Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Yet Another Open Libby Thread | Main | Open Matt Cooper Thread, And A Bad Day For Dickerson »

January 31, 2007

Comments

Patton

This Zeidenberg person should lose their law license. Claiming writing a note of something someone else told you (Matalin proclaims Wilson a snake) shows your state of mind.

So every note I've taken in meetings shows MY state of mind, not the person speaking.
ludicrous

Patton

Foe the life of me I can't figure out, since Miller said she 'started calling everyone' to find out info on Wilson why
didn't Welss ask her if she bothered to review her phone records.

It SHOULD HAVE WENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS:
SIMULATION
Miller: The I started calling everyone.

Wells: Oh, you did, well since your note are so cryptic, did you happened to look at your phone records to refresh your memory?

Miller: No???...

Wells: Well, you did want to be helpful and forth coming with your testimony didn't you?

Miller: Well...

Wells: Were your phone records provided to the prosecution?

Miller: Ahhhh.....

Wells: Did you review those records at any point since that time?

Miller: I have to pee.....

SIMULATION...SIMULATION...SIMULATION

Syl

But the gist of her story - Libby discussed Plame with her before he claims to have heard about it from Tim Russert on July 10 or 11 - remains as a problem for the defense.

NO, it does not.

(everyone pat Sara on the back!--but NOT TOO HARD 'cause it'll hurt)

The BUREAU reference could have meant INR.

What do you bet Libby, who forgot Cheney told him she was CIA, was under the false impression that she was INR. He had heard about her from State, State involved in the meeting, 'she works there'.

The SURPRISE for Libby was when he learned, as if the first time, she was CIA!

June 23rd, he didn't know that.

alcibiades

Judy's lapses of memory seems to me to establish very clearly that without notes to rely on, it's possible to lose whole episodes of one's life.

I think she is an excellent test case of what happens to someone who does not have notes to rely on for such testimony, as was the case with Libby.

If Judy had been in Libby's place, and told the GR what she remembered, she would be the one indicted now for perjury.

It would be different if Fitz had allowed Libby to reconstruct his memory of what happened based on his notes. And then he had still misremembered.

I can't say his methodology is very practical or convicing, considering in toto all the lacunae his witnesses have produced, big enough for whole populations to fall into and be lost forever.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Wells a rule 29 conversation, the July 12 conversation, given the way she testified, we're going to take the position that that prong of obstruction cannot stand.'

I read the above to be Wells saying he's going to move to throw out the obstruction charge based on Judy's testimony.

One thing the Defense could have asked Judy was, 'Did Mr. Libby have access to your notebooks before he testified to the GJ?'

After she said no, then he could have said, 'Oh, then it's possible he forgot all about your conversations, as you did.'

It also seems that Matt Cooper helped Libby by admitting there had been, not one, but two, telephone conversations from the airport to Cooper's home. Cathie Martin didn't seem to know that.

topsecretk9

--It also seems that Matt Cooper helped Libby by admitting there had been, not one, but two, telephone conversations from the airport to Cooper's home. Cathie Martin didn't seem to know that.--

good catch.

Syl

Further

The conversation with ARI. How do we know Libby didn't say 'Wilson's wife sent him, not Cheney' and Ari later learns Wilson's wife is CIA and inserts that into his memory.

Libby is still thinking that Val is INR and INR was metting with CIA who may have had the idea but Val (at INR) suggested him for the trip.

Until Libby learned Val was actually CIA, the importance to him re Val was not that she was CIA or much of anything, but that she had offered him up to go to Niger.

It's possible he learned from Judy on the 8th (the 23rd is a red herring). It's possible he learned from Russert on the 10th.

Libby KNEW his wife was involved, he just didin't know (remember) specifically that she was CIA.

Syl

I had to laugh at FDL commenters.

Cooper is bulldog, he won't let anyone intimidate him and stuck to his story.

later:

Rove is bulldog, he wouln't let anyone dissuade him from his story. :(

Cooper GOOD Rove BAD

Gotta love it. LOL

Ranger

Wells a rule 29 conversation, the July 12 conversation, given the way she testified, we're going to take the position that that prong of obstruction cannot stand.

