Once again ignorance triumphs!
criddic, please click here.
Plamegate
Once again ignorance triumphs!
1. Libby was not indicted for leaking info. He was accused of obstructing the investigation. He may have lied to Fitzgerald but there was no underlying crime.
2. The whole thing began based on a statement in the 2003 state of the union, which turned out to be true. Saddam sought uranium but never obtained it. Wilson made it out like a total lie, but he knew it wasn't.
3. The attack by Wilson on the White House caused a series of events leading to Fitzgerald's murky, still un-explained investigation into the supposed leak of an alledgedly undercover CIA agent who happened to be Wilson's wife. We still don't know why Fitzgerald continued after he learned the truth of the matter and indicted Libby on charges not related to the actual investigation but the investigation intself.
What a mess.
1. Libby was not indicted for leaking info. He was accused of obstructing the investigation. He may have lied to Fitzgerald but there was no underlying crime.
2. The whole thing began based on a statement in the 2003 state of the union, which turned out to be true. Saddam sought uranium but never obtained it. Wilson made it out like a total lie, but he knew it wasn't.
3. The attack by Wilson on the White House caused a series of events leading to Fitzgerald's murky, still un-explained investigation into the supposed leak of an alledgedly undercover CIA agent who happened to be Wilson's wife. We still don't know why Fitzgerald continued after he learned the truth of the matter and indicted Libby on charges not related to the actual investigation but the investigation intself.
What a mess.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Liar in the White house: Cheney aide found guilty in CIA leak case
Saga of Washington's discredited WMD claims leads to the conviction for perjury of Dick Cheney's key aide
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
The Independent
Published: 07 March 2007
In a massive new blow to the credibility of the White House, Vice-President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff Lewis Libby has been convicted of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to the FBI, during the investigation into the leaking of the identity of a CIA agent.
After a seven-week trial, the jury found Libby guilty yesterday on four of the five counts against him. Ever calm in court, Libby merely blinked as the verdict was read out. Defence lawyers immediately said they would seek a fresh trial, and if that failed, lodge an appeal. In theory Libby faces up to 25 years in jail, though federal sentencing guidelines mean he is likely to receive a far shorter term.
The case arose from the investigation into the leak in July 2003 of the name of Valerie Plame, the CIA agent whose husband, the former ambassador Joseph Wilson, had been a virulent critic of the Iraq war. Ms Plame's identity was revealed a few days after Mr Wilson had written a New York Times column debunking White House claims that Saddam Hussein had sought to buy uranium in Africa, and accusing the Bush administration of deliberately manipulating pre-war intelligence. Libby was not accused of leaking the name deliberately, which is a criminal offence. His crime was to lie to the FBI and the grand jury investigating the case, by maintaining he only learnt who Ms Plame was from a reporter, two days before her name appeared in print.
But some of the most celebrated journalists in Washington went into the witness box to testify they had been told by Libby in person that Mr Wilson's wife worked for the CIA - in one case three weeks before Libby said he became aware of the fact.
Defence lawyers contended that if he made a mistake, it was simply because of a faulty memory caused by pressure of work. But the jury decided that Libby had directly lied. The motive, one juror explained to reporters afterwards, was to cover up the involvement of the Vice-President himself in the campaign to discredit the former ambassador.
In a statement, Mr Cheney said he was "very disappointed with the verdict". At the White House the mood was equally grim. George Bush respected the result of the trial, but was "saddened for Scooter Libby and his family", a spokesman said.
But there is no concealing the extent of the damage. Libby is not only the most senior Bush administration official to face - and now be convicted of - criminal charges. As chief of staff to arguably the most powerful vice-president in US history, he was one of the two or three most important policy-makers at the White House after the President and Vice-President.
The trial, in which neither Libby nor his former boss testified, threw no new light on the handling of the WMD intelligence used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But it revealed the obsessive sensitivity of the Vice-President's office to any attack on its pre-war use of intelligence, and its determination to discredit critics.
At one point the prosecution produced a specimen of the offending article, annotated by Mr Cheney himself, asking who Mr Wilson was, and whether he had been sent on his 2002 fact-finding mission to Africa as a "junket" organised by his wife. The guilty verdict against Libby is thus bound to tarnish further the reputation of both Mr Bush and Mr Cheney, whose approval ratings are even lower than those of the President.
Libby, said Denis Collins, one of the 11 jurors, seemed to be the "fall guy" who had been given the job of talking to reporters by the Vice-President. There was "a tremendous amount of sympathy" for him, Mr Collins said, but in the end they could not believe that a man whose exceptional grasp of detail had been attested to in court had simply forgotten when and with whom he had discussed Ms Plame.
The chief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald denied suggestions that he had made more of the affair than it merited. Mr Fitzgerald was named special prosecutor in November 2003, after the Justice Department opened an investigation into the leak.
"We could not walk away from the facts of the case that we knew in December 2003. Any lie under oath is serious," he said.
Libby's appeal could run for many months through the courts, possibly as far as the Supreme Court.
If the case is not settled by the time a new president is elected in November 2008, Mr Bush could pardon Libby.
But Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, flatly opposed any pardon, saying: "It's about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics."
The fallen war advocate
Until October 2005, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was the chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney and a powerful influence within the White House, particularly on matters of national security. He was among the loudest voices making the case for war with Iraq and helped put together the dossier that Secretary of State Colin Powell notoriously revealed to the United Nations in the spring of 2003.
A former private lawyer, Libby joined the government in the early 80s, joining the State Department where he served under his former law professor Paul Wolfowitz. After a brief departure from government to return to public practice, Libby returned to work for Mr Wolfowitz at the Pentagon in 1989.
He was also a founding member of the Project for the New American Century, a right-wing group seeking the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
When he became Mr Cheney's chief of staff he received the name "germ boy", so named because of his insistence on universal smallpox vaccination.
But his closeness to the Vice-President also earned him the title "Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney".
In 1996 Libby published a novel, The Apprentice, that told the story of a group of travellers stranded in northern Japan in 1903. The publishers described it as "an everyday tale of bestiality and paedophilia in 1903 Japan... [and] packed with sexual perversion, dwelling on prepubescent girls and their training as prostitutes".
Andrew Buncombe
---------------------------------------
A LIAR IN THE WHITE HOUSE
The Lie
The Blair Government's September 2002 dossier claims Saddam Hussein has sought to buy uranium for his nuclear weapons programme from Niger. George Bush, in his State of the Union address in January 2003, ignores CIA reservations and repeats the assertion. The claim becomes a central plank in the argument for war.
The Doubts
The CIA dispatches a former ambassador, Joseph Wilson, to investigate the Niger claims, which he concludes are false. Related documents are subsequently obtained by Italian authorities and passed to the UN nuclear agency which declares them to be crude forgeries in March 2003, just before the invasion.
The Whistle-Blower
When no WMD are found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, Joseph Wilson accuses the Bush administration of deliberately manipulating intelligence before the war. His views are first aired in an off-the-record interview with The Independent on Sunday in June of that year, before he goes public in American newspapers.
The Smear Campaign
Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson's wife, is identified as an undercover agent by columnist Robert Novak on 14 July 2003 and the search is on for the source of the leak within the Bush administration, accused of deliberately smearing Ms Plame while potentially endangering her life by exposing her as a CIA agent. Revealing a CIA agent's identity is against the law.
The Cover-up
A special prosecutor is appointed to uncover the leaker, with suspicion falling on the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, whose chief of staff, Lewis Libby, takes pains to protect his boss. Although no charges are brought over the leak itself, Mr Libby is put on trial for trying to frustrate the investigation.
The Conviction
Lewis Libby becomes the first Bush administration official to be convicted over the flawed intelligence used to justify the war when he is found guilty yesterday of obstructing justice, lying and perjury. He faces up to 25 years in jail. Many in Washington say it was, in effect, the trial of Mr Cheney, who was responsible for the actions of his aide.
Saga of Washington's discredited WMD claims leads to the conviction for perjury of Dick Cheney's key aide
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
The Independent
Published: 07 March 2007
In a massive new blow to the credibility of the White House, Vice-President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff Lewis Libby has been convicted of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to the FBI, during the investigation into the leaking of the identity of a CIA agent.
After a seven-week trial, the jury found Libby guilty yesterday on four of the five counts against him. Ever calm in court, Libby merely blinked as the verdict was read out. Defence lawyers immediately said they would seek a fresh trial, and if that failed, lodge an appeal. In theory Libby faces up to 25 years in jail, though federal sentencing guidelines mean he is likely to receive a far shorter term.
The case arose from the investigation into the leak in July 2003 of the name of Valerie Plame, the CIA agent whose husband, the former ambassador Joseph Wilson, had been a virulent critic of the Iraq war. Ms Plame's identity was revealed a few days after Mr Wilson had written a New York Times column debunking White House claims that Saddam Hussein had sought to buy uranium in Africa, and accusing the Bush administration of deliberately manipulating pre-war intelligence. Libby was not accused of leaking the name deliberately, which is a criminal offence. His crime was to lie to the FBI and the grand jury investigating the case, by maintaining he only learnt who Ms Plame was from a reporter, two days before her name appeared in print.
