things are among the disgruntled, but it's never the "in favor" who write the expose. I'll be curious to see whether Berntsen gets called for "Monday morning quarterbacking."

"i know it's hard to believe we'd get so far under the covers with anyone (ahem, pakistan) that we'd let our super-villain get away for political reasons, but then it's hard to believe we'd sell out a clandestine officer just to exercise a grudge"
I believe this is what's called suggesting one unproven thing is true because of another unproven thing. From what I've heard of the Rove tape, there's no reason to believe it was anything intentional (not that she wasn't outed already--that's why she was back in Washington, remember?). Let's let political ex-covert agents and their husbands print whatever lies they want to print in the NYT, and anyone who draws attention to their lying is a traitor, right?

Binky,
I don't think book publishers are standing in line to print a book confirming what the government has said. Where's the drama in that?

"Political ex-covert agents"? Oh, puh-leeze Morris.

I forgot that Valerie Plame had left the CIA and taken a job as head of the vast Left Wing Conspiracy.

Though in terms of what's really "news" - I'm not sure that this is really new news, it's been at the very least extremely strongly suspected for ages. And the idea that the president would lie about it, well, of course he would. He's George Bush after all. But ... well, that doesn't mean that new details are not worth reporting.

Oh, though Mo - if you believe what you wrote - how do administration officials get such big book contracts?

Bro,
Only high level administration officials get the big book contracts; no field commander (who couldn't make assistant to the assistant to the assistant) in the CIA is going to get a book deal like this by agreeing with Bush and Tommy Franks.
And let's not forget that the only reason Valerie's company was outed was because she listed it, connecting it to her name when making a donation to the DNC. Most people don't make donations to either party; she did, ergo, she's political.

So, what - any person who ever in their entire life makes a political donation is "political"? Well what does THAT mean? If you make a donation to the local coroner ... what? You are forever to be distrusted or shifty or something? I just don't get what this political contribution stuff has to do with anything. Should we assume that anyone who's ever given Bush money will only do what he says (if so, we really shouldn't confirm a lot of judges), or that the #1 goal in life of anyone who gave money to Kerry is the destruction of George W. Bush?

And how exactly did Plame "out" herself by using her cover to identify herself? I thought that the whole reason you had a cover was to use it.

And there are a plethora of books on post-9/11 foreign policy. The idea that only critics of the Bush administration get published is nonsense.