The giant merged Karl Rove thread.

[roachboy]

voice:

there is no real point of comparison between the type of ideological control exerted by fox news on their content, and obviously by the national review on its content, and anything outside the reach of the conservative media apparatus. to pretend otherwise is simply disengenuous--the right loves to try to justify its own heavily distorted "information" by presenting it as a response to "liberal biais" in the press--but
(1) the premise is completely false and (2) the simple fact of the matter is that you have nothing even remotely like the diversity of views in right media that you have in the ny times, for example.

all i see you doing is defending arbitrariness with reference to sources.

[Zodiak]

I think it a fair rule for the opposition to not have to go chasing slanted references all over the place only to waste time finding out that the "facts" presented in a slanted article are shaky references at best (as demonstrated above-thread with the National Review). Information can be twisted into a variety of spins, even in the mainstream press, but at least the mainstream press irks both sides of the aisle equally and, to me, is the only type of reference that can be agreed upon by both sides.

Believe it or not, the left has been absolutely horrified by the press over the last ten years or so, especially television news.

The mainstream American press has no demonstrable liberal/conservative bias, but it certainly has a pro-media bias, a pro-sensationalist bias, and a tendency to protect those in power (to whom they wish to preserve access). Using the mainstream press minimizes the extra bias of blatant partisanship because even the partisan press is subject to all of the aforementioned shortcomings plus partisanship.

But I understand why some would want to see the biased sources and the facts within challenged. That is fine, but mind you, these types of sources tend to fall apart quickly under cursory analysis. In addition, entire think-tanks exchange the tit-for-tat on these types of talking points columns, which takes multiple full-time jobs. However, we are a bunch of people who spend a little free time on the internet entertaining ourselves (or at least I am). I can see how this would bog people down if over-indulged, and the end result is a loss of meaningful debate.

Besides, many of those that write for partisan publications are columnists, not journalists, and are held to different standards than journalists sensu stricto.

Lastly, I apologize if you feel lectured on your sources, Voice. It is not my intention to offend; only to entreat for some common, equal ground.

[Zodiak]

From the Washinton Post, it looks like administration officials should have known Plame's name was to be kept secret because it was marked as such.

washingtonpost.com
Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 21, 2005; A01

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...002517_pf.html

Looks like the spin that Rove couldn;t have known about her covert status is begnning to fall apart. Another reason why the facts of the case should be determined first before it is spun to death to benefit one party or another.

[DazednConfused]

Interesting read here about the Rove incident plus a lot of details I haven't heard about before. I thought some might like to read it.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Comment...105weiner.html

Opinion

Rove-Plame scandal leading to deeper White House horrors?

By Bernard Weiner
Online Journal Guest Writer

July 21, 2005 (crisispapers.org)—At long last, Plamegate—the scandal surrounding the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson by two "senior administration officials"—has exploded out of the D.C. beltway to become a major national news story.

It would appear that this scandal goes way beyond Karl Rove and who said what to whom when about Ms. Plame. It certainly is true, though, that turning over that slimy Rove-Plame rock was the way into the larger issues upon which Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury apparently are focusing.

(Ain't it almost always so in Washington? The cover-up is always a greater problem for the perpetrators than the original crime, for inevitably even seamier scandals are unearthed one by one; see the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Iran-Contra, et al. The moral lesson—admit your mistake early, bear the immediate hit, and move on unencumbered—rarely seems to "take" among politicians of whatever party.)

What's being covered up in the Plame-Rove case seems to revolve around the Bush administration's orchestrated, and perhaps illegal, propaganda campaign to justify its invasion of Iraq. Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson—who wrote the op-ed in the New York Times that got this whole thing going—are just the tips of very large icebergs, and one of those icebergs has a name: the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which we'll examine below.

The Eight Blacked Out Pages

One of the ruling judges on the case of the two reporters who refused to divulge their Plame-outing source was about to go easy on them when he read Fitzgerald's new information—eight pages of which were redacted from the public—and said that the national security seriousness of what he read changed his mind.

The court then ordered Time's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller to testify or else; Cooper finally did, and Miller is in jail for contempt of court.

We don't know what is in those eight blacked-out pages—and, if they really do involve national security matters, we may never be permitted to know precisely. But apparently they provide the locus around which Fitzgerald is building a case that could result in perjury indictments, at the least, for a number of administration officials and perhaps journalists as well.

(Another judge said that the prosecutor's classified filing—those missing eight pages—"decides the case." In other words, to quote Lawrence O'Donnell: "All the judges who have seen the prosecutor's secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.")

Further, depending on what Bush and Cheney knew and when they knew it—and what they did or covered up in the possible light of such knowledge—there may be plenty of ammunition for likely impeachment hearings. (Note: Bush hired a private attorney last summer for this CIA-leak case.)

And the two journalists in question, Cooper and Miller, have their own attorneys. It's defense attorney heaven in the nation's capital these days.

Personal Reasons Miller Not Testifying?

Why Judith Miller is not testifying apparently goes to the heart of Fitzgerald's case. There are reasonable grounds for wondering whether Miller might have been aiding, inadvertently or consciously, Rove and the rest of the WHIG to help move the country toward war with Iraq. For example, she may have been told by administration officials about Plame and her CIA job, and helped spread that word to other journalists, who then contacted Rove and I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. Cooper over the weekend revealed that it was Libby who was the second of the "two senior administration officials" who leaked Plame's identity.

The New York Times already has apologized for running several of Miller's pre-Iraq War stories that were based on faulty weapons-of-mass-destruction intelligence; much of that concocted intel was provided by Ahmed Chalabi, the sleazy Iraqi exile leader who hitched his wagon to the Pentagon neocons to get his forces back into Iraq in the wake of a U.S. invasion. Those Miller stories helped provide the imprimatur of New York Times prestige that other media outlets then picked up on, helping create a nationwide zeitgeist of an imminent threat from Iraq.

Indeed, Dick Cheney squared the circle by using Miller's stories as "evidence" that even the hallowed New York Times had determined that Iraq had, or soon would have, nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

"The day the Times story ran," wrote Amy and David Goodman in their invaluable book "The Exception to the Rulers . . . ," Cheney "made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows to advance the administration's bogus claims. On NBC's Meet the Press, Cheney declared that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes to make enriched uranium. It didn't matter that the IAEA refuted the charge both before and after it was made. But Cheney didn't want viewers just to take his word for it. 'There's a story in The New York Times this morning,' he said smugly. 'And I want to attribute The Times.' This was the classic disinformation two-step: the White House leaks a lie to the Times, the newspaper publishes it as a startling expose, and then the White House conveniently masquerades behind the credibility of the Times."

Who Gets the Hot Pot?

What we are witnessing right now is a grand-scale game of political/legal "hot potato." Nobody wants to be holding the various hot pots around the Plame case when the grand jury finally settles on its various indictments, which could come in the next several months.

Rove these days, through an anonymous source (probably his attorney), is trying to deflect blame and attention to others, especially journalists, by throwing out one bizarre scenario after another to escape legal culpability. (Not surprisingly, even though Bush and Press Secretary Scott McClellan say the administration will refuse to comment because there's an "official investigation" going on, Rove, through his surrogate, feels free to continue his attempts to comment on and shape the case.)

But, from what Fitzgerald has suggested, he and the grand jury long ago determined who the leakers were. That's not what is at issue now. The investigation is all tied in with the national security matters talked about on those blacked out eight pages.

And, a reasonable guess is that those pages deal in some fashion with the actions—legal or illegal, overt or covert, actual or covered-up—of the members of an inner council of administration heavies called the White House Iraq Group.

Just one example of the WHIG's function and influence: "The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago [in 2002], including the introduction of the term 'mushroom cloud' into the debate, coincided with the formation of . . . WHIG, a task force assigned to 'educate the public' about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it." (This quote comes from a groundbreaking 2003 article by investigative reporters Barton Gelman and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post.)

Eeny, Meenie Hunt for War Justification

How did we get to Cheney and Rice scaring the population with talk of "mushroom clouds" and wild tales of Iraqi WMD that might be made available to al-Qaida terrorists?

Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear. It was 2002. The administration already had decided to bomb and invade Iraq, but was having trouble figuring out how to manipulate the propaganda so as to fool Congress, the American people, and the international community into giving them permission to do so.

It was not smooth sailing. Not only were the Democrats and leakers within the CIA beating up on Bush's plans for war, but prestigious conservative Republican leaders, such as Gen. Brent Scowcroft, James Baker III, Dick Army, and Trent Lott also were warning against an invasion of Iraq. Something had to be done.

The disinformation campaign was launched by the WHIG and others inside and outside the White House. (We ordinary citizens learned about Bush's pre-9/11 obsession about attacking Iraq both from memoirs by former Cabinet members, such as Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and National Security Council official Richard Clarke, and most recently verified by the Downing Street Memos leaked from inside the Blair Cabinet.)

Reasons Behind the Invasion

Bush&Co. realized they couldn't come right out and tell everyone what their true motives were—to depose the Saddam Hussein regime in order to control the world's second largest oil reserve, to set up permanent military bases there, and to use the presence of those bases and the "shock & awe" example of overthrowing a dictator as a warning to other autocratic regimes in the Greater Middle East to bow to U.S. wishes. Those wishes involved oil, Israel, nuclear reactors, terrorism, and the like. So, a convenient reason—one simple enough for the masses to comprehend—had to be found that would justify war.

As the Downing Street Memos and other internal British and U.S. documents make clear, it was well known that Iraq by the mid-1990s was a paper tiger: Its economy, as a result of the embargo, was in tatters; Saddam had control only of the central part of the country (Britain and the U.S. controlled the skies over the so-called "no-fly" zones in the South and the North); its standing army was easily conqerable; and, most important, its major weapons systems and research facilities had been effectively destroyed during the first Gulf War or in the years immediately after. In short, there were no WMD worth mentioning, even though the lying, exaggerating Iraqi exiles kept insisting that the U.S. military would find huge stockpiles of such when they got to Iraq.

But, as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz later said, the administration settled on WMD ("for bureaucratic reasons"), apparently realizing that it would be the most effective, frightening, and thus acceptable justification. And so the WMD scare campaign began, with nightmarish tales of biological and chemical agents (which senators were told could be delivered by am Iraqi air force drone Iraqi on East Coast cities), huge missile armadas, and, most tellingly, nuclear weapons. Of course, none of this was true.

Cheney and Rice and Bush and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the whole lot, spent months peddling their scare stories to the public and to members of Congress, and even sent poor Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council with a sorry, embarrassing hodge-podge of non-existent "evidence"—and, damn, it worked.

Thanks to those lies and the stenography of the mainstream media when it came to the administration's peddling of them, both the Congress and the public bought into Bushthink with regard to the war. That was especially so when the campaign added the laughable suggestion that somehow Saddam Hussein was tied to the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S. (yet another example of the Big Lie Technique used by Rove and his forces). The war was on.

The White House Iraq Group

But someone, or some entity, within the administration had to coordinate these concerted propaganda campaigns. That was the bailiwick and job-assignment of the WHIG, chaired by Bush's Chief of Staff Andrew Card, the regular members of which were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's Chief of Staff. In other words, WHIG included the key decision makers (Rove, Rice, Card, Cheney-via Libby), and the key propaganda specialists (Hughes, Matalin, et al.).

They waited a month to launch their first public relations bombardment. Why September? Andy Card let slip the reason in an interview with The New York Times: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," he said.

They soon determined that the public was most frightened of a possible nuclear attack by al-Qaida, and so, the day after publication of Card's marketing quote, the Bush administration heavies began dropping their Iraq-as-nuclear-menace grenades into the public airwaves. They attempted to back up their claims by quoting from reports by international nuclear energy agencies supposedly saying that Iraq was about to become a nuclear power—but no such reports existed.

But the lack of believable evidence about WMD didn't stop them, and the fright campaign continued. Some of that history may well have been in Fitzgerald's classified showing before the court.

Fitzgerald Might Have to Watch Out

In sum, the White House Iraq Group was tasked to come up with propaganda campaigns that would work on the Congress and American people—no matter how great the fib; indeed, the bigger the lie, the easier it seemed to be to sell it. And their mission included coordinating those campaigns through the various stages, and denouncing and destroying the reputations of those who dared to confront their lies and deceptions.

The WHIG played the public like masters, thanks no doubt to their stooges and ideological supporters in the mainstream media, who joined in the fool-the-public campaign in major, influential ways. Those who chose not to play the deception game, such as Ambassador Wilson, they decided, would be made to pay the price for their perfidy—and would serve as a warning to any others inside the administration who might want to blow some truth-whistles. Interestingly, the trash-Joe-Wilson campaign continues until this day.

To their chagrin, Wilson appears to be a man of great character and courage, and refuses to back down. And why should he? He's been speaking the truth about the Bush administration's lack of evidence of Iraqi WMD for more than two years, while the administration's lies have been exposed time and time again on the ground in Iraq and by official agencies and reports.

Again, it's not totally clear how far Special Counsel/U.S Attorney Fitzgerald is willing to go to clear out this nest of administration vipers. He could choose to stick close to the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson case itself, or he could keep heading in the direction of indicting a good many administration officials—perhaps with Bush and Cheney as unindicted co-conspirators—for their part in lying about classified national security matters to the Congress and American people. A wild card: If Judith Miller were to trade immunity for prosecution and decide to testify about Rove/Libby/Cheney, anything could happen.

Wounded, Cornered Animals Are Dangerous

If and when the above scenarios start to unfold, it's not outside the realm of possibility that Rove would get desperate enough to try to question the motives and character of the special counsel himself, as BuzzFlash puts it, "to try to sink the investigation through an ad hominem attack. This is Rove's pathological gutter tactic. He doesn't know how NOT to use it when backed into a corner." Or Rove/Bush conceivably could do a Nixon and order Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fire Fitzgerald.

Anything is possible as the Bush administration paints itself further into the scandal corner, and, desperate to avoid criminal proceedings and/or impeachment, lashes out at its perceived enemies.

Stay tuned. The fun is just beginning.

[host]

powerclown, if you recall, we recently had the exchange, quoted below, in the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=91795">"If Rove Is Indicted"........</a> thread. It seemed OT, continuing this on that thread, so I decided to post a followup here. I saw no point, until now, in replying to your last post, because we reached a point where.....aside from commenting on the reputations for reliability and accuracy of the sources that each of us cited to back our opposing opinions, there was no new information available to add more clarity to the issue of Joe Wilson's integrity and reputation. Now....IMO, there is more....(see the third quote box.)

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...03&postcount=9

Originally Posted by host

Please explain your "Did Wilson do something sleazy? Yes." What can you offer to show that Wilson was not credible and forthright, in his July 6, 2003 NY Times Op-Ed piece, or subsequently, that comes from a non-partisan source. Wilson signed no NDA with the CIA before or after his trip to Niger. The subsequent revelations of the Duelfer WMD report, and the Jan. 12, 2005 admissions to reporters by Scott MCClellan, speaking on behalf of the president, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050112-7.html">that the weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence, were not there.</a>, only serve to strengthen Wilson's already strong credentials as a "whistleblower" acting appropriately in the wake of the failure of the executive administration to back it's oft repeated claims of the nature of the threat that Iraq posed to the U.S., that justified an military invasion of that sovereign country.

powerclown, you may accept Rove's distortions that "Wilson claimed Cheney sent him to Niger", or <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/page/2/">that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.</a>

I don't accept it because there are no sources for those distortions besides "senior administration officials" and Sen. Pat Roberts partisan "addenedum".

This is a link to an accurate, IMO, of the distortions that are used to smear Wilson, and the defects in them: http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150008

Can you make a case that Wilson is "sleazy", inferring that he deserved the onslaught of Rove's campaign to marginalize Wilson and his wife, that Rove launched no later than immediately after Wilson wrote:

I have a hard time posting that anyone is "sleazy". I have to be certain of what I know, and not what others filter for me, before I'll post that about someone. What do you know, that persuades you that Wilson is sleazy?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=10

Originally Posted by powerclown

Funny, you don't seem to have a hard time referring to members of the Bush Administration as "fuckers"or"thugs".
I'd hate to get on your bad side, host.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Just a few reasons why Wilson is a sleazeball:

Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Saturday, July 10, 2004


---
source

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...602069_pf.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net
White House Effort To Discredit Critic Examined in Detail

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 27, 2005; A01

The special prosecutor in the CIA leak probe has interviewed a wider range of administration officials than was previously known, part of an effort to determine whether anyone broke laws during a White House effort two years ago to discredit allegations that President Bush used faulty intelligence to justify the Iraq war, according to several officials familiar with the case.

Prosecutors have questioned former CIA director George J. Tenet and deputy director John E. McLaughlin, former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, State Department officials, and even a stranger who approached columnist Robert D. Novak on the street.

In doing so, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked not only about how CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was leaked but also how the administration went about shifting responsibility from the White House to the CIA for having included 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union address about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Africa, an assertion that was later disputed.

Most of the questioning of CIA and State Department officials took place in 2004, the sources said.

It remains unclear whether Fitzgerald uncovered any wrongdoing in this or any other portion of his nearly 18-month investigation. All that is known at this point are the names of some people he has interviewed, what questions he has asked and whom he has focused on.

Fitzgerald began his probe in December 2003 to determine whether any government official knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a CIA employee to the media. Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, has said his wife's career was ruined in retaliation for his public criticism of Bush. In a 2002 trip to Niger at the request of the CIA, Wilson found no evidence to support allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from that African country and reported back to the agency in February 2002. But nearly a year later, Bush asserted in his State of the Union speech that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa, attributing it to British, not U.S., intelligence.

Fitzgerald has said in court that he had completed most of his investigation at a time when he was pressing for New York Times reporter Judith Miller to testify about any conversations she had with a specific administration official about Plame during the week before Plame's identity was revealed.............

....Using background conversations with at least three journalists and other means, Bush officials attacked Wilson's credibility. They said that his 2002 trip to Niger was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, but CIA officials say that is incorrect. One reason for the confusion about Plame's role is that she had arranged a trip for him to Niger three years earlier on an unrelated matter, CIA officials told The Washington Post..........

......Also murky is the role of Novak, who first publicly identified Plame in a syndicated column published July 14, 2003.

Lawyers have confirmed that Novak discussed Plame with White House senior adviser Karl Rove four or more days before the column identifying her ran. But the identity of another "administration" source cited in the column is still unknown. Rove's attorney has said Rove did not identify Plame to Novak.

In a strange twist in the investigation, the grand jury -- acting on a tip from Wilson -- has questioned a person who approached Novak on Pennsylvania Avenue on July 8, 2003, six days before his column appeared in The Post and other publications, Wilson said in an interview. The person, whom Wilson declined to identify to The Post, asked Novak about the "yellow cake" uranium matter and then about Wilson, Wilson said. He first revealed that conversation in a book he wrote last year. In the book, he said that he tried to reach Novak on July 8, and that they finally connected on July 10. In that conversation, Wilson said that he did not confirm his wife worked for the CIA but that Novak told him he had obtained the information from a "CIA source."

Novak told the person that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA as a specialist in weapons of mass destruction and had arranged her husband's trip to Niger, Wilson said. Unknown to Novak, the person was a friend of Wilson and reported the conversation to him, Wilson said.

Novak and his attorney, James Hamilton, have declined to discuss the investigation, as has Fitzgerald.

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to "asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name."

Harlow was also involved in the larger internal administration battle over who would be held responsible for Bush using the disputed charge about the Iraq-Niger connection as part of the war argument. Based on the questions they have been asked, people involved in the case believe that Fitzgerald looked into this bureaucratic fight because the effort to discredit Wilson was part of the larger campaign to distance Bush from the Niger controversy.

Wilson unleashed an attack on Bush's claim on July 6, 2003, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," in an interview in The Post and writing his own op-ed article in the New York Times, in which he accused the president of "twisting" intelligence.

Behind the scenes, the White House responded with twin attacks: one on Wilson and the other on the CIA, which it wanted to take the blame for allowing the 16 words to remain in Bush's speech. As part of this effort, then-deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley spoke with Tenet during the week about clearing up CIA responsibility for the 16 words, even though both knew the agency did not think Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, according to a person familiar with the conversation. Tenet was interviewed by prosecutors, but it is not clear whether he appeared before the grand jury, a former CIA official said.

On July 9, Tenet and top aides began to draft a statement over two days that ultimately said it was "a mistake" for the CIA to have permitted the 16 words about uranium to remain in Bush's speech. He said the information "did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and the CIA should have ensured that it was removed."

A former senior CIA official said yesterday that Tenet's statement was drafted within the agency and was shown only to Hadley on July 10 to get White House input. Only a few minor changes were accepted before it was released on July 11, this former official said. He took issue with a New York Times report last week that said Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, had a role in Tenet's statement.

The prosecutors have talked to State Department officials to determine what role a classified memo including two sentences about Plame's role in Wilson's Niger trip played in the damage-control campaign.

People familiar with this part of the probe provided new details about the memo, including that it was then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage who requested it the day Wilson went public and asked that a copy be sent to then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to take with him on a trip to Africa the next day. Bush and several top aides were on that trip. Carl W. Ford Jr., who was director of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the time and who supervised the original production of the memo, has appeared before the grand jury, a former State Department official said.

The preceding report of the interview of former CIA spokesperson Bill Harlow makes it quite clear that Harlow is Novak's contact at the CIA, and that Harlow told Novak that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was confirmed by the CIA spokesman to have the status of an "undercover operative", and that Plame did not "send her husband, Joe Wilson, on a fact finding trip regarding the attempts by Iraq to purchase "yellowcake" uranium.

Fitzgerald began his probe in December 2003 to determine whether any government official knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a CIA employee to the media. Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, has said his wife's career was ruined in retaliation for his public criticism of Bush. In a 2002 trip to Niger at the request of the CIA,

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

As I posted earlier, here................

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=15
Quote Box - 3: On Oct. 1, 2003
Even Novak
tells CNN's Blitzer that senior Bush admin. officials told him that Wilson's wife suggested that he be sent to NIGER, but his source at the CIA said, "to their knowledge, he did not -- that the mission was not suggested by Ambassador Wilson's wife."

Quote Box - 4: In Wilson's July 6, 2003 Op-Ed column in the NY Times, he writes, "The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office".

.....Novak, however, chose to ignore what CIA spokesman Bill Harlow told him,
and instead, publish Rove's Nepotism "OP" to discredit and make an example out of "whistleblower", Joe Wilson..............

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8658626/
Transcript for July 24
Fred Thompson, Dick Durbin, David Gregory, William Safire, Stuart Taylor & Nina Totenberg

BC News
Updated: 12:05 p.m. ET July 24, 2005

PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS........

.............MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert, NBC News
............MR. RUSSERT: Four years of Latin, Canisius High School. Thank you, Brother Bill.

Let me turn to the CIA leaked case investigation. There have been numerous newspaper reports that the investigation is now focusing on perhaps perjury as opposed to the leak because the leak is difficult to prove under the law. What we know so far is that in terms of journalists, Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, Russert of NBC, Matt Cooper of Time magazine have all testified, either in deposition or before the grand jury. We assume Robert Novak has testified because Judy Miller of The Times who didn't testify is in jail. And there's been numerous newspaper reports that there's a difference between the testimony of some of the reporters and Scooter Libby of Vice President Cheney's office and Karl Rove of President Bush's office. Bill Safire, what do we make of all this?...............

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5529639.html
Last update: July 27, 2005 at 7:06 PM
Editorial: CIA & Iraq/An effort to shift the blame
July 28, 2005 ED0728


In addition to potentially indicting one or more people in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame in the literal sense, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald could very well figuratively indict the Bush administration's case for going to war in Iraq, plus its cynical behavior when that case began to unravel. He could also expose just how badly columnist Robert Novak behaved in all this.

The Washington Post's Walter Pincus is the gold standard in trustworthy, hard-nosed reporting these days, and he, with Jim VandeHei, put together a powerful report for Wednesday's Post that illuminates several aspects of the Plame affair.

Pincus and VandeHei write that Fitzgerald is exploring the fight between the White House and the CIA over who was responsible for the discredited claim that Iraq sought to buy enriched uranium in Niger. He's exploring this because "the effort to discredit [Ambassador Joseph] Wilson was part of the larger campaign to distance Bush from the Niger controversy."...........

powerclown, I ask you again....how do you come to label, on this forum, a man who has served his country as a respected diplomat, lauded, in 1991 by GWH Bush as a "hero", attacked by members of the Bush administration, along with his wife, a 20 year career, "undercover operative", in the description of the CIA's own recent spokesperson? Wilson was apparently sincere and forthright in all of his public statements....even the account that he provided in his recent book about Novak telling a "stranger on a DC street that Wilson was a liar and that his wife "was CIA" has now been corroborated in Pincus's new reporting.

I've posted links to back the point that WaPo reporter Pincus is the best and most reliable reporter of the details of this "story", that he has himself. provided testimony to Fitzpatrick's grand jury, and thus can be presumed to know the content of questions that Fitzpatrick asks reporters, and that, by testifying, Pincus presumably has an easier time approaching and comparing notes with those who have also testified, including Bill Harlow.

By reading and allowing your opinion to be influenced by talking points like the ones in this "example" article (see quote box below...), powerclown, and then by defending Rove, et al, and by smearing Wilson as a "sleaze", you do yourself and your reputation here no positive service, powerclown. Please reconsider who and what you have been supporting and...... denigrating.

http://www.etherzone.com/2005/schm062205.shtml
JOSEPH WILSON
AND HIS AMAZING, TECHNICOLOR GOP TURNCOATS

By: Doug Schmitz

"It was this flat-out lie about what Wilson learned in Niger, and what he reported to the CIA upon his return, that fueled the "sixteen words" controversy and led to the publication of Wilson’s best-selling account, titled, ironically, The Politics of Truth. One can only conclude that Joseph Wilson has perpetrated one of the most astonishing hoaxes in American history."

– John Hinderaker, July 10, 2004, Powerlineblog.com

Based on the latest slant the elite media have put on stories over the last eight months to further smear the Bush administration, they seem to have resuscitated a once-useful breed of politician – besides anti-American Democrats – they can actually quote without resorting to the "anonymous source" tack: GOP turncoats who have lost their souls, as well as their backbones, in turning against Bush, our courageous troops and the war on terrorism. They seem to be the only kind of Republican the elite media will validate.

Take Joseph Wilson: The original GOP turncoat who has turned treason into a profitable career and betrayal into an art form. An ex-U.S. ambassador to Iraq under former President George H.W. Bush, Wilson has quickly made new friends – as well as a king’s ransom – by telling vicious lies and half-truths about President George W. Bush that has threatened to jeopardize our troops as they valiantly fight the just war in Iraq............

[host]

I am convinced that journalism award winning investigative reporter Murray Waas has a reliable contact who is close to Special prosecutor Fitzgerald's investigation of Karl Rove et al, in the Plame outing investigation. I wanted to share Waas's latest report in the Village Voice and on his blog about the investigation and where it is headed.............

http://www.whateveralready.blogspot.com/
Sunday, August 14, 2005
More Fitzgerald, Rove, and Plame news...

A few minutes ago, the Village Voice posted on its website <a href="http://villagevoice.com/news/0533,waasweb1,66861,2.html">my latest story on the special prosecutor's investigation of the Valerie Plame affair.</a> Hopefully, the story offers the most detailed explanation to date as to why in late Dec. 2003, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from further involvement in the case, and also allowed for the appointment of Patrick J. Fitzgerald as the special prosecutor who would take over the matter.........
.
The new information, that Ashcroft had not only refused to recuse himself over a period of months, but also was insisting on being personal briefed about a matter implicating his friend, Karl Rove, represents a stunning ethical breach that cries out for an immediate investigation by the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General.

If Conyers and other House Democrats are indeed able to interest either the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility or the Inspector General to commence an official investigation of Ashcroft's conduct, that would be hugely significant. The Justice Department, Fitzgerald, and the Republican majority in the House, have successfully beaten back demands by House Democrats for a congressional investigation of the Plame affair. They have argued that any congressional probe might interfere with Fitzgerald's grand jury probe. But an investigation within the Department of Justice itself-- as to the circumstances of Ashcroft's refusal to recuse himself and as to why he continued to be briefed regularly on the Plame probe even after his friend, Karl Rove became more of a central focus of investigators-- obviously would in no way impinge on anything being done by Fitzgerald.

Both the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General, it should be noted, take pride in their independence from those they oversee. It is fully within the range of possibility that either one or both might look into the matter at the request of congressional Democrats.

If I find out more, I will report back.

The fact that Ashcroft continued to be briefed on the Plame probe even though Rove and other of his associates were under investigation was always an aspect of this entire story that I thought was under reported. I wrote about the issue at length in this particular story at the American Prospect. And the New York Times substantied much of what I had written earlier, and even had better and numerous sources than mine. But the Times buried their very own story way on the inside of the paper. Their editorial page was silent. The Washington Post was also no-where to be found. And even, alas, bloggers-- that last vanguard!-- were also silent.

Some final thoughts, based on some information not published in the Voice piece or elsewhere: Why were investigators so skeptical of Rove's claims at even such an early stage of the investigation? As I have previously reported, and others such as the Los Angeles Times and Newsweek have since confirmed, Rove never told investigators of his conversations with Time's Matthew Cooper during his initial FBI interview.

But perhaps even more importantly, Rove also claimed that he first learned about Plame's employment with the CIA-- not from a classified source-- but rather from a journalist.

What has not been previously reported until now (a blog breaks news!?), is that not only could Rove not remember the name of the journalist who purportedly might have told him of Plame's CIA employment, but he also claimed to remember virtually nothing about the circumstances of the purported conversation. He could not even recall whether the conversation took place on the phone or in person.

posted by murray waas at 10:42 PM August 14

[raveneye]

I took the time to carefully read the National Review article, and all its links.

In it I could find nothing whatsoever that could be used as a legal defense for Karl Rove.

The critical points of the article can be summarized thusly:

--Robert Novak's original article never stated that Valerie Plame had covert status.

--Valerie Plame's covert status may have been first brought up a few days after Novak's article.

--A reporter stated without any source references that the Russians and the Cubans may have managed to find out about Plame earlier.

--The law may protect someone who identifies a covert operative if that operative's covert status was already publicized by the U.S.

I don't see how any of this could be used to defend Rove. In fact the article's primary intent seemed to be to sarcastically bash the media for not prominently reporting these assertions. Apparently, that seems to morphed in some people's minds into some kind of defense of Rove.

If I've missed something here feel free to educate me.

[host]

In this recent thread,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=103610

....we have been discussing the promotion of Joel Klaman by the white house. Klaman will assume the title that Karl Rove formerly held, "Chief Domestic Policy Advisor".

With the following report, aired last night on MSNBC TV, it now seems that there is a stronger likelihood that Karl Rove will be indicted. I think that is the reason, since no domestic policy changes, according to the white house, are planned, that Rove is being "positioned" to resign suddenly if he is indicted.

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html">foxnews' latest poll</a> shows Bush with a 33 percent approval rating, down 3 points from several weeks ago. When Nixon resigned in 1974, he still "enjoyed" a 25 percent approval rating.

With Bush's chief political strategist Rove, distracted by his own, looming legal challenges, are you optimistic that Bush can turn his polling numbers around, especially if Rove is indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice, as VP Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby was. last October? What are Bush's options now?

I think that Bush, facing continued abysmal polling numbers, and deprived of Rove's full attention to the challenge of rehabilitating Bush's politcal image, and his legacy as president, has increased incentive to exercise one of the few remaining options to jumpstart his image. With gasoline prices at $3.00, triple where they were five years ago....Bush can reverse prices at the pump by ending uncertainty of whether a war with Iran will interrupt petroleum supplies. Bush can pull the "war president" card, one more time....much sooner than most people think.....waging a risky bet on a presidency that has degraded to the point where he might not think that he has much to lose, if attacking Iran were to backfire......

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12421024/
Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for April 20
Read the transcript to the Thursday show

<a href="http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/shuster1.320.240.mov">Watch the Video</a>

.....First, the pressing domestic news. If, as Jim VandeHei put it in today‘s “Washington Post,” the White House anticipates no major shifts in policy resultant from Karl Rove‘s lateral reassignment, then why the reassignment? Has the prospect of a Rove indictment in Plamegate again reared its chubby head?

Jim VandeHei joins us presently about Mr. Rove.

First, this possibility, that the next person heard screaming in protest at President Bush o the South Lawn could be Mr. Rove.

And news out of Washington about the CIA leak grand jury, courtesy our correspondent on the scandal beat, David Shuster.

David, good evening.

DAVID SHUSTER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: First off, the baseline here. Has the status of the Fitzgerald grand jury changed? Has the status of Mr. Rove in the investigation process itself changed?

SHUSTER: Well, first, on the investigation, defense lawyers say that the grand jury investigation is active again, and that the panel has been meeting in recent weeks, although prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was not seen at the grand jury this week and hasn‘t been seen there at some—for some time.

Now, regarding Karl Rove, the—according to the latest documents, for the first time, Rove is now described as a subject in the overall case, a subject being a technical term meaning that somebody is under investigation. And the latest prosecution documents also go out of their way to suggest that Rove is not going to be a prosecution witness at the Libby trial, even though Rove is part of the narrative against Scooter Libby.

And the reason that‘s significant is because prosecutors usually don‘t put subjects on the witness stand for tactical reasons if they want to leave open the possibility of later charging that particular subject in a separate case.

The other thing that has long been intriguing about Karl Rove, and that is, we‘ve known for months that in the Scooter Libby indictment, when they referred to official A, <b>official A is Karl Rove.</b> And the indictment against Libby says that official A disclosed to Scooter Libby that he had had a conversation with columnist Robert Novak.

The reason prosecutors describe an official as an official A is when there‘s pejorative information about that person, and the person has not yet been indicted and had a chance to defend themselves. <b>But we‘ve looked at prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald‘s record as far as designating people as official A or official B, and in every single case we have found, Keith, that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, when he designates somebody as official A in an indictment, that person eventually does get indicted themselves.</b>

And that‘s why, I think, with everything coming together, there‘s so much intrigue tonight about Karl Rove.

OLBERMANN: And the juxtaposition of the timing, reassigned yesterday, these developments today, is there anything to connect those dots, or is it just coincidental?

SHUSTER: Well, the only thing that‘s there, and there‘s no indication, at least from the White House, but Karl Rove‘s attorney, Bob Luskin, has been pretty open, and so has Karl Rove, at least with some of his colleagues, as far as his status in the investigation still being open, Karl Rove still being a subject.

So I think it‘s fair to assume that perhaps the new White House chief of staff, Josh Bolten, saw the prospects that Rove could still be in some trouble and decided, You know what? We want him focusing on the elections anyway instead of policy. Let‘s change things around a little bit and lower his profile, given that this is an investigation that a lot of Karl Rove‘s colleagues thought was over, as far as Rove is concerned, once Scooter Libby was indicted.....

[roachboy]

Rove Informs White House He Will Be Indicted
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 12 May 2006

Within the last week, Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.

Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources confirmed Rove's indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, did not return a call for comment Friday.

Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.

A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.

That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.

The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.

But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.

Late Thursday afternoon and early Friday morning, several White House officials were bracing for the possibility that Fitzgerald would call a news conference and announce a Rove indictment today following the prosecutor's meeting with the grand jury this morning. However, sources close to the probe said that is unlikely to happen, despite the fact that Fitzgerald has already presented the grand jury with a list of charges against Rove. If an indictment is returned by the grand jury, it will be filed under seal.

Rove is said to have told Bolten that he will be charged with perjury regarding when he was asked how and when he discovered that covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the agency, and whether he discussed her job with reporters.

Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.

However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.

The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony.

Sources close to the case said there is a strong chance Rove will also face an additional charge of obstruction of justice, adding that Fitzgerald has been working meticulously over the past few months to build an obstruction case against Rove because it "carries more weight" in a jury trial and is considered a more serious crime.

Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.

"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."

Jason Leopold spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t. He is the author of the new book NEWS JUNKIE. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview.

source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml

i got linked to this via a list--i post it here because i think it an interesting piece--we'll see soon enough about its accuracy. interested to see how the bushpeople try to spin this one.

[Elphaba]

Leopold's connections have been reliable so far, with the exception of the exact moment the shoe is dropped. He's a good read.

[maximusveritas]

New article up now. Says that Fitzgerald served Rove's lawyers with the indictment papers yesterday:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml

It might be true, but it's important to note that Leopold is not exactly reliable. He actually has a shady past rivaling that of Jayson Blair. He was busted by Salon for writing a fake story regarding Enron/Sec.White and then trying to cover it up. He also has admitted to other journalistic crimes and problems with drugs/mental illness. It also looks like he has a relatively new book out, so he could be trying to do a stunt like this to raise publicity. There's a pretty good chance Rove will be indicted eventually, so he probably figured he would take his chance now.

[Elphaba]

Libby had the good sense to resign. Rove is so central to Bush and Republican election tactics, that I have to wonder if there is another alternative being considered for him.

[Elphaba]

I was curious about the comments about Leopold so I checked Wiki:

In 2002, Salon.com retracted an article by Leopold which had implicated Bush administration official Thomas White in the Enron scandal after it could not verify that the contents of the article were accurate. Afterwards, Leopold and Salon.com's editor engaged in an online debate over the incident with Leopold sticking to his story and the Salon.com editor accusing Leopold of a seperate plagiarism incident. [1] [2]

Prior to writing News Junkie, Mr. Leopold had written a book entitled Off the Record. The book's release was permanently cancelled, however, following legal threats from one of the subjects of the book.[3] In that book, Mr. Leopold planned to reveal many secrets of his life as a journalist such as a prior drug addiction, bouts with mental illness and suicide attempts, breaking journalistic rules, and lying to employers about a criminal conviction. [4]

It doesn't appear that he has been trying to hide his past. Unlike a conservative talk show host that comes to mind.

[host]

I couldn't risk what little credibility I have on this forum by posting the Rove indictment news when I saw it. We need a journalist from a more prominent publication to break the news of a Rove indictment, IMO.

Let me be the first to post that Patrick Fitzgerald is reported to have introduced damning evidence that Cheney was quite interested in Wilson's July, 2003 NYTimes Op-Ed article, and was possibly the author of the Plame nepotism "Op" that I detailed ten months ago, in the 2nd and 3rd posts on this thread.
Heres' a link back to the first page:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...3&page=1&pp=40

After Scooter was indicted, his defense strtategy was that he was a very busy man doing very important work for the VP, during a time of war. He did not perjure himself in front of Fitzgerald's grand jury....an important man like him, in an important job like his, could not be expected to remember if he told a reporter that Plame was CIA.

Now we found that even Scooter's boss, Cheney wasn't too busy to escape notice of Wilson and his wife, Plame. He was also careless enough to let the Op-Ed fall into Fitzgerald's hands, and he seemed to put importance on the question of whether Wilson's CIA wife sent him on a "junket" to Africa, instead of whether what Wilson wrote in the article was true. Silly, petty, untruthful, incompetent, bully of a politician...that Mr. Cheney...it would seem!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12774274/site/newsweek/
A Fresh Focus on Cheney
Hand-written notes by the Vice President surface in the Fitzgerald probe.

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 6:21 p.m. ET May 13, 2006

......Cheney's notes, written on the margins of a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed column by former ambassador Joseph Wilson, were included as part of a filing Friday night by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the perjury and obstruction case against ex-Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The notes, Fitzgerald said in his filing, show that Cheney and Libby were "acutely focused" on the Wilson column and on rebutting his criticisms of the White House's handling of pre-Iraq war intelligence. In the column, which created a firestorm after its publication, Wilson wrote that he had been dispatched by the CIA without pay to Niger in February, 2002 to investigate an intelligence report that Iraq was seeking uranium from the African country for a nuclear bomb. Wilson said he was told Cheney had asked about the intelligence,but the White House subsequently ignored his findings debunking the Niger claims.

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12774143/site/newsweek/">Read the Fitzgerald Filing on Cheney Notes</a>

<b>In the margins of the op-ed, Cheney jotted out a series of questions that seemed to challenge many of Wilson's assertions as well as the legitimacy of his CIA sponsored trip to Africa: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb. [sic] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"</b>

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for Cheney's own notes to be made public. The notes—apparently obtained as a result of a grand jury subpoena—would appear to make Cheney an even more central witness than had been previously thought in the criminal probe. Fitzgerald's prosecution has created continued problems for the White House. Karl Rove, the President Bush's chief political advisor, recently made his fifth grand jury appearance in the case and remains under scrutiny while Fitzgerald weighs whether to file criminal charges against him. For now, Libby is the only figure charged in the case.

Lea Ann McBride, a spokeswoman for the vice president, declined to comment on the newly disclosed notes. "We continue to cooperate in the investigation as we have since its inception," she said

[Elphaba]

Ok, spoil sport. I'll hold off on the Snoopy Happy Dance.

[stevo]

Looks like Joe Wilson is about to be exposed.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...QzMDFhYTBiYmY=

Friday, May 05, 2006

Bulletin from the Libby Courtroom [Byron York]

Lewis Libby defense lawyer Theodore Wells told a federal judge a short time ago that the Libby defense team has located “five witnesses who will say under oath that Mr. [Joseph] Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA.”

Wells said he expects that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will call Wilson himself to the stand to rebut those accusations.

Today's hearing concerning what evidence Fitzgerald is required to turn over to the Libby defense team turned into an extended discussion of whether jurors will be allowed to assess Joseph Wilson's credibility vs. that of the administration as it concerns the reasons the U.S. went to war in Iraq. Prosecutor Fitzgerald told the court, "We don't want to try the war. The courtroom is not a reasonable place to try the war. Judge Reggie Walton seemed to agree, saying, "I'm not going to let this case end up being a judicial examination of the legitimacy of the war."

In the hearing, prosecutor Fitzgerald suggested that he would offer the Libby defense team some proof that Valerie Plame Wilson's status at the CIA was classified. But as he had said earlier, Fitzgerald again said, "We will not offer any proof of actual damages" caused by the revelation of Plame's identity, although Fitzgerald said "the issue of potential damage will come up several times" in the trial.

So will this finally be put to rest after the witnesses testify that wilson "outed" his wife prior to any article? Probably not.

[host]

Originally Posted by stevo

Looks like Joe Wilson is about to be exposed.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...QzMDFhYTBiYmY=

So will this finally be put to rest after the witnesses testify that wilson "outed" his wife prior to any article? Probably not.

Two big problems with "Joe Wilson is about to be exposed".......

1.)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98522,00.html
Justice Dept. Probes White House Leak Charge
Monday, September 29, 2003

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department (search) has launched a preliminary probe into whether White House officials leaked a CIA agent's identity, officials confirmed Monday.

Justice officials said the agency's criminal division and the FBI will speak with officials from the CIA and possibly other agencies to determine if the facts warrant a full-blown investigation.

<b>The preliminary inquiry was brought after reports emerged this weekend that CIA Director George Tenet (search) had asked the Justice Department to look into allegations that officials in the White House revealed the name of agent Valerie Plame (search).</b> Plame is the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson (search), who challenged Bush administration assertions earlier this year that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from an African nation....

2.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102801340.html
Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference

Courtesy of FDCH e-MEDIA
Friday, October 28, 2005; 3:57 PM

FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Fitzgerald. I'm the United States attorney in Chicago, but I'm appearing before you today as the Department of Justice special counsel in the CIA leak investigation.

Joining me, to my left, is Jack Eckenrode, the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Chicago, who has led the team of investigators and prosecutors from day one in this investigation

A few hours ago, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned a five-count indictment against I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff.

<b>The grand jury's indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements......</b>

stevo, as much as you, Libby and his lawyers, want the Plame leak investigation .......and the crimes he will stand trial for.......to be about discrediting Joe Wilson...or about whether Plame was an undercover agent...or not.....how is that relevant. I highlighted the charges against Libby and the report that describes how the Plame leak investigastion came about.

The reaction...for 32 months now...from folks who your views are aligned with.... is to try to make this investigation "go away" by putting your focus on whether or not Plame's CIA identity was classified. The CIA requested an investigation from the FBI, after Plame's name was linked to her working at the CIA, beginning with Novak's column in July, 2003. You can't change that.
Libby was charged with lying and obstructing the leak investigation....not for leaking a classified name.

In the face of what is actually reported to be happening in this matter, how will your posted "news" and commentary affect Libby's prosecution or the leak investigation?

[stevo]

Originally Posted by Host's article

The grand jury's indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements......

And how many charges of outing a covert CIA agent?

I didn't quite get your reaction to the fact that Libby's defense team has five (5) witnesses willing to testify under oath that joe Wilson personally told them his wife works for the CIA. What words do you have to say about that?

The whole fuss is that she was covert. What was the original investigation over if it was not the "outing" of a "covert" CIA agent? To just ignore all that is closing your eyes to what is actually the point. What is everyone so upset about if it isn't the allegations that someone in the whitehouse endagered someone and national security by outing a covert CIA agent?

====

So I might as well add...I couldn't give a rat's ass about libby. let him rot in jail. I didn't vote for him. he's not my man.

The whole point to this investigation was to take some half-assed allegations throw them around and see if bush's admin can get themselves into trouble. And look what happened. But my point is...even if libby eneded up breaking the law. There was no wrongdoing by the administration in the first place. The whole basis of this hoopla is nothing more than a liberal attempt to smear the right.

[Rekna]

stevo what host is saying is he is being charged for perjury not leaking the name.

But reguardless of whether or not other people knew wilson's wife was CIA it doesn't change the fact that her status was undercover and the administration knowingly leaked it. Unless the defense can prove that it was common knowledge and that the administration knew it was common knowledge their is still the action of leaking classified information with intent to discredit Joe Wilson.

[stevo]

Originally Posted by Rekna

stevo what host is saying is he is being charged for perjury not leaking the name.

But reguardless of whether or not other people knew wilson's wife was CIA it doesn't change the fact that her status was undercover and the administration knowingly leaked it. Unless the defense can prove that it was common knowledge and that the administration knew it was common knowledge their is still the action of leaking classified information with intent to discredit Joe Wilson.

How many people need to come forward and testify they new Plame was a CIA agent before its deemed "common knowledge?" is 5 enough?

[roachboy]

The Smoking Pen


By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, May 15, 2006; 1:15 PM


Handwritten notes from Vice President Cheney once and for all place the vice president at the epicenter of a scandal that still threatens to tear apart the Bush White House.

The notes were scrawled in the margins of former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson's fateful July 2003 New York Times op-ed piece, in which Wilson described his trip to Niger at the behest of the CIA and criticized the White House for misusing intelligence in the run-up to war in Iraq.

"Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us?" Cheney scribbled atop his copy, a reproduction of which was filed in federal court late Friday by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. "Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

The annotated article is one of the pieces of evidence Fitzgerald intends to introduce in the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of Cheney's then-chief of staff, Scooter Libby.

"Those annotations support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op-Ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president and the defendant -- his chief of staff -- on Mr. Wilson," Fitzgerald wrote in his filing.

In fact, whether it was Cheney's explicit intention or not, two days later Libby and White House political guru Karl Rove were telling reporters that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA.

Fitzgerald is said to still be considering filing charges against Rove, whose testimony in the case, like Libby's, has changed dramatically over time.

The notes also offer an insight into Cheney's state of mind. It's an often overlooked aspect of this case that the objective of alerting reporters to the identity of Wilson's wife was to imply that his trip was some sort of nepotistic plum.

But what kind of person would think that a secret mission to the landlocked, impoverished and generally benighted country of Niger is a junket? Either someone quite delusional -- or someone so caught up in the desire to punish and ruin his enemies that the preposterousness of the accusation doesn't really make a difference.

This is notably not the first time that Cheney himself has been spotted at the nerve center of the Plame case. Rove is said to have initially told the grand jury he first heard about Plame from some reporter -- then he said he heard it from Libby. Libby is said to have initially told the grand jury he first heard about Plame from reporters -- but Libby's own notes showed he first heard about her from Cheney.

Michael Isikoff , apparently the first reporter to spot Fitzgerald's filing, wrote Saturday on Newsweek's Web site: "The role of Vice President Dick Cheney in the criminal case stemming from the outing of White House critic Joseph Wilson's CIA wife is likely to get fresh attention as a result of newly disclosed notes showing that Cheney personally asked whether Wilson had been sent by his wife on a 'junket' to Africa. . . .

"It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for Cheney's own notes to be made public. The notes -- apparently obtained as a result of a grand jury subpoena -- would appear to make Cheney an even more central witness than had been previously thought in the criminal probe."

Isikoff writes that Fitzgerald also announced his intention to "introduce evidence about a series of conversations that he argued could undercut one of Libby's principal defenses: that he had no reason to believe Plame's employment was a sensitive matter and therefore had no reason to lie to the grand jury about when and with whom he spoke about it."

R. Jeffrey Smith writes in Sunday's Washington Post: "The filing by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is the second that names Cheney as a key White House official who questioned the legitimacy of Wilson's examination of Iraqi nuclear ambitions. It further suggests that Cheney helped originate the idea in his office that Wilson's credibility was undermined by his link to Plame."

Pete Yost writes for the Associated Press that "the prosecutor is leaving the door open to the possibility that the vice president's now-indicted former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, was acting at his boss' behest when Libby allegedly leaked information about Plame to reporters."

Here's the filing . Here are all of Fitzgerald's exhibits . Here's the annotated Wilson article .

Blogger Jane Hamsher , noting that Cheney had known about Plame's role in the Wilson trip for more than a month, writes: "These were marching orders, not a question."

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041100879.html

the original has links to related source material, so check that.
among them you find the following:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12774143/site/newsweek/

which is a copy of fitzgerald's filing regarding the cheney memo.

i remain agnostic on all this in that i am interested to see how this turns out more than i am interested in narrating variants along the way.
but it does seem clear that reality is moving one way and the national review another.

[host]

Originally Posted by stevo

How many people need to come forward and testify they new Plame was a CIA agent before its deemed "common knowledge?" is 5 enough?

stevo, I posted the following here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...rt#post1923255
last October 27.....

A month after Toensing's column appeared in the Wapo, the DC Circuit appeals court issued it's ruling in the following case. Note that Judge Tatel was initially most reluctant to rule against Judith Miller, but Fitzgerald's evidence submissions (and "voluminous classified findings")must have convinced Judge Tatel to change his mind......

In fairness to Toensing, the following was reported six months after she persuaded the WaPo to print her BS opinion piece. We'll document her track record as a partisan media whore "hack" in a followup post.

I have detailed the following before, <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1839331&postcount=15">here</a> on this forum. This is the political bomb shell case of your generation, folks. I'm disappointed that so much of what I've read here lately, has even been posted. Early on....when I sorted out where this was going....and this being a "poltical forum", I laid it out as best as I could. It's not too late to review my thread. I'd be interested to read opinions of what I've been wrong about......

There's been so much focus on format and on wording in thread "titles". This post and the one that follows will convince some of you that more curiousity about the material might have avoided Toensing's WaPo article being offered as substantative. It clearly isn't.

I've provided evidence that Patrick Fitzgerald had to satisfy a Federal Appeals Court Judge...that indeed....a crime had been committed in the leaking of Plames's CIA employment to the press. If you notice, Judge Tatel determined:

Judge Tatel (from page 81):

<b> "In sum, based on an exhaustive investigation, the special counsel has established the need for Miller’s and Cooper’s testimony. Thus, considering the gravity of the suspected crime and the low value of the leaked information, no privilege bars the subpoenas. "</b>

The judge was ruling on a first amendments rights appeal by reporters for Time and the NY Times. He needed to be satisfied that the crime of leaking Plame's name was genuine and of serious enough nature to rule agains the reporters' claimed constituional right to keep their sources secret.

....and the CIA's Bill Harlow says that he:

checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

stevo, if Libby's attorneys present five witnesses who claim that Wilson told them that his wife worked for the CIA, Fitzgerald will probably question the relevance of their testimony. Libby was not indicted for leaking Plame's identity.

The CIA asked the DOJ to investigate the leak of Plame's name and CIA status to reporters. Fitzgerald was required to prove that this leak was a crime, to the appeals court, in order to satisfy the judges that his subpoena request for reporters' sources was in connection with investigation of a serious crime. Fitzgerald succeeded, his subpoena requests were granted by the appeals court...the reporters testified, and the result was that the grand jury indicted Libby for obstructing Fitzgerald's investigation.....not for leaking Plame's identity.

AS I described in my Oct. 27, post, Libby is trying to defend himself with the same distraction that Victoria Toensing has ceaselessly used to draw attention away from the actual news. The CIA told the DOJ that Plame was an employee in a classified position at the agency. That was enough for the DOJ to launch a criminal investigation, enough for the DOJ to appoint special counsel Fitzgerald to head the investigation, and to follow it wherever the evidence led.

Fitzgerald was able to convince an appeals court panel that a criminal leak of a CIA employee's classified identity had been committed. Libby, however, won't be tried for leaking. How are witnesses in his defense. who testify the Joe Wilson talked to them about his wife's CIA job, relevant to Libby's defense, or to Fitzgerald's investigation ?

[Rekna]

To me common knowledge would mean it could be found on google but that of course is not a legal standard. Five people claiming to know it doesn't make it common knowledge. Now my questions to you are who are these 5 people, what is their relationship to Joe Wilson, and what is their security clearance level? Without this information saying five people are testifying to this doesn't mean anything. I guarentee you I could go out and find 5 people to testify they heard you say you shot kennedy but that doesn't mean you shot kennedy.

[Elphaba]

But as you and Host pointed out before, it DOES NOT MATTER. Really, Stevo, Libby is charged for lying while under oath among other things. Y'know, just like Clinton.

[stevo]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

But as you and Host pointed out before, it DOES NOT MATTER. Really, Stevo, Libby is charged for lying while under oath among other things. Y'know, just like Clinton.

good for libby. if he was elected he should be impeached. but he wasn't. so he should just go to jail.

I've already said it:

The whole point to this investigation was to take some half-assed allegations throw them around and see if bush's admin can get themselves into trouble. And look what happened. But my point is...even if libby eneded up breaking the law. There was no wrongdoing by the administration in the first place. The whole basis of this hoopla is nothing more than a liberal attempt to smear the right.

But since the man the left got was Libby and not Rove, they aren't satisfied. They'll keep going at it until they "cut the head from the body."

[stevo]

Originally Posted by Rekna

To me common knowledge would mean it could be found on google but that of course is not a legal standard. Five people claiming to know it doesn't make it common knowledge. Now my questions to you are who are these 5 people, what is their relationship to Joe Wilson, and what is their security clearance level? Without this information saying five people are testifying to this doesn't mean anything. I guarentee you I could go out and find 5 people to testify they heard you say you shot kennedy but that doesn't mean you shot kennedy.

you probably could. Start with my 9th grade english teacher. I think I admitted to her I was the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll. What was a supposed to write? Do you think I actually read Wuthering Heights?

[pan6467]

Wow thought we were cleaning up politics and getting rid of the sarcasm and attacks.... just a personal observation.......

[stevo]

Originally Posted by pan6467

Wow thought we were cleaning up politics and getting rid of the sarcasm and attacks.... just a personal observation.......

I don't know what you're reading pan, but i don't see any personal attacks, or sarcasm either. Get a sense of humor.

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by stevo

you probably could. Start with my 9th grade english teacher. I think I admitted to her I was the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll. What was a supposed to write? Do you think I actually read Wuthering Heights?

I see plenty of sarcasm. Let's lay off each other a little, eh? Also, please remember the report post button - it is much more efficient than muddying up threads and waiting for someone to happen across them. Thanks!

[stevo]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I see plenty of sarcasm. Let's lay off each other a little, eh? Also, please remember the report post button - it is much more efficient than muddying up threads and waiting for someone to happen across them. Thanks!

I wasn't even being sarcastic. I'm serious. You probably could get 5 people to testify that I claimed to be the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll. I've probably used that line a dozen times. The one person I can garuntee I told that too was my 9th grade english teacher. It was on a test on Wuthering Heights, which I did not read. Where's the sarcasm? I was being serious.

I'm confused here. Who do you think the "sarcasm" was directed at? Who am I supposed to lay off of? If anything y'all should lay off me.

[host]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Ok, spoil sport. I'll hold off on the Snoopy Happy Dance.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro...ing/index.html
Karl Rove, Jason Leopold and the hunt for the truth

Salon tells everything it knows about Jason Leopold and faults the WSJ's:

......[The Journal's] Anne Marie Squeo checks in today on Leopold's report that Rove has already been indicted in the Valerie Plame case, and she uses her story as an occasion for a little blog-bashing. Squeo says that bloggers have "blurred the lines with traditional media and changed both the dynamics of the reporting process and how political rumors swirl," and she quotes Jay Rosen for the proposition that the blogosphere has a "let's see if this holds up" philosophy when it comes to news.

<b>Just two problems here: Leopold isn't reporting on Plamegate as a blogger, and the blogosphere -- or at least the part of it we respect -- hasn't taken anything like a "let's see if this holds up" approach to his latest report.</b> While some liberal bloggers jumped immediately on Leopold's Rove "scoop" Saturday, many others looked at the story through more cautious eyes.....

....a reminder to everyone that a distinction must be made between exclusive reporting that is displayed on truthout.org web pages, such as the "controversial" Leopold reporting on Rove's indictment....and....news and other articles that originally appeared on other sites..... that are simply displayed on truthout.org pages under the fairness doctrine.

In other words, and NY Times, LA Times, or Washington post article or news report is not tranformed into something less credible, simply because it is archived on truthout.org. Sometimes the truthout.org archived reproduction of an article is the only place that a third party article can be referenced for the majority of us to examine.

Consider the source of any original reporting before you decide on it's reliability. For example....if Walter Pincus of the Washington Post reports on something that is happening, IMO....you can take it to the bank....it will be reliable reporting. If Sue Schmidt from the Washington Post writes a news report.....I consider that she did not earn the nickname, "steno Sue" because of a track record for reporting in "her own words", or for always being reliable.

The home page of mediamatters.org founded by a prominent partisan who defected to the "other side" is devoted to reporting "defects" in the statements and reporting of everyone else. I refer to the their findings often.

[Elphaba]

Truthout has finally posted something of an explanation for being off the mark. It's worth a read, but I'll wait for the msp.

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story.../21/115826/135

By Marc Ash,

Sun May 21st, 2006 at 11:58:26 AM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation


I'd like to break this posting into two categories: What we know, and what we believe. They will be clearly marked.

We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about. We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials. We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.

Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks. We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along. Finally, we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of late.

We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.)

We believe that we hit a nerve with our report. When I get calls on my cell phone from Karl Rove's attorney and spokesman, I have to wonder what's up. "I" believe - but cannot confirm - that Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesman gave Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post my phone number. I believe Howard Kurtz contacted me with the intention of writing a piece critical of our organization. I know that Anne Marie Squeo of the Wall Street Journal attacked us and independent journalism as a whole in her piece titled, "Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm / Bloggers Underscore How Net's Reporting, Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill." We believe that rolling out that much conservative journalistic muscle to rebut this story is telling. And we believe that Rove's camp is making a concerted effort to discredit our story and our organization.

Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.

We know that this story is of vital interest to the community, and that providing as much information as we can is very important to our readers. We want you to know that this is challenging territory and that we are proceeding with as much speed as the terrain will allow.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
director@truthout.org

[mr_alleycat]

Hmmm.....
Me thinks engaging those who do not buy the OP, I'd choose another source.
Because frankly, it would be like giving Pravda as a counter source.

[powerclown]

Rove Cleared, Zarqawi Dead, GOP Doomed
by Scott Ott
June 13, 2006

Republican electoral prospects in November appeared bleaker than ever this week after U.S. forces allowed al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to die in their custody and President George Bush’s close friend and adviser Karl Rove fanned the flames of conspiracy theories by preventing a special prosecutor from charging him with any wrongdoing in the CIA leak investigation.

White House sources failed to return phone calls last night, in a virtual communication lockdown, as the Bush administration hunkered down to figure out how to cope with the latest breaking news.

In five appearances before a grand jury Mr. Rove employed what one source called “his Jedi mind tricks.”

“But it was all for nothing,” the unnamed source said, “Since the lack of charges against him will only confirm America’s worst fears — that Karl Rove controls everything.”

Meanwhile jubilant Democrats hunted for media microphones, as one lawmaker said, “to kick the cowboy while he’s down.”

This week’s slight increase in the president’s popularity ratings only highlights the depths to which he has fallen, according to political experts.

In a bit of fortuitous timing, a Democrat National Committee spokesman said the DNC is on the verge of announcing its vision and plan for America’s future, which should be unveiled “any day now in the coming months.”

California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the presumptive Speaker of the House, took the high road, offering “words of consolation and comfort to our beleaguered Command in Chief.”

“We must rally around our chief executive in his time of need,” Rep. Pelosi said. “I call on all Americans to pray that God would lift President Bush from this pit of despair, and restore his confidence so that he may lead us boldly.”

*/*

So Rove won't be indicted after all. So much for the credibility of guerilla lefty hitblog diebushdie.org truthout.org, who reported a Rove indictment back in May. The problem all along, imo, was Joe Wilson's credibility. His zeal to get Rove exposed his own lies and corruption.

[Marvelous Marv]

Originally Posted by powerclown

In a bit of fortuitous timing, a Democrat National Committee spokesman said the DNC is on the verge of announcing its vision and plan for America’s future, which should be unveiled “any day now in the coming months.”

I thought this post might be tongue-in-cheek until I got to the part above. Here's a similar statement:

DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) On Democrats' Iraq Policy: "At The Right Time, We Will Have A Position." (Charles Babington, "Hawkish Democrat Joins Call For Pullout," The Washington Post, 11/18/05)

[powerclown]

Funny how people like to blame Bush for being a nitwit (a 2-term nitwit), while 6 1/2 years later we have the Democratic Party without a clue as to how to go about 21st century Foreign Policy.