"But in the end, I think what it probably comes down to is instinct. I have an instinct about Armitage and his role based on his interview(s) and activities, and I'm probably discounting evidence against that bias and highlighting evidence for it. And you have a different instinct (based on much more research and background material) and therefore the evidence I discount you highlight because it underscores your instinct.ew follows up with:
Lukery's comment is a great example of that: lukery's read is exactly the read I would put on Armitage being offered those intelligence jobs through Card (a job I believe Armitage was said to be after for a long time). To me, that information helps to verify my bias against Armitage's "innocence" - they'd (Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush) never want a "Powell Man" heading the CIA (or DNI) in opposition to them, I figure. But your theory works to make that same information back up your instinct that Armitage is basically an innocent caught in the crossfire between OVP/DOD and State/CIA."
"pow wowI don't think that EW is talking about me when she says 'many people pushing the Armitage theory...' - but, FTR, I'm not pushing any theory about Armitage's complicity in the Plame story. I don't have a position on that at all. We all seem to agree that he was a dupe - and there's some open discussion about how willing or unwilling his dupeness was. I've seen nothing that suggests that it was willing.
Thanks for the response. That's the kind of thoughtfulness many people pushing the Armitage theory aren't offering, I appreciate it. And again, I'm not opposed in principle the Armitage's involvement, but there is abundent evidence that he's not."
emptywheel may very well be correct in 'over-weighting' the institutional factors - but pow wow is at least correct to identify that she uses that frame (and i dare say that EW is very much aware of that fact).
Having said that, I still disagree with the premise of this:
"As to the Corn DCI or DNI gig (keeping in mind that, for all his history as a Death Squads afficianado, Negroponte is considered a State entity), do you really think they wanted to give DCI/DNI to someone they cared about? That job exists soley to oversee a massive failure. They want that person to fail a bureaucratic battle in favor of Rummy (as Negroponte currently is doing)."They gave Negroponte the Iraq thing to fuck up, and then promoted him, and they gave DCI to Goss who is a long time insider hack, and then to Hayden for the same reason. IMHO, if they offered the same gigs to armitage, it wasn't so that they could hang him with it, it was so that they could get what they wanted. Given everything we know about these people, I think that you'd need a pretty strong argument to argue otherwise.
and AFAIC, the indicators seem to be pointing away from armitage = powell = State = sane
update: see emptywheel's comment below.
update: slight edits for clarity
update: starroute in the comments says:
I may represent a third side in this debate, but I tend to see the real struggle as being between relatively objective information-gatherers and analysts on one side and cherry-pickers on the other. And I read things like the emasculation of the CIA, Rummy's purges in the Pentagon, and Hoekstra's recent report calling for more aggressive intelligence analysis as attempts to institutionalize the cherry-picking approach to policy. That's the background against which I've tended to view l'affaire Plame as well.That sounds about right - although I'll add that the 'cherry-pickers' are criminals who primarily cherry-pick so that their criminal enterprises can flourish, whether that's selling drugs, selling arms, stealing oil, or blowing up countries so that they can 'making a killing' on the reconstruction.