The Plame affair.......
 

I think many of you know where this would be going, but let me post a bit from the Washington Post of all places.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101460_pf.html

So its time to say you are sorry for blaming Mr. Rove, Bush, Cheney, and the real killers in the WTC. You, my friends, were duped.

You win this round...

It's still possible to turn this into a conspiracy. The fact that the actual leak was a redshirt who can be thrown to the wolves only underscores the canniness of the political manouver. I don't know...

Even if this gets Rove, Bush, and Cheney off the hook, it doesn't recover the PR points lost by the administration through this whole mess. The administration is hopelessly off the approval rails. Even if it the news today was that Wilson was single, the damage to the administration is done.

That asshat. I was fooled.

Couldn't have put it better myself...

well, since we are referring--without necessarily knowing it of course, to a book that has yet to be released--and since that book is by david corn and michael issikof--and since we are cycling through editorials--i figured that posting a bit from david corn's website about the book as a whole--hubris--would be interesting in this context.

here is a version of the armitage information from david corn's website:

source: http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/20...s_the_armi.php


and another bit:

source: http://www.davidcorn.com/

so i figure it is best to wait to read the actual book rather than rely on editorials that select certain factoids from the book, present a very odd case based on them (how exactly did the plame business get diverted onto a question of explicit motive anyway?). maybe you should consider actually reading the book too, ustwo, before you begin gloating over what appears--at the best, even in the truncated format of the editorial you bit--to be something of a pyrrhic victory for the right--if it even is that.

Wait, we can't trust these people, they're obviously just trying to sell a book. Or something.

I am absolutely overcome with nostalgia. Let's walk down memory lane with the rush-to-judgement, Cheney/Rove-is-the-devil bunch:


http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...82&postcount=6


http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=13


http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=14


http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=28


http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...07&postcount=1


http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...07&postcount=3


http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=23


http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=36


http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...27&postcount=3


http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=12


By my count, the only proven liar in this inconsequential, overblown scandal is Wilson. It's also now plain to see that Seaver, Stevo, and Powerclown based their opinions on facts and evidence, instead of the emotions so prominently displayed elsewhere. And now, after reading an incredible number of wildly disjointed and tangential source articles by a member who shall remain nameless, I feel the need for a shower. After which, I'm sure, I will read that my quoting the posts of other members constitutes "flaming." :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, truthout.org needs to find another domain name.

I regret that some of you boys have gotten into a phenomena in the "news bidnuss" that you might not fully grasp. That's okay....I don't mind guiding you through it, because your posts indicate that you might be in "over your head".
In fairness, I don't expect you to "get it" in just one post with just a limited number of examples, like I display for you below, in this post. I got many more, all specific to recent Washington Post editorials, vs. what staff news reporters....employed by the same paper, relate to us in other pages at the washingtonpost.com website......

Briefly, here's how it works, and here's why us liber-ull adults, navigate through it. What is written in the Washington Post editorials, is predominately conservative bull shit that would be much more at home in the news pages of say....the Washington Times. Much of what is spewed from the WaPo editorial "side", as our examples below, show, is directly contradicted in that paper's news reporting.....almost as if the editorial writer does not even read the rest of the newspaper.

Nothing in the editorial in this thread's OP, changes the findings of fact of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, with regard to his disclosure of his findings in the investigation of the "Plame leak".

What is pleasant, however, is that you boys have now become partial to a small part of what appears in the Washington Post....a very small....and inconsequential portion. If you like, just ask one of us regular readers to guide you further, regarding what is reported in the "open loop", adult news sections of the WaPo, or if you prefer, just come by and visit the "closed loop" editorial page.....just don't mistake the editorials for reality based news reporting....because they aren't!

I think the preceding paragraph indicates that some of you don't fully recognize just how much clout you have with regard to what the adult readers of the news reporting of the WaPo get to read.....or not. Just keep that "hate mail", a-comin' !

Ustwo...I think you are missing the bigger issue. Its not who outed Plame; its just another example of how this administration uses or abuses intellligence information to selectively represent or misrepresent the facts to further support a political agenda.

Its even more hypocritical of Bush/Cheney that they refuse to share NIE's with Congressional oversight committees, but will selective leak portions of an NIE for political purposes.

This should be an outrage to conservatives and liberals and anyone who values the truth.

YAY FOR DISTRACTIONS!

Please, nobody notice this: There was still no fucking yellowcake. We still killed tens of thousands and thousands of people for a lie.

Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been stonewallilng for nearly two years the phase II investigation into wherther the White House manipulated pre-war intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

He delayed it again until AFTER the November elections. Will we ever know the truth?

From April of this year:

doesn't look llike the right has much of anything to gloat about, does it?
unless you can find a way to take pride in shabby reasoning and cavalier treatment of evidence.

to buy this shabby thinking and cavalier treatment of facts, you would also have to buy conservativeland's attempts to reduce the problems around the plame affair to a question of consistent motive such that every last actor involved would have to have explicitly said I AM DOING THIS TO FUCK OVER A CRITIC OF THE WAR IN IRAQ or there is no problem


care to defend this one, ustwo?

If this is a trump card for the adminstrations defense why has it not hit the mainstream media yet? I read foxnews daily and have yet to see it mentioned (and don't say liberal bias). Maybe this is not as exculpitory as the OP would like us to believe.

Perhaps they are just out of truth :D

The important thing here for the left will be to keep trying to assault the character of the members of this administration, reguardless of proof. I mean remember Cheney was CEO of Haliburton!

Oh and Rekna is Newsweek mainstream enough for you?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

How about CNN?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...nn_allpolitics

The left wing Washington Post?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082801278.html

Oh and Yahoo.news gives this
Plame considering suing Armitage

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/..._leak_woodward

Case closed, but it never really was open. Just another kangaroo court of the left wing political spin machine.

ok so in one thread you complain about the hall of mirrors that is information circulation within the mainstream media when it runs counter to your political agenda and in another you embrace exactly the same problem because you imagine that it benefits your boy bush.

nice.

then in this one,

you ignore a legion of problems with the way in which the factoids in the washington post edito were selected and presented.
you ignore the more extended version of the same information presented by one of the authors of the book that the wapo edito writer references (indirectly of course) and the--to say the least--complication of the edito and your interpretation of the information that you rely on for your fatuous conclusions.

so if i understand the procedure you apply to information it goes like this:

1. factoids, no matter how arbitrary, no matter how indefensable, are cool with you if they fit with your political predispositions

2. and if they dont, sweeping, shabby ill-considered claims about some kind of media conspiracy are just hunky dory.

3. never acknowledge critiques until they reach a critical mass that forces you to abandon a thread.

4. conflate this kind of idiocy with rational discourse.

excellent work.

It is an editorial/opinion piece. And just like aholes, everyone has one.

Something for the folks here who dismiss treason as a tool to be used for political revenge, to consider:

No democrat in congress has had the power to issue a subpoena to compell the testimony of any witness, since Jan., 2003. we will discover if that restriction is going to be reversed, less than nine weeks from now.

Now that this thread's author and his OP clearly endorse what appears in the Washington Post as "gospel", the following october, 2003 reporting, takes on a new demension. It also destroys the "no crime was committed" mantra of the "fringe" that sees no undermining of the CIA as treason. Little credence has been attributed to the fact that the CIA started the Plame investigation rolling when it complained that classified information about a CIA employee had been leaked to the press.

Distractions are certainly evident here. The post is about who "outed" Valerie Plame, and we get host going off about WMDs and Nixon, and you going off about yellowcake.

BTW, the matter you refer to should accurately be described as an attempt to GET yellowcake, something that Bush-haters don't like to see clarified, since it actually happened. But you get points for diversionary tactics. And all this time we've been hearing about the REPUBLICANS who try to divert discussion from the actual topic.

Let's have some more of the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Wait--this thread IS about who outed Plame!!! Remember--that was the entire justification for the proposed execution of Rove, castration of Cheney, and impeachment of Bush.


I absent-mindedly reached for a Kleenex when I read this one. I was certain my face HAD to have been sprayed with spittle.

Okay, now that was funny.

Marv, perhaps you've read nothing that I've provided with regard to news reporting, or of the tenuous thread that the perps who outted Plame the "noc", now hang by, since the odds favor democratic authority to issue subpoenas, conduct investigations, and question wiitnesses, under oath, as soon as in Jan., 2007.

Your taunts indicate that you are iin denial of where this treason as payback OP is headed. You seem to endorse the willful destruction of the CIA, under Bush/Cheney. Curious attitude on your part, during the GWOT which you buy into, dontcha think? The CIA requested the Plame investigation. #2 at DOJ decided that Ashcroft had a conflict of interest and appointed Bush appointed US Attorney for So. Illinois, Patriick Fitzgerald, to conduct an independent investiigation of the "leak", wiith all of the power of an independent attorney general. Fitzgerald iindicted the VP's COS for obstruction of justice. Those are the facts, the contrary crap is spin from those who object to the investigation.

Your posts and this thread's OP are part of that spin. They don't change the facts.......

this is tedious beyond measure.

there is abundant information even in this thread to complicated the conservative gloating over their dubious (imaginary?) take on the information in the **still unreleased** david corn michael issikof book--which i bothered to research, and from which i posted information (by david corn) that to say the least complicates the arbitrary cherry-picked infotainment version that has the conservative set running down the street cheering like people celebrating a victory in the 7th inning of a baseball game.

or like a chess player who is so excited to have escaped the opening of a match without being crushed, and imagines that the middle game will unfold differently that he starts wildly celebrating without even thinking about the endgame.


but none of the conservative set can answer basic questions.
none of the conservative set even registers basic questions.


personally, i am took the plame thing as more an index of how the bushpeople operate than the signal event around which all problems turned.

the right seems to imagine this scenario to be reversed.
i assume that they have become accustomed to viewing the world upside-down over the past 6 sorry years.

let us rehearse the problems one last time before we retire from this thread and begin watching the actual game, as opposed the the game the conservative set pretends is in front of them:

