Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« The Case Against Libby | Main | Reporters Who Knew Valerie (We Are Looking For Sam...) »

November 01, 2005

Comments

cathyf
This is another clue that Novak knew Plame was covert, and that he communicated this to his readers (at least those readers who were knowledgeable about the structure of the CIA).
But we already know that between the time that Novak talked to the 2 SAOs and he wrote his story, he talked to the CIA press liason Harlow (not Hawley, Harlow. Harlow, Harlow, Harlow. jeez, ya' think maybe I can remember it now? :-). And Harlow has publicly stated that he told Novak that Plame "probably would never go out covert again." Novak has always had one of those non-denial denials with the "I didn't know she was covert" statements -- he did know that she used to be covert.

But since we are talking about the content of Novak's SAO leaks, pointing out what Novak printed is irrelevant, since we know that Novak got significant info about Plame's "operativeness" from Harlow after he talked to the SAOs and before he printed. How much the SAOs knew and how much they told Novak cannot be inferred from Novak's state of knowledge, especially when we are talking about information that Harlow has admitted giving Novak.

cathy :-)

Creepy Dude

"If that is too much, I did *not* say Rove did not ID anyone. I said he did not give her name, contra Wilson."

Look-Wilson doesn't interest me that much-cause he just doesn't matter to where this is going. So I don't know all he said.

But if Wilson said Rove gave out her name-Wilson is correct, at least as regards Cooper-and Cooper has stated he will so testify. The only way around this is to play the stupid "identified but no name" game.

There's a clip of Rove saying "I didn't disclose her name" and maybe that's true with Clintonian parsing, but to me it's lie.

Truzenzuzex

Creepy:

But if Wilson said Rove gave out her name-Wilson is correct, at least as regards Cooper-and Cooper has stated he will so testify. The only way around this is to play the stupid "identified but no name" game.
Huh?

Could you restate that? In English this time?

Syl

TM

I'm not convinced that even if Wilson was shopping his story around, even if Pincus had dinner with the Wilsons, even if reporters called State and CIA to confirm the trip, that they would necessarily discover that...

....Valery played a role in sending him to Niger.

Cecil Turner

There's a clip of Rove saying "I didn't disclose her name" and maybe that's true with Clintonian parsing, but to me it's lie.

Wilson is the one who made a big deal about the name (e.g., here . . . which was silly, since it was in his bio). Concur it has no legal significance, but apparently it does have some political import.

Creepy Dude

1.Wilson says Rove disclosed Valerie's name

2.Apparently, Rove used the elocution "Wilson's wife" or some other nonsense.

3. Cooper stated on TV on Monday:
"There is no question. I first learned about Valerie Plame working at the CIA from Karl Rove," Cooper said...
"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."

4. Rove said "I never disclosed her name" or some other idiocy.

5.Who cares. Cooper learned a lot didn't he?

6. Wilson saying Rove disclosed Valeries name (to at least Cooper) is essentially correct unless you want to be stupid about it.

7. We still don't know who said what to Novak. So Wilson may be further vindicated.

7. Want me to explain it in German?

TM

Cracking open the time vault for some earlier insight from JGB brings forth this, on the Andrea Mitchell issue:

"my assumption is the person who informed Powerline of Mitchell's comment probably misherd or misunderstood her"

I wonder if you'd like to make a prediction on the odds of Power Line ever running a correction.

JBG, 7/19/03

More JGB from later in the same thread:

"Powerline: Why would they run a correction? They guy may be right - it is merely unconfirmable over the internet. That does not mean Mitchell didn't say it. By the way, at least one person in this thread say they also heard it."

How about if a lefty blogger published an email someone sent them, saying that Bush tortures puppies. Imagine I defended this by saying: "Why would they run a correction? They guy may be right - it is merely unconfirmable over the internet. That does not mean Bush doesn't really torture puppies. By the way, at least one person in this thread say they also heard it."

Would that be legitimate? You seem to have trouble understanding that spreading libelous, unfounded rumors is not a good idea.

Or here:

RICHARD

"It was on MSNBC [Andrea Mitchell saying Plame wasn't covert]. I'm still trying to find which program."

Maybe this will help you.

Oh, I forgot, you read it on Power Line, so it must be true.

