Michael Crowley and Jeralyn Merritt, in the course of dissecting the Libby indictment, noted that Libby called Tim Russert on July 10 to complain about some coverage on MSNBC. But what provoked Libby's call? They nominated a July 8 broadcast of Hardball with Chris Matthews as having the sort of rhetoric that might well have drawn Libby's ire (and the Times signed up)
Well hey, three can play (and if you want to sign up for the very reasonable "Lexis a la Carte", you can play too). I am nominating this Chris Matthews vignette from July 9, 2003 - it's funny, it shows the pointlessness of actually confronting Chris Matthews with tedious stuff like, you know, evidence, it drags Nick Kristof back onstage, it lets me mock a lefty talking point - we love this game!
Here we go - Chris Matthews is discussing Joe Wilson's trip to Niger with Sen. Jay Rockefeller and David Gergen:
MATTHEWS: Let me go back to David Gergen on the question of who may be culpable here, because we do have a paper trail, thanks to Joe Wilson, the ambassador. He said he was sent to Niger, the government in Africa that is in question here. There we have a picture of him. He was on "MEET THE PRESS". He also wrote a letter, an op-ed piece for the "New York Times" this weekend.
He made it very clear he was sent down there at the behest of the vice president's office last year. Months, almost a year before the president's State of the Union Address, he came back with the information that there was, in fact, no deal. Isn't vice president's office responsible, right now, to come out and say why they didn't act on that information? Why the CIA, which also must sign off on presidential speeches, they didn't come out with the information and clear the president so that he wouldn't have to, in his own words, by the way, to use his words, revise history as he seems to be doing, saying that this was not a mistake.
GERGEN: Chris, it was my understanding that he went to the -- to Africa at the request of the CIA, not the vice president's office. Vice president's office was...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: At the behest of the vice president's office, the CIA was tasked by the vice president's office to do it. Senator, isn't that right?
ROCKEFELLER: That is correct.
GERGEN: Well, I thought what he said in "The New York Times" was -- in his piece, was that he was asked by the intelligence agencies for whom he had worked, they paid his way. He went pro bono in terms of his...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: At the request of the vice president's office. Right, Senator?
ROCKEFELLER: Absolutely correct.
GERGEN: Well, if that's the case, if there is a paper trail back to the vice president's office and if there were papers filed with the vice president's office, that's one thing. If it was filed with the CIA, that's quite another. And I think we should be -- I certainly accept Senator Rockefeller's characterization of the facts here, but I -- my understanding was that he was a former head - that he was a former state department person...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: True...
GERGEN: ... who had done CIA work...
MATTHEWS: ... he was a former (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
GERGEN: ... and he was reporting to...
MATTHEWS: That's technically how it happened. Let me ask you the big question, gentlemen. I want to get into a very important -- A lot of people watching right now may say, so what. A lot of people may say this is wild, especially the critics of the war. But, those who supported the war, what does it say to them? Senator?
Dont vex Matthews with facts! But Gergen is unrelenting, and re-emerges from his personal library a few moments later:
GERGEN: Chris, can I add one thing? I want to quote from the "New York Times" piece that Joe Wilson wrote. In February, 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions. It strikes me from that piece -- what I understood that piece to say, was the agency was the one who requested Wilson to go make this report, not the vice president's office directly. It came from the vice president's office to the agency then to Wilson.
MATTHEWS: The vice president went to the CIA to get some answers, and they used Mr. Wilson to get the facts.
GERGEN: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: I think that's the chain.
ROCKEFELLER: If I can interject...
MATTHEWS: Yes, Senator.
ROCKEFELLER: I don't think there is any question but the vice president asked the CIA to send him over. And this is a man who had served as an ambassador under Clinton as well as President Bush.
MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and David Gergen, an expert on the presidency.
Where to start? I understand that the proper lefty talking point is to insist that Wilson never said that Cheney's office sent him. But can we agree that somebody sure did get Matthews and Rockefeller confused?
Sen. Rockefeller was part of the Senate Intelligence Committee that unanimously reported a different story a year later; as of Oct 20, 2005, Matthews told us that "We apparently now are realizing that [Cheney] never knew about that trip". Waddya mean, "We"? Some of us got the clue on July 11, 2003, from the head of the CIA himself.
And let's do some ritualistic Kristof-bashing. The phrase "at the behest", recited so hypnotically by Chris Matthews, comes from his famous June 13, 2003 column, which relied in part on Joe Wilson's anonymous leaks. Let us not underestimate the impact of that column's power to cloud men's minds.
The last we heard from Mr. Kristof, he was still waiting for some public statement from the Administration contradicting his columns before he would deign to contemplate a correction. And we are still waiting for him to acknowledge the July 11, 2003 statemnt, which does just that. A standoff.
But Mr. Kristof, ever the ironist, delivers another Times Select classic, this time urging VP Dick Cheney to come clean with the American people, and tell the truth about what happened in the spring and summer of 2003. Leadership by example, Nicholas!
I like Senator Rockefeller. He's like the funny Joe Biden.