1. it is only in conservativeland that the plame affair has been reduced to a very narrow question of motivation.
1a. it is only in conservativeland that this reduction to motivation requires that every last player be explicitly motivated by trying to fuck over a critic of the iraq debacle.
1b. it is only in conservativeland that the personal ambivalence about iraq that richard armitage means that the whole affair has been addressed

you have to have swallowed conservativelands bizarre narrative about the plame affair to find this information about armitage compelling.
even then, the information that the wapo article presents isself-evidently cherrypicked.
the population of conservativeland cannot even start to address any of this.

your narrative has no power, folks: your evidence has no weight because your narrative has no power.
but enjoy yourselves jumping up and down over some imaginary victory in a game that only you are playing (no-one outside of conservativeland accepts your idiotic reduction-to-explicit motive view of this affair).

i am going back to watching the real game.
we'll maybe chat about this and other such stuff in mid november

<embed src='http://us.i1.yimg.com/cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/player/media/swf/FLVVideoSolo.swf' flashvars='id=802382&emailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Futil%2Fmail%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26vid%3Daa866d3a96001d29b6da93dd0ff321fb.802382%26vback%3DStudio%26vdone%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fvideo.yahoo.com%252Fvideo%252Fstudio%253Fei%253DUTF-8&imUrl=http%253A%252F%252Fvideo.yahoo.com%252Fvideo%252Fplay%253F%2526ei%253DUTF-8%2526vid%253Daa866d3a96001d29b6da93dd0ff321fb.802382&imTitle=beck&searchUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/video/search?p=&profileUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/video/profile?yid=&creatorValue=YXN0YWFu' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='425' height='350'></embed>

Bob Beckel - popular DEMOCRATIC strategist since the late 60's - agrees with Ustwo. As do I.
Although I thought it was a political witchunt from day one anyway and stated so.
Props to those forthright enough to concede with some grace.

Hopefully, the Wilsons can now move on to more important things, like hawking their hard-won scandal books.
:hmm:

that's nice powerclown.
you found a democrat that agrees with you.
i dont see any particularl significance in that, but whatever floats your boat is, i suppose, fine.
how about you actually read through the thread and respond to the critiques of the infotainment that you are celebrating?


full disclosure: i was kind of watching this to see how it unfolded and was kind of agnostic about its significance. but i did see it as symptomatic of how the right operates.

i still see it as symptomatic of how the right operates: and the action of the conservative set here is pretty much as one would expect: rigid repetition of the official line of the moment, unable or unwilling to either pose or answer questions, one-dimensional thinking for a one-dimensional politics.

i'd be disappointed if i didnt already expect so little.

but i understand--it must be tough to be standing in a shrinking room, disaster in afghanistan, civil war in iraq, bush at about 34% approval in the polls, article after article outlining weakness in republican prosects for november, waiting to be crushed in the next elections, clutching at whatever straws your far right media presents you...it cant be easy.

First Rule of Holes, roachboy.

you are delusional, powerclown.
have a nice day.

Very possibly.
Still, nothing can change Bob Beckel's opinion.

I fail to see the relevance of the fact that one out-of-work democratic consultant did not agree with a DOJ investigation that was initiated by the CIA over concern with security leaks -- a politically motivated witchunt? Hardly.

By that logic, Bush's Iraq war policy is a "complete and total disaster" because one Republican Senator (actually more than one) has described it as such on numerous occasions.

Hardly? Hardly?
1+4+6+3+6+2-5-2-8+4+6-10 DOES NOT equal 2. Not in any sane human mind.
While I vouchsafe the Gordian intricacies, the presuppositions must surely be uncorroborated.

Unlike, foxnews shill, Bob Beckel only facts about the 'Plame Leak" case being investigated by special counsel Patrick Fitzerald, reported by news reporters with reputable track record and a proven history of reliable reporting, would influence me to change my opinion....and blame Joe Wilson instead of Bush administration officials for deliberately disclosing that Plame worked for the CIA, as "payback" for Wison's refuting Bush's "16 words" in his Jan., 2003 SOTU speech.

Bob Beckel has already changed his opiinion....once:
Show us where these reporters, or CIA spokesman Bill Harlow have retracted any of the following:
Dana Priest co-wrote the preceding Sept.2003 news report;
....I've waited 13 month....so far.....for a civil, coherent response to my post #45 here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...48#post2078748

I am including it again because it still contains relevant facts in "the case'' that have never been impeached. It also demonstrates that the same game of the foks who won't discuss the facts or try to impeach them, still post only glib attacks against Plame's husband Joe Wilson, and apparently pass that off as relevant and informative addiition to a discussion that logic indicates, should be about analyzing and embracng or refuting, news reporting and statements by Patrick Fitzgerald and of the judges who have ruled on his motiions and those of Scooter Libby's attorneys......but it isn't....and it's not from a lack of trying to do just that....on my part.

Does the bashing of Joe Wilson mesh with the news reporting or the CIA request for investigation of the Plame leak, or with any Fitzgerald statement or of the court? Is it at all coherent in any examination of the facts? Show us how.....or stop doing it!
<b>Powerclown, after at least 13 months of only glibness and avoidance from you, how about posting an answer that impeaches the reporting of WaPo's Dana Priest and statements of ex CIA spokesman, Blll Harlow? How about proviiding evidence
that refutes news reports that Plame's nearest neighbors did not know that she was a CIA employee, or show us credible support for the claim that 'Wilson's wife sent him to Niger". Show us where Wilson claimed that Cheney sent him to Niger. Show us how Bush's 16 SOTU words in Jan 2003, were legitimate, when he delivered them, and show us what unbiased 'mainstream" news reporters are on record, claiming that they personally knew that Plame worked for CIA before June, 2003.</b> Please provide news reportiing...not ediitorials or opinion pieces, or claims of former CIA employees who left the agency ten or more years ago. I haven't seen any of those kind of citations provided, to transform your Wiilson bashing from a Rovian "fringe psy-Op", into an argument for discussion on its merits....in a poltics forum.

Powerclown the fact that there are democrats who see the error of their ways in this is disturbing.

I want them to continue to hound on it much like the dogged desperation, to find something out of nothing, we see in this thread.

The Republicans may not deserve another term based on their lack of domestic backbone (we didn't put them in there in 1994 to write a lot of checks) but they are still better than the alternative, though that line is now just about obliterated on the domestic front.

YOU ARE JOKING RIGHT? OF COURSE I WON'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE HERE FOR YOU TO MOCK ONCE AGAIN. HAVEN'T WE ALL BEEN DOWN THAT ROAD OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITH YOU? BACK AND FORTH AND BACK AND FORTH AND BACK AND FORTH NO YOURE WRONG, NO YOURE WRONG, NO YOURE WRONG, NO YOURE WRONG, NO THAT SOURCE IS BIASED, NO THAT SOURCE IS BIASED HERE LOOK AT THIS ARTICLE FROM 1942 THAT SOURCE IS BIASED. YOU JUST CARRY ON AND CONTINUE PREACHING TO "YOUR AUDIENCE", YOU SUPERSTAR!

WHOEVER IS INTERESTED IN STUDYING THESE MATTERS NEED LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THEIR FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD GOOGLE. FOR NOW ANYWAY, I'M DONE SPENDING TIME RESEARCHING MATERIAL FOR ANGSTY PLATEHEADS, PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENICS, POLITICOPHILES, PRIMADONNAS AND DENSITOMETERS.

WILL YOU SAY "PSY-OP" ONE MORE TIME THOUGH PLEASE?

I HOPE YOU ACCEDENTALLY LEFT YOUR CAPS LOCK ON, because if you did that purpously, then you were yelling and that's inapropriate. Besides, we're all politcophiles here.

As a paranoid schizophrenic, I have to say that I'm concerned that your only argument in this thread is that one democrat (out of tens of millions) is siding with this. I'm sure that you understand that's meaningless. Mr. Beckel isn't really privy to any information that we don't have access to. He simply came to a different conclusion than host or roach or dc or ratbastid (or myself). Until we actually have his line of thought, it's just a conclusion from another outside party.

The better argument here is the one made in the OP. The smart retort is "Where's the proof?". Bob Beckel seems like a nice guy, but we don't klnow what his level of involvement is in this situation. Until we do, he's opinion carries no more weight than mine or yours.

I can see I'm jumping into a shark tank; just know that I'm fresh to this forum.
Well concluded.

Anyway. Novak's rebuttal to the allegations against him is filled with gaps. According to Novak, the official dropped the fact that Plame was employed by the CIA. Novak also defended that he only stated that Wilson's wife was an analyst, not a covert operative. I was curious, however, about Mrs. Plame funding of Al Gore in 1999 through her fake firm, Brewster Jennings & Associates. Novak claimed that...
...which still seems a shallow defense for the possibility of blowing her cover.
Its my understanding that a "noc" is classified and maintained in a secrecy unrivaled by any other covert status in the CIA. It is the most difficult cover to make. So why does it seem like it was easy for Novak to find discrepancies in her cover?

There is also the matter of this "senior administration official." If Novak claims to be innocent, then why not reveal the identity of this person? In an August 27, 2006 appearance on Meet the Press, Novak was asked if Armitage was his source. To which Novak responded:
I know Novak said he prefered his source to identify himself, but when should it become apparent that this source would prefer to keep the investigation and media running in circles, rather than sabotage his own career?


Sources: Novak, Robert (October 1, 2003). "The CIA leak", www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/plame_lawsuit.pdf, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_Affair

i am still confounded by the fact that some see this entire affair as a politically motivated witchunt.

Was the initital CIA internal investigation a democratic ploy? Or the appointment of Fitzgerald by AG Ashcroft? Was the grand jury politically motivated? Where's the beef?

The facts speak for themselves.

Where is the partisan witchunt?.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. I guess that was a partisan witchunt as well.

A "fairy tale" diversion had to be crafted to distract the followers of this entire "vote for us or we'll get hit agaiin", adminitration, from ever consdering
that the administration outted a Cia "NOC" during it's own "GWOT" to demonstrate that dissent similar to what the NOC's husband publcly displayed would not be tolerated without political revenge.

Because of this act of spite at the least.....it will be more difficult to recruit new Cia NOCs smart enough to do the required job. The outting of Plame also goes against everything that those who believe and support the administration claim justifies their support for it.

Either they embrace the fairy tale that Plame's husband Wilson made the whole thing up and somehow got the Cia and DOJ to support Wilson and the republican controlled government to baselessly investigate and embarass the administration.....or.... they would have to react to what the administration actually did....from it's justification for iraq invasion to the outtiing of Plame as an 'example'.....and that would all require introspection that they are'nt ready to do.....they would have to honestly re-examine their fairy tale about what they say happened in Vietnam....fiirst.

Hence, all of the dysfunctiion and deniial of the record of the actual circumstances of the plame leak that even conservative federal appeals court justices and a republican appointed special counsel, as well as the rest of us....all have accepted for a while now....as findings of fact.

Yes, the spunk is all over the blue dress on this one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0507180801.asp


You remember Bill Gertz don't you, host? Here's what you said about him on 10/29/05:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y25...smiley-012.gif

"Allegedly." "Whoever did so." "may have been trying."

Who did it, Jimmy Hoffa? What a pathetic fabrication.


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/MikeFer/lame.gifhttp://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/MikeFer/lame.gifhttp://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/MikeFer/lame.gif

Perhaps I could understand the position of those who find fault with the whole "affair" if someone with that position can suggest the criteria that distinguish a politically motivated witchunt from a proper investigation of potential wrongdoing.

Is any investigation of potential or alleged misconduct, ethical lapses or criminal activity by this administration a witchunt? Would you apply the same standards if it was a Dem administration? How would you hold any administration accountable for its actions?

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 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?

Marv, there is no "alledgedly", in the text of any of these quotes from washington post's Mike Allen in his other reporting of the same comments from a "Senior Administration Official":
Consider that Michael Isikoff co-reported the preceding Oct., 2003 excerpt and co-authored the book, with David Corn, that the OP editorial for this thread was published in response to; with an admittedly "flawed" spin on the signifigance of what Corn and Isikoff published, regarding the Plame CIA Leak investigation.

This legal pleading excerpt by Patrick Fitzgerald in response to a Discovery Motion by Scooter Libby's defense team, to the judge presiding over the criminal trial of Libby for five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Plame CIA Leak investigation is certainly relevant:
Marv and Ustwo, unless you have read all of the pleadings on special counsel Fitzgerald's DOJ website; by your own posted words and the "influence" that you presumably put up little resistance towards (I visit the places that the "Joe Wilson is a sleazebag" folks read for the sustenance of their POVs), I suspect you have little comprehension of what is actually going to happen in the "Libby case" and in Fitzgerald's overall investigation. The next year, or three....are going to be interesting, unless Bush himself engineers a "Nixon style" saturday night massacre by firing Patrick Fitzgerald in an attempt to end this investigation and prosecutions that will result. Fitzgerald only hints at the evidence and testimony he has compiled. He won't even have to disclose most of it, to prosecute Libby. Only Libby and the Bush admin., faithful try to transform the Libby prosecution into a trial about the actual crime of disclosing classified information for political revenge. In this Libby trial, neither the judge nor Fitzgerald will permit that to happen. Fitzgerald won't have to disclose the bulk of the evidence he's gathered until further prosecutions of Bush administration officials, or in their sentencing hearings if they cop pleas....until late 2007 and through 2008.

.....and finally, Marvelous Marv....I'll leave it to other readers to decide for themselves, what your mocking quote of ole "host's" comments about Bill Gertz and your "allegedley" gambit, reveal about the respective earnestness of you....and of me.

Not only did you fail to reply to my post, ten months ago,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=61
in which I provided a thorough rebuttal to your NRO/Bill Gertz "stuff", in your last post here,......but you copied and pasted the quote of my Bill Gertz comment from that ten month old post, to mock me on this thread.

I even posted a second time.....ten months ago, asking you to respond to the post I linked in the preceding paragraph:
pan6467 followed the above linked post with a well referenced description of the publication that Bill Gertz writes for.....the washington times.

<b>Marv, you're giving me an impression</b> that your goal in your last post, and in any of your posts on this thread, is not to stimulate a discussion, or even to defend your POV.

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.

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

I can hear the disapointment in that last sentance.

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 <b>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</b> 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" <b>on the page in the link above</b>, 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:

<b>From the WaPo editorial that Ustwo anchored this thread's OP on:</b>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...083101460.html
<i>It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- <b>that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.</b> 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.</i>

<b>My rebuttal to the core claim [<i>"that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue"</i>] in the WaPo editorial:</b>
<b>Here is what the WaPo acknowledged later in the same editorial, posted in this thread's OP :</b>

<i>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.</i>
<b>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:</b>
Here is how special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald described the White House "OP" against the Wilson's, to the court in a Libby prosecution pleading:
so......I'll request again that Ustwo (or Marv....or anyone...)provide a credible argument to back the WaPo's incredible editorial statment:
<i>"It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- <b>that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- <b>is untrue</b>"</i>

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.

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

....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!

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

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:

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

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

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.

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

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

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield </b>
Matthew Sheffield <b>is employed by MRC, founded and controlled by L. Brent Bozell III</b>
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....)
<b>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.</b>.....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?
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:
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.

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

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.

Probably still reeling from getting coal for Fitzmas

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.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/im.../24818bp_b.jpg

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.

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:
.....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 <b>us</b> 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

"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?

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":
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,
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":
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 <b>"it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to “punish” Wilson".</b>

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.....<b>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.</b>

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

....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.

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.

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

stevo, that factcheck.org piece is more than 2 years old....much more has
been reported, since......and before, that strengthens the argument that Joe Wilson was a victim of the white house, "payback".

Please read my post so that we can have a discussion on the same page. All of what is posted here is supported by news reporting included in this post, and by included citations of conclusions in the Senate Select Intelligence report, about Joe Wilson's "finidings".

<b>I share how I come to believe what I post, and consider what I receive as "feedback" (or blowback ?) from my effort....</b>

It is also irrelevant because the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Phase I report, (we're still waiting for the 26 month delayed Phase II...)
said:
but, stevo.....<b>if you must....</b>
Yes...it's complicated, and I gave no control over that....it just is.

This is the background.....this is what happened:
....and now....the news:

I know its not a new article, but 2 years does not change what bush actually said. ratbastid put words into bush's mouth and I posted an article that accurately corrected him.

I read what you posted and it only supports the notion that bush had bad intel (not good intel) when he made that statement. Not that he lied.

stevo, considering this:
followed by this, 13 days later....
....followed, a year later by George Tenet's resignation, and five months after that, in December, 2004, by Mr. Bush awarding Tenet the highest honor bestowed on a civilian by the POTUS....the medal of freedom.

The record shows that the POTUS has no credibility and never takes responsibility. When the record is deliberately muddied, as Patrick Fitzgerald said, "the umpire cannot see the play". These leaders have lost all credibility, stevo, so....why do you persist in defending them?

....if the "press" was "'liberal", and they actually did their job of acting as the
"fourth estate", and questioned and spoke truth to "power", they might ask Mr. Bush this, and what do you think that he would answer?

Host, I still see nothing in these articles showing how the president LIED. What I see is george tenet saying Thats what you offer as evidence of the president's lies? you've got to try harder than that.

But lies rhymes with dies and fits on a bumper sticker.

I think they can go with 'The President was misled and people bled' but thats a lot harder to fit on a bumper sticker.

stevo, the evidence is overwhelming that POTUS Bush, and VP Cheney misled the American people about the justification to invade and occupy Iraq.

To this day, we cannot know all of the facts surrounding this criminal deception and illegal policy of war of aggression, because the President, and Senate Intel Committee chairman, Pat Roberts, have delayed disclosure of how the Bush administration analyzed pre-invasion intelligence and whether they improperly pressured intelligence analysts to skew the data to justify the urgency and the necessity for invading Iraq.

The last quote boxes that I include in this post make it quite clear that the Robb Silberman WMD report did not examine or reach conclusions about the intelligence handling questions, and it persuades that Pat Roberts tried to bury the determination, and has finally been pressured by his own republican colleagues in the senate to provide a report to the American people, but only after yet another election has taken place.

The reason that Bush and Roberts have been able to get away with obstructing an open investigation, and why the 9/11 Commission and the Robb Silberman WMD investigation <i>"were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community"</i>, is because the pre-invasion deception, playing on the emotions triggered by the experience of the 9/11 attacks, delayed the inevitable outrage that is pnly coming to fore now.....<b>but is still blunted from the full bloom of the outrage that will ulimately occur against Bush.....by the folks who will never allow themselves to even suspect that Bush blatantly lied to them</b> in order to justify an illegal war and the tragic and costly aftermath that the Iraqis and the US are still mired in, because of the Bush adminstration's Pre-emption.

stevo, if the news about what these scumbags actually knew.....pre-invasion, about the degree of WMD threat that Iraq posed, vs. what they terrorized us with, instead, was supportive to their reputations or in anyway vindicated them, can you post here that they would attempt to keep that knowledge from us....for this fucking long?

I don't expect to persuade you or Ustwo of anything, stevo. It's laid out here for all to see.....pulled up right alongside the opinions that the two of you post. <b>Consider that Tenet's July 11, 2003 admission and Hadley's July 22, 2003 "briefing", came as a direct response to Joe Wilson's July 6, 2003 "What I didn't see in Niger", op-ed piece in the NY Times. The Bush admin. public reaction, speaks volumes in support of Patrick Fitzgerald's contention that the executive branch launched an assault on Joe Wilson, as payback, that included the outing of his wife's classified status as a CIA employee. It's a small thing.....compared to launching an illegal war of aggression, after a terror propaganda campaign against the Amercian people, but....IMO...it's still treason....authorized at the highest levels of the Bush administration....and no counter spin offensive broadcast this month from the right, makes the facts that Irwin Libby lied to FBI investigators and to a grand jury, during multiple appearances.....giving false and misleading testimony to attempt to cover up the official Wilson "payback Op", in response to Wilson legitimately questioning a small segment of an entire propaganda campaign of lies that is the record of the official justification for invadin Iraq!</b>
<b>Is anyone who listened to the chorus of conservative pundits who claimed that the Bush white house handling of pre-invasion intelligence about Iraq, was somehow "vindicated" by the 2004 Senate Intel Committee, or by the Robb Silberman WMD reports, at all curious about how that claim could be true, since neither report released....even to this day.....contains determinations that could make that "vindication claim"....even remotely possible?</b>

Scooter Libby's trial is finally scheduled to begin....... this coming monday.

Remember the argument that "everyone knew Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, so no crime was committed by officials who leaked that information to reporters"?

If this is true, the CIA still objects, 3-1/2 years later, to the release of information to the public, concerning any details of Plame's employment at the CIA:
I notice that the posters on this thread who tried to blame the Plame "leak" entirely on Richard Armitage, have not logged into the TFP site, using the ID's that they used to post here, in weeks....will they maintain they're absences? Time will tell....

<h3>The following is a separate post, on Jan. 13, 2007. The "system" joined it to my previous post.</h3>
I'm going to let you draw your own conclusions....you will....anyway:

The video report from MSNbc, linked here, if the allegations reported can be proven by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, certainly explain why Libby's trial had to be pushed out past the Nov., 2006 mid-term election. Libby is accused of destroying evidence that implicates Cheney in obstruction of the Plame leak investigation, and Fitzgerald told the jury that he can prove that Cheney was the first person to inform Libby that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/23/cheney-libby-trial/

In his opening statement, Libby's lawyer tells the jury that the white house:

Host, it's been established to a fare-thee-well that it was Armitage who leaked to Novak. Whether that gets Libby off the hook I don't know. It'll come out in the trial. I don't know Ted Wells personally -- I know him only by his reputation, which is excellent, and I know a couple of his law partners -- but I would not be surprised if his story simply is that there wasn't anything to cover up, so there was no reason to lie.

My own view is that this episode demonstrates once again that Special Prosecutors are dangerous. Ken Starr was dangerous, so was Lawrence Walsh and so is Patrick Fitzgerald. It's inherent in the nature of the beast. I can dig out the stories in which it was shown that Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was the day he was appointed - so what, then, was he investigating? Pretty much was Starr was: he was appointed to find wrongdoing, so dadgummit he's going to find wrongdoing.

The rest of this stuff is smoke and mirrors.

In his opening statement, Fitzgerald said today that Cheney "was deeply involved in the CIA link" against Valerie Plame and that Libby destroyed a note from Cheney about their conversations and about how he (Cheney) wanted the Wilson matter handled.

This alleged abuse of classified information for political purposes, and Libby's subsequent lying about it, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is serious shit...not smoke and mirrors.

Well, he wasn't indicted for leaking classified info. He was indicted for misleading investigators about whether he discussed Plame with reporters. That's only "serious shit" if what he misled the investigators about was material to a crime. And there was no underlying crime - as you know, Libby is the only one who was indicted for <i>anything</i> in this whole sorry affair. And it's not for lack of Fitzpatrick trying, either - he had Rove testify something like five times.

This doesn't mean it's not a crime to mislead investigators, but what's at stake in this trial is much, much less than you're saying.

Since you apparently heard the openings - what did Wells say? What's his story?

I know full well that Libby wasnt indicted for leaking classfied information AND that he was indicted for more the "misleading investigators".

There are five counts in the indictment - one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements.

The indictment also includes the following language:

In connection with his role as a senior government official with responsibilities for national security matters, LIBBY held security clearances entitling him to access to classified information. 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 Order 13292), 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. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a written "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," stating in part that "I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government," and that "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation."

What is at stake is more than misleading investigators. The crime is perjury and obstruction of justice.

While not directly indictable, the motive and rationale for those illegal actions exposes how the White House abused national security information for political purposes This trial will bring to light some of the ugly underbelly of this Adminstration and the actions it will take against those who threathen their policy objectives by exposing their lies. I stil think that is "serious shit."

I have only seen one quote from Wells opening statement:

Attorneys for former White House aide ``Scooter'' Libby said Tuesday that Bush administration officials tried to blame him for the leak of a CIA operative's name to cover up for Bush political adviser Karl Rove's own disclosures.

Attorney Theodore Wells, in the opening statements of I. Lewis Libby's perjury trial, said Libby went to Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 and complained that the White House was subtly blaming him for leaking Valerie Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak.

"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb,'' Wells said, recalling the conversation between Libby and Cheney." I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected.''

Without seeing the full opening defense, that is an interesting angle, dont you think?

More:
Michael Isokoff in Newsweek describes Wells opening defense remarks as a “scorched earth” strategy pointing accusatory fingers at White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove as well as other top current and former Bush aides".

The indictment says that he agreed not to disclose classified info.
Does it say that he did that? I doubt it. If it did, there'd be a count for it in there. There isn't.

Read the counts of the indictment for perjury and OoJ. IIRC, the perjury was his grand jury testimony, well after the fact. The OoJ was related to that too. It wasn't a charge of leaking classified info.

As I said, he may well have been guilty of misstating his timeline, whether under oath or otherwise, but there wasn't any furshlugginer crime of leaking classified information here.

As for the "sacrificial lamb" stuff - the guy is being tried in DC. DC is a <i><b>very</i></b> Democratic town. That's who the jury pool is, Democratic Bush-haters. If you're Ted Wells and you have a jury like that, and you want your man to be acquitted, don't you try to paint the current administration as bad guys who were setting Libby up? I might be wrong here, because Wells told the jurors he'd be calling Cheney as a witness - but we'll have to see how that turns out.

For me this is spectator sport. I'm a lawyer, so I enjoy trying to figure out the strategy.

And Wells apparently put on quite a show. Read <A HREF="http://www.slate.com/id/2158157/">this account in <i>Slate</i></A>, you'll enjoy it.

I think if you read what I said, I agree that there was no charge of leaking classified information.

I was getting at motive. I do believe that the alleged perjury and obstruction were motivated by an attempt to cover-up how this admistration abuses classfied information for political purposes.

I am a policy wonk, not a lawyer,but I think the "he said/he said" defense is a risky strategy, particularly if your "he" is a White House senior aide and you are facing a jury not predisposed to be simpathetic to him or his boss.

I think what he is saying is that if Bush and Blair went in <i>knowing</i> that Saddam didn't have WMDs (which is what "lying" about it would require), then they would have planted some to be "found."

As inept as Bush is running this thing, I think if he had tried he would have been caught doing it. I think they could have tried but found the press coverage and the world's watching too big a microscope for that. It would require massive movements (easily picked up by sattelites), hiding large amounts of stuff (it would have to be enough to make a point), then directing troops there to find it AND doing this several times in differing locations.

I think Bush went in believing there were WMDs because People high up told him there were and they lied to him. Blair, I think was totally blinded and agreeable and didn't truly check any facts out, he believed W. and W.'s people.

Thus both can be truthful in denying that they knew Saddam didn't have WMDs.

I think the problem now lies in W's knowing but being so committed that he doesn't care what the reasoning or truth is anymore.

As for the Plame business, Libby is a fallguy, but he won't get much of a punishment, he'll get paid secretly well, and he'll write a book that he'll get a few Mill for. Right now, Libby and his lawyer are putting on the show that was expected but in the end, watch Libby confess. Hell, his lawyer will probably write a bokk for a few Mill also. (God, I'm jaded.)

Rove, when asked of Wilson''s wife was a CIA agent, revealed that she was. If revealing her cover was a crime, Rove committed it.

Why would the Bush administration give a rats fuck about Wilson's wife? There was motivation to go after and discredit Wilson (which "your wife is a CIA operative who gave you this mission" might be used).

So, there are two people who should be going to jail over this. Rove and Armitage.

Rove knew about Wilson's wife through official channels, and he did confirm it.

Sadly, it looks like most of the information is unsubstantiated. The article quotes anonymous sources -- which is to say, no source at all -- far too often. Anonymously sourced information is gossip.

Hey Yakk, when were you appointed prosecutor? Fitzgerald - who <i><b>is</i></b> the prosecutor - has ascertained that, even though any prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, Rove wouldn't be indicted. In fact, no one was indicted for "outing" Valerie Plame (if there even was anything to be outed), whether Rove or otherwise.

Convince yourself of what you want, but the fact remains that Fitzgerald was given a mission: track down any crimes committed in connection with this Plame business and go after the perps. And he came up with a big fat zero. Libby's crime that he was indicted for was created by the investigation itself, not by anything that motivated the appointment of a prosecutor to begin with.

This is excerpts from a "live blog"...the author is James Joyner. I chose his eyewitness account of the first 2 days of the "Scooter" Libby criminal trial, because of his conservative bias, not in spite of it. I've omitted most of his posts from this sequence of his trial filings that contained his opinion, and not his account of the trial proceedings. I've compared his account to another by a blogger with an obvious liberal bias. My intent is to draw the interest of folks who think that no crime was committed, and I don't know of a better way to do it. We can't discuss this unless we are on "the same page", and that has yet to come close to happening.....

<b>Comment from "host"...this guy has a PhD, and he couldn't get Fitzgerald's first name right...it's Patrick, not "Peter":</b>

Host, please post at least a fraction as much analysis of each large block-quote as the block quote has length.

6 lines of analysis of 100s of lines of block quotes isn't a contribution to a discussion -- it is a reading assignment.

I have no interest in reading and replying to mass copied and pasted quotes when the person who posted them isn't even willing to spend the time including decent comments on them.

Thank you.