JGB, 7/17/05

Well, that may or may not be exhaustive.

Creepy Dude

Powerline really does suck though.

TM

So I guess that means you're clueless, since your own timeline (posted 7/14/04, nine months after WaPo ostensibly "well established" the authoritative ruling on when "the hullabaloo" actually started) highlights 7/6/03,

You are an idiot.

That timeline was first started back in, golly, July 22, 2003, back when I was on blogspot.

Obviously, there have been additions, at both the beginning and end.

And, as you note, my entry for July 6 probably could stand some revision.

But I wrote this:

July 6, 2003: The article that started it all: Ambassador Wilson, "What I Didn't Find in Africa".

Who knew?

We continue to wonder about the JukeBox correction process.

Truzenzuzex

Creepy:

5.Who cares. Cooper learned a lot didn't he?
You bet. There is no substantive difference between "Wilson's wife" and "Valerie Plame" or "Valerie Wilson.

On the other hand, Rove's statement appears to be perfectly true, if Clintonesque. I am sorry if you are bothered by the fact that what he said is not, strictly speaking, the same thing as giving her name, but it simply isn't. Technicality? Sure, but it beats the hell out of "depends upon what the meaning of "is" is".

7. Want me to explain it in German?
No thanks. I have enough trouble with English.
7. We still don't know who said what to Novak. So Wilson may be further vindicated.
I think we actually do. Rove said he confirmed the information to Novak, I think the quote was "Oh, you know then" or some such. Since Novak allegedly has 2 sources, it is kind of hard to imagine that both of them were Rove.

As far as Wilson is concerned, defending him is a fools errand. He has produced so many false statements, accusations and gobbledegook that his credibility is not worth a wooden nickel.

Creepy Dude

Wilson's work is done-I wont defend him.

But I have to disagree that Rove was telling "the truth". I won't even concede the "name" issue since-if it supertechnicality you crave- the nominative phrase "Wilson's wife" does, in fact, include her marriage name.

In any event, it's quite clear the impression he was trying to leave was a lie. If you can be so bought off so cheaply, that's your issue. Rove's a liar.

TM

OK, I'll endorse the extrememly sensible suggestion made above -

JukeBox - stick around - I see from my archives that we celebrated our first anniversary together just last week.

However - Put your name at the top of your posts, please. Double please.

Tell yourself it is a badge of honor, so that we are sure to read it. Let's have some standards here at The JukeBoxGrad Comments Section featuring Tom Maguire.


In a bit of a breath-waster, let me add that I welcome diverse views, but I would encourage folks to embrace the notion that not everyone who disagrees with you is a liar, and not everyone who has not encountered a particular fact with which you are familiar is a fool.

On the odd chance that JBG could dial back the ad hominem a bit, that would be lovely.

Frankly, I am gloomily resigned to a barrage of "But you started it" whining, and it is true that I have not been a model of restraint today.

Whatever. I don't think I asking for much, but I may be asking for too much. From JGB, anyway.

Syl

Creepy

"Wilson saying Rove disclosed Valeries name (to at least Cooper) is essentially correct unless you want to be stupid about it."

There are different levels to this. Yes, Rove identified her as CIA. People could figure out who Valery Wilson's maiden name is.

I'm just curious how the actual 'Valery Plame' thingy went through the system, if indeed it did. So it IS important when we're speaking, without quoting, about anyone's testimony whether, 'Valery Plame' was actually uttered or not.

TM

Brilliant TM. Both plausible and certain to get Libby indicted.

Darn, I meant to keep that one quiet.

Well, wait until I pull the same game on Russert - from the transcript to his 10/29/05 broadcast, there is a truly great bit of backpedaling.

Basically, he explains that it is inconceivable that he or anyone knew of Wilson and wife, because that would be news, and they report news, right? Since they didn't report it, it must be because they did not know it - they would never let Andrea Mitchell go into the tank for Wilson on July 6, 2003 if she knew his wife was CIA.

Anyway, here we go:

RUSSERT: I came back after that interview, after The New York Times piece, and there was a discussion about Joe Wilson and I didn't know very much. And then when I read Novak's column the following Monday, I said, `Oh, my God, that's it. Now I see. It's his wife, Valerie Plame, CIA, sent him on the trip. Now I understand what everybody was trying to figure out.' MITCHELL: But you'd already talked to Libby, and you couldn't possibly have shared that name with Libby 'cause you didn't know it.


