Josh Marshall Needs Help (I Provide Some)

Josh Marshall, who follows the Plame leak investigation when the wind is at his back, has some questions as he engages the "Republican noise machine".  I think I can help:

(1)  In his appearance this morning on the Today Show Newt Gingrich said: "The president's been pretty clear: if somebody's broken the law they will be fired. The question is whether or not, uh, what karl did was in any way breaking the law."

When did the president say anything about breaking the law?  Didn't he just say that he'd fire whoever was involved in the leak?

Have you seen other examples of emerging bamboozlement strategies?

Well, what the President said was posted here - it is from Sept 30, 2003, as the scandal broke open:

And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.  And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

...If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

Other reporters have restated the President's pledge, and now various spinners are trying to hold him to their restatement.  Don't play "Gotcha" with the President. (C'mon, we are delighted he got it out right the first time.)

I have more assistance:

(2)  Late Alert for Red Herring Egregious Mumbojumbo Watch!

Ken Mehlman is now pushing the same argument as Rove attorney Robert Luskin. 

This from the AP ...

Rove "was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise," said Mehlman. Cooper's e-mail says that Rove warned him away from the idea that Wilson's trip had been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney.

The argument, as elaborated by others, is that Rove was warning Cooper off Wilson's phoney story because it was about to be debunked by a soon-to-be-released statement by George Tenet. 

A great argument. Only Wilson never said that. He said that the CIA, following up on a query from the vice president, sent him on a fact-finding mission to Niger.

Josh Marshall goes on to explain that neither Tenet nor Cheney "authorized" the trip, which is pretty fair country spin, as far as it goes.

But Wilson's op-ed and public comments weren't controversial because Cheney "authorized" his trip - they were controversial because, in Wilson's telling, Cheney had asked the CIA about Saddam, Niger and uranium, had received a conclusive response of "nothing there", and had then ignored the response.

Now, does Wilson say precisely this in his NY Times op-ed?  He does not - there, he skates a bit:

The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

...The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.

But Joe Wilson was not skating when said this to Andrea Mitchell on Meet The Press as he went public on July 6, 2003, with emphasis added:

Ms. Mitchell:  ...Were they not properly briefed on the fact that you had the previous February been there and that it wasn’t true?

AMB. WILSON: No. No. In actual fact, in my judgment, I have not seen the estimate either, but there were reports based upon my trip that were submitted to the appropriate officials. The question was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president. The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there.

MS. MITCHELL: So they knew months and months before they passed on these allegations that, in fact, that particular charge was not true. Do you think, based on all of this, that the intelligence was hyped?

AMB. WILSON: My judgment on this is that if they were referring to Niger when they were referring to uranium sales from Africa to Iraq, that information was erroneous and that they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the British White Paper and the president’s State of the Union address.

Although Josh Marshall seems to have have forgotten, that is the news environment in which Karl Rove was pushing back.  And I am not even mentioning Wilson's discredited and disavowed anonymous leaks to Kristof and Pincus, which Matthew Continetti covers at length in the Weekly Standard.  (With a follow-up that is the journalistic equivalent of "Roger And Me").  Nor am I mentioning this "Meet The Press" transcript of Tim Russert and Condi Rice from Sept 28, 2003, which makes the same point (excerpt after the jump).

And I hope Dr. Marshall has not also forgotten the SSCI report from the Senate, which confirmed Tenet's statement that Wilson's report was *not* conclusive and *not* circulated to the Vice President's office.  Tenet's statement was not pushing back on the question of who "authorized" the trip - the issues were, what intelligence did Wilson bring back, and how was it circulated?

These are pretty basic points, and I am surprised to learn that Dr. Marshall is so poorly informed.  Perhaps another "Bamboozlement Watch" should be initiated.

MORE:  The NY Times has adopted a different tack, which is avoidance - in their Thursday story, they again note that Rove's motive might have been retaliation, without ever mentioning the clear text of the e-mail, which suggests the motive is to discredit Wilson.

And Richard Stevenson, with today's byline, cannot claim ignorance - he co-wrote the Times tepid Wilson debunker a year ago.  Of course, that subject is a bit painful for the Times, since Wilson's public op-ed helped restore a bit of luster to the Times following the Jayson Blair debacle in May of 2003.

Bamboozlement, indeed.

UPDATE:  Jim Lindgren (via Glenn) has a well done summary of the case against Joe Wilson, which, of course, is also the case in favor of a Rovian push-back.

If his contact info at the Vololkh Conspiracy were working, I would e-mail him a question.  First, he mentions the puzzlement over whether Ms. Plame was covered under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:

But it appears probable, though not certain, that Plame was a covert agent (the statutory definition turns on whether she was on undercover missions outside the US in the 5 years before the disclosure of her identity, a factual issue that for some reason few outside of Powerline have focused on).

Well, let's give some props to James Taranto and Max Boot, who dwelt on this back in October 2003.  I also note that, over at The Corner, Mark Levin and USA Today have the same question.

My position is that the CIA is unlikely to post Ms. Plame's resume and assignments; Bruce Sanford, the expert cited by the USA Today, may argue that where the statute says "has within the last five years served outside the United States", that means "stationed as a long-term assignment".  And so it may, but that is not what is says - one fine day a judge and jury may be asked to decide whether a one or two week trip to freshen up some old contacts qualifies as "served".

The second point is, Special Counsel Fitzgerald is surely well aware of the issue - if he is not satisfied on  this point by now, then he must have redirected his investigation without telling us.

Finally, let me introduce a new feature - Save Mark Kleiman's Hair.  Mr. Kleiman has argued that, rather than pursuing a prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Fitzgerald might try for a conviction under the Espionage Act.  We have met skeptics.  But let's get together and save Mr. Kleiman from tearing his hair out in frustration - some enterprising reporter might want to check with a few lawyers and see whether that statute might apply.  (Of course, if there were any lawyers in the blogosphere, they might want to join in, too.  Jeralyn Merritt comes to mind - as a good progressive and a better defense attorney, she has never seen a statute yet that she can't sneak a client past.)

Meet The Press excerpt, Sept 28, 2003:

MR. RUSSERT: The administration’s credibility is on the line, here in the country and around the world. And we still specifically cite the president’s State of the Union message in January. Now, let me go back and play that and then talk about your role.
       (Videotape, January 28, 2003):
       PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
       (End videotape)
       MR. RUSSERT: That was in January. And in June—June 8—you were on MEET THE PRESS; I asked you about that, and this was your response.
       (Videotape, June 8, 2003):
       DR. RICE: The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the time, no one knew at the time in our circles—maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew—that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken.
       (End videotape)
       MR. RUSSERT: “No one in our circles.” That has proven to be wrong.
       DR. RICE: No, Tim, that has not proven to be wrong. No one did know that they were forgeries. The notion of the forgeries came in February or in March when this was—when this came to the CIA. It is true that we learned, subsequent to my comments to you, that Director Tenet did not want to stand by that statement. And I would never want to see anything in a presidential statement—speech—that the director of Central Intelligence did not want to have there.

Comments

[Meep]

Let's see if this closes that pesky open tag:

[Meep]

Is this better? I should have checked it myself.

[Meep]

Perhaps not. Is there a way to disallow tags in comments? I recommend that.

[Blanknoone]

One of the key points of difference is the significance of what Wilson (and others) found. It is indeed true that they IC has not found evidence of large scale uranium sales to Iraq. But it is also true that they have found much evidence of Iraq's trying. For instance, Wilson, with his extensive contacts, talked to the PM of Niger, and the PM told him that he did in fact have a meeting with an Iraqi 'trade delegation' and his understanding of their desire for 'expanded trade contacts' was an overture to buy uranium. The PM said he refused. And the IC believes him.

So we have two seperate and important pieces of information. One...Iraq did not get uranium from Niger. Two...Iraq did TRY to get uranium from Niger. That speaks to motive...a desire, and effort to reconstitute his WMD programs. Apparently Saddam wasn't successful, but how long should he be allowed to try?

Those on the left keep emphasizing the first point...Saddam didn't get Uranium from Niger. Those on the right keep emphasizing the second...Saddam did TRY to get uranium from Niger.

And, as much as many hate to admit it, Bush's famous 16 words in the SOTU were exactly correct, that British intel establishes (and our intel agreed) that Saddam TRIED to buy Uranium. The President didn't say Iraq was successful in its efforts, only that it was making efforts. And even Wilson's trip to Niger support that. But the response to the President making the second point, that Iraq was trying to buy uranium, was people like Wilson screaming that Bush lied and yelling the first point, that Iraq didn't actually succeed.

[Matt Evans]

Fresh- as we know, dems don't care if a crime was committed. What Rove did was "morally reprehensible" and Bush said the person involved would "be fired" (though he never actually said that). Thus, if Bush does not fire Rove for committing this morally reprehensible act (the fact that democrats consider responding to a partisan political hack, who went to Niger to re-energize his flagging career and lied about his findings, to be morally reprehensible is the height of lunacy), then Bush is just as cuplable for the act, similar to how Bush is responsible for panties on head at Abu Ghirab and the Koran dessecration at Gitmo.

[jukeboxgrad]

FRESH

"Who said anything about blowjobs?"

