OT - Karl Rove Named as CIA Agent Leak

[Flasch186]

well Clinton got tore up over moral indiscretions and now we have this. pot kettle. however, while Clinton shouldnt have done what he did, neither should Rove now and he does not deserve a free pass like some on the right want.

[JW]

The memo is most interesting; however, the Washington Post is making an implication that may not be correct. The paragraph would have been marked secret to note that something in the paragraph was classified, but that something may not necessarily have been Plame's identity. And the Post story is carefully worded not to say that Plame's identity was the classified information in question, though the writers make the implication in a 'we report, you decide' manner. What else in the paragraph could have been classified? Well, we don't know, since we don't have the paragraph.

Additionally, the story quotes Rove's lawyer as saying that Rove never saw the memo until the special prosecutor's office showed it to him. However, if it can be shown Rove did see the memo earlier, then he certainly has a problem.

My guess is that the memo is not going to turn out to be a smoking gun, at least not against Rove. But I still think the investigation may turn up some surprises. Has Colin Powell been questioned yet?

As an additional point, what should be done to the people who leaked this classified information to the Washington Post? Did they commit a crime?

[MrBigglesworth]

As an additional point, what should be done to the people who leaked this classified information to the Washington Post? Did they commit a crime?
I think you are grasping at straws in that first paragraph, but yes, they did commit a crime by leaking classified information. However, the Post will not reveal who they are so they are safe, the way it should be. How it differs from the Rove case is that the people who leaked the memo were fighting those in power while Rove was using his position of power to smear a political operative that was telling the truth (assuming he is guilty). The former is the point of a free press, the latter is the antithesis of the press' job.

[JW]

I think you are grasping at straws in that first paragraph, but yes, they did commit a crime by leaking classified information. However, the Post will not reveal who they are so they are safe, the way it should be. How it differs from the Rove case is that the people who leaked the memo were fighting those in power while Rove was using his position of power to smear a political operative that was telling the truth (assuming he is guilty). The former is the point of a free press, the latter is the antithesis of the press' job.

Oh, I'm not grasping at straws. The Post writers were very careful never to say that Plame's identity was what was classified. One would assume the writers asked their sources that question. If the Post writers knew that Plame's identity was the classified element, don't you think they would have told us that rather than dancing around it? So that lack of clarity raises my suspicion. But I'm not saying that Plame's identity was NOT the classified element; I'm just saying the Post article never says it was.

As to Rove smearing a political operative who was telling the truth, Wilson has been far from truthful in several instances, as reported in multiple sources. Neither Rove nor Wilson are angels.

Finally, the leakers of the memo, whoever, they are, may have motives different from what you and I think they are. This could get even more complicated than it already is.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

More fun....

More fun.... (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/21/breaking-bloomberg-reporting-that-rove-libby-may-be-subject-to-perjury-charges/)


Rove, Libby Accounts in CIA Case Differ With Those of Reporters

By Richard Keil

July 22 (Bloomberg) — Two top White House aides have given accounts to the special prosecutor about how reporters told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to persons familiar with the case.

Lewis “Scooter'’ Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn’t tell Libby of Plame’s identity.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who was first to report Plame’s name and connection to Wilson. Novak, according to a source familiar with the matter, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor.

These discrepancies may be important because one issue Fitzgerald is investigating is whether Libby, Rove, or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether any administration officials violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a CIA agent.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Neither Rove nor Wilson are angels.

But yet it's Rove still puttering around in the White House, dealing with classified sensitive information day in and day out.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

More fun....

More fun.... (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/21/breaking-bloomberg-reporting-that-rove-libby-may-be-subject-to-perjury-charges/)

Now this is very interesting, and where I think this case is truly headed.

[flere-imsaho]

Now this is very interesting, and where I think this case is truly headed.

If Libby told Fitzgerald one thing, and Rove told him another, I wouldn't want to be either one of them right now. This guy is tenacious, as both former Il governor George Ryan and Chicago Mayor Daley can attest.

[gstelmack]

Gee, do you believe the lying politician, or the lying reporter? Hmmm...

(Given the number of missteps by the media over the last few months, and their personal interest in how this turns out, I don't trust any of the sides in this fiasco).

[JW]

But yet it's Rove still puttering around in the White House, dealing with classified sensitive information day in and day out.

Agreed. I think I've made my dislike for Rove very clear. But that doesn't make him guilty of any wrongdoing in the Plame leak. Fitzgerald, unlike many on the left, will work toward the truth, not toward a lynching. When the truth comes out, it may well be that Rove will be charged with something, though I doubt it, but I honestly think there will be some surprises when the results of the investigation are announced. Libby, for example, might have more to worry about than Rove.

[flere-imsaho]

A new rehash of the available with a couple more tidbits: link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001918_pf.html)

Such as:

Time magazine's Matthew Cooper has written that he was told by Karl Rove on July 11 "don't get too far out on Wilson" because information was going to be declassified soon that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and findings. Cooper also wrote that Rove told him that Wilson's wife worked for the agency on weapons of mass destruction and that "she was responsible for sending Wilson."

The article's author doesn't draw any conclusions himself, but the article seems to confirm that Rove & Libby were leaking the information. It also appears that Miller's source was Libby, and thus her testimony is very important, which is why Fitzgerald is pressing so hard for it.

Also, new info here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853002/site/newsweek/) on the guy likely to be Fitzgerald's new boss. McCallum is an old friend of Bush & Cheney.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I saw some speculation recently (that I don't think was posted here) that Miller may have been part of the problem, rather than someone caught in the crossfire. The speculation was that Miller was Libby's source, as opposed to vice versa.

[flere-imsaho]

I saw some speculation recently (that I don't think was posted here) that Miller may have been part of the problem, rather than someone caught in the crossfire. The speculation was that Miller was Libby's source, as opposed to vice versa.

I saw that as well. I've also seen articles that cast a lot of doubt about Miller's journalistic integrity when she was in Iraq. These shouldn't be hard to Google, and I'm too lazy to re-find them and post them here.

The morass keeps on getting deeper. I'm glad I'm not Fitzgerald.

[Maple Leafs]

I saw that as well. I've also seen articles that cast a lot of doubt about Miller's journalistic integrity when she was in Iraq. These shouldn't be hard to Google, and I'm too lazy to re-find them and post them here.Be careful with these, though. Miller's reporting in the lead up to the Gulf War was very pro-Bush, so she's public enemy #1 for many on the left. Take anything you read about her (especially from blogs or personal sites) with a huge grain of salt.

[flere-imsaho]

Be careful with these, though. Miller's reporting in the lead up to the Gulf War was very pro-Bush, so she's public enemy #1 for many on the left. Take anything you read about her (especially from blogs or personal sites) with a huge grain of salt.

I know all about that. I could have sworn I saw a few "mainstream" articles that were more objective.

[JW]

I saw some speculation recently (that I don't think was posted here) that Miller may have been part of the problem, rather than someone caught in the crossfire. The speculation was that Miller was Libby's source, as opposed to vice versa.

Yes, I have heard talking head speculation that she may be refusing to talk to protect herself rather than a source, but who knows.

[flere-imsaho]

Update: Judith Miller has been released from prison and will testify, after receiving an OK from her source, Scooter Libby, V.P. Cheney's Chief of Staff.

Which is interesting.

Full article from NYT:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 - Judith Miller, the reporter for The New York Times who has been jailed since July 6 for refusing to testify in the C.I.A. leak case, was released Thursday from a Virginia detention center after she and her lawyers reached an agreement with a federal prosecutor in which she would testify before a grand jury investigating the case, the publisher and the executive editor of the paper said.

Ms. Miller was freed after spending more than 12 weeks in jail, during which she refused to cooperate with the inquiry. Her decision to testify was made after she had obtained what she described as a waiver offered "voluntarily and personally" by a source who said she was no longer bound by any pledge of confidentiality she had made to him. Ms. Miller said the source had made clear that he genuinely wanted her to testify.

That source was I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, according to people who have been officially briefed on the case. Ms. Miller met with Mr. Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week, they said.

Discussions between officials and journalists that week that may have disclosed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, Valerie Wilson, have been a central focus of the investigation.

Ms. Miller said in a statement that she expected to appear before the grand jury on Friday. Ms. Miller was released after she and her lawyers met at the jail with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the case, to discuss her testimony.

The publisher of The Times, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., said in a statement that the newspaper supported Ms. Miller's decision, just as it had backed her refusal to testify.

"Judy has been unwavering in her commitment to protect the confidentiality of her source," Mr. Sulzberger said. "We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify."

For more than a year, Mr. Fitzgerald has sought testimony from Ms. Miller about conversations she had with Mr. Libby. Her willingness to testify now was in part based on personal assurances given by Mr. Libby this month that he had no objection to her discussing their conversations with the grand jury, according to those officials briefed on the case.

Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation has centered on whether anyone in the Bush administration illegally disclosed to the news media the identity of Ms. Wilson, a C.I.A. employee. The first published reference to Ms. Wilson was in July 2003 in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak, who referred to her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame.

Another important question has been whether officials were truthful in their testimony to investigators and the grand jury.

Ms. Miller never wrote an article about Ms. Wilson. Mr. Fitzgerald has said that obtaining Ms. Miller's testimony was one of the last remaining objectives of his inquiry, and the deal with her suggests that the prosecutor may soon end the long-running investigation. It is unknown whether prosecutors will charge anyone in the Bush administration with wrongdoing.

The agreement that led to Ms. Miller's release followed intense negotiations among her; her lawyer, Robert Bennett; Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate; and Mr. Fitzgerald.

The talks began with a telephone call from Mr. Bennett to Mr. Tate in late August. Ms. Miller spoke with Mr. Libby by telephone this month as their lawyers listened, according to people who have been briefed on the case. It was then that Mr. Libby told Ms. Miller that she had his personal and voluntary waiver.

The discussions were at times strained, with Mr. Libby and Mr. Tate's asserting that they communicated their voluntary waiver to another lawyer for Ms. Miller, Floyd Abrams, more than year ago, according to those briefed on the case.

Other people involved in the case have said Ms. Miller did not understand that the waiver had been freely given and did not accept it until she had heard from Mr. Libby directly.

Ms. Miller authorized her lawyers to seek further clarification from Mr. Libby's representatives in late August, after she had been in jail for more than a month. Mr. Libby wrote to Ms. Miller in mid-September saying he believed that her lawyers understood during discussions last year that his waiver was voluntary.

On Sept. 16, Mr. Tate wrote to Mr. Fitzgerald saying his conversations with Mr. Abrams last year were meant to assure Ms. Miller that a broad waiver that Mr. Libby signed in late 2003 was not coerced and applied specifically to Ms. Miller.

On Thursday, Mr. Abrams wrote to Mr. Tate disputing parts of Mr. Tate's account. His letter said although Mr. Tate had said the waiver was voluntary, Mr. Tate had also said any waiver sought as a condition of employment was inherently coercive.

Mr. Tate said in an interview on Thursday, "Her lawyers were provided with a waiver that we said was voluntary more than a year ago." Mr. Abrams would not discuss the question in a brief telephone conversation on Thursday.

As part of the agreement, Mr. Bennett gave Mr. Fitzgerald edited versions of notes taken by Ms. Miller about her conversations with Mr. Libby.

In statements on Thursday, Ms. Miller and executives of The Times did not identify the source who had urged Ms. Miller to testify. Bill Keller, the executive editor, said Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms. Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers."

Ms. Miller's lawyers had sought such an assurance as a condition of her testimony.

Mr. Keller said Mr. Fitzgerald cleared the way to an agreement by assuring Ms. Miller and her source that he would not regard a conversation between the two about a possible waiver as an obstruction of justice.

According to someone who has been briefed on Mr. Libby's testimony and who believes that his statements show he did nothing wrong, Ms. Miller asked Mr. Libby during their conversations in July 2003 whether he knew Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who wrote an Op-Ed article in The Times on July 6, 2003, criticizing the Bush administration. Ms. Miller's lawyers declined to discuss the conversations.

Mr. Libby said that he did not know Mr. Wilson but that he had heard from the C.I.A. that the former ambassador's wife, an agency employee, might have had a role in arranging a trip that Mr. Wilson took to Africa on behalf of the agency to investigate reports of Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear material. Mr. Wilson's wife is Ms. Wilson.

Mr. Libby did not know her name or her position at the agency and therefore did not discuss these matters with Ms. Miller, the person who had been briefed on the matter said. Ms. Miller said she believed that the agreement between her lawyers and Mr. Fitzgerald "satisfies my obligation as a reporter to keep faith with my sources."

"I went to jail," she added, "to preserve the time-honored principle that a journalist must respect a promise not to reveal the identity of a confidential source. I chose to take the consequences, 85 days in prison, rather than violate that promise. The principle was more important to uphold than my personal freedom. "

Ms. Miller said she was grateful for the "unwavering support" shown by her husband, family and friends and The Times. She said that she would say nothing more publicly about the case until after her grand jury testimony.

Mr. Fitzgerald declined to comment, a spokesman, Randall Samborn, said.

The case has been the most significant test in decades of whether reporters can refuse to disclose to prosecutors their discussions with confidential sources. Many journalists say those sources would refuse to provide information if their anonymity could not be protected.

At least four other reporters are known to have provided information to Mr. Fitzgerald. But Ms. Miller had until refused to do so. In July, the Supreme Court refused to hear her appeal of a lower court order that she be jailed for contempt for her refusal to testify.

When Mr. Wilson emerged as a critic of the Bush administration in July 2003, administration officials questioned his credibility. The column by Mr. Novak said Mr. Wilson's wife, who worked for the agency, had suggested the trip.

New details about the case have emerged in recent months. Karl Rove, the president's senior political strategist, and Mr. Libby both discussed Ms. Wilson with reporters, according to testimony provided by Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, and by others.

But neither White House official is known to have mentioned Ms. Wilson by name or to have mentioned her status at the C.I.A.

Mr. Cooper testified in August 2004 about a conversation with Mr. Libby conducted in 2003. But Mr. Cooper had resisted a subpoena to appear before the grand jury to discuss a conversation with Mr. Rove.

In July, after his employer, Time Inc., part of Time-Warner, complied with a subpoena seeking his notes from the period, Mr. Cooper agreed to testify, after seeking and obtaining what he called a specific waiver from Mr. Rove, releasing him from a pledge of confidentiality.

That decision left Ms. Miller alone in resisting the prosecutors' demand to testify. Much about Ms. Miler's role remains unclear. Mr. Keller, the executive editor, has declined to say whether she was assigned to report about Mr. Wilson's trip, whether she tried to write an article about it or whether she ever told editors or colleagues at The Times that she had obtained information about Ms. Wilson's role.

Under the terms of her jailing, Ms. Miller faced incarceration through the duration of the current term of the grand jury hearing the case, and that is due to expire on Oct. 28. Had Ms. Miller continued to resist, lawyers involved in the case said they believed that it was highly likely that Mr. Fitzgerald would have tried to keep her in jail by extending the grand jury term or convening a new grand jury.

Ms. Miller had been housed at the Alexandria Detention Center, a county jail in suburban Virginia. As a federal prisoner, Ms. Miller was an exceptional case. But a spokesman for the sheriff's office, which administers the center, said she had been granted no special privileges.

[MalcPow]

Probably worthy of a new thread, and from what I'm reading a really bizarre turn of events. There has to be more to what's going on here, but the political calculus is beyond me.

[MrBigglesworth]

Two new reports today say that Bush was furious with Rove two years ago when Rove told him that he was the source of the leak (not furious that he leaked the info, but rather how it was bungled), and also that Bush told Fitzgerald a year ago that he had no idea where the leak came from. If both reports are correct, the Prez may be in some legal trouble. Here is McClellan trying to discredit the Bush furious thing at todays WH press meeting:

QUESTION: Scott, is it true that the President --
SCOTT McCLELLAN: Welcome back.

QUESTION: Thanks. Is it true that the President slapped Karl Rove upside the head a couple of years ago over the CIA leak?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Are you referring to, what, a New York Daily News report? Two things: One, we're not commenting on an ongoing investigation; two, and I would challenge the overall accuracy of that news account.

QUESTION: That's a comment.

QUESTION: Which part of it?

QUESTION: Yes, that is.

QUESTION: Which facts --

SCOTT McCLELLAN: No, I'm just saying -- no, I'm just trying to help you all.

QUESTION: So what facts are you challenging?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Again, I'm not going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: You can't say you're challenging the facts and then not say which ones you're challenging.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Yes, I can. I just did. (Laughter.)

...

QUESTION: Scott, let me come back to -- so you say you're challenging the accuracy, but you won't tell us why. Why would it be irresponsible for us to report that?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Report what?

QUESTION: What you said --

SCOTT McCLELLAN: It's up to you what you want to report. I'm just trying to --

QUESTION: Well, if you want us to say it's inaccurate, you need to give us a reason why, or it wouldn't be responsible to report it.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, there's an ongoing investigation, and as you know, our policy is not to comment on it. So that's where we are.

QUESTION: You just did.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Based on your personal knowledge, based on your opinion, based on your frustration with the story -- what caused you to say that?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: No, I mean, I read the story and I didn't view it as an accurate story.

QUESTION: Why not?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Again, I'm not going to go any further than that. There's an ongoing investigation. This is bringing up matters related to an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: After you read the story, Scott, did you check with either the two people mentioned, the President or Rove, to ask them? Is that what you base --

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I don't have any further comment, Peter.

QUESTION: Well, is that what you base your guidance on, or is it just -- you know, is it just you're feeling that this couldn't have happened?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I stand by what I just said and I'm going to leave it at that.

Man, does it suck to be McClellan right now.

What happens if the President and VP both have to resign? Is it the same order of succession as if they were assassinated?

[Flasch186]

Arles...cant say I didnt tell you that this was a comin. it aint over.....follow the smoke to the fire, and what do you expect to find? Well I know you, if you dont get a smaple of the fire, check that it actually is fire, and then have someone admit to starting the fire, then you dont admit that there is a fire at all. :)

[GrantDawg]

Two new reports today say that Bush was furious with Rove two years ago when Rove told him that he was the source of the leak (not furious that he leaked the info, but rather how it was bungled), and also that Bush told Fitzgerald a year ago that he had no idea where the leak came from. If both reports are correct, the Prez may be in some legal trouble. Here is McClellan trying to discredit the Bush furious thing at todays WH press meeting:


Man, does it suck to be McClellan right now.

What happens if the President and VP both have to resign? Is it the same order of succession as if they were assassinated?

If you think anyone higher than Rove is going to resign over this, you're on crack. I doubt even Rove resigns, and there is no chance the President will be investigated on this.

[st.cronin]

If you think anyone higher than Rove is going to resign over this, you're on crack. I doubt even Rove resigns, and there is no chance the President will be investigated on this.

Hey, he's entitled to his fantasies.

[MrBigglesworth]

If you think anyone higher than Rove is going to resign over this, you're on crack. I doubt even Rove resigns, and there is no chance the President will be investigated on this.
There are rumors going around Washington that Cheney might resign. Bush can't be indicted (only impeached, and that's not going to happen), but thanks to Clinton v. Jones a sitting President can be involved in a civil matter. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Bush could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator like Nixon was and/or taken to civil court by the Wilsons to recover damages from ending her carer.

[MrBigglesworth]

Hey, he's entitled to his fantasies.
Question: if Bush is shown to have lied to a federal investigator, lied to the American people (especially through Scott McClellan), all in covering up a federal crime, would that change your opinion of him as a non-waffling straight shooter?

[st.cronin]

Question: if Bush is shown to have lied to a federal investigator, lied to the American people (especially through Scott McClellan), all in covering up a federal crime, would that change your opinion of him as a non-waffling straight shooter?

Maybe, maybe not. The Clinton mess didn't change my opinion of him.

[GrantDawg]

There are rumors going around Washington that Cheney might resign. Bush can't be indicted (only impeached, and that's not going to happen), but thanks to Clinton v. Jones a sitting President can be involved in a civil matter. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Bush could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator like Nixon was and/or taken to civil court by the Wilsons to recover damages from ending her carer.
Yeah, I heard about the Cheney rumors. Did he resign, though? No. Rumors in Washington is about as reliable as "Worldnetdaily." I know you like to sit in a corner and touch yourself thinking that "justice will prevail" but wake up to the real world. Bush is not going anywhere, Cheney is not going anywhere (unless God strikes him down) and most likely Rove isn't going anywhere. Not that they don't deserve to, it is just that they hold all the cards. This is not big enough to permanently hurt any of them.

[flere-imsaho]

A lot of people are getting wound up over unsubstantiated rumors. It's somewhat amusing and somewhat disheartening to see some of the left wing sites take the speculation as far as they have.

A lot of things could still happen and, as I've said before, we still won't know until Fitzgerald actually does something (publishes a report, indicts people, etc....).

This is not big enough to permanently hurt any of them.

I see this, and then I think of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. You either have to laugh, or cry.

[GrantDawg]

I see this, and then I think of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. You either have to laugh, or cry.

Like I said, the world is not fair. Of course, Lewinsky actually made Clinton more popular. I think he sends Christmas cards to Ken Star.

[MrBigglesworth]

I know you like to sit in a corner and touch yourself thinking that "justice will prevail" but wake up to the real world.
This is why I come here, for intelligent debate :D

[MrBigglesworth]

A lot of people are getting wound up over unsubstantiated rumors. It's somewhat amusing and somewhat disheartening to see some of the left wing sites take the speculation as far as they have.
It's not just left wing sites:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_10_16_dish_archive.html#112973670266741691

When I started to read about the possibility on right wing sites, I started to really take it seriously.

EDIT: More from a conservative site:

To me, Bush's public statements on this are paramount. Yes, what he said to the prosecutors is legally crucial---and as reported in this piece by Murray Waas, Bush stated to prosecutors in June 2004 that Rove had assured him he was not involved with the Plame leak. If both DeFrank's and Waas' reports are true, this president could be in extremely serious trouble. But here's what I really want to know: did this president stare into a camera and lie about this to the American public? My definitive, lasting memory of Bill Clinton is the finger-wagging "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." After the past few years, how insignificant and silly that all seems now, eh?

http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/10/finger-wagging-then-and-now.html

[GrantDawg]

This is why I come here, for intelligent debate :D
Eh, it wasn't part of the debate. It was more a "wake up" line. You sometimes have a clear grasp on things, and have very good, solid post. But sometimes you "chase the rainbow." Just trying to reel you in a bit. Hug?

[GrantDawg]

It's not just left wing sites:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_10_16_dish_archive.html#112973670266741691

When I started to read about the possibility on right wing sites, I started to really take it seriously.

EDIT: More from a conservative site:



http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/10/finger-wagging-then-and-now.html

That isn't close to being on par with the number of Democrats that came on national television after the "I did not have sex with that woman" statement that said if Clinton had an affair with her "he'll have to resign." Clinton survived. Bush has a much greater advantage over Clinton because,

a) His party has control of both houses, and

b) the American public could care less about this story. The Lewinsky story had "traction" because it was about sex. When the news starts reporting on this story, you literally hear millions of tv sets turning to "Wheel of Fortune." There is nothing sexy here.


Further, how would Bush resigning help matters? If he and Cheney both quit today (and they are ice skating in Hell), who would be President? Denny Hastert. We'd be better off with Bushy.

[Flasch186]

That isn't close to being on par with the number of Democrats that came on national television after the "I did not have sex with that woman" statement that said if Clinton had an affair with her "he'll have to resign." Clinton survived. Bush has a much greater advantage over Clinton because,

a) His party has control of both houses, and

b) the American public could care less about this story. The Lewinsky story had "traction" because it was about sex. When the news starts reporting on this story, you literally hear millions of tv sets turning to "Wheel of Fortune." There is nothing sexy here.



I agree with this Americans have short attention spans on the whole, unless it involves something sexy....Karl Rove is anything but.

[MrBigglesworth]

That isn't close to being on par with the number of Democrats that came on national television after the "I did not have sex with that woman" statement that said if Clinton had an affair with her "he'll have to resign." Clinton survived. Bush has a much greater advantage over Clinton because,

a) His party has control of both houses, and

b) the American public could care less about this story. The Lewinsky story had "traction" because it was about sex. When the news starts reporting on this story, you literally hear millions of tv sets turning to "Wheel of Fortune." There is nothing sexy here.


Further, how would Bush resigning help matters? If he and Cheney both quit today (and they are ice skating in Hell), who would be President? Denny Hastert. We'd be better off with Bushy.
I think the possibility is extremely remote that Bush would ever resign, even if he were named as an unindicted co-conspirator. He would probably only ever do it under threat of impeachment, and with congress the way it is now that is extremely unlikely.

Cheney is a definite possibility to resign, if he is indicted. They would probably put Rice into the VP role, so overall it's a pretty good PR move. Rove I think is all but assured to be gone, I think. All his fundraising trips were cancelled, and damage control coming out of the White House is just not the same as it has been, leading me to think that they are distancing themselves from Rove.

As for the public caring less about the story, something must be driving GOP numbers down all across the board, and not all of it, but I am sure some of it are the numerous indictments and arrests that are becoming just impossible to keep track of.

[GrantDawg]

As for the public caring less about the story, something must be driving GOP numbers down all across the board, and not all of it, but I am sure some of it are the numerous indictments and arrests that are becoming just impossible to keep track of.
It is the economy, stupid. Paying $3 dollars a gallon at the pump does not make people happy about the Oil Man and his cronies running things.





ps. Not calling you stupid. Just quoting the political mantra.

[Flasch186]

uh oh...were getting closer to the all important for Arles, verbage from the horse's mouth, to admit wrongdoing. I feel sorry for the right, trying to defend the behavior of the leadership......Delay, Frist, now this coming to fruition...



Cheney told top aide of CIA officer: report

11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President
Dick Cheney's chief of staff first learned about the
CIA officer at the center of a leak investigation in a conversation with Cheney weeks before her identity became public in July 2003, The New York Times reported on Monday.

Notes of the conversation between chief of staff Lewis Libby and Cheney on June 12, 2003, put a spotlight on the vice president's possible role in the leak. The account also appears to run counter to Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he first learned about the CIA officer, Valerie Plame, from reporters.

Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor investigating the leak of Plame's identity, is said by lawyers involved in the case to be considering bringing charges against Libby for making false statements and possibly obstruction of justice.

Another possible target for indictment is Karl Rove,
President George W. Bush's top political adviser. Fitzgerald's announcement is expected later this week.

Plame's identity was leaked to the media after her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence on
Iraq. Wilson based the criticism in part on a CIA-sponsored mission he made to Africa in 2002 to check out an intelligence report that Iraq sought uranium from Niger.

Cheney's office had sought more information about the uranium deal, prompting the CIA to dispatch Wilson.

Eager to distance the vice president from Wilson's mission and findings, Cheney's office began looking into Wilson's background in May or June of 2003, after details of his mission began to appear in the press but well before he came out publicly in July 2003 with his criticisms, people close to the investigation said.

Libby's notes indicate that Cheney got his information about Plame from George Tenet, who was then the CIA director, according to the Times, which attributed its report to lawyers involved in the case.

According to the Times, the notes do not show that Cheney knew the name of Wilson's wife. But they do show that Cheney did know and told Libby that she was employed by the CIA and that she may have helped arrange her husband's trip.

Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Randall Samborn, Fitzgerald's spokesman, declined to comment.

Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride would only say, "We're cooperating fully, as the president and the vice president directed us."

A former intelligence official close to Tenet said the former CIA director has not been in touch with Fitzgerald's staff for over 15 months and was not asked to testify before the grand jury.

"Mr. Tenet does not wish to make any comments regarding an ongoing investigation," the former intelligence official said.

[Ksyrup]

Admittedly, I haven't been following this story very closely, but I saw a clip of Kay Bailey Hutchinson from Meet the Press that made me want to punch her right in the dick. She said the following: "I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality..."

Fuck you, bitch.

Perjury is perjury, be it about blowjobs or revealing CIA operatives. I simply can't believe she would say something like that, given the Clinton impeachment. Politicians fucking suck.

You guys know I'm a conservative, but even I won't put up with shit like this. I haven't followed this story close enough to know if someone deserves to be indicted for perjury, but if they are and it's proven, they will get no sympathy from me.

[JW]

Since I was very much involved in this argument at the start, I will just say now that it seems to me that if they have anything, it is focused on Libby and perjury. I'll venture a prediction that if there are any charges, and I'm still not sure there will be any, that it will involve Libby and not Rove, and that it will not be the major charge of blowing the identity of an undercover CIA agent, but something like perjury. Looks to me like Libby lied. Although I have to say it looks like Rove really tried to play a game with the truth, too, so an indictment of Rove would not shock me.

And, once again, I detest Rove. I think he has hurt the country.

[John Galt]

Admittedly, I haven't been following this story very closely, but I saw a clip of Kay Bailey Hutchinson from Meet the Press that made me want to punch her right in the dick. She said the following: "I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality..."

Fuck you, bitch.

Perjury is perjury, be it about blowjobs or revealing CIA operatives. I simply can't believe she would say something like that, given the Clinton impeachment. Politicians fucking suck.

You guys know I'm a conservative, but even I won't put up with shit like this. I haven't followed this story close enough to know if someone deserves to be indicted for perjury, but if they are and it's proven, they will get no sympathy from me.

Her statements now are especially bad given what she said about Clinton (she voted to impeach):

"Lying is a moral wrong. Perjury is a lie told under oath that is legally wrong. To be illegal, the lie must be willfully told, must be believed to be untrue, and must relate to a material matter....[If] President Washington, as an adult, had been warned not to cut down a cherry tree, but he cut it down anyway, with the tree falling on a man and severely injuring or killing him, with President Washington stating later under oath that it was not he who cut down the tree, that would be `perjury.' Because it was a material fact in determining the circumstances of the man's injury or death. Some would argue that the President...should not be impeached because the whole thing is about a cherry tree, and lies about cherry trees, even under oath, though despicable, do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution. I disagree. The perjury committed...was an attempt to impede, frustrate, and obstruct the judicial system in determining how the man was injured or killed, when, and by whose hand, in order to escape personal responsibility under the law, either civil or criminal. Such would be an impeachable offense. To say otherwise would be to severely lower the moral and legal standards of accountability that are imposed on ordinary citizens every day. The same standard should be imposed on our leaders...Willful, corrupt, and false sworn testimony before a Federal grand jury is a separate and distinct crime under applicable law and is material and perjurious if it is `capable' of influencing the grand jury in any matter before it, including any collateral matters that it may consider...The President's testimony before the Federal grand jury was fully capable of influencing the grand jury's investigation and was clearly perjurious."

[Ksyrup]

She had it right the first time.

She can argue that whatever perjury charge might come out of this is not perjury - that's fine. But to argue perjury in and of itself is a technicality...she should be ashamed of herself. And I'd say that even if she hadn't been so outspoken on Clinton.

[Flasch186]

would that be considered a "flip flop". It disgusts me, the dbl. standard. Her word play is remiscient of the wordplay the Pres. she slamed used to define "sex" which is hung out like a flag on the front lawn. Garbash!!

[Flasch186]

the board is "satisfied" with the job you are doing as manager......usually precedes what?



White House Sidesteps Cheney Questions

33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The White House on Tuesday sidestepped questions about whether Vice President
Dick Cheney passed on to his top aide the identity of a
CIA officer central to a federal grand jury probe.


Notes in the hands of a federal prosecutor suggest that Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, first heard of the CIA officer from Cheney himself, The New York Times reported in Tuesday's editions.

A federal prosecutor is investigating whether the officer's identity was improperly disclosed.

The Times said notes of a previously undisclosed June 12, 2003, conversation between Libby and Cheney appear to differ from Libby's grand jury testimony that he first heard of Valerie Plame from journalists.

"This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation and we're not having any further comment on the investigation while it's ongoing," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Pressed about Cheney's knowledge about the CIA officer, McClellan said: "I think you're prejudging things and speculating and we're not going to prejudge or speculate about things."

McClellan said Cheney — who participated in a morning video conference on the Florida hurricane from Wyoming, where he is speaking at a University of Wyoming dinner tonight — is doing a "great job" as vice president. :)

The New York Times identified its sources in the story as lawyers involved in the case.

Libby has emerged at the center of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's criminal investigation in recent weeks because of the Cheney aide's conversations about Plame with Times reporter Judith Miller.

Miller said Libby spoke to her about Plame and her husband, Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, on three occasions — although not necessarily by name and without indicating he knew she was undercover.

Libby's notes show that Cheney knew Plame worked at the CIA more than a month before her identity was publicly exposed by columnist Robert Novak.

At the time of the Cheney-Libby conversation, Wilson had been referred to — but not by name — in the Times and on the morning of June 12, 2003 on the front page of The Washington Post.

The Times reported that Libby's notes indicate Cheney got his information about Wilson from then-CIA Director George Tenet, but said there was no indication he knew her name.

The notes also contain no suggestion that Cheney or Libby knew at the time of their conversation of Plame's undercover status or that her identity was classified, the paper said.

Disclosing the identify of a covert CIA agent can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent is classified as working undercover.

The Times quoted lawyers involved in the case as saying they had no indication Fitzgerald was considering charging Cheney with a crime.

But the paper said any efforts by Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Cheney might be viewed by a prosecutor as attempt to impede the inquiry, which could be a crime.

According to a former intelligence official close to Tenet, the former CIA chief has not been in touch with Fitzgerald's staff for more than 15 months and was not asked to testify before the grand jury even though he was interviewed by Fitzgerald and his staff.

The official told the Times that Tenet declined to comment on the investigation.

Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, did not return phone calls and e-mail to his office.

Fitzgerald is expected to decide this week whether to seek criminal indictments in the case. Lawyers involved in the case have said Libby and Karl Rove,
President Bush's senior adviser, both face the possibility of indictment. McClellan said both Rove and Libby were at work on Tuesday.

Fitzgerald questioned Cheney under oath more than a year ago, but it is not known what the vice president told the prosecutor.

Cheney has said little in public about what he knew. In September 2003, he told NBC he did not know Wilson or who sent him on a trip to Niger in 2002 to check into intelligence — some of it later deemed unreliable — that
Iraq may have been seeking to buy uranium there.

"I don't know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back," Cheney said at the time. "... I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea who hired him."

The Cheney-Libby conversation occurred the same day that The Washington Post published a front-page story about the CIA sending a retired diplomat to Africa, where he was unable to corroborate intelligence that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger. The diplomat was Wilson.

A year after Wilson's trip, President Bush cited British intelligence in his State of the Union address as suggesting that Iraq was pursuing uranium in Africa.

[MrBigglesworth]

McClellan said Cheney — who participated in a morning video conference on the Florida hurricane from Wyoming, where he is speaking at a University of Wyoming dinner tonight — is doing a "great job" as vice president. :)
.
Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job!

[Flasch186]

**Cough** **Cough**

Arles steps to the podium

"Due to the fact that Mr. Fitzgerald announced the indictments, and Mr. Libby has not come out to admit that he did anything wrong...no matter the outcome of the investigation or subsequent trial, Libby and the administration will be shown as 'cleared' in the Arles Quarterly. As you all know, unless the criminal admits to their wrongdoing you cannot trust what you hear, see, or read. Its all too skewed by politics to be true unless you hear it from the horse's mouth. Thank you."



Libby worked with Cheney a long long time!!! a long time......Cheney didn't know what was going on this whole time? During the obstruction of justice, the Perjury (Clinton must be smiling now - although outing an undercover CIA operative who now has been shown to actually BE classified and not some pseudo-undercover, like the right argued for awhile is much worse than trying to lie your way out of a BJ)......

I feel so vindicated and the Rove is still yet to come. Gosh I wish I could bring up all the times Ive been right....

[st.cronin]

What's funny about that is that the Vice-President's actual job is ... well, breaking ties in the Senate. Has Cheney had to do that? I would bet he hasn't. I would bet he hasn't done a day of work with regards to his constitutional responsibilities.

[Glengoyne]

**Cough** **Cough**

Arles steps to the podium

"Due to the fact that Mr. Fitzgerald announced the indictments, and Mr. Libby has not come out to admit that he did anything wrong...no matter the outcome of the investigation or subsequent trial, Libby and the administration will be shown as 'cleared' in the Arles Quarterly. As you all know, unless the criminal admits to their wrongdoing you cannot trust what you hear, see, or read. Its all too skewed by politics to be true unless you hear it from the horse's mouth. Thank you."