...RUSSERT: Well, ironically, when I was asked about this, I said, if I had known this, I would have told Andrea Mitchell. I would have told Pete Williams.
MITCHELL: In fact, Tim, you would have called me and said, `You hosted "Meet the Press" and questioned Joe Wilson and covered the agency and you didn't know that the wife--what's going on with you?'
RUSSERT: And I did call Neal Shapiro, the head of NBC News, and say, `You know, we have this high-level viewer complaint about what's on cable,' and that--you know, that was the extent of my sharing information with Neal Shapiro.
GREGORY: Wait...
RUSSERT: If I had known something with--then I would have said to Neal--and Neal would have said, `Get to the cameras.' Or you know what? Actually it is so sensitive...
MITCHELL: We would have decided not to...
RUSSERT: ...I would have even talked--we would have talked it through and said...
MITCHELL: Right.
RUSSERT: ...`Hey, what about this?' or `Should we check her status?' It's easy to say that in hindsight, but I...
MITCHELL: In fact, we should tell...
RUSSERT: ...when I read it in Novak, boom.

I L-U-V Mitchell:

MITCHELL: We would have decided not to...
RUSSERT: ...I would have even talked--we would have talked it through and said...
MITCHELL: Right.

"We would have decided not to".

Exactly. In fact, they *did* decide not to (in my conspiracy, anyway). But she graciously accedes to Tim's correction.

And what in the world did Russert mean by this:

And then when I read Novak's column the following Monday, I said, `Oh, my God, that's it. Now I see. It's his wife, Valerie Plame, CIA, sent him on the trip. Now I understand what everybody was trying to figure out.'

Why did he think, on that Monday morning, that anybody was trying to figure anything out?

He is certainly not referring to his off-in-the-furure disposition.

He did not discuss anything of consequence with Libby related to Wilson's trip. Uh huh.

His reporters have not talked about a mystery about the Wilson trip with him. No, sireee.

I guess he just mis-spoke, or had a false memory. Ooops, I though that was Libby's department.

Syl

"JukeBox - stick around"

I didn't vote.

He comes in here with his thousand 'STOP' signs telling everybody everything they've ever said is wrong so what's the point in commenting. He even insulted my hubby in another thread, a man with more knowledge in his little finger than JBG could imagine even exists about matters classified.

Okay, got that out of my system. So be it.

Syl

TM

Wow, that's it. Andrea knew both that the CIA had sent Wilson and that Valery was CIA but never made the connection until Novak.

Yep, they were sure trying to figure out beforehand. Nobody was sitting there with no knowledge about nuthink and whammo Novak gives them everything. Novak only tied the pieces together for them.

Great fine!

Syl

or great find. take your pick.

Lesley

Sometimes I think the name of Tom's blog should be:

In JUST ONE MINUTE After You've Posted Juke
Will Appear and Tell You Everything You've Said Is Wrong.

(C'mon Juke, you've gotta admit that's kinda funny)

TM

Irish - on substance, it scarcely matters whether Rove said "Valerie Wislon", "Valerie Plame", or "Wilson's wife".

As a matter of fact, however, in his first account Cooper was quite clear that he did *not* get a name from Rove.

"So did [Karl] Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him?"--to Niger. "Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency' on `WMD'?"--weapons of mass destruction. "Yes.

If this is one more of Joe's lies/distortions/failures of memory, well, no kidding.

And I recall that Rove's easily parsed denial was easily parsed. Actually, I was early on on of the Luskin denials, but which one... hmm, in an UPDATE I tackled his denail that Rove was not Cooper's source for a waiver.

TM

HER posts? I'm in love ;)

Bringing people together, 24/7.

However, there is another point of contention - Syl, who makes a good point about the negative consequences of the predictable ad hominem, thinks JGB is a man.

I don't think I want to know.

cathyf
And what in the world did Russert mean by this:

And then when I read Novak's column the following Monday, I said, `Oh, my God, that's it. Now I see. It's his wife, Valerie Plame, CIA, sent him on the trip. Now I understand what everybody was trying to figure out.'

Why did he think, on that Monday morning, that anybody was trying to figure anything out?

He is certainly not referring to his off-in-the-furure disposition.

He did not discuss anything of consequence with Libby related to Wilson's trip. Uh huh.

His reporters have not talked about a mystery about the Wilson trip with him. No, sireee.

I guess he just mis-spoke, or had a false memory. Ooops, I though that was Libby's department.

Good heaven's TM, put that on the front page!!! I almost missed it!

cathy :-)

Lesley

WRT Juke being a male or female, I submit the GENDER GENIE!

"Inspired by an article in The New York Times Magazine, the Gender Genie uses a simplified version of an algorithm developed by Moshe Koppel, Bar-Ilan University in Israel, and Shlomo Argamon, Illinois Institute of Technology, to predict the gender of an author." (Hat tip Academic Elephant)
Gender Genie

Truzenzuzex

Creepy:

In any event, it's quite clear the impression he was trying to leave was a lie. If you can be so bought off so cheaply, that's your issue. Rove's a liar.
Really? Well, imagine that. A politician telling the technical truth and requiring one to parse his words. I am shocked...Shocked! to learn this.

Anyway, if calling Rove a liar makes you feel better, I won't object. But there is one thing you can't call him (yet, at least):

Defendant.

TM

Good heaven's TM, put that on the front page!!!

Oh, you know I am...

Just to further preview how in-the-tank that Russert show was last Sunday - two blogs had suggested (And the NY Times endorsed) the idea that Libby was calling to complain about Chris Matthews.

No mention of that on the Russert show at all, just a vague statement that Libby called to complain.

Jim E.

Has Chris Matthews brought up that Libby was complaining about his show? I doubt it.

JM Hanes

TM -
In the interests of self-aggrandizement, may I take credit for bringing up the Russert show http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/the_manchurian_.html#comment-10758690”>here, two days ago? That whole exhange reads considerably more like script (complete with prompts!) than transcript, don’t you think? Many thanks for the passalong on Lexis. I’ve always approached the New York Times search engine in similar fashion, although their syndicated loopholes may not be long for this world.

In re jukeboxgrad, I’d cast a vote for the status quo. As devil’s advocates go, he puts more substance on the table than most. His point http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/11/my_goodness.html#comment-10824742”>above, for example, about what he calls early “White House” interest is worth noting. In its way, it plays to your own point about the content of Libby’s complaint to Russert. Matthews has had a bee up the wazoo about Cheney as éminence grise practically from the day Bush took office. In fact there may be some background noise there that even explains why Libby chose to call Russert, not someone else.

Do you have a scorecard on actual testimony vs. affadavits? My antenna go positively electric when I contemplate the deal making and/or strategizing that protected some witnesses and not others from being queried by the grand jurors themselves.

BTW, on making assumptions about gender, this http://www.quasiblog.com/2005/03/confessions_of_.html”>quasi-interview (with an anonymous source, no less) on my own, short-lived, attempt to scale the blogosphere [so much work! on such an unrelenting daily basis!] suggests that ad hominems tend to be a guy thing.

JM Hanes

I've got no clue why my links came out squirrely above. Could they be corrupted by previewing more than once?

Link 1 to my earlier post:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/the_manchurian_.html#comment-10758690
Link 2 to jukebox post:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/11/my_goodness.html#comment-10824742
Link 3 to quasi-interview:
http://www.quasiblog.com/2005/03/confessions_of_.html

Joe

Who Did What?
Covert questions
By William F Buckley, JR

The importance of the law against revealing the true professional identity of an agent is advertised by the draconian punishment, under the federal code, for violating it. In the swirl of the Libby affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got themselves into. But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200511011324.asp

jukeboxgrad

cathyf: "It's just as clear that Libby conveniently 'forgot' that Judy Miller isn't a tree. Why didn't Fitzgerald charge him for obstruction there?"

Because Miller's treeness (or lack of same) has no relevance to the underlying crime (although the implied aspen connection is slightly entertaining). However, the fact that Libby's officemates had numerous conversations with Libby about Plame, and Libby concealed this from Fitz, is indeed highly relevant to the underlying crime.

I have a feeling you could have figured this out for yourself. On the other hand, maