NO, a white flag does NOT mean surrender! Here in NASCAR Nation, the white flag means that Special Counsel Fitzgerald is down to the last lap in his investigation of the Valerie Plame leak.
Murray Waas will have more at his blog, including whatever he unearths about Robert Novak's cooperation.
Months ago I asked who Judith Miller is protecting.
I'm still betting on the indictment being against a CIA official for leaking confidential information.
And....I'd still like to see the source of the original Italian Yellow Cake letter pursued.
=================================================================
Posted by: Kim | April 07, 2005 at 04:32 AM
Murray Waas, in an otherwise fine story, reports that Wilson told the CIA that the Yellowcake story was a hoax. I don't believe Wilson reported any such thing. That is the part that he famously 'misremembered' later, and may yet go to the meat of the story. How did he know that?
==================================================================
Posted by: Kim | April 07, 2005 at 05:14 AM
"Murray Waas, in an otherwise fine story, reports that Wilson told the CIA that the Yellowcake story was a hoax."
It is a good story, though he's clearly a Wilson supporter. (And throughout, he reports Wilson's assertions as fact.) His web site is similarly biased, and has several more unsupportable allegations. Here, he posits an unlikely public view of the incident, and suggests Novak's reporting was an intentional hit-piece on plame in support of an ideological goal:
Which seems a rather strange way to describe a single background sentence in an otherwise less-than-supportive column that Novak summed up with: "The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported." The possibility that lack of public support in this case might be related to perceptions of left-wing bias never appears to've crossed his mind.Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 07, 2005 at 11:04 AM
"...Novak was not engaging in his First amendment privileges to expose governmental wrongdoing..."
Really? Ambassador Joe's eight day excursion seems to have had a predetermined outcome. So, it's not government wrong doing for an agency, like the CIA, to cook up a phony report in an effort to affect foreign policy? And when did our south paw brethren decide the CIA were good guys?
I'm going to be pretty disappointed if we never get to see exactly how the "frog march" is done. I've been wondering if maybe Joe or Val would be the ones to show us.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | April 07, 2005 at 01:17 PM
I must say that I'm not clued into all the details of this story, but it seems all the clamour for this investigation abruptly at some point in time. My conspiracy-theorist lead me to believe that the investigation led not to the White House, but to other culprits like someone in Congress, members of the press, or even politically motivated employees of the intelligence services. I'd like to know exactly what happened, but I don't think I ever will.
This whole affair smacks of the faux furor and call for rolling heads over Enron until that investigation started to interlace with the Ullico stock scandal.
Posted by: VD | April 07, 2005 at 02:19 PM
"Here in NASCAR Nation..."
Moved to Staten Island?
Posted by: Jim Glass | April 07, 2005 at 06:45 PM
Tom,
A bit OT. OK, completely OT.
Remember http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/03/krugman_versus_.html>this?
Well, look at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-schiavo7apr07,1,1728431.story>this.
Krugman 1, NYT 0?
Posted by: gt | April 07, 2005 at 07:10 PM
As to who mght be indicted for lying to investigators, I suppose, anyone is possible.
However, if we chose to assume that the testimony of the reporters is crucial to the "lying" phase, maybe Novak himself is under the microscope - if what he says he was told differs from what an aide says he told him and from what others confirm the aide told them, it is more than a he said/she said as to whether Novak is lying.
Or, twist that slightly, amd maybe three reporters tell a story about what an aide told them that differs from what the aide admits to having told.
Or, throw out the reporters. The Senate Intel report was quite skeptical of Joe Wilson - maybe he had a veracity problem with Fitzgerald as well.
Or this could just be recycled speculation - it has been obvious since the investigation started that a Martha Stewart resoluton was possible (I know I posted on that, and it was not just me.)
In other news: In a battle of Krugman v the Times, I can't lose.
However, this bit from the LA Times is worth remembering:
Time will tell.
Posted by: TM | April 07, 2005 at 11:00 PM
Meanwhile-how about a real white flag being raised on private accounts?
Is it too early to call the Delay delay camp triumphant?
Posted by: creepy dude's evil friend | April 08, 2005 at 10:30 AM
Well, we have not been seeing "Tom DeLay" and "triumphant" paired very often lately. Let's hold off on that - maybe private accounts are still minimally conscious, and can be revived with love and attention.
Maybe.
Posted by: TM | April 08, 2005 at 01:32 PM
Tom,
But what if they simply want to die with dignity?
Who has custody?
Posted by: GT | April 08, 2005 at 02:07 PM
"...die with dignity?"
We haven't seen "DeLay" and "dignity" paired a lot, either.
As to who has custody, I always say, give it to Mariano. But nothing is working right now.
Posted by: TM | April 08, 2005 at 02:33 PM
I think I've unmasked the mysterious 'gt'. He's Larry King.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | April 08, 2005 at 04:44 PM
CDEF, don't count your chickens, .... The republicans might just figure out how to argue the ownership issue; and young people might just look at what's really going to happen to them in the future, dress up like Indians and dump the tea in the harbor again.
Posted by: Harry Arthur | April 08, 2005 at 08:22 PM
From my limited perspective it appears that young people are beginning to catch on. Most had given up on getting anything from SS. Personal accounts represent an opportunity to regain hope. And we know where that springs eternal.
I half expect the Fitzgerald indictment will be against Valerie Plame for revealing secrets to Joe Wilson. He appeared to know things he shouldn't have, and used that knowledge for personal gain. Tacky.
===========================================================
Posted by: kim | April 08, 2005 at 08:51 PM