Hope Clarice can give us her take on that soon.

clarice

I'm back and will write something up soon.
Cooper was dreadful--Wells went thru his notes meticulously and established Cooper had nothing..He made the thing up to meet a deadline and Libby may well have told him just what he said he did. When the bottom line was clear that the story was made up (In "War Against Wilson?) Cooper responded well the headline ended in a question mark.

Plus he says he got more details --re name Plame and CIA obviously and she sent him--from Dickerson who in the media room still denied Fleischer told him anything..

The jury asked Miller some questions and pinned down absolutely that she would not testify until Fitz promised she'd not have to give up other sources.

They also wanted to know, among other thiings, if she normally archived her notes in a shopping bag under her desk.
And the defense moved to strike one of the obstruction counts based on her testimony as no testimony was ever put in to support it. More later..But this was as everyone of the reporters in the room conceded like watching sausage being made.

Syl

re COOPER

Two things stuck out in my mind.

1) Cooper said 'I didn't even know he had a wife'.

That's what fitz says Libby said Libby said and was a lie. Libby could have been quoting Cooper!

2) that 'n' 'r' switch OMI

How was it written?: 'didn't know it was ever'

and Jeffries says could have been:

'didn't know it was even true'.

Which is what Libby testified he told Cooper.

I think that's a bit of reasonable doubt there.

Man, lotsa doubt here (anyway) re Cooper's testimony. Seems he wants to remember what he BELIEVES rather than what happened.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Jeralyn seems to have wandered into a different courtroom entirely.

topsecretk9

--But this was as everyone of the reporters in the room conceded like watching sausage being made.--

i bet that's what it felt like.

--Man, lotsa doubt here (anyway) re Cooper's testimony. Seems he wants to remember what he BELIEVES rather than what happened.--

pretty much how he writes his stories too. Shoe. Fits.

Javani

Clarice:

""Plus he says he got more details --re name Plame and CIA obviously and she sent him--from Dickerson who in the media room still denied Fleischer told him anything..""

1. Clarice, I didn't catch that comment at FDL, specifically about the name Plame from Dickerson. Can you print text here?

""The jury asked Miller some questions and pinned down absolutely that she would not testify until Fitz promised she'd not have to give up other sources.""

Another ouchy for Fitz.

"They also wanted to know, among other thiings, if she normally archived her notes in a shopping bag under her desk.

3. The juror's questions are great. Here's the one about archiving,

"(FDL) Walton is that your standard method of archiving


M I meant to archive them. I assumed I'd have time to take the notebooks home for safekeeping. That's why they were there. But the marshalls took me away right away."

--Standard method of archiving---

Which juror wrote that? I bet either the fellow who worked for Woodward or the consumer attorney.


cboldt

Wells's Rule 29 Motion on Miller's testimony will amount to a recasting of the false statements case into a leak case. His argument will be that Miller's testimony doesn't establish with certainty that Libby leaked to Miller. He may also throw in a smoke screen that Libby wasn't the first leak to Miller, i.e., that Miller already knew when Libby repeated.

A "Miller already knew" finding is irrelevant to Libby knowing for a fact (at the time of the Miller conversation) that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

A "Libby didn't tell Miller that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA" finding wouldn't kill that prong of the count either.

This is the false testimony that Libby is alleged to have given ...

LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.

Did Miller testify that Libby attributed anything "Wilson's wife" to other reporters? Did Miller testify that Libby expressed uncertainty at the story he attributed to other reporters?

Dan S

"

--It also seems that Matt Cooper helped Libby by admitting there had been, not one, but two, telephone conversations from the airport to Cooper's home. Cathie Martin didn't seem to know that.--

good catch.

Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 31, 2007 at 02:58 PM"

That was because Libby had to call him back on the secure line, right? Right?

Wait...

clarice

Javani--Pardon the expression, my notes are on the other computer which I accidently disabled and can't get to until my husband gets home and fixes it so I can pull it off the notepad there..But IIRC he said,inter alia, that Cooper said wilson's wife worked at the CIA and the CIA not the VP sent him and that his report was not inconsistent with the intel and was not in any event sent to the VP.
Cooper said he may have gotten Plame's name OFF GOOGLE..

clarice

cboldt, I'm afraid I miss your point. Could you explain?