I remember when he tried to defend his "yes" vote on going into Iraq on the Sunday chats. He claimed the President "forced" Rockefeller to vote yes with psychological pressure, or, to put it in Buffy terms for the Democrats here, "Willow made me do it with her brain!"
Posted by: richard mcenroe | November 01, 2005 at 11:02 AM
Good point about Kristof. He should come clean before he asks Cheney to. But they have forgotten what come clean means over there are the New York Times.
They also forgot how to learn from mistakes. See on that one a new PressThink post, Guest writer Ron Brynaert: Does the New York Times Have a Learning Disability?
Posted by: Jay Rosen | November 01, 2005 at 11:03 AM
Yeah, but the funniest thing is it's all going to end up on CourtTV.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 01, 2005 at 11:08 AM
TM you really should send this to AIM--and to MSNBC and to Rockefeller's office.
If you'd rather someone else do it, let me know.
What good is it if only we know it?
Posted by: clarice | November 01, 2005 at 11:11 AM
Okay, let's consider the purported symmetry:
(1) The VP of the U.S., somewhere between "most powerful VP ever"/dude who chose himself for the job & the shadow president, and...
(2) a good NYT reporter turned unreadable columnist who is regularly attacked by the left & right and defended by... is there a single, say, prominent blog that takes Kristof seriously? Can we not just agree he sucks & move on to...
the Vice President????
EVEN DICK "Hillary wouldn't *** toes" MORRIS did that today: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/30426.htm
Posted by: Jeff Hauser | November 01, 2005 at 11:12 AM
Okay, let's consider the purported symmetry:
(1) The VP of the U.S., somewhere between "most powerful VP ever"/dude who chose himself for the job & the shadow president, and...
(2) a good NYT reporter turned unreadable columnist who is regularly attacked by the left & right and defended by... is there a single, say, prominent blog that takes Kristof seriously? Can we not just agree he sucks & move on to...
the Vice President????
EVEN DICK "Hillary wouldn't *** toes" MORRIS did that today: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/30426.htm
Posted by: Jeff H | November 01, 2005 at 11:13 AM
"What good is it if only we know it?"
Ha! That's exactly what Cheney and Libby said about Valerie Plame.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 01, 2005 at 11:13 AM
Tom,
It happened in May of 2003 when Joe The Liar Wilson joined the Kerry Campaign. Once Wilson was onboard, the leaks went out to Pincus, Corn Kristol, PBS, etc.
Want proof? Go here and here.
For a thorough look at Wilson's evolution to Democrat Shill thrown under the bus, go here.
Look at the Oct. 31 Entry entitled "Plame Game - What Happened Joe? - Part II". Read the comments.....
Pretty obvious that Wilson started taking orders from the Dem Party in May 03, told the Kerry Camp about his CIA trip before telling anyone else and then the leaks began.
Looks like Wilson outed his wife to the Kerry Camp, they knew before anyone.
Like they say, read the whole thing.
Posted by: BurbankErnie | November 01, 2005 at 11:14 AM
Stephen Spruiell rips the heavy cologne wearing Ambassador...
BLITZER: So you don't have any regrets about the Vanity Fair picture?
WILSON: I think it's a great picture. I think...
BLITZER: It's a great picture, but I mean...
WILSON: I think someday it too will be in the International Spy Museum.
HAHAHAHAHAH!
Video link as well (embarrassment saved for posterity)
http://media.nationalreview.com/081417.asp
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 01, 2005 at 11:33 AM
That skit is hilarious.
Even though it's not funny.
Posted by: Syl | November 01, 2005 at 11:37 AM
I saw that Blitzer bit.
I don't think we should mock him for it. That plays right into his hands.
Posted by: Syl | November 01, 2005 at 11:39 AM
Really. Joe Wilson plays all kinds of mind games. Here he's the egotist who is mocking his own ego.
Please, just give him his "debonair diplomat charm" and remind him we know it's part of his game.
Posted by: Syl | November 01, 2005 at 11:42 AM
You're right BE--So if we were data mining for the Libby defense team, to the reporters we know or are fairly certain to have known about Plame, we must add those on Beers' rolodex (not all the numbers, just those where the pages are crumpled and stained from constant use.Why? Because for them it wouldn't be a nepotism/boondoogle thing, but an indication he knew what he was talking about. You know, this is his wife's specilaty at the agency.)
Call Rand Beers to the stand.
Posted by: clarice | November 01, 2005 at 11:43 AM
But Mr. Kristof, ever the ironist, delivers another Times Select classic, this time urging VP Dick Cheney to come clean with the American people, and tell the truth about what happened in the spring and summer of 2003.
Are you saying you actually think Libbey did all this without the knowledge and not at the behest of the Vice President? Is the Vice President Sgt. Schultz? I must say that he seems to have less and less to say as time goes on about this mess.
Posted by: TexasToast | November 01, 2005 at 11:43 AM
More on Joseph Charles Wilson IV.
Here
Execrable, or worse.
Indefensible, really.
Sucks to be him.
Things will not go well for said Ambassador.
Nope.
You'll see.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: MeTooThen | November 01, 2005 at 11:47 AM
TT
What's your worry. Rove and Libby didn't leak Valery Plame.
If Cheney told them to 'Out! Out! Damned Spot! her' they did a lousy job.
Someone told Novak and Fitz is not telling us who. Not Rove, he just said 'I heard that too' so who?
The CIA outed Plame.
No wonder Fitz was frustrated.
Posted by: Syl | November 01, 2005 at 11:49 AM
Actually Syl Cooper was on TV yesterday: "There is no question. I first learned about Valerie Plame working at the CIA from Karl Rove," Cooper said...
If a trial goes ahead, Cooper said he would name Rove as his source of the information.
"Before I spoke to Karl Rove I didn't know Mr. Wilson had a wife and that she had been involved in sending him to Africa."
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 01, 2005 at 12:00 PM
I'm sure folks have read the latest from Matt Cooper.
That stuff is old news, right?
Pure speculation: Fitz has a statement from Rove that he heard that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA from Libby. Which further supports the obvious scenario (administration insiders leaking to the press) against the implausible (Libby only passed on what he learned from other reporters).
Posted by: Geek, Esq. | November 01, 2005 at 12:03 PM
Cheney to Libby to Rove to Reporters.
Cspan to Hardball to Comedy Channel to CourtTV.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 01, 2005 at 12:08 PM
Creepy Dude
Novak's article was already in the pipeline when that conversation occurred. Rove probably thought it was okay because Tenet said he was de-classifying.
Posted by: Syl | November 01, 2005 at 12:08 PM
MeToo
Yes the crack in the wall is getting growing!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 01, 2005 at 12:09 PM
Please, just give him his "debonair diplomat charm" and remind him we know it's part of his game.
Really you think? I think the smell of his own cologne clouds his humble judgement.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 01, 2005 at 12:12 PM
Geek
And nobody can be sure Libby didn't get it from Miller. :)
Only Fitz's hairdresser knows for sure.
Posted by: Syl | November 01, 2005 at 12:13 PM
So you agree then Syl-it wasn't declassified when Rove talked to Cooper.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 01, 2005 at 12:14 PM
Syl-Libby got it from Cheney. Are you disputing that?
Cheney hasn't.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 01, 2005 at 12:14 PM
Creepy Dude,
Don't you think National Security Matters amd Intel are discussed in the WH?
What is your point, Cheney orchestrated the demise of Wilson and the intentional outing of a CIA employee?
Posted by: BurbankErnie | November 01, 2005 at 12:18 PM
darn..have to go for 24 hours...just when it gets good. (Resident TV watcher here) says you really need someone who has access to sit and read every word of every show on MSNBC. What I have been shouting from the beginning because this is a major outlet for them. Problem, like with Andrea Mitchell....notice how many times the transcript has talkovers and how many times it took Gergen just to make a sentence. So maybe not.....you have to see it to believe your lying eyes.
Posted by: owl | November 01, 2005 at 12:19 PM
Yep.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 01, 2005 at 12:20 PM
Excellent job!
Posted by: drjohn | November 01, 2005 at 12:32 PM
Creepy
Why would it wrong to rid one's self of an employee who described the mission ahead as "crazy" and who participated in cahoots with her husband in an effort to undermine the country's foreign policy?
Smells of treason to me.
Posted by: drjohn | November 01, 2005 at 12:34 PM
That dastardly Joe Wilson! When WILL he be indicted?!!
Posted by: DerekFlint | November 01, 2005 at 12:35 PM
That dastardly Joe Wilson! When WILL he be indicted?!!
Posted by: DerekFlint | November 01, 2005 at 12:37 PM
...And his little wife too!!
Posted by: DerekFlint | November 01, 2005 at 12:38 PM
"I just want to assure you that American ambassador ... who actually went over to Niger on behalf of the government-not of the CIA but of the government..."
I took this extract from the METOOTHEN provided link above to a Gateway Pundit posting which in turn is a direct lifting of a speech where Ambassador Joe Wilson is speaking on June 14, 2003 to EPIC. Why he was speaking in the third person about himself is unknown except that this is one wierd dude and maybe he was worrying about the outing of his wife, who the hell could guess right now.
Now this clearly puts in his mouth the words that the Government Not the CIA sent him to Niger. Another lefty talking point down in flames. Of course some wont be troubled by facts. Hell some still claim the TANG typewriter just has not be located yet.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | November 01, 2005 at 12:42 PM
Gary,
I heard Lucy Ramirez sold it in a garage sale she had last week.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 01, 2005 at 12:45 PM
Rick
A garage sale in Texas and I missed it. Perhaps Burkett will soon have a memorabillia sale and we can all come and browse.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | November 01, 2005 at 12:55 PM
'Ambassador Joe Wilson is speaking on June 14, 2003 to EPIC. Why he was speaking in the third person about himself is unknown...'
He thought he was being cute. He hadn't yet published his NY Times Op-ed. Quite the cloak and dagger artist.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | November 01, 2005 at 12:59 PM
Gary
is one weird dude and maybe he was worrying about the outing of his wife, who the hell could guess right now.
I'm going with weird dude, because he included his wife (much like his Who's Who) in the non-passing smell test fashion , Valerie Plame in his written bio.
Which is even weirder because he re-instituted the maiden-name defense once again...
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 01, 2005 at 01:00 PM
I've noticed that there is a real problem of semantics when it comes to terms like "sent him" and "got him the job".
Your post does an interesting example of the "sent him" confusion.
On the other point, I keep tripping of lines like .. "The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not" .
I don't know about the usage of "getting him the job" in CIA or government circles, but where I live Valerie Plame got her husband the job. Granted she did not make the actual decision to send him, but sure as Vernon Jordan didn't make the actual decision to give Webster Hubbell (of Whitewater fame) a job at Revlon, Vernon got Web the job. So, using the Jordan/Hubbell example, it's quite safe to say without hesitation that "Val got her husband the job."
Posted by: Neo | November 01, 2005 at 01:01 PM
TM: "can we agree that somebody sure did get Matthews and Rockefeller confused"
If the best you can do is show that certain people misquoted and/or misunderstood Wilson, that's not too impressive. Let us know when you're ready to hold Bush accountable for all the people who might do the exact same thing to him.
Jeff: "Can we not just agree he sucks & move on to... the Vice President????"
TM obviously thinks that idiocy (whether purported or real) at the NYT (and similar places) is more of a threat to America than demonstrated dishonesty and incompetence in the White House. The proper name for this is misdirection (appropriate cartoon there).
Burbank: "Want proof?"
You obviously have a hard time understanding the difference between "proof" as compared with speculation, distortion and simply making shit up.
Looks like you're signing on to one of clarice's blatant distortions, which is explained here.
"Looks like Wilson outed his wife to the Kerry Camp"
Aside from the fact that this is nothing but speculation, you should consider the fact that even if this was true, it did not constitute a free pass for Libby to do the same thing. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | November 01, 2005 at 01:07 PM
clarice: "the reporters we know or are fairly certain to have known about Plame"
Even if it was proven that reporters already knew about Plame (and of course we've seen no proof of that, only mountains of speculation), that doesn't help Libby much. It was still classified information, and it was still a crime for Libby to be passing it along (aside from the fact that Libby should have reported to the CIA that reporters were talking about what might be classified information).
Aside from that, Libby lied to Fitz, which is a separate matter. Even if it's shown that Wilson himself personally outed Plame to numerous reporters, that doesn't change the fact that Libby perjured himself, on the subject of what he already knew at the time that he first started discussing Plame with reporters.
Syl: "Rove and Libby didn't leak Valery Plame."
I realize you want to keep pretending there is any substantive difference between "Wilson's wife" and "Valerie Plame." Trouble is, there isn't. As many people on the right are quick to point out, there were various easy ways, pre-Novak, to find out that Joe WIlson's wife was once known as Valerie Plame. As I said, this "Plame" business is mostly a pointless sideshow. As Jon said: the name "Plame" was "public record available to anyone with an incentive to look into Joe Wilson's wife."
I realize you like to beat this dead horse over and over again because you have nothing else to work with.
By the way, we don't know that "Rove and Libby didn't leak Valery Plame." We just haven't seen proof of that. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This doesn't matter, except to the extent it's another example of you constantly trampling on the distinction between speculation and fact.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | November 01, 2005 at 01:07 PM
Many comments & a few twists & turns in this thread ago, Jeff H said:
"a good NYT reporter turned unreadable columnist who is regularly attacked by the left & right and defended by... is there a single, say, prominent blog that takes Kristof seriously? Can we not just agree he sucks & move on to..."
However, according to Newsweek, Anne Rice "reads The New York Times every morning— 'Nicholas Kristof is a hero to me'— watches news 'till I can't stand it anymore.'"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9785289/site/newsweek/
Other than that, we can all agree on something & move on . . .
Posted by: BurkettHead | November 01, 2005 at 01:10 PM
Joe Wilson's friends and family need to hold an intervention for him. His addiction to attention and press coverage is hurting himself and everyone he loves.
More to the point, he's a distraction from the criminal wrongdoing in the WH.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. | November 01, 2005 at 01:14 PM
He spoke in the third person during the text of the speech--I wrote the story that Gateway Pundit hyperlinks to and in the Q and A at EPIC he comes right out and says he is the source for the Kristof and Pincus articles referenced in the body og his speech.
As Cecil has noted, it is difficult to see how tha SP can make his case (from the teeny bits of the transcript we see, most of us think he is recounting his conversations with the reporters and his state of mind) without putting the reporters on the stand. Russert is key. If Beers knew about Plame and told Russert or other reporters who told him, it is hard to discredit Libby's account.
And BTW, why did we hear nothing from Moyers or Leher about how different a tune Wilson was singing after his interviews with them?
Like I have to ask?
Posted by: clarice | November 01, 2005 at 01:15 PM
"most of us think he is recounting his conversations with the reporters and his state of mind"
Actually everyone thinks that. Just some of us (including the Dept. of Justice) think he was testifying falsely in the course of his recount.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 01, 2005 at 01:23 PM
Jukebox,
What don't you get here?
"Kerry's advisers acknowledged yesterday [Oct. 03) that Wilson, who has also donated $2,000 to Kerry this year, told them about his allegations against the White House involving his wife before going public with them this summer. But Rand Beers, Kerry's top adviser on foreign affairs, said the campaign has not played a role in coordinating Wilson's charges."
That clearly states that Joe Wilson told the Kerry Camp about his Wife BEFORE any article was written. Did Joe out Val Plame?
Not much speculation needed, Juke.
Posted by: BurbankErnie | November 01, 2005 at 01:29 PM
Joe Wilson's friends and family need to hold an intervention for him. His addiction to attention and press coverage is hurting himself and everyone he loves.
Geek this might be the first time I am in 100% agreement with you. I salute you sir.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | November 01, 2005 at 01:35 PM
Juke,
Here is a handy dandy link to Wilson joining the Kerry Camp in May.
I didn't make this "shit" up.
Look at the timeline afterwards. You tell me when Joe Wilson turned from War supporter to AntiWar Guru.
Posted by: BurbankErnie | November 01, 2005 at 01:35 PM
Was Wilson for it beofre he was against it too?
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | November 01, 2005 at 01:37 PM
Syl: "Novak's article was already in the pipeline when that conversation occurred."
Yes, Novak was working on his famous article outing Plame. The article was not out yet. This in no way constitutes a free pass for Rove to out Plame to Cooper.
"Rove probably thought it was okay because Tenet said he was de-classifying"
You're a one person misinformation machine. Please let us know where Tenet said he was "de-classifying" Plame's status as a CIA officer.
"nobody can be sure Libby didn't get it from Miller."
Red herring alert: even if Libby got it from Miller (besides getting it from Cheney, perhaps), this in no way constitutes a free pass for Libby to out Plame to anyone else. And of course it also in no way constitutes a free pass for Libby to lie to Fitz.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | November 01, 2005 at 01:41 PM
BE: "Don't you think National Security Matters amd Intel are discussed in the WH?"
Yes. But the classified contents of those discussions are not supposed to be shared with reporters.
"What is your point, Cheney orchestrated the demise of Wilson and the intentional outing of a CIA employee?"
It sure looks that way (I knew the truth would finally dawn on you). If you disagree, please tell us why Cheney has not offered any alternate explanation.
What did Bush and Cheney know, and when did they know it? At this point, there's no reason for them to fail to answer these questions (no reason, that is, except their desire to cover their own butts).
When Bush declared in the fall of 2003 that Rove and Libby were not "involved in the leak," why didn't Cheney let Bush and the country know that Cheney had given Libby information about Plame? (This question is a paraphrase from Corn.)
Either Bush and Cheney were well-aware that Libby was indeed "Involved in the leak" (and this means the White House was blatantly lying to the country), or they are passive, disconnected managers who are so dangerously out-of-touch with the behavior of key subordinates that they can't manage to find out what those subordinates did even after the fact, and even after it's obvious that some big mistakes were made.
In this latter scenario, it also means that Libby lied to his superiors. Note that the White House didn't say "we don't know whether or not Libby and Rove are involved." The White House flatly said that Libby and Rove are not involved. This means, at the very least, that Libby lied to Cheney and Bush, who then passed along this lie to the country.
What kind of managers are Cheney and Bush, if they hire people who lie to them, and then can't even uncover the lie without the help of a DOJ investigation?
I think there's a much simpler explanation: Bush and Cheney were in the thick of it right from the get-go.
At this point there is no escape from the fact that Bush/Cheney are either incompetent or dishonest. It's dawning on lots of people that they're both.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | November 01, 2005 at 01:42 PM
With ten divisions of Joe Wilsons, our problems in Iraq would soon disappear. Plus Val is great with an AK!!
Posted by: dorf | November 01, 2005 at 01:42 PM
drjohn: "Why would it wrong to rid one's self of an employee"
If Cheney (or anyone else in the White House) though that Plame deserved to lose her job, then leaking her identity to the press was not exactly the proper way for them to achieve that result. Hint: Bush could have called Tenet and expressed his preference that way. Notice that this method would have avoided any improper disclosure of classified information.
Gary: "who actually went over to Niger on behalf of the government-not of the CIA but of the government"
You're trying to make a big deal out of nothing. First of all, his remark is legitimate because the CIA sent him to Niger in response to a question raised by Cheney. Secondly, he could have been making an effort to protect his wife's identity as a CIA officer.
Keep trying.
Neo: "Granted she did not make the actual decision to send him"
According to Cooper, Rove claimed she "authorized" the trip. This is documented in an email Cooper wrote right after he got off the phone with Rove.
I guess this is supposed to help us believe that what this was all about was Rove wanting to make sure that reporters only printed accurate information.
"it's quite safe to say without hesitation that 'Val got her husband the job.' "
Only if you're a partisan hack. Various CIA sources have emphatically claimed otherwise. This is a classic he-said-she-said.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | November 01, 2005 at 01:42 PM
With ten divisions of Joe Wilsons, our problems in Iraq would soon disappear. Plus Val is great with an AK!!
Posted by: dorf | November 01, 2005 at 01:42 PM
Q Why does Wilson have to be either a truthtelling day-saving whistle-blowing hero or a lying scheming Bush-hating partisan?
A. ...?
Posted by: Jay Rosen | November 01, 2005 at 01:54 PM
Juke,
Please deal with facts.
Looks like you are the one projecting. If you can find leaks supporting your accusations, post them. I have posted links to all of my posts here.
If you can provide more then the "Bush is incompetent" meme, please do. If not, go wander in the swamps of DU and Kos. Please use facts.
Posted by: BurbankErnie | November 01, 2005 at 01:55 PM
Jay,
Because it keeps him in front of the camera?
Posted by: BurbankErnie | November 01, 2005 at 01:56 PM
Excellent query Jay but ultimately it really doesn't matter.
Joe is like Linda Tripp in the great Lewinsky saga. He was integral to the kick-off but once the game started he was relegated to the sidelines.
Meanwhile Fitzgerald is first and goal on the one yard line and Libby's defense looks increasingly weak, but our right wing is still too hypnotized by the Fitz team's cheerleaders to pay attention to fact that Fitzgerald is about to score big!!!
Extended sports analogies have jumped the shark.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 01, 2005 at 02:00 PM
clarice: "he comes right out and says he is the source for the Kristof and Pincus articles referenced in the body og his speech."
Let us know why this matters.
"If Beers knew about Plame and told Russert or other reporters who told him, it is hard to discredit Libby's account."
I guess you haven't noticed that there are about half-a-dozen government witnesses lined up against Libby. The value of those witnesses has little or nothing to do with Russert or Beers.
Keep trying to confuse people.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | November 01, 2005 at 02:07 PM
BE: "That clearly states that Joe Wilson told the Kerry Camp about his Wife BEFORE any article was written ... not much speculation needed."
Except you don't know what Wilson told them about Plame. Maybe Wilson told Kerry "the White House is sneaking around saying nasty things about Valerie, but at the moment I can't tell you more about why that is."
As I said, you're speculating. Aside from the fact that this is nothing but speculation, you should consider the fact that even if this was true, it did not constitute a free pass for Libby to do the same thing. Two wrongs don't make a right. I noticed you haven't bothered to address this.
"I didn't make this 'shit' up."
You made this claim: "Once Wilson was onboard, the leaks went out to Pincus, Corn Kristol, PBS, etc." You offered what you claimed was proof.
None of the citations you have offered provide proof of your assertion. Not even close. As I said, you're making shit up, and you obviously have a hard time understanding the difference between "proof" and speculation.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | November 01, 2005 at 02:09 PM
I think my point was... Wilson the truthtelling day-saving whistle-blowing hero or Wilson the lying scheming Bush-hating partisan... does that sound to you like a reality-based discussion? A likely set of alternatives? A rational "debate," a plausible story, or even a recognizably human situation?
I see political musts pressed into fact.
Posted by: Jay Rosen | November 01, 2005 at 02:10 PM
Q Why does Wilson have to be either a truthtelling day-saving whistle-blowing hero or a lying scheming Bush-hating partisan?
Jay - Who gave a second rate ex-dip the e-page at the NYT and assigned Kristof full suck-up duty?
He's the one dumb enough to let himself be used as a tennis ball - once the ball is on the court it's going to be smacked back and forth accross the net.
/sports analogies
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 01, 2005 at 02:15 PM
I see. So you enjoy smacking types around, back and forth, over the net?
Posted by: Jay Rosen | November 01, 2005 at 02:18 PM
It is a fact, BE, that the White House denied that Rove or Libby were involved in the leak. It is clear that they were. It is fairly clear that Libby learned Plame's status from the VP.
So one wonders.
the VP not know who was leaking because
(A) he forgot to whom he revealed her status
(B) the group to whom he revealed her status was so large that it was not possible to determine who told the press
(C) he didn't want to know
Posted by: TexasToast | November 01, 2005 at 02:18 PM
I do know that Beers, Clarke and Wilson all held high positions in the Clinton administration, all lived here, all had security clearances, all worked together for many years and certainly socialized. I think the possibility that they did not know who Plame was and what she did is less likely than that they did know.
I know that they made Wilson an integral part of their campaign, even dedicating a web page to him. I know that Soros' MoveOn co-featured him and Beers in their campaign film "Uncovered" which was an attempt to sell the voters on the idea that Bush Lied. And I do not doubt for a moment that what they knew their friends in the press did, too.
Posted by: clarice | November 01, 2005 at 02:21 PM
BE: "If you can find leaks supporting your accusations, post them."
You're making shit up. I explained this clearly. If you're too thick to get it, that's your problem.
"I have posted links to all of my posts here."
The links you've posted don't support the claims you've made. To review: you made this claim: "Once Wilson was onboard, the leaks went out to Pincus, Corn Kristol, PBS, etc."
You're suggesting that Wilson outed Plame to Kerry, and then this was passed along to "Pincus, Corn Kristol, PBS."
You posted a link making a vague statement about Wilson saying something about Plame to Kerry's people, at some time prior to 7/6/03 (8 days before Novak outed Plame). Trouble is, you don't know what Wilson told them about Plame. You surely don't know if Wilson said "Plame works for the CIA." Nevertheless, that's what you're alleging. You're further alleging that this information was passed along to "Pincus, Corn Kristol, PBS."
This is pure speculation, and of course you're welcome to do that. But when you claim to be in a position to prove this, you are not just speculating. You're making shit up.
"Please use facts."
Indeed.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | November 01, 2005 at 02:25 PM
Jay,
You're funny. If either "profile" of Wilson is true, is it then not fact? Do you know if he was a conspirator against the WH or a Champion of Truth? Is he somewhere in-between?
Seems to me both sides are putting forward facts which make a claim to either-or, and IMO Wilson fits the conspirator.
Look at Wilson's actions. Does he look grounded in reality? He is a hack, both sides should be able to agree on that. Whether he is one or the other IS the debate.
At least in this Blog Posting it is.
Posted by: BurbankErnie | November 01, 2005 at 02:25 PM
clarice: "I do not doubt for a moment that what they knew their friends in the press did, too."
You're trying to suggest that Plame's status as CIA officer was common knowledge. Please explain why the numerous people defending Rove et al have not produced a single, solitary person who claims have been in first-hand possession of this information pre-Novak.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | November 01, 2005 at 02:28 PM
"Uncovered" every ex-CIA bonehead, Scott Ritter, Stansfield Turner, dingbat US MP Clare Short and starring--Kerry's National Security Advisor Beers and envoy extraordinaire Wilson, (every pro-Arab, anti-neo con "realist) and it is brought to you by Soros, the left wing financial manipulator. (all together now!) http://www.offoffoff.com/film/2003/uncovered.php
Posted by: clarice | November 01, 2005 at 02:29 PM
"Either Bush and Cheney were well-aware that Libby was indeed "Involved in the leak" (and this means the White House was blatantly lying to the country), or they are passive, disconnected managers who are so dangerously out-of-touch with the behavior of key subordinates that they can't manage to find out what those subordinates did even after the fact, and even after it's obvious that some big mistakes were made."
Oldest literary device in the world "pro quo ergo propter quo" - because of this, then that.
Either Bush/Cheney knew, OR Bush/Cheney out of touch. Ah, the logic of someone who is obviously not management in any way, shape, or form. Must be a liberal. No, it's Uber-Lib JokeBoxJuvenileThoughtGrad.
It's so easy! It's black/white! It's binary on/off. Yes, that represents the real world.
Fool. Always the Grad, never the actual Worker. Getting an education doesn't make you smarter, only dumber. Narrows your outlook. Probably Columbia or Berkeley, based on the bias of the posts.
Fool.
Posted by: kurd | November 01, 2005 at 02:30 PM
That's some great paranoid conspiracy you have going there, Clarice...
I think you are giving the democrats far too much credit,especially given Kerry's dismal campaign.
Far more interesting to me is Mr. Cheney's complete and utter silence on any of this.
Care to guess why the cat got his tongue?
Posted by: DerekFlint | November 01, 2005 at 02:30 PM
Juke,
Who was the source for Pincus' and Kristof's Articles?
When I ask you to read something, I guess I should say to comprehend... this is getting tedious.
Clarice, Wilson also signed up with Soro's Win Without War, and went on the road with them. Look it up yourself Juke.
Posted by: BurbankErnie | November 01, 2005 at 02:31 PM
I can't imagine that helping my good mood...
Posted by: TM | November 01, 2005 at 02:32 PM
Jay,
It was the NYT that put him in play nationally. He's just a ball to me - just as he was and is is to the NYT.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 01, 2005 at 02:32 PM
BTW, just a reminder--Walter Pincus' wife was also a Clinton political appointee and he and his wife entertained the Clinton's at their Georgetown home. And he writes of attending a Fourth of July party at the Wilson's.
Do you suppose when he wrote his story, no editor asked him to confirm its reliability. Who the "CIA analyst" was?
Ditto with Kristof..
Posted by: clarice | November 01, 2005 at 02:33 PM
Let me tell you about Georgetown, it is the place that forgave Jacqueline Kennedy's cousin for being a spy because he was one of the crowd. Until they died off I still ran into supposedly intelligent , well-educated and well-travled people who lived there who still believed Alger Hiss was innocent because he, too, was one of them..Pheh
Posted by: clarice | November 01, 2005 at 02:37 PM
...You can be sure that somewhere in the shadows, unseen and unheard but definitely in control, there...lies...HILLARY!!(cue suitable morbid theme here)
Posted by: DerekFlint | November 01, 2005 at 02:40 PM
post hoc ergo propter hoc
Print a retraction! Indict the Kurd, he had recollection problems.
Still, I have done more than the NYT ever did. I admitted my errors.
Posted by: kurd | November 01, 2005 at 02:40 PM
kurd, you're making so many wildly incorrect assumptions about me that it's hard to type while I'm laughing so hard.
Anyway, I missed the part where you shared your own view of how to reconcile the contradictions I pointed out. Was that in your comment somewhere? I guess you were too preoccupied sharing your assumptions about me, which are not just riotously wrong but also extremely irrelevant.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | November 01, 2005 at 02:45 PM
Clarice,
I thought Mandy Grunewald was married to Cooper?
BE,
Add Valery Wilson's contributing to Americans Coming Together (ACT - Soros funded). Perfectly legal and above board.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 01, 2005 at 02:48 PM
If he was a chamption of truth, he sure took a long time to don his armor--beginning 7 months AFTER his trip to Niger until over a year later, he said not a word about the trip, made not a peep about the 16 words, said not a thing about forged documents--he expressed the belief that Saddam had WMDs and would not willingly give them up, and said if we found no WMDs it wouldn't matter.
In sum, he stuck to the Scowcroft "realist" party line with no sensational charges about cooking the intel until about 2 months after Clarke and Beers jumped ship.
I find that inexplicable except as a political move.And I think it seriously undercuts his credibility--even without consideration of the SSCI findings.
The story was a hoax, and it was never told until he hooked up with the Kerry campaign.
Posted by: clarice | November 01, 2005 at 02:49 PM
Gruenwald is Cooper's wife. But Pincus' wife was (like Wilson, Beers, abd Clarke) a Clinton appointee.
Posted by: clarice | November 01, 2005 at 02:51 PM
BE: "Who was the source for Pincus' and Kristof's Articles?"
The answer to that question has been well-known for quite some time. So what? Please point out where in those articles you find words such as these: "Valerie Plame is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Short of that, you could show your proof that Wilson outed Plame to Kristof or Pincus. Or anyone else, for that matter.
As I said, you're making shit up.
"Look it up yourself Juke."
What I'd really like to look up is the proof you have that Wilson outed Plame to "Pincus, Corn Kristol, PBS." You said you have proof. Let's see.
Posted by: jukeboxgrad | November 01, 2005 at 02:52 PM
OT
Sen. Harry Reid has just called for a super secret Congress hearing regarding CIA-LeakGate.
Fireworks have begun!
Posted by: BurbankErnie | November 01, 2005 at 02:54 PM
(Forgive my many spelling errors--the one that is most egregious --should read "UK MP Clare Short"
Posted by: clarice | November 01, 2005 at 02:54 PM
Tedious Juke.
I am taking my ball home now, you can't play.
Posted by: BurbankErnie | November 01, 2005 at 02:55 PM
He's just a ball to me
Albeit an eight ball.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | November 01, 2005 at 02:56 PM
Too bad the minority party can't conduct more than the Conyers type Playhouse Hearings..On the other hand it might be one of those bonehead Dem strategies--get Libby up there and so interfere with the sp as to make it impossible to try him. Call up Plame and Wilson and Beers and Russert and Pincus and Kristof..) People are losing interest in Aruba..it could be a big hit.
Posted by: clarice | November 01, 2005 at 02:57 PM
The Mafia shot Kennedy
The jews all got out of the Twin towers before the crashes
Cheney ordered a massive conspiracy to commit an noncrime
Have I missed anything from the reality based universe?
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | November 01, 2005 at 02:58 PM
Phase II!! Phase II!!
Posted by: BurbankErnie | November 01, 2005 at 03:00 PM
Nope, Gary not a massive plot - mor like a third rate burglary. I suspect that Cheney was POed that Wilson said that he asked the CIA to send Wilson and pushed back - with something north of "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" His senchiel seens to have stepped in to do the penance.
Posted by: TexasToast | November 01, 2005 at 03:12 PM
It's an interesting category: successful untruths.
I don't think we know how to deal with it.
Posted by: Jay Rosen | November 01, 2005 at 03:18 PM
A very wise pundit said once:
Keep Hope Alive.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | November 01, 2005 at 03:18 PM
JokeBox, you are correct. The entire purpose of my op-ed was to discredit you.
I worked. No one even respomds to you anymore.
You've been Plamed as an uber-lib!
Posted by: kurd | November 01, 2005 at 03:21 PM
"OT"
Judge Perkins removed from Delay Trial!!
Posted by: BurbankErnie | November 01, 2005 at 03:31 PM
GM: Bush dynamited the dykes in New Orleans.
Posted by: dorf | November 01, 2005 at 03:35 PM
Dorf
Yeah I forgot a big one didn't I.
Are there any conspiracy theories that aren't trafficed by liberal constiuencies? I cant think of any, but maybe my friends here can help correct my faulty memory ( like my subtle way to keep TM from saying this is blatantly off thread?)
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | November 01, 2005 at 03:41 PM
Hitchens begins this essay attacking the foreign policy realists with a sentence about the Libby indictment that is so brilliant I can keep my envy in check. http://www.slate.com/id/2129221/
Posted by: clarice | November 01, 2005 at 03:46 PM
CANNOT keep my envy in check..damn
Posted by: clarice | November 01, 2005 at 03:47 PM
In light of TM's confirmation that Sen. Rockefeller is an incompetent, and the day's events in the Senate, can we stop championing the bipartisan wonders of the SSCI report yet?
Posted by: Jeff | November 01, 2005 at 04:09 PM