Libby worked with Cheney a long long time!!! a long time......Cheney didn't know what was going on this whole time? During the obstruction of justice, the Perjury (Clinton must be smiling now - although outing an undercover CIA operative who now has been shown to actually BE classified and not some pseudo-undercover, like the right argued for awhile is much worse than trying to lie your way out of a BJ)......

I feel so vindicated and the Rove is still yet to come. Gosh I wish I could bring up all the times Ive been right....
I think you are being a bit tough on Arlie, but I get what you are saying. I'm still waiting for the specifics, the details about what specifically Libby apparently lied about or tried to cover up are what I'm curious about. I think those details will be telling. As for Plame's identity shown to actually BE classified....I thought we were still waiting for the definitive word on that.

[Flasch186]

I think you are being a bit tough on Arlie, but I get what you are saying. I'm still waiting for the specifics, the details about what specifically Libby apparently lied about or tried to cover up are what I'm curious about. I think those details will be telling. As for Plame's identity shown to actually BE classified....I thought we were still waiting for the definitive word on that.

During Fitzgerald's press conference he made it clear, almost going overboard, that not only was her identity classified but that it was also NOT widely known who she worked for. Id say, if were taking his word with some weight, instead of waiting for the trial...then we should be leaning towards what Ive been saying all along, that she was "outed".

[GrantDawg]

During Fitzgerald's press conference he made it clear, almost going overboard, that not only was her identity classified but that it was also NOT widely known who she worked for. Id say, if were taking his word with some weight, instead of waiting for the trial...then we should be leaning towards what Ive been saying all along, that she was "outed".
Then why wasn't Libby charged with that? Or was he? I haven't seen the full list of charges, but all I've heard is lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

[Flasch186]

he used an analogy that an umpre trying to see the playhad sand thrownin his eyes...which i interpretted to mean that he got distracted when trying to clear through the muddied waters that Libby and the journalists stirred up.....which I why i think he insinuated that he wasnt done with the investigation and that more charges could be coming.

[Arles]

**Cough** **Cough**

Arles steps to the podium

"Due to the fact that Mr. Fitzgerald announced the indictments, and Mr. Libby has not come out to admit that he did anything wrong...no matter the outcome of the investigation or subsequent trial, Libby and the administration will be shown as 'cleared' in the Arles Quarterly. As you all know, unless the criminal admits to their wrongdoing you cannot trust what you hear, see, or read. Its all too skewed by politics to be true unless you hear it from the horse's mouth. Thank you."
Even when I am not posting in a political thread I am still a participant. I feel like Al in the Godfather "[e]very time I try to get out, they keep pulling me back in!"

In all seriousness (and without reading to this point), it seems Libby has forgotten the Cardinal rule in politics - never lie during the investigation. Atleast Rove had enough sense to go back to the Grand Jury and "clear up" his comments before he could be indicted. Either way, I won't shed a tear if Libby goes down. He should have been smarter than that given what he witnessed with Clinton.

[Flasch186]

Even when I am not posting in a political thread I am still a participant. I feel like Al in the Godfather "[e]very time I try to get out, they keep pulling me back in!"

In all seriousness (and without reading to this point), it seems Libby has forgotten the Cardinal rule in politics - never lie during the investigation. Atleast Rove had enough sense to go back to the Grand Jury and "clear up" his comments before he could be indicted. Either way, I won't shed a tear if Libby goes down. He should have been smarter than that given what he witnessed with Clinton.

i still love ya....glad to see you somewhat admit that Rove did something immoral by putting quotes around "clear up".

[Arles]

Essentially - Rove just had a better attorney. Once they went through his first three Grand Jury comments - they realized he had some "inaccurate statements" (again quoted for effect ;) ) regarding Cooper. So, his attornies sent him in a fourth time to clear up the loose ends and basically ensure he would not be indicted for lying or misleading prosecuters. Libby's attny should have done the same thing had he been smart.

[JW]

Essentially - Rove just had a better attorney. Once they went through his first three Grand Jury comments - they realized he had some "inaccurate statements" (again quoted for effect ;) ) regarding Cooper. So, his attornies sent him in a fourth time to clear up the loose ends and basically ensure he would not be indicted for lying or misleading prosecuters. Libby's attny should have done the same thing had he been smart.

My guess is that Rove not only had better attorneys but a better position from the start. You never know exactly what is going on, but based on what I've read, Libby seems to be in real trouble (not just the charges, but charges that may well lead to a conviction). Rove seemed to have been slicker about this all the way through, not just at the end. I am thinking Libby put his foot too far into his mouth for his attorney to extract it. I said all along we had to wait and see what developed, and that this would take some twists and turns.

A couple of things that apparently aren't going to happen:

1. The left won't get to see Rove burned at the stake on the Capitol steps. He's a bad guy, but he wasn't going to go down for this. Which is really too bad in som respects, because, as I've said, Rove is just a bad guy.

2. They won't get to see Cheney resign and then commit ritual suicide, which seems (at least the first option) to be the new fantasy that has some on the left foaming at the mouth.

And, btw, I would also like to know the whole story about Miller's sourceS, and some other details. There is still a lot untold here.

[GrantDawg]

My guess....Libby pleads and never goes to trial. He gets a nice pardon as Presidential thank you on the last day Bush is in office.

[sterlingice]

It's still fairly clear this is the guy thrown under the bus. Nothing's going to stick to Rove, Cheney, or anyone else. So, congrats, after all this, it's going to be "Scooter" Libby taken down for outing a CIA agent that a lot of others were in on. *sigh* And Grantdawg hit the nail right on the head as he won't even actually get taken down.

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

In all seriousness (and without reading to this point), it seems Libby has forgotten the Cardinal rule in politics - never lie during the investigation.
The thing is, if he hadn't of lied in the first place, he would be going away for a longer time for a more serious penalty.

[yabanci]

The thing is, if he hadn't of lied in the first place, he would be going away for a longer time for a more serious penalty.

He and others. He took one for the team.

[Flasch186]

I think it is too early to say its over. There is one source so high up that they will only call him by a letter (A). When Fitzgerals said that he had been 'sidetracked' by getting "sand thrown in his eyes" that leads me to believe that he now thinks he can get back on track to what he was mandated to look at in the first place.

[JW]

I think it is too early to say its over. There is one source so high up that they will only call him by a letter (A). When Fitzgerals said that he had been 'sidetracked' by getting "sand thrown in his eyes" that leads me to believe that he now thinks he can get back on track to what he was mandated to look at in the first place.

Fitzgerald was mad about the lies. The original 'crime' was no crime. Plame had already been outed in so many ways by so many people that it is almost funny. And her hubby's feigned indignation is humorous to watch. But I am sure the left would love to have such an investigation simmering for the rest of Bush's term.

Let's get to the real bottom of this. Let's get all Miller's sources revealed, for example. She still has not had to reveal any of her sources except Libby.

[Flasch186]

Fitzgerald was mad about the lies. The original 'crime' was no crime. Plame had already been outed in so many ways by so many people that it is almost funny.


Fitzgerald vehemently disagreed with this assertion during his press conference. He emphaticly stated and repeated that this was NOT true and that her identity was not exposed until the Novak piece. I'll believe him, considering the right and the left both say he has been professional and more importantly impartial. (HOWEVER, the law, as it is written, that applies to this, is very difficult to prove as was debated earlier in this thread.)

This is also outlined in his statement that prior to July 14th, her status was "classified" and "not common knowledge outside the intelligence community".

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/10/28/statement.pdf

[flere-imsaho]

It's intriguing, because on one hand Fitzgerald definitely thinks something was criminally wrong with what happened. If you listened to the press conference, two things would have stood out. One, he repeatedly said the leaking of the name was "critically damaging." Two, he said that the journalists were "eyewitnesses to a crime".

On the other hand, though, he hasn't brought those charges against Libby, instead nailing him for lying to the FBI and in his testimony to the grand jury.

So it seems to me that it's one of two things:

1. Fitzgerald decided the leak=crime case would be too hard to prosecute (not enough evidence, not enough clarity in the law, etc...)

or

2. That comes later.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think it is too early to say its over. There is one source so high up that they will only call him by a letter (A). When Fitzgerals said that he had been 'sidetracked' by getting "sand thrown in his eyes" that leads me to believe that he now thinks he can get back on track to what he was mandated to look at in the first place.
Official A is Rove, which isn't really a surprise.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_CIA_Leak_Official_A.html

[MrBigglesworth]

Fitzgerald was mad about the lies. The original 'crime' was no crime. Plame had already been outed in so many ways by so many people that it is almost funny. And her hubby's feigned indignation is humorous to watch. But I am sure the left would love to have such an investigation simmering for the rest of Bush's term.

Let's get to the real bottom of this. Let's get all Miller's sources revealed, for example. She still has not had to reveal any of her sources except Libby.
Like Flasch said, it's more than probable that a crime was committed, but most of the evidence is circumstancial and not enough to go to court with. It's fact that they outted her for political gain, what is murky is if they knew she was undercover. According to the indictment:

On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
Libby and Cheney both worked in intelligence for a long, long time. They know that the Counterproliferation Division is the operations part of CIA and not the analytical side of CIA.

Fitzgerald may have been able to get proof beyond a reasonable doubt if Libby et al had actually cooperated, but that's why he is currently facing perjury and obstruction of justice charges, isn't it?

[Glengoyne]

During Fitzgerald's press conference he made it clear, almost going overboard, that not only was her identity classified but that it was also NOT widely known who she worked for. Id say, if were taking his word with some weight, instead of waiting for the trial...then we should be leaning towards what Ive been saying all along, that she was "outed".
I hadn't heard/seen/read Fitzgerald's statement. Well still haven't, I've apparently become a news turtle lately...my wife hates it, and I've been too busy to keep up at work. I'm still not sure there is anything to the notion that the admin outted her in retribution. It does seem entirely possible that someone there did consciously reveal her name and involvement as some sort of damage control regarding her husband's revealations to the media. If that is what happened, then they should really go down for it. Whoever it was.

[flere-imsaho]

It does seem entirely possible that someone there did consciously reveal her name and involvement as some sort of damage control regarding her husband's revealations to the media. If that is what happened, then they should really go down for it. Whoever it was.

I believe this is one of the points Fitzgerald makes.

[flere-imsaho]

Just when it couldn't get any more convoluted, reporter Bob Woodward enters the fray with news that he got Plame's name from the Administration at least a month before Libby "leaked" it:

An unnamed Bush administration official told the Washington Post's Bob Woodward the identity of a CIA analyst almost a month before it was publicly revealed, the reporter said in a statement published Wednesday.

Woodward said his source was not I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff who was indicted in the CIA leak investigation last month.

Libby's lawyer said Woodward's disclosures undermine the case against his client, the only person indicted so far in an investigation led by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Libby was indicted October 28 on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements. At that time, Fitzgerald said he was keeping the investigation open but that "the substantial bulk of the work" had concluded.

Woodward, an assistant managing editor at the Post, said he provided a sworn deposition to Fitzgerald on Monday about conversations with three administration officials after being contacted by the prosecutor on November 3, almost a week after Libby was indicted.

In a first-person statement published by the Post, Woodward made no mention of having spoken to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who has also been at the heart of the investigation. (Woodward's statement)

Still, Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove's legal team, said, "Rove did not have any discussions with Woodward on this matter."

The CIA asked for the investigation after Plame's identity was published by syndicated columnist by Robert Novak in July 2003. Plame is the wife of career diplomat Joseph Wilson, who had publicly challenged the Bush administration on a key element in its case for war against Iraq.

Woodward's disclosure raises questions regarding when Plame's name was first leaked to the press.

Because Libby is charged not with leaking Plame's name but with lying about his conversations with three other journalists -- NBC's Tim Russert, Time's Matt Cooper and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller -- the relevance of Woodward's testimony on Libby's case is uncertain.

However, Libby's lawyer, Ted Wells, said in a statement that Woodward's disclosure contradicts Fitzgerald's statement that Libby was the first government official to discuss Plame's identity.

"Hopefully, as more information is obtained from reporters like Bob Woodward, the real facts will come out," Wells said.

Woodward said he was contacted to testify after his source went to Fitzgerald to discuss his contact with Woodward related to the leak investigation.

In his statement, Woodward did not disclose the name of his source, citing the official's refusal to waive that aspect of their confidentiality pact. All three sources cleared the Pulitzer Prize-winner to testify, he said.

"It was the first time in 35 years as a reporter that I have been asked to provide information to a grand jury," Woodward said.

Woodward: 'I hunkered down'
Woodward did not disclose his involvement in the case to the Post's executive editor, Leonard Downie Jr., until late last month because he feared being subpoenaed by Fitzgerald, according to Washington Post media reporter and CNN contributor Howard Kurtz.

"I explained in detail that I was trying to protect my sources. That's job No. 1 in a case like this," Woodward told the paper. "I hunkered down. I'm in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn't want to do anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed."

In an interview with CNN, Downie said Woodward had apologized to him for withholding information. (CNN Access)

Downie said Woodward should have disclosed the conversation with him at the time, but "we didn't have something we can report at that time."

"It's a conversation we should have had so that we can make a decision together," Downie said.

Downie said he was not angry at Woodward and said his reporter's pledge of confidentiality was "sacrosanct."

"He made a mistake and he apologized for it," Downie said. "We're going to move ahead now."

Miller resigned from the Times last week after coming under criticism from others at the paper, but Downie said the two cases are not "analogous."

Earlier this year, Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify in the case, before finally agreeing with Libby on a confidentiality waiver.

Testimony surrounds book research
In his deposition, Woodward said an administration official told him during a mid-June interview that Plame worked at the CIA's weapons of mass destruction program as an analyst. The interview was conducted as part of Woodward's research for his 2004 book on the run-up to the Iraq war, "Plan of Attack."

Woodward said he testified that the official's reference to Plame, referred to as "Joe Wilson's wife," was "casual and offhand, and that it did not appear to me to be either classified or sensitive." Woodward said he believed that CIA analysts usually were not undercover.

Woodward said he told Walter Pincus, a fellow Post reporter, of the conversation, but Pincus does not remember the conversation, Woodward's statement said. Woodward said he did not discuss the conversation with other government officials.

On June 20, 2003, Woodward interviewed a second Bush administration official -- whom Downie identified as White House Chief of Staff Andy Card -- in which references to "Joe Wilson's wife" were part of a prepared list of questions.

Woodward said his notes and tape recordings of the conservation suggest that Plame's identity did not come up.

Woodward said he had a phone conversation with Libby on June 23, 2003, regarding an 18-page questionnaire that he intended to give to Cheney. The questionnaire included questions about "Joe Wilson's wife," but Woodward does not recall discussing Plame with Libby during that call.

That was the day that Fitzgerald said Libby discussed Wilson's wife with Miller, his first contact with the press on the matter.

Woodward also does not remember discussing Plame with Libby during a June 27 interview.

Woodward asked Libby about the accusations that Iraq attempted to obtain "yellowcake," a source of nuclear material, from Niger, a charge Wilson traveled to Africa to investigate in 2002.

Administration accused of smear campaign
The identity of Wilson's wife was revealed by Novak eight days after Wilson disputed the administration's case in a New York Times opinion piece. Wilson has accused the Bush administration of retaliating against his criticism by leaking his wife's identity to discredit him.

Woodward said it was possible that he could have asked Libby about Wilson's wife, according to his statement, but no references to her appear in his interview notes. References to Plame would have appeared in his notes if she had been discussed, Woodward said.

Woodward's description of his conversations with Libby discredits the charge that Libby was involved in a "scheme" to discredit Wilson, said Wells, Libby's lawyer.

Woodward became famous for his reporting, along with Carl Bernstein, of the Watergate scandal during the the 1970s. Woodward kept secret the identity of his key source, known as "Deep Throat," for more than three decades. (Full story)

Woodward was a guest on CNN's "Larry King Live" the night before Libby's indictment was announced, making no mention of his own involvement.

He said the disclosure of Plame's identity had caused "quite minimal damage" at the CIA and called Fitzgerald "a junkyard dog prosecutor."

"He goes everywhere and asks every question," Woodward said.


So, will Woodward testify for Fitzgerald, or will he too go to jail?

Link to above story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/16/woodward.leak/index.html)

[GrantDawg]

Just when it couldn't get any more convoluted, reporter Bob Woodward enters the fray with news that he got Plame's name from the Administration at least a month before Libby "leaked" it:



So, will Woodward testify for Fitzgerald, or will he too go to jail?

Link to above story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/16/woodward.leak/index.html)

Is there a possibility that Woodward is lying to get some attention?

[Flasch186]

Is there a possibility that Woodward is lying to get some attention?

I wondered this too, but I guess he'll be forced to testify or sit in Jail since precedence has already been set. Then we'll find out.

Now it makes Libby look even stupider since had he not committed all these smaller crimes during the investigation, today, he'd be smiling like a Cheshire Cat.

"It aint the crime that gets you....its the cover-up."

[moriarty]

Is there a possibility that Woodward is lying to get some attention?

No offense, but Bob Woodward doesn't need attention. He's a legendary reporter who gets top access to politicians. He's also a best selling author to boot, so I'm not sure how much attention someone needs.

I don't know him obviously, but by reputation he is apparently very accurate (in terms of reporting) and trustworth FWIW.

[GrantDawg]

No offense, but Bob Woodward doesn't need attention. He's a legendary reporter who gets top access to politicians. He's also a best selling author to boot, so I'm not sure how much attention someone needs.

I don't know him obviously, but by reputation he is apparently very accurate (in terms of reporting) and trustworth FWIW.
From the people who know him, he is also an attention whore. That's pretty well known. I know I've heard on more than one occasion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

From the people who know him, he is also an attention whore. That's pretty well known.

True, but in this case, I'm having a tough time picturing him telling this particular lie, if only for the simple matter that it appears to help Libby. I mean, Woodward ain't exactly Bill O'Reilly with regard to his politics.

[MrBigglesworth]

True, but in this case, I'm having a tough time picturing him telling this particular lie, if only for the simple matter that it appears to help Libby. I mean, Woodward ain't exactly Bill O'Reilly with regard to his politics.
Woodward is currenly writing his third Bush book. The first two were pretty, not O'Reilly-esque, but Hannity-esque. What hurts his credibility more is that he has been a vocal opponent of the investigation, and the only person that can confirmed or denied his story so far, Walter Pincus, has denied it.

