Waas On Plame And Libby

Investigative reporter Murray Waas has been doing a terrific job on the Plame story for months.  Today he has a piece in TAP which wraps up some of the latest developments in the Judy Miller saga, and fluffs the Tim Russert story.  JeraLynn Merritt of TalkLeft does the heavy lifting on the main points:

(1)  Ms. Miller is in jail for declining to testify about her conversations with Lewis Libby; the WaPo told us this on July 16, although they waffle sometimes.

(2)  There was apparently a face-to-face meeting between Libby and Miller on July 8, so in addition to a conversation, there may (or may not) be a document involved.  The document may have been shown by Libby to Miller, or vice versa.  Since the document is mentioned in the subpoena, and Libby has testified, we are inclined to think there is something to this, since who else would know?

(3)  Ms. Miller is stuck on the question of a personal, credible, uncoerced waiver.  Mr. Waas presents both views (Miller intransigent / Libby uncooperative), but in my humble right-wing opinion, he gives too much play to the "Libby uncooperative" theory.  It is not up to Libby's attorneys to open private negotiations with Ms. Miller's team about the circumstances under which she will testify - folks would have good reason to scream "Collusion!"

On the other hand, if Fitzgerald orders Libby to negotiate and/or oversees the effort, any resulting deal may (Miller might argue) be viewed as coerced.  A conundrum.  But let's note four things:

(a) Libby and Fitzgerald have managed to work out deals with four other reporters;

(b) no one has shown evidence that Libby is declining to cooperate with Fitzgerald; and

(c) no one has offered any evidence that Miller is reaching out and looking for a deal.

[However, we have this from E&P:

Adam Liptak, who reports on legal affairs for The Times, stated to NPR's Terry Gross on August 2: "Judy and her lawyers have declined to answer the question of whether they have done anything at all to contact the source and try to obtain a satisfactory waiver" that would permit her to break confidentiality and testify before the grand jury.]

(d) folks have suggested motives (book deal, reputational rehab) for Ms. Miller to play first-amendment martyr.  (And Arianna breaks news - the Times may do an expose on Miller, to avoid being scooped!) As Fitzgerald noted in one of his filings, a woman who spent time as an embedded reporter in the Iraqi desert may not be afraid of four months in jail.

(4)  Murray Waas, in an aside, clears Tim Russert of passing the information about Ms. Plame to Libby.  Since he has nothing in quotes, we fear that he has fallen prey to the Isikoff trap of recycling the too-specific Aug 2004 NBC press release without paying attention to the nuances.  This was reported in Aug 2004:

Russert told Fitzgerald that he did not know Plame’s name or that she was a CIA operative and that he did not provide that information to Libby, it said.

And here is what Mr. Liptak of the Times got when he tried to update the story this July:

Mr. Russert's testimony last August provides intriguing clues. A statement issued by NBC at the time suggests that Mr. Libby had told Mr. Fitzgerald that he had heard about Ms. Wilson from Mr. Russert.

According to the statement, lawyers for Mr. Russert and Mr. Fitzgerald reached an agreement under which Mr. Fitzgerald questioned Mr. Russert only about Mr. Russert's end of a conversation in early July 2003 with Mr. Libby. That would be an unusual way to go about pursuing a leak inquiry, but it is consistent with an attempt to try to establish that Mr. Russert provided information to Mr. Libby.

Mr. Russert, however, according to the NBC statement, said "he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a C.I.A. operative and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby." Indeed, the statement said, Mr. Russert first learned the information from Mr. Novak's column.

A spokeswoman for NBC declined to elaborate on the statement yesterday.

Well, fine, but did Russert tell Libby that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and was involved in sending him on the trip?  No name, no "operative" - and no comment from NBC.

Until a reporter gets something specific and in quotes, we should hold off on clearing Mr. Russert.  (And did it happen on "Meet the Press" today?  Harry Shearer says it did not.)

And I would love to ask Mr. Waas about this, if his contact info were available.  I don't see it at his blog.

UPDATE:  On Russert, let's keep Bloomberg in the mix:

Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, one person said. Russert has testified before Fitzgerald that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity, the person said.

Emphasis added.  Too specific.  And why do we need leaks from Russo-philic NBC Weasels to wriggle him off the hook?  Let the man speak!

UPDATE 2:  The Anonymous Liberal wants to know why we aren't hearing more (or any!) "Don't blame me, it's her fault" leaks from Libby or his camp.  Good question.  A possibility - as usual, the press has moved on and Libby has drawn little heat, so riding out this stalemate may be a winning play.  That said, we thank Murray Waas for the kind words and learn that Congressman John Conyers is trying to create some heat for Libby.  Without coercing him, of course.

Comments

[Geek, Esq.]

Argh, TM.

That Reuters story, which is much more clear as to what Russert did and did not say, that I linked to the other day should be part of the conversation, no?

[peapies]

"The document may have been shown by Libby to Miller, or vice versa.  Since the document is mentioned in the subpoena, and Libby has testified, we are inclined to think there is something to this, since who else would know?"

if it were the visa versa...the person(s) who supplied it to Miller?

[TM]

Geek - you are absolutely right, although it does not change my conclusion.

As I recall, that Reuters story was the Bloomberg story (Boy, I hope I am right about that). I thought it got picked up in my "Isikoff" link, but apparently not.

Here is a link to the Sun-Times, and a link to Bloomberg. The key paragraph:

Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, one person said. Russert has testified before Fitzgerald that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity, the person said.

Emphasis added. That source could be a Russo-philic NBC Weasel.

[Syl]

Rove could be off the technical hook for leaking classified info. (Except maybe what he said to Cooper. But do we know the EXACT words he used?) Rove may really have heard it first from a reporter. And then passed it on in a 'he said', 'I heard it, too' manner.

The INR memo may be another red herring as far as Rove is concerned. It's possible that the Wilson wife thing was deemed important only in that it explained how that hot-headed ambassador made the trip. The memo, and the hustling, at the time had to do with pinning down the Niger intel, getting those ducks lined up again, no? Comparing what Wilson said about the trip and what he learned, to what they knew. So, perhaps, the wife part of the INR memo didn't get passed along to Rove.

(On the other hand the wife bit could have been a gigantic Holy Sh*t and gossiped around to everyone.)

But I'm inclined to be skeptical of a reporter discovering on his/her own that Valery, Joe's wife, recommended Joe for the trip. (Miller, perhaps but I'm not so sure even there.)

Reporters might know that Wilson's wife was CIA, yeah. But how would they know she recommended Joe for the journey? Well, they didn't have to know that actually.

But why would a reporter offer up the info that Valery worked at the CIA out of the blue?

Perhaps a SAO said something like 'Wilson's wife recommended him for the trip' and a reporter said 'makes sense, she's with the CIA' or something like that.

In other words, somebody had to prime the pump. And if the wording wasn't more than that, is that a bad thing? I mean those words could be comprehended as 'Wilson's wife has a close friend in the CIA'.

The specific words spoken are very important to judge legality, I think.

So, I do think folks were trying to get the word out that Wilson's wife sent him on the trip. But one reporter wasn't enough. Reporters aren't going to talk to each other and spread the word (each would want the scoop) and not all reporters are going to take the bait, so more than one is necessary.

Libby talked to Russert (who didn't bite). He talked to Miller (who didn't bite, either). But he may have used a different tactic with Miller. Since she was privy already to a lot of wmd stuff, he may have shown her something that was classified about the Niger intel on the pretext of explaining the intel situation to her in light of Wilson's article. Perhaps she was already a go to in the press for this type of intel. That kind of thing happens more than we'd like to know about.

(Aside, there's a reporter I won't identify that my Joe told me once leaks classified info like a seive. Joe says nobody's ever done anything about it.)

But, whaddya know, Libby didn't redact the stuff about Valery Wilson so she saw that too. Mission Accomplished.

Then Novak.

Libby seems to have been a busy beaver. But, Rove had to be in on it because he'd probably be called for confirmation or clarification or whatever.

Sorry, this is as long as some of JBG's stuff.

[Syl]

Man, I write a long thing and don't really make myself clear. Rove could be off the technical classification leak hook, but still there is some sort of conspiracy to get the info out there. Being so careful with words shows that he/both knew exactly what they were doing.

Then, the Miller thing, if she was indeed a go to type who got peeks at classified stuff, it wouldn't be in her interest to let that fact go public and it could possibly get her into further trouble. I think neither Miller nor Libby want her to testify.

[Jim E.]

TM wrote: "The document may have been shown by Libby to Miller, or vice versa."

Yes. But the article, however slightly, emphasizes the likeihood that Libby was showing to Miller over the Miller-showing-to-Libby scenario. It's worth noting, since you did note the article's slight emphasis on Libby's supposed lack of cooperation.

Syl wrote: "Then, the Miller thing, if she was indeed a go to type who got peeks at classified stuff, it wouldn't be in her interest to let that fact go public and it could possibly get her into further trouble. I think neither Miller nor Libby want her to testify."

I agree with this totally. I think both Miller and Libby have incentive for Miller to keep her mouth shut.

[Guy]

Syl wrote: "Then, the Miller thing, if she was indeed a go to type who got peeks at classified stuff, it wouldn't be in her interest to let that fact go public and it could possibly get her into further trouble. I think neither Miller nor Libby want her to testify."

I agree with this totally. I think both Miller and Libby have incentive for Miller to keep her mouth shut.

This would offer a potential motive for the NYT's head honchos to cover for Miller as well, if they want their reporters to keep peeking at classified stuff. Not sure whether I believe that, but there you go.

[Geek, Esq.]

You're right TM, that was a Bloomberg story. That's what happens when I post from the office on a Sunday.

My take on the Bloomberg case is that the informant for that piece of information was a "person familiar with the case."

Isn't that code for either someone associated with the prosecutor's office or an attorney for a witness?

My guess is that it's Timmay's lawyer.

[boris]

The whole thing has many of the characteristics of a big show investigation that's going nowhere fast but has managed to put a lot of players on notice that they've got something to lose. That way when the charade goes bust in the dust everyone will breathe a big sigh of relief and not dig too deep into what went wrong. Meanwhile certain watchers from the balcony are learning who's been naughty and who's been nice for future reference.

[Syl]

And if true, then she is really, even though we impugn her motives, in jail on principle.

This is truly a first amendment issue.

I've felt it was principle with Miller, rather than something else, but until this aspect of it occured to me (from reading the linked article) the whole thing didn't click.

She's not protecting Libby, she's protecting the journalist/source relationship.

[Jim E.]

"This is truly a first amendment issue."

Actually, no, it's not.

"she's protecting the journalist/source relationship."

Maybe. If so, this is the principle at stake. Not the same thing as the first amendment.

And if Miller got and shared the info with Libby for the express purpose of helping the administration attempt to discredit Wilson (instead of for a story she intended to write), then she is hardly acting on principle. She wouldn't be acting as a journalist under this scenario. Yes, I'm completely speculating.

In any case, there's way too little information to be giving Miller pats on the back.

[TM]

This new E&P story belongs in the mix. And this is timely:

Adam Liptak, who reports on legal affairs for The Times, stated to NPR's Terry Gross on August 2: "Judy and her lawyers have declined to answer the question of whether they have done anything at all to contact the source and try to obtain a satisfactory waiver" that would permit her to break confidentiality and testify before the grand jury.

[MeTooThen]

Syl,

Please.

The notion of a journalist "protecting" their source has heretofore meant that the quid pro quo, information-for-anonymity, would be respected at all costs.

In this case, Mr. Fitzgerald already knows who Ms. Miller's source is. In fact, he has already interviewed that source as part of the grand jury.

Furthermore, that source has given their consent to Ms. Miller that she may testify and answer Mr. Fitzgerald's pointed questions.

This is not, in any way, shape, or form, a First Amendment, Constitutional issue.

That members of the press, Ms. Miller and others included, have chosen to claim that is, does not make it so.

Really, now.

[TM]

I agree with this totally. I think both Miller and Libby have incentive for Miller to keep her mouth shut.

Sign me up to make three. I have said this before - if I were advising Libby, I would not be unhappy with a situation where Fitzgerald is stalled.

Full exoneration would be better, but Miller's memory may be a crapshoot (and who says full exoneration is what her testimony woulddeliver?)

Although having said that, would Libby have testified to committing a crime? And if he had taken the Fifth wouldn't that have leaked? Well, maybe not, if the leakers are all friendly lawyers.

[Seven Machos]

Oh. My. God. I actually agree with something Jim E. said.

Journalists have no right to withhold information.

[TM]

Here is the "Meet The Press" transcript for Aug 7 No mention of Plame, Libby, or Fitzgerald.

[Les Nessman]

"There was apparently .. there may (or may not) be a document involved... may have been shown .. or vice versa. .. we are inclined to think there is something to this,..
..presents both views .. but in my humble right-wing opinion, .. if Fitzgerald orders... may (Miller might argue) be viewed .. suggested motives the Times.. may do an expose ..may not be afraid of four months in jail.

..we fear that he has fallen prey .. A statement issued by NBC at the time suggests ... one person said.... the person said...

..if it were the visa versa ...(Except maybe what he said .. But do we know the EXACT words he used?) ...Rove may really have heard .. may be another red herring.. ..It's possible that ...So, perhaps, the wife part ... perhaps but I'm not so sure ...
..Reporters might know..
...Perhaps a SAO said something like ...or something like that....

..And if the wording wasn't ..words could be comprehended as ... But he may have used ...he may have shown her ..Perhaps she was already a go ...seems to have been a busy beaver...he'd probably be called for confirmation or clarification or whatever....

...Rove could be off the technical classification leak hook, but still there is some sort of conspiracy ... if she was indeed .. a potential motive for the NYT's ...My guess is that.. And if true, ...
..Maybe.... If so,if Miller got and shared... Yes, I'm completely speculating....

..there's way too little information ... may be a crapshoot ... And if he had taken the Fifth ... Well, maybe not, if the leakers ...."

Lord, the speculation.

[Syl]

Jim E

"Maybe. If so, this is the principle at stake. Not the same thing as the first amendment. "

MeTooThen

"This is not, in any way, shape, or form, a First Amendment, Constitutional issue."

Of course it is.

The principle involved is the protection of the First Amendment rights of sources.

These rights are not limited to stuff like the Pentagon Papers. Even bad politicians revealing nasty things are covered by the First Amendment which doesn't care a whit about motive.

Right now, Miller's source has been identified, but not the content of information that passed between them. Revealing that would betray her source. And if he is betrayed what source would feel comfortable coming forward in the future with the shocking news that Bush burps after every meal.

I had heard that Abrams, Miller's lawyer, had decided to fight this on a First Amendment basis, so that might explain why he will neither confirm or deny any attempt to get a special waiver from Libby, as Tom noted above. I'm assuming he didn't try. They're going for civil disobedience instead. Something I'm sure you'll agree is a 'good thing' rather than a 'bad thing'. After all, dissent is the highest form of patriotism. ::rolling eyes::

[Seven Machos]

Syl: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Suppose a guy tells me he committed a crime. I get subpoenaed for the trial I refuse to testify. Is this a First Amendment issue?

It's not. I don't have the right to withhold information from a court of law. Neither do you. Neither does Judy Miller. Neither does anybody, unless they are themselves on trial. The press has no special rights that you and I don't have, particularly in federal court.

Floyd Abrams may be angling to make this a First Amendment issue because he thinks he can pawn that argument off on a sympathetic jury if Miller stays in jail long off such that she becomes eligible for a trial. I'd be shocked if that was the plan, and more shocked if that plan works.

[Syl]

You'll go to jail just like Judith. There are certain relationships that are protected, or semi protected. Like doctor/patient and lawyer/client. But stuff like a guy telling you he committed a crime is not one of them. I'm sure it's been tested :)

But because of journalism's duty to inform the public and the necessity to protect the first amendment rights of whistleblowers, there are already shield laws in most states.

Abrams is probably angling to be sure there is federal one as well. But there isn't one yet and Judith is doing civil disobedience by breaking the law and sitting in jail.

[SamAm]

If Russert testified only about what he told Libby and not about where he learned the information (and this is, I hope, a correct understanding) then I think Russert's role in this is being overblown (unless he says he heard it on the cocktail circuit). Likewise with the extreme probability that Libby was walking around with docs that spelled out Plame's status and supposed role and was leaking them. No way Russert knew the specifics of Plame's role. That's why they had the conversation, after all. To inform Russert.

I think the genesis of the information is something of a red herring. Once the information entered the minds and belongings of the SAO's involved, they had a responsibility to protect classified information. That clearly didn't happen, and the "but a few people in DC had some vague knowledge of the matter" defense is pretty weak. You could say that for a whole host of other classified information, but the government doesn't exactly go around dumping secret information from zepplins.

Also, do we have a date for the Russert-Libby coversation? Novak talked to source one on July 8th at the very latest (that was the day he talked to Rove). So obviously this information was being reviewed and passed around the senior echelons of the administration around that time. Russet either told them nothing (bad) or told them something (bad) that was checked against documents we know existed or told them everything in excruciating detail, in which case his source would be in trouble and the WH still would have either known or checked the information (bad).

I don't think Russert matters as much as maybe TM hopes he does. His telling something to Libby doesn't help the White House all that much.

[Jim E.]

"The principle involved is the protection of the First Amendment rights of sources."

Well, everyone does have first amendment rights, including "sources." But your sentence doesn't make any sense since no one is preventing the "sources'" first amendment rights. The sources' first amendment rights are not at issue. Besides, I thought you were patting Miller on the back (incorrectly) for HER first amendment rights, not her sources' rigihts.

"Judith is . . . breaking the law and sitting in jail."

This is correct. She's breaking the law. Much different than her constitutional rights being violated.

I don't have it in front of me, but I didn't think the NYTimes ever argued -- in its newspages, anyways -- that reporters had special rights not to cooperate with investigations. I know that the NY Times reporter who went to jail in the late 1970s specifically said he never thought he had constitutional protection. He went to jail to protect his source, and always knew it might come to that -- he never thought the First Amendment would cover him.

Doctor/patient and lawyer/client laws DO exist and are respected by federal courts, unlike reporter/source laws. But even then, no laws are absolute.

[kim]

Has Judith Miller broken the law, or is she being held in contempt?
========================================

[Jim E.]

kim is correct. But my larger points still stand.

[jukeboxgrad]

Jim E is right. Syl, here's why it's not a first amendment issue. The first amendment guarantees your right to speak up. It doesn't guarantee your right to speak up secretly (i.e., as an anonymous source). Maybe it should. Maybe we wish it did. But it doesn't.

"because of journalism's duty to inform the public and the necessity to protect the first amendment rights of whistleblowers, there are already shield laws in most states."

To some extent the reason why we need, and have, whistleblower laws and shield laws is because the first amendment does not guarantee your right to speak anonymously. Therefore it's incorrect and misleading to refer to "the first amendment rights of whistleblowers." There is no such thing. Whistleblower rights and first amendment rights should be understood as separate matters.

Sam said: "... the genesis of the information is something of a red herring. Once the information entered the minds and belongings of the SAO's involved, they had a responsibility to protect classified information."

This key point is worth repeating because certain people have trouble grasping this.

[Syl]

JBG

"Whistleblower rights and first amendment rights should be understood as separate matters."

You love making stuff up as you go along. LOL.
You're confused, as usual, and defining things for yourself so you've put the horse behind the cart.

Whistleblower rights are derived from First Amendment rights. Shield laws are to protect journalists who don't want to betray whistleblowers because if whistleblowers are betrayed, journalists can't fulfil their first amendment rights of informing the public.

[Trelaney]

There has been much focus on the media people we know from television (Bob Novak, Tim Russert) and on some lesser known print reporters (Judy Miller, Walter Pincus, Matt Cooper). And much speculation about Karl Rove and a little about Lewis Libby. This is is all very interesting. But we still don't know any more about how faulty, even forged, intelligence was used to build the case for war in Iraq. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee won't touch this. It will be up to investigative reporters - whether in the MSM or blogosphere - to dig into this issue.

[kim]

Well, Jim E, what Judith interprets as a constitutional right, to remain silent, is being interpreted by the judge as a contemptuous act. So what is it, a contemptuous right?

By the way, I really like that phrase, a 'contemptuous right'. I claim that one for myself.
===============================================

[Jim E.]

Yes, the Republican COngress won't question issues of war. But baseball players on steroids -- let's get a committee together! Let's investigate! Maybe Raffy PP committed perjury -- how dare he fudge the truth on such a significant matter!

But questions about war, the most important and serious issue a nation can face? Naaaah. Just irrational anti-Bush hatred. Congress should stick to sports.

P.S. Please ignore Senator Roberts' previous promise to investigate the politicization of intelligence.

P.P.S. Clap louder.

[kim]

Your bitterness is causing you to rave. Intellignece is always politicized. The politicians are supposed to turn analysis into policy. The question here is why the CIA thought they were politicians to decide policy. Simply put, they were whack.
============================================

[Jim E.]

"The question here is why the CIA thought they were politicians to decide policy. Simply put, they were whack."

Speaking of "whack," why did Bush give the head of the CIA a medal of freedom?

[Jim E.]

But thanks for admitting Bush and Co. politicized the intelligence. That's more than they would admit.

[Jim E.]

Syl wrote to JBG: "You love making stuff up as you go along."

Of course, you're the one saying Miller is constitutionally protected, when she's clearly not. She is in jail, after all. (Then again, you also admit she's in violation of the law, so who knows what you mean to say.)

You compared the reporter/source relationship to the doctor/patient relationship in your make-it-up-as-you-go-along defense of this as a First Amendment issue. How does that make sense? Did Rush Limbaugh argue his (losing) case on First Amendment grounds?

[Trelaney]

Kim, does intelligence have to be politicized? Policy-making is by definition political. But do we want intelligence gathering to be politicized? And intelligence analysis? Should our Congressmen and the public be allowed to know only those tidbits of intelligence that are "fixed" to the White House policy position? We deserve better. But we won't get it from the current Administration nor from their apologists.

[Tulsan]

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence should be renamed the "Senate Committee on Selective Intelligence". Their Chairman willingly cooperates with the political use of intelligence. Maybe Pat Roberts regards himself as a loyal American as well as a loyal Republican. That is fine; just don't pretend to be interested in the truth.

The White House selectively leaks information that bolsters their position, often to a group of cooperative reporters of whom Judy Miller is one of the most cooperative. But if anyone publicizes intelligence findings that run counter to the White House position, many commentators here label them as traitors.

[j.foster]

all i know is , if i'm jammed up i want fitz and company to go after me . it will be decades before i'm charged. i might be able to out run the limitation clause. over two years and millions spent, and it's--quick get the phone logs.

[Tulsan]

J. Foster - The White House has already figured out that the phone logs show only who outside talked to who inside on calls that were logged. They don't show who said what. Hence the stories that the reporters told the White House officials, not the other way around. The only way for the Prosecutor to dig further is to interview both parties to the conversation, and possibly any third parties that either listened in or heard one side of the conversation. Mr. Fitzgerald needs Ms. Miller to confirm what Mr. Libby has already testified and she refuses to talk. So there is likely only one version of that conversation.

[Syl]

Jim E

I did not say that Miller is constitutionally protected. I said this is a first amendment issue for her, her source, and her lawyers. As of now she has no protection and is sitting in jail for contempt of court.

[j.foster]

tulsan. got it. thanks

[Syl]

Trelany

Would you be okay with taking Saddam down if we found a warehouse of chemicals?

Would you be okay with taking Saddam down if we found that he was bribing people, including UN members, to erode the sanctions?

Would you be okay with taking Saddam down if we discovered there was a make-nukes-easy network that Saddam could partake of after sanctions were lifted?

Would you be okay with taking Saddam down if we found his WMD programs were still in place, though inactive, and ready to get going as soon as he felt safe to start them up? Like when sanctions were lifted?

Would you be okay with taking Saddam down if you believed he was a gathering threat even though he wasn't an imminent one?

Would you be okay with taking Saddam down if you reread all the news articles from the '90's pointing out Saddam's relationship with bin laden?

Would you be okay with taking Saddam down if a Democrat were president?

[Tommy V]

"Speaking of "whack," why did Bush give the head of the CIA a medal of freedom?"

This has upset a lot of people because of the bad intelligence in Iraq.

Remember, however, that the CIA were the only ones able to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan immediately. While the military needed considerable time to prep, Tenet stepped up and said he could put operatives in Afghanistan and work contacts with the Northern Alliance promptly .

In BUSH AT WAR Woodward illustrates how the CIA stepped up when the military wasn' quite ready and how much it meant to Bush that he was able to do something quickly after September 11th. Afghanistan was primarily a CIA/Special Forces victory.

The medal was most likely for that. One can argue all day whether the bad intelligence in Iraq should have canceled out the phenomenal work Tenet did in Afghanistan.

[Trelaney]

Syl, I'm OK with a lot of scenarios for taking down Saddam starting with when we should have done it in 1991. What I'm not OK with is being lied to and (the same thing really) being shown selective evidence. Beyond that, I'm not OK that we have so badly bungled the occupation at tremendous cost in lives and money. Now that we all know what the Administration knew then, there was no reason to rush into war without an adequate plan and without sufficient troop strength and equipment.

Syl, are you OK with having half of our combat troops tied down in Iraq 27 months after the "end of active combat operations" at a cost of $1,000,000,000 every week?

[spongeworthy]

I'm curious about this line of off-topic blather from the site-lefties. Do you maintain that the CIA was "fixing" WMD intel at the behest of the White House? How do you explain the very same intel, which brought forth the very same conclusions regarding WMD's, from the prior administration?

You guys want to keep after the Bushies for trying to influence the intel, yet you can see the very same conclusions wrought from the very same intel from the Clintons. How exactly does this scenario work?

I don't need to waste bandwidth posting that list of quotes from various CA poobahs, do I?

[spongeworthy]

Syl, are you OK with having half of our combat troops tied down in Iraq 27 months after the "end of active combat operations" at a cost of $1,000,000,000 every week?

Can't speak for Syl, but at least they accomplish something. They were massed at the border for months waiting for the U.N. and the noble human shields to get Saddam to comply and accomplished nothing at tremendous expense. You can lament the cost, as I'm sure we all do, but waiting around for Saddam to comply was too expensive and too humiliating for the world's best military.

I don't think Americans are up for too much jacking around by Arab strongmen, especially after 9-11.

[Jim E.]

"waiting around for Saddam to comply was too expensive and too humiliating for the world's best military."

Slowly but surely, Saddam WAS complying and amassing troops at the border was way, way cheaper in terms of blood and treasure than what is currently happening. In terms of "humiliation," I think the military is doing a great job in Iraq. The credibility of the U.S. as a whole, however, is taking a beating, and if things don't get better in Iraq over the next 5-10 years, the U.S. will definitely suffer humiliation that was totally unnecessary.

Besides humiliation, what about national security and military preparedness? In 2000, Bush accused the Clinton administration of thinning out U.S. troops too much. Given what's going on now, that charge by Bush is laughable. We don't have enough troops now; what if something else heats up elsewhere?

[Jim E.]

"Would you be okay with taking Saddam down if a Democrat were president?"

If the left has any credibility at all, it is the willingness of it to blame its own for military fuck-ups. See Chicago, 1968.

[Syl]

"Syl, are you OK with having half of our combat troops tied down in Iraq 27 months after the "end of active combat operations" at a cost of $1,000,000,000 every week?"

I'm not happy with war. Period. But if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. I agreed on the whole get rid of Saddam thing and democracy for the Iraqi people because all through the '90's I remember hearing about how dangerous and what a bad guy Saddam is.

Leaving Saddam in place would be like running away before the job was done. After 9/11 it was imperative to be the strong horse and rid the world of a gathering threat. Iraq was the best of a bad lot of choices.

And, what Spongeworthy said.

[kim]

Jim E, and Trelaney. The CIA had politicized the analysis of intelligence. The Admin, the politicians, the ones charged constitutionally with turning analysis into policy shouldn't be criticized for politicizing things; that's their role. You seem to object to them refusing to let the CIA politicize its work. You have things backwards.
=

[Syl]

JimE

"The credibility of the U.S. as a whole, however, is taking a beating,"

Wishful thinking on your part. I call bs.

If your expectations haven't been met yet, then that only says something about your expectations. Bush always said this would be a long hard slog.

[Trelaney]

Even though the CIA took the hit for the bad intelligence, much of the worst stuff didn't come through them at all. The forged documents related to Niger yellowcake came through Defense Intelligence. Other information (aluminum tubes, mobile labs) was fed by Chalabi's people to anyone and everyone who would buy off on it, including (to get back on track here) the inestimable Judy Miller.

The CIA should not be politicizing intelligence any more than the Administration.