To date, I have to say the defense has done a good job casting reasonable doubt on all the prosecution witnesses' testimony..and in the process strengthening Libby's memory defense.

Dave in W-S

google? GOOGLE?

ROFLMAO

Sue

and in the process strengthening Libby's memory defense.

He has certainly done that. However, unless Libby testifies that he has no memory of the June 23rd meeting, and as soon as he does the letter will make it in casting doubt on that, it is a he said/she said and it will be up to the jury to decide who is telling the truth. Maybe they'll split the baby and decide neither of them are. Not sure how that helps Libby, but maybe they will all throw up their hands and say HUH?

MayBee

The jury asked Miller some questions and pinned down absolutely that she would not testify until Fitz promised she'd not have to give up other sources.

Libby should file a civil rights violation against Conyers, for that letter Fitz referenced and cboldt linked to yesterday.

cboldt

-- I'm afraid I miss your point. --


I was rendering my prediction of the general layout of Wells's Rule 29 Motion relating to the Miller prong of the obstruction charge. Further, I was rendering my prediction as to the Court's ruling (Motion denied) and rationale.

JM Hanes

TM:

"But the gist of her story - Libby discussed Plame with her before he claims to have heard and absorbed it from Tim Russert on July 10 or 11 - remains as a problem for the defense."

Et voilá, the pushback begins:

"Wells a rule 29 conversation, the July 12 conversation, given the way she testified, we're going to take the position that that prong of obstruction cannot stand."

Long shot, I suppose, as I think Walton is genuinely committed to letting Fitz try his case (such as it is), but it sure would upset the Prosecution apple cart.

Rick Ballard

Javani,

Re Cooper/Dickerson

Cory has it as

"In any event, Rove told him [Cooper]Plame was a CIA. John Dickerson had told him about at least one other government official -presumably Fleischer- saying the same thing.

There's a bit of cleanup going on in other locations because the original question/response that I saw was much more clear. It's now in the oubliette, apparently.

Syl

cboldt

This is the false testimony that Libby is alleged to have given ...

LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.

Emphasis mine.

The indictment is a recasting, by the prosecution, of what the prosecution thinks Libby said.

The GJ testimony is evidence, not the indictment. No?

cboldt

-- The GJ testimony is evidence --


I have no clue what you are driving at with your post. I was just reviewing the indictment, which rephrases some of Libby's testimony (but "I told Miller I heard from other reporters" is tough to screw up, as is "I don't know if what the reporters are saying is true"), and pondering whether Miller's testimony was deficient in a way that destroys the Miller prong of the indictment.


As for labeling the GJ testimony "evidence," or whatever, I don't see the point of GJ testimony not being the indictment ... color me puzzled. The indictment has stuff that is from the GJ testimony, actually, GJ testimony that comprises two conflicting accounts of the same event. I suppose, if it mattered for the purposes of just tossing out speculation, we can argue over whether it's truly "testimony" if it hasn't yet been presented at trial. In that regard, we still don't have Libby's version of the Miller conversations.

Syl

re June 23rd:

Defense brought up the possibility about 'Bureau' being INR and not CIA.

Miller just assumes it probably meant CIA.

The June 23rd does not constitute evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby knew/remembered she was CIA at that point.

I don't see how fitz can get around that.

Syl

cboldt

In that regard, we still don't have Libby's version of the Miller conversations.

That was my only point.

I don't know what 'rule 29' is, actually, so I wasn't aiming to make a point on that.

Sorry for confusion.

Sue

M Several reporters, I was supposed to write about actual hunt for WMD on ground in iraq and how and why flawed, and provide info for the other part of the project.

F You were going to focus on WMD but any info you'd get you'd provide to fellow reporters.

M State

I wish the answer 'State' was more fleshed out. What was the question? Was she talking to people at State?

clarice

The defense did a great job on demolishing "Bureau" meant CIA--that was just Judy's supposition and it is clear in her testimony.

cboldt

-- I don't know what 'rule 29' is --


Motion for judgement of acquital. If the evidence elicited by the prosecution can't establish the count, no sense in giving it to the jury.

clarice

Yes. But as the burden is the prosecution's and they put in no evidence to sustain a portion of the obstruction counts, I think the defense has a point. When Wells raised it the prosecution didn't respond..Well, perhaps they plan to later.I suspect they are referring to 32(c) and 33(c) which as Rick noted last night had no factual predicate at all.

boris

The defense did a great job on demolishing "Bureau" meant CIA

Perhaps part of their strategery is to eventually claim that Libby had picked up an inaccurate impression of the wife's involvement (in June) and was eventually "surprised as if for the first time" when he got the whole story.

Pofarmer

"LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true."

So, what did he supposedly actually say?

Still think the whole thing is a sham.

When Libby didn't turn, I bet Fitz about soiled himself.

boris

33(c) which as Rick noted last night

IIRC that involved the "heard from other reporters" claim at the July 12 meet which Miller didn't testify to.

clarice

I don't pretend to be good at body language but I thought the prosecution team looked beaten down and some of their arguments today were in the definitely loony category as they tried to get weird stuff in (Mary Matalin's snake comments for example) to try to show some motive for Libby to lie.

Christopher Fotos

I'd like to point out that in linking to the WaPo Leonnig/Goldstein story, Tom Maguire has been tripped up by an occasional inexcusable practice by Washingtonpost.com, which is to use the same url for a different story. So when Tom writes From the WaPo, filed during the lunch break (but still not as timely as the livebloggers!) and the link points to a story timestamped 6:22 p.m.--yeah, that's some lunch break! The explanation is that 'post.com pulled the old switcheroo; the original story is one I happened to excerpt earlier today in another Just One Minute thread. That story is about Miller; the new one of course is about Cooper. For irony fans, this is one way the Post makes it impossible to establish a stable record of who said what when.

MJW

Cboldt, here is what the indictment claims was false in Libby's version

LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.
Here is EW's version of the Miller's July 12 meeting testimony:
F Did you speak to him again

M Wanted follow-up. We agreed to speak on phone, I recall less about that meeting. The first time Libby called me I was getting into a taxi, I couldn't take notes, Didn't want to talk in a taxi, spoke from home in Sag Harbor

F Did you take notes, have you reviewed those notes, clear memory of conversation

M Not very clearly–

F what do you remember

M I remember telling him that I didn't think I was going to write a story about it, the NYT wasn't interested in pursuing Plame story. We talked about retraction of 16 words. It was more following up on other two conversations. Don't have specific memory of other things.

Do you see Miller contradicting Libby's version?

dorf

I thought the case would never go to trial.I was quite wrong. When we look at the testimony so far, there is no evidence that rises to the "federal" prosecutorial level of bringing the case to trial. Anybody that has prosecuted on the state or county level will know what I mean. I must be missing something. Could it be Fitz threw a Hail Mary that only a Bush hating DC jury could catch? I'm just saying.......

Sue

Fitzgerald asked her on redirect if Libby ever mentioned he was hearing it from reporters. She said no. I think that is enough to keep the July 12th in.

topsecretk9

--(Mary Matalin's snake comments for example) to try to show some motive for Libby to lie.--

Yes and as TM asks - if Libby was so hot after Wilson all that time why would write that down - wouldn't he be the one informing Wilson was a snake?

MJW

Thanks Sue, I should have checked the redirect.

Pofarmer

Fitzgerald asked her on redirect if Libby ever mentioned he was hearing it from reporters. She said no.

But even then,

It was more following up on other two conversations. Don't have specific memory of other things.

which one do we beleive? Or which one does the jury beleive. Is her memory foggy, or crystal clear?

MayBee

Fitzgerald asked her on redirect if Libby ever mentioned he was hearing it from reporters. She said no. I think that is enough to keep the July 12th in.

Did Libby talk to Judy first or Cooper first? Had Libby already talked to Rove about Novak going to print?
Because again, it's ironic* Libby is in trouble for this because other reporters were talking about it, and I think Libby knew that.


*looking for a better word, pofarmer

MJW

Perhaps it's missing from EW's version, or perhaps I'm overlooking something, but the only references I can see to "hearing it from reporters" are these, on direct:

Referring to the June 23 meeting:

F Returning to conversation about the wife working in bureau, did he indicate whether he had heard it from reporters?

Referring to the June 8 meeting:

F Any discussion of learning this from other newspaper reporters?

MayBee

Fitzgerald asked her on redirect if Libby ever mentioned he was hearing it from reporters. She said no. I think that is enough to keep the July 12th in.

Did Libby talk to Judy first or Cooper first? Had Libby already talked to Rove about Novak going to print?
Because again, it's ironic* Libby is in trouble for this because other reporters were talking about it, and I think Libby knew that.


*looking for a better word, pofarmer

MayBee

Fitzgerald asked her on redirect if Libby ever mentioned he was hearing it from reporters. She said no. I think that is enough to keep the July 12th in.

Did Libby talk to Judy first or Cooper first? Had Libby already talked to Rove about Novak going to print?
Because again, it's ironic* Libby is in trouble for this because other reporters were talking about it, and I think Libby knew that.


*looking for a better word, pofarmer

MJW

Patton

I am not a lawyer so I am probably way off base. But since Miller testified that she could only remember the conversation by looking at her notes, then if she didn't write something in her notes, she doesn't remeber it.

I haven't re-read all Millers testimony, but does she affirmatively say that she remembers the entire conversation and she remembers Libby never utters those words??

Because if she doesn't recall the entire conversation and testify affirmatively that Libby never said those sentences, then their is absolutely no evidence to support that charge. Its not in her notes, its not in her memory and its not in her testimony.


I would think if this were a bank robbery and Miller said, I was standing 100 feet from the bank and I believe I saw Libby walk in the door of the bank (Her clouded memory), and then Wells pointed out she can't identify people beyond 30 feet (her notes). Then clearly she is not a fact witness to Libby walking into the bank.

I'll go back to Law and Order now.

MayBee

sorry about the triplicate

Rick Ballard

MayBee

Tops- did you notice this:

Shows him typing "eregy" instead of "energy" [on an aluminum tube story]

Cooper was working on an aluminum tube story, too.

Patton

I am not a lawyer so I am probably way off base. But since Miller testified that she could only remember the conversation by looking at her notes, then if she didn't write something in her notes, she doesn't remeber it.

I haven't re-read all Millers testimony, but does she affirmatively say that she remembers the entire conversation and she remembers Libby never utters those words??

Because if she doesn't recall the entire conversation and testify affirmatively that Libby never said those sentences, then their is absolutely no evidence to support that charge. Its not in her notes, its not in her memory and its not in her testimony.


I would think if this were a bank robbery and Miller said, I was standing 100 feet from the bank and I believe I saw Libby walk in the door of the bank (Her clouded memory), and then Wells pointed out she can't identify people beyond 30 feet (her notes). Then clearly she is not a fact witness to Libby walking into the bank.

I'll go back to Law and Order now.

boris

No matter how good her note abilities are she would not be taking notes of what Libby didn't say would she?

Patton

Her notes duirng her talk with Libby don't mention the wife at all either.

Sue

Maybe I made it up. Lots of people are making up stuff these days. I couldn't find it at EW. I will now check Rory. If it is at neither place, we'll just chalk it up to I didn't take notes. ::grin::

Patrick R. Sullivan

David Corn says, Judy, Judy, Judy:

-------------quote------------
Jeffress feasted on this. For years, he noted while questioning Miller, she had not remembered the June 23 meeting at all. Then suddenly she could recall details from it. What Libby had said about Wilson's wife. How Libby was behaving. What his mood was. From the time the leak story broke in the summer of 2003 until her second grand jury appearance in fall of 2005, nothing had caused her to recall that meeting, Jeffress noted. "The meeting of June 23 was not memorable to you," Jeffress said, putting it as both a question and declaration. "I didn't remember that it even occurred," Miller replied.

Miller explained that after she reviewed her notes she had a good memory of certain parts of the encounter. Jeffress then quoted Miller's own statements from before the grand jury and from a media interview in which she said her memory was not so sharp about these matters. And he went on and on, clawing at the wound, making this Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter seem like she was so daft she couldn't remember her own shoe size without notes.

This was a twist. When the story first came out in the fall of 2005 that Miller had forgotten her first meeting with Libby, her critics howled. How could she, they wondered (accusingly), have not remembered such an important session? Surely, she was covering up for Libby--or someone. But on the stand, she appeared genuine. She was fighting for her reputation--what's left of it--and did not want to be depicted as a conjurer of untrustworthy memories. Now it was Libby's lawyers (not liberal bloggers) who were assaulting her, challenging her credibility. At one point, when the back and forth became a bit confusing, Jeffress snidely asked, "Do you remember my question?"
-----------endquote------------

Sue

Can't find it. I really wasn't making it up, but it appears I did.

MJW

Since the prosecution case is still open, if Fitz didn't ask Miller about Libby's claim regarding "hearing it for reporters" in the July 12 meeting, can't he recall Miller, giving her a chance to lie that she remembers he didn't?

clarice

All my notes are gone--chewed up--so I will write from fdl's and my memory.

Syl

Clarice

So sorry :(

You'll do okay though. FDL will conjure up your independent memories. :)

MayBee

from COrn:Now it was Libby's lawyers (not liberal bloggers) who were assaulting her, challenging her credibility.

It's really only a twist on the liberal blogger's part. I don't think Libby's lawyers thought she ever had credibility on this issue.

RichatUF

Cooper was working on an aluminum tube story, too.

Wow-I think that nails it that Wilson and Plame were in contact with reports complaining there was a war on them...curious did Fitzgerald ever even entertain the notion he was being sandbagged by State and CIA or is he protecting something too?

RichatUF

Crew v1.0

Since the Libby trial forces the attentive student of events to do so, we here at JOM are all deeply immersed in (a) ruminations about memory and its failings, and (b) endless rehash of the “Bush Lied” meme – a meme that, of course, is at the heart of the counter-factual narrative otherwise known as Plamegate – it seems appropriate to make a Memory and History detour through the thicket of “Bush Lied” for a recent pair of book-end comments on whether Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched on the basis of, er, "lies," or not.

Quite recently, an article appeared that has not exactly been shoved down your throat by media types, and yet it is interesting. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are presently doing some mad triangulating, trying to figure out how to play the myriad Iraq issues that we/they face. It is unquestionable that their own personal political fortunes and futures are very high on their Maslow chart, and the fortunes and futures of people in Iraq who may wish to live in a free state, secure in its borders and processes – well, not so high. These two wannabe Prez types also share in common that they voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the use of force to confront Saddam. Muy bien. But what about the “Bush lied” meme? What about the whole “he played on our fears” and sold us twisted, tangled, cherry-picked, deceptive stuff, and [fill in here with your own choice Code Pink fantasies and Olbermann sermons]?

Well, read these excerpts from Jeffrey Goldberg’s article “The Starting Gate,” from the January 15, 2007 issue of The New Yorker…. Yes, read and weep, lefties, for while the Joseph Wilson-Plame crowd are still getting high off the fumes from Niger nitpicking lo these years later, and impeachment is the glean in Conyers’ eye, it seems the putative adults (Edwards and Clinton) are not prepared to say (as John Kerry was more than happy to say) that they were, are and will always remain, gullible sheep that were shorn by that not-very-bright W fellow. Yes, yes, read on.

_____
“[John] Edwards is genial in conversation, but he became almost testy when I brought up his vote, in 2002, in favor of the Iraq-war resolution. Edwards has repudiated his vote, unlike Clinton, who has not renounced her own support for the war despite demands from her backers that she do so. Edwards worries that his vote will be seen as evidence that he was somehow fooled by the Administration into giving it his support. “I was convinced that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons,” he said. “There was some disparity in the information I had about how far along he was in that process. I didn’t rely on George Bush for that. And I personally think there’s some dishonesty in suggesting that members of the United States Senate relied on George Bush for that information, because I don’t think it’s true. It’s great politics. But it’s not the truth.”
When I asked who was making this suggestion, he said, “I’ve just heard people say, I can’t even tell you who, I’ve just heard people say, ‘Well, you know, George Bush . . . misled us.’ You know, it’s just— I was there, it’s not what happened.” (Edwards would not single out anyone, but he appeared to be referring to, among others, his 2004 running mate, John Kerry, who has often said that he was lied to by the Bush Administration about W.M.D.s. “We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true,” Kerry told a rally of liberal Democrats in June of last year.)
“I was on the Intelligence Committee,” Edwards went on, “so I got direct information from the intelligence community. And then I had a series of meetings with former Clinton Administration people. And they were all saying the same thing. Everything I was hearing in the Intelligence Committee was the same thing I was hearing from these guys. And there was nary a dissenting voice. And so, for me, the difficult judgment was not about the factual information, which I was convinced was accurate. It was about whether I was going to give authority to this President I didn’t trust. That was where the friction was for me. I decided to do it, and I was wrong. I shouldn’t have done it.”
* * * * *
When I asked Clinton if she thought that she had been lied to, she said, “I have to tell you, I think that they believed, as I believed, that there was, at the very least, residual weapons of mass destruction, and whether the Iraqis ever intended to let the inspectors go forward was being answered year by year. There was a lot of evidence that this was not their intention.”
______
Thank you for all that, Mr. Goldberg – and hats off to The New Yorker for printing it, as it most definitely runs counter to all of its Ur-narratives.