But some of the most celebrated journalists in Washington went into the witness box to testify they had been told by Libby in person that Mr Wilson's wife worked for the CIA - in one case three weeks before Libby said he became aware of the fact.
Defence lawyers contended that if he made a mistake, it was simply because of a faulty memory caused by pressure of work. But the jury decided that Libby had directly lied. The motive, one juror explained to reporters afterwards, was to cover up the involvement of the Vice-President himself in the campaign to discredit the former ambassador.
In a statement, Mr Cheney said he was "very disappointed with the verdict". At the White House the mood was equally grim. George Bush respected the result of the trial, but was "saddened for Scooter Libby and his family", a spokesman said.
But there is no concealing the extent of the damage. Libby is not only the most senior Bush administration official to face - and now be convicted of - criminal charges. As chief of staff to arguably the most powerful vice-president in US history, he was one of the two or three most important policy-makers at the White House after the President and Vice-President.
The trial, in which neither Libby nor his former boss testified, threw no new light on the handling of the WMD intelligence used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But it revealed the obsessive sensitivity of the Vice-President's office to any attack on its pre-war use of intelligence, and its determination to discredit critics.
At one point the prosecution produced a specimen of the offending article, annotated by Mr Cheney himself, asking who Mr Wilson was, and whether he had been sent on his 2002 fact-finding mission to Africa as a "junket" organised by his wife. The guilty verdict against Libby is thus bound to tarnish further the reputation of both Mr Bush and Mr Cheney, whose approval ratings are even lower than those of the President.
Libby, said Denis Collins, one of the 11 jurors, seemed to be the "fall guy" who had been given the job of talking to reporters by the Vice-President. There was "a tremendous amount of sympathy" for him, Mr Collins said, but in the end they could not believe that a man whose exceptional grasp of detail had been attested to in court had simply forgotten when and with whom he had discussed Ms Plame.
The chief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald denied suggestions that he had made more of the affair than it merited. Mr Fitzgerald was named special prosecutor in November 2003, after the Justice Department opened an investigation into the leak.
"We could not walk away from the facts of the case that we knew in December 2003. Any lie under oath is serious," he said.
Libby's appeal could run for many months through the courts, possibly as far as the Supreme Court.
If the case is not settled by the time a new president is elected in November 2008, Mr Bush could pardon Libby.
But Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, flatly opposed any pardon, saying: "It's about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics."
The fallen war advocate
Until October 2005, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was the chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney and a powerful influence within the White House, particularly on matters of national security. He was among the loudest voices making the case for war with Iraq and helped put together the dossier that Secretary of State Colin Powell notoriously revealed to the United Nations in the spring of 2003.
A former private lawyer, Libby joined the government in the early 80s, joining the State Department where he served under his former law professor Paul Wolfowitz. After a brief departure from government to return to public practice, Libby returned to work for Mr Wolfowitz at the Pentagon in 1989.
He was also a founding member of the Project for the New American Century, a right-wing group seeking the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
When he became Mr Cheney's chief of staff he received the name "germ boy", so named because of his insistence on universal smallpox vaccination.
But his closeness to the Vice-President also earned him the title "Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney".
In 1996 Libby published a novel, The Apprentice, that told the story of a group of travellers stranded in northern Japan in 1903. The publishers described it as "an everyday tale of bestiality and paedophilia in 1903 Japan... [and] packed with sexual perversion, dwelling on prepubescent girls and their training as prostitutes".
Andrew Buncombe
---------------------------------------
A LIAR IN THE WHITE HOUSE
The Lie
The Blair Government's September 2002 dossier claims Saddam Hussein has sought to buy uranium for his nuclear weapons programme from Niger. George Bush, in his State of the Union address in January 2003, ignores CIA reservations and repeats the assertion. The claim becomes a central plank in the argument for war.
The Doubts
The CIA dispatches a former ambassador, Joseph Wilson, to investigate the Niger claims, which he concludes are false. Related documents are subsequently obtained by Italian authorities and passed to the UN nuclear agency which declares them to be crude forgeries in March 2003, just before the invasion.
The Whistle-Blower
When no WMD are found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, Joseph Wilson accuses the Bush administration of deliberately manipulating intelligence before the war. His views are first aired in an off-the-record interview with The Independent on Sunday in June of that year, before he goes public in American newspapers.
The Smear Campaign
Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson's wife, is identified as an undercover agent by columnist Robert Novak on 14 July 2003 and the search is on for the source of the leak within the Bush administration, accused of deliberately smearing Ms Plame while potentially endangering her life by exposing her as a CIA agent. Revealing a CIA agent's identity is against the law.
The Cover-up
A special prosecutor is appointed to uncover the leaker, with suspicion falling on the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, whose chief of staff, Lewis Libby, takes pains to protect his boss. Although no charges are brought over the leak itself, Mr Libby is put on trial for trying to frustrate the investigation.
The Conviction
Lewis Libby becomes the first Bush administration official to be convicted over the flawed intelligence used to justify the war when he is found guilty yesterday of obstructing justice, lying and perjury. He faces up to 25 years in jail. Many in Washington say it was, in effect, the trial of Mr Cheney, who was responsible for the actions of his aide.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Let's bump this baby back up.
Libby Found Guilty On Four Of Five Counts
Vice President's Former Aide Guilty in CIA Leak Trial
By PIERRE THOMAS, JASON RYAN and THERESA COOK
March 6, 2007 — - Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff is now a convicted felon.
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been found guilty of four of five charges in the CIA leak case stemming from a three-year investigation and trial that revealed the innermost workings of the top levels at the Bush White House.
A jury found Libby guilty of charges claiming he lied to the FBI and a grand jury, and obstructed justice.
The former White House aide faces as many as 25 years in prison and fines up to $1 million.
For more on the Libby verdict, watch "World News With Charles Gibson" at 6:30pm ET
White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino said that President Bush was in the Oval Office and watched reports on the verdict on television.
Perino acknowledged that the President respected the jury's verdict although he is saddened for Scooter Libby and his family.
Libby's wife held back tears in the courtroom as the verdict was read, but outside the courthouse, Libby's defense team was defiant.
Ted Wells, Libby's lead attorney, told reporters gathered outside, "We are very disappointed in the verdict of the jurors," adding later, "We intend to file a motion for a new trial and, if that is denied, we will appeal the conviction and we have every confidence that, ultimately, Mr. Libby will be vindicated."
Wells insisted Libby is "totally innocent" and that "he did not do anything wrong."
Patrick Fitzgerald, the lead federal prosecutor on the case, countered simply, "The jury was obviously convinced beyond a reasonable doubt."
Fitzgerald said it was "sad" that a "high level official in the vice president's office lied."
Jury Convinced Libby Lied
The jury of seven women and four men concluded Libby lied to FBI agents and a grand jury throughout the course of the investigation into the leaked identity of Valerie Plame, a one time undercover CIA operative.
Prosecutors argued Libby helped lead a campaign to refute and discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson.
The defense countered by attacking the credibility of key prosecution witnesses and citing Libby's spotty memory as the cause for any discrepancy in his statements, but the jury was not convinced.
Wilson's criticism of the administration's case for war against Iraq came to a head in July of 2003, when he wrote a blistering opinion piece in the New York Times.
In the article, Wilson stated bluntly, "Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."
On a conference call with reporters, Wilson said, "We take great comfort that this is a nation of law and no citizens are above the law."
Wilson said President Bush and Vice President Cheney owe the country a greater explanation for what happened in this issue and that they should share what they told the prosecution during the investigation of the case.
"There is no longer any excuse for the president and vice president to hide behind an ongoing trial," Wilson said.
Wilson announced plans to pursue a civil trial against Cheney, Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
Following the trial, juror Denis Collins, a former Washington Post writer, told reporters there was a "tremendous amount of sympathy" for Libby and that most of the jury thought, "He was the fall guy."
Collins described, "The belief of the jury was that he was tasked by the Vice President to go and talk with reporters."
Cheney's Role Central to Case, Pardon Rumors Swirl
Libby did not take the stand during his trial, but did acknowledge to a grand jury in March of 2004 that Wilson's article angered Cheney, saying, "I'm sure he was upset. I don't recall the conversation all that clearly, but I'm sure he was upset."
Libby also told the grand jury that Cheney asked him to personally handle the matter with the press, instead of delegating the task to public affairs staff.
Just eight days after Wilson's article appeared, columnist Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA officer. Libby was not said to be responsible for that disclosure, but was soon caught up in the FBI Leak investigation, started in September of 2003.
Juror Denis Collins said many on the jury were asking rhetorically, 'Where's Rove, where's Cheney?', as the Libby trial continued.
Colins admitted, "Hearing from Cheney, I think it would have been interesting, I'm not sure what it would have done."
One former Cheney senior aide told ABC News, "It's a very sad day. It's outrageous. The President ought to pardon (Libby) by sundown."
Democrats in Washington, however, pounced on the verdict as a symbol of larger corruption within the White House and demanded the President refuse to pardon Libby.
Shortly after the verdict was read, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., released an e-mail statement saying, "I welcome the jury's verdict. It's about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics."
Red quickly added, "Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney's role in this sordid affair. Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct."
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., concurred, "Today's guilty verdicts are not solely about the acts of one individual. This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed - at the highest levels of the Bush Administration - a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq."
A White House spokesperson called talked of a pardon "wildly hypothetical".
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald resisted commenting on Vice President Cheney's role instead relying on his closing statement in which he said there was a "cloud" over the White House.
After the trial, Fitzgerald said, "There was a cloud there, not caused by us...sometimes when people tell the truth clouds disappear."
Fitzgerald, a Chicago-based U.S. attorney, said of his team, "We're all going back to our day jobs," indicating, "I do not expect to file any further charges."
The CIA leak investigation toppled Libby from the upper echelons of the Washington power structure, forcing him to resign from the Bush administration when he received the only indictment in the case on October 28, 2005.
Summing up the case, Fitzgerald concluded, "At the end of the day, I think we got a very fair jury."
Libby Found Guilty On Four Of Five Counts
Vice President's Former Aide Guilty in CIA Leak Trial
By PIERRE THOMAS, JASON RYAN and THERESA COOK
March 6, 2007 — - Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff is now a convicted felon.
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been found guilty of four of five charges in the CIA leak case stemming from a three-year investigation and trial that revealed the innermost workings of the top levels at the Bush White House.
A jury found Libby guilty of charges claiming he lied to the FBI and a grand jury, and obstructed justice.
The former White House aide faces as many as 25 years in prison and fines up to $1 million.
For more on the Libby verdict, watch "World News With Charles Gibson" at 6:30pm ET
White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino said that President Bush was in the Oval Office and watched reports on the verdict on television.
Perino acknowledged that the President respected the jury's verdict although he is saddened for Scooter Libby and his family.
Libby's wife held back tears in the courtroom as the verdict was read, but outside the courthouse, Libby's defense team was defiant.
Ted Wells, Libby's lead attorney, told reporters gathered outside, "We are very disappointed in the verdict of the jurors," adding later, "We intend to file a motion for a new trial and, if that is denied, we will appeal the conviction and we have every confidence that, ultimately, Mr. Libby will be vindicated."
Wells insisted Libby is "totally innocent" and that "he did not do anything wrong."
Patrick Fitzgerald, the lead federal prosecutor on the case, countered simply, "The jury was obviously convinced beyond a reasonable doubt."
Fitzgerald said it was "sad" that a "high level official in the vice president's office lied."
Jury Convinced Libby Lied
The jury of seven women and four men concluded Libby lied to FBI agents and a grand jury throughout the course of the investigation into the leaked identity of Valerie Plame, a one time undercover CIA operative.
Prosecutors argued Libby helped lead a campaign to refute and discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson.
The defense countered by attacking the credibility of key prosecution witnesses and citing Libby's spotty memory as the cause for any discrepancy in his statements, but the jury was not convinced.
Wilson's criticism of the administration's case for war against Iraq came to a head in July of 2003, when he wrote a blistering opinion piece in the New York Times.
In the article, Wilson stated bluntly, "Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."
On a conference call with reporters, Wilson said, "We take great comfort that this is a nation of law and no citizens are above the law."
Wilson said President Bush and Vice President Cheney owe the country a greater explanation for what happened in this issue and that they should share what they told the prosecution during the investigation of the case.
"There is no longer any excuse for the president and vice president to hide behind an ongoing trial," Wilson said.
Wilson announced plans to pursue a civil trial against Cheney, Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
Following the trial, juror Denis Collins, a former Washington Post writer, told reporters there was a "tremendous amount of sympathy" for Libby and that most of the jury thought, "He was the fall guy."
Collins described, "The belief of the jury was that he was tasked by the Vice President to go and talk with reporters."
Cheney's Role Central to Case, Pardon Rumors Swirl
Libby did not take the stand during his trial, but did acknowledge to a grand jury in March of 2004 that Wilson's article angered Cheney, saying, "I'm sure he was upset. I don't recall the conversation all that clearly, but I'm sure he was upset."
Libby also told the grand jury that Cheney asked him to personally handle the matter with the press, instead of delegating the task to public affairs staff.
Just eight days after Wilson's article appeared, columnist Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA officer. Libby was not said to be responsible for that disclosure, but was soon caught up in the FBI Leak investigation, started in September of 2003.
Juror Denis Collins said many on the jury were asking rhetorically, 'Where's Rove, where's Cheney?', as the Libby trial continued.
Colins admitted, "Hearing from Cheney, I think it would have been interesting, I'm not sure what it would have done."
One former Cheney senior aide told ABC News, "It's a very sad day. It's outrageous. The President ought to pardon (Libby) by sundown."
Democrats in Washington, however, pounced on the verdict as a symbol of larger corruption within the White House and demanded the President refuse to pardon Libby.
Shortly after the verdict was read, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., released an e-mail statement saying, "I welcome the jury's verdict. It's about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics."
Red quickly added, "Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney's role in this sordid affair. Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct."
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., concurred, "Today's guilty verdicts are not solely about the acts of one individual. This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed - at the highest levels of the Bush Administration - a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq."
A White House spokesperson called talked of a pardon "wildly hypothetical".
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald resisted commenting on Vice President Cheney's role instead relying on his closing statement in which he said there was a "cloud" over the White House.
After the trial, Fitzgerald said, "There was a cloud there, not caused by us...sometimes when people tell the truth clouds disappear."
Fitzgerald, a Chicago-based U.S. attorney, said of his team, "We're all going back to our day jobs," indicating, "I do not expect to file any further charges."
The CIA leak investigation toppled Libby from the upper echelons of the Washington power structure, forcing him to resign from the Bush administration when he received the only indictment in the case on October 28, 2005.
Summing up the case, Fitzgerald concluded, "At the end of the day, I think we got a very fair jury."
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
In his memoir, The Politics of Truth, Wilson cited sources as saying that a meeting in the Vice President’s office led to a decision “to produce a workup” to discredit Wilson.
Of course this is Wilson's story. He wants us to believe that he was the target of a major conspiracy and an attack on him for revealing what he claimed was evidence that the administration had lied about Niger.
This article is meant to persuade us that all the other news organizations have been telling the wrong story. I don't think they are. I think they realize that the investigation has been a waste of time and money. I think they are tired of it, because it has led to nowhere.
In this article's version of events, the Bush White House was so fearful of Joseph Wilson that they actively sought to destroy him through reporters. Somehow the White House aides were able to sway reporters to ask the questions that the administration wanted them to ask of their sources! And those gullible reporters fell into the trap!
Yeah, right.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
From Consortium News:
How Obtuse Is the U.S. Press?
By Robert Parry
September 3, 2006
In the movie “Shawshank Redemption,” the wrongly convicted Andy Dufrense (Tim Robbins) gets frustrated when the corrupt prison warden blocks Dufrense’s chance to prove his innocence. “How can you be so obtuse?” Dufrense asks.
The same question could be addressed today to Washington journalists who are falling over themselves to absolve George W. Bush’s White House of any serious wrongdoing in the three-year-old assault on former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson and the outing of his CIA officer wife, Valerie Plame.
This new backlash against those who challenged the White House on the Plame case follows disclosure that one of the sources for Robert Novak’s July 14, 2003, column, which blew Plame’s cover, was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who was not considered a close White House ally.
In a Sept. 2 front-page story, the New York Times reacted to this news by suggesting that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had been overzealous in pursuing the Plame investigation for more than two years, since Armitage had testified early on that he apparently was Novak’s principal source on Plame. [NYT, Sept. 2, 2006]
The Times article came on the heels of a scathing editorial by the Washington Post putting the primary blame for the exposure of Plame on her husband, Joseph Wilson, because in July 2003, he went public with the findings of his 2002 CIA-organized trip to Niger which helped debunk the false pre-Iraq War claim that Iraq had sought yellowcake uranium from Africa.
“He [Wilson] ought to have expected that both those [Bush administration] 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,” the Post editorial said.
The Post also argued that since Armitage was a reluctant supporter of the Iraq War, “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 – is untrue.” [Washington Post, Sept. 1, 2006]
How Obtuse?
But – as with the corrupt prison warden in “Shawshank Redemption” – it’s hard to believe that national journalists could be this obtuse.
As we explain below, the evidence is overwhelming that the White House assault on Wilson was planned weeks before he published an Op-Ed on July 6, 2003, accusing Bush of twisting the yellowcake claim – and that Bush’s operatives responded by pointing journalists toward Plame’s identity.
Indeed, the available evidence doesn’t even fully support the contention that Novak first learned about Plame from his interview with Armitage on July 8, 2003. According to the Times’ own reporting, Novak apparently had been primed to ask a question on this topic.
The Times buries this crucial point in its Sept. 2 story that questions whether Fitzgerald “properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion.” In the last sentence of the 17th paragraph, the Times reports that Armitage disclosed Plame’s possible role in arranging Wilson’s Niger trip “in reply to a question.”
In other words, Armitage didn’t just toss out Plame’s CIA connection as “gossip,” as the Post editorial assumes. He apparently mentioned it in response to Novak’s question about how the Niger trip had been arranged, which begs the additional question of who might have suggested that Novak ask that.
The distinction is important because other evidence indicates that Bush’s aides were pushing reporters to ask about the circumstances behind the Niger trip, knowing that line of questioning would lead to Plame’s identity.
For instance, Time magazine correspondent John Dickerson, who accompanied a presidential trip to Africa shortly after Wilson’s article was published, said he was twice urged to pursue the seemingly insignificant question of who had been involved in arranging Wilson’s trip.
Revenge
As the President toured Africa in July 2003, questions about Wilson’s article dominated the trip, prompting White House spokesman Ari Fleischer to finally concede that the yellowcake allegation was “incorrect” and should not have been included in the State of the Union speech in January 2003.
The mistake represented one of the first times the Bush administration had retreated on any national security issue. Administration officials were embarrassed, livid and determined to punish Wilson.
On July 11, 2003, CIA Director George Tenet took the fall for the State of the Union screw-up, apologizing for not better vetting the speech. “This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches,” Tenet said.
That same day, however, as Bush was finishing a meeting with the president of Uganda, Dickerson said he was chatting with a “senior administration official” who was tearing down Wilson and disparaging Wilson’s Niger investigation.
The message to Dickerson was that “some low-level person at the CIA was responsible for the mission” and that Dickerson “should go ask the CIA who sent Wilson.”
Later, Dickerson discussed Wilson with a second “senior administration official” and got the same advice: “This official also pointed out a few times that Wilson had been sent by a low-level CIA employee and encouraged me to follow that angle,” Dickerson recalled.
“At the end of the two conversations I wrote down in my notebook: ‘look who sent.’ … What struck me was how hard both officials were working to knock down Wilson. Discrediting your opposition is a standard tactic in Washington, but the Bush team usually played the game differently. At that stage in the first term, Bush aides usually blew off their critics. Or, they continued to assert their set of facts in the hope of overcoming criticism by force of repetition.” ” [See Dickerson’s article, “Where’s My Subpoena?” for Slate, Feb. 7, 2006]
Back in Washington on July 11, 2003, Dickerson’s Time colleague, Matthew Cooper, was getting a similar earful from Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove, who tried to steer Cooper away from Wilson’s information and added that the Niger trip was authorized by “Wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency [CIA] on WMD issues,” according to Cooper’s notes of the interview. [See Newsweek, July 18, 2005, issue]
Cooper later got the information about Wilson’s wife confirmed by Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis Libby, who had been peddling the information even before Cooper’s phone call. Libby had been brought into the get-Wilson cabal in June 2003 when the White House got wind that Wilson might present a problem.
Counterattack
By spring 2003, Wilson had begun talking privately to journalists about his Niger findings and criticizing the administration for hyping the WMD intelligence. Behind the scenes, the White House began to hit back, collecting information about Wilson and his fact-finding trip.
In his memoir, The Politics of Truth, Wilson cited sources as saying that a meeting in the Vice President’s office led to a decision “to produce a workup” to discredit Wilson.
Libby then asked Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, a neoconservative ally in the State Department, to prepare a memo on Wilson. Dated June 10, 2003, the memo referred to “Valerie Plame” as Wilson’s wife. [NYT, July 16, 2005]
CIA Director George Tenet also divulged to Cheney that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and had a hand in arranging Wilson’s trip to Niger – information that Cheney then passed on to Libby in a conversation on June 12, 2003, according to Libby’s notes as described by lawyers in the case. [NYT, Oct. 25, 2005]
Those two facts – Plame’s work for the CIA and her minor role in Wilson’s Niger trip (which was approved and arranged at higher levels of the CIA) – were transformed into key attack points against Wilson.
On June 23, 2003, still two weeks before Wilson’s Op-Ed, Libby briefed New York Times reporter Judith Miller about Wilson and may then have passed on the tip that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. But the anti-Wilson campaign gained new urgency when the ex-ambassador penned his Op-Ed piece in the New York Times on July 6, 2003.
As Cheney read Wilson’s article, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” the Vice President scribbled down questions he wanted pursued. “Have they [CIA officials] done this sort of thing before?” Cheney wrote. “Send an Amb[assador] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?”
Though Cheney did not write down Plame’s name, his questions indicated that he was aware that she worked for the CIA and was in a position (dealing with WMD issues) to have a hand in her husband’s assignment to check out the Niger reports. [Cheney’s notations were disclosed in a May 12, 2006, court filing by special prosecutor Fitzgerald.]
On that morning of July 6, 2003, Wilson appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to elaborate on the yellowcake dispute. Later that day, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage called Carl W. Ford Jr., the assistant secretary for intelligence and research, at home and asked him to send a copy of Grossman’s memo to Secretary of State Colin Powell, according to a former State Department official interviewed by the New York Times.
Since Powell was preparing to leave with Bush on the state visit to Africa, Ford forwarded Grossman’s memo to the White House for delivery to Powell, the former official told the Times. [NYT, July 16, 2005]
The next day, when Bush left for Africa, Powell was carrying the memo containing the information about Plame’s work for the CIA and other details about the yellowcake dispute, the Washington Post reported.
Pressing the Press
On July 8, 2003, two days after Wilson’s article, Libby gave Judith Miller more details about the Wilsons. Cheney’s chief of staff said Wilson’s wife worked at a CIA unit responsible for weapons intelligence and non-proliferation. It was in the context of that interview, that Miller wrote down the words “Valerie Flame,” an apparent misspelling of Mrs. Wilson’s maiden name. [NYT, Oct. 16, 2005]
On that same day, Novak elicited information from Armitage about the role of Wilson’s wife in arranging the Niger trip. According to the Sept. 2, 2006, story in the New York Times, “Armitage said in reply to a question that Ms. Wilson might have had a role in arranging her husband’s trip to Niger.”
On July 12, 2003, in a telephone conversation, Miller and Libby returned to the Wilson topic. Miller’s notes contain a reference to a “Victoria Wilson,” another misspelled reference to Wilson’s wife. [NYT, Oct. 16, 2005]
Two days later, on July 14, 2003, Novak – having gotten confirmation about Plame’s identity from Karl Rove – published a column, citing two administration sources outing Plame as a CIA officer and portraying Wilson’s Niger trip as a case of nepotism.
But the White House counterattack had only just begun. On July 20, 2003, NBC’s correspondent Andrea Mitchell told Wilson that “senior White House sources” had called her to stress “the real story here is not the 16 words [from Bush’s State of the Union speech] but Wilson and his wife.”
The next day, Wilson said he was told by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that “I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He says and I quote, ‘Wilson’s wife is fair game.’”
When Newsday spoke with Novak – before he decided to clam up – Novak said he had been approached by the sources with the information about Plame. “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me,” Novak said. “They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.” [Newsday, July 22, 2003]
That account from Novak clashes with the version cited by the Washington Post editorial of Sept. 1, 2006, which describes the Plame disclosure as reportedly passed along “in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip.” Novak’s account to Newsday only a week after his infamous column would seem to fit better with a scenario in which Bush’s aides had prepped Novak on what to ask Armitage or in which Armitage was part of the anti-Wilson cabal.
Cover-up
On July 22, 2003, the White House began shifting into cover-up mode. Bush’s spokesman Scott McClellan denied any White House role in the Plame leak. “I’m telling you flatly that that is not the way this White House operates,” McClellan told reporters.
Privately, however, some administration officials acknowledged that the Plame disclosure was an act of retaliation against Wilson for being one of the first mainstream public figures to challenge Bush on the WMD intelligence.
In September 2003, a White House official told the Washington Post that at least six reporters had been informed about Plame before Novak’s column. The official said the disclosure was “purely and simply out of revenge.”
Novak’s article indeed did destroy Plame’s career as a CIA officer and exposed her network of operatives who had been investigating Iran’s nuclear program. A CIA complaint to the Justice Department prompted an inquiry into the illegal exposure of a CIA officer.
Initially, when the investigation was still under the direct control of Attorney General John Ashcroft, Bush and other White House officials continued to deny any knowledge about the leak. Bush said he wanted to get to the bottom of the matter.
“If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” Bush said on Sept. 30, 2003. “I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true.”
Yet, even as Bush was professing his curiosity and calling for anyone with information to step forward, he was withholding the fact that he had authorized the declassification of some secrets about the Niger uranium issue and had ordered Cheney to slip those selected secrets to reporters to undercut Wilson.
In other words, though Bush knew a great deal about how the anti-Wilson scheme got started – since he was involved in starting it – he uttered misleading public statements to conceal the White House role and possibly to signal to others that they should follow suit in denying knowledge.
Partial Exposure
The cover-up might have worked, except in late 2003, Ashcroft recused himself because of a conflict of interest, and Fitzgerald – the U.S. Attorney in Chicago – was named as the special prosecutor. Fitzgerald pursued the investigation far more aggressively, even coercing journalists to testify about the White House leaks.
On Oct. 28, 2005, Fitzgerald indicted Libby on five counts of perjury, lying to investigators and obstruction of justice. In a court filing on April 5, 2006, Fitzgerald added that his investigation had uncovered government documents that “could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson” because of his criticism of the administration’s handling of the Niger evidence.
Beyond the Plame leak, the White House also oversaw a public-relations strategy to denigrate Wilson. The Republican National Committee put out talking points ridiculing Wilson, and the Republican-run Senate Intelligence Committee made misleading claims about his honesty in a WMD report.
Rather than thank Wilson for undertaking a difficult fact-finding trip to Niger for no pay – and for reporting accurately about the dubious Iraq-Niger claims – the Bush administration sought to smear the former ambassador.
The Republican National Committee even posted an article entitled “Joe Wilson’s Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies and Misstatements,” which itself used glaring inaccuracies and misstatements to discredit Wilson. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Novak Recycles Gannon on ‘Plame-gate.’”] Meanwhile, with her undercover work destroyed, Plame quit the CIA.
Now, based on a new report about Armitage’s role in leaking Plame’s identity, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other leading U.S. news organizations are joining in a new campaign to disparage those who harbored suspicions about the Bush administration’s actions – from special prosecutor Fitzgerald to former Ambassador Wilson.
For these national journalists who act as if they are oblivious to all the evidence of a long-running White House smear campaign and cover-up, it might be time to pose the “Shawshank Redemption” question: “How can you be so obtuse?”
Of course, in the movie, the warden really wasn’t “obtuse.” He just wanted to keep benefiting from Dufrense’s financial skills and, most importantly, to protect his corrupt schemes. The motives of the Washington news media may be more of a mystery.
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
How Obtuse Is the U.S. Press?
By Robert Parry
September 3, 2006
In the movie “Shawshank Redemption,” the wrongly convicted Andy Dufrense (Tim Robbins) gets frustrated when the corrupt prison warden blocks Dufrense’s chance to prove his innocence. “How can you be so obtuse?” Dufrense asks.
The same question could be addressed today to Washington journalists who are falling over themselves to absolve George W. Bush’s White House of any serious wrongdoing in the three-year-old assault on former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson and the outing of his CIA officer wife, Valerie Plame.
This new backlash against those who challenged the White House on the Plame case follows disclosure that one of the sources for Robert Novak’s July 14, 2003, column, which blew Plame’s cover, was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who was not considered a close White House ally.
In a Sept. 2 front-page story, the New York Times reacted to this news by suggesting that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had been overzealous in pursuing the Plame investigation for more than two years, since Armitage had testified early on that he apparently was Novak’s principal source on Plame. [NYT, Sept. 2, 2006]
The Times article came on the heels of a scathing editorial by the Washington Post putting the primary blame for the exposure of Plame on her husband, Joseph Wilson, because in July 2003, he went public with the findings of his 2002 CIA-organized trip to Niger which helped debunk the false pre-Iraq War claim that Iraq had sought yellowcake uranium from Africa.
“He [Wilson] ought to have expected that both those [Bush administration] 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,” the Post editorial said.
The Post also argued that since Armitage was a reluctant supporter of the Iraq War, “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 – is untrue.” [Washington Post, Sept. 1, 2006]
How Obtuse?
But – as with the corrupt prison warden in “Shawshank Redemption” – it’s hard to believe that national journalists could be this obtuse.
As we explain below, the evidence is overwhelming that the White House assault on Wilson was planned weeks before he published an Op-Ed on July 6, 2003, accusing Bush of twisting the yellowcake claim – and that Bush’s operatives responded by pointing journalists toward Plame’s identity.
Indeed, the available evidence doesn’t even fully support the contention that Novak first learned about Plame from his interview with Armitage on July 8, 2003. According to the Times’ own reporting, Novak apparently had been primed to ask a question on this topic.
The Times buries this crucial point in its Sept. 2 story that questions whether Fitzgerald “properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion.” In the last sentence of the 17th paragraph, the Times reports that Armitage disclosed Plame’s possible role in arranging Wilson’s Niger trip “in reply to a question.”
In other words, Armitage didn’t just toss out Plame’s CIA connection as “gossip,” as the Post editorial assumes. He apparently mentioned it in response to Novak’s question about how the Niger trip had been arranged, which begs the additional question of who might have suggested that Novak ask that.
The distinction is important because other evidence indicates that Bush’s aides were pushing reporters to ask about the circumstances behind the Niger trip, knowing that line of questioning would lead to Plame’s identity.
For instance, Time magazine correspondent John Dickerson, who accompanied a presidential trip to Africa shortly after Wilson’s article was published, said he was twice urged to pursue the seemingly insignificant question of who had been involved in arranging Wilson’s trip.
Revenge
As the President toured Africa in July 2003, questions about Wilson’s article dominated the trip, prompting White House spokesman Ari Fleischer to finally concede that the yellowcake allegation was “incorrect” and should not have been included in the State of the Union speech in January 2003.
The mistake represented one of the first times the Bush administration had retreated on any national security issue. Administration officials were embarrassed, livid and determined to punish Wilson.
On July 11, 2003, CIA Director George Tenet took the fall for the State of the Union screw-up, apologizing for not better vetting the speech. “This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches,” Tenet said.
That same day, however, as Bush was finishing a meeting with the president of Uganda, Dickerson said he was chatting with a “senior administration official” who was tearing down Wilson and disparaging Wilson’s Niger investigation.
The message to Dickerson was that “some low-level person at the CIA was responsible for the mission” and that Dickerson “should go ask the CIA who sent Wilson.”
Later, Dickerson discussed Wilson with a second “senior administration official” and got the same advice: “This official also pointed out a few times that Wilson had been sent by a low-level CIA employee and encouraged me to follow that angle,” Dickerson recalled.
“At the end of the two conversations I wrote down in my notebook: ‘look who sent.’ … What struck me was how hard both officials were working to knock down Wilson. Discrediting your opposition is a standard tactic in Washington, but the Bush team usually played the game differently. At that stage in the first term, Bush aides usually blew off their critics. Or, they continued to assert their set of facts in the hope of overcoming criticism by force of repetition.” ” [See Dickerson’s article, “Where’s My Subpoena?” for Slate, Feb. 7, 2006]
Back in Washington on July 11, 2003, Dickerson’s Time colleague, Matthew Cooper, was getting a similar earful from Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove, who tried to steer Cooper away from Wilson’s information and added that the Niger trip was authorized by “Wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency [CIA] on WMD issues,” according to Cooper’s notes of the interview. [See Newsweek, July 18, 2005, issue]
Cooper later got the information about Wilson’s wife confirmed by Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis Libby, who had been peddling the information even before Cooper’s phone call. Libby had been brought into the get-Wilson cabal in June 2003 when the White House got wind that Wilson might present a problem.
Counterattack
By spring 2003, Wilson had begun talking privately to journalists about his Niger findings and criticizing the administration for hyping the WMD intelligence. Behind the scenes, the White House began to hit back, collecting information about Wilson and his fact-finding trip.
In his memoir, The Politics of Truth, Wilson cited sources as saying that a meeting in the Vice President’s office led to a decision “to produce a workup” to discredit Wilson.
Libby then asked Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, a neoconservative ally in the State Department, to prepare a memo on Wilson. Dated June 10, 2003, the memo referred to “Valerie Plame” as Wilson’s wife. [NYT, July 16, 2005]
CIA Director George Tenet also divulged to Cheney that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and had a hand in arranging Wilson’s trip to Niger – information that Cheney then passed on to Libby in a conversation on June 12, 2003, according to Libby’s notes as described by lawyers in the case. [NYT, Oct. 25, 2005]
Those two facts – Plame’s work for the CIA and her minor role in Wilson’s Niger trip (which was approved and arranged at higher levels of the CIA) – were transformed into key attack points against Wilson.
On June 23, 2003, still two weeks before Wilson’s Op-Ed, Libby briefed New York Times reporter Judith Miller about Wilson and may then have passed on the tip that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. But the anti-Wilson campaign gained new urgency when the ex-ambassador penned his Op-Ed piece in the New York Times on July 6, 2003.
As Cheney read Wilson’s article, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” the Vice President scribbled down questions he wanted pursued. “Have they [CIA officials] done this sort of thing before?” Cheney wrote. “Send an Amb[assador] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?”
Though Cheney did not write down Plame’s name, his questions indicated that he was aware that she worked for the CIA and was in a position (dealing with WMD issues) to have a hand in her husband’s assignment to check out the Niger reports. [Cheney’s notations were disclosed in a May 12, 2006, court filing by special prosecutor Fitzgerald.]
On that morning of July 6, 2003, Wilson appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to elaborate on the yellowcake dispute. Later that day, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage called Carl W. Ford Jr., the assistant secretary for intelligence and research, at home and asked him to send a copy of Grossman’s memo to Secretary of State Colin Powell, according to a former State Department official interviewed by the New York Times.
Since Powell was preparing to leave with Bush on the state visit to Africa, Ford forwarded Grossman’s memo to the White House for delivery to Powell, the former official told the Times. [NYT, July 16, 2005]
The next day, when Bush left for Africa, Powell was carrying the memo containing the information about Plame’s work for the CIA and other details about the yellowcake dispute, the Washington Post reported.
Pressing the Press
On July 8, 2003, two days after Wilson’s article, Libby gave Judith Miller more details about the Wilsons. Cheney’s chief of staff said Wilson’s wife worked at a CIA unit responsible for weapons intelligence and non-proliferation. It was in the context of that interview, that Miller wrote down the words “Valerie Flame,” an apparent misspelling of Mrs. Wilson’s maiden name. [NYT, Oct. 16, 2005]
On that same day, Novak elicited information from Armitage about the role of Wilson’s wife in arranging the Niger trip. According to the Sept. 2, 2006, story in the New York Times, “Armitage said in reply to a question that Ms. Wilson might have had a role in arranging her husband’s trip to Niger.”
On July 12, 2003, in a telephone conversation, Miller and Libby returned to the Wilson topic. Miller’s notes contain a reference to a “Victoria Wilson,” another misspelled reference to Wilson’s wife. [NYT, Oct. 16, 2005]
Two days later, on July 14, 2003, Novak – having gotten confirmation about Plame’s identity from Karl Rove – published a column, citing two administration sources outing Plame as a CIA officer and portraying Wilson’s Niger trip as a case of nepotism.
But the White House counterattack had only just begun. On July 20, 2003, NBC’s correspondent Andrea Mitchell told Wilson that “senior White House sources” had called her to stress “the real story here is not the 16 words [from Bush’s State of the Union speech] but Wilson and his wife.”
The next day, Wilson said he was told by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that “I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He says and I quote, ‘Wilson’s wife is fair game.’”
When Newsday spoke with Novak – before he decided to clam up – Novak said he had been approached by the sources with the information about Plame. “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me,” Novak said. “They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.” [Newsday, July 22, 2003]
That account from Novak clashes with the version cited by the Washington Post editorial of Sept. 1, 2006, which describes the Plame disclosure as reportedly passed along “in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip.” Novak’s account to Newsday only a week after his infamous column would seem to fit better with a scenario in which Bush’s aides had prepped Novak on what to ask Armitage or in which Armitage was part of the anti-Wilson cabal.
Cover-up
On July 22, 2003, the White House began shifting into cover-up mode. Bush’s spokesman Scott McClellan denied any White House role in the Plame leak. “I’m telling you flatly that that is not the way this White House operates,” McClellan told reporters.
Privately, however, some administration officials acknowledged that the Plame disclosure was an act of retaliation against Wilson for being one of the first mainstream public figures to challenge Bush on the WMD intelligence.
In September 2003, a White House official told the Washington Post that at least six reporters had been informed about Plame before Novak’s column. The official said the disclosure was “purely and simply out of revenge.”
Novak’s article indeed did destroy Plame’s career as a CIA officer and exposed her network of operatives who had been investigating Iran’s nuclear program. A CIA complaint to the Justice Department prompted an inquiry into the illegal exposure of a CIA officer.
Initially, when the investigation was still under the direct control of Attorney General John Ashcroft, Bush and other White House officials continued to deny any knowledge about the leak. Bush said he wanted to get to the bottom of the matter.
“If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” Bush said on Sept. 30, 2003. “I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true.”
Yet, even as Bush was professing his curiosity and calling for anyone with information to step forward, he was withholding the fact that he had authorized the declassification of some secrets about the Niger uranium issue and had ordered Cheney to slip those selected secrets to reporters to undercut Wilson.
In other words, though Bush knew a great deal about how the anti-Wilson scheme got started – since he was involved in starting it – he uttered misleading public statements to conceal the White House role and possibly to signal to others that they should follow suit in denying knowledge.
Partial Exposure
The cover-up might have worked, except in late 2003, Ashcroft recused himself because of a conflict of interest, and Fitzgerald – the U.S. Attorney in Chicago – was named as the special prosecutor. Fitzgerald pursued the investigation far more aggressively, even coercing journalists to testify about the White House leaks.
On Oct. 28, 2005, Fitzgerald indicted Libby on five counts of perjury, lying to investigators and obstruction of justice. In a court filing on April 5, 2006, Fitzgerald added that his investigation had uncovered government documents that “could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson” because of his criticism of the administration’s handling of the Niger evidence.
Beyond the Plame leak, the White House also oversaw a public-relations strategy to denigrate Wilson. The Republican National Committee put out talking points ridiculing Wilson, and the Republican-run Senate Intelligence Committee made misleading claims about his honesty in a WMD report.
Rather than thank Wilson for undertaking a difficult fact-finding trip to Niger for no pay – and for reporting accurately about the dubious Iraq-Niger claims – the Bush administration sought to smear the former ambassador.
The Republican National Committee even posted an article entitled “Joe Wilson’s Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies and Misstatements,” which itself used glaring inaccuracies and misstatements to discredit Wilson. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Novak Recycles Gannon on ‘Plame-gate.’”] Meanwhile, with her undercover work destroyed, Plame quit the CIA.
Now, based on a new report about Armitage’s role in leaking Plame’s identity, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other leading U.S. news organizations are joining in a new campaign to disparage those who harbored suspicions about the Bush administration’s actions – from special prosecutor Fitzgerald to former Ambassador Wilson.
For these national journalists who act as if they are oblivious to all the evidence of a long-running White House smear campaign and cover-up, it might be time to pose the “Shawshank Redemption” question: “How can you be so obtuse?”
Of course, in the movie, the warden really wasn’t “obtuse.” He just wanted to keep benefiting from Dufrense’s financial skills and, most importantly, to protect his corrupt schemes. The motives of the Washington news media may be more of a mystery.
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
I believe that there is no way to prove that Clinton was involved in a number of investigated incidents and events. I have never once, that I can recall, mentioned Whitewater or any number of other things many Right-wingers harp on. Clinton was good at keeping above the controversy, until Monica Lewinsky. He was charged with lying under oath and obstructing justice. He was aquitted (so was OJ). The fact is that I think that in America, you are innocent until proven guilty, and I have maintained that even in conversations about such people as the aforementioned OJ (and no, I'm not a sports fan).
My point is that, while I think that Clinton was merely average as a President, and that he doesn't always come across as trustworthy (most people polled during his presidency said the same thing), he has never been found guilty of a crime (though he did get his law license revoked after admitting he had lied).
In this case, Patrick Fitzgerald flat out decided Rove didn't have anything to do with the "leak." And with Libby's indictment not being, in his own admission, connected to any "leak," how can you not come to the conclusion that nothing of note was found in this investigation?
My point is that, while I think that Clinton was merely average as a President, and that he doesn't always come across as trustworthy (most people polled during his presidency said the same thing), he has never been found guilty of a crime (though he did get his law license revoked after admitting he had lied).
In this case, Patrick Fitzgerald flat out decided Rove didn't have anything to do with the "leak." And with Libby's indictment not being, in his own admission, connected to any "leak," how can you not come to the conclusion that nothing of note was found in this investigation?
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
criddic3 wrote:Lack of indictments does not mean nothing illegal was done. Which is something you're sure to insist upon when looking back on Clinton's administration.
I would consider an impeachment almost the equivalent of an indictment.
LOL! Good ol' criddic with his bad ol' debating habits. Here he is trying to weasel his way out of actually addressing the point I made. Surprised?
The point being, obviously, that there is no question that you believe Clinton was guilty for much more than he was nailed for. Despite many investigations that went on for years, the best anyone could tag him on was "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Are you going to say you believe this was his one and only sin?
Even if you do, it's a weak-ass argument. The impeachment vote worked out in Clinton's favor. In other words, going by the analogy you set, he was "cleared" of the "indictment". Ah, irony!...
Karl Rove was ruled out by Patrick Fitzgerald, special prosecutor, for any indictments. Quite a different story.
And I'll ask again. Do you really believe that since Clinton wasn't charged with everything you believe he did, it means he did none of it? Of course you don't believe it. And yet... no official charges have been brought against Rove, and there have been no charges brought against anyone specifically about the leaking. But here you are saying this all means nothing ever happened.
You're such a hypocrite.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Lack of indictments does not mean nothing illegal was done. Which is something you're sure to insist upon when looking back on Clinton's administration.
I would consider an impeachment almost the equivalent of an indictment. It is charging the President with a crime. The fact that he was acquitted by the senate is similar to a jury voting on whether he is found guilty. The fact that Clinton apologized for his actions proves he did something wrong, but it might not have risen to high crimes and misdemeanors under the consitution. Or maybe he got lucky and escaped conviction on a partisan vote in Congress. Either way, he was indicted by the House of Representatives.
Karl Rove was ruled out by Patrick Fitzgerald, special prosecutor, for any indictments. Quite a different story.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Lack of indictments does not mean nothing illegal was done. Which is something you're sure to insist upon when looking back on Clinton's administration.
Actually, Hubris doesn't say that at all. See New Developments II. It was senior White House officials who used the info in the first place, according to them.
Actually, according to a book called "Hubris," written by opposers of Bush, the actual leakers were not revealed to the President. As little info as possible was apparently told to the White House.
Actually, Hubris doesn't say that at all. See New Developments II. It was senior White House officials who used the info in the first place, according to them.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Actually, according to a book called "Hubris," written by opposers of Bush, the actual leakers were not revealed to the President. As little info as possible was apparently told to the White House.
Let's remember that the only person indicted was "Scooter" Libby, who was indicted not for leaking or anything related to the original reason for this whole affair. He was indicted for "obstructing" the investigation, which in this case seems more like an attempt to find out more information that might lead to higher-up officials, which has never come about. Karl Rove was expected by some to be indicted and never was, despite a liberal website's (Truthsomething) that actually claimed he had been indicted for perjury. The haters' dream of the corrupt White House going after Joseph Wilson for revealing them to be liars prior to going to Iraq has crumbled, and they are now afraid to admit it.
Let's remember that the only person indicted was "Scooter" Libby, who was indicted not for leaking or anything related to the original reason for this whole affair. He was indicted for "obstructing" the investigation, which in this case seems more like an attempt to find out more information that might lead to higher-up officials, which has never come about. Karl Rove was expected by some to be indicted and never was, despite a liberal website's (Truthsomething) that actually claimed he had been indicted for perjury. The haters' dream of the corrupt White House going after Joseph Wilson for revealing them to be liars prior to going to Iraq has crumbled, and they are now afraid to admit it.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
From The Libby Defense Fund website:
BEWARE OF THE ARMITAGE RED HERRING
Whether Armitage was the "first" to tell Bob Novak about Valerie Plame is an interesting piece of the puzzle, but it doesn't in anyway change the fact that the White House, with the knowledge of Bush and Cheney, sought to expose a CIA operative and endanger the national security of the United States as a result. Indeed, as Cheney does Round II of assembling Weapons of Mass Destruction data in order to justify another war, it should be recalled that Valerie Plame was a specialist in tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction. There has, indeed, been speculation that she knew a good deal about WMDs and Iran.
The forthcoming book, "Hubris," by David Corn and Michael Isikoff, may be a good read. But the Newsweek excerpt this coming week and Corn's own account of the Armitage leak may mislead people into thinking that somehow the White House wasn't behind the whole thing.
Libby, if we recall, met with Armitage the week before his meeting with Woodward -- and it was Libby that requested a State Department backgrounder as to how Joe Wilson came to be sent to Niger.
Finally, Corn, in his own web account of the Newsweek excerpt, notes "Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh subsequently accused him [Armitage] of providing 'false testimony' to investigators but said that he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Armitage's misstatements had been 'deliberate.')
So, the fundamental facts and betrayal of the nation at the heart of PlameGate have not been altered one iota.
And we doubt that Armitage is the naive innocent that Corn and Isikoff appear to make him out to be.
In fact, no one has accused Armitage of being anything but a combat-tested kind of guy.
When a firing squad is assembled to execute someone, does anyone care whose bullet hit first.
======================
And Brett Bdowsky in The Huffington Post:
Leak Case: On Bob Novak, The Washington Post, and the Winds of War
With the latest "news" on this case, several points should be clearly understood at the outset. First, Dick Armitage's role was widely and publicly discussed as early as March, and second, Dick Armitage clearly screwed up but was NOT the original source of the leak. While he does share moral culpability, the driving force behind the leak came from the neocon and partisan wings of the White House.
It is their spin, and nothing more, to try to defend themselves by shifting blame to the anti-Iraq war Armitage, and to the anti-Iraq war State Department, who they believe "needs an American desk." If Armitage never existed the leaks would have happened exactly the same way. If the White House-neocon axis never existed the leaks would never have happened. Whatever the shortcomings of Armitage and State, the real culpability for the identity disclosures reside elsewhere and progressives should be very careful to avoid unknowingly pushing the neocon line.
This whole episode of a political vendetta that involved distorting the debate about WMD in Iraq and naming intelligence identities is the single most shameful, unpatriotic, and totally dishonorable business that I have seen from the moment I first set foot in Washington.
And let me disclose my one and only bias: to protect the men and women who serve our country courageously and covertly, and the men and women of foreign nations who help our country courageously and covertly.
I was in the core group of writers of the CIA Identities Bill from the beginning, working for its original sponsor, Senator Bentsen. I was sufficiently involved to have been commended at the level of Director of Central Intelligence. There were many others involved in this law, from both parties. I only state my history to make it clear that my views on this are not stated casually, offered politically or arrived at recently.
I know a lot about the covert business on both the policy and operational sides and this whole business of "naming names" is sickening, nauseating and the ultimate symbol of how far Washington under George Bush has come from what used to be the nonpartisan treatment of intelligence and the traditional standards of honor.
I have always refused to comment, even in off the record conversations with journalists, on the legal guilt or innocence of any party in this case. That is a decision by the legal system, without trial by media, and without trial by partisans. But this matter affects the core of our national security, the heart of our decision- making process about going to war, and the soul of our spirit of patriotism and honor that should rule out public disclosure of intelligence identities by any person, for any reason, ever.
The same people most responsible for peddling Plames name were the same people peddling WMD stories to Judy Miller and others.
Sadly, shamefully, the issue lives. We now have the House Intelligence Committee issuing a public report attacking Iran-related intel that is clearly designed to bang the war drums for an attack on Iran, and to politicize intelligence for ideology and partisanship yet again. We almost certainly do have shortcomings about intelligence from Iran, in part caused by the very people who try to manipulate the issue, in part caused by events and mistakes, but this should be used and abused to push yet another rush, to another unwise war.
One point that the neoconservatives and the partisan right has never understood is this: when they say don't negotiate with this country or that country, don't do business with this country or that country, the result is that major intelligence dries up. That's how it works. On a country by country basis, sometimes it is best to negotiate, or not; to trade, or not. But the way intelligence works, much intelligence comes directly or indirectly from the processes and people of diplomacy and world trade.
It is disingenuous or dishonest for some to say we should go to war with everyone, negotiate with no one, have sanctions against everyone, and then attack the intelligence loss from their very obsessive policies. And I would repeat my point that those who are universally hostile to diplomacy and universally favorable to war should be asked: where will you get the troops, and do you favor a return to the draft?
All of the pressures, distortions, politicization of intelligence cannot hide or mask this matter, as we witness today in Iraq, while the drums of war are being banged again by those who know little about how to fight wars, how to win wars, or how to exit the wars they rush into.
They never learn. They should be respecting, not demeaning, the advice of our military commanders. They should be improving and analyzing the product of intelligence, not twisting or distorting it, to push a predetermined policy for yet another war.
This business about leaking identities is not only about partisan and political vendettas. It is about how and when we go to war, how and when we should not go to war, and why it is so fundamentally important that intelligence should be based on facts and truth, and not twisted and distorted for the ideology of going to war, or the partisanship of exploiting war.
What went wrong in Iraq, is that the democratic process of making the decision to wage war was corrupted and warped from the beginning.
There is plenty to blame to be apportioned, on all sides, for that. It is not partisan. The issue for us, today, is that we not repeat these corruptions again. Intelligence must be returned to its pre-Bush nonpartisanship. Intelligence must be used objectively, to help us achieve the most acceptable outcome in Iraq, and to avoid repeating the fiasco elsewhere.
In my view, whatever the legalities, there is a special place in hell on this issue for Bob Novak, who named the name, and for the Washington Post Editorial Page, which then published the name, and for Bob Woodward, who attacked the prosecutor without disclosing to his readers or the nation his private interest in the case. Though I will give Woodward credit for this: he never published the Plame story, and neither did Judy Miller, by the way.
This whole episode demonstrates how far from traditional moral and patriotic bearing Washington has come, during what historians will call, not fondly, the Bush years. In this environment anything goes, and insiders, surrounded by courtiers, substitute politics and spin for honesty and truth even on the matter of going to war.
Whatever the legal outcome, on fundamental issues of patriotism, morality and honor there is a higher standard for those of us who know how the real world works, on these matters.
Bob Novak is a smart guy who has been around this town for decades. The Washington Post is the paper of record for the national security establishment in Washington and knows exactly how real world intelligence works. These are people who chortled when Bill Clinton defined what is, is, and now they chortle playing word games with what "covert" is.
Without getting into details, right now, today, as you read these words there are brave and courageous Americans working under cover, risking their lives, often giving their lives, to defend our security. Right now, today, as you read these words there are brave and equally courageous foreigners working with our people, some for ulterior motives, others are authentic freedom and democracy fighters in their native lands.
Intelligence can help us avoid wars; intelligence can help us minimize casualties of wars; and intelligence can help us avoid obsessive and disastrously planned wars. Had this been applied before Iraq, we would not be in the mess. If this is applied going forward, we can avoid a future mess at a time when some seem to want war, everywhere.
When any identity is published, by any party, for any reason, at any time, every single one of them is disserved. The message goes out, we cannot be trusted with secrets. Some new information goes out, which can be traced back to our people, or our friends. Our communities are endangered and the terrorists and hostile governments are helped.
The same people who bang the drums of war the loudest, are helping our enemies, by disclosing names. They are hurting our troops, by distorting our intelligence that is so essential to knowing when to wage war and how to wage it, when we must, and why to avoid it, when we can.
Let the courts decide the law, but those who do these dirty deeds deserve a special place in hell, and those who never risked their lives for our country themselves, and endanger the lives of covert people who risk their lives every day, and endanger the lives of troops who go to war with politically distorted intelligence, deserve the hottest place of all.
Let the courts decide the law, but I guarantee that when the sun has set on the Administration now in power, those who did these dirty deeds will be indicted by the court of history, while others will have to clean up the mess they leave.
BEWARE OF THE ARMITAGE RED HERRING
Whether Armitage was the "first" to tell Bob Novak about Valerie Plame is an interesting piece of the puzzle, but it doesn't in anyway change the fact that the White House, with the knowledge of Bush and Cheney, sought to expose a CIA operative and endanger the national security of the United States as a result. Indeed, as Cheney does Round II of assembling Weapons of Mass Destruction data in order to justify another war, it should be recalled that Valerie Plame was a specialist in tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction. There has, indeed, been speculation that she knew a good deal about WMDs and Iran.
The forthcoming book, "Hubris," by David Corn and Michael Isikoff, may be a good read. But the Newsweek excerpt this coming week and Corn's own account of the Armitage leak may mislead people into thinking that somehow the White House wasn't behind the whole thing.
Libby, if we recall, met with Armitage the week before his meeting with Woodward -- and it was Libby that requested a State Department backgrounder as to how Joe Wilson came to be sent to Niger.
Finally, Corn, in his own web account of the Newsweek excerpt, notes "Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh subsequently accused him [Armitage] of providing 'false testimony' to investigators but said that he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Armitage's misstatements had been 'deliberate.')
So, the fundamental facts and betrayal of the nation at the heart of PlameGate have not been altered one iota.
And we doubt that Armitage is the naive innocent that Corn and Isikoff appear to make him out to be.
In fact, no one has accused Armitage of being anything but a combat-tested kind of guy.
When a firing squad is assembled to execute someone, does anyone care whose bullet hit first.
======================
And Brett Bdowsky in The Huffington Post:
Leak Case: On Bob Novak, The Washington Post, and the Winds of War
With the latest "news" on this case, several points should be clearly understood at the outset. First, Dick Armitage's role was widely and publicly discussed as early as March, and second, Dick Armitage clearly screwed up but was NOT the original source of the leak. While he does share moral culpability, the driving force behind the leak came from the neocon and partisan wings of the White House.
It is their spin, and nothing more, to try to defend themselves by shifting blame to the anti-Iraq war Armitage, and to the anti-Iraq war State Department, who they believe "needs an American desk." If Armitage never existed the leaks would have happened exactly the same way. If the White House-neocon axis never existed the leaks would never have happened. Whatever the shortcomings of Armitage and State, the real culpability for the identity disclosures reside elsewhere and progressives should be very careful to avoid unknowingly pushing the neocon line.
This whole episode of a political vendetta that involved distorting the debate about WMD in Iraq and naming intelligence identities is the single most shameful, unpatriotic, and totally dishonorable business that I have seen from the moment I first set foot in Washington.
And let me disclose my one and only bias: to protect the men and women who serve our country courageously and covertly, and the men and women of foreign nations who help our country courageously and covertly.
I was in the core group of writers of the CIA Identities Bill from the beginning, working for its original sponsor, Senator Bentsen. I was sufficiently involved to have been commended at the level of Director of Central Intelligence. There were many others involved in this law, from both parties. I only state my history to make it clear that my views on this are not stated casually, offered politically or arrived at recently.
I know a lot about the covert business on both the policy and operational sides and this whole business of "naming names" is sickening, nauseating and the ultimate symbol of how far Washington under George Bush has come from what used to be the nonpartisan treatment of intelligence and the traditional standards of honor.
I have always refused to comment, even in off the record conversations with journalists, on the legal guilt or innocence of any party in this case. That is a decision by the legal system, without trial by media, and without trial by partisans. But this matter affects the core of our national security, the heart of our decision- making process about going to war, and the soul of our spirit of patriotism and honor that should rule out public disclosure of intelligence identities by any person, for any reason, ever.
The same people most responsible for peddling Plames name were the same people peddling WMD stories to Judy Miller and others.
Sadly, shamefully, the issue lives. We now have the House Intelligence Committee issuing a public report attacking Iran-related intel that is clearly designed to bang the war drums for an attack on Iran, and to politicize intelligence for ideology and partisanship yet again. We almost certainly do have shortcomings about intelligence from Iran, in part caused by the very people who try to manipulate the issue, in part caused by events and mistakes, but this should be used and abused to push yet another rush, to another unwise war.
One point that the neoconservatives and the partisan right has never understood is this: when they say don't negotiate with this country or that country, don't do business with this country or that country, the result is that major intelligence dries up. That's how it works. On a country by country basis, sometimes it is best to negotiate, or not; to trade, or not. But the way intelligence works, much intelligence comes directly or indirectly from the processes and people of diplomacy and world trade.
It is disingenuous or dishonest for some to say we should go to war with everyone, negotiate with no one, have sanctions against everyone, and then attack the intelligence loss from their very obsessive policies. And I would repeat my point that those who are universally hostile to diplomacy and universally favorable to war should be asked: where will you get the troops, and do you favor a return to the draft?
All of the pressures, distortions, politicization of intelligence cannot hide or mask this matter, as we witness today in Iraq, while the drums of war are being banged again by those who know little about how to fight wars, how to win wars, or how to exit the wars they rush into.
They never learn. They should be respecting, not demeaning, the advice of our military commanders. They should be improving and analyzing the product of intelligence, not twisting or distorting it, to push a predetermined policy for yet another war.
This business about leaking identities is not only about partisan and political vendettas. It is about how and when we go to war, how and when we should not go to war, and why it is so fundamentally important that intelligence should be based on facts and truth, and not twisted and distorted for the ideology of going to war, or the partisanship of exploiting war.
What went wrong in Iraq, is that the democratic process of making the decision to wage war was corrupted and warped from the beginning.
There is plenty to blame to be apportioned, on all sides, for that. It is not partisan. The issue for us, today, is that we not repeat these corruptions again. Intelligence must be returned to its pre-Bush nonpartisanship. Intelligence must be used objectively, to help us achieve the most acceptable outcome in Iraq, and to avoid repeating the fiasco elsewhere.
In my view, whatever the legalities, there is a special place in hell on this issue for Bob Novak, who named the name, and for the Washington Post Editorial Page, which then published the name, and for Bob Woodward, who attacked the prosecutor without disclosing to his readers or the nation his private interest in the case. Though I will give Woodward credit for this: he never published the Plame story, and neither did Judy Miller, by the way.
This whole episode demonstrates how far from traditional moral and patriotic bearing Washington has come, during what historians will call, not fondly, the Bush years. In this environment anything goes, and insiders, surrounded by courtiers, substitute politics and spin for honesty and truth even on the matter of going to war.
Whatever the legal outcome, on fundamental issues of patriotism, morality and honor there is a higher standard for those of us who know how the real world works, on these matters.
Bob Novak is a smart guy who has been around this town for decades. The Washington Post is the paper of record for the national security establishment in Washington and knows exactly how real world intelligence works. These are people who chortled when Bill Clinton defined what is, is, and now they chortle playing word games with what "covert" is.
Without getting into details, right now, today, as you read these words there are brave and courageous Americans working under cover, risking their lives, often giving their lives, to defend our security. Right now, today, as you read these words there are brave and equally courageous foreigners working with our people, some for ulterior motives, others are authentic freedom and democracy fighters in their native lands.
Intelligence can help us avoid wars; intelligence can help us minimize casualties of wars; and intelligence can help us avoid obsessive and disastrously planned wars. Had this been applied before Iraq, we would not be in the mess. If this is applied going forward, we can avoid a future mess at a time when some seem to want war, everywhere.
When any identity is published, by any party, for any reason, at any time, every single one of them is disserved. The message goes out, we cannot be trusted with secrets. Some new information goes out, which can be traced back to our people, or our friends. Our communities are endangered and the terrorists and hostile governments are helped.
The same people who bang the drums of war the loudest, are helping our enemies, by disclosing names. They are hurting our troops, by distorting our intelligence that is so essential to knowing when to wage war and how to wage it, when we must, and why to avoid it, when we can.
Let the courts decide the law, but those who do these dirty deeds deserve a special place in hell, and those who never risked their lives for our country themselves, and endanger the lives of covert people who risk their lives every day, and endanger the lives of troops who go to war with politically distorted intelligence, deserve the hottest place of all.
Let the courts decide the law, but I guarantee that when the sun has set on the Administration now in power, those who did these dirty deeds will be indicted by the court of history, while others will have to clean up the mess they leave.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Everyone is claiming Patrick Fitzgerald is not charging Rove with anything. Everyone except for Patrick Fitzgerald. Why hasn't he announced anything?
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html
But yeah, it's probably true. Since we have those hand-written notes that all but implicates him, my theory is he's cut a deal.
Cheer up, everybody.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html
But yeah, it's probably true. Since we have those hand-written notes that all but implicates him, my theory is he's cut a deal.
Cheer up, everybody.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Lawyer announces Rove will not be charged in CIA case
As disappointing as this is, I'm also so relieved I saw through those phony left-wing blog reports declaring Rove's demise. Jason Leopold and Wayne Madsen should be on bread lines.
As disappointing as this is, I'm also so relieved I saw through those phony left-wing blog reports declaring Rove's demise. Jason Leopold and Wayne Madsen should be on bread lines.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler