Baby Steps Towards The Truth

Walter Pincus of the Washington Post prints a bit of a Wilson-basher today.  Why do we care?  The current Plame leak coverage has settled on the theme that the White House was determined to "discredit" Wilson.  In that context, an understanding of the White House motive might be enriched if the media admitted that Wilson lacked credibility, and that "discrediting" him amounted to correcting the record.

Folks who make it past the summary of Wilson's political history will eventually learn a bit about his veracity.  But first, for context, let's use Wolf Blitzer as our benchmark for the Wilson story as the media was presenting it.  On July 13, after Wilson's leaks, after the Wilson op-ed, after Tenet explained the background to the Wilson trip, Blitzer summarized the story thusly:

...11 months earlier, you, the Bush administration, had sent Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Niger, to find out whether it was true. He came back, reported to the CIA, reported to the State Department, it wasn't true, it was bogus. The whole issue was bogus. And supposedly, you never got word of his report.

That was the media environment which Wilson helped to create.  Let's go to the WaPo:

(a) Did Wilson actually see the forged documents?

Wilson told The Washington Post anonymously in June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Wilson had to admit he had misspoken.

On a better day, the WaPo would pick up Wilson's explanation of this apparent error when he spoke to Paula Zahn after the Senate report had criticized his memory:

ZAHN: I want you to respond to that very specific allegation in the addendum to the Senate report, which basically says that your public comments not only are incorrect, but have no basis in fact.

WILSON: Well, I'm not exactly sure what public comments they're referring to. If they're referring to leaks or sources, unidentified government sources in articles that appeared before my article in "The New York Times" appeared, those are either misquotes or misattributions if they're attributed to me.

Hmm, would Mr. Pincus care to address Mr. Wilson's charge that Mr. Pincus misquoted or misattributed Mr. Wilson's remarks in his June 12, 2003 story?  Or should we simply add that to the burgeoning "Wilson lacks credibility" file?  Imagine our surprise - Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard found Mr. Pincus to be less than forthcoming on this point.

(b) Was Wilson's wife involved in selecting him for the trip?

Wilson has maintained that Plame was merely "a conduit," telling CNN last year that "her supervisors asked her to contact me."

But the Senate committee found that "interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife . . . suggested his name for the trip." The committee also noted a memorandum from Plame saying Wilson "has good relations" with Niger officials who "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." In addition, notes on a State Department document surmised that Plame "had the idea to dispatch him" to Niger.

The CIA has always said, however, that Plame's superiors chose Wilson for the Niger trip and she only relayed their decision.

Well.  In his book, "The Politics of Truth", Wilson said (p. 346) that "the assertion that Valerie had played any substantive role in the decision to ask me to go to Niger was false on the face of it... So what if she conveyed a request to me to come to the Agency to talk about Niger? She played absolutely no part in the decision to send me there."

On the other hand, TIME couldn't get him to answer that question last summer:

That means Wilson was also shading the story: "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he wrote in his 2004 book The Politics of Truth. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." When asked last week by TIME if he still denies that she was the origin of his involvement in the trip, he avoided answering.

(c) Was Cheney, or Cheney's office, briefed on Wilson's report?

On another item of dispute -- whether Vice President Cheney's office inspired the Wilson trip to Niger -- Wilson had said the CIA told him he was being sent to Niger so they could "provide a response to the vice president's office," which wanted more information on the report that Iraq was seeking uranium there. Tenet said the CIA's counterproliferation experts sent Wilson "on their own initiative."

Wilson said in a recent interview: "I never said the vice president sent me or ordered me sent."

He never said that?  Here is Kristof from May 2003, with Wilson as a source:

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger.

...The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

More Kristof, June 13, 2003:

Condoleezza Rice was asked on "Meet the Press" on Sunday about a column of mine from May 6 regarding President Bush's reliance on forged documents to claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. That was not just a case of hyping intelligence, but of asserting something that had already been flatly discredited by an envoy investigating at the behest of the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

...Mr. Cheney's office got wind of [the Niger report] and asked the C.I.A. to investigate.

...My understanding is that while Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet may not have told Mr. Bush that the Niger documents were forged, lower C.I.A. officials did tell both the vice president's office and National Security Council staff members.

For those lacking a dictionary, the Merriam-Webster tells us  that "behest" means "1 : an authoritative order : COMMAND; 2 : an urgent prompting".

(d) Was Wilson's report conclusive?  The WaPo gives us this:

Wilson's central assertion -- disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger -- has been validated by postwar weapons inspections. And his charge that the administration exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq has proved potent.

[Big Skip]

Wilson also had charged that his report on Niger clearly debunked the claim about Iraqi uranium purchases. He told NBC in 2004: "This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations." But the Senate committee said his findings were ambiguous. Tenet said Wilson's report "did not resolve" the matter. [See Tenet's July 11, 2003 statement].

The WaPo could have done more, but they have moved in the right direction by noting some flaws in Wilson's original stage-setters. 

And they are a fountain of insight in comparison with the NY Times.  When the Times wrote their long account of the Judy Miller saga and the backstory to the Plame leaks, they made no mention of Nick Kristof's columns, even though his May 6 effort noted above is widely credited with launching Joe Wilson.

Today, the Times has a modest breakthrough as they confront their tortured past while discussing the timing of the conversation between Libby and Cheney about Wilson and his wife:

On June 12, 2003, the day of the conversation between Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby, The Washington Post published a front-page article reporting that the C.I.A. had sent a retired American diplomat to Niger in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium there. The article did not name the diplomat, who turned out to be Mr. Wilson, but it reported that his mission had not corroborated a claim about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear material that the White House had subsequently used in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

An earlier anonymous reference to Mr. Wilson and his mission to Africa had appeared in a column by Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York Times on May 6, 2003. Mr. Wilson went public with his conclusion that the White House had "twisted" the intelligence about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear material on July 6, 2003, in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times.

My goodness.  It seems finally to have dawned on the Times editors that they can not continue to cover this story under the pretense that Joe Wilson sprang from the earth, fully grown, with his op-ed on July 6.

Will the Times ever get around to acknowledging that much of the material presented by Kristof was not accurate?  Will they acknowledge that one possible motivation for the White House attack on Wilson's credibility was that Wilson was not credible?

One day at a time at the Times.

 

Comments

[Geek, Esq.]

Determining who, between the administration under investigation for perjury and the fickle Mr. Wilson, is more credible is like arguing whether Beavis or Butthead was the smart one.

[TM]

Touche.

[clarice]

Laurie Mylroie signalled what was going on with the unelected bureaucracy in the DoS and CIA years ago--Bush v, The Beltway, and the Kristof/Pincus?Wilson fandango is but one example of a runamok mandarinate which long ago decided it and it alone could and should dictate UR foreign policy.

[clarice]

Laurie Mylroie signalled what was going on with the unelected bureaucracy in the DoS and CIA years ago--Bush v, The Beltway, and the Kristof/Pincus?Wilson fandango is but one example of a runamok mandarinate which long ago decided it and it alone could and should dictate US foreign policy.

[ICallMasICM]

Butthead was the smart one.

[eli]

Not the least bit relevant:
1. The correct record is that there was no transaction with Niger... the hawks wilfully let themselves be duped. Attacking the messanger is a sideshow. Maybe he's a liar, maybe he was misquoted. The point is that he was unquestionably correct about shabby evidence used for a war.
2. You can't have it both ways. Was the entrenched bureaucracy underestimating our enemy or was it overestimating our enemy?! It doesn't matter WHO sent who to Niger, they weren't going to find anything, because, as we leaned by occupying Iraq and searching every conrner- there was no unranium. Period. Ideology meet facts.

[Cornholio]

Then that would make Wilson...Beavis.

[Jon H]

"Laurie Mylroie signalled what was going on with the unelected bureaucracy in the DoS and CIA years ago--Bush v, The Beltway"

You mean her book which decried the CIA's underestimating of the threat of Iraqi WMD, which was an obstacle for Bush's war?

Funny, I thought the White House blamed the CIA for *overestimating* the threat!

Anyway, Laurie Mylroie is a grade-A tinfoil hat kook. And she looks like Paul Wolfowitz in drag.

[cheesecake]

No one in the administration ever said Iraq bought yellowcake from Niger. Only that Iraq was seeking yellow cake. Something that Wilson's trip ending up supporting.

And by the way, Iraq already had an additional 500 pounds of yellow cake in it's possession:

"The story begins at the end of the first Gulf War when inspectors found a 500 ton cache of refined yellow cake uranium at Iraq’s primary nuclear research facility in Al-Tuwaitha outside of Bagdhad. The cache was part of a huge inventory of nuclear materials discovered by UN inspectors that included low-level radioactive material of the type used for industrial and medical purposes as well as a quantity of highly enriched uranium suitable for bomb production."

[paul]

How did Wilson know he was sent by the VP's office?

How did he know that his material was used in a report that originally he said was given to the Veep?

Apparently Joe Wilson was more in the know with the CIA than Cheney was...

Which begs the question: Did Joe wilson have more sources of intel from the CIA, than Cheney or Tenet?

Plame (and probably several friends) were blabbing like high schoolers. If she was a clandestine agent, she sure didn't learn her job well.

[Jim E.]

Laurie Mylroie thinks Arabs were behind the Oklahoma City bombing. And she co-wrote a book with Judy Miller.

[clarice]

Isn't it interesting that Scowcroft whose attacks on the Administration are now at a fever pitch, is the employer of Pavitt, Plame's ex-boss. And wasn't it Pavitt who, among other things, first denied that Plame had anything to do with the Mission to Niger .(wouldn't that be a great name for an opera buffo?)

No matter what the outcome of this investigation, I will continue to believe that this was a snakey operation by rats in the CIA aided by the media for the benefit of Kerry who would certainly have yielded to the mandarinate.

[Anderson]

Because the CIA was pissed at the administration, does not make the administration right and the CIA wrong.

Because State was pissed at being ignored, does not make the administration right and State wrong.

Maybe the bureaucracy was fighting back because it saw a once-in-a-generation foreign-policy train wreck taking place, with all messages to the engineer being ignored? "More coal!" was all they heard ...

[clarice]

Mylroie also correctly tagged the Iraqis with masterminding the WTC bombing using the false flag of islamonutcases and linked (correctly) Ramzi Yusef and Sheik Bin Al Shieb (Sp?) to that operation and to Saddam.

Would that we had people like her instead of the generic blonde dope on the inside of Langley.

[clarice]

The CIA missed, among other things, the Pak nuke souk, the Libyan nuclear program, Saddan's bio chem program.It encouraged a fake coup which Chalabi warned them was a fake, costing thousands of lives. Once upon a time the left distrusted them as much as I do--what changed your minds? Their damned ineffectiveness? LOL

[Sue]

Jon H,

Well, if nothing else you wrote convinced me "Laurie Mylroie is a grade-A tinfoil hat kook" then looking like "Paul Wolfowitz in drag" will certainly solidify your argument.

[CaseyL]

"Mylroie also correctly tagged the Iraqis with masterminding the WTC bombing using the false flag of islamonutcases and linked (correctly) Ramzi Yusef and Sheik Bin Al Shieb (Sp?) to that operation and to Saddam.

I think Clarice *is* Laurie Mylronie.

[beatingthedrum]

Paul Wolfowitz in drag? Thank you for solving my big Halloween costume problem!

But do I add vampire teeth or would that be over the top?

[Jim E.]

clarice wrote: "No matter what the outcome of this investigation, I will continue to believe . . .[blames CIA, media, John Kerry]"

clarice admits that she is in faith-based mode. Facts don't matter to her. That's been obvious, but she's made it explicit. We know little of what the GJ knows, yet clarice has already made her conclusions and she's stickin' to 'em. And now she's denigrating Valerie Plame's service to the country. Kook.

Yet clarice has her own fan-club on these threads.

[clarice]

Yes, I am denigrating the undoubtedly outstanding service of an undoubtedly genius analyst who despite her wit and wisdom just happened to marry the biggest clown in Washington.LOL

[DwightKSchrute]

So if Wilson lacks credibility or his claims are off base, why not come out and say it at the time? GWB and his admin has shown a extreme distaste for admitting wrong choices (Miers being the current case in point). So why not go on the airwaves and say "This guy is a liar and his info is flat wrong!"? Why give backchannel surrogates like Novak and Miller info on his wife?

TM asks "Will they acknowledge that one possible motivation for the White House attack on Wilson's credibility was that Wilson was not credible?"

Perhaps Wilson's the biggest liar this side of Baghdad Bob. But given plenty of opportunity the White House never came out and made this case. Instead Cheney, 3 months after having discussing Wilson and Plame with Tenent and Libby (according to Libby's notes), goes on Meet the Press and says "but I guess—like I say, I don’t know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn’t judge him. I have no idea who hired him" when Russert says the CIA Cheney responds "Who in the CIA, I don’t know.". So perfect opportunity to say "You know what Tim I think this guy has serious credibility problems." or "I think when all the facts come out you'll see that his story is filled with innacuracies".

But Cheney instead thought the right approach was to lie on tv about how much he knew. I didn't like when Slick Willie lied to the country and I don't like it now when it's Dick Cheney.

[Jim E.]

I thought we were talking about Valerie Plame, not Laura Bush.

[Jeff]

No matter what the outcome of this investigation, I will continue to believe that this was a snakey operation by rats in the CIA aided by the media for the benefit of Kerry who would certainly have yielded to the mandarinate.

Thank you for your honesty, clarice.

[Sue]

Dwight,

How did Cheny lie? In those quotes? He probably didn't know who hired him. His wife didn't hire him, she merely suggested him. He probably didn't know which person in the CIA hired him, since Tenet had denied doing so. Now, did Cheney keep the information from us that he knew Wilson's wife worked at the CIA? Yes. But isn't that what the beef is about? Talking about a CIA agent?

[Lesley]

TM: "My goodness. It seems finally to have dawned on the Times editors that they can not continue to cover this story under the pretense that Joe Wilson sprang from the earth, fully grown, with his op-ed on July 6."

Tom, maybe the Times editors regarded Joe Wilson as latter day Topsy:

"I s'pect I just growed. Don't think nobody never made me." - Uncle Tom's Cabin -

[Jim E.]

Sue wrote: "His wife didn't hire him, she merely suggested him."

You just tip-toed right off the Bush-defender reservation with that comment. If you weaken Plame's role in this, the administration's pleas of trying to correct the record are severely undercut.

[paul]

"Because the CIA was pissed at the administration, does not make the administration right and the CIA wrong.

Because State was pissed at being ignored, does not make the administration right and State wrong."

Well, either state and spooks work for the Adminstration, or they work against it...

Given the traction Louis Freeh has found among dems(and republicans!), deriding Clinton, it clearly is a matter of deciding the favorite message and accepting its messenger. I can't recall ever voting for someone at the State Dept or the CIA...

At least you had the guts to admit that the CIA and Foggy Bottom disliked this adminstration, but to follow that thought to its conclusion would lead one to believe that both depts would leak info like a sieve that proved their views, but remain mum on info that was inconvenient/inconsistent to their beliefs.

[kal palnicki]

The matter comes down to who outed a CIA agent. Why worry about the small stuff of who said what and when? After all GW Bush says all sorts of things that are later ignored, such as if anyone in the White House leaked anything, that person would be fired. A crime was committed, several crimes were committed. The bulk of them on the part of the administration.

[Gettin Gud]

Watch out!!!! We are going to have a bunch of angry, terrorist-supportin', America-hatin' Libs in a couple of days.

[pollyusa]

Rumor from Wonkette

Word on the rainy streets of Washington is that Patrick Fitzgerald will be recalling some witnesses soon. Conflicting word is that he will announce indictments Thursday.

[clarice]

OT but mac signed out as the hurricane was bearing down on him and hasn't returned since. He must be going insane. If we don't hear from him in 24 hours I say we rustle up a search party and a grief counselor and head on down to rescue him.

[Sue]

Jim E,

Care to show me where anyone said Ms. Flame 'hired' her husband?

[Reg Jones]

TM you forgot a golden oldie...

Joe Wison, did the former Niger prime minister [Mayaki] meet with any Iraqi officials in June 1999?

In brief:

1. Wilson says “yes” during his private CIA debrief in March, 2002.

2. Wilson fails to mention the meeting in his NYT op/ed and his first “Meet the Press” in July, 2003.

3. Wilson lies and says “no” during a “Frontline” PBS Interview in August, 2003.

4. Wilson lies and says “no” twice during his second “Meet the Press” interview in October, 2003.

5. Wilson says “yes” during his third “Meet the Press” interview in May, 2004.

6. Wilson says “yes” to SSCI committee staff --report released in July, 2004.

[clarice]

Reg, any cites, please?

[politicaobscura]

I agree with Sue on this, as opposed to Jim E. who said:

You just tip-toed right off the Bush-defender reservation with that comment. If you weaken Plame's role in this, the administration's pleas of trying to correct the record are severely undercut.

I don't recall anyone saying Plame hired Wilson. You are trying to lie to us, are ya Jim?

It is a proven fact that Wilson lied about his wife's role in the selection process, Jim E.... just accept it and move on... it is very weak part of your case to try to say that Plame had no role in his selection... next issue???

[owl]

I agree clarice--this was CIA/media to advance the Democratic position. They were just practicing up with the previous 100 campaigns.

NYT starts the ball rolling with Kristoff, publishes Wilson, pushes the "outing" theme, screams the loudest for a prosecutor, keeps Miller in jail (Miller's letter to Public Editor), and trashes Miller good when she doesn't produce.

So now we all sit and wait to see if they bagged Rove on #101.

[Jim E.]

Sue,
As far as I am aware, there is zero evidence that Plame "hired" her husband, or had any significant input at all. (It seems she may have suggested him, though.)

The only people who claim Plame played a large role in Wilson's mission are Bush/Cheney defenders. They have no evidence for their claim and are motivated by trying to discredit Wilson.

[TM]

Hmm, fighting back in June 2003 about the decision to go to war has a certain post-flight lock barn door ring to it.

The theory I prefer is that, like any proper bureaucracy, the CIA took the stand that "Iraq has WMDs, unless they don't" - then, after the initial occupation, all we heard was "We told you so - they don't".

You just tip-toed right off the Bush-defender reservation with that comment. If you weaken Plame's role in this, the administration's pleas of trying to correct the record are severely undercut.

Huh? WHat about "involved", or "suggested"?

[Sue]

You have been here much longer than I have, so I can't argue what some said at an earlier date than when I first arrived. However, I will say that since I have been here, no one has even hinted that Ms. Flame hired her husband, but merely suggested him. Sometimes the facts work as well as the lie. ;) Ask Libby, if you doubt me.

[windansea]

As far as I am aware, there is zero evidence that Plame "hired" her husband, or had any significant input at all. (It seems she may have suggested him, though.)

JimE...are you dumb or just infected with BDS

Nobody sez she hired him....she did suggest him and write a memo about his experience and contacts in the region.

The very next day someone "hired" Wilson....a logical person would conclude that her input was indeed significant.

[Pablo]

" A crime was committed, several crimes were committed. The bulk of them on the part of the administration."

If you think "outing Plame" was a crime you are mistaken. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 is a very narrowly drafted statute, and it requires for conviction that the person whose identity was disclosed was a covert agent in a foreign country within the preceding five years.

Plame hadn't been outside the country for at least six years, was married to a former diplomat and was raising a family.

As to the rest of the "crimes" commited by the administration would you care to provide hard, convincing evidence to those of us who are not members of your faith-based congregation of drooling Bush haters?

Jim E.,

Google Jayna Davis. There is overwhelming evidence, including at least 20 eyewitness accounts, backing the claim that there was indeed a ME connection to the Oklahoma City bombing.

[CaseyL]

Breaking, from Steve Clemons:

1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.

2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.

3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.

4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.

A comment on Steve's blog notes that 1 indictment = 1 person; that is, each indictment can contain multiple charges.

[Keith]

If Rove and Libby and others had received letters saying that they were going to be indicted, then wouldn't they have already resigned? Why stay on if you know what's going to happen? Why not strike preemptively?

Hmmmm....

[Geek, Esq.]

The meaning of "indictment" is sufficiently vague that we probably need to hear from Clemons's source.

For example: The AIPAC indictment had multiple defendants accused of multiple crimes:
http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/franklin0805.pdf

[Geek, Esq.]

If Rove and Libby and others had received letters saying that they were going to be indicted, then wouldn't they have already resigned? Why stay on if you know what's going to happen?

Because, when you're holding a sealed envelope, it's time to play "Let's Make a Deal."

[PaulS]

And saying 1 to 5 doesn't really inspire confidence that somebody's very much in the loop.

[topsecretk9]

Is type pad acting kinda hanky?

OT- sorry still stuck on this
Just a thought, but did Pincu's piece just crumb a successful defamation suit, and is running around be quoted in newspapers calling the admin a bunch of lying asshole bastards sort of a crumb as well?

[Sue]

Maybe last night's headline in the NYTs was the pre-emptive strike. I've heard today that Libby's lawyer was the leaker.

[Jim E.]

I didn't mean to parse the word "hire." That wasn't my intent, and it's my fault for not being more clear. My only point was to say that if Plame's role in all of this is diminished, then the administration's push-back looks even more petty. I doubt the public, which won't really care about Wilson's trip anyway when indictments are announced, is going to get too hot and bothered about whether Plame "suggested" Wilson. Big whoop. The CIA decides who to send, not Libby.

I am left wondering why the administraiton had to push-back so covertly, and then deny, deny, deny when asked about it.

[Keith]

Because, when you're holding a sealed envelope, it's time to play "Let's Make a Deal."

Maybe you want to play a deal as far as your conviction. But if you're Karl Rove, and you know that it's going to be announced that you've been indicted (sealed or not), don't you resign ahead of time? That way, it shows that you're (a) honorable; (b) that Bush wouldn't tolerate you; (c) that all the news stories about the indictment say, "former WH aide...", etc.

If Rove knows he's going to have to resign, why hasn't he done it? That tells me that if Clemons is right, Rove and Libby are not the ones being indicted.

[Sue]

Mr. Wilson thinks it is a big deal. He has denied, denied, denied that his wife had anything to do with him being selected. And I agree, that is a moot point, other than to show his over-inflated self-importance is just that, over-inflated. Why they pushed so hard is also a question I would like answered. There were others who were more vocal, more critical, more name-recognition, saying the same things Wilson was. Maybe we will find out. Maybe we won't. I say it was an oops moment gone awry. But we'll see, won't we?

[CaseyL]

And when has Rove ever given the slightest indication that he's an honorable man?

[topsecretk9]

They (Rove and Libby) were conspicuously present yesterday, when Pres took question from the most unfortunately named reporter ever, Nedra Pickler.

[Geek, Esq.]

Maybe you want to play a deal as far as your conviction. But if you're Karl Rove, and you know that it's going to be announced that you've been indicted (sealed or not), don't you resign ahead of time? That way, it shows that you're (a) honorable; (b) that Bush wouldn't tolerate you; (c) that all the news stories about the indictment say, "former WH aide...", etc.

Depends on his level of honor.

Remember: The indictment is sealed until arrest. At any point before arrest, it can be dismissed and go down the memory hole.

That's a big incentive in white collar cases, which is really what this is. Essentially, the target can magically make the indictment go away by flipping.

[CaseyL]

"I am left wondering why the administraiton had to push-back so covertly, and then deny, deny, deny when asked about it."

Because they couldn't afford any attention on the Niger forgeries. The mere mention of the forgeries by Wilson put them in a panic. The latest revelations claim the WH not only knew they were forgeries, but that Steven Hadley had flown to Italy to get them... er, 'hot off the presses,' so to speak.

[Keith]

And when has Rove ever given the slightest indication that he's an honorable man?

He said that he would resign, and he would do anything to protect the President. A good general knows when to fall on his sword for his king.

To me, if this report is true, then it seems that the Grinch is about to steal the biggest Fitzmas presents of all from under the left's tree.

[Sue]

Keith,

Where does Steve Clemons say Rove/Libby aren't being indicted?

[Sue]

Geek,

What????? I thought this was a national threat to security. The outing of a NOC agent. The worst thing since Howard Stern's ass on live tv. That isn't blue collar.

[PaulS]

Actually, if individuals in the White House get letters, they're not going to just empty their desks and duck out the back as soon as they arrive.

The White House would would want to very carefully stage and manage their statements and response--and before anything goes public, write, check and double check the speech that the president will have to make.

[Kate]

1-5 indictments. What happened to the 22.

OK, could one be Cheney?

[Geek, Esq.]

White collar in that it involves non-physical crimes--more like fraud or embezzlement than like burglary or arson.

[clarice]

I'm with Keith. Looks like Pincus threw Wilson on the tracks at the last possible moment.

Why did Fitz call Wilson on Sept 29?

[Keith]

Where does Steve Clemons say Rove/Libby aren't being indicted?

He doesn't. He does say that the people being indicted have received their target letters, and if so, they know that it's about to happen. I asked, if that was the case, why hasn't Rove resigned yet? You'd think he'd want to get a jump on it and get out of the way before the official announcement if he knew it was about to happen anyway. That way, he controls the story and distances himself from President Bush (a former staffer is indicted instead of a current one).

But Rove hasn't resigned. He and Libby were in the Cabinet meeting yesterday. If Clemons is right, that tells me that they weren't the ones who received target letters. That means they're not going to get indicted.

Or Clemons' source is wrong.

[Geek, Esq.]

Safest rule remains that no one knows what anyone else knows.

[Sue]

Geek,

No, seriously, this is the worst case of outing an NOC ever. I know I've seen you argue that point. Not blue collarish at all, like perjury or obstruction. Which is what you think is coming, don't you? :) No outing of an NOC?

[Geek, Esq.]

I'm not sure of that, but check this out folks:

Tenet denies telling Cheney

I'll take that as pretty credible, since it's an actual human being making the statement instead of an anonymous source.

[TexasToast]

The kiss of death?

The vice president is doing a great job as a member of this administration, and the president appreciates all that he's doing," said Scott McClellan

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job,"

[PaulS]

Keith, if the letters went out today, then why is it relevant that Rove and Libby were at a cabinet meeting yesterday?

I looked at Steve Clemon's site (which I hadn't seen before) and I don't think he (or his source)is a purveyor of very reliable information.

Clemons also claims that the White House has been sounding out McCain to step in for Cheney as VP--something that would make the Republican response to the Miers nomination look like a joyful reception.

[Geek, Esq.]

Would we have to see McCain and Bush hug again? Ewwww.

[mary mapes]

Johnson, Wilson, Plame, Cooper and Corn?

[Keith]

Keith, if the letters went out today, then why is it relevant that Rove and Libby were at a cabinet meeting yesterday?

He said that the targets had already receieved them. Granted, they could have received them last night or this morning, so the cabinet meeting could have been before they knew.

But if they've received them, why no resignation? Can anyone explain why a politically aware person like Karl Rove wouldn't resign right away (especially when he said that he would)?

I mean, he could be waiting until the actual announcement, but that wouldn't be very astute, politically. He could drop the bombshell tonight or in the morning, but why delay the inevitable?

Take it as a random piece of evidence.

[ed]

Clemens doesn't make that point, he says there are rumors flying regarding McCain and to take them with a grain of salt.

[CaseyL]

1. Rove is a lying sack of sh*t, so his promises are worthless.

2. Bush might want the option of *firing* everyone who'se been indicted, to make it look like he's cleaning house.

3. I'm not sure about Libby. There's a reasonable possibility he gave Fitzgerald Cheney and got immunity in return.

[PaulS]

Keith, I would think that instead of heading straight for the exits, those with target letters would want to give the White House, not to mention their own lawyers, time to prepare public statements.

Also, resignation involves writing a resignation letter and submitting it the president--who then must decide whether or not to accept it. None of this should take days, but it couldn't be completed in one afternoon.

[Dave S in VaBeach]

Keith,

I have been thinking the same thing for the last few days in terms of Rove making a preemptive announcement upon receiving a target letter. Namely, that it would be better to get out in front of the story and soften the blow as much as possible.

But then again maybe Rove would want to hold out hope against hope that the grand jury would deny Fitzgerald the indictment.

Also, maybe it has been determined that Rove's services are so valuable that the administration will make use of every day of those services left available to them.

However, I've been thinking since Thursday that since Rove hasn't made an announcement that it has become increasingly unlikely that he will have to. That's why I asked yesterday when the grand jury next meets. If they meet tomorrow and Fitzgerald plans on seeking an indictment, then Rove will have already received his target letter. But since he's made no announcement, he probably hasn't received one. Let's hope so.

[Keith]

Rove is a lying sack of sh*t, so his promises are worthless.

Perhaps, but he's a damn good politician, and he knows the stakes. He would make the right politicial move--especially if he knows he's going to have to make it anyway in 24-48 hours. I don't see him hanging on just to further damage the president politically if he knew the game was up.

Bush might want the option of *firing* everyone who'se been indicted, to make it look like he's cleaning house.

Bush is loyal; he'd let them leave with dignity. Especially Rove, who is his close friend. I don't see him "firing" someone and ruining their career when they could resign, and if they get acquited, return to public service with an intact resume.

I'm not sure about Libby. There's a reasonable possibility he gave Fitzgerald Cheney and got immunity in return.

Do you really think Libby would destroy this administration--everything he worked for--over an indictment that he knows he will be pardoned for when Bush leaves? Would he destroy his close friend and boss for that?

And what about the NYTimes article saying both that (a) Fitz had no interest in Cheney and (b) they were having a hard time trying to decide about Libby?

[Sue]

Does anyone else see the irony in relying on leaks in an investigation about leaks? ;)

[Rick Ballard]

I wonder if those indicted will be placed on administrative leave by the CIA? Do they get paid while they are awaiting conviction? Will Dummies United be running hemp product raffles and bong sales for the Wilson's defense fund?

What kind of sentencing reduction will the Wilson's receive if they plead out? Will they allocute separately or together?

So many questions.

[Keith]

PaulS, maybe they're waiting a bit. But I don't think it would take that long to prepare a public statement and write a letter. If you don't hear anything by tomorrow, and if Clemons is right, then I would take it as a strong indication that Rove and Libby are off the hook.

[Kate]

Would an indictment be issued for a plea deal? I'm not sure how that works. I assume plea deals would be separate from indicyments.

[Creepy Dude]

I'm actually glad to see so many of you have faith that you are not governed by criminals and morons.

Growing up in New Orleans, LA I had no such luxury. I always knew I was ruled by thieves and surrounded by idiots. My fault for staying, but so be it. My family was here. Finally all those years of politicians' corruption and venality led to the loss of my house, most of my possessions, and generally my life as I had heretofore lived it.

I'm taking no joy in these coming indictments. In fact, I'm now turning to hoping every one is cleared.

In New Orleans-one of the biggest obstacles to recovery is the complete loss of confidence in government. There's just no direction and no one to trust. Overdue exposure of criminality is small consolation for that.

I fear this feeling of being rudderless will soon grip the whole country- and it won't be good.

If I sound melodramatic-then curse me-I hate melodrama.

[clarice]

Do you suppose it's a coincidence that Pincus slammed Wilson today?

That the Italians announced Russo was working for the French?

It may be..but maybe it isn't. We do know Judy's subpoena includes testimony about Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium and that may have been the nub of the June 23 meeting with Libby about which her report is thin.

And we do know Fitz was poking around the forged documents.

[Dave S in VaBeach]

Paul S,

If it's true that Rove has been teetering on the edge of "legal jeopardy" all this time, then those resignation letters would have been prepared long ago and discussed with the President. And yes the whole resignation process would take place the same afternoon the target letters were received - IF Rove and the administration decided that resigning ahead of the all but certain indictments was the move to make.
I tend to agree with Kieth that it seems the obvious move to make. But I still have some lingering doubt.

[Sue]

Rick,

I like your optimism. ;)

[Rick Ballard]

Kate,

Based on the vast legal experience I have gained from watching 'Law & Order' I believe that once indicted it is still possible to work out a deal with prosecutors to plead to a lesser count. Saves the government money on a trial and appeals.

Wilson's plea to the DUers and the WaPo Pincus article throwing him under the train make sense if he was notified a few days ago.

[windansea]

Fitzgerald Indicts Two in Plame Scandal

Lawyers close to the Plame investigation say that Fitzgerald will indict Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson for obstruction of justice and perjury. In addition, Wilson will be indicted for outing his wife, who was a covert CIA agent. Additional charges are being considered against Valerie Plame for her role in selecting her own husband for a government assignment in a concerted political effort to undermine the administration.

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/10/24/20457/728

[Kate]

Rick, thanks for the info. But I was also thinking about people who did deals before the announcement of indictments. For instance would there be 3 indicments and 2 plea deals or 5 indictments including 2 plea deals.

BTW-I like Law and Order too :)

[PaulS]

Still, I really don't see the point in trying to get out ahead of the indictments being made public. How does that lessen the blow to either the White House or the defendent or actually make any difference?

Would it really be plausible to say "Who did you say was indicted now? Scooter Libby? Well, he doesn't work here anymore!"

Also, there's always the chance that the grand jury won't play along and deliver the indictments--why resign until you know for sure?

[clarice]

Am I the only one who saw Windsea's post?

[topsecretk9]

NO

[Keith]

NBC's David Gregory said that laywers were interviewing mid-level White House staffers today about Karl Rove's contacts with reporters...

Seems kind of late...

[topsecretk9]

psyche

[Dave S in VaBeach]

Paul S,

Well, the possibilities you mention are what feed my doubt. But the thing that gives me the most uncertainty is that as far as I know both Rove's and Libby's lawyers stopped commenting on their clients' legal status several days ago. Up until that point, Rove's lawyer made a point asserting that no target letter had been received.

"Scoooter Libby? Well he doesn't work here anymore!" LOL. That was good.

Still, it does seem to be advantageous to control the way in which the bad news is delivered to the public. Rove and Libby both could humanize their plights better than biased MSM reporters salivating at the opportunity to be the first to announce an indictment of the evil Carl Rove. Yes?

[Sue]

You know, whatever the outcome, my life will continue the same as it has all along. I truly worry about those KOS, DU and Huffington Post people if it doesn't go their way. ;) They are celebrating a leak. Just like they celebrated it the last time there was a leak. And the time before. And the time before...

[windansea]

Am I the only one who saw Windsea's post?

read the rest at RedState....just making a point about "lawyers close to the case"

[Sue]

Clarice,

The redstate article was a joke. Posted this morning.

[Dr. Weevil]

In the first comment, Geek, Esq. writes: "Determining who, between the administration under investigation for perjury and the fickle Mr. Wilson, is more credible is like arguing whether Beavis or Butthead was the smart one."

Asserting that "the administration" as a whole is under investigation for perjury is, to put it mildly, a gross exaggeration. Omitting mention of whether anyone else might have perjured themselves is, to say the least, misleading. And calling Wilson merely "fickle" rather than dishonest seems -- let's just say fickle, to be polite.

More important, anyone who watched the show knows that Butt-Head, despite his name, was considerably smarter (well, considerably less stupid) than Beavis, who couldn't even understand a simple pun on 'hoe' and 'ho', just to give one example. If some members of the administration have, as it were, Butted Heads with Wilson, it's only because he's a total Beavis.

[obsessed]

I know you guys are feeling edgy, so I'm going to give y'all a chance to let a little steam off on me by posing the following argumentative, malicious, and troll-like questions:

1) Do you actually believe that the Bush Administration DIDN'T intentionally mislead the public into supporting the Iraq War with slanted and fabricated intelligence?

2) Do you actually believe that the war and occupation HAVE NOT been conducted with unthinkable incompetence?

3) Do you actually believe that many of the major figures in the Republican party and the right-wing religious media ARE NOT cynical criminals interested primarily in profits for themselves and their corporate sponsors?

4) What is it that you guys want that makes you conclude that it's worth keeping these guys in power?

[pollyusa]

You do know, I hope, that the Redstate story, "Fitzgerald Indicts Two in Plame Scandal", is a joke.

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

Life will continue as it abnormally does in the Alterman Reality. Don't be concerned about them, they live in a magical fantasy to begin with, sustained by childlike faith in myths which change with each passing hour. Their lives will continue to have the same weight, meaning and validity tomorrow as they do today.