Now, to put a cherry on top, flash back to 1993, as close Clinton bud Tony Blair is working hard to persuade holdouts in Parliament to back him in a policy that has the UK join the U.S. in a coalition of the willing. Usefully, Bill Clinton pens a nice little piece in the Guardian, which effectively blames France for scuttling the last chance at a diplomatic solution to the West’s standoff with Saddam, through the UN. Recall that France announced it would veto any “second resolution,” no matter what – a heavy-handed blow to Blair’s diplomacy. Google “Bill Clinton” and “Iraq” and “Guardian,” and you’ll find the article. As for me, I think my former commander in chief had it right, and I am more than happy to say so. It was the French that put us here, where we are today. It was the French: they scuttled the last diplomatic option, those baguette-making crumbs. Yes, I definitely like the sound of that formulation. Mark me down in that column.

What does that make me – a Blair Democrat, a 2003-Era Democrat, a troll Democrat, or merely irrelevant? Maybe it makes me an Independent Democrat – I hear tell that there’s one of those in the Senate, whereas Ned Lamont is back to showing up at 10 every morning at some plush office somewhere, no doubt reporting for a short day of talking to his broker three or four times, before calling it a day and heading home.

The Iraq war began as a piece of genuinely bipartisan (though certainly not unanimous) foreign policy. If it ends disastrously it will be in part because bipartisan foreign policy is no longer viewed as noble or even useful but rather (in the words of the New York Times, when describing Lieberman’s stance) “warped.” Think of the poisonous presumptuousness of that concept. Well, we all know that the only war of any lasting interest to Pinch is the war against Bush. As for me, I have different priorities.

The good news, however, is that, in the event that any Democrat is elected in 2008, or 2012, well, bipartisan foreign policy once again will be a good and noble end, and indeed, in a reversal that in fiction could only be called a whiplash-inducing plot twist, those Independents and Republicans who are not on board with the foreign policy of President Hillary Clinton will be called “warped,” or worse.

Bank on it.

everson

I do not think Libby could have thrown sand in the "referee" Fitz's eyes; Fitz had already been buried under a massive pile of reporter detritus and his eyes no longer could function.

JJ

Latest from FDL, last line in newest post:

"If Libby testifies, he is most likely to be the witness that delivers for Fitz, not Ari, Miller or Cooper."

Take this as a meaning the deckhands of ship Fitmas now are beginning to see that it is listing badly and soon to be sliding into down into the depths.

Pofarmer

And I personally think there’s some dishonesty in suggesting that members of the United States Senate relied on George Bush for that information, because I don’t think it’s true. It’s great politics. But it’s not the truth.”

That's a very revealing statement right there. "Great Politics?" To lie to the American people is "great politics"? What a bunch of ignorant buffoons. These guys should swing.

bigjim

How can Libby's alleged misrepresentation of his conversation with Russert possibly be considered "material," an element of the crime with which Libby is charged? He's never denied, apparently, he first learned Wilson's wife worked at the CIA from the VP. No evidence he ever knew she was "covert," and no evidence he ever gave the name "Plame" to anyone or even that he knew her maiden name before reading Novak's column. Obviously, numerous msm perple knew of Plame, knew she worked at the CIA and knew she was married to Wilson, and every one of them had sources for this information other than Libby. Again, why is Libby's statement about Russert "material" to anything?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame