OT - Karl Rove Named as CIA Agent Leak

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

If I ignore reality, I might believe that Valerie Plame was a real covert agent doing real 007 spy things. In the real world, however, that just isn't so.

In 1997 she returned to CIA headquarters and joined the Counterproliferation Division. (About this time, she moved in with Joseph Wilson; they later married.) She was eventually given a choice: North Korea or Iraq. She selected the latter. Come the spring of 2001, she was in the CPD's modest Iraq branch. But that summer--before 9/11--word came down from the brass: We're ramping up on Iraq. Her unit was expanded and renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Within months of 9/11, the JTFI grew to fifty or so employees. Valerie Wilson was placed in charge of its operations group.

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

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

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

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

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

The real world is a tricky place, JW.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

The real world is a tricky place, JW.

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

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

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

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

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

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

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

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

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

Well, you certainly do like promoting unsigned Washington Post editorials as fact, with bad results. This whole editorial is based off of a non-truth: that Armitage was the original source for everyone, when in fact he was just Novak's source. But according to the WaPo actual news pages, "Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." In other words, Rove and Libby were sources before Novak's article came out. And it's Miller fault his wife was outed by the administration? It was disproven that people saw his report and ignored it? Because Cheney says he didn't see it? Please.

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

[Glengoyne]

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

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


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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I don't think the article is based on the idea that Armitrage was the original source for "everyone". Novak was the one to break the story, and start the whole process. Thus the focus...Also, I believe the fault the author(s) of the editorial above find in Wilson, isn't so much about his claim that his report was ignored by senior officials, it was his assertion that his report was considered definitive proof that Iraq hadn't come looking for uranium in Niger. In other words, he made a big public stink saying that he had disproven this allegation, when his actual work fell well short of that mark.

I agree with most of what you said, except these two things. The article states:

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.

The revelation that Armitage leaked the info to Novak does not lead to that conclusion. It would only imply that if the leak was only done by Armitage, when in fact Rove and Libby were leaking the information to their contacts at TIME and the NYT before Novak's story ever went out. The article goes on to mention that the whole special prosecuter thing would have been avoided if this was known ahead of time, when in fact whether or not the reason for the outing was not the issue that Fitzgerald was investigating, but the actual act of leaking confidential information.

As for the second comment, Wilson did not write in his op-ed that he had definitively debunked the Niger myth, but rather wrote:

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

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

The WMD fiasco was one of the biggest foreign policy screw-ups in the history of the country, and as it turns out there was little to no evidence that those much-hyped WMD's existed. Why then were they so trumped up? That is a serious and legitimate question that needs to be worked out to avoid it happening in the future.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

"knowingly shared classified information "

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

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

[duckman]

[st.cronin]

/blows duckman a kiss

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

Aren't both bad? I mean, really?

SI

[Glengoyne]

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

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Aren't both bad? I mean, really?

SI

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

[Vinatieri for Prez]

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

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

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

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

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

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

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I'm just trolling for a fight.

fixed

[duckman]

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

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

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

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

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

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

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

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

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

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

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

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

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

What about nations in the Middle East?

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

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

Not sure about Libya, Algeria and Tunisia.

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

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

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

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Iraq and Al Qaeda were inter-twined

Well, they certainly are now.

But before the war?

The CIA doesn't agree with you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/wa...rtner=homepage

The Senate Intelligence Committee said today that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

...

The intelligence committee report notes that the Central Intelligence Agency concluded that, despite rumors of contacts between two of the Sept. 11 hijackers and members of the Hussein regime, “We have no credible information that Baghdad was complicit in the attacks on the Pentagon or the World Trade Center on 11 September or any other Al Qaeda strike.”

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

[Vinatieri for Prez]

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

[Buccaneer]

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

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Not sure about Libya, Algeria and Tunisia.

Algeria has had its own internal problem with Islamic fundamentalists.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Their activity in Iraq is monumental compared to their activity against US forces 'occupying' the 2 holy cities. Now why is that?

I would say because the security situation in Iraq is such that it makes attacks more possible.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Dutch

What about nations in the Middle East?

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

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

Not sure about Libya, Algeria and Tunisia.

Since when are Indonesia and Morocco considered the Middle East?

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

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

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

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

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

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

The Senate Intelligence Committee said today that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

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

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

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

[NoMyths]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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