True or not, it doesn't effect the charges against Libby. Fitzgerald may not have a clear picture of what happened, but Libby was indicted because he was actively trying to keep Fitzgerald from having a clear picture of what happened. But who is this other administration official now??

[moriarty]

From the people who know him, he is also an attention whore. That's pretty well known. I know I've heard on more than one occasion.

Possibly, but lying to get attention doesn't seem to fit his MO. At least AFAIK.

[MrBigglesworth]

This generation's 18.5 minute gap?
Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby's request, said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/387392p-328749c.html

Seriously, is there anyone that in their heart doesn't know that the administration knew they were guilty from the outset?

[sterlingice]

*sigh*

I can't even keep track of what scandal we're on nowadays.

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

Word on the street is that Karl Rove was indicted on Friday on charges of perjury and lying to investigators, with Fitzgerald spending 15 hours at the offices of his lawyer, possibly working on a plea. Information has yet to be verified.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml

[SirFozzie]

let's wait and see// I'll believe it when I see it.

But yeah, Maybe we should limit Prez's to one four year term, it seems like there's so much resentment on the other side of the political fence (both ways, first with Clinton now with Bush), that the 2nd term gets blown away

[Easy Mac]

I'm sure the NSA will say they don't have clearance to indict Rove.

[MrBigglesworth]

let's wait and see// I'll believe it when I see it.

But yeah, Maybe we should limit Prez's to one four year term, it seems like there's so much resentment on the other side of the political fence (both ways, first with Clinton now with Bush), that the 2nd term gets blown away
I don't think you can really equate the two. Clinton was hampered by a GOP congress that was investigating every little thing regardless of merit and/or effect on the country. Throughout all of that, Clinton had an impressive approval rating of over 60% in the second term. Bush doesn't have to deal with any of those investigations. In fact, he has (had?) a congress ready to rubber stamp anything he gave them. Bush is being brought down by his own failed policies, not from the resentment of the other side. It's a different dynamic.

Also, a lot of it could be contributed to the lame duck effect. Everyone is positioning themselves for their own presidential bid. If you are a lame duck in your first term, the gridlock could occur in the first term instead of the second.

[Flasch186]

New court filing focuses on Cheney
Prosecutor: Cheney made handwritten references to Plame

Saturday, May 13, 2006; Posted: 9:03 p.m. EDT (01:03 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a new court filing, the prosecutor in the CIA leak case revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney made handwritten references to CIA officer Valerie Plame -- albeit not by name -- before her identity was publicly exposed.

The new court filing is the second in little more than a month by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald mentioning Cheney as being closely focused with his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, on Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, who is married to Plame.

With the two court filings, Fitzgerald has pointed to an important role for the vice president in the weeks leading up to the leaking of Plame's identity.

In the latest court filing late Friday, Fitzgerald said he intends to introduce at Libby's trial in January a copy of Wilson's op-ed article in The New York Times "bearing handwritten notations by the vice president." The article was published on July 6, 2003, eight days before Plame's identity was exposed by conservative columnist Bob Novak.

The notations "support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op Ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president and the defendant -- his chief of staff -- on Mr. Wilson, on the assertions made in the article and on responding to those assertions."

The article containing Cheney's notes "reflects the contemporaneous reaction of the vice president to Mr. Wilson's Op Ed article," the prosecutor said. "This is relevant to establishing some of the facts that were viewed as important by the defendant's immediate superior, including whether Mr. Wilson's wife had 'sent him on a junket,'" the filing states.

The reference is to the fact that the CIA sent Wilson on a trip to Africa in 2002 to check out a report that Iraq had made attempts to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger.

Wilson concluded that it was highly doubtful an agreement to purchase uranium had been made.

The Bush administration used the intelligence on supposed efforts by Iraq to acquire uranium from Africa to bolster its case for going to war.

After the invasion, with the Bush White House under pressure because no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, Wilson wrote the op ed piece for The Times. In it, he accused the Bush administration of exaggerating prewar intelligence to exaggerate an Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

Defending the administration against Wilson's accusations, Libby and presidential adviser Karl Rove promoted the idea that Wilson's wife, Plame, had sent him on the trip to Africa. Administration critics have said such a move was an attempt to undercut Wilson's credibility.

The prosecution's court papers also stated that Cheney told Libby around June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, a month before her identity was outed.

[sterlingice]

At least they've stopped referring to him as "Scooter" in this latest article

SI

[Vinatieri for Prez]

let's wait and see// I'll believe it when I see it.

But yeah, Maybe we should limit Prez's to one four year term, it seems like there's so much resentment on the other side of the political fence (both ways, first with Clinton now with Bush), that the 2nd term gets blown away

Yeah, I'll wait to see on this as well. If he really did it, I want to see him charged. But I am definitely NOT believing this story until I hear Fitgergald himself saying it.

[flere-imsaho]

Fitzgerald better watch out, or Cheney might shoot him in the face.

[NoMyths]

Link: Lawyer: Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/13/rove.cia/index.html)

Full Text:
Lawyer: Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House senior adviser Karl Rove has been told by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald that he will not be charged in the CIA leak case, according to Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said in a written statement Tuesday. "We believe that the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

A grand jury has heard testimony from Rove in five appearances, most recently April 26.

After that appearance, Luskin issued a statement saying, "In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation."

At issue in the case has been how covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was disclosed to the media.

On Monday, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former aide to Vice President Cheney, appeared in court to update a judge on preparations for his trial in the case.

Libby, who resigned in October as chief of staff to Cheney, is fighting charges he lied to investigators and a grand jury about his knowledge of Plame.

Plame's husband, U.S. diplomat Joe Wilson, had openly challenged part of the Bush administration's pre-war rationale for waging war on Iraq. But Libby's defense counsel has asserted there was no sinister effort to punish the Wilsons by revealing the identity of his wife to several reporters.

[Flasch186]

so he is innocent of this. Well, Libby got the info from somewhere....who could it have been? Who told him to "get the message out."? I guess we're waiting to find out now. Good for Karl.

[JW]

Drudge is having fun with the story this morning. Dean's reaction. The lack of reaction from the bloggers and web sites that were calling for Rove's head on a stake. I imagine the disappointment on the left is considerable.

And of course the real story of how Plame was 'outed', if that word can even be used at all in relation to her status, has not really come out. One source is her husband.

[st.cronin]

so he is innocent of this. Well, Libby got the info from somewhere....who could it have been? Who told him to "get the message out."? I guess we're waiting to find out now. Good for Karl.

Is that sarcasm?

[Flasch186]

Is that sarcasm?

no, if he isnt indicted and proven guilty...then he is innocent. Like I said, doesnt mean that they or people dont do stuff that is wrong even if theyre not proven guilt of a crime, but in this case he is by definition, as of now, "innocent." I emant the second part too, about who guided Libby? Cheney? anyways, I dont like Rove but as of now, he is innocent, maybe not free of doing something wrong but "innocent".

[MrBigglesworth]

Drudge is having fun with the story this morning. Dean's reaction. The lack of reaction from the bloggers and web sites that were calling for Rove's head on a stake. I imagine the disappointment on the left is considerable.

And of course the real story of how Plame was 'outed', if that word can even be used at all in relation to her status, has not really come out. One source is her husband.
Strange times where people are declaring it a victory because they weren't sent to jail by their own Justice Department.

Anyway, all the info we have so far is from the lawyer, so it's tough to know exactly what is going on. There were reports in the last couple of weeks that Rove had turned and was cooperating, so who knows.

[JW]

Strange times where people are declaring it a victory because they weren't sent to jail by their own Justice Department.

Anyway, all the info we have so far is from the lawyer, so it's tough to know exactly what is going on. There were reports in the last couple of weeks that Rove had turned and was cooperating, so who knows.

Victory? Who's declaring victory? Not me. I've said several times that I have a low opinion of Rove and think he has hurt the country. But it seemed pretty clear from the start that Rove was not the source, and all the foaming-at-the-mouth hatred from the left wasn't going to change that.

Of course the left is not better than the right in the "It is true because I want it to be true" game.

And I'll just repeat what I've said. Let's really, really get to the bottom of this. Let's find out who the original source really was. But I think even that will be disappointing to the left because the likely source was probably Joe Wilson, if there was an original source, because technically there was probably no crime committed at all in the supposed 'outing', and because the supposed secret about Valerie Plame's supposed covert status was an open secret all along.

This has been one of the great media-created stories of the century thusfar.

[MrBigglesworth]

Victory? Who's declaring victory? Not me. I've said several times that I have a low opinion of Rove and think he has hurt the country.
I was talking about the sources that you were citing, Drudge et al.

But it seemed pretty clear from the start that Rove was not the source, and all the foaming-at-the-mouth hatred from the left wasn't going to change that...

And I'll just repeat what I've said. Let's really, really get to the bottom of this. Let's find out who the original source really was. But I think even that will be disappointing to the left because the likely source was probably Joe Wilson, if there was an original source, because technically there was probably no crime committed at all in the supposed 'outing', and because the supposed secret about Valerie Plame's supposed covert status was an open secret all along.

This has been one of the great media-created stories of the century thusfar.
Joe Wilson outed his wife to discredit himself and end her career? That's more credible than the biggest dirty trickster of our time doing something that is his MO? I don't follow your logic here.

[JW]

I was talking about the sources that you were citing, Drudge et al.


Joe Wilson outed his wife to discredit himself and end her career? That's more credible than the biggest dirty trickster of our time doing something that is his MO? I don't follow your logic here.

First you have to understand that 'outed' should be used very loosely here, since there was likely no technical violation of the law based on her status, and since her status seemed to be common knowledge among a lot of DC insiders and media. This is imho a media-created controversy.

Second, one theory is that Wilson was the original source in talking to one or more reporters not of course for the purpose of discrediting his wife but for the purpose of furthering his own career and anti-administration agenda. I could give you some citations on this, but it is just a theory and you likely would not believe it, so it is not worth the trouble. I may have even cited it in this thread at some point, but it is not worth going back to it. I do recall that a National Review columnist laid the case out in detail. If you read enough about Wilson, he is pretty low guy, too, just like Rove, and not simply the husband coming to the aid of his wife.

Back to Rove, the failure of the left here was in its over-eagerness to attack Rove. They took a bad case to heart.

[MrBigglesworth]

First you have to understand that 'outed' should be used very loosely here, since there was likely no technical violation of the law based on her status, and since her status seemed to be common knowledge among a lot of DC insiders and media. This is imho a media-created controversy.

Second, one theory is that Wilson was the original source in talking to one or more reporters not of course for the purpose of discrediting his wife but for the purpose of furthering his own career and anti-administration agenda. I could give you some citations on this, but it is just a theory and you likely would not believe it, so it is not worth the trouble. I may have even cited it in this thread at some point, but it is not worth going back to it. I do recall that a National Review columnist laid the case out in detail. If you read enough about Wilson, he is pretty low guy, too, just like Rove, and not simply the husband coming to the aid of his wife.

Back to Rove, the failure of the left here was in its over-eagerness to attack Rove. They took a bad case to heart.
If you ignore reality, all kinds of things are possible I guess. Not an outing? We've had a special investigator leading an investigation into it for over a year. Wilson was the original source? Libby was indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury...to protect Wilson? Furthermore, Newsweek has published emails by Matt Cooper that say that Rove told him about Wilson's wife (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/15/dean.rove/index.html). Furthermore even more, Judith Miller has TESTIFIED that her source was Libby. The NY Times reported that notes in the hands of federal prosecutors say that Libby heard from Cheney, a month before the Novak column.

But the RNC says that Wilson is a bad guy, and it's not like them to go after someone's character, so he has to be the guilty one here. I'd love to see this piece of NR work that explains this all away and blames it on Wilson. Let me guess, Mark Levin?

[Glengoyne]

There are some things about this whole thing that I've never really been comfortable with the answers to. The first of which is Just how covert was Valerie Plame? I'm not certain if this is just the standard "I can't say I work at the CIA, not because I'm an honest to goodness covert spy, but just because I work at the CIA, and policy requires that I keep up this charade." If that is the case, I can certainly believe that many people in the DC community would actually know of her actual status. I think this is a possibility because it makes sense to me. In response to the question of "Why have an investigation if she wasn't really covert?" I believe that the CIA takes this kind of thing very seriously, and requests investigations whenever identities are made public. I've heard both that her employment was a open secret and that she was an actual covert spy that no one knew about. I haven't been definitively convinced of either.

I've also read enough about this to know that Joe Wilson is more than a little bit of an opportunist. Enough so that I find it hard to buy him as an innocent protector of his wife.

I'm also not sure that the revelation of Plame as a CIA employee was done in retaliation for Wilson's anti administration comments. It seems quite reasonable that it was mentioned not to "out" Plame, but to paint a more complete picture or accounting of Wilson's role. I think this motive is more likely, than retribution.

[MrBigglesworth]

There are some things about this whole thing that I've never really been comfortable with the answers to. The first of which is Just how covert was Valerie Plame?
Knight-Ridder reported in October of 2003:
Compounding the damage, the front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, the name of which has been reported previously, apparently also was used by other CIA officers whose work now could be at risk, according to Vince Cannistraro, former CIA chief of counterterrorism operations and analysis. Now, Plame's career as a covert operations officer in the CIA's Directorate of Operations is over. Those she dealt with -- on business or not -- may be in danger. The directorate is conducting an extensive damage assessment.
At the October 2005 Fitzgerald press conference:
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.
That should put to rest the question about whether or not she was covert.

I'm also not sure that the revelation of Plame as a CIA employee was done in retaliation for Wilson's anti administration comments. It seems quite reasonable that it was mentioned not to "out" Plame, but to paint a more complete picture or accounting of Wilson's role. I think this motive is more likely, than retribution.
This might be possible, I'm not really sure because I can't follow the logic. How does it clarify Joe Wilson's role by saying that his wife is an undercover CIA operative?

[JW]

If you ignore reality, all kinds of things are possible I guess. Not an outing? We've had a special investigator leading an investigation into it for over a year. Wilson was the original source? Libby was indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury...to protect Wilson? Furthermore, Newsweek has published emails by Matt Cooper that say that Rove told him about Wilson's wife (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/15/dean.rove/index.html). Furthermore even more, Judith Miller has TESTIFIED that her source was Libby. The NY Times reported that notes in the hands of federal prosecutors say that Libby heard from Cheney, a month before the Novak column.

But the RNC says that Wilson is a bad guy, and it's not like them to go after someone's character, so he has to be the guilty one here. I'd love to see this piece of NR work that explains this all away and blames it on Wilson. Let me guess, Mark Levin?

If I ignore reality, I might believe that Valerie Plame was a real covert agent doing real 007 spy things. In the real world, however, that just isn't so. Not even Fitzgerald is ready to defend the alternate reality that Plame was a genuine covert operative.

Here are a few links on the subject of Plame and Wilson etc.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/051106.html

Perhaps the key moment in the descent happened last February in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton. Fitzgerald was there, along with the Libby defense team.

Libby’s lawyers had asked Fitzgerald to produce evidence that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent at the CIA. They had also asked for an assessment of the damage, if any, caused by the exposure of her identity.

In papers filed with the court, Fitzgerald refused both requests. Now, in the courtroom, Judge Walton wanted to hear Fitzgerald’s reasons.

“Does the government intend to introduce any evidence that would relate to either damage or potential damage that the alleged revelations by Mr. Libby caused, or do you intend to introduce any evidence related to Ms. Wilson’s status and whether it was classified or she was in a covert status or anything of that nature?” Walton asked.

“We don’t intend to offer any proof of actual damage,” Fitzgerald said. “We’re not going to get into whether that would occur or not. It’s not part of the perjury statute.”

It was an astonishing statement, in the context of what Fitzgerald has said in the past.

Go back to the news conference he held last October in which he announced the Libby indictment. The case was very serious, Fitzgerald said, as he launched into the famous metaphor in which he compared the CIA-leak case to a baseball game in which the pitcher threw a fastball, hit the batter and “really, really hurt him.”

This case is kind of like that, Fitzgerald said, only “it’s a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn’t to one person. It wasn’t just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.”

There was no way one could listen to that and escape the conclusion that Fitzgerald was claiming the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson’s identity did serious damage. But that was then. Now Fitzgerald doesn’t want to talk about it.

But what about Mrs. Wilson’s job status? When that issue came up, the conversation went truly off track.

Wells was again pressing the judge to force Fitzgerald to turn over evidence of the damage done. The reason he needed it, Wells said, is that Fitzgerald will likely — and understandably — tell the jurors that the case began with the outing of a CIA agent.

“What [the jurors] are hearing is that, as Mr. Fitzgerald said in his press conference, Mr. Libby outed a CIA agent, and they are going to be sitting in the box thinking 007’s identity has been disclosed and that my client is a terrible person,” Wells said. “It’s going to be like we have turned over the crown jewels because we outed a classified CIA agent.”

The judge then turned to Fitzgerald. What did he have to say?

“We are trying a perjury case,” Fitzgerald said. “If she turned out to be a postal driver mistaken for a CIA employee, it’s not a defense if you lie in a grand jury under oath about what you said.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp

The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak’s column appeared. It carried this lead: “Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security — and break the law — in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?”

Since Novak did not report that Plame was “working covertly” how did Corn know that’s what she had been doing?

Corn does not tell his readers and he has responded to a query from me only by pointing out that he was asking a question, not making a “statement of fact.” But in the article, he asserts that Novak “outed” Plame “as an undercover CIA officer.” Again, Novak did not do that. Rather, it is Corn who is, apparently for the first time, “outing” Plame’s “undercover” status.

Corn follows that assertion with a quote from Wilson saying, “I will not answer questions about my wife.” Any reporter worth his salt would immediately wonder: Did Wilson indeed answer Corn’s questions about his wife — after Corn agreed not to quote his answers but to use them only on background? Read the rest of Corn’s piece and it’s difficult to believe anything else. Corn names no other sources for the information he provides — and he provides much more information than Novak revealed.

Corn also claims that Wilson “will not confirm nor deny that his wife …works for the CIA.” Corn adds: “But let’s assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson …”

On what basis could Corn “assume” that Plame was not only working covertly but was actually a “top-secret” operative? And where did Corn get the idea that Plame had been “outed” in order to punish Wilson? That is not suggested by anything in the Novak column which, as I noted, is sympathetic to Wilson and Plame.

The likely answer: The allegation that someone in the administration leaked to Novak as a way to punish Wilson was made by Wilson — to Corn. But Corn, rather than quote Wilson, puts the idea forward as his own.



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/8/125510.shtml?s=ic

In a development that got no media play over the weekend, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's defense lawyer announced on Friday that he has located five witnesses who will testify that Joe Wilson outed his wife Valerie Plame as a CIA employee before Robert Novak did so in his July 2003 column.

According to the NationalReviewOnline's Byron York, Libby's lawyer Ted Wells told the court that his witnesses "will say under oath that Mr. Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA."

Once again, I hope we do get to the bottom of this. I hope Fitzgerald, somewhere along the line, does clarify whether or not a law was broken in the possible outing of Valerie Plame. And then I hope he does show exactly who did it. But at this point I doubt that will ever happen.

This messy little affair involving several small men -- including both Joe Wilson and Karl Rove -- should just be allowed to die. The left has lost its chance to burn Rove at the stake.

[MrBigglesworth]

If I ignore reality, I might believe that Valerie Plame was a real covert agent doing real 007 spy things. In the real world, however, that just isn't so. Not even Fitzgerald is ready to defend the alternate reality that Plame was a genuine covert operative.
I posted a quote from Fitzgerald that said that she was outed. He spent about a year interviewing everyone involved: Libby, Rove, Plame, Wilson, Plame's neighbors, everyone, and he said that she was outed. On the other hand, you have Byron York, conservative pundit not known to have interviewed a single relevant person, saying she wasn't because Fitzgerald wouldn't introduce evidence to that fact in a trial that has nothing to do with it. You find the latter at least as credible. Why?

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp

The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak’s column appeared. It carried this lead: “Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security — and break the law — in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?”

Since Novak did not report that Plame was “working covertly” how did Corn know that’s what she had been doing?
Talk about a red herring. What does it matter if Corn read it from Novak or got it from outside sources? You think Novak could put that she was a CIA agent but nobody would ever figure out that she was covert if Corn didn't say something? Furthermore, Novak called her an 'operative', wording which makes her part of the resource gathering arm of the CIA and not the analyzation arm.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/8/125510.shtml?s=ic

[B]In a development that got no media play over the weekend, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's defense lawyer announced on Friday that he has located five witnesses who will testify that Joe Wilson outed his wife Valerie Plame as a CIA employee before Robert Novak did so in his July 2003 column.

According to the NationalReviewOnline's Byron York, Libby's lawyer Ted Wells told the court that his witnesses "will say under oath that Mr. Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA."
I'd love to hear these sources and what they have to say, but we probably will never hear from them because it's probably not going to be in court because it isn't relevant to the case. Fitzgerald more than likely already talked to them, and didn't find them credible, and I'd take his opinion over the lawyer for the accused.

Byron York and Cliff May. I was very close with my Mark Levin guess.

Once again, I hope we do get to the bottom of this. I hope Fitzgerald, somewhere along the line, does clarify whether or not a law was broken in the possible outing of Valerie Plame. And then I hope he does show exactly who did it. But at this point I doubt that will ever happen.
I doubt it too, because the administration is stonewalling and perjuring themselves. To protect Joe Wilson, right?

[JW]

You should just give it up, Mr. B. It is over, and there will be no prosecution for 'outing' Plame. Rove is safe. I bet Libby will get off in the end, too, but perhaps not. I am hoping that the Libby case will help shed new light on what actually happened.

Interestingly, I heard Jim Warren of the Chicago Tribune on Hannity and Colmes tonight discussing the issue. He is no fan of the Bush administration. He said tonight that he thought Rove -- a master of the smear -- and company were definitely playing hardball and out to smear Wilson. But he said that in the end he believes that no underlying crime was committed.

I think Fitzgerald has come to the same conclusion, or else he has decided that it is such a stretch in this particular case that he would not be able to get a conviction. Still, I would like to know what he believes actually happened.

[MrBigglesworth]

But he said that in the end he believes that no underlying crime was committed.
We'll probably never know, because the Bush administration is stonewalling and perjuring themselves. But they did nothing wrong, they just enjoy stonewalling and perjury. Right?

[MrBigglesworth]

I think Fitzgerald has come to the same conclusion, or else he has decided that it is such a stretch in this particular case that he would not be able to get a conviction. Still, I would like to know what he believes actually happened.
Dola, I think it's more likely that based on Luskin's language, that Rove cut a deal.

[Glengoyne]

...

This might be possible, I'm not really sure because I can't follow the logic. How does it clarify Joe Wilson's role by saying that his wife is an undercover CIA operative?

Well the point the admin would be making is that this guy got sent to Africa to do this job because his wife was one of the people doing the sending. The other part of the story they wanted put out there, was that Wilson's report wasn't really considered definitive by those who debriefed him. They essentially said "thanks for the info, but it really isn't all that meaningful". It simply wasn't like this guy who was saying "They know it was false because I told them so" had actually delivered any meaningful evidence. The report had been discredited for reasons not remotely related to his report.

[Glengoyne]

On the Fitzgerald thing. I'm considering it to be the company line. The CIA considers it a serious issue when their employees employment becomes public. They always, and quite often it turns out, request an investigation. I believe it is the investigator's responsibility to take the allegation seriously. In other words, One can hardly expect that he'd say anything different.

[JW]

We'll probably never know, because the Bush administration is stonewalling and perjuring themselves. But they did nothing wrong, they just enjoy stonewalling and perjury. Right?

For a few closing comments, I refer you to the New York Times and Washington Post, those paragons of journalistic excellence.

This from today, or actually tomorrow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/washington/14leak.html

A spokesman for Mr. Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Mr. Rove had made no deals to cooperate with the prosecution in any way, and that the decision was based purely on Mr. Fitzgerald's findings. A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, Randall Samborn, had no comment.

Of course Corallo could be lying. But my guess is that Fitzgerald simply didn't think he had a good case against Rove.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html

And this from the Washington Post in April. Don't know how I missed this one. A few words about the veracity of Wilson and a motive for the White House.

Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraq threat." The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.

As for Libby, if he lied to the grand jury, then I have no sympathy for him. He should be punished.

[MrBigglesworth]

Well the point the admin would be making is that this guy got sent to Africa to do this job because his wife was one of the people doing the sending. The other part of the story they wanted put out there, was that Wilson's report wasn't really considered definitive by those who debriefed him. They essentially said "thanks for the info, but it really isn't all that meaningful". It simply wasn't like this guy who was saying "They know it was false because I told them so" had actually delivered any meaningful evidence. The report had been discredited for reasons not remotely related to his report.
This is a complete mangling of the facts. First off, that is not what Wilson was saying. In his original op-ed, he wrote:
...The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.
That's much different than "They knew it was false because I told them so". The second relevant fact is that the CIA itself has admitted that the Niger Uranium story shouldn't have been in the State of the Union speech, because they themselves thought it wasn't credible (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr07112003.html). The State Department had come to the same conclusion, so much so that Powell didn't even mention it in his speech to the UN a week after the SOTU. The IAEA also believed the story to be false hours after receiving the relevant information.

In that same CIA link above, you will see that the CIA widely distributed Wilson's report, it certainly wasn't 'discredited' or dismissed as 'not all that meaningful'. Tenet says that he never told the President, but Nicholas Kristof has reported that the CIA told the VP staff and the National Security Council about the trip (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/13/nyt.kristof/). Which makes sense, because Wilson was sent specifically because Cheney wanted the issue looked into.

[MrBigglesworth]

On the Fitzgerald thing. I'm considering it to be the company line. The CIA considers it a serious issue when their employees employment becomes public. They always, and quite often it turns out, request an investigation. I believe it is the investigator's responsibility to take the allegation seriously. In other words, One can hardly expect that he'd say anything different.
Fitzgerald does not work for the CIA. This is not the CIA's investigation, this is a Justice Department investigation. The CIA had their own investigation into the harm that it caused to their intelligecne gathering. There is no company line for Fitzgerald to toe. And he said in plain English that Plame was outed.

[MrBigglesworth]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html

And this from the Washington Post in April. Don't know how I missed this one. A few words about the veracity of Wilson and a motive for the White House.

Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraq threat." The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.
I'm not sure how you missed that one either, it was a huge controversy because it was an unsigned editorial that got all the facts wrong. To wit:

CLAIM: Wilson said Cheney sent him to Africa “Mr. Libby’s motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney.” [Washington Post, 4/9/06]

FACT:

Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president’s office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney’s questions.

[b]CLAIM: There is no evidence of a White House effort to punish Wilson. “Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative…After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson’s charge.” [Washington Post, 4/9/06]

FACT:

Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July14, 2003 discussed Wilson’s wife’s employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 – which evidence has been shared with defendant – it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to “punish” Wilson. [Fitzgerald filing, pg. 29-30]

CLAIM: There was nothing unusual about Bush’s conduct.“Vice President Cheney initially chose to be secretive, ordering his chief of staff at the time, I. Lewis Libby, to leak the information to a favorite New York Times reporter…There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about that.” [Washington Post, 4/9/06]

FACT:

Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be declassified.” [Fitzgerald filing, pg. 23]

CLAIM: Wilson’s op-ed has been discredited; his report supported White House claims. “The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.” [Washington Post, 4/9/06]

FACT:

Two-year old assertions by former ambassador Joseph Wilson regarding Iraq and uranium, which lie at the heart of the controversy over who at the White House identified a covert U.S. operative, have held up in the face of attacks by supporters of presidential adviser Karl Rove…[T]he Senate panel conclusions didn’t discredit Wilson. The committee concluded that the Niger intelligence information wasn’t solid enough to be included in the State of the Union speech. It added that Wilson’s report didn’t change the minds of analysts on either side of the issue… [Bloomberg, 7/14/05]
(via thinkprogress)

I mean, these are outright lies. And what is frustrating is that the right wing media will just repeat them and repeat them until otherwise smart people like Glen and JW accept them as truth.

[Glengoyne]

Fitzgerald does not work for the CIA. This is not the CIA's investigation, this is a Justice Department investigation. The CIA had their own investigation into the harm that it caused to their intelligecne gathering. There is no company line for Fitzgerald to toe. And he said in plain English that Plame was outed.

Not the case. The CIA routinely requests investigations by the justice department into these identity cases. When I say routinely it was actually a very common occurance. The frequency was multiple times per month. Fitzgerald was assigned to investigate the leak. What the hell else is he going to say?

[Glengoyne]

I read news reports, multiple news reports that said that Wilson's debriefing was essentially dismissed as next to useless by those who debriefed him. The reasoning was that he went to Africa, asked if they had been approached about the purchase of uranium, and the answer was "No". It was hardly definitive, and apparently not convincing enough to merit mention(at least not favorably) in the National Intelligence Estimate on the subject. Google for them yourself. I've read enough to question Wilson's motives and veracity myself.

I also believe that Fitzgerald has said that Libby leaked the information because the Administration wanted to head off the belief that Cheney had sent Wilson. Wilson did say that his trip was linked to questions by the Vice President's Office. He, Fitzgerald also said that by stating that Wilson was sent by his wife, Libby was undercutting Wilson's credibility by suggesting that he was sent on his junket due to nepotism. That is plenty of evidence, well not evidence, but certainly sound reasoning that indicates the "outting" was not motivated by retribution. What evidence suggests that the outting was motivated by retribution? Oh yeah. Joe Wilson said so. I had forgotten.

Edit: Just to add that I do recall one source that Wilson's report was essentially dismissed. Novak's(sp?) original column. The one that started all of this.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

As far as I am concerned, it's over, and I have reached my conclusions:

-Wilson pissed off the vice president
-Cheney got Libby to smear him
-Plame's name was mentioned to reporters by Libby
-Wilson was very opportunistic in using this to go after the adminstration
-Libby lied to the grand jury about it
-Rove also told reporters about Plame
-Rove lied/failed to say he did to the grand jury
-Fitzgerald believes he can prove Libby intentionally lied and he cannot prove that Rove intentionally lied
-Plame was a CIA agent
-Plame was considered covert by the CIA and Fitzgerald
-There is some question in reality whether Plame was all that covert

My conclusions:

-Libby should go to jail for perjury
-Shame on the vice president for involving a CIA agent in a smear campaign
-Shame on Rove for doing the same
-Whether someone is covert or not, our elected officials should not be discussing active CIA agents with reporters in an act of revenge against (at that time) a minor critic of the administration
-Cheney and Rove should be publicly rebuked by the president for doing so

I think that's a good summary. The rest of the talk out there is simply spin/crap.

[MrBigglesworth]

Not the case. The CIA routinely requests investigations by the justice department into these identity cases. When I say routinely it was actually a very common occurance. The frequency was multiple times per month. Fitzgerald was assigned to investigate the leak. What the hell else is he going to say?
So your argument is, he had to tell a blatant lie because what else would he do, tell the truth? I can't argue with that.

I read news reports, multiple news reports that said that Wilson's debriefing was essentially dismissed as next to useless by those who debriefed him. The reasoning was that he went to Africa, asked if they had been approached about the purchase of uranium, and the answer was "No". It was hardly definitive, and apparently not convincing enough to merit mention(at least not favorably) in the National Intelligence Estimate on the subject. Google for them yourself. I've read enough to question Wilson's motives and veracity myself.
Well, I read a lot saying the opposite, in fact I read more than you from more credible sources. Google it and prove me wrong.

I also believe that Fitzgerald has said that Libby leaked the information because the Administration wanted to head off the belief that Cheney had sent Wilson. Wilson did say that his trip was linked to questions by the Vice President's Office. He, Fitzgerald also said that by stating that Wilson was sent by his wife, Libby was undercutting Wilson's credibility by suggesting that he was sent on his junket due to nepotism. That is plenty of evidence, well not evidence, but certainly sound reasoning that indicates the "outting" was not motivated by retribution. What evidence suggests that the outting was motivated by retribution? Oh yeah. Joe Wilson said so. I had forgotten.
One problem: he wasn't sent by his wife. So your scenario has them outing a CIA agent in order to fabricate a lie. Furthermore, that is nothing but character assassination. It does nothing to address the facts of the case, so how is that NOT retribution??


Edit: Just to add that I do recall one source that Wilson's report was essentially dismissed. Novak's(sp?) original column. The one that started all of this.
Haha. You mean the same column in which the character assassination of Wilson started? You mean to tell me that the same sources that leaked the name (Rove, Libby) ALSO told Novak that the reports were discredited? Unfathomable! Why would they make up a story about the discrediting of the report if they had already made up a story about how he was sent over? That's really the nail in the coffin, if Rove and Libby had that to say, the issue is a closed case!

[MrBigglesworth]

As far as I am concerned, it's over, and I have reached my conclusions:

-Wilson pissed off the vice president
-Cheney got Libby to smear him
-Plame's name was mentioned to reporters by Libby
-Wilson was very opportunistic in using this to go after the adminstration
-Libby lied to the grand jury about it
-Rove also told reporters about Plame
-Rove lied/failed to say he did to the grand jury
-Fitzgerald believes he can prove Libby intentionally lied and he cannot prove that Rove intentionally lied
-Plame was a CIA agent
-Plame was considered covert by the CIA and Fitzgerald
-There is some question in reality whether Plame was all that covert

My conclusions:

-Libby should go to jail for perjury
-Shame on the vice president for involving a CIA agent in a smear campaign
-Shame on Rove for doing the same
-Whether someone is covert or not, our elected officials should not be discussing active CIA agents with reporters in an act of revenge against (at that time) a minor critic of the administration
-Cheney and Rove should be publicly rebuked by the president for doing so

I think that's a good summary. The rest of the talk out there is simply spin/crap.
Sounds about right, probably some inaccuracies but the most likely scenario.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm in agreement with Vinatieri here.

Also, as I said much, much earlier in this thread:

Let's take two assumptions:

1. "The Leaker" leaked the information out of malicious political intent.

This is pretty well supported by the events surrounding Iraq-Niger-Yellowcake-etc....

2. "The Leaker" didn't know of the confidential nature of Plame, and so made a mistake this way.

Question (rhetorical): How do we feel, as Americans, to have someone in a position of such power and influence acting in such a cavalier manner for political gain?

Let's see some of you step up to the plate and answer that.

[JW]

As far as I am concerned, it's over, and I have reached my conclusions:

-Wilson pissed off the vice president
-Cheney got Libby to smear him
-Plame's name was mentioned to reporters by Libby
-Wilson was very opportunistic in using this to go after the adminstration
-Libby lied to the grand jury about it
-Rove also told reporters about Plame
-Rove lied/failed to say he did to the grand jury
-Fitzgerald believes he can prove Libby intentionally lied and he cannot prove that Rove intentionally lied
-Plame was a CIA agent
-Plame was considered covert by the CIA and Fitzgerald
-There is some question in reality whether Plame was all that covert

My conclusions:

-Libby should go to jail for perjury
-Shame on the vice president for involving a CIA agent in a smear campaign
-Shame on Rove for doing the same
-Whether someone is covert or not, our elected officials should not be discussing active CIA agents with reporters in an act of revenge against (at that time) a minor critic of the administration
-Cheney and Rove should be publicly rebuked by the president for doing so

I think that's a good summary. The rest of the talk out there is simply spin/crap.

To Mr. B, an unsigned editorial from the Washington Post represents the opinion of the Post. I don't understand the liberal Post's motive for lying about the Wilson/Plame affair.

To Vinatieri, your conclusions are plausible. I do think you missed a couple of things, however, which could lead to possible errors. First, Plame was important because Wilson lied about who sent him on his little trip. That lie goes to Wilson's overall veracity. It was not an act of revenge, though it was related to an attempt to 'smear' Wilson, or show that he was a liar, which he is. It was a poor decision to use Plame's name, however, because of her CIA connection, though it appears now it was not illegal.

Second, the question of whether Plame was actually technically covert is an open question. I've read many opinions from too many neutral observors saying she wasn't. Perhaps the CIA acted overzealously at the outset in protecting someone who at best was only technically covert and probably wasn't covert at all.

Did Libby lie? Based on Fitzgerald's decision regarding Rove and his decision not to prosecute anyone for the so-called outing of Plame, my guess would be he does have a good case against Libby. Like a good prosecutor, he seems to be only moving forward with the cases he thinks he can win.

Finally, here imo is a good, neutral summary of the entire mess, written before the latest news on Rove.
Link and excerpt:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/lowball_all_the_way_around.html

It doesn't speak well that Fitzgerald bought into that Bush-hater spin when he wrote of the Bushies' attempts to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" Wilson. No. The Bushies weren't looking to hurt the little woman, but were waging an honest challenge to the truth-impaired Wilson and his false denial that his wife had anything to do with the CIA sending him to Niger, as well as reports that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger.

Most importantly: The Niger story has not proven to be false. There is good reason to believe Iraq didn't get uranium from Niger, but had tried to. The United Kingdom's Butler Commission found the Niger story to be "well-founded." Ditto a Senate Intelligence Committee report. Or, as The Washington Post editorialized on Sunday, "The (NIE) material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."

In short, Bush was right to say in his 2003 State of the Union Address, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger."

It's not even clear that the leak of Plame's name was a crime. As prominent GOP attorney Victoria Toensing noted, the government has to establish that Plame was covert and that the Bushies knew it. Fitzgerald positively runs from that issue. He wrote in last week's brief, "Defendant is not charged with knowingly disclosing classified information."

Toensing added that Fitzgerald's refusal to release the CIA criminal referral that started the investigation to Libby's attorneys should set off your bells and whistles.

The worst of it is, as Toensing lamented, this whole mess was "absolutely avoidable." If the Bushies had simply been up front and admitted they were assailing Wilson's credibility -- or if they'd just kept their mouths shut -- there probably would be no special prosecutor looking into the Plame leak, burning through unknown amounts of tax dollars and setting a dangerous precedent by jailing a journalist for not revealing her sources.

[flere-imsaho]

Second, the question of whether Plame was actually technically covert is an open question. I've read many opinions from too many neutral observors saying she wasn't. Perhaps the CIA acted overzealously at the outset in protecting someone who at best was only technically covert and probably wasn't covert at all.

As I've said since the beginning of the thread, I would hope that people in government would err on the side of caution regarding matters of national security, which includes revealing the names of CIA agents who may or may not be covert.

In this instance the White House chose political expediency over national security, and even though they didn't technically commit a crime, this revelation of their priorities would, I hope, give some people pause.

[MrBigglesworth]

To Mr. B, an unsigned editorial from the Washington Post represents the opinion of the Post. I don't understand the liberal Post's motive for lying about the Wilson/Plame affair.
Your problem is in your assumption that the WaPo editorial board is liberal. There is documented evidence that the facts they used are WRONG. We all know about reality's well known liberal bias, but c'mon, any objective person would look at the evidence presented and see that they were either incorrect or lying.

First, Plame was important because Wilson lied about who sent him on his little trip. That lie goes to Wilson's overall veracity.
Erroneous. Wilson never lied about who sent him on his trip. From the very first editorial he said he was sent by the CIA in response to a request from the office of the VP for more info on the Niger issue.

Finally, here imo is a good, neutral summary of the entire mess, written before the latest news on Rove.
Link and excerpt:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/lowball_all_the_way_around.html

It doesn't speak well that Fitzgerald bought into that Bush-hater spin when he wrote of the Bushies' attempts to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" Wilson. No. The Bushies weren't looking to hurt the little woman, but were waging an honest challenge to the truth-impaired Wilson and his false denial that his wife had anything to do with the CIA sending him to Niger, as well as reports that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger.

Most importantly: The Niger story has not proven to be false. There is good reason to believe Iraq didn't get uranium from Niger, but had tried to. The United Kingdom's Butler Commission found the Niger story to be "well-founded." Ditto a Senate Intelligence Committee report. Or, as The Washington Post editorialized on Sunday, "The (NIE) material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."

In short, Bush was right to say in his 2003 State of the Union Address, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger."

It's not even clear that the leak of Plame's name was a crime. As prominent GOP attorney Victoria Toensing noted, the government has to establish that Plame was covert and that the Bushies knew it. Fitzgerald positively runs from that issue. He wrote in last week's brief, "Defendant is not charged with knowingly disclosing classified information."

Toensing added that Fitzgerald's refusal to release the CIA criminal referral that started the investigation to Libby's attorneys should set off your bells and whistles.

The worst of it is, as Toensing lamented, this whole mess was "absolutely avoidable." If the Bushies had simply been up front and admitted they were assailing Wilson's credibility -- or if they'd just kept their mouths shut -- there probably would be no special prosecutor looking into the Plame leak, burning through unknown amounts of tax dollars and setting a dangerous precedent by jailing a journalist for not revealing her sources.
:) Your nuetral summary of the case leads with "Bush haters spin" coming from Fitgerald and is written by someone who's previous two articles talk about how global warming isn't real. This article is hackerrific. Not only does it argue that the easily debunked Niger story is really true, it says:
In short, Bush was right to say in his 2003 State of the Union Address, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger."
George Tenet, CIA director during 2003, would you like to comment?
These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President...The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake...From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct - i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.
This is what I am talking about with the GOP! They just keep repeating stuff until people believe it's true. This is about the third time in this thread that JW has come back with a 'nuetral' or 'unbiased' story that contains obvious falsehoods. And there are hundreds more out there, so JW will probably just come back with more. Zombie GOP spin, it never dies.

[JW]

This is what I am talking about with the GOP! They just keep repeating stuff until people believe it's true. This is about the third time in this thread that JW has come back with a 'nuetral' or 'unbiased' story that contains obvious falsehoods. And there are hundreds more out there, so JW will probably just come back with more. Zombie GOP spin, it never dies.

Lol, Mr. B, your problem is that everything you disagree with is automatically "an obvious falsehood." Obvious to you anyway. Even the Washington Post lies when it presents a position you disagree with.

Nothing is as clear as you try to present in this case. I'm quite prepared to stipulate that Rove is a scumbag and has harmed this country in many ways. I would like to see him gone from the Bush administration because I think he is a source of many of its problems, for example Bush's mushy immigration policies. But at the same time I have to laugh at the rabid attack on Rove from the left in this matter. The left just keeps picking the wrong battles. And, btw, I just happen to think that Wilson is not an angel either.

This story discusses who sent Wilson to Niger, discussing the view that Plame suggested it and the other view. It is from the true liberal believers in the newsroom of the Post, not from the evil rightwing editorial board, which somehow condones all the liberal do-gooding in the newsroom, although you will probably say the reporter is a known Republican operative. Here is an excerpt supporting the view that Plame sent Wilson. You'll have to do the link to read the rest, which looks at other views and related matters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001918.html

Two other sources appear to support the view that Wilson's wife suggested her husband's trip. One is a June 2003 memo by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). The other, which depends in good part on the INR document, is a statement of the views of Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and two other Republican members. That statement was attached to the full committee report on its 2004 inquiry into the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The INR document's reference to the Wilson trip is contained in two sentences in a three-page memo on why the State Department disagreed with the idea that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa -- a view that would ultimately be endorsed after the Iraq invasion by the U.S. weapons hunter David Kay. The notes supporting those two sentences in the INR document say that the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was "apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue," according to the Senate intelligence committee report. But one Senate Democratic staff member said, "That was speculation, that was not true."

The full Senate committee report says that CPD officials "could not recall how the office decided to contact" Wilson but that "interviews and documents indicate his wife suggested his name for the trip." The three Republican senators wrote that they were more certain: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."

So even the true believers in the news wing of the Washington Post admit to the possibility that Wilson was chosen by his wife.

Like I said before, you need to move on to another battle. Rove got off on this one. Mourn that defeat and move on. And know that I share your general disgust with Rove.

[Glengoyne]

So your argument is, he had to tell a blatant lie because what else would he do, tell the truth? I can't argue with that.
...

One problem: he wasn't sent by his wife. So your scenario has them outing a CIA agent in order to fabricate a lie. Furthermore, that is nothing but character assassination. It does nothing to address the facts of the case, so how is that NOT retribution??
...

My point about Fitzgerald is that he is investigating the alleged leaking of a CIA employee's identity. What the hell else is he going to say in public?

On the point about Wilson's wife not sending him. How do you know enough about that to make that statement? I don't think you have anywhere near the information to make that claim.

On the rest of this stuff I agree with a hell of a lot of Vinatieri for Prez's summary, as do you apparently. I do disagree with the bits about a smear campaign and the motivation of revenge, as those really have no real definitive basis in fact, and are essentially spin/crap.

[MrBigglesworth]

Lol, Mr. B, your problem is that everything you disagree with is automatically "an obvious falsehood." Obvious to you anyway. Even the Washington Post lies when it presents a position you disagree with.
I've provided documentation for every single thing that I said was a lie, unlike you who have gone with the 'that's wrong because Sean Hannity says so' type defense so far. I appreciate you finally coming up with a real source though, but I see that you had to use it disengenuously:
This story discusses who sent Wilson to Niger, discussing the view that Plame suggested it and the other view. It is from the true liberal believers in the newsroom of the Post, not from the evil rightwing editorial board, which somehow condones all the liberal do-gooding in the newsroom, although you will probably say the reporter is a known Republican operative. Here is an excerpt supporting the view that Plame sent Wilson. You'll have to do the link to read the rest, which looks at other views and related matters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001918.html

Two other sources appear to support the view that Wilson's wife suggested her husband's trip. One is a June 2003 memo by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). The other, which depends in good part on the INR document, is a statement of the views of Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and two other Republican members. That statement was attached to the full committee report on its 2004 inquiry into the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The INR document's reference to the Wilson trip is contained in two sentences in a three-page memo on why the State Department disagreed with the idea that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa -- a view that would ultimately be endorsed after the Iraq invasion by the U.S. weapons hunter David Kay. The notes supporting those two sentences in the INR document say that the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was "apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue," according to the Senate intelligence committee report. But one Senate Democratic staff member said, "That was speculation, that was not true."

The full Senate committee report says that CPD officials "could not recall how the office decided to contact" Wilson but that "interviews and documents indicate his wife suggested his name for the trip." The three Republican senators wrote that they were more certain: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."

So even the true believers in the news wing of the Washington Post admit to the possibility that Wilson was chosen by his wife.
True liberal believers? Please JW, that's ignorant. They are journalists, there is no liberal bias. So yeah, he wrote a 16 paragraph piece about the issues, the last two of which deal with some memo from another agency that makes a passing reference to Plame sending him. Besides, who cares if his wife was the one that send him? It doesn't hurt his credibility. After all, HE WAS RIGHT! It's still just character assassination, it was still done to retaliate against him going puclic.

[JW]

Please JW, that's ignorant. They are journalists, there is no liberal bias.

No liberal bias in the Washington Post newsroom? Okay. If you think so. But this writer I think did a good job of presenting both sides of this issue.

I actually think we've flogged this horse enough.

And the "he was right" issue. There is still debate about whether Wilson was right on Niger or not.

The difference remains that you think Rove is a scumbag and I think Rove and Wilson are scumbags, and the argument is getting boring.

Oh, and one more thing. Unlike you, I think it is possible for a columnist, or a reporter, or even a poster on this forum, to simply be wrong rather than a liar.

[st.cronin]

the argument is getting boring.

Has this thread been fritz ed yet?

[MrBigglesworth]

My point about Fitzgerald is that he is investigating the alleged leaking of a CIA employee's identity. What the hell else is he going to say in public?
A detective is investigating a murder. Suddenly though the guy that was murdered shows up alive. It is your view, then, that the investigator should not say, "There was no murder, the investigation is over," but rather he should continue to say that there was a murder because he is the one investigating it?

On the point about Wilson's wife not sending him. How do you know enough about that to make that statement? I don't think you have anywhere near the information to make that claim...I do disagree with the bits about a smear campaign and the motivation of revenge, as those really have no real definitive basis in fact, and are essentially spin/crap.
How can you simultaneously say that they outed Plame to attack Wilson's credibility (aka, smear him) and disagree that the White House was out to smear him?

As for 'no real definitive basis of fact':
There exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and after July 14, 2003...Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July 14, 2003, discussed Wilson's wife's employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 - which evidence has been shared with defendant - it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson.
Fitzgerald court filing, April 2006.

[MrBigglesworth]

No liberal bias in the Washington Post newsroom? Okay. If you think so. But this writer I think did a good job of presenting both sides of this issue.

I actually think we've flogged this horse enough.

And the "he was right" issue. There is still debate about whether Wilson was right on Niger or not.

The difference remains that you think Rove is a scumbag and I think Rove and Wilson are scumbags, and the argument is getting boring.

Oh, and one more thing. Unlike you, I think it is possible for a columnist, or a reporter, or even a poster on this forum, to simply be wrong rather than a liar.
I never said you were a liar, I don't think, just that you believe zombie GOP spin. And since you alo say here that the Post are 'liberal true believers' and that Wilson could have been wrong, you've pretty much proven my point.

Wilson could be a scumbag, but all the evidence that you have presented has been zombie GOP spin (he said Cheney sent him to Africa, he said the President intentionally ignored his report, etc.).

[st.cronin]

I never said you were a liar, I don't think, just that you believe zombie GOP spin. And since you alo say here that the Post are 'liberal true believers' and that Wilson could have been wrong, you've pretty much proven my point.

Wilson could be a scumbag, but all the evidence that you have presented has been zombie GOP spin (he said Cheney sent him to Africa, he said the President intentionally ignored his report, etc.).

I'm pretty sure I saw somewhere that Wilson retracted, or at least hemmed and hawed on his assertion that Cheney sent him on his mission. Am I wrong or is Wilson still saying that?

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm pretty sure I saw somewhere that Wilson retracted, or at least hemmed and hawed on his assertion that Cheney sent him on his mission. Am I wrong or is Wilson still saying that?
You are wrong, Wilson NEVER said that. It is a zombie GOP spin.

[st.cronin]

You are wrong, Wilson NEVER said that. It is a zombie GOP spin.

:rolleyes:

The only news that arrives in my house is the New Yorker and Atlantic...

[MrBigglesworth]

:rolleyes:

The only news that arrives in my house is the New Yorker and Atlantic...
I'm dead serious, he never said that. Find me a single time where he said that Cheney sent him to Africa. If you happened to read it in the New Yorker or the Atlantic, it was the remnants of zombie GOP spin that worked it's way into the magazine.

[Glengoyne]

...Strawman Removed...

How can you simultaneously say that they outed Plame to attack Wilson's credibility (aka, smear him) and disagree that the White House was out to smear him?

As for 'no real definitive basis of fact':

Fitzgerald court filing, April 2006.

Biggles,

I'm saying that the motivation of tying Wilson's trip to his wife was done to discredit him. Of that I think there can be no doubt. The wild unfounded supposition, is that the Whitehouse "OUTED" Plame in retaliation.

As for the Fitzgerald bit. I'd disagree with the choice of the word "punish", and also the requirement for the Administration to prove they didn't do something. When you accuse someone of an an act, you should actually be the one supplying the affirmative proof. It isn't the other party's responsibility to prove they didn't do something.

[Grammaticus]

Anyone who has an interest in this thread and topics involving things elected officials do for political gain (whether it happened here or not) would really like the book "Scandalmonger".

It is about the political scandals involved during the founding of our Nation, Great stuff! Things were a whole lot more devious back then. FWIW, the book does not really focus or support any specific political party or ideology.

[st.cronin]

I'm dead serious, he never said that. Find me a single time where he said that Cheney sent him to Africa. If you happened to read it in the New Yorker or the Atlantic, it was the remnants of zombie GOP spin that worked it's way into the magazine.

I thought you were saying that he DID say that. Now you're saying he DIDN'T say that. Which is what I thought.

[MrBigglesworth]

I thought you were saying that he DID say that. Now you're saying he DIDN'T say that. Which is what I thought.
I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to say initially...

"I'm pretty sure I saw somewhere that Wilson retracted, or at least hemmed and hawed on his assertion that Cheney sent him on his mission. Am I wrong or is Wilson still saying that?" ~ I took that to mean that you were wondering if Wilson ever retracted his statement saying that Cheney sent him on his mission. The fact of the matter is that Wilson never ever said that Cheney sent him on the mission to begin with. So there is nothing to retract. Your sentence, as I took it, was the equivalent of, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

In short: Wilson never said Cheney sent him, so he has nothing to retract. The idea that Wilson did say that is zombie GOP spin. Sorry if I was confusing.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm saying that the motivation of tying Wilson's trip to his wife was done to discredit him. Of that I think there can be no doubt. The wild unfounded supposition, is that the Whitehouse "OUTED" Plame in retaliation.
Sorry, I didn't get exactly what you were saying. That second part MAY not be true, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it wild unfounded speculation because it is how Rove has been proven to work. But, the two choices are that someone in the administration had outed her for relatiation in addition to the credibility smear, or someone wanted to smear Wilson and didn't care if the result was outing a CIA official. It could be possible that nobody knew she was undercover, but then why have they been stonewalling and perjuring themselves? Libby isn't facing decades of prison time to keep someone from knowing that they didn't know she was covert. My opinion, anyway.

As for the Fitzgerald bit. I'd disagree with the choice of the word "punish", and also the requirement for the Administration to prove they didn't do something. When you accuse someone of an an act, you should actually be the one supplying the affirmative proof. It isn't the other party's responsibility to prove they didn't do something.
If you read over the quote again from Fitzgerald:
There exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and after July 14, 2003...Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July 14, 2003, discussed Wilson's wife's employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 - which evidence has been shared with defendant - it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson.
...he is basically saying that he has evidence of an effort to punish and repudiate Wilson, and can't imagine what could exist that would counteract that evidence. So he is saying he has the evidence that you talk about.

[JW]

I never said you were a liar, I don't think, just that you believe zombie GOP spin. And since you alo say here that the Post are 'liberal true believers' and that Wilson could have been wrong, you've pretty much proven my point.

Wilson could be a scumbag, but all the evidence that you have presented has been zombie GOP spin (he said Cheney sent him to Africa, he said the President intentionally ignored his report, etc.).

Here is a little more about Wilson, but BBC and the Washington Post are probably just part of the "zombie GOP spin" machine.

Here is the BBC's brief summary analysis of Wilson:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4298732.stm

Wilson himself also came under criticism. He denied that his wife had played a substantive part in the decision to send him but she did, the Senate report accepts, put up his name. He also claimed in the Washington Post that he had seen documents which he had not and wrongly assumed that Vice-President Cheney had been briefed on his findings. He was also accused of going public in a way that might jeopardise his wife's position.

Wilson remains unapologetic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

It isn't lies. It isn't spin. It may be wrong, but there are definitely two legitimate sides to this controversy.

[Glengoyne]

...

...he is basically saying that he has evidence of an effort to punish and repudiate Wilson, and can't imagine what could exist that would counteract that evidence. So he is saying he has the evidence that you talk about.

I think you need to look up two words for comparing and contrasting.

Repudiate versus Punish.

Evidence of a desire to repudiate Wilson's statements does not equate to efforts to Punish him. Two very different things.

[MrBigglesworth]

Here is a little more about Wilson, but BBC and the Washington Post are probably just part of the "zombie GOP spin" machine.

Here is the BBC's brief summary analysis of Wilson:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4298732.stm

Wilson himself also came under criticism. He denied that his wife had played a substantive part in the decision to send him but she did, the Senate report accepts, put up his name. He also claimed in the Washington Post that he had seen documents which he had not and wrongly assumed that Vice-President Cheney had been briefed on his findings. He was also accused of going public in a way that might jeopardise his wife's position.

Wilson remains unapologetic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

It isn't lies. It isn't spin. It may be wrong, but there are definitely two legitimate sides to this controversy.
I call it zombie GOP spin because it gets out there and can't be killed. In this case, the idea that it was certain that was sent out by his wife comes not from the committee report, but rather from Senators Roberts, Hatch, and Bond in their 'additional views' portion of the report, not in the report voted on by the committee. In fact, it expressly says that the rest of the committee didn't agree with that. In comparison, the Dems 'additional views' section says that the Iraq NIE was fixed and that the administration used 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq.

As to your legitimate sides point, every story dealing with evolution gives the creationist a chance to get his quotes in, but that doesn't mean that there are two legitimate sides to the evolution question. You have to take the sources at their own value.

I'll ask of you again: what does it matter if his wife did suggest him? How does that change the underlying conclusions of his report in any way? How does that influence the op-ed that he wrote? Do the higher ups at the CIA not have the power to go against a suggestion by Valerie Plame?

[MrBigglesworth]

Biggles,

I'm saying that the motivation of tying Wilson's trip to his wife was done to discredit him. Of that I think there can be no doubt. The wild unfounded supposition, is that the Whitehouse "OUTED" Plame in retaliation.

As for the Fitzgerald bit. I'd disagree with the choice of the word "punish", and also the requirement for the Administration to prove they didn't do something. When you accuse someone of an an act, you should actually be the one supplying the affirmative proof. It isn't the other party's responsibility to prove they didn't do something.
Missed one thing...

Step back and look at what you are arguing: you are saying that an investigator that has been investigating a case for years has no standing in determining if a crime had actually been committed in what he was investigating. Furthermore, if he decides that there wasn't a crime, he has no obligation to stop his investigation into the non-crime, but must instead still say that there was without a doubt a crime and continue investigating, indefinitely I guess if need be.

That doesn't make sense.

[Flasch186]

Rove is a freaking class act...it would serve Bush well, morally, to escape his clutches, IMO.


Novak: Rove confirmed Plame's identity
Columnist reveals cooperation in probe, won't name first source

Tuesday, July 11, 2006; Posted: 9:32 p.m. EDT (01:32 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House political adviser Karl Rove was one of Robert Novak's sources for the 2003 disclosure of a CIA operative's identity, the syndicated columnist wrote Tuesday.

Novak said Rove confirmed information from another source, whose identity Novak is still keeping under wraps.

But he said special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knows the source's identity, and Novak said he does not think that person will be charged with unmasking now-former CIA agent Valerie Plame.

He also wrote that prosecutors have told him his role in the investigation is over.

"I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue," Novak wrote in a column released for publication Wednesday.

Rove is President Bush's chief strategist and serves as a deputy White House chief of staff. The White House declined comment on Novak's account Tuesday evening.

In July 2003 the conservative syndicated columnist and former CNN commentator identified Plame as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction" in a column about her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former career diplomat and critic of the intelligence underlying the invasion of Iraq.

Novak has remained tight-lipped throughout much of the leak probe, which was disclosed in September of that year.

Novak wrote Tuesday that he has cooperated with investigators while trying to protect sources who have not yet revealed themselves publicly. Fitzgerald's office has known who his sources were, "independent of me," for most of the time the investigation has been under way, Novak added.

Novak's initial disclosure -- attributed to "two senior administration officials" -- triggered a criminal probe that resulted in last year's indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who at the time was Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

Libby resigned and has pleaded not guilty to the charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.

"In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger," Novak wrote.

"After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part."

Fitzgerald spokesman Randall Samborn declined comment on the matter and would not say when the special prosecutor would have any further statement on the status of his probe.

Wilson has accused the Bush administration of effectively ending his wife's career in retribution for his public questioning of the administration's claim that Iraq was seeking to obtain from Africa uranium for nuclear weapons.
Novak: CIA confirmed identity

Knowingly disclosing the identity of an undercover intelligence agent can bring a federal prison term of up to 10 years under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Novak wrote Tuesday that none of his sources have been indicted.

The Libby indictment stated that Rove, identified as "Official A," had discussed Plame's identity with Novak. But Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin said in June that Rove had been informed that he would not face charges in connection with the probe.

Novak said a third source, CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, confirmed Plame's identity.

Harlow was not available for public comment on Novak's latest account. But a former intelligence official said Harlow did not know what Plame's position at the CIA was at first and that he tried to talk Novak out of publishing her name when he did find out, making it clear the disclosure could be damaging.

Novak has said his recollection of their conversation differs.

The CIA tapped Wilson, a former ambassador to Gabon, for a 2002 trip to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq had tried to restart its nuclear weapons program using uranium from that central African country.

He returned to report that the claim was unlikely and later publicly questioned whether the administration had "twisted" intelligence in its argument for war.

President Bush included the Niger allegation in his 2003 State of the Union speech, delivered just weeks before the invasion of Iraq. But the White House was forced to disassociate itself from the claim after Wilson's disclosure.

Novak reported that his sources said Plame had suggested sending her husband to Niger.

Libby told a grand jury that Bush had authorized the release of classified information to rebut Wilson, which Cheney's office considered a "direct attack" on the credibility of the White House, according to court papers released in April.

In May prosecutors released handwritten notes from Cheney, written on The New York Times article in which Wilson went public, questioning whether the Niger trip was a "junket" arranged by his wife.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't think there's anything new in this article, to be honest. Only a few things stand out (barely):

Novak wrote Tuesday that he has cooperated with investigators while trying to protect sources who have not yet revealed themselves publicly. Fitzgerald's office has known who his sources were, "independent of me," for most of the time the investigation has been under way, Novak added.

Assuming we can believe anything Novak writes anymore, this is the most interesting bit of the article. It indicates that Fitzgerald was/is every bit the thorough investigator he's made out to be. Whether or not this spells doom for anyone, however, is another story.

"In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger," Novak wrote.

Honestly, I call BS on this (the bolded part). If there's anyone who thinks the actions of Bush Admin officials in this episode were anything but politically motivated, then I'm sorry, but you're being naive.

"After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part."

I think this is the crux of the whole thing. You either believe it was inadvertent, or you don't. Arguably, it could still have been politically motivated an inadvertent but, well, you all know where I stand on that. Where there's smoke, there's fire. As I've said before, I would have hoped that our elected officials could have exercised somewhat more restraint on issues of national security, but there you go....

[Flasch186]

...well some people dont believe anything until they hear it from the horse's mouth so finally the horse says, "Yes, Rove confirmed it to me." Whether or not its criminal is a whole different ballgame but it certainly sheds light on Rove's definite involvement vs. Bush's claims to want to know and "bring to justice" anyone involved...

Remember he is the one who hates leakers.

[JW]

[QUOTE=flere-imsaho]I Honestly, I call BS on this (the bolded part). If there's anyone who thinks the actions of Bush Admin officials in this episode were anything but politically motivated, then I'm sorry, but you're being naive.
[QUOTE]

Well, since we don't know who this official was, we really don't know. You don't know. I don't know. I would say that to consider every discussion by every official in the Bush administration to be politically motivated is naive.

The bottom line here is that this entire investigation has been as huge a waste of time as some of the investigations during the Clinton administration. It is simply Washington politics as usual. The non-outing of Plame was not a crime. Wilson is lying scum. Rove is lying scum, though he committed no crime in this case. The left will have to wait to burn him at the stake.

[flere-imsaho]

I would say that to consider every discussion by every official in the Bush administration to be politically motivated is naive.

That's not what I said. Don't put words in my mouth. :rolleyes:


This is one of the many reasons I'm tired of this particular episode. It's almost impossible to post in this thread without someone taking a part of what you said, amplifying it up to be something else, and then basing their counter-argument on an argument you never made in the first place.

It's sloppy, and it's annoying.

[JW]

That's not what I said. Don't put words in my mouth. :rolleyes:


This is one of the many reasons I'm tired of this particular episode. It's almost impossible to post in this thread without someone taking a part of what you said, amplifying it up to be something else, and then basing their counter-argument on an argument you never made in the first place.

It's sloppy, and it's annoying.

So let's be more precise, which I should have been, since I was responding to your statement regarding this particular episode. Are you saying that all actions by all Bush administration officials in this particular episode were politically motivated? All of them? Including the discussion with Novak by the unnamed official? I'm just saying we don't know that. I don't know. And you don't either. Novak may be telling the truth here. Or not. Had you simply said you don't believe Novak, that is one thing. But you didn't stop there.

My biggest point all along has been that this entire episode has been a huge waste of time. It turned into a witch hunt, not by the investigator, who I believe in the end has tried to be impartial and diligent, but by the left.

[st.cronin]

What's the deal with Bill Harlow? If an actual CIA spokesman was one of his sources, what does that say?

[JW]

What's the deal with Bill Harlow? If an actual CIA spokesman was one of his sources, what does that say?

There is a difference in stories between Harlow and Novak on that one. The CIA apparently says Harlow tried to talk Novak out of using Plame's CIA connection. Novak says something different.

I think it would be most interesting to find out who Novak's original source was and what actually happened in that conversation. If it is as Novak says, then there was an accidental disclosure and everything snowballed from there. Or perhaps the original disclosure was deliberate and Novak was lying. Either way, a monstrous waste of time and money.

[st.cronin]

There is a difference in stories between Harlow and Novak on that one. The CIA apparently says Harlow tried to talk Novak out of using Plame's CIA connection. Novak says something different.

Who has more credibility in your eyes? I say Novak, but it's a close call.

[flere-imsaho]

So let's be more precise, which I should have been, since I was responding to your statement regarding this particular episode.

Thank you.

Are you saying that all actions by all Bush administration officials in this particular episode were politically motivated? All of them? Including the discussion with Novak by the unnamed official?

I believe it is very likely that any and all actions taken by Bush Administration officials with regard to Wilson, Plame and the crediting/discrediting of the "Yellowcake" story, especially in light of Powell's presentation to the U.N., were politically motivated.

Taken in the context of the collapse of the WMD "argument" for war in Iraq at that time, as well as the ongoing Presidential campaign, I do believe it is a reasonable thing to think about these actions.

Obviously you (and others) disagree. I've addressed that. As I've said before, whether or not you agree with my premise rests on one's subjective judgments of the characters involved in this little fiasco. While I do think there's more than a little logic to the idea of political motivation, especially given the context, I certainly understand that some want to give Rove, Libby, et. al., the benefit of the doubt. I just think there's too much contextual evidence to give them that benefit in this case, and furthermore I think that to do so is to be more than a little naive.

My biggest point all along has been that this entire episode has been a huge waste of time. It turned into a witch hunt, not by the investigator, who I believe in the end has tried to be impartial and diligent, but by the left.

I agree that commentators on the left had made almost as much hay with this as commentators on the right did with Clinton, thus making it, in that sense, a pretty big waste of time.

On the other hand, what we have here is a potential scenario where the Bush Administration may have put political expediency above national security. Frankly, I think that needs to be looked at, especially in this day and age. Furthermore, we may also have another scenario where this incident exposes exactly how much false information was used to sell the war in Iraq. I think that investigation is also a worthwhile endeavor.

However, if one thinks that Bush is doing a fine job with regard to national security as well as Iraq, and furthermore, if one feels Bush is justifying in allowing the ends to justify the means then yes, this entire endeavor is a waste of time. However, that's just one philosophy, and one with which I happen to disagree.

[Flasch186]

so now even if it comes from the horse's mouth we may or may not believe it. Tell me that isn't crap. For the longest time it was a debate b/w some people that said they would only believe something if the person admitted it....so now a person admits it and it still isn't enough. unreal.

[MrBigglesworth]

Either way, a monstrous waste of time and money.
No matter what you believe the motives were, a CIA officer, who was working on WMD's in Iran, had her cover blown in the national press. That's not an issue that should be investigated? :confused:

[JW]

On the other hand, what we have here is a potential scenario where the Bush Administration may have put political expediency above national security. Frankly, I think that needs to be looked at, especially in this day and age. Furthermore, we may also have another scenario where this incident exposes exactly how much false information was used to sell the war in Iraq. I think that investigation is also a worthwhile endeavor.

However, if one thinks that Bush is doing a fine job with regard to national security as well as Iraq, and furthermore, if one feels Bush is justifying in allowing the ends to justify the means then yes, this entire endeavor is a waste of time. However, that's just one philosophy, and one with which I happen to disagree.

I think it would be quite interesting to know who the original source for Novak was and what the real context of the discussion with Novak was. It would not surprise me at all if the entire thing was orchestrated by Rove. But another theory, which one could imply from Novak's statements, is that the Plame non-outing was entirely unintentional. Though the administration was certainly trying to discredit Wilson.

As for spreading false information regarding the war, I think Wilson is just as guilty of that as anyone, including Rove.

As for Mr. B's statement, she was not outed. I've yet to see anyone charged with that crime.

[sterlingice]

so now even if it comes from the horse's mouth we may or may not believe it. Tell me that isn't crap. For the longest time it was a debate b/w some people that said they would only believe something if the person admitted it....so now a person admits it and it still isn't enough. unreal.

Yeah, I'm kindof with Flasch on this one. So much spin flying around it's not even funny. I've said over and over again that had Watergate happened in this political climate, half of the US wouldn't believe it happened or was a big deal.

SI

[Vinatieri for Prez]

HaHaHa! Plame just sued Cheney, Libby, and Rove. This ought to be fun to see where this goes. Provided they get around a motion to dismiss (which I guess they got a shot), we're talking Clintonesque depositions. Time to grab the popcorn.

[John Galt]

HaHaHa! Plame just sued Cheney, Libby, and Rove. This ought to be fun to see where this goes. Provided they get around a motion to dismiss (which I guess they got a shot), we're talking Clintonesque depositions. Time to grab the popcorn.

I'm not sure I understand this lawsuit at all. They have to survive motions to dismiss and for summary judgment under theories of presidential immunity (which very likely includes vice presidential immunity), qualified immunity, and national security dismissal. The first two could be overcome if Wilson/Plame had any piece of evidence that the motivation was beyond the normal duties of the defendants. However, I think, after reading the complaint, that they have nothing but speculation on that point. Even if they could overcome the two immunity defenses, national security has led to dismissals of a lot of cases that have less to do with national security.

They won't even get into discovery much at all. The only I could think of was they were hoping to get Fitzgerald's investigation unsealed (through subpoenas), but I don't see that happening either. Frankly, I think this lawsuit is just likely to backfire on them (since a dismissal on immunity grounds will largely be reported as an exoneration of the defendants even though it means no such thing).

[MrBigglesworth]

If I ignore reality, I might believe that Valerie Plame was a real covert agent doing real 007 spy things. In the real world, however, that just isn't so.
In 1997 she returned to CIA headquarters and joined the Counterproliferation Division. (About this time, she moved in with Joseph Wilson; they later married.) She was eventually given a choice: North Korea or Iraq. She selected the latter. Come the spring of 2001, she was in the CPD's modest Iraq branch. But that summer--before 9/11--word came down from the brass: We're ramping up on Iraq. Her unit was expanded and renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Within months of 9/11, the JTFI grew to fifty or so employees. Valerie Wilson was placed in charge of its operations group.

There was great pressure on the JTFI to deliver. Its primary target was Iraqi scientists. JTFI officers, under Wilson's supervision, tracked down relatives, students and associates of Iraqi scientists--in America and abroad--looking for potential sources. They encouraged Iraqi émigrés to visit Iraq and put questions to relatives of interest to the CIA. The JTFI was also handling walk-ins around the world. Increasingly, Iraqi defectors were showing up at Western embassies claiming they had information on Saddam's WMDs. JTFI officers traveled throughout the world to debrief them. Often it would take a JTFI officer only a few minutes to conclude someone was pulling a con. Yet every lead had to be checked.

"We knew nothing about what was going on in Iraq," a CIA official recalled. "We were way behind the eight ball. We had to look under every rock." Wilson, too, occasionally flew overseas to monitor operations. She also went to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence officials who had intercepted a shipment of aluminum tubes heading to Iraq that CIA analysts were claiming--wrongly--were for a nuclear weapons program. (The analysts rolled over the government's top nuclear experts, who had concluded the tubes were not destined for a nuclear program.)

The JTFI found nothing. The few scientists it managed to reach insisted Saddam had no WMD programs. Task force officers sent reports detailing the denials into the CIA bureaucracy. The defectors were duds--fabricators and embellishers...

When the Novak column ran, Valerie Wilson was in the process of changing her clandestine status from NOC to official cover, as she prepared for a new job in personnel management. Her aim, she told colleagues, was to put in time as an administrator--to rise up a notch or two--and then return to secret operations. But with her cover blown, she could never be undercover again. Moreover, she would now be pulled into the partisan warfare of Washington. As a CIA employee still sworn to secrecy, she wasn't able to explain publicly that she had spent nearly two years searching for evidence to support the Administration's justification for war and had come up empty.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn

The real world is a tricky place, JW.

[JW]

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn

The real world is a tricky place, JW.

Still beating this dead horse? You should give it up. Rove's head will not be mounted on a spike in front of the Capitol building, at least not for this, though he might deserve summary execution for other things he has done. Haven't you even read the latest stories? This story is stone cold dead. Instead of querying me, you should query the special prosecutor, who obviously, in your view, has shirked his duty by not prosecuting anyone for disclosing her name. Take up your beef with him.

BTW, I kind of like the way the Washington Post summarizes the whole matter. That is the Washington POST, not the Times.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Oh, and for those who think I am hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiding the facts by just printing an excerpt, for goodness sake do the link and read the whole thing. The article does also criticize the White House. I'm not hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiding anything. I'm just emphasizing the main point of the article.

[MrBigglesworth]

Still beating this dead horse? You should give it up. Rove's head will not be mounted on a spike in front of the Capitol building, at least not for this, though he might deserve summary execution for other things he has done. Haven't you even read the latest stories? This story is stone cold dead. Instead of querying me, you should query the special prosecutor, who obviously, in your view, has shirked his duty by not prosecuting anyone for disclosing her name. Take up your beef with him.

BTW, I kind of like the way the Washington Post summarizes the whole matter. That is the Washington POST, not the Times.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Oh, and for those who think I am hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiding the facts by just printing an excerpt, for goodness sake do the link and read the whole thing. The article does also criticize the White House. I'm not hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiding anything. I'm just emphasizing the main point of the article.
Well, you certainly do like promoting unsigned Washington Post editorials (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1168191&highlight=unsigned#post1168191) as fact, with bad results. This whole editorial is based off of a non-truth: that Armitage was the original source for everyone, when in fact he was just Novak's source. But according to the WaPo actual news pages, "Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." In other words, Rove and Libby were sources before Novak's article came out. And it's Miller fault his wife was outed by the administration? It was disproven that people saw his report and ignored it? Because Cheney says he didn't see it? Please.

Anyway, this revelation of what Plame did just goes to prove that she was actually 'outed', which some people still deny, and that she was truely undercover as a NOC. I think it also goes to motive: she was in charge of the group of the IJTF that failed to find WMD's in Iraq, completely failing in the eyes of the administration. It certainly gives another good reason to out her, and is circumstantial evidence that everyone in the White House knew exactly who she was. Not something that would prove anything in court, unfortunately.

[Glengoyne]

I don't think the article is based on the idea that Armitrage was the original source for "everyone". Novak was the one to break the story, and start the whole process. Thus the focus. As for Rove and Libby, I don't think anyone is seriously disputing the fact that they connected the dots between Joe Wilson, the CIA, and Valerie Plame for a number of folks. They were plainly attempting to discredit Joe Wilson. I think the thing that doesn't hold water is the charge that they "outed" Plame to ruin her career in retribution for her husband's revelations.

Also, I believe the fault the author(s) of the editorial above find in Wilson, isn't so much about his claim that his report was ignored by senior officials, it was his assertion that his report was considered definitive proof that Iraq hadn't come looking for uranium in Niger. In other words, he made a big public stink saying that he had disproven this allegation, when his actual work fell well short of that mark. I don't think it is prudent to make bold public declarations about your work for the CIA, if you have any real interest in protecting your wife's cover. It had to occur to him, and certainly to her, that he was risking her cover by making his declaration.


That said. If Rove and Libby knowingly shared classified information with reporters, then there should be a price to pay. Unfortunately I believe that "knowingly shared classified information " is too high a standard to meet, given what we know about the situation.

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't think the article is based on the idea that Armitrage was the original source for "everyone". Novak was the one to break the story, and start the whole process. Thus the focus...Also, I believe the fault the author(s) of the editorial above find in Wilson, isn't so much about his claim that his report was ignored by senior officials, it was his assertion that his report was considered definitive proof that Iraq hadn't come looking for uranium in Niger. In other words, he made a big public stink saying that he had disproven this allegation, when his actual work fell well short of that mark.
I agree with most of what you said, except these two things. The article states:
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.
The revelation that Armitage leaked the info to Novak does not lead to that conclusion. It would only imply that if the leak was only done by Armitage, when in fact Rove and Libby were leaking the information to their contacts at TIME and the NYT before Novak's story ever went out. The article goes on to mention that the whole special prosecuter thing would have been avoided if this was known ahead of time, when in fact whether or not the reason for the outing was not the issue that Fitzgerald was investigating, but the actual act of leaking confidential information.

As for the second comment, Wilson did not write in his op-ed that he had definitively debunked the Niger myth, but rather wrote:
Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.
The WMD fiasco was one of the biggest foreign policy screw-ups in the history of the country, and as it turns out there was little to no evidence that those much-hyped WMD's existed. Why then were they so trumped up? That is a serious and legitimate question that needs to be worked out to avoid it happening in the future.

[Flasch186]

"knowingly shared classified information "

I now believe that these little words in the front of sentences regarding all sorts of matters in politics allow politicians from both sides fo the aisle, "outs". It will be a long long time before any politician (and their lawyers) dont find these ways out of trouble. The word "knowingly" is going to allow politicians for the next 20 years to skirt the law, IMO.

There are things like that all over the place in Washington.

[duckman]

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d138/duckman76/a49dcfeb.jpg

[st.cronin]

/blows duckman a kiss

[sterlingice]

They were plainly attempting to discredit Joe Wilson. I think the thing that doesn't hold water is the charge that they "outed" Plame to ruin her career in retribution for her husband's revelations.

Aren't both bad? I mean, really?

SI

[Glengoyne]

I think that is the closest that Biggles and I have come to agreeing to something in quite some time.

[Glengoyne]

Aren't both bad? I mean, really?

SI

In a way yes, but Wilson was playing politics, and I believe over playing his hand while at it. Moving to discredit him by making it known that nepotism played a role in his selection is not anywhere near as sinister as "outing" his wife in retribution.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Mr. B, I was very anti-Whitehouse on this thing and still think Rove et al. were out of line talking about CIA agents with the press. I even wanted Rove indicted.

But it's time to give it a rest. It's over.

[MrBigglesworth]

Mr. B, I was very anti-Whitehouse on this thing and still think Rove et al. were out of line talking about CIA agents with the press. I even wanted Rove indicted.

But it's time to give it a rest. It's over.
I'm just giving news updates in an old thread, if you'd prefer not to read them feel free to not click on the thread. I'm not demanding Bush's impeachment or even that Rove be indicted or anything like that, I'm even finding common ground with Glen.

[flere-imsaho]

But it's time to give it a rest. It's over.

It's not over for the roughly 150,000 U.S. soldiers still in Iraq and the families of the almost 3000 who have been killed there.

And given Bush's speeches of this week, which continue to mention 9/11, WMD and Hussein in the same breath, I'd say the politics surrounding this War of False Pretenses are still not over (and won't be anytime before November).

[st.cronin]

I'm just trolling for a fight.

fixed

[duckman]

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d138/duckman76/a49dcfeb.jpg

[Dutch]

It's not over for the roughly 150,000 U.S. soldiers still in Iraq and the families of the almost 3000 who have been killed there.

And given Bush's speeches of this week, which continue to mention 9/11, WMD and Hussein in the same breath, I'd say the politics surrounding this War of False Pretenses are still not over (and won't be anytime before November).

If I were giving a speech, I would mention how Islamic Fundamentalists were responsible for bombing the WTC and the Pentagon. I would also mention how Saddam Hussein supported Islamic Fundamentalists through large financial supplements. I would mention also that Islamic Fundamentalists never once bombed Iraq while under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Despite it's lawlessness, and despite the alleged hatred between the two groups.

You can blame it on Bush, but it's not a simple as that. I'd put blame on Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein way before I'd blame President Bush for any of this.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I would mention also that Islamic Fundamentalists never once bombed Iraq while under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Despite it's lawlessness, and despite the alleged hatred between the two groups.

Should we start naming all the nations that Islamic Fundamentalists haven't bombed?

You can blame it on Bush, but it's not a simple as that. I'd put blame on Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein way before I'd blame President Bush for any of this.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the notion that Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator, but trying to lump him in with Al Qaeda and the "War on Terror" is misguided. And since Bush keeps mentioning ol' bin Laden in his recent speeches, how many years has it been since Bush declared he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive"? It seems like we never hear anything from Bush regarding bin Laden except for when elections roll around.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

It's not over for the roughly 150,000 U.S. soldiers still in Iraq and the families of the almost 3000 who have been killed there.

And given Bush's speeches of this week, which continue to mention 9/11, WMD and Hussein in the same breath, I'd say the politics surrounding this War of False Pretenses are still not over (and won't be anytime before November).

I agree. The pretenses issue is not over and important. But the isolated issue of Plame's outing is over, dead, and buried.

[Dutch]

Should we start naming all the nations that Islamic Fundamentalists haven't bombed?

In a relevant sort of way? Or in a "They didn't bomb Trinidad and Tobago" sort of way?

What about nations in the Middle East?

Bombed
Indonesia (Failed to support Islamic Fundamentalist groups)
Pakistan (Supported GWOT/West)
Saudi Arabia (Supported GWOT/West)
Qatar (Supported GWOT/West)
Kuwait (Supported GWOT/West)
Egypt (Supported GWOT/West)
Morrocco (Supported GWOT/West)
Iraq (post-Baath Party/Supported GWOT/West)
Afghanistan (post-Taliban/Supported GWOT/West)
Yemen (Supported GWOT)

Didn't Bomb
Iraq (pre-USA/Supported Terrorism Financially)
Iran (Supports Terrorism Financially)
Syria (Supports Terrorism Financially)
Afghanistan (pre-USA/Supported Terrorism Financially )

Not sure about Libya, Algeria and Tunisia.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the notion that Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator, but trying to lump him in with Al Qaeda and the "War on Terror" is misguided. And since Bush keeps mentioning ol' bin Laden in his recent speeches, how many years has it been since Bush declared he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive"? It seems like we never hear anything from Bush regarding bin Laden except for when elections roll around.

Iraq and Al Qaeda were inter-twined, but it might be a little bit more compicated than a CNN headline could explain. The reason Usama Bin Laden even cares about the USA was because we "outbid" Al Qaeda's Jihad idea for the defense of Saudi Arabia from Iraq. And Al Qaeda quickly began to despise us for "occupying" the land of the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina (or so it was publicly stated). Al Qaeda insisted we leave Saudi Arabia. We did and moved north in Iraq and low and behold, they sure pissed off about the overthrow of the Baath Party. Their activity in Iraq is monumental compared to their activity against US forces 'occupying' the 2 holy cities. Now why is that? Because they hated the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein? That doesn't add up.

As for Bin Laden. He is symbolic, I'll grant you that, and his capture would be nice, but as far as I can tell, the guy is irrelevant to the what's left of the Al Qaeda splinter cells. As mysterious as it is to have the guy send out a cassette tape once a year from the mountains of Pakistan (or the jungles of the Congo for all we know), it really seems his leadership already died.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Iraq and Al Qaeda were inter-twined

Well, they certainly are now.

But before the war?

The CIA doesn't agree with you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washington/09intelcnd.html?hp&ex=1157774400&en=0f631262baeef300&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The Senate Intelligence Committee said today that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/saddam_hussein/index.html?inline=nyt-per) had prewar ties to Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/z/abu_musab_al_zarqawi/index.html?inline=nyt-per).

...

The intelligence committee report notes that the Central Intelligence Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) concluded that, despite rumors of contacts between two of the Sept. 11 hijackers and members of the Hussein regime, “We have no credible information that Baghdad was complicit in the attacks on the Pentagon or the World Trade Center on 11 September or any other Al Qaeda strike.”

The report also says that postwar findings in Iraq do not support a 2002 intelligence estimate that Iraq was busily reconstituting it nuclear-weapons program or was in possession of biological weapons.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Dutch is still hoping that if you say it long and loud enough, it makes it true.

[Buccaneer]

You know, I wonder. Would we be talking about Saddam now in the same way we talk about the Iranian madman? Would it have been one or the other or both causing problems? Would it have been more of a problem if we had Iranian-backed Hezbollah and Iraqi-backed Hamas? Despite the rival factions, would they have agreed to have wiped Israel away?

[clintl]

Not sure about Libya, Algeria and Tunisia.


Algeria has had its own internal problem with Islamic fundamentalists.

[MrBigglesworth]

Their activity in Iraq is monumental compared to their activity against US forces 'occupying' the 2 holy cities. Now why is that?
I would say because the security situation in Iraq is such that it makes attacks more possible.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

What about nations in the Middle East?

Bombed
Indonesia (Failed to support Islamic Fundamentalist groups)
Pakistan (Supported GWOT/West)
Saudi Arabia (Supported GWOT/West)
Qatar (Supported GWOT/West)
Kuwait (Supported GWOT/West)
Egypt (Supported GWOT/West)
Morrocco (Supported GWOT/West)
Iraq (post-Baath Party/Supported GWOT/West)
Afghanistan (post-Taliban/Supported GWOT/West)
Yemen (Supported GWOT)

Didn't Bomb
Iraq (pre-USA/Supported Terrorism Financially)
Iran (Supports Terrorism Financially)
Syria (Supports Terrorism Financially)
Afghanistan (pre-USA/Supported Terrorism Financially )

Not sure about Libya, Algeria and Tunisia.

Since when are Indonesia and Morocco considered the Middle East?

What about Turkey? It wasn't attacked until 2003 (You know, after the invasion of Iraq made us all safer from terrorism). I guess prior to that Turkey was working with the Islamic Fundamentalists? What about Azerbaijan? Bahrain? Djibouti? Mauritania? Niger? Oman? Tajikistan? The United Arab Emirates? Uzbekistan? Do they all support Islamic terrorists?

And Al Qaeda quickly began to despise us for "occupying" the land of the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina (or so it was publicly stated). Al Qaeda insisted we leave Saudi Arabia. We did and moved north in Iraq and low and behold, they sure pissed off about the overthrow of the Baath Party. Their activity in Iraq is monumental compared to their activity against US forces 'occupying' the 2 holy cities. Now why is that? Because they hated the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein? That doesn't add up.

So the US leaves Saudi Arabia for Iraq and that's supposed to make Al-Qaeda happy? They don't want us in the Middle East, period. And the reason their activity in Iraq is "monumental" is because right now, in case you haven't noticed, Iraq is a mess. That makes it pretty easy to go around attacking people. That tends to happen during times of anarchy, you know. Do their attacks have anything to do with the Baath Party? Are they advocating the return of Saddam Hussein to power?

As for Bin Laden. He is symbolic, I'll grant you that, and his capture would be nice, but as far as I can tell, the guy is irrelevant to the what's left of the Al Qaeda splinter cells. As mysterious as it is to have the guy send out a cassette tape once a year from the mountains of Pakistan (or the jungles of the Congo for all we know), it really seems his leadership already died.

Are you serious? Please tell me you are joking. I don't know if bin Laden is still the top dog in Al-Qaeda, but that makes him nothing more than symbolic and irrelevant? The man directly responsible for September 11th? You must have a really short memory. And I have no doubt that if bin Laden were captured tomorrow, you would be on here gloating about how wonderful this is and how it shows that we are winning the "War on Terror". :rolleyes:

[clintl]

The Senate Intelligence Committee said today that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/saddam_hussein/index.html?inline=nyt-per) had prewar ties to Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/z/abu_musab_al_zarqawi/index.html?inline=nyt-per).




The Senate Intelligence Committee report goes further than that. It says that Saddam refused a request for support from Bin Laden in 1995, and viewed Islamic fundamentalists as a threat to his regime. The report also concluded that Saddam not only did not give safe harbor to Al-Zarqawi, he tried to capture him.

Saddam viewed Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and Al-Zarqawi as enemies, not allies.

It's time for the Bush Administration (and in particular, Dick Cheney) to stop the deceit they've been practicing for the last 3 1/2 years on this point.

[NoMyths]

Libby's Defense Lawyers: Libby Blamed for Leak to Protect Rove

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/23/cialeaktrial.ap/index.html

Full Text:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top White House officials tried to blame vice presidential aide "Scooter" Libby for the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity to protect President Bush's political strategist, Karl Rove, Libby's defense attorney said Tuesday as his perjury trial began.

I. Lewis Libby is accused of lying to FBI agents, who began investigating after syndicated columnist Robert Novak revealed that a chief Bush administration critic, Joseph Wilson, was married to CIA operative Valerie Plame.

When the leak investigation was launched, White House officials cleared Rove of wrongdoing but stopped short of doing so for Libby. Libby, who had been asked to counter Wilson's criticisms, felt betrayed and sought out his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, Wells said.

"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," attorney Theodore Wells said, recalling Libby's end of the conversation. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

Rove was one of two sources for Novak's story. The other was then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Nobody, including Rove and Armitage, has been charged with the leak. Libby is accused of lying to investigators and obstructing the probe into the leak.

Cheney's notes from that meeting underscore Libby's concern, Wells said.

"Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder," the note said, according to Wells.

The description of the White House infighting was a rare glimpse into the secretive workings of Bush's inner circle. It also underscores how hectic and stressful the White House had become when the probe was launched.

By pointing the finger at Rove, whom he referred to as "the lifeblood of the Republican party," Wells sought to cast Libby as a scapegoat.

"He is an innocent man and he has been wrongly and unjustly and unfairly accused," Wells said.

As the trial opened with a preview of each side's position, it was clear that the jury will be tasked with sorting through conflicting statements in a high-profile case that has opened a very public window on the behind-the-scenes Washington practice of leaking sensitive information to the news media.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald told a far different story from Wells. He described for jurors a Bush administration effort to beat back early criticism of the Iraq war and accused Libby of lying to investigators about his role in that campaign.

Using a computerized calendar during opening statement, Fitzgerald described a tumultuous week in 2003 when he said the White House was under "direct attack" from Wilson.

Fitzgerald said Libby learned from five people -- from Cheney to members of the CIA and State Department -- that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Libby discussed that fact to reporters and others in the White House, Fitzgerald said.

"But when the FBI and grand jury asked about what the defendant did," Fitzgerald said, "he made up a story."

Libby told investigators he learned about Plame from NBC News reporter Tim Russert. But Fitzgerald told jurors that was clearly a lie because Libby had already been discussing the matter inside and outside of the White House.

"You can't learn something on Thursday that you're giving out on Monday," Fitzgerald said.

Libby says he didn't lie but was simply bogged down by national security issues and couldn't remember his conversations with New York Times report Judith Miller, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and Russert.

"He spends his day trying to connect the dots to be sure we don't have another 9/11," Wells said.

Opening statements were expected to continue into Tuesday afternoon. The trial is expected to last four to six weeks.