Lots of people, very loudly, for a very long time. You have a short memory. How ccnvenient for you.

"perjury is a crime"

Some of us still hang on to the quaint notion that folks should tell the truth even when not under oath.

"Plame wasn't covert"

Really? Then explain this: "A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked 'alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. 'They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,' he said. 'There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,' he said. 'I can't figure out what it could be ... We paid his [Wilson's] air fare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there,' the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said he was reimbursed only for expenses."

And this.

And this: "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral."

And this: "Two former senior intelligence officials confirmed that Valerie Plame, 40, is an operations officer in the spy agency's directorate of operations - the clandestine service."

And this: "Sources told CNN that Plame works in the CIA's Directorate of Operations -- the part of the agency in charge of spying -- and worked in the field for many years as an undercover officer."

And this: "The exposure of Valerie Plame — who I have reason to believe operated undercover."

And this: "Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government. That cover story, standard for American operatives who pretend to be diplomats or other federal employees, was not an option for Ms. Plame, people who knew her said on Wednesday. As a covert operative who specialized in nonconventional weapons and sometimes worked abroad, she passed herself off as a private energy expert, what the agency calls nonofficial cover."

This one answers a different false claim, that her status was common knowledge: "I've worked in Washington for the past 38 years, including 24 years at the CIA...and I know Ambassador Wilson....and I did not know that his wife was an agency employee. Let's face it....this was targeted information as part of a political vendetta....a pure act of revenge...again, no more and no less." (link)

"See that lovely transcript from Wolf Blitzer today"

Wilson said "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." Wilson could have been clearer. He was explaining why he decided it was OK to appear in Vanity Fair etc: once Novak "blew her identity," Plame was no longer "a clandestine officer."

(Earlier I had a different interpretation of Wilson's remark, but reviewing it in context I think this interpretation makes more sense.)

"statute 50 USC 416, which defines 'covert' as having been a foreign clandestine agent within the past five years"

I've tried to make clear in a variety of posts that I'm not particularly interested in splitting legal hairs about the IIPA and the Espionage Act. What interests me, because it's what I think matters morally and politically, is the common-sense understanding of outing a covert agent.

By the way, I think Fitz and the FBI (and the CIA, who made the original referral to DOJ) probably understand the various statutes as well as you do, and I don't think they would want to be wasting everyone's time unless they had good reason to believe one or more serious crimes were committed.

"this 'outing business' is exactly what Karl Rove would do, therefore he must have done it"

Both things are true. It's exactly what we would expect from him, and now there is also ample indication that it is exactly what he did. "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge." (link)

"the tangled web of your own synapses"

Why don't you untangle your own first. A good start would be explaining how you ignore all the evidence that she was indeed a cover op. Then you can work on explaining why the White House has been lying about all this for a couple of years.

"How many members of the Clinton White House were convicted of felonies?"

It's not a good sign for your argument that you have to resort to "not any worse than Clinton" (even if that were true). I seem to remember some kind of campaign promise about restoring honor and dignity to the White House.

BLANK

"That speaks to motive...a desire, and effort to reconstitute his WMD programs."

The war hype went far beyond declaring that Saddam merely hoped or planned to possess WMD. The war hype declared that he had tools to create WMD, and in fact had amassed substantial stockpiles of WMD ready to go at a moment's notice. This goes far beyond simply claiming that he had "a desire." Big difference.

"Apparently Saddam wasn't successful, but how long should he be allowed to try?"

We never had a chance to have a serious discussion about that important question, because we believed Bush when he cooked the books, telling us we were way past the stage of Saddam being "allowed to try."

"Those on the right keep emphasizing the second...Saddam did TRY to get uranium from Niger."

Trouble is, that's not all Bush said. He said the attempt was "recent," and for "significant quantities." Trouble is, Wilson learned in his visit that these claims were "not borne out" by the facts. In other words, this was just another example of cooking the books ("the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"). Wilson was an early whistleblower, and that's why the White House came down on him, hard and fast, and is still continuing to do so.

"Bush's famous 16 words in the SOTU were exactly correct"

You should tell Tenet, since he said "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President."

MATT

"responding to a partisan political hack"

If the White House was merely "responding," and doing so in a proper way, then why did it need to be "double super secret background?" And why has the White House been lying about it for a couple of years?

[Matt]

*If the White House was merely "responding," and doing so in a proper way, then why did it need to be "double super secret background?"*

I assume because Rove appreciated that it was a sensitive matter with Wilson but at the same time, was not simply going to sit back and let Wilson's lies be splashed on page 1 of the NYT. Not to mention is "double super secret background" some kind of intelligence term of art I'm unfamiliar with ? I'm not certain we can hold people to standards based on a contrived phrases ?

And lying about what ? Didn't Rove testify in front of the GJ over a year ago ? Isn't there an ongoing investigation ? And of course, there's the other possibility- which seems to the case as things develop- that Rove was NOT actually the leak. Thus, why would he admit to being a leak when he wasn't actually the leak.

Finally, juke, explain to me why Judith Miller is still in jail if Rove's the source and has been outted? (not to mention, doesn't she have a waiver from Rove, similar to Cooper's waiver- my understanding is she does- why would she be sitting in jail if Rove was the source and she has a waiver- there's a logical conclusion to be drawn from that factual scenario - lets see if you can come up with it).

[jukeboxgrad]

MATT

"was not simply going to sit back and let Wilson's lies be splashed on page 1 of the NYT"

If the White House had any problem with anything Wilson said, they had ample opportunity to speak up, on the record, out in the open, and without taking steps that would even raise the possibility of outing a covert agent. If the White House wanted to say Cheney didn't send Wilson, here's an example of what would have been a good way to say that: "Cheney didn't send Wilson."

"Not to mention is 'double super secret background' some kind of intelligence term of art"

No. It's a journalism term of art. It means "feel free to publish what I tell you, but don't let anyone know it was me who told you." More on this sort of thing here.

"lying about what"

For two years the White House has been telling us they knew nothing about this, and Rove had nothing to do with it. Those were all lies, which is why suddenly Scottie has nothing to say.

"there's the other possibility- which seems to the case as things develop- that Rove was NOT actually the leak"

I think you're assuming there was only one leaker. Think again: "a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." (link)

"why would he admit to being a leak when he wasn't actually the leak."

We already have good reason to understand that Rove outed Plame to (at least) Cooper and Novak.

"explain to me why Judith Miller is still in jail if Rove's the source and has been outted"

There are numerous naive assumptions embodied in that question. I've just pointed out one of those assumptions (the idea that there was only one leaker).

"why would she be sitting in jail if Rove was the source and she has a waiver"

I thnk you're also making some assumptions about the role of those waivers. Until very recently, Cooper didn't take Rove's waiver seriously. Who knows what Miller thinks about the waivers.

[kurt]

rove is a slimeball. he employs any and all tactics necessary. his motives and methods are suspect clearly due to past behaviors.

we're in Iraq cause WMDs weren't... this report on niger was a false report. some one passed it up to the president. wilson was trying to stop us from acting stupid. Rove is no hero. at the best he tacitly set up or allowed plame to be setup for retribution against wilson. an allowed the presumably plausible iraq niger connection to contintue.

cause it's what the boss wanted.

Rove would be a hero if he said wait a sec. we have some contradictory data, i'll take it to tenet and the prez...

obviously he did nothing of the sort. instead.. he permit the lies to propogate.. he's a political machine and cares strictly about winning not what's good for the country.

as a republican this sucks.... eliminate rove,
if it means we can actually get some freaking work done in DC...

whats going on there is a disgrace.
this partisan stuff is a waste of time.

[ed]

Hmmm.

@ kurt

as a republican this sucks.... eliminate rove, if it means we can actually get some freaking work done in DC...

It's amazing really. I've been seeing all these posts by disaffected Republicans, who've been "republicans" all their lives, over WMDS. Who knew that there were this many?

Personally I'm planning on hitting some leftie blogs and pretending to be a disaffected "democrat", cause that gives my writing more cred!

Imagine that! And I bet they'll buy it hook, line and sinker too. Just like those Republicans would.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

@ JukeBoxGrad

"Not to mention is 'double super secret background' some kind of intelligence term of art"

No. It's a journalism term of art. It means "feel free to publish what I tell you, but don't let anyone know it was me who told you." More on this sort of thing here.

American Journalism Review.

It's amazing what Google can do.

BTW I'd suggest that any phrase that involves the word "secret" means that nothing is supposed to be published. I.e. it's for the education of the reporter only.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

@ jukeboxgrad

Blanknoone: "Bush's famous 16 words in the SOTU were exactly correct"

jukeboxgrad: You should tell Tenet, since he said "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President."

You should have included the end part of the final paragraph.

Tenet: From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct – i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.

I.e he opposed the use of the "16 words" because the CIA couldn't independently verify them. But that didn't make them wrong.

[jukeboxgrad]

Ed, I still have few recycled electrons available, so here's another reminder for you: 6/18, 2:52 pm.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Ed, I still have few recycled electrons available, so here's another reminder for you: 6/18, 2:52 pm.

The problem with you juke is that you're wrong so often. It's hard to keep up.

[young gay male ass spanking]

I have bookmarked you yet!!!! http://spankzilla.spazioblog.it/