News Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?

[faust9]

Yeah.

But if we point the finger at Libby, what does that do to Rove's culpability?

Both can be equally culpable. Maybe Rove told Libby to out Plame. Maybe they all had a big get together---Bush, cheney, and the rest of the little rascals---where the outing of Plame would be used to divert attention from Wilson's report. Maybe a whole group of people decided and organized an outing strategy in concert with hitting the Sunday talking head shows in order to deflect a bad story about the WH's decision to invade Iraq on a patently false document---which they knew about it being false. We could have a case of co-conspirators with one of the parties coordinating the efforts.

 

[pattylou]

OOOOHHHH. Wow, can you imagine that coming to light? They should do a reality TV show on this.

 

[SOS2008]

Both can be equally culpable. Maybe Rove told Libby to out Plame. Maybe they all had a big get together---Bush, cheney, and the rest of the little rascals---where the outing of Plame would be used to divert attention from Wilson's report. Maybe a whole group of people decided and organized an outing strategy in concert with hitting the Sunday talking head shows in order to deflect a bad story about the WH's decision to invade Iraq on a patently false document---which they knew about it being false. We could have a case of co-conspirators with one of the parties coordinating the efforts.

The old shell game. This administration is known for it's secretive behavior and frequent behind-closed-doors pow wows, and Bush is very controlling. I doubt individuals are going around doing anything on their own. The problem is, if evidence can ever be obtained, it may not be until long after Bush is gone.

 

[faust9]

Ariannia makes some good points about little miss jail bird: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/miller-walks-the-plot-th_b_8116.html

 

[SOS2008]

Ariannia makes some good points about little miss jail bird: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/miller-walks-the-plot-th_b_8116.html

Add Novak to that list. What a wonderful "watch dog" free press we have.

 

[Tsu]

This from the NY Times:

Washington - Reporters hauled before grand juries. A White House under fire. With the CIA leak investigation perhaps ending soon, some questions and answers about what it has meant:

Q: Who in the government disclosed the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame?

A: There is not a simple answer. In conversations inside the Bush administration, Plame was referred to as the CIA employee who was the wife of a former U.S. ambassador, Joseph Wilson.

In this regard, at least Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, qualify as leakers. Rove learned of Plame's name in a conversation with columnist Robert Novak. Where Novak heard about Plame's name is not known publicly. Libby says he did not learn Plame's name until he saw it in Novak's column. The reason any of this matters is that leaking the identity of a covert agent can be a crime.

Plame had a hand in sending Wilson on a trip to the African nation of Niger for the CIA. Wilson returned with the information he later used to accuse the White House of hyping prewar intelligence about Iraq, including the threat of nuclear weapons.

Q: When will we learn what the investigation by the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has turned up?

A: Possibly as early as this month. The federal grand jury that New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified to on Friday expires Oct. 28. If Fitzgerald has plans to seek indictments, he probably would do so with the grand jury that has been dealing with all the evidence for the past two years.

If Fitzgerald does not seek criminal charges, it will not end the matter. By law, he will write a comprehensive report of his findings and submit it to the Justice Department, which probably would make it public.

Q: What convinced Miller, after spending 85 days in jail, that she should testify before the grand jury?

A: Perhaps Fitzgerald's promise to limit the scope of his questioning. Miller, a national security reporter with many sources in the Bush administration, undoubtedly feared open-ended questioning. The prosecutor would not have had to range too far to get into troubling territory for Miller. Starting in 2002, her stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq strengthened the administration's case in preparing for war. The failure to find the weapons was developing into a major issue at the time of the Plame leak and resulted in heavy criticism of Miller and her newspaper as well as of the administration.

Q: Miller said she wanted her source to release her from a promise of confidentiality. If a personal conversation between the reporter and her source was all she was waiting for, what took so long?

A: The saga of the phone call goes back more than a year, when Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, says he and his client released Miller to testify. Tate says he was surprised when Miller's lawyers again asked for a release in the past few weeks. Miller's lawyers called and said there was "a misunderstanding and Judy wanted to hear it straight from the horse's mouth" that Libby was releasing her to talk to the grand jury about their conversation, Tate said.

One of Miller's lawyers involved in the earlier discussions, Floyd Abrams, said there was "a great deal of ambiguity" about the long-ago release given by Tate. Libby, like other administration officials, had granted a blanket waiver authorizing reporters to speak to the grand jury about any conversations they may have had. Abrams said Miller was concerned that such a release "was, by its very nature, coercive."

Q: Other than testifying about her source, what could have kept Miller from going to jail?

A: Probably nothing. Fitzgerald was adamant that he needed Miller's testimony about the contents of her conversations with Libby. The prosecutor indicated in court in July that he was prepared to pursue a criminal contempt of court charge against her if she continued to defy him.

Q: What are the chances anybody is going to jail as a result of this investigation?

A: For disclosing Plame's identity, probably a slim chance at best. For lying to Fitzgerald's investigators, the possibility may be greater. The prosecutor seems to have pursued a number of questions that could signify nothing more than imperfect memory by witnesses or could point to evidence of a cover-up.

As late as July, Fitzgerald was asking Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper "several different ways" whether Rove had indicated how he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA. Rove never said, according to Cooper. Regarding the leak of Plame's identity, under the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, there has to be an intentional disclosure of the identity. The person making the disclosure has to know that the information identifies somebody whose status is covert and that the U.S. government has taken measures to conceal the identity. Some legal experts say that high legal threshold appears to be impossible to meet in the Plame case.

--------

Associated Press reporter David Caruso in New York City contributed to this report.

 

[Informal Logic]

WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer’s leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won’t be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.

...Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9613084/

Though Rove has not been sent a target letter, and "Leaking the identity of a covert agent can be a crime, but it must be done knowingly and the legal threshold for proving such a crime is high" it does not mean he is safe from an indictment.

 

[faust9]

A little summary of the Rove/Scooter/Plame/Wilson fiasco:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-Rove-gate-10-10-05.mov

 

[Skyhunter]

Sure, that is possible, but that doesn't explain a 12 week wait. If Libby was being such a boyscout then I would have expected him to step up a lot earlier say BEFORE Miller went to jail.

This stinks of spreading bad news out to minimize damage. Why did Libby wait until Thursday night to release Miller(knowing Millers story would hit on friday and hoping Miller's account would not be in the papers until Saturday)?

Libby might be a whistle blower but he's gone about it in an odd sort of fashion don't you think.

I think that she is still protecting someone. Only two names come to mind; Dick Cheney or George Bush. My guess is Dick Cheney.

 

[Skyhunter]

Has anyone seen the letter from Scooter Libby to Judith Miller?

Here is the last paragraph.

"You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover -- Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work -- and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers -- With admiration, Scooter Libby."

Is this a code for how she should testify?

The more I learn the more I believe she is protecting someone other than Libby.

[edit]here are a few links to get anyone who would like to investigate further started.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001263179

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/valerie_plame_/2005/10/patrick_fitzgeralds_mousetrap.php

 

[BobG]

So, what will be the result of Fitzgerald's grand jury?

Most accounts say charging anyone with intentionally violating the http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html is too narrowly worded and it's unlikely anyone in the administration would be found guilty of violating it.

Other reporters suggest the most likely charge(s) to come out of the grand jury will be perjury or obstruction of justice. That has some rich irony in it. The perpetrators fall all over themselves, committing new crimes, to escape being charged with a virtually unprosecutable crime.

Of course, they could be charged with espionage. The http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC794 is more generally worded. The individual is guilty if he would "have reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation" if he passes classified information to them "either directly or indirectly". Leaking classified information to the media could reasonably be assumed to result in the classified info being published for anyone to read, including foreign governments hostile to the US ... including governments who could link Plame to other covert agents still active. Not that anyone is ever charged with espionage for press leaks, nor is there ever a serious attempt made to find the 'leaker'.

That would just means that charging Rove or Libby with espionage would possesses even more irony than a perjury or obstruction of justice charge. In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft sent this letter to Dennis Hastert, pushing for more aggressive prosecution of individuals leaking classified information to the press. His aim was to put a stop to government officials leaking classified information to the press by forcing reporters to reveal their sources and to prosecute the sources to the fullest extent of the law.

Most notably, Ashcroft said,

We need an effective Government-wide program to curtail these damaging disclosures and to hold the persons who engage in unauthorized disclosures of classified information fully accountable for the serious damage they cause to intelligence sources and methods, military operations, and to the nation. Those who would break faith with the American people and disclose classified information without authority to do so will face severe consequences under the law.

The problem with press leaks:

In most of the few cases in which a person who engaged in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information has been identified, the sanctions applied have been relatively inconsequential in comparison to the damage caused as a result of the unauthorized disclosure. In most cases, identifying the individual who disclosed classified information without authority has been difficult, at best.

What has to be done:

Regardless, the vital need in protecting national security secrets must include rigorous investigation of unauthorized disclosures of classified information to identify the individuals who commit them, and vigorous enforcement of the applicable administrative, civil, and criminal provisions already available.

And, in his conclusion, Ashcroft complains that:

In sum, to protect its diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities, the Nation must combat unauthorized disclosures of classified information effectively, through aggressive administrative enforcement of current requirements, rigorous investigation of unauthorized disclosures, and vigorous enforcement of the criminal laws that make such disclosures a Federal crime. Clearly, that only a single non-espionage case of an unauthorized disclosure of classified information has been prosecuted in over 50 years provides compelling justification that fundamental improvements are necessary and we must entertain new approaches to deter, identify, and punish those who engage in the practice of unauthorized disclosures of classified information.

Basically, Ashcroft charges that we've just been too easy on these guys that go around leaking classified information to the press. It's about time we crack down on these offenders!

So, here's the ultimate paradox for liberals. Should reporters be allowed to obtain classified information from anonymous sources in government in the interest of freedom of information? (This means liberals should be supporting Rove and Libby ) Should reporters and, especially, the sources who reveal classified information be prosecuted for espionage? (It sure would be nice to see this happen to Rove and Libby, but then how will public find out what it's government is doing?)

It's probably a pretty big paradox for Bush loyalists, as well. The liberal media is free to mine government employees for classified info and to publish it without much fear of prosecution (only once in 50 years), but at least Rove and Libby survive.

Even worse, if Rove and Libby are charged with espionage, Ashcroft will probably not get a Medal of Freedom.

 

[faust9]

I vote for obstruction of justice all around though I feel the offending parties were aware of Plame's position and as such should be prosecuted under the IIPA.

The whole affair boils down to defamation of character to protect the Iraq war. Wilson stood up and said "Hay, you guys knew the African-Uranium link was a lie from the get-go!" at which point the slander machine went into action. Well, the slander machine didn't bother to check which laws it was violating and here we ar today. We now get to watch some heavy hitters in Washington politics literally beg to give sworn testimony to a grand jury.

 

[Informal Logic]

So, here's the ultimate paradox for liberals. Should reporters be allowed to obtain classified information from anonymous sources in government in the interest of freedom of information? (This means liberals should be supporting Rove and Libby ) Should reporters and, especially, the sources who reveal classified information be prosecuted for espionage? (It sure would be nice to see this happen to Rove and Libby, but then how will public find out what it's government is doing?)

It's probably a pretty big paradox for Bush loyalists, as well. The liberal media is free to mine government employees for classified info and to publish it without much fear of prosecution (only once in 50 years), but at least Rove and Libby survive.

Even worse, if Rove and Libby are charged with espionage, Ashcroft will probably not get a Medal of Freedom.

You basically say it, but the irony is that Ashcroft is "a man of great integrity, a man of great judgment and a man who knows the law," President George W. Bush.

 

[faust9]

Rove is having his fourth little sitdown with the grand jury right now---can't wait for the leaks!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/14/cialeakinvestigation.ap/index.html

This is a funny(not haha but funny odd) little observation:

The White House has shifted from categorical denials two years ago that Rove or Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were involved in the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity to "no comment" today.

 

[russ_watters]

So, here's the ultimate paradox for liberals. Should reporters be allowed to obtain classified information from anonymous sources in government in the interest of freedom of information? (This means liberals should be supporting Rove and Libby ) Should reporters and, especially, the sources who reveal classified information be prosecuted for espionage? (It sure would be nice to see this happen to Rove and Libby, but then how will public find out what it's government is doing?)

It's probably a pretty big paradox for Bush loyalists, as well. The liberal media is free to mine government employees for classified info and to publish it without much fear of prosecution (only once in 50 years), but at least Rove and Libby survive.

Entertaining duality. I actually hadn't paid much attention to this issue, my opinion of the above catch-44 is that there are times when national security trumps freedom of information. This has always been true and enforcing it now would not change that. And since I'm not a Bush or Rove fan, it works out just fine: I would not be at all upset to see Rove go down in flames. So I guess for me, there really isn't any catch-22.

 

[Skyhunter]

Rove is having his fourth little sitdown with the grand jury right now---can't wait for the leaks!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/14/cialeakinvestigation.ap/index.html

This is a funny(not haha but funny odd) little observation:

I found this to be the best tidbit. Poor simple Scotty.

"They are good individuals," McClellan said of Rove and Libby on October 7, 2003. "They are important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did."

Those good people lied to him.

 

[SOS2008]

The lawyers (of individuals under investigation) have leaked that things have not been looking good. One leak is that they have been trying to negotiate for lesser charges.

 

[Gokul43201]

This may be completely disruptive of the flow here; I haven't read all the posts in this thread. Just wanted to make sure this was out there :

From my favorite guy, Scottie (White House press briefing, 07 Oct 2003), a flashback...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031007-4.html#2

Q Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

MR. McCLELLAN: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this, there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

And more recently (Oct 11 2005) ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.html#2

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q: Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --
...
Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

Well, do you ?PS : Just read Skyhunter's post (#66). Guess this substantiates what he said.

 

[Astronuc]

there are times when national security trumps freedom of information.

That is certainly quite true, and there is information that should never be made available, like the identity of CIA agents whose lives are put in jeopardy by such disclosure.

Unfortunately, I think politicians often use the reason of "national security" to cover up unethical behavior, or possibly illegal/criminal acts.
It still surprises me that things have gone as far as they have with Rove in his fourth testimony to a Grand Jury, while Robert Novak clearly published Plame's identity. It is either a crime, or it isn't, to disclose a CIA agent's identity. If it's not, there is no issue, so just drop it.

If on the other hand, it is illegal to disclose a CIA agent's identity, and if indeed Plame is one, and if Novak did diclose it (his published column is the evidence proving he disclosed Plame's identity) then arrest Novak and he person(s) who leaked the information.

Mission to Niger
Jul 14, 2003
by Robert Novak
. . . .
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
. . . .

This is either illegal or it isn't. How difficult can it be to figure out?

Meanwhile, the prosecutors are harrassing reporters who did not disclose Plame's identity, but only tried to find out the story.

This is so bizarrely surreal.

I wonder how many presidential pardons Bush will issue just before he leaves office?

 

[Informal Logic]

I wonder how many presidential pardons Bush will issue just before he leaves office?

Well if there was any justice, Bush would not be around to pardon anyone else.

 

[BobG]

The lawyers (of individuals under investigation) have leaked that things have not been looking good. One leak is that they have been trying to negotiate for lesser charges.

Is it a bad sign when their lawyers leak, too?

 

[russ_watters]

This is either illegal or it isn't. How difficult can it be to figure out?

Well, I don't suppose Mr. Rove is being particularly straightforward with his answers to the questions they are asking him.

I wonder how many presidential pardons Bush will issue just before he leaves office?

I'm going to guess somewhat less than his predicessor's 140 on his last day in office.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm going to guess somewhat less than his predicessor's 140 on his last day in office.

Birds of a feather, I suppose.

 

[faust9]

It seems the WH anticipates a Rove indictment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR2005101402076.html

 

[Skyhunter]

Meanwhile, the prosecutors are harrassing reporters who did not disclose Plame's identity, but only tried to find out the story.
This is so bizarrely surreal.

Especially since she went to jail to protect a http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001306690 that she claims she can't remember.

Among other things, the 5,800-word article discloses that in the same notebook that Miller belatedly turned over to the federal prosecutor last month, chronicling her July 8, 2003, interview with I. Lewis Libby, she wrote the name "Valerie Flame." She surely meant Valerie Plame, but when she testified for a second time in the case this week, she could not recall who mentioned that name to her, the Times said. She said she "didn't think" she heard it from Libby, a longtime friend and source.

I wonder how many presidential pardons Bush will issue just before he leaves office?

He already took care of his drug dealing buddies while we were all distracted by the Rove/Plame affair.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/May/04_opa_353.htm

 

[Manchot]

According to this article, Cheney's office is actually the focus of the investigation. Is it possible that Cheney himself might be indicted? It would almost make sense: why would Scooter Libby allow Judith Miller to be released from her bonds of confidentiality unless he had full immunity? That is, is it possible that Fitzgerald offered immunity to Libby to testify against Cheney?

 

[SOS2008]

According to this article, Cheney's office is actually the focus of the investigation. Is it possible that Cheney himself might be indicted? It would almost make sense: why would Scooter Libby allow Judith Miller to be released from her bonds of confidentiality unless he had full immunity? That is, is it possible that Fitzgerald offered immunity to Libby to testify against Cheney?

It would be nice if they all are charged, including Miller who is just another WH pundit.

 

[Astronuc]

This story just gets weirder - but then this is the Bush administration.

Inaccurate Info May Help CIA Leak Probe, By JOHN SOLOMON and PETE YOST

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff apparently gave New York Times reporter Judith Miller inaccurate information about where Valerie Plame worked in the CIA, a mistake that could be important to the criminal investigation.

Miller's notes say I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told her on July 8, 2003, that the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson worked for the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control unit.

Plame, Wilson's wife, never worked for WINPAC, which is on the overt side of the CIA. She worked on the CIA's secret side, the directorate of operations, according to three people familiar with her work for the spy agency.

The three all spoke on condition of anonymity, citing Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's ongoing grand jury investigation into the leak of Plame's identity in 2003.

Whatever Fitzgerald decides, any public statements he makes will be made in Washington, rather than in Chicago, where he is based as U.S. attorney, spokesman Randall Samborn said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_investigation
So presumably identifying her in public would be a crime. Now why didn't Novak know that? And did his sources know that?

 

[kat]

The lawyers (of individuals under investigation) have leaked that things have not been looking good. One leak is that they have been trying to negotiate for lesser charges.

curious where you got this from, I had read that he was offered a misdimeanor charge as a plea bargain and that he refused it...

 

[kat]

aren't there limitations on the law in regards to "outing agents" that are no longer active? Such as once they are inactive it's no longer applicable after a certain amount of time?

 

[faust9]

aren't there limitations on the law in regards to "outing agents" that are no longer active? Such as once they are inactive it's no longer applicable after a certain amount of time?

Enjoy:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Covert_Agent_Identity_Protection_Act
http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_15.html

 

[Skyhunter]

aren't there limitations on the law in regards to "outing agents" that are no longer active? Such as once they are inactive it's no longer applicable after a certain amount of time?

I just cannot understand the contradiction here. I can understand loyalty to an ideology. But this goes way beyond ideology.

For someone from a military family that is so pro US, why do you want to defend, what is obviously an act that harmed the US?

Some person or persons exposed a CIA agent so that they could spin a story and discredit a critic. One who was right when the president was wrong. (Or intentionally lying.) An action that George Herbert Walker Bush called treason.

 

[Astronuc]

Some person or persons exposed a CIA agent so that they could spin a story and discredit a critic.

The act of exposing Ms. Plame did not discredit her husband, Mr. Wilson. Rather the act was pure retaliation - not to mention possibly illegal.

Doesn't seem the type of behavior one would expect from an official in high public office, or rather, who works for someone in high public office.

Seems like Watergate behavior all over again.

On the other hand, if one wanted to eliminate any possible dissent in the nation's intelligence structure, this is a way to do it.

 

[faust9]

Juicy news from the rumor mill:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_cooperating_with_CIA_outing_1018.html

 

[TRCSF]

Juicy news from the rumor mill:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_cooperating_with_CIA_outing_1018.html

Should get pretty interesting now.

 

[Skyhunter]

The act of exposing Ms. Plame did not discredit her husband, Mr. Wilson. Rather the act was pure retaliation - not to mention possibly illegal.

If you remember the talking points to discredit Wilson.

He is an idiot who didn't know how to investigate, the only reason he was there was because his wife sent him.

I remember seeing Ann Coulter on Geraldo. She told a story as if she were relating exactly what happened. I was incredulous at the time because she made it sound like she was telling the story of how exposing Valerie Plame was an innocent mistake. I was incredulous since at the time no one knew who exposed Valerie Plame Wilson.

She said, and I paraphrase.

"Robert Novak was asking the White House source."

"Why did you send this moron in the first place?"

"We didn't, his wife sent him. She works for the CIA."

The reason was obvious, they wanted to discredit him by saying he was a nobody, sent at the behest of his wife.

Remember how they accused him of saying Dick Cheney sent him. When all he said was that The Vice Presidents office had requested that the CIA look into the allegations that Iraq was trying to purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger.

 

[Manchot]

curious where you got this from, I had read that he was offered a misdimeanor charge as a plea bargain and that he refused it...

No, you're thinking of DeLay.

 

[kat]

I just cannot understand the contradiction here. I can understand loyalty to an ideology. But this goes way beyond ideology.
For someone from a military family that is so pro US, why do you want to defend, what is obviously an act that harmed the US?
Some person or persons exposed a CIA agent so that they could spin a story and discredit a critic. One who was right when the president was wrong. (Or intentionally lying.) An action that George Herbert Walker Bush called treason.

I have no clue why you're directing this drivel towards me in regards to my comment. I'm curious as to where this hearing is heading and how the law is being applied. Are we looking at something in the nature of espionage? strictly perjury? Is the law really applicable as it has been portrayed? etc. Is anything at all going to come of it..or has it just been much ado about nothing with a great big bill to the taxpayer?

 

[kat]

No, you're thinking of DeLay.

oops, you're right!..I guess I shouldn't be reading news sites and posting at the same time..

 

[kat]

Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?

because if it leads to a conviction of Cheney (Hannah's in Cheney's office, no?) then...erm...RICE BECOMES VICE! *Grin*

 

[Manchot]

because if it leads to a conviction of Cheney (Hannah's in Cheney's office, no?) then...erm...RICE BECOMES VICE! *Grin*

Although, at the same time, the administration would be completely eviscerated, so it wouldn't really matter. If you think Bush looks like a lame duck now, imagine how ineffective he will be if his running mate is convicted of a crime.

 

[SOS2008]

Although, at the same time, the administration would be completely eviscerated, so it wouldn't really matter. If you think Bush looks like a lame duck now, imagine how ineffective he will be if his running mate is convicted of a crime.

Anyone in the Bush administration is going to suffer from association, so I fail to see why people would be pleased if Condi became VP (with hopes in 2008?). The Republican Party would do well to move away from the current image and return to their traditional platform--and solid candidates.

 

[faust9]

The rats are turning on each other now:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Second_Cheney_aide_cooperating_in_leak_1019.html

Dick, you're next hehehehe

 

[Manchot]

Anyone in the Bush administration is going to suffer from association, so I fail to see why people would be pleased if Condi became VP (with hopes in 2008?). The Republican Party would do well to move away from the current image and return to their traditional platform--and solid candidates.

Yeah, you're exactly right. If this were to happen, you can pretty much guarantee that the Republican candidate in 2008 will have as little to do with the Bush administration as possible.

 

[Informal Logic]

Although, at the same time, the administration would be completely eviscerated, so it wouldn't really matter. If you think Bush looks like a lame duck now, imagine how ineffective he will be if his running mate is convicted of a crime.

The rumor is that Rove has been canceling speaking engagements. Who do you think has the most affect, Cheney or Rove?

The rats are turning on each other now:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Second_Cheney_aide_cooperating_in_leak_1019.html

Dick, you're next hehehehe

And in the begininng there were the neocon masters - former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

 

[SOS2008]

Secrets, Evasions and Classified Reports
The CIA leak case isn’t just about whether top officials will be indicted. A larger issue is what Judith Miller’s evidence says about White House manipulation of the media.

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET Oct. 19, 2005

Oct. 19, 2005 - The lengthy account by New York Times reporter Judy Miller about her grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case inadvertently provides a revealing window into how the Bush administration manipulated journalists about intelligence on Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
----------
With no weapons of mass destruction having been found in Iraq and new questions being raised about the case for war, Libby assured Miller that day that the still-classified document, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), contained even stronger evidence that would support the White House’s conclusions about Iraq’s weapons programs, according to Miller’s account.

In fact, a declassified version of the NIE was publicly released just 10 days later, and it showed almost precisely the opposite. The NIE, it turned out, contained caveats and qualifiers that had never been publicly acknowledged by the administration prior to the invasion of Iraq. It also included key dissents by State Department intelligence analysts, Energy Department scientists and Air Force technical experts about some important aspects of the administration’s case.

The assertion that still-secret material would bolster the administration’s claims about Iraqi WMD was “certainly not accurate, it was not true,” says Jessica Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who coauthored a study last year, titled “A Tale of Two Intelligence Estimates,” about different versions of the NIE that were released. If Miller’s account is correct, Libby was “misrepresenting the intelligence” that was contained in the document, she said.

For more - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9756141/site/newsweek/

The Downing Street Memo didn't result in impeachment -- May justice prevail!

 

[Skyhunter]

I have no clue why you're directing this drivel towards me in regards to my comment. I'm curious as to where this hearing is heading and how the law is being applied. Are we looking at something in the nature of espionage? strictly perjury? Is the law really applicable as it has been portrayed? etc. Is anything at all going to come of it..or has it just been much ado about nothing with a great big bill to the taxpayer?

I think there is a big difference between Whitewater, a real estate deal, and exposing and endangering US intelligence assets.

because if it leads to a conviction of Cheney (Hannah's in Cheney's office, no?) then...erm...RICE BECOMES VICE! *Grin*

If Rice is smart, and I am not so sure anymore, she will keep her distance and hope that her lies and role in the media distortion to sell an elective war will be forgotten. It appears she is not that bright, lately she has been somewhat vigorously re-framing the argument for the PNAC policy.

 

[kat]

I think there is a big difference between Whitewater, a real estate deal, and exposing and endangering US intelligence assets.

What...does whitewater...or anything during the clinton admin have to do with my question? Do you always create commentary to non-existent comments?...hello...?

 

[kat]

Anyone in the Bush administration is going to suffer from association, so I fail to see why people would be pleased if Condi became VP (with hopes in 2008?).

What happens today..if turned around by the time the 2008 election year comes, will have little effect on the elections. Americans have somewhat short term memories and will vote according to how they feel at the time not how they felt a year earlier. Other then that, mentioning Condi was a bit of a jest as I know so many here hate the poor woman.

The Republican Party would do well to move away from the current image and return to their traditional platform--and solid candidates.

The republicans would do well to close ranks and support the president or risk cutting their own throats.

 

[BobG]

The republicans would do well to close ranks and support the president or risk cutting their own throats.

That would be desperate. If the Bush faction of the Republican Party still controls the party by 2008, the Republican Party wouldn't be worth belonging to, anyway.

Are they really going to close around a 'political consultant' that was groomed by Watergate convictee Donald Segretti and Lee Atwater (the "Happy Hatchetman"), was arrested for his own criminal campaign offenses (the 1970 Dixon campaign, where Rove stole letterheads from the Democratic campaign office and invited the homeless to a Dixon fundraiser), and was even removed from Bush I's staff for attacking a key contributor Rove had a personal vendetta against?

Besides, a significant portion are beginning to close ranks. Only nine Republicans (Allard, Bond, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Inhofe, Roberts, Sessions, and Stevens) voted against McCain's anti-torture amendment to the defense spending bill. Forty-five or about 82% of Senate Republicans closed ranks in spite of the threat of a Bush veto.

Politicians are politicians. They're pretty adept at moving away from a lost position to one with a little more strength. Most Republican Congressmen will be no different, especially with the threat of the 2006 elections looming.