The Plame affair....... - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 09-05-2006, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch'i

I agree in that whoever it was that leaked the information probably did not do it out of political spite. But why has Novak refused to reveal his source, unless he were given incentive not to, or connected in some way?

Reporters have been known to go to jail rather than reveal a source.

http://www.rcfp.org/news/2005/0613-con-report.html
http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/...r/nw1124-3.htm
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/articl...parentid=40976

etc....etc....etc....

Now we can add the LA Times to the list, though you can hear the disapointment in the writers prose.

Quote:

THE VALERIE PLAME AFFAIR, which once seemed like a political morality play, has morphed into a dark comedy of errors. One more scene remains to be enacted — the criminal trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney — but it would have been better for all concerned if the curtain had been brought down on this drama long ago.

Last week it was revealed that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, not a White House political operative, was Robert Novak's primary source for his now infamous July 2003 syndicated column about a fact-finding mission to Africa by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. In that column Novak cited "two administration officials" who had told him that Wilson's wife, a CIA operative named Valerie Plame, had suggested sending Wilson to Niger to determine if that nation had supplied uranium to Saddam Hussein.

....
Still, the latest twists and turns in the Plame-Wilson affair make us wish that we had been right when we observed, almost exactly three years ago, that "no one should count on catching the leaker, at least in a legally airtight manner."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...-pe-california

I can hear the disapointment in that last sentance.

roachboy · 09-05-2006, 09:17 AM

last time.

i remain totally unclear about what you imagine you are doing via the repetition of this cherrypicked information from "hubris" across the hall of mirrors that is the press--which you yourself have criticized in other threads, ustwo.

it seems to me that you in fact have no problem with the hall of mirrors at all--only with information passing into it that you do not like, that runs against your political predispositions.

there are--there remain--basic questions about the logic of the interpretation you swallow without the slightest hesitation because you imagine some type of vindication follows from it. these questions have been posed to you over and over in this thread and in typical ustwo fashion you cannot respond. why dont you scroll back and answer them rather than continue with this tedious exercise in repetition repetition.

host · 09-05-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

last time.

i remain totally unclear about what you imagine you are doing via the repetition of this cherrypicked information from "hubris" across the hall of mirrors that is the press--which you yourself have criticized in other threads, ustwo.

it seems to me that you in fact have no problem with the hall of mirrors at all--only with information passing into it that you do not like, that runs against your political predispositions.

there are--there remain--basic questions about the logic of the interpretation you swallow without the slightest hesitation because you imagine some type of vindication follows from it. these questions have been posed to you over and over in this thread and in typical ustwo fashion you cannot respond. why dont you scroll back and answer them rather than continue with this tedious exercise in repetition repetition.

roachboy, your ending to your last post is "on point" and reinforced by the "spectacle" of the contrast between the first and the last posts on page #1 of this thread......two posts that are "bookends", standing in such stark contrast between opinion justified by "spin", as in the Ustwo authored OP, and it's "documentation", vs. the last post, which relies on excerpts from news reported by "news reporters", and from special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's statements in a court filing in the Libby prosecution.

roachboy, you and I are at a disadvantage, because we cannot put ourselves into the shoes of folks who can digest and then embrace as their own opinion, and then post about it on these threads, a fabrication that is intended to totally replace, because it cannot counter, what has been reported in the news, concerning the Plame CIA leak investigation, and in statements of the special counsel, Fitzgerald himself. The folks in these "special shoes" (or hats ??) somehow find solace in this thread's OP, and in the page on this link:

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6529
Just as the contrast between the gloating over, as you put it, "hall and mirrors" BS, "spun up" on the page in the link above, by the very principles who produced this rival to the farcical WaPo editorial in this thread's OP, is obvious when compared to the following examination of the editorial that is this thread's OP:

From the WaPo editorial that Ustwo anchored this thread's OP on:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...083101460.html
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 partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

My rebuttal to the core claim ["that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue"] in the WaPo editorial:

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609020003
A September 1 Washington
Post <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460.html">editorial</a>
asserted that the revelation that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard
Armitage was columnist Robert D. Novak's original source for former CIA operative Valerie
Plame's identity proved "untrue" the notion that White House
officials disclosed Plame's identity to reporters in an effort to
"ruin [Plame's] career" and "punish" her husband,
former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. To support its assertion, the editorial
quoted from an August 29 Post <a href="http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801278.html">article</a>

by staff
writer R. Jeffrey Smith, in which Smith wrote that Armitage disclosed
Plame's identity "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip."
However, the assertion that it is "untrue" that White House officials "orchestrated the
leak of Plame's identity" is contradicted by many other Post articles published in the three years
since Novak's column, as well as by court documents filed by special
counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald -- which the Post
acknowledged later in the same editorial.

Here is what the WaPo acknowledged later in the same editorial, posted in this thread's OP :

That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.
Here is how the WaPo's own April 9, news reporting described the above events....see how that description contrasts to the "editorial license", taken by the WaPo editorialist, and embraced by Ustwo, Marv, the RNC, et al:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...800916_pf.html
A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic
Prosecutor Describes Cheney, Libby as Key Voices Pitching Iraq-Niger Story

By Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 9, 2006; A01

As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.

Bluntly and repeatedly, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign. Citing grand jury testimony from the vice president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald fingered Cheney as the first to voice a line of attack that at least three White House officials would soon deploy against former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Cheney, in a conversation with Libby in early July 2003, was said to describe Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger the previous year -- in which the envoy found no support for charges that Iraq tried to buy uranium there -- as "a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife," CIA case officer Valerie Plame.

Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for denying under oath that he disclosed Plame's CIA employment to journalists. There is no public evidence to suggest Libby made any such disclosure with Cheney's knowledge. But according to Libby's grand jury testimony, described for the first time in legal papers filed this week, Cheney "specifically directed" Libby in late June or early July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents: an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and a March 2002 summary of Wilson's visit to Niger.

One striking feature of that decision -- unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it -- is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before.

United Nations inspectors had exposed the main evidence for the uranium charge as crude forgeries in March 2003, but the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair's role in promoting the story. With no ally left, the White House debated whether to abandon the uranium claim and became embroiled in bitter finger-pointing about whom to fault for the error. A legal brief filed for Libby last month said that "certain officials at the CIA, the White House, and the State Department each sought to avoid or assign blame for intelligence failures relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

It was at that moment that Libby, allegedly at Cheney's direction, sought out at least three reporters to bolster the discredited uranium allegation. Libby made careful selections of language from the 2002 estimate, quoting a passage that said Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium" in Africa.

The first of those conversations, according to the evidence made known thus far, came when Libby met with Bob Woodward, an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, on June 27, 2003. In sworn testimony for Fitzgerald, according to a statement Woodward released on Nov. 14, 2005, Woodward said Libby told him of the intelligence estimate's description of Iraqi efforts to obtain "yellowcake," a processed form of natural uranium ore, in Africa. In an interview Friday, Woodward said his notes showed that Libby described those efforts as "vigorous."

Libby's next known meeting with a reporter, according to Fitzgerald's legal filing, was with Judith Miller, then of the New York Times, on July 8, 2003. He spoke again to Miller, and to Time magazine's Matt Cooper, on July 12.

At Cheney's instruction, Libby testified, he told Miller that the uranium story was a "key judgment" of the intelligence estimate, a term of art indicating there was consensus on a question of central importance.

In fact, the alleged effort to buy uranium was not among the estimate's key judgments, which were identified by a headline and bold type and set out in bullet form in the first five pages of the 96-page document.

Unknown to the reporters, the uranium claim lay deeper inside the estimate, where it said a fresh supply of uranium ore would "shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons." But it also said U.S. intelligence did not know the status of Iraq's procurement efforts, "cannot confirm" any success and had "inconclusive" evidence about Iraq's domestic uranium operations.

Iraq's alleged uranium shopping had been strongly disputed in the intelligence community from the start. In a closed Senate hearing in late September 2002, shortly before the October NIE was completed, then-director of central intelligence George J. Tenet and his top weapons analyst, Robert Walpole, expressed strong doubts about the uranium story, which had recently been unveiled publicly by the British government. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, likewise, called the claim "highly dubious." For those reasons, the uranium story was relegated to a brief inside passage in the October estimate.

But the White House Iraq Group, formed in August 2002 to foster "public education" about Iraq's "grave and gathering danger" to the United States, repeatedly pitched the uranium story. The alleged procurement was a minor issue for most U.S. analysts -- the hard part for Iraq would be enriching uranium, not obtaining the ore, and Niger's controlled market made it an unlikely seller -- but the Niger story proved irresistible to speechwriters. Most nuclear arguments were highly technical, but the public could easily grasp the link between uranium and a bomb.

Tenet interceded to keep the claim out of a speech Bush gave in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, but by Dec. 19 it reappeared in a State Department "fact sheet." After that, the Pentagon asked for an authoritative judgment from the National Intelligence Council, the senior coordinating body for the 15 agencies that then constituted the U.S. intelligence community. Did Iraq and Niger discuss a uranium sale, or not? If they had, the Pentagon would need to reconsider its ties with Niger.

The council's reply, drafted in a January 2003 memo by the national intelligence officer for Africa, was unequivocal: The Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest. Four U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge said in interviews that the memo, which has not been reported before, arrived at the White House as Bush and his highest-ranking advisers made the uranium story a centerpiece of their case for the rapidly approaching war against Iraq.

Bush put his prestige behind the uranium story in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address. Less than two months later, the International Atomic Energy Agency exposed the principal U.S. evidence as bogus. A Bush-appointed commission later concluded that the evidence, a set of contracts and correspondence sold by an Italian informant, was "transparently forged."

On the ground in Iraq, meanwhile, the hunt for weapons of mass destruction was producing no results, and as the bad news converged on the White House -- weeks after a banner behind Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln -- Wilson emerged as a key critic. He focused his ire on Cheney, who had made the administration's earliest and strongest claims about Iraq's alleged nuclear program.

Fitzgerald wrote that Cheney and his aides saw Wilson as a threat to "the credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq." They decided to respond by implying that Wilson got his CIA assignment by "nepotism."

They were not alone. Fitzgerald reported for the first time this week that "multiple officials in the White House"-- not only Libby and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who have previously been identified -- discussed Plame's CIA employment with reporters before and after publication of her name on July 14, 2003, in a column by Robert D. Novak. Fitzgerald said the grand jury has collected so much testimony and so many documents that "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson."

At the same time, top officials such as then-deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley were pressing the CIA to declassify more documents in hopes of defending the president's use of the uranium claim in his State of the Union speech. It was a losing battle. A "senior Bush administration official," speaking on the condition of anonymity as the president departed for Africa on July 7, 2003, told The Post that "the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." The comment appeared on the front page of the July 8 paper, the same morning that Libby met Miller at the St. Regis hotel.

Libby was still defending the uranium claim as the administration's internal battle burst into the open. White House officials tried to blame Tenet for the debacle, but Tenet made public his intervention to keep uranium out of Bush's speech a few months earlier. Hadley then acknowledged that he had known of Tenet's objections but forgot them as the State of the Union approached.

Hoping to lay the controversy to rest, Hadley claimed responsibility for the Niger remarks.

In a speech two days later, at the American Enterprise Institute, Cheney defended the war by saying that no responsible leader could ignore the evidence in the NIE. Before a roomful of conservative policymakers, Cheney listed four of the "key judgments" on Iraq's alleged weapons capabilities but made no mention of Niger or uranium.

On July 30, 2003, two senior intelligence officials said in an interview that Niger was never an important part of the CIA's analysis, and that the language of Iraq's vigorous pursuit of uranium came verbatim from a Defense Intelligence Agency report that had caught the vice president's attention. The same day, the CIA referred the Plame leak to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution, the fateful step that would eventually lead to Libby's indictment.
Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Here is how special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald described the White House "OP" against the Wilson's, to the court in a Libby prosecution pleading:

Quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/do..._to_compel.pdf
Filed 04/05/2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO 05-394 (RBW) v. ) ) I. LEWIS LIBBY, ) also known as “Scooter Libby” ) GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, SPECIAL COUNSEL, respectfully submits the following response to the “Third Motion of I. Lewis Libby to Compel Discovery Under Rule 16 and Brady.”

(Begining near Bottom of Page 29: )
.....Defendant also asserts without elaboration that “documents that help establish that no White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson caused the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity also constitute Brady material.” Once again, defendant ignores the fact that he is not charged with participating in any conspiracy, much less one defined as a “White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson.” Thus, putative evidence that such a conspiracy did not exist is not Brady material. 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.10 Surely, defendant cannot claim that any document on its face that does not reflect a plot is exculpatory....

so......I'll request again that Ustwo (or Marv....or anyone...)provide a credible argument to back the WaPo's incredible editorial statment:
"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"

Willravel · 09-05-2006, 10:49 AM

Well, I stand corrected yet again. It appears that the ascertion that the idea of a blameless Bush Administration was premature at best.

Ustwo · 09-05-2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Well, I stand corrected yet again. It appears that the ascertion that the idea of a blameless Bush Administration was premature at best.

Fool me once, fool me twice willravel. Now that Rove, the demon of left wing nightmares is out of the picture as a target, they will switch to Cheney's aid in hope that they can get something to stick. Your post did get me to do something I rarely do these days and read one of hosts scroll button inducing posts, or more specificily the longest quoted piece in one of them. I saw a heck of a lot of rehashing for the Niger yellow cake information, but very little/nothing that would like Cheney (the real target) with leaking the Plame information. The fact that Cheney would take interest and try to explain, discredit, downplay, whatever Wilsons report should not be shocking nor is it an issue here.

The angle of course will be that Cheney ordered Libby to release the information about Plame, which still hits the 'why bother' wall. If your goal is to discredit "Wilson's" report, having the general public know his wife was in the CIA does nothing to help your cause.

Willravel · 09-05-2006, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Fool me once, fool me twice willravel.

I think it goes:
"...fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Now that Rove, the demon of left wing nightmares is out of the picture as a target, they will switch to Cheney's aid in hope that they can get something to stick. Your post did get me to do something I rarely do these days and read one of hosts scroll button inducing posts, or more specificily the longest quoted piece in one of them. I saw a heck of a lot of rehashing for the Niger yellow cake information, but very little/nothing that would like Cheney (the real target) with leaking the Plame information. The fact that Cheney would take interest and try to explain, discredit, downplay, whatever Wilsons report should not be shocking nor is it an issue here.

The bottom line of my post is that we still don't know. It is still possible that Cheney was involved. It's also possible that the whole thing was Paris Hilton's idea, but the point is that we don't know. We won't know until we know and that is not now. To say we do know is incorrect.

host · 09-05-2006, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

......so......I'll request again that Ustwo (or Marv....or anyone...)provide a credible argument to back the WaPo's incredible editorial statment:
"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"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Fool me once, fool me twice willravel. Now that Rove, the demon of left wing nightmares is out of the picture as a target, they will switch to Cheney's aid in hope that they can get something to stick. Your post did get me to do something I rarely do these days and read one of hosts scroll button inducing posts, or more specificily the longest quoted piece in one of them. I saw a heck of a lot of rehashing for the Niger yellow cake information, but very little/nothing that would like Cheney (the real target) with leaking the Plame information. The fact that Cheney would take interest and try to explain, discredit, downplay, whatever Wilsons report should not be shocking nor is it an issue here.

The angle of course will be that Cheney ordered Libby to release the information about Plame, which still hits the 'why bother' wall. If your goal is to discredit "Wilson's" report, having the general public know his wife was in the CIA does nothing to help your cause.

....and here, the thread will sit.....because my "request" will be met with negative personal innuendo directed at me, but no response to support the premise of this thread's OP.....it's sad and disconserting, that this "technique" of avoidance, intended to pass for credible rebuttal, is posted so unabashedly.....and actually receives acceptance and support, as will be evident in future posts here!

dc_dux · 09-05-2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The problem wasn't the investigation. That was a good and needed thing in a case like this. The problem was the spin and the hopeful, almost pleading, salivating, prayer from many members of the left that Rove (and or Cheney) was the one involved. He was convicted in the lefts kangaroo court on this board, and in various media, when it turns out that for quite a while it was known to the investigation that he was not the leak.

Guilt was assumed, it wasn't proven in the least, hell it didn't even make sense, but that didn't stop members of this board, and from propaganda sites like truthout.org and even mainstream media from left of center sources from convicting the man on no proof beyond the word of her husband, who ironically is perhaps the most to blame in this whole silly messy.

Even if we pretend it was Rove in some happy left wing Candy Land, its not even apparent that a law would have been broken as her status may not have been one that identification of her as an agent was illegal. That I'll leave to debate, as the Plame's are not answering the needed questions on that, and that also doesn't take into account that she may have been long compromised prior. I still think it would have been bad form by Rove to do so even in passing, but to claim it was done as a deliberate sabotage of some minor diplomats wife career is just asinine in the extreme. If mean spiritedness was in fact a motivation, I'm sure that the executive branch could ruin Mrs. Plame's career as a CIA agent without exposing themselves to legal action.

I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that an investigation may have been apppropriate and I agree that many on the left were overzealous in their wishes to bring down Rove.

Its unfortunate that you and others seem to want to limit the discussion to its most narrow focus...the outing of Plame....and not acknowledge the broader, much more serious issue that the case unveiled. The (alleged) actions as outlined in the indictment of Libby that this administration manipulated intelligence data, particularly a highly classified NIE, for political purposes.

You mention "the problem was the spin." Is there really a better spin machine in the current political envrionment, particularly on any issue that relates to Iraq, than the White House?

I am now supposed to feel like someone who would have been a Nazi sypathizer (Rumsfeld) or who would have pulled northern troops out of the Civil War and left slavery remain (Condi) if I oppose the Bush Iraq war policy. Now that is spin

(but the subject for another thread...excuse the digression)

host · 09-05-2006, 09:01 PM

This thread was anchored, in it's OP, by a WaPo editorial that was "justified" by excerpts of a soon to be released book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307346811/sr=8-1/qid=1156557686/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8"> Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War</a>, by David Corn and Newsweek's Michael Isikoff

I've started a new thread, titled as it is in David Corn's most recent excerpt from his above titled book, and I hope that those who embraced the conclusions in the WaPo editorial in this thread's OP, will react to David Corn's and Michael Isikoff's newest revelations, with similar enthusiasm:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108229">What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA</a>

The content in the first quote box below was written by John Dean, two years before Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of Scooter Libby was announced.
Howard Fineman's Newsweek report that follows, certainly supports the late 2005 and early 2006 reporting of John Dickerson, displayed in depth at the thread I post about, above.

The news reporting of Fineman and Dickerson, coupled with the language in what should have been a brief indictment of Libby for perjury and obstruction, but instead, delved into description and citation of laws which Libby was not indicted for allegedley breaking.....coupled with the curious length of time that Fitzgerald's investigation is taking, IMO, provides serious consideration of both of John Dean's columns, written two full years, apart:

Quote:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20031010.html
A Further Look At The Criminal ChargesThat May Arise From the Plame Scandal, In Which a CIA Agent's Cover Was Blown
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Oct. 10, 2003

.........It is entirely possible that no one at the Bush "White House" or on the President's personal staff, was involved in the initial leak to Novak. It could have been someone at the National Security Council, which is related to the Bush White House but not part of it.

In fact, Novak wrote in one of his later columns, that the leak came from a person who was "no partisan gunslinger." That sounds like an NSC staffer to me. And as Newsweek also reported (you can count on Michael Isikoff to dig this stuff out), Valerie Plame's CIA identity was likely known to senior intelligence people on the NSC staff, for apparently one of them had worked with Ms. Plame at the CIA.

But even if the White House was not initially involved with the leak, it has exploited it. As a result, it may have opened itself to additional criminal charges under the <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=371">federal conspiracy statute</a>.

Why the Federal Conspiracy and Fraud Statutes May Apply Here

This elegantly simple law has snared countless people working for, or with, the federal government. Suppose a conspiracy is in progress. Even those who come in later, and who share in the purpose of the conspiracy, can become responsible for all that has gone on before they joined. They need not realize they are breaking the law; they need only have joined the conspiracy.

Most likely, in this instance the conspiracy would be a conspiracy to defraud - for the broad federal fraud statute, too, may apply here. If two federal government employees agree to undertake actions that are not within the scope of their employment, they can be found guilty of defrauding the U.S. by depriving it of the "faithful and honest services of its employee." It is difficult to imagine that President Bush is going to say he hired anyone to call reporters to wreak more havoc on Valerie Plame. Thus, anyone who did so - or helped another to do so - was acting outside the scope of his or her employment, and may be open to a fraud prosecution.

What counts as "fraud" under the statute? Simply put, "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government." (Emphasis added.) If telephoning reporters to further destroy a CIA asset whose identity has been revealed, and whose safety is now in jeopardy, does not fit this description, I would be quite surprised.

If Newsweek is correct that Karl Rove declared Valerie Plame Wilson "fair game," then he should make sure he's got a good criminal lawyer, for he made need one. I've only suggested the most obvious criminal statute that might come into play for those who exploit the leak of a CIA asset's identity. There are others.............

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8600327/...wsweek/page/2/
Rove at War
He rose using tactics his foes are turning against him. But never bet against Karl Rove.
By Howard Fineman
Newsweek
Updated: 4:04 p.m. ET July 17, 2005

.........Rove's lawyer says that there has been no wrongdoing, and that the prosecutor has told him that Rove is not a "target" of the probe. But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: that he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil.....

.........It's unlikely that any White House officials considered that they were doing anything illegal in going after Joe Wilson. Indeed, the line between national security and politics had long since been all but erased by the Bush administration. In the months after 9/11, the Republican National Committee, a part of Rove's empire, had sent out a fund-raising letter that showed the president aboard Air Force One in the hours after the attack. Democrats howled, but that was the Bush Rove was selling in the re-election campaign: commander in chief. Now Wilson was getting in the way of that glorious story, essentially accusing the administration of having blundered or lied the country into war.

How do you publicly counter a guy like that? As "senior adviser," Rove would be involved in finding out. Technically, Rove was in charge of politics, not "communications." But, as he saw it, the two were one and the same—and he used his heavyweight status to push the message machine run by his Texas protegé and friend, Dan Bartlett. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was sent out to trash the Wilson op-ed. "Zero, nada, nothing new here," he said. Then, on a long Bush trip to Africa, Fleischer and Bartlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip. How did the spin doctors know to cast that lure? One possible explanation: some aides may have read the State Department intel memo, which Powell had brought with him aboard Air Force One...........

Quote:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051104.html
A Cheney-Libby Conspiracy, Or Worse? Reading Between the Lines of the Libby Indictment
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Nov. 04, 2005

....Again, Libby is charged with having perjured himself, made false statements, and obstructed justice by lying to FBI agents and the grand jury. A bare-bones indictment would address only these alleged crimes.

But this indictment went much further - delving into a statute under which Libby is not charged.

Count One, paragraph 1(b) is particularly revealing. Its first sentence establishes that Libby had security clearances giving him access to classified information. Then 1(b) goes on to state: "As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure." (The section also goes on to stress that Libby executed, on January 23, 2001, an agreement indicating understanding that he was receiving classified information, the disclosure of which could bring penalties.)

What is Title 18, United States Code, Section 793? It's the Espionage Act -- a broad, longstanding part of the criminal code.

The Espionage Act criminalizes, among other things, the willful - or grossly negligent -- communication of national-defense related information that "the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." It also criminalizes conspiring to violate this anti-disclosure provision

But Libby isn't charged with espionage. He's charged with lying to our government and thereby obstructing justice. So what's going on? Why is Fitzgerald referencing the Espionage Act?

The press conference added some clarity on this point.

Libby's Obstruction Has Blocked An Espionage Act Charge

The Special Counsel was asked, "If Mr. Libby had testified truthfully, would he be being charged in this crime today?" His response was more oblique than most.

In answering, he pointed out that "if national defense information which is involved because [of Plame's] affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act." (Emphasis added). (As noted above, gross negligence would also suffice.)

But, as Fitzgerald also noted at his press conference, great care needs to be taken in applying the Espionage Act: "So there are people," he said, "who argue that you should never use that statute because it would become like the [British] Official Secrets Act. I don't buy that theory, but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute."

His further example was also revealing. "Let's not presume that Mr. Libby is guilty. But let's assume, for the moment, that the allegations in the indictment are true. If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action, if you don't know the truth.... If he had told the truth, we would have made the judgment based upon those facts...." (Emphases added.)

Finally, he added. "We have not charged him with [that] crime. I'm not making an allegation that he violated [the Espionage Act]. What I'm simply saying is one of the harms in obstruction is that you don't have a clear view of what should be done. And that's why people ought to walk in, go into the grand jury, you're going to take an oath, tell us the who, what, when, where and why -- straight." (Emphasis added)

In short, because Libby has lied, and apparently stuck to his lie, Fitzgerald is unable to build a case against him or anyone else under Section 793, a provision which he is willing to invoke, albeit with care.

And who is most vulnerable under the Espionage Act? Dick Cheney - as I will explain.

Libby Is The Firewall Protecting Vice President Cheney

The Libby indictment asserts that "[o]n 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 Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."

In short, Cheney provided the classified information to Libby - who then told the press. Anyone who works in national security matters knows that the Counterproliferation Division is part of the Directorate of Operations -- the covert side of the CIA, where most everything and everyone are classified.

According to Fitzgerald, Libby admits he learned the information from Cheney at the time specified in the indictment. But, according to Fitzgerald, Libby also maintained - in speaking to both FBI agents and the grand jury - that Cheney's disclosure played no role whatsoever in Libby's disclosure to the media.

Or as Fitzgerald noted at his press conference, Libby said, "he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from [the reporter] Mr. [Tim] Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new."..........

..........Thus, from the outset of the investigation, Libby has been Dick Cheney's firewall. And it appears that Fitzgerald is actively trying to penetrate that firewall.

What Is Likely To Occur Next?

It has been reported that Libby's attorney tried to work out a plea deal. But Fitzgerald insisted on jail time, so Libby refused to make a deal. It appears that only Libby, in addition to Cheney, knows what Cheney knew, and when he knew, and why he knew, and what he did with his knowledge.

Fitzgerald has clearly thrown a stacked indictment at Libby, laying it on him as heavy as the law and propriety permits. He has taken one continuous false statement, out of several hours of interrogation, and made it into a five-count indictment. It appears he is trying to flip Libby - that is, to get him to testify against Cheney -- and not without good reason. Cheney is the big fish in this case..........

.......So if Libby can take the heat for a time, he and his former boss (and friend) may get through this. But should Republicans lose control of the Senate (where they are blocking all oversight of this administration), I predict Cheney will resign "for health reasons."

Quote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DG0SJ7NHV1.DTL
A case of mistaken identity
Debra J. Saunders
Thursday, August 31, 2006

.....As for the time table, while Deputy U.S. Attorney General James B. Comey told reporters that Fitzgerald had a reputation for working quickly, Fitzgerald has spent years investigating a leak that he has failed to prosecute, although the Libby prosecution is pending.......

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107027,00.html
Raw Data: Statement by James Comey
Tuesday, December 30, 2003

A text of Deputy Attorney General James Comey on Attorney General John Ashcroft's decision to recuse himself from the CIA leak investigation

....I also considered naming a special counsel from outside the government. The regulations promulgated in 1999 by Attorney General Reno say that an outside special counsel should — and I'm going to read you the quote — "be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decision-making, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies."

When I read that, I realized that it describes Pat Fitzgerald perfectly. I once told a Chicago newspaper that Pat Fitzgerald was Elliot Ness with a Harvard law degree and a sense of humor. Anyone who knows him, who knows his work, who knows his background, knows that he is the perfect man for this job........

........To date, this investigation has been conducted professionally and expeditiously and I believe it would not be in the public interest for anything I do to cause this investigation to be put on hold for any period of time.

My choice of Pat Fitzgerald, a sitting United States attorney, permits this investigation to move forward immediately and to avoid the delay that would come from selecting, clearing and staffing an outside special counsel operation.

In addition, in many ways, the mandate that I am giving to Mr. Fitzgerald is significantly broader than that that would go to an outside special counsel......

Ustwo · 09-08-2006, 07:09 PM

More of the left wing press dodging the Plame affair now...

Quote:

Matthews: Plame Story Too Complicated to Cover Now
Posted by Matthew Sheffield on September 8, 2006 - 12:00.
Since the revelation that Richard Armitage, a former high-ranking official in the State Department, was the source of the much-ballyhooed Valerie Plame "leak," many in the media have refused to touch the story with a ten-foot pole. This was quite a turnaround since before the Armitage involvement was known, many journalists believed the CIA leak story was one worth pursuing on a daily basis. Some even believed it could bring down the Bush White House, or at least end the careers of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

One of the biggest media figures boycotting the Plame story has been MSNBC host Chris Matthews who has yet to mention the scandal at all since the Armitage report broke, a dramatic contrast to the 27 times he mentioned the "scandal" in the five months leading up to it.

Like P.J. Gladnick, I couldn't help but notice Matthews's strange flip. So I decided to ask him about it. His answer revealed an animus toward Vice President Dick Cheney and a fear of being asked to answer tough questions himself.

Last night, I went to a press conference/party held by MSNBC and National Journal celebrating a new venture the two media outlets are launching together. Quite a few NBCers were there, including Chris Matthews. I struck up a conversation with the host about the topic of Plame and why he hadn't talked about the story at all. Here's a rough transcript of our discussion which I wrote down shortly thereafter:

Q: So I've noticed you haven't done anything on the whole Valerie Plame story since the Armitage story broke. Why not invite Joe Wilson on the show to defend himself?

A: Because he'd say basically the same thing he always says. 'My wife had no involvement in getting me the mission.' He'd just repeat it over and over.

Q: Maybe, but isn't it at least worth showing your viewers that this guy has no credibility considering how much you talked about the story before? Shouldn't he be held accountable for wasting all our time? Why not invite one of his representatives or defenders on the show?

A: Well, the story's just gotten so complicated. I mean, it's just such a mess. Because what if it's true that Armitage was the source, but those other guys [presumably Rove and Scooter Libby], also were leakers, what then?

Q: Isn't that a question worth exploring on your show?

A: It could be but the problem is that Dick Cheney has so many apologists it's ridiculous. So many journalists like Bob Woodward will say or do anything just to get access to him. And then all the people in the administration too.

Q: I don't see why this is stopping you from mentioning the story at all. The viewers at least need some sort of closure don't they?

A: Hey listen I need to get out of here. I have to get back home.

After that remark, Matthews left the conversation. He stuck around for about 15 minutes before leaving.

Suddenly its a non-story that can't be covered? Interesting.....

Superbelt · 09-08-2006, 08:03 PM

Couple things your not remembering here.

Novak had TWO sources. The first has now been revealed as Armitage. The second, Novak has already revealed, long ago, as Rove. He was the confirming source for Novak. Without corroboration, Rove doesn't go through with it.
Rove was Cooper's primary source in this. Cooper says that Rove came to him with this on a date before the Novak column. So it just became a matter of Armitage's man, Novak being the Prince of Darkness and willing to run the story.

This changes nothing for me. Just add Armitage to the list of those guilty of Treason.

host · 09-09-2006, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

More of the left wing press dodging the Plame affair now...

Quote:

Matthews: Plame Story Too Complicated to Cover Now
Posted by Matthew Sheffield on September 8, 2006 - 12:00.
Since the revelation that Richard Armitage, a former high-ranking official in the State Department, was the source of the much-ballyhooed Valerie Plame "leak," many in the media have refused to touch the story with a ten-foot pole. This was quite a turnaround since before the Armitage involvement was known, many journalists believed the CIA leak story was one worth pursuing on a daily basis. Some even believed it could bring down the Bush White House, or at least end the careers of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.....

Suddenly its a non-story that can't be covered? Interesting.....

Ustwo did not post a link to the Matthew Sheffield article that he posted....and I find that to be a curious contradiction.

The polarized atmosphere here at TFP politics, and in political opinion in the larger "3D" arena across the US, may come down to this:

The link that Ustwo omitted is:
http://newsbusters.org/node/7482

Quote:

http://newsbusters.org/node/91
About NewsBusters.org
Posted by Brent Baker on August 1, 2005 - 07:35.

Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center, the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

With NewsBusters, the MRC has joined forces with the creators of the influential web site RatherBiased.com, Matthew Sheffield and Greg Sheffield, to launch the NewsBusters blog to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting.

Taking advantage of the MRC's thorough and ongoing tracking of liberal media bias, including a wealth of documentation and an archive of newscast video dating back 18 years, we aim to have NewsBusters play a leading role in blog media criticism by becoming the clearinghouse for all evidence of liberal media bias by joining to this formidable information store the contributions of already-established netizens as well as those who want to join in the web revolution.
Contacting Us

If you are a blogger and would like to contribute commentary, contact Greg Sheffield. News media inquiries about NewsBusters.org should be directed to the MRC's Director of Communications, Michael Chapman. For technical issues, send an email to newsbusters@mediaresearch.org
Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's mission is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. The MRC was founded on October 1, 1987 by a group of young, determined conservatives headed by L. Brent Bozell III who set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that this bias exists, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene.

NewsBusters.org is a project of the MRC's News Analysis Division, led since 1987 by Brent Baker, the MRC's Steven P.J. Wood Senior Fellow and Vice President for Research and Publications. The division produces daily, weekly and special reports that document and counter liberal bias from television network news shows and major print publications. Tim Graham serves as Director of Media Analysis and Rich Noyes is the Director of Research.

The MRC's other Web projects

TimesWatch, a site dedicated to "documenting and exposing the liberal political agenda of the New York Times."

Free Market Project, "auditing the media's coverage of the free market system."

CNSNews.com, the CyberCast News Service, where you get "The Right news. Right now."

The preceding link displays on the same page as the information displayed in the preceding quote box, on the right side of the page:

Masthead

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield 
Matthew Sheffield is employed by MRC, founded and controlled by L. Brent Bozell III
The evidence is that we are as polarized as we are, because some folks who post here, will cite references like:
(Even Dick Cheney cited a factcheck.org reference to support a point that he made in the 2004 televised VP debate....)

Quote:

http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html
The Wilson-Plame-Novak-Rove Blame Game

Both sides twist and hype the case of a CIA agent’s leaked identity. We document what’s known so far.

July 22, 2005

Modified: November 23, 2005

.......Analysis
......February 12, 2002 – The Defense Intelligence Agency writes a report concluding “Iraq is probably searching abroad for natural uranium to assist in its nuclear weapons program.” Vice President Cheney reads this report and asks for the CIA’s analysis. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 38-39, July 2004).

Responding to inquiries from Cheney’s office, the State Department, and the Defense Department, the CIA’s Directorate of Operations’ Counterproliferation Division (CPD) look for more information. They consider having Wilson return to Niger to investigate. In the process, Valerie Wilson writes a memo to a superior saying, “My husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” One of Valerie Wilson’s colleagues later tells Senate investigators she “offered up his name” for the trip. Wilson says that her agency made the decision and she only later approached her husband on the CIA’s behalf. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 39, July 2004).

February 19, 2002 – Joseph Wilson meets with officials from CIA and the State Department. According to a State Department intelligence analyst’s notes, the meeting was convened by Valerie Wilson. She later testifies that she left the meeting after introducing her husband. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 40, July 2004).

February 26, 2002 – Wilson arrives in Niger . He concludes, after a few days of interviews, that “it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 42, July 2004).

March 5, 2002 –Wilson reports back to two CIA officers at his home. Valerie Wilson is present but does not participate. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43, July 2004).

....Spring 2003 –Valerie Wilson is in the process of moving from non-official to official, State Department cover, according to a later Vanity Fair article based on interviews with the Wilsons . ( Vanity Fair , January 2004).....

In contrast to the above, here are some recent comments, on the same Brent Bozell website where Matthew Sheffield....the writer who Ustwo cited as the only foundation for his last post, exhibits how "fair and balanced" he is. What does this say about an organization that pays Sheffield to be "Executive Editor", of it's most prominent website that is supposed to expose, "media bias......and what does this indicate, if anything, about a decision to post Matthew Sheffield's "news reporting"....on the same subject....on this thread.....sans a link to his article?

Quote:

http://newsbusters.org/node/7274#comment
Matthew Sheffield Says:
August 30, 2006 - 17:24

Actually, Plame was removed from any kind of dangerous work after she was exposed as working for the CIA by Aldrich Ames.

There will be no charges against anyone else other than Libby. He will probably be acquitted. The whole "scandal" was a farce cooked up by fanatical Republican-haters. Only now is it turning into the nothing it should've been.

Joe Wilson is a creepy, pompous ass who couldn't even do the job his wife sent him to do. Valerie Wilson is a liar and a fraud who has been living a lie in her marriage and in pretending to be a secret agent.

The chasm the seperate us, is truly this wide.....and it is amazing that we are as civil to each other, as we.....even with third party moderation....manage to be:

Quote:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Pol...ophy/HL380.cfm
Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media
by L. Brent Bozell, III
Heritage Lecture #380

January 21, 1992

.....More often than not you won't see the MRC name on much that appears on the subject of media bias. The recent Washington Post Magazine cover story devoted to the rising political power of Hollywood made no reference to us, but the author of the piece used our research for her article. The late Warren Brookes never cited us, yet we provided him with much of his research on the media (and it goes without saying that he provided us with research on virtually everything else). David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times, who wrote the masterful series on the media's promotion of the pro-choice movement, spent considerable time at our offices conducting research for his piece. Indeed, I will go so far as to warrant that 90 percent of the stories in both the electronic and print media which deal with the political bias in the industry have their origins in the Media Research Center.............

.......Last year the MRC published the first annual National Press Directory for Conservatives to enable aspiring conservative journalists to network with their peers as they search for employment. Stan Evans of the National Journalism Center has performed yeoman's work to train young conservatives. I understand Morton Blackwell and his Leadership Institute are going to begin training seminars for broadcast journalists. They ought to be supported strongly.

Do not believe for a moment that conservatives have won the day in the battle to restore political balance within the national press. Far from it. The left still controls the press and continues to wield their power relentlessly in order to shape the political conversation. But the tide may have begun to shift against them. If that is so, it is critically important that conservatives understand the reasons behind it and rededicate themselves to the effort like never before.

<h3>Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century."</h3>

The news and entertainment media will continue to effect the cultural health of America. If we succeed in our mission to restore political balance to this institution, future generations win benefit and thank us. It's worth fighting for, now.

L. Brent Bozell, III is Chairman of the Media Research Center in Alexandria, Virginia.

He spoke on January 21, 1992 at The Heritage Foundation in the Resource Bank series of lectures featuring leaders of conservative education and public policy organizations.

Exactly a year ago today, I posted about L. Brent Bozell, III, on this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=45
roachboy followed with some well founded and well received observations,
Coincidentally, Ch'i revived that thread by posting there several hours ago:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...22#post1886622

We tried Brent Bozell's "vision", highlighted in bold letters, in the fall 2002 through spring 2003 period in the US. Mr. Bush got his Iraq invasion and occupation, with the help of an almost universally supportive, compliant, and unquestioning media. It didn't "work". It wasn't good for this country.

Neither is bashing special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, Valerie Plame, and Joe Wilson. Just as in the run up to war in Iraq....the "facts" that would justify bashing any of the above, do not match the policy of doing so. If you read the page at the link at factcheck.org, contradicting opinions of Ustwo and Matthew Sheffield, offer a stark contrast, and a defining moment in America.

Ch'i · 09-09-2006, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=21
something is obviously wrong if the conservative set cannot manage a serious debate even in a thread framed in its own peculiar language.

I'm going to frame this and put it on my wall.

NCB · 09-20-2006, 06:00 AM

Why no calls from the left to indict Armitage? After all, the left was concerned about this case because of national security implications. Or was that just political posturing?

Ustwo · 09-20-2006, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Why no calls from the left to indict Armitage? After all, the left was concerned about this case because of national security implications. Or was that just political posturing?

Its too 'confusing' now for the left it seems.

NCB · 09-20-2006, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its too 'confusing' now for the left it seems.

Probably still reeling from getting coal for Fitzmas

Rekna · 09-20-2006, 06:51 AM

Didn't plame extend her lawsuit to include Armitage? I have read lots of reports that people are extending the blame to Armitage in addition to what the administration did.

Ustwo · 09-20-2006, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Didn't plame extend her lawsuit to include Armitage? I have read lots of reports that people are extending the blame to Armitage in addition to what the administration did.

What the Plame's do is pretty inconsequential as it was Wilson who is to blame for much of this. What I don't see is the righteous indignation we were flooded with when the left thought this was about Rove and/or Cheney.

I mean come on, just suck it up and say it, the Plame 'affair' was very minor, there were no national security concerns, the left wasn't worried about anything beyond what they thought was the chance to nail Rove. If you can't beat him, discredit him. Now that it seems Rove is not to blame, its suddenly not such a big deal.

This just requires a bit of honesty on the lefts part...

You thought you had Rove but you didn't.

ratbastid · 09-20-2006, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I mean come on, just suck it up and say it, the Plame 'affair' was very minor, there were no national security concerns, the left wasn't worried about anything beyond what they thought was the chance to nail Rove. If you can't beat him, discredit him. Now that it seems Rove is not to blame, its suddenly not such a big deal.

The "affair" itself turns out not to have been such a big deal. The impact it had and continues to have on the administration was and is massive. It ripped the mask off Rove and declared it open season on all of them.

Coming along after the fact and saying, "Oh, see, we told you, it wasn't any big deal," just doesn't do justice to the smoking crater that the thing left.

host · 09-20-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

What the Plame's do is pretty inconsequential as it was Wilson who is to blame for much of this. What I don't see is the righteous indignation we were flooded with when the left thought this was about Rove and/or Cheney.

I mean come on, just suck it up and say it, the Plame 'affair' was very minor, there were no national security concerns, the left wasn't worried about anything beyond what they thought was the chance to nail Rove. If you can't beat him, discredit him. Now that it seems Rove is not to blame, its suddenly not such a big deal.

This just requires a bit of honesty on the lefts part...

You thought you had Rove but you didn't.

Let us compare what you "offered" in post #50...your last post on this thread, and the contents of my last post here, #52.

Even after I posted the fact that the propagandist, Brent Bozell's assistant propagandandist, Matthew Sheffiled, who you quoted in post #50, also said:

Quote:

http://newsbusters.org/node/7274#comment
Joe Wilson is a creepy, pompous ass who couldn't even do the job his wife sent him to do. Valerie Wilson is a liar and a fraud who has been living a lie in her marriage and in pretending to be a secret agent.

.....Here you are again....you still persist, in the face of all of the evidence to the contrary, and the signifigance of Scooter Libby's indictment on five criminal counts....a criminal effort to conceal the conspiracy and treason that came from officials at the white house, to punish Joe Wilson for writing publicly about what he "Didn't fine in Niger", because it brought attention to Bush and Cheney's misleading and false excuses for invading Iraq....determined to be so by a respected, republican appointed US attorney/special counsel.

This isn't some partisan game....and it is no "small thing", even if it was not a "in a time of war", declared ironically, by our terrorist, traitorous leaders, themselves. Too harsh a description.....in light of Fitzgerald's filings to the court, and Libby's indcitment...unless Fitzgerald is utterly mistaken, or lying,
WTF else would describe this official misconduct, coverup, and conspiracy?

Given that special counsel Fitzgerald has denied, in filings to a US Criminal Court Judge, the specifics of your entire argument, and the arguments of "fringe cases" like the one I just posted by Bozell's "Matthews", about Joe Wilson, and that actually....it was an effort to discredit Wilson that led to the fictitious white house "NEPOTISM OP", and the treasonous "outing" of Wilson's wife....during wartime....by the very officials who claim to terrorize....err... ......protect us from terror. (Forgive me...between what they have said done, and your perpetuation of their propagandist defense of their treason....it is difficult to remember/discern if you and they are terrorizing us
or protecting us.

If, as you and "Matthews" claim...that "Wilson who is to blame for much of this", why is Special Counsel Fitzgerald, the Bush appointee as US Atty....the Bush DOJ appointee as Special Counsel, with all of the independent authority of the Attorney General of the US, with all the authority of the Atty General to investigate, subpoena, and prosecute on his own, without the restrictions imposed on special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, ten years ago....Fitzgerald the well respected prosecutor of the 1993 WTC bombers.....telling the Court the exact opposite about Wilson, and about the OVP effort to harrass him and his wife?

If the subject of this thread were the 9/11 attacks, and whether the US government was involved, wouldn't the flimsy, fringe crap that you have presented on this thread, to bolster your claims against Wilson, and foi Rove, relegate this thread to "Paranoia"? Doesn't it work both ways, when one side fails this obviously, in the face of reason and all of the actual evidence?
Sheesh! Enough already. There is too much documentation to counter Bozell''s and Cheney's BS, on this one. Time to drop it.

If "Scooter" was innocent, why did he work so hard to push trail out until safely after the midterm, Novemebr elections? Wouldn't an innocent man, wabt to be cleared, sooner, rather than later?

Quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/do...2006_02_16.pdf
page 28
Mr. Libby predicates his request on a single reference in the indictment to the fact that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was classified during the relevant time.11 (Paragraph 1(f) of the Indictment). The defendant overlooks the simple fact that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was either classified or it was not. If the government had any documents stating that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was not classified during the relevant time – and we do not – we would produce them though not strictly required to under the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland. The defense is not entitled to every document mentioning a fact merely because that fact is mentioned in the indictment.12 Nor can the defendant persuasively argue that documents reflecting the classified status of Ms. Wilson’s employment would have any bearing on the defendant’s state of mind in the absence of any evidence that defendant ever saw such documents.

Quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/do..._to_compel.pdf
pages 14 to 15

Similarly, defendant is not entitled to discovery of additional documents regarding Mr. Wilson’s trip in order to prepare to examine former Secretary of State Colin Powell as a defense witness. Defendant asserts that he is “entitled to examine Secretary Powell regarding his knowledge of Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger and his communications with other government officials about that trip,” and that the State Department records concerning the trip will assist him in preparing to conduct this inquiry. Memo. at 24. Defendant fails, however, to establish how Secretary Powell’s knowledge concerning Mr. Wilson’s trip could be relevant to the perjury and false statement charges contained in the indictment, or his defense to those charges. Nor has defendant established how “[a]ny notes from the September 2003 meeting in the Situation Room at which Colin Powell is reported to have said that (1) everyone knows that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that (b) it was Mr. Wilson’s wife who suggested that the CIA send her husband on a mission to Niger” (see Memo. at 15) would be helpful to defendant in
preparing his defense, even if such documents existed, and it is the understanding of the government that there are no notes indicating that Secretary Powell made the purported statements.

Additionally, defendant asserts that he plans to question Secretary Powell concerning media reports regarding a document containing information regarding Ms. Wilson sent to Secretary Powell on Air Force One while Secretary Powell and others were en route to Africa between July 7 and July 12, 2003, and regarding the possibility that other government officials may have shared information about Ms. Wilson with journalists while in Africa. Memo. at 24. Defendant fails to establish that any documents other than that sent to Secretary Powell (which has been produced to defendant) would be useful in preparing to examine Secretary Powell, or even that the topics concerning which he plans to question Secretary Powell have any relevance to the issues of this case. Accordingly, defendant’s desire to question Secretary Powell does not entitle him to additional discovery. Defendant claims that Karl Rove will be a “key witness” in the trial, in that he will testify concerning a conversation with defendant on July 10 or 11, 2003 regarding Robert Novak’s intent to print a story regarding Ms. Wilson’s employment at the CIA, Indict., Count One, ¶ 21, and that Stephen Hadley may “offer important testimony about discussions within the Administration concerning the need to rebut Mr. Wilson’s statements about his trip and his conclusions,” as well as “discussions about the need to declassify and disseminate the NIE” and George Tenet’s public statements regarding the “sixteen words.” Memo. at 25-26. As indicated above, the government does not intend to call Mr. Rove or Mr. Hadley as witnesses at this time.

pages 17 to 18

In an attempt to recast the relevant issues at trial, defendant claims he is entitled to correct the “distorted picture of the relevant events” presented in the indictment, including the “exaggerati[on of] the importance government officials, including [defendant], attributed to Ms. Wilson’s employment status prior to July 14, 2003,” and to present “a more complete and accurate narrative” of the alleged events, and to establish that defendant “and other government officials”
viewed Ms. Wilson’s identity as at most a “peripheral issue.” Memo. at 27. Defendant argues that information regarding bureaucratic infighting over responsibility for the “sixteen words” will help the jury appreciate how defendant “may have forgotten or misremembered the snippets of conversation the government alleges were so memorable.” Memo. at 3-4.

page 18
Though he might wish otherwise, this trial is not about the conduct or state of mind of persons other than defendant. Indeed, the state of mind of other individuals is of negligible value in determining whether defendant lied to the FBI and grand jury. In reality, it does not matter whether Ms. Wilson’s role was thought to be important or peripheral by anyone other than defendant and the discrete number of persons with and for whom he worked. Accordingly, it is clear that documents from outside the OVP are not sought to establish “context” but rather to provide an irrelevant distraction from the issues of the case.

Moreover, evidence from the CIA, State Department, and NSC about whether persons working there thought the issue of Ms. Wilson’s employment was “peripheral” will not place in context the state of mind of defendant and others working in the Office of Vice President at the relevant time, nor explain whether defendant was likely to have forgotten conversations about the topic in which he participated. In June 2003, when discussing Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger, the Vice President advised defendant that Ambassador Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division. Indict., Count One, ¶ 9. The evidence will show that the July 6, 2003, Op Ed by Mr. Wilson was viewed in the Office of Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq. Defendant undertook vigorous efforts to rebut this attack during the week following July 7, 2003.

pages 19 to 20

At some point after the publication of the July 6, 2003 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, defendant’s immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson’s trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife. And, in considering “context,” <h3>there was press reporting that the Vice President had dispatched Mr. Wilson on the trip (which in fact was not accurate). Disclosing the belief that Mr. Wilson’s wife sent him on the Niger trip was one way for defendant to contradict the assertion that the Vice President had done so, while at the same time undercutting Mr. Wilson’s credibility if Mr. Wilson were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism.</h3> The context for defendant’s disclosures in the course of defending the Office of the Vice President will not be fleshed out in any files of CIA or State Department or NSC employees that might reflect what they thought. Put slightly differently, the thoughts and impressions of CIA, State Department, and NSC employees, absent any evidence that these thoughts and impressions were conveyed to defendant, simply cannot shed light on defendant’s state of mind at the time of his alleged criminal conduct. See
Nor would such documents of the CIA, NSC and the State Department place in context the importance of the conversations in which defendant participated. Defendant’s participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occurred only after the
Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE. Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller – getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval – were unique in his recollection. Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare “on the record” statement, and to provide “background” and “deep background” statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife was a trifle, that person’s state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he was directed to engage in by the Vice President. Likewise, documents from other agencies that defendant never saw will not provide context for defendant’s grand jury testimony regarding these events. Defendant testified that he did not discuss the CIA employment of Ambassador Wilson’s wife with reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003 and that he could not have done so because he had forgotten by that time that he had learned about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment a month earlier from the Vice President.

pages 21 to 22
The government has produced to defendant all documents received from the OVP, which would include any documents responsive to these requests, and is in the process of locating and producing a limited number of additional responsive documents in the possession of the Special Counsel although such documents were not authored or reviewed by defendant. The government has declined to seek or produce additional responsive documents from other agencies unless such documents reflect conversations and meetings in which defendant participated, on the ground that such documents would be irrelevant to the defense. The government has also declined to produce
publicly available comments by government officials regarding this issue on the ground that they are equally accessible to defendant. As an initial matter, it is defendant’s conduct and testimony, rather than any whim of the government, that makes defendant’s disclosure of the NIE an issue in this case. However, contrary to defendant’s contention, he is not entitled to rummage through other agencies’ documents concerning the NIE where defendant himself has testified that he understood that no one at those agencies was aware of, or involved in, the declassification made known to him by the Vice President or the disclosures he made to reporters Cooper and Miller.

The Relevance of the NIE to This Case One of the key conversations that will be proved at trial took place between defendant and reporter Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel on the morning of July 8, 2003. Defendant testified in the grand jury that he and Miller did not discuss the CIA employment of Ambassador Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, on that occasion, and that he could not have done so because he had forgotten by that time that he had learned about Ms. Wilson’s employment a month earlier from the Vice President. Defendant further testified that when he spoke with reporter Tim Russert the following day, Russert informed him that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, and defendant was “taken aback.” Defendant testified that he thought that the information was new to him, and that he made sure not to confirm the information to Russert. Defendant thereafter testified that he repeated what he learned from Russert to other reporters (including Cooper and Miller) on July 12, taking care to caution those reporters that he did not know if the information were true or even if Ambassador Wilson even had a wife.
22

page 23
As to the meeting on July8, defendant testified that he was specificallyauthorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was “pretty definitive” against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was “very important” for the key judgments of the NIE to come out. Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.

Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE’s key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8. Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure” uranium. 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 disclosed. Defendant testified that one of the reasons why he met with Miller at a hotel was the fact that he was sharing this information with Miller exclusively. In fact, on July 8, defendant spoke with Miller about Mr. Wilson after requesting that attribution of his remarks be changed to “former Hill staffer.” Defendant discussed with Miller the contents of a then classified CIA report which defendant characterized to Miller as having been written by Wilson.

page 26

Defendant is not charged with knowingly disclosing classified information, nor is he charged with any conspiracy offense. Moreover, as a practical matter, there are no documents showing an absence of a plot, and it is unclear how any document custodian would set out to find documents showing an “absence of a plot.” Indeed, there exist documents, some of which have been provided 9to 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.

pages 29 to 30

Defendant also asserts without elaboration that “documents that help establish that no White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson caused the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity also constitute Brady material.” Once again, defendant ignores the fact that he is not charged with participating in any conspiracy, much less one defined as a “White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson.” Thus, putative evidence that such a conspiracy did not exist is not Brady material. Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke
29

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 – <h3>it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to “punish” Wilson.</h3> 10 Surely, defendant cannot claim that any document on its face that does not reflect a plot is exculpatory.

Ustwo · 09-20-2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

The "affair" itself turns out not to have been such a big deal. The impact it had and continues to have on the administration was and is massive. It ripped the mask off Rove and declared it open season on all of them.

Coming along after the fact and saying, "Oh, see, we told you, it wasn't any big deal," just doesn't do justice to the smoking crater that the thing left.

What mask was that?

He didn't DO anything, it just gave a chance for the left to slander the man.

The smoking crater was due to the lies of the left, its not truth that matters its perception of the truth, and now the left doesn't seem to keen on changing that perception to what the truth really is.

ratbastid · 09-20-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The smoking crater was due to the lies of the left, its not truth that matters its perception of the truth, and now the left doesn't seem to keen on changing that perception to what the truth really is.

You expect them to? Don't be naive. This was the first substantial chink in the administration's armor. You better damn well expect the opponents of the administration to politicize that for all they're worth! And as I've said earlier--the public interest has moved on, and the damage is done. I strongly suspect that attempts to un-crater the thing are futile at this point.

Here's the real thing about all of this. The Bush Administration is extremely adept at turning leaked scandals into scandals ABOUT the leak. In this case, it turned back on them, but they have still succeeded in keeping the attention OFF the yellowcake lie, which is what this whole thing was really about.

Remember that? The whole going to war with a justification that was known to be bogus? 60,000 human beings dead because of a lie? That's what this is really about. Forget who outed whom and why they did it. I admit, while that story made political hay, I was happy to graze on it, but now that it's what it is, let's remember what the real scandal is, please.

Ustwo · 09-20-2006, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

You expect them to? Don't be naive.

Of course I don't expect them to, not at all, I'm just rubbing this stink in the self righteous noses of those on this board who attempted to take the high ground on something that was no more than political slander.

Its also more proof that the press is in fact biased to the left, its not the nobodies who post here that made this a big stink, but the press. Now that the story doesn't hurt Bush, its suddenly to complicated. Its actually revoltingly simple, but thats besides the point.

I'm not expecting honesty from the left, I've never expected something like that, I'm just enjoying the moment.

ratbastid · 09-20-2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm not expecting honesty from the left, I've never expected something like that, I'm just enjoying the moment.

Okay, but you're only enjoying it because you ignored 99% of what I wrote. I'd be VERY eager to see you address the second and third paragraphs of my last post.

dc_dux · 09-20-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

What mask was that?

He didn't DO anything, it just gave a chance for the left to slander the man.

The smoking crater was due to the lies of the left, its not truth that matters its perception of the truth, and now the left doesn't seem to keen on changing that perception to what the truth really is.

Some seem intent on ignoring the fact that it was an internal investigation intiated within the CIA, and then turned over to DOJ to get at the truth of the "Plame affair" not a left wing media conspiracy. Has Rove been "slandered" by overzealous opponents? Maybe so, but turnaround in politics is fair play particularly when you have a history of slanderous tactics yourself...not that I excuse the overzealousness of some on the left.

Should Armitage be indicted? II will leave that to Fitizgerald. The investigation is still open.

As to the rest of the "affair," I will wait to find out what the truth really is when Libby goes to trial.....unless Bush pardons him (after the election and before the Jan 07 trial) in order to "protect national security".

Elphaba · 09-20-2006, 07:02 PM

The OP requires that we take Armitage's word as gospel, which is extremely difficult to do when Novak disputes his "aw shucks" story. It takes very little imagination to contemplate the role of Armitage then and now to consider other possibilities more consistent with the DOJ investigation as it was unfolding.

My guess is that Armitage was the Ace card waiting to be played if Rove was about to be indicted. That would be a reasonable assumption given the circus environment involving Rove up to the magically disappearing indictment.

I didn't bother with this thread until now because of the obvious problems with the OP and the partisan nature of it. I only post now to give an example as to why the jury may still be out on the whole Plame/Wilson investigation.

I am not convinced of the veracity of Novak, but only a fool would buy what Armitage now has to sell without a single doubt.

matthew330 · 09-20-2006, 09:52 PM

"unless Bush pardons him (after the election and before the Jan 07 trial) in order to "protect national security"

He should totally be impeached for this. Shall we start that process now?

host · 09-20-2006, 11:50 PM

Do we believe the opinions that come from a WaPo editorial and Bozell's newsbusters.org "executive editor", Matthew Sheffield, the known "influences" of Ustwo's opinion,

or....do we believe the findings of an independent criminal investigation....only independent when it was transferred by the former #2 at Ashcroft's DOJ, James Comey, after a conflict of interest committed by Ashcroft, himself, in his demand to be briefed on the details of the investigation of white house officials?

Unlike what we experienced during the "leak prone", 6 year investigation of the Clinton white house by special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, James Comey's choice for special counsel, US Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald, to investigate the "Plame CIA Leak" and prosecute, if appropriate, has spoken to the press, only once, when the indictment of the VP of the US, COS, Irwin Scooter Libby was handed down.

This, from what I have learned in my research, is an accurate report of "what happened":

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081001918.html
Side Issue in the Plame Case: Who Sent Her Spouse to Africa?

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 11, 2005; Page A08

The origin of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's trip to Niger in 2002 to check out intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium has become a contentious side issue to the inquiry by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is looking into whether a crime was committed with the exposure of Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, as a covert CIA employee.

After he went public in 2003 about the trip, senior Bush administration officials, trying to discredit Wilson's findings, told reporters that Wilson's wife, who worked at the CIA, was the one who suggested the Niger mission for her husband. Days later, Plame was named as an "agency operative" by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who has said he did not realize he was, in effect, exposing a covert officer. A Senate committee report would later say evidence indicated Plame suggested Wilson for the trip.

Over the past months, however, the CIA has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD) -- not by his wife -- largely because he had handled a similar agency inquiry in Niger in 1999. On that trip, Plame, who worked in that division, had suggested him because he was planning to go there, according to Wilson and the Senate committee report.

The 2002 mission grew out of a request by Vice President Cheney on Feb. 12 for more information about a Defense Intelligence Agency report he had received that day, according to a 2004 report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. An aide to Cheney would later say he did not realize at the time that this request would generate such a trip.

Wilson maintains that his wife was asked that day by one of her bosses to write a memo about his credentials for the mission--after they had selected him. That memo apparently was included in a cable to officials in Africa seeking concurrence with the choice of Wilson, the Senate report said.

Valerie Wilson's other role, according to intelligence officials, was to tell Wilson he had been selected, and then to introduce him at a meeting at the CIA on Feb. 19, 2002, in which analysts from different agencies discussed the Niger trip. She told the Senate committee she left the session after her introduction.

Senior Bush administration officials told a different story about the trip's origin in the days between July 8 and July 12, 2003. They said that Wilson's wife was working at the CIA dealing with weapons of mass destruction and that she suggested him for the Niger trip, according to three reporters.

The Bush officials passing on this version were apparently attempting to undercut the credibility of Wilson, who on Sunday, July 6, 2003, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in The Washington Post and the New York Times that he had checked out the allegation in Niger and found it to be wrong. He criticized President Bush for misrepresenting the facts in his January 2003 State of the Union address when he said Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Africa.

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."

This Washington Post reporter spoke the next day to an administration official, who talked on the condition of anonymity, and was told in substance "that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction," as reported in an Oct. 14 article......

.....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." <h3>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."</h3>

Fitzgerald's only other public communications are his opinions filed with an appeals court, during the investigation, and in briefs more recently, in response to Libby's requests for discovery in preparation for his early 2007 criminal trial.

Fitzgerald tells the court that,

Quote:

The defendant overlooks the simple fact that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was either classified or it was not. If the government had any documents stating that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was not classified during the relevant time – and we do not – we would produce them...

Quote:

Nor has defendant established how “[a]ny notes from the September 2003 meeting in the Situation Room at which Colin Powell is reported to have said that (1) everyone knows that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that (b) it was Mr. Wilson’s wife who suggested that the CIA send her husband on a mission to Niger” (see Memo. at 15) would be helpful to defendant in
preparing his defense, even if such documents existed, and it is the understanding of the government that there are no notes indicating that Secretary Powell made the purported statements.

Quote:

In June 2003, when discussing Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger, the Vice President advised defendant that Ambassador Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division. Indict., Count One, ¶ 9. <h3>The evidence will show that the July 6, 2003, Op Ed by Mr. Wilson was viewed in the Office of Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq.</h3> Defendant undertook vigorous efforts to rebut this attack during the week following July 7, 2003.

At some point after the publication of the July 6, 2003 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, defendant’s immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson’s trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife. And, in considering “context,” there was press reporting that the Vice President had dispatched Mr. Wilson on the trip (which in fact was not accurate). Disclosing the belief that Mr. Wilson’s wife sent him on the Niger trip was one way for defendant to contradict the assertion that the Vice President had done so, while at the same time undercutting Mr. Wilson’s credibility if Mr. Wilson were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism.

Quote:

Defendant’s participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occurred only after the
Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE. Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller – getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval – were unique in his recollection. Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare “on the record” statement, and to provide “background” and “deep background” statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife was a trifle, that person’s state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he was directed to engage in by the Vice President.

Quote:

Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE’s key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8. Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure” uranium. 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 disclosed.

Quote:

Defendant is not charged with knowingly disclosing classified information, nor is he charged with any conspiracy offense. Moreover, as a practical matter, there are no documents showing an absence of a plot, and it is unclear how any document custodian would set out to find documents showing an “absence of a plot.” Indeed, there exist documents, some of which have been provided 9to 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.

pages 29 to 30

Defendant also asserts without elaboration that “documents that help establish that no White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson caused the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity also constitute Brady material.” Once again, defendant ignores the fact that he is not charged with participating in any conspiracy, much less one defined as a “White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson.” Thus, putative evidence that such a conspiracy did not exist is not Brady material. Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke
29

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.

What better man is there to investigate and prosecute the most formidable terrorists in the US? If Fitzgerald is correct, what else can you call these men , occupying high positions in our own executive branch?

Patrick Fitzgerald is the Bush administration's "worst nightmare":

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...005Feb1_2.html

World Class

For years, Fitzgerald has avoided receiving mail at his apartment because of the threat of a letter bomb from one murder-minded defendant or another.

The staff of the 9/11 commission called him one of the world's best terrorism prosecutors. He convicted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and all four defendants in the embassy bombings, which had left 224 people dead. He extracted a guilty plea from Mafia capo John Gambino and became an authority on bin Laden, whom he indicted in 1998 for a global terrorist conspiracy that included the African bombings.

"His thoroughness, his relentlessness, his work ethic are legendary," says terrorism expert Daniel Benjamin, a former member of the National Security Council.

Seeing Fitzgerald in action, says Los Angeles lawyer Anthony Bouza, a college classmate, is "like watching a sophisticated machine." Colleagues speak in head-shaking tones of Fitzgerald's skills in taking a case to trial. A Phi Beta Kappa math and economics student at Amherst before earning a Harvard law degree in 1985, he has a gift for solving puzzles and simplifying complexity for a jury.......

In a more "normal world", we could discuss the implications of Patrick Fitzgerald's comments to the press, last October, and in his filings to Libby's trail court. That is not possible, however, because of the "sway" of the white house "Nepotism Op". From the record of special counsel Fitzgerald's statments to the court, he has investigated the "Plame CIA Leak", taken the testimony of numerous Bush administration officials, and reviewed documents subpoenaed from the white house, from Cheney's OVP, from the Dept. of State, and from the CIA, and he has told the court that "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to “punish” Wilson".

Ustwo will not discuss Fitzgerald's findings, and he offers no evidence to suggest that Fitzgerald has conducted a flawed, or biased investigation, or that Fitzgerald himself has a conflict of interest that would impact the investigation.

There can only be two choices left to us, either Fitzgerald is lying, and Plame was not a CIA "NOC" employee, and therefore the investigation is wholly without merit and should be dropped, with only the matter of Libby's perjury and obstruction....unlawful behavior by Libby, a lawyer himself, for unknown and irrelevant reasons.....or, it is as Fitzgerald described to the court, Joe Wilson exposed a falsehood of the Bush administration's justification for the invasion of Iraq, and the administration conspired to commit, and did commit, an "Op" that included a co-ordinated effort to persuade reporters, around the time of Bush's early July, 2003 "trip to Africa", to "ask who sent Wilson to Niger", so that they could answer reporters with the line that "Wilson's CIA wife sent him on a "junket" to Niger.

If Ustwo, et al, and the entire republican noise apparatus are correct, Fitzgerald, prominent prosecutor of the 1993 WTC bombers, has become a rogue prosecutor, "out to get the white house" by pursuing a "nothing" investigation of a "non-classified" CIA employee's "outing", or....the officials of the Bush administration, in addition to knowingly broadcasting reasons for invading Iraq that were phony or misleading, lashed back at a former US Ambassador who revealed one component of this campaign of falsehoods, by "outing" his CIA NOC wife, and discrediting him and his trip to Niger, by claiming in every venue...to reporters, on talks shows, on the GOP noise machine, and even via an republican senators only, "addendum" to the 2004 "Phase I" Senate Select Intelligence Committee report.

Reporters testified that Karl Rove took part in that "Op", and Rove testified at least five times, himself, before Fitzgerald's grand jury.

I don't think Fitzgerald is lying.....why would he? That leaves me agreeing with Fitzgerald....that the administration outed a CIA NOC as political payback, and that from the POTUS, on down to numerous administration staffers, inclduing Ari Fleischer, Cheney, Rove, Libby, and three republican members of the Senate Select Committee, it became more important to discredit Wilson via his wife "sending him on a junket", becasue he exposed a lie that helped justify an illegal invasion and occupation, than it was to expose and condemn the official and deliberate outing of a CIA employee, in wartime, by the principles of the Executive Branch, to make an example out of the Wilson's to send a message to others in government that a similar fate awaited anyone else who attempted to expose the conspirarcy to concoct a "rationale"....for war....even if it included a treaonous act and a refusal to cooperate with an FBI investigation, of that act.

There is nothing partisan to see here. Either Fitzgerald has committed crimes, or Mr. Cheney and Bush's legacy are at stake, because they either committed or abbetted treason, in wartime. If you believe what Patrick Fitzgerald has told the court, then what else could this now be about?

NCB · 09-21-2006, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

The "affair" itself turns out not to have been such a big deal. The impact it had and continues to have on the administration was and is massive. It ripped the mask off Rove and declared it open season on all of them.

Coming along after the fact and saying, "Oh, see, we told you, it wasn't any big deal," just doesn't do justice to the smoking crater that the thing left.

Finally some honesty, even though it was veiled. Good to see that a lib finally admitted this wasnt about national security or whatnot, but rather it was more about trying to decrease the influence of Rove in the WH.

ratbastid · 09-21-2006, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Finally some honesty, even though it was veiled. Good to see that a lib finally admitted this wasnt about national security or whatnot, but rather it was more about trying to decrease the influence of Rove in the WH.

That was absolutely part of it. When you're playing chess, you don't pass up an opportunity to capture the Queen. Rove is the most dangerous player on the right at the moment. You better believe that his opponents are going to exploit any vulnerability.

I love the way the right goes wide-eyed innocent when they're the target of political activity--especially against their single biggest political "dirty-fighter". Rove has run dozens of nasty, nasty campaigns. He's likely the guy who got Diebold to hand over the elections in 2000 and 2004. He's alledged to be behind most of the massive voting irregularities in Ohio and Florida in 2004. Just because he wasn't the man behind the curtain on this one doesn't suddenly turn him clean. He's the architect of the modern smear campaign. Pull out the word "slander" if you want: pot, kettle, black.

But nobody's dealing with what's actually going on, so I'll keep saying it.

THE WHOLE GOD DAMN THING IS A SMOKESCREEN. We're dealing with this "who leaked what when and why" bullshit because the administration doesn't want us dealing with what actually happened. What actually happened was, the administration claimed that Iraq had purchased materials for nuclear weapons, when no such thing ever took place, and their intel was telling them that no such thing ever took place. They used that lie as part of their enormous tapestry of fabrication to justify a war that has cost billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. WHY AREN'T WE TALKING ABOUT THE REAL SCANDAL HERE???

I'd bet money that the Rove parts of this post get replied to and the WHAT THE HELL ARE WE DOING NOT TALKING ABOUT THE REAL SCANDAL parts of this post get roundly ignored by our local conservatives. C'mon, SOMEBODY prove me wrong.

roachboy · 09-21-2006, 06:22 AM

if you repeat and repeat and repeat the same nonsense the same nonsense the same nonsense often often often, the hope is that people will get confused and think that the real scandals have been dealt with.
it works for the resident far right folk here: they think that the way they frame this is the way things are and so are quite sure because their talking heads on radio and television are quite sure that this particular bushscandal is over. why? because the right says it is.

after all, cowboy george continues giving speeches in which 9/11 and iraq are mentioned right next to each other and some apparently still manage to beleive on that basis that iraq had something to do with 9/11/2001, that it is an extension of the bushwar on "terrorr" blah blah blah.

perhaps that is why none of the resident far right folk can explain why their narrative of scandal-address in this case makes any sense.
that part is not prominent amongst the punditocracy's claims that this is over.
so they haven't been told why.
it just is.

Ustwo · 09-21-2006, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

You expect them to? Don't be naive. This was the first substantial chink in the administration's armor. You better damn well expect the opponents of the administration to politicize that for all they're worth! And as I've said earlier--the public interest has moved on, and the damage is done. I strongly suspect that attempts to un-crater the thing are futile at this point.

Here's the real thing about all of this. The Bush Administration is extremely adept at turning leaked scandals into scandals ABOUT the leak. In this case, it turned back on them, but they have still succeeded in keeping the attention OFF the yellowcake lie, which is what this whole thing was really about.

Remember that? The whole going to war with a justification that was known to be bogus? 60,000 human beings dead because of a lie? That's what this is really about. Forget who outed whom and why they did it. I admit, while that story made political hay, I was happy to graze on it, but now that it's what it is, let's remember what the real scandal is, please.

I ignored your second two paragraphs because they were you just justifying why its ok to lie about Rove in your mind.

The yellow cake was NOT why we went to war, you know it, it was an after thought to add one line in speech. Do you honestly think there would have been no Iraq war if there was no yellow cake report?

Of course you don't, you are not stupid so quit pretending to take a high road in what was nothing more than left wing mudslinging.

ratbastid · 09-21-2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I ignored your second two paragraphs because they were you just justifying why its ok to lie about Rove in your mind.

The yellow cake was NOT why we went to war, you know it, it was an after thought to add one line in speech. Do you honestly think there would have been no Iraq war if there was no yellow cake report?

Of course you don't, you are not stupid so quit pretending to take a high road in what was nothing more than left wing mudslinging.

Pardon me, but the yellowcake was held out as the smoking gun, the final piece of damning evidence that justified taking out Saddam. It wasn't a throwaway one-liner; it was major news. If you read what I wrote, I'm clear it was but one thread in the tapestry of lies. But it was a big, prominent lie.

You conveniently address only the periphery of the issue here. You thereby make it clear that the war-justification lies are a complete losing hand for you. There's no defending that, evidently. And that's the very point that I fondly hope that impeachment proceedings will revolve around.

I like how you're up in arms about "lying about Rove", while "lying to America and causing the deaths of 60,000 human beings" isn't on your radar.

stevo · 09-21-2006, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

What actually happened was, the administration claimed that Iraq had purchased materials for nuclear weapons, when no such thing ever took place, and their intel was telling them that no such thing ever took place.

try again.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Quote:

The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

Who's lying now? or are you just misinformed?

ratbastid · 09-21-2006, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

try again.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Who's lying now? or are you just misinformed?

SIGH. Okay look, I misspoke (wrote?), but I'm not really talking about the specifics of the yellowcake or even the Wilson/Plame stuff. I'm talking about the way we're TALKING ABOUT the Wilson/Plame stuff as a diversion from what Wilson and Colin Powell and many other people were actually trying to tell us. You can achieve the same end--a distraction from the real scandal--by derailing the conversation on specific quibbles of wording. I actually can see now that I got suckered into that in my last post responding to Ustwo.

Ustwo · 09-21-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

SIGH. Okay look, I misspoke (wrote?), but I'm not really talking about the specifics of the yellowcake or even the Wilson/Plame stuff. I'm talking about the way we're TALKING ABOUT the Wilson/Plame stuff as a diversion from what Wilson and Colin Powell and many other people were actually trying to tell us. You can achieve the same end--a distraction from the real scandal--by derailing the conversation on specific quibbles of wording. I actually can see now that I got suckered into that in my last post responding to Ustwo.

Ratbastid the only lying here was done by the left about Rove, did the Bush admin want to downplay Wilson's report? Sure, but honestly I don't think Wilson had any more of a clue than anyone else. Was Bush misinformed by British intelligence? Sure, there was obviously a lot of that before the war. Did Bush lie? No.

Why can I say this with confidence? Well lets think of it this way.

If Bush (and Blair) lied about there being WMD evidence, we would have found WMD's in Iraq. Think about it, as its obvious to why this would be true.

dc_dux · 09-21-2006, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ratbastid the only lying here was done by the left ...

....unless you consider giving false statements to the FBI (2 counts) and perjury (2 counts) as "lying".

Ustwo...Of course there is a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, something you rarely practice when it comes to your incendiary attacks on the left.

ratbastid · 09-21-2006, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If Bush (and Blair) lied about there being WMD evidence, we would have found WMD's in Iraq. Think about it, as its obvious to why this would be true.

Wellsir, I must be too stupid to see that. Far as I can tell, you're telling me that 2 plus 2 is 18. Go ahead--spell it out for me.

dc_dux · 09-21-2006, 09:58 AM

A fed court just ruled today that Libby should have greater access to classified information for his defense than the government prosecutors would like:

Quote:

WASHINGTON — A federal judge handed a victory to the defense Thursday in the Valerie Plame case, siding with Vice President Dick Cheney's indicted former chief of staff in a fight over release of classified information.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton decided that he won't impose strict standards sought by prosecutors who want to limit the amount of classified information used in the trial of defendant I. Lewis Libby.

Prosecutors had proposed a stringent three-part legal test that would have allowed information to be considered for the trial only when its benefit to the defense outweighed the government's need to keep it secret.

Walton sided with Libby's lawyers, who said any evidence that's relevant to the case should be considered for use. Once Walton rules on which evidence is relevant, government attorneys can propose portions to be blacked out or summarized, the judge said.

Libby is accused of lying to authorities about conversation he had with reporters regarding the CIA employment of Plame. Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, criticized the Bush administration's intelligence leading up to the Iraq war and the couple has accused Libby and others of leaking Plame's identity as retribution.

Libby, who is charged with perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI, wants access to classified information, including Cheney's daily intelligence memos, to show that Libby had more important things on his mind at the time of the leak and honestly didn't remember his conversations with reporters.

Prosecutors have suggested Libby is trying to derail the case by threatening to expose national secrets — a tactic known as graymail.

Libby should have access to any info he needs for his defense as far as I'm concerned.

The tactic of graymail is new to me, but its hard to tell if he really wants/needs the classified info for his defense or perhaps is just using it as added incentive to get Bush to pardon him in order to keep the classified info out of the public eye.

ratbastid · 09-21-2006, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Libby should have access to any info he needs for his defense as far as I'm concerned.

The tactic of graymail is new to me, but its hard to tell if he really wants/needs the classified info for his defense or perhaps is just using it as added incentive to get Bush to pardon him in order to keep the classified info out of the public eye.

Surely there's some way to allow the complete discovery he's entitled by the constitution and still protect the classification of those materials. I'm sure this isn't the first time this has come up!

09-05-2006, 09:17 AM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	last time. i remain totally unclear about what you imagine you are doing via the repetition of this cherrypicked information from "hubris" across the hall of mirrors that is the press--which you yourself have criticized in other threads, ustwo. it seems to me that you in fact have no problem with the hall of mirrors at all--only with information passing into it that you do not like, that runs against your political predispositions. there are--there remain--basic questions about the logic of the interpretation you swallow without the slightest hesitation because you imagine some type of vindication follows from it. these questions have been posed to you over and over in this thread and in typical ustwo fashion you cannot respond. why dont you scroll back and answer them rather than continue with this tedious exercise in repetition repetition. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-21-2006, 06:22 AM	#71 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	if you repeat and repeat and repeat the same nonsense the same nonsense the same nonsense often often often, the hope is that people will get confused and think that the real scandals have been dealt with. it works for the resident far right folk here: they think that the way they frame this is the way things are and so are quite sure because their talking heads on radio and television are quite sure that this particular bushscandal is over. why? because the right says it is. after all, cowboy george continues giving speeches in which 9/11 and iraq are mentioned right next to each other and some apparently still manage to beleive on that basis that iraq had something to do with 9/11/2001, that it is an extension of the bushwar on "terrorr" blah blah blah. perhaps that is why none of the resident far right folk can explain why their narrative of scandal-address in this case makes any sense. that part is not prominent amongst the punditocracy's claims that this is over. so they haven't been told why. it just is. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-05-2006, 10:49 AM	#44 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Well, I stand corrected yet again. It appears that the ascertion that the idea of a blameless Bush Administration was premature at best.

09-08-2006, 08:03 PM	#51 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Couple things your not remembering here. Novak had TWO sources. The first has now been revealed as Armitage. The second, Novak has already revealed, long ago, as Rove. He was the confirming source for Novak. Without corroboration, Rove doesn't go through with it. Rove was Cooper's primary source in this. Cooper says that Rove came to him with this on a date before the Novak column. So it just became a matter of Armitage's man, Novak being the Prince of Darkness and willing to run the story. This changes nothing for me. Just add Armitage to the list of those guilty of Treason.

09-20-2006, 06:51 AM	#57 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Didn't plame extend her lawsuit to include Armitage? I have read lots of reports that people are extending the blame to Armitage in addition to what the administration did.

09-20-2006, 07:02 PM	#66 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	The OP requires that we take Armitage's word as gospel, which is extremely difficult to do when Novak disputes his "aw shucks" story. It takes very little imagination to contemplate the role of Armitage then and now to consider other possibilities more consistent with the DOJ investigation as it was unfolding. My guess is that Armitage was the Ace card waiting to be played if Rove was about to be indicted. That would be a reasonable assumption given the circus environment involving Rove up to the magically disappearing indictment. I didn't bother with this thread until now because of the obvious problems with the OP and the partisan nature of it. I only post now to give an example as to why the jury may still be out on the whole Plame/Wilson investigation. I am not convinced of the veracity of Novak, but only a fool would buy what Armitage now has to sell without a single doubt.

09-20-2006, 09:52 PM	#67 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	"unless Bush pardons him (after the election and before the Jan 07 trial) in order to "protect national security" He should totally be impeached for this. Shall we start that process now?