Powered by TypePad

« I Red-Pen Murray Waas (Again) | Main | Do You Deny That You Met This Woman? »

October 19, 2005


Cecil Turner

Do they hint at *why* they mentioned this name? No.

Yeah, and it was kinda odd, just sticking it on the end there (with no attempt to fold it into the rest of the story). Almost looks like a dangling bit at the bottom of the file that was included by accident. This was a pretty good summary paragraph, though:

Mr. Fitzgerald has been investigating whether administration officials deliberately disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity - she is also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame - in response to criticism by her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, of the administration's use of intelligence about Iraq's weapons programs before the invasion.


Really, why would it be deliberate? That's always been fevered imaginings from Joe's guilt-ridden brain. I've pointed out before that Joe thought Saddam had WMD. It was the temper of the time to fear his giving some to terrorists. Joe participated in that gestalt. That is the true measure of Joe's psychosis. His delusion was that the outing was deliberate. That is his belief.


It's a response typical of one who's been beaten rather than persuaded.



If somebody "outed" my wife - I'd be paranoid myself.

Tom made a "duhhh" swipe at Howard Kurtz the other day for pointing out the reason for the passion in this debate - a justification for offensive war based on an argument that Saddam was a "gathering threat" with neferious intent. Even if he didn't have any WMD's, he was trying to get them and would get them as soon as our back was turned.

Saddam's alleged "yellow cake shopping" in Africa was one of the few pieces of evidence supporting the argument.

The WH reaction to Wilson's op-ed shows how important they thought this "point" was. The were apparently looking for something - anything - to shut this guy up. Paranoia is good sense someone is really trying to kill you - and these guys have a record as long as your arm.


Texas Toast,

Oh come on. They have no record. There is rumor and innuendo. All created in a political atmosphere in which neither side would come out smelling clean. If Wilson was paranoid, he would not have been so obviously spreading lies. And if he were concerned about his wife's 'secret life', he wouldn't have brought attention to himself.

You may get the indictments you desire, but Joe Wilson is not innocent in this. Not by a long shot.


TT, why would you be paranoid if the outing was predictable? Do you see the pathology?


And TT, just as a matter of practical political tactics, why would 'outing' a wife shut up a critic? This is the absurdity you have bought from Joe, and you require that to make your argument. It is a reduction to absurdity.


Oh dear, the editors of the Washington Post concede today that probably no crime was committed by anyone as far as they can tell from the reported testimony.

I see a whole lot of journalistic outrages, however, beginning with Kristoff and the Wash Po's own Walter Pincus who cloaked the Wilson cronies'(McGovern and Johnson) claims in anonymity .Why? Ten minutes with these crackpots should have been enough to show they are incredible. And, indeed, when covering the Conyers playouse hearing,Milbank reported Johnson's claims, the town laughed. Had they weighted where the charges were coming from; had they honestly reported the SSCI discrediting of Wilson, we'd have been free of this stupid, distracting non-scandal.



What is the deal with Novak?

Shed a little light? When will the other shoe drop!Talk about major-league puzzlement...


These folks still can't get their story straight.

Last week, the story was Karl lied to the President's face and denied having anything to do with it. Today, the Daily News is running with the President took ol' Karl to the woodshed over this back in 2003.

Looks like the President's plausible deniability is not so plausible.


Cheezy-that's quite problematic actually:

Quoting the Note: Super-plugged-in Tom DeFrank of the New York Daily News [wrote James Baker's autobiography] reports exclusively that an "angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair. . . 'He made his displeasure known to Karl,' a presidential counselor told The News. 'He made his life miserable about this.'"

DeFrank has another source claiming that reports that Rove may have misled Bush about the "Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the president."

So when President Bush let McClellan go out and say Rove was in no way involved-Bush allowed his spokesman to lie.

Bush's know-nothing defense: "this is a big administration with lots of SAOs" was also a lie.

In short, Bush himself is a liar.


And oh yeah-last were stories were "incorrect" Hmmm... "inoperative" was the Watergate term. Or in plain English-last week's story were lies.

IOW-They lied when they said they lied!



yadayadayada--The guy who claimed "Bush lied" is himself the liar but the meme lingers on.

When even the WaPo says this is a nothingburger , it's time to turn that record off.


Gad, I bet they hated to swallow that nothingburger.

I'll gladly pay you nothing Tuesday for a nothingburger today.


TT said "The WH reaction to Wilson's op-ed shows how important they thought this 'point' was"

I think this is a very good point that's often overlooked. The most important thing to Bush was invading Iraq. In Bush's mind, the most important thing pre-invasion was selling the idea to us (and it seems that this was a higher priority than some other things, like planning the war and post-war properly). The most important part of selling the war to us was scaring us (as compared with lofty ideas about liberating the oppressed and spreading democracy, which revisionists are giving a lot of play ex post facto).

The most important part of scaring us was telling a story about WMD (because telling us about Saddam's conventional weapons was deemed not scary enough; an irony of this is that roughly 100% of our casualties have been caused by Saddam's conventional weapons).

The most important part of scaring us via WMD was the nuke story. CW and BW are scary enough, but nothing compares to a nuke. Gotta have a mushroom cloud if you really want to keep voters awake at night.

The most important part of the nuke story was uranium. The aluminum-tube story was also important, but still not as easy to grasp as good old uranium.

The most important part of the uranium story was Niger, because that was a very good candidate for where Saddam might shop.

So plots regarding Nigerien uranium play a very, very central role in what was important to Bush during this period (someday hopefully we'll find out who forged those documents; I say Chalabi). Uranium fears were at the core of his marketing strategy for the war, and the war was obviously at the core of his presidency. The White House understood this. WIlson also understood this. The stakes were very high, which is why WHIG went into full countermeasures-mode, even before Wilson wrote the oped.

Finally, the White House had very little to throw at Wilson. What they really needed was anything remotely resembling solid proof that Saddam was indeed trying to buy uranium, from anyone, anywhere. Of course they had no such thing. So they were forced to scrape the bottom of the barrel, and claim that Wilson was a pussy who couldn't even get a job without help from his wife. Pathetic, but it was the best they could do, and they were understandably desperate. That's why they were willing take big risks. And they almost got away with it. Still might.

Appalled Moderate


You have to put the events in a time-frame before you can say Bush is a liar. (When did Bush learn of Rove's involvement in the leaking of the name. Before Scotty said Rove and Libby said they were not involved. or afterwards?)

I think both men should have been fired for allowing a lie to go out under their names. I am slightly relieved Bush may have given Rove a number of hard days over this. (But only slightly.) I was afraid the man hadn't noticed there was a problem here.


"Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, said he expects indictments this week in the CIA leak case involving White House advisers Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

Kristol said "the mood is bleak in the White House today,” and said the environment surrounding the federal grand jury testimony is "pretty grim.” Although the indictments may not ultimately result in anything substantive, Kristol said there is a pins-and-needles feel to the grand jury investigation into the leaking of a CIA agent's name to the media in 2003.

"The net has been cast wide,” Kristol told Fox News Tuesday. "Lots of junior aides have testified. It’s been a very comprehensive investigation by the prosecutor. I think there will be indictments and the mood is pretty bleak in the White House.”

As for what this means for President Bush and the daily working of the White House, Kristol said it is too early to tell."

kim, Sue, Cecil,Seven et al.: I think you better call the White House. They'll be happy to hear your reassurances, based on your inside knowledge of the GJ deliberations and the applicable laws, how "Nadagate" isn't going to amount to anything.


Clarice said "The guy who claimed 'Bush lied' is himself the liar"

I guess you weren't around the last time this was mentioned. Let us know how you feel about "he wouldn't let them" and "we found the weapons of mass destruction."


Read Nothing About It! Read Nothing About It!

Creepy Dude

Clarice-the WAPO editorial board is nothing but the guardian of the status quo.

This scandal has the impact to reach far into the grotesque melding of the government-journalism class so aptly symbolized by that asinine Gridiron dinner where Novak prances on stage in drag and Bush pretends to be searching for WMDs under his bed, and all the assembled politicos and journos guffaw over their cocktails.

That ain't America to me.

It's time for the status quo to go-this really is an Augean stables moment.


Oops, that should be "he wouldn't let them _in_"


Libby will take a deal, with no jail time-he pleads to obstruction, for misleading the investigation-and the promise to the principals that he is the only one who must take a plea.

Fitzgerald does not want to take this thing to Court. Getting an indictment is pretty easy, getting a conviction, with a defense who could paint the Wilson's as 'leakers' themselves does not inspire confidence in Fitz. (Sorry dems, Fitzgerald is not Ronnie Earle).

An actual trial is the last thing that fitzgerald wants to pursue, especially since there is no crime to build the obstruction charge around. Sorry dems, but it is true.

Wilson's mission and his findings were classifed, his discussion of classified docs seems to be a larger crime than obstruction. The perjury charges were dismantled when Rove (and Libby?) went back and fessed up. that left obstruction-Cooper said he did not get Plame's name from rove, and Novak said that Rove confirmed it.

I'd love to see the trial, as the defense can paint the Wilsons, thru cross, as politcally motivated leakers, who were victims of the same offense they were committing. Great star witnesses. The press can't remember or has denied-thus, also 'great witnesses'.

Fitzgerald doesn't want to help play this game that was going on between the CIA and the WH. The report of 'no report to be released' combined with the weighing of whether to bring indictments seems to mean that the facts of the case are too contradictory from all sides, and the report would be inconclusive.

Libby takes a Berger-esque bow to the world, Rove walks, pundits sqwauk.


No good Appalled-Bush still failed to correct the record and let the lie stand.


CD, gaining perspective through humour is not usually evil.

JBG, it wasn't that Joe was a 'pussy'(kinda doubt he is), but that his argument was suspect by illegitimate connection to the CIA that was the point of the pushback. Please, don't mischaracterize something this important.


Paul, I squawk plaudits.

Cecil Turner

They'll be happy to hear your reassurances, based on your inside knowledge of the GJ deliberations and the applicable laws . . .

WaPo says "no crime," Kristol says they're goin' down (what next . . . human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together?). I think I'll wait for the indictments, if any (at which point, for those shaky on the basics of American jurisprudence, all involved will still be innocent).

No good Appalled-Bush still failed to correct the record and let the lie stand.

So far, that appears to be the low point (though it's worth noting the "leaking classified information" qualifier on most of the statements). In any event, it was past time for the Administration to shut up, and they finally did.



What happens, happens. Why you think your guesses are more relevant than ours is beyond me. Because until announcements are made, guesses are all any of us have. Maybe we should just get rid of the comments sections. Or at the very least, provide you with the ability to block out someone else's opinion you don't like. :)


N.Y. Times March 2005: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003

"In a stunning about-face, the New York Times reported Sunday that when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed "stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials," as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to "a neighboring state" before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites."

"The U.N.'s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [UNMOVIC] "has filed regular reports to the Security Council since last May," the paper said, "about the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states."

"Officials of the commission and the [International] Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to report on what it knows of the fate of the thousands of pieces of monitored equipment and stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials."
"Last fall, IAEA director Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed that "nuclear-related materials" had gone missing from monitored sites, calling on Iraqi officials to start the process of accounting for the missing stockpiles still ostensibly under the agency's supervision." Hat tip - MacRanger

Uh, didn't ElBaradei win the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize? But we ALL know Bush lied. Better tell Mr. ElBaradei to quit wasting his time filing stupid reports.

Full article NYT Stunning About- Face March 3, 2005


Let's recap, possums: 4 kooks (Wilson/Plame/Johnson and McGovern) hook up with Kristoff and Pincus to lie and are covered by them with the cloak of invisibility. They charge falsely that Cheny sent Wilson on a Mission to Niger, he reported back that the Iraqis didn't buy uranium from Niger , the report went up to Cheney and he ignored it. Everything they say is a lie SSCI.

Reporters call Libby and Rove who say Cheney never sent him and they heard (probably from other reporters) that his played a role in getting him that mission.

On June 14, 2003, Wilson publicly states (EPIC) that he is the envoy to Niger and his wife's name is Valerie Plame.

Had Libby and Rove not denied the charge, only Wilson's lies would have been on the public record.

The MSM keeps repeating the lies and keeps ignoring the fact that the SSCI discredited Wilson.

And now the WaPo admits that there is apparently no indictable offense.

Again, I go back to the thought that what the President's critics are incensed about is that the Administration dared to discredit a liar, a liar who they pimped.

The CIA (Harlow) tells Novak Plame is an employee there.


Paul's right. But there is no case here, not even against Libby. I'm not competent defense but I could persuade a jury.

By the way, if Judy is such a Neo tool, how did she get stuck in bed in a mosque?


C'mon give ElBaradei a break.

He did warn the world about Iran and NK...didn't he?

Nobel prize for one out of three? Given that rate of accuracy, one would be better served by taking the opposite view of ElBaradei.


My favorite quote of the day (from the NY Daily News):

Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.

Responding to jukeboxgrad, who wrote:

The stakes were very high, which is why WHIG went into full countermeasures-mode, even before Wilson wrote the oped.

The triggering event for WH countermeasures was the May 6 Kristof op-ed, augmented by Pincus, Kristof again and picked up by the news media generally. The theme was the explosive charge that the WH knew - before the President's SOTU - that the Niger claim was bogus. The "proof" of that pre-knowledge was that an unnamed envoy had reported the forgery after being sent on a mission by the VP himself.

Once Wilson went public, many weeks later, he scaled back his charges dramatically. But with anonymous leaking and the megaphone of a receptive press, the "sense" of the story had already been implanted in the public mind.

Did Wilson know in November 2002 that the documents were forged? If yes, how did he know? If no, then he spread a lie through the press.


Did it ever occur to anyone that the same intelligence agencies that gave us Saddam has WMDs are giving us Iran and NK have WMDs? At the same time missing Pakistan passing to Libya, et al?


Given Wilson's impressive (cough, cough) performance at the SSCI, the only public hearing where he appearred under oath...

Is Fitzgerald really wanting to carry his 'Flame'?

Has anyone seen Wilson in a while? He still has time to accuse 20 more WH officials, before the end of the Grand Jury.

Hypothtically speaking-If the investigators asked Joe Wilson who knew about his wife's work, and he failed to mention 20 to 30 people in the press...is that obstruction?

And if it went to trial, wouldn't those discrepancies serve to impeach him as any type of witness, let alone victim?


Is Wilson alone, or not? We know the press went rogue.

Seven Machos

Monday: Bush is a bumbling idiot.

Tuesday: Bush is Cheney's pupper; Cheney masterminded the whole caper.

Wednesday: Bush is a liar who "took Rove to the woodshed" because Rove was an idiot. Bush knew everything that was happening.

Can't wait for Thursday's meta-narrative, lefties. What will Bush be? Crazy and paranoid? Drunk at the wheel? A coked-up control freak in an energetic frenzy? Despondent and pitiable but, sadly, unfit for office?

Do keep me posted.

Creepy Dude

Hey Kim- you're right about using humor to gain perspective. So here's how I see Plamegate:

When Cheney resigns, who becomes President?

telegraph game

Hannah? Is Daryl Hannah taking Cheney's place after he resigns?

Psssst...spread the word.

Seven Machos

The problem, Creepy, is that that isn't funny. It's not even coherent.


I'm so mental over Plamegate, I recently dreamt about it two nights running. Guess I'm 'pulling a Malkin' - ie, "suspended somewhere between meltdown and release."

Lord, I hope Bret Stephens isn't reading the JOM comments section. He'd probably suggest straight jackets for the lot of us.


When Cheney resigns, who becomes President?

Condi....next question??

If somebody "outed" my wife - I'd be paranoid myself.
The paranoia is especially convenient if it interferes with the realization that the only 3 people who ever "outted" his wife were himself (to David Corn), Aldrich Ames (before 1994), and whoever screwed up in the Havana - Swiss embassy fiasco.

Note that I make no claim that Joe Wilson thought then or thinks now that he was the first person to ever tell a reporter that Valerie was covert. I'm simply pointing out that the belief that he wasn't first is not only politically convenient for him, but psychologically convenient for him as well.

cathy :-)


Hey Lesley, there are sirens outside, and my dog is going nuts. They are coming to take him away, away.

He needs tutoring.


Lesley, those dreams are cf's third part of memoery bouncing around in the echo chamber of your mind. They come out to play when it is still.

Geek, Esq.

Oh dear, the editors of the Washington Post concede today that probably no crime was committed by anyone as far as they can tell from the reported testimony.

Last time I checked, criminal investigations aren't confined to material reported in the press.

Thanks Geek

Last time I checked, criminal investigations aren't confined to material reported in the press.

---and I shall apply this to 100% of the reporting thus far


'Reported testimony' is a huge caveat. Fitz knows more than we do. It's hard to resist a nyah, nyah; please, no mirrors.


Kim, to quote one of your (many) memorable funnies: I think I've hoisted myself on my own retard.


What's great about having a poor short term memory is that that one looks new and clever to me. It's mine? Find a link, JBG.

Maybe, I'll google.


By the way, JukeBoxGrad stands for JunkYardDog, who defends every last part of his argument as if his life depended upon it. Thank God he's fundamentally defending my junkyard.


Kim, you directed the comment to someone else, you weren't referring to yourself. You were probably addressing "LISTEN, Dunderhead."

Another classic.


Um this is an old question, but has Walter Pincus detailed what he has said either to GJ or investigators in a Cooper/Miller fashion?


The perjury charges were dismantled when Rove (and Libby?) went back and fessed up.

I believe that is true for Karl. However, the Times said a few days back that there was no sign of Libby being called back, which could be ominous.

That said, I still don't think Fitzgerald delivers only a perjury/obstruction charge - we either get more, or less.

Franz Golmeister

Fitz has an easier case to prove with "less" (much less). If he goes for "more", he might as well put that notch in his loss belt as he is making his indictment announcement.

Libby could get back in to testify if he wanted to. Either he knows he has nothing to worry about...or he lied, and doesn't want to make it worse. But even with the latter scenario, that is not a case for more.

The only thing Fitz is thinking about now is why he accepted this crummy assignment. Not even a good BJ story involved.


I'm hard pressed to find a clear contradiction between Libby and Miller's reported statements, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to have to base my case on anything she said or her own notes, which she admits even she can't figure out.

Florence Schmieg

The constitutional line of succession has the President succeeded by Vice President succeeded by the Speaker of the House (Dennis Hastert), then the president pro-temporare of the Senate (Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska) and then by the Secretary of State (Condi).

But I wouldn't worry. Bush/Cheney will serve out the entire second term.


[quote]Losing a sense of proportion, and of reality, is an occupational hazard when arguing about politics. But Joseph Wilson's accusation that administration officials outed his wife to punish him for speaking up was never really credible. And by now, a small mountain of evidence points toward a more plausible, nondiabolical motivation for the accidental blowing of Plame's cover. In her first-person account in the Times, Judith Miller indicates that Libby's motive in talking to her about Wilson and his wife was the fight between the White House and CIA over whose fault it was that Bush had included faulty intelligence about Saddam's pursuit of African uranium in his 2003 State of the Union address. That blame game was morphing into a larger public dispute about the administration's claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush officials were in the middle of an argument in which they were largely wrong, and which they lost, but in which they thought they were right and were trying to win.

In that context, Libby's comments don't look anything like retaliation against Joe Wilson—especially now that we know that Libby first mentioned Wilson and his wife to Judith Miller three weeks before Wilson went public with his op-ed piece. As for Rove, so far as we know, he spoke to only a single journalist—Matthew Cooper of Time. According to Cooper, Rove didn't even know Plame's name. If that's a White House smear campaign, Rove's skills are getting pretty rusty.[/quote] Weisberg



From Jerkweed:

"Quoting the Note: Super-plugged-in Tom DeFrank of the New York Daily News [wrote James Baker's autobiography] reports exclusively that an "angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair. . . 'He made his displeasure known to Karl,' a presidential counselor told The News. 'He made his life miserable about this.'"

Jerkweed, if this is true, I don't doubt Bush rebuked Rove. However, the part I can't buy is that Bush made Rove's life miserable over this. A good boss says his peace and moves on. I think Bush is a good boss. Karl Rove doesn't need this job, especially a job he must execute while in the dog house, nor does Bush need the potential political liability. I think IF this were true, Rove would have been eased out prior to the 2004 Election.


Hmmm....another day...another leak that didn't come to fruition. No word from Fitzgerald. :)


It's easy to get back in front of the Grand Jury.

Just have your lawyer offically file request to correct earlier statements-that you know now to be in error.

It destroys the perjury issue-because if they don't let you back, you show the jury that you tried to correct your statements, but the Prosecutor would not let you. I bet that really pissed Fitz off. Rove wouldn't do it, unless to correct 'everything'.

If Libby is not given a chance to correct his statements, then he has done one of two things:
1. chose not to pursue a corrective posture

2. Fitz doesn't have him targeted for perjury, he wants something bigger.

If Libby can get back, it is a large concession on Fitz's part. If he was allowed back, it would be prosecutorial surrender.

The obstruction charges remain, but there isn't anyone who is clean on it-he would have to bring obstruction charges against everyone who gave misleading statements-22 people? Based on a charge he couldn't prove any individual did?-thus the 'conspiracy' rumors. In the face of the fact that Rove said he 'found out about it from the press'-which was one of his corrections in the fourth appearance. If he had not been previously told of Wilson's wife thru WH staff(verbally), and his source was the press as he earlier stated(just that they weren't the inital knowledge bearers), he wouldn't be going back.

When he went back, he clarrified his statements. The Cooper deal wasn't that strong-the denial of the initial information was the weak point in his defense.

Fitz letting him back in was a sign that he was not thinking that rove is the main target of the investigation. It really weakens an obstruction case, not so much as the perjury, but enough of a concession, that Fitz would have a hard time getting obstruction, when rove answered, previously, vaguely enough, that his later clarifications could dig him out. (We are talking a 160 IQ, in regards to Rove).

His difficulty with Libby:

He has the paper trail that proves Libby knew at a certain time. He is the vp's bodyguard-he wanted to know everything about Wilson. He jailed Judy because she was the person who he could establish Libby talking to in the press-the only person. She was his only shot at getting Libby. fitzgerald is livid. He wants Judy gone, but he would still take Libby over her, but now it is too late. Judy really screwed him, and she is terrified about what comes next-when she left jail she wasn't happy, she remained with the desperate look.



Walter Pincus's account



That is interesting. His source told Fitzgerald he was Pincus' source.


Has anyone read why Miller brought up the June meeting with Libby? I do not believe she just 'found' her notes.


AP has a version.


This could mean that Andrea mitchell told Tim Russert how Wilson was selected. She never gave the name, just her position. That fits for the russert denial. He didn't provide the name, but gave the relevant info. So russert's denials are half-hearted.



This is from the only additional source of information on Pincus I am aware of.

For example, after his source on Plame (not Libby) authorized him to talk to Fitzgerald, Pincus agreed to give a deposition in which he confirmed the time, date, and length of his conversation with the source but would not reveal the source’s identity.


I don't think Miller was protecting Libby. I think Miller was worried about Fitzgerald asking her again about her source that allowed her to tip off the Islamic charity in Richardson, Texas.


From the AP Story:

The Rove-Libby contacts were confirmed to The Associated Press by people directly familiar with testimony the two witnesses gave before the grand jury. All spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the proceedings.

Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, did not return repeated phone calls this week seeking comment.

Don't they make it a little too obvious who their source is? Is there any doubt that it's not Luskin?


It isn't Luskin.I think. It's probably other witnesses.Likely reporters who said they spoke to Libby or Rove.

As to Pincus article on anonymous sources, I doubt I'll get a response, but I emailed him asking how using Plame Wilson, Johnson and McGovern as sources and sourcing them anonymously knowing what obvious biases they held and what utter crackpots the latter two are was fair to his readers. That is, five minutes listening to McGovern and Johnson would persuade most of us they aren't credible, but denying us the right to know who they were gave their claims more weight than they deserved.


On the Solomon AP penned story, interesting (and bad) that Libby initiated the talk with Miller and the talk with Russert. Send that Tradesports contract up...

The comments to this entry are closed.