OT - Karl Rove Named as CIA Agent Leak

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

...

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

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

[Glengoyne]

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

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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

This from today, or actually tomorrow.

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

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

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040800895.html

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

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

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

This is a complete mangling of the facts. First off, that is not what Wilson was saying. In his original op-ed, he wrote:

...The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

That's much different than "They knew it was false because I told them so". The second relevant fact is that the CIA itself has admitted that the Niger Uranium story shouldn't have been in the State of the Union speech, because they themselves thought it wasn't credible. The State Department had come to the same conclusion, so much so that Powell didn't even mention it in his speech to the UN a week after the SOTU. The IAEA also believed the story to be false hours after receiving the relevant information.

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040800895.html

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

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

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

I'm not sure how you missed that one either, it was a huge controversy because it was an unsigned editorial that got all the facts wrong. To wit:

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

FACT:

Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president’s office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney’s questions. [Bloomberg, 7/14/05]

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

FACT:

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

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

FACT:

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

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

FACT:

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

(via thinkprogress)

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

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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

[Glengoyne]

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

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

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

[Vinatieri for Prez]

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

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

My conclusions:

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

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

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

Well, I read a lot saying the opposite, in fact I read more than you from more credible sources. Google it and prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

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

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

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

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

My conclusions:

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

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

Sounds about right, probably some inaccuracies but the most likely scenario.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm in agreement with Vinatieri here.

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

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Let's take two assumptions:

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

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

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

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

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

[JW]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

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

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

My conclusions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ay_around.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

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

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

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

Your problem is in your assumption that the WaPo editorial board is liberal. There is documented evidence that the facts they used are WRONG. We all know about reality's well known liberal bias, but c'mon, any objective person would look at the evidence presented and see that they were either incorrect or lying.

Originally Posted by JW

First, Plame was important because Wilson lied about who sent him on his little trip. That lie goes to Wilson's overall veracity.

Erroneous. Wilson never lied about who sent him on his trip. From the very first editorial he said he was sent by the CIA in response to a request from the office of the VP for more info on the Niger issue.

Originally Posted by JW

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

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ay_around.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your nuetral summary of the case leads with "Bush haters spin" coming from Fitgerald and is written by someone who's previous two articles talk about how global warming isn't real. This article is hackerrific. Not only does it argue that the easily debunked Niger story is really true, it says:

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

George Tenet, CIA director during 2003, would you like to comment?

These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President...The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake...From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct - i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.

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

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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

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

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081001918.html

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

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

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

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

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

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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

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

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

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

I've provided documentation for every single thing that I said was a lie, unlike you who have gone with the 'that's wrong because Sean Hannity says so' type defense so far. I appreciate you finally coming up with a real source though, but I see that you had to use it disengenuously:

Originally Posted by JW

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081001918.html

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

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

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

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

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

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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

I actually think we've flogged this horse enough.

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

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

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JW

the argument is getting boring.

Has this thread been fritz ed yet?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

A detective is investigating a murder. Suddenly though the guy that was murdered shows up alive. It is your view, then, that the investigator should not say, "There was no murder, the investigation is over," but rather he should continue to say that there was a murder because he is the one investigating it?

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

On the point about Wilson's wife not sending him. How do you know enough about that to make that statement? I don't think you have anywhere near the information to make that claim...I do disagree with the bits about a smear campaign and the motivation of revenge, as those really have no real definitive basis in fact, and are essentially spin/crap.

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

As for 'no real definitive basis of fact':

There exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and after July 14, 2003...Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July 14, 2003, discussed Wilson's wife's employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 - which evidence has been shared with defendant - it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson.

Fitzgerald court filing, April 2006.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

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

I actually think we've flogged this horse enough.

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

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

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

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

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

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

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

...Strawman Removed...

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

As for 'no real definitive basis of fact':

Fitzgerald court filing, April 2006.

Biggles,

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

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

[Grammaticus]

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

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to say initially...

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

Sorry, I didn't get exactly what you were saying. That second part MAY not be true, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it wild unfounded speculation because it is how Rove has been proven to work. But, the two choices are that someone in the administration had outed her for relatiation in addition to the credibility smear, or someone wanted to smear Wilson and didn't care if the result was outing a CIA official. It could be possible that nobody knew she was undercover, but then why have they been stonewalling and perjuring themselves? Libby isn't facing decades of prison time to keep someone from knowing that they didn't know she was covert. My opinion, anyway.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

If you read over the quote again from Fitzgerald:

There exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and after July 14, 2003...Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July 14, 2003, discussed Wilson's wife's employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 - which evidence has been shared with defendant - it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson.

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

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wilson remains unapologetic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle

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

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

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

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

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

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

...

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

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

Repudiate versus Punish.

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

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

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

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

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

Wilson remains unapologetic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Biggles,

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

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

Missed one thing...

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

That doesn't make sense.

[Flasch186]

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Novak has said his recollection of their conversation differs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[flere-imsaho]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Flasch186]

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

Remember he is the one who hates leakers.

[JW]

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

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

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

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

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


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

It's sloppy, and it's annoying.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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


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

It's sloppy, and it's annoying.

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

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

[st.cronin]

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

[JW]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

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

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JW

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

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Flasch186]

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

Either way, a monstrous waste of time and money.

No matter what you believe the motives were, a CIA officer, who was working on WMD's in Iran, had her cover blown in the national press. That's not an issue that should be investigated?

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

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

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

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

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

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

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

SI

[Vinatieri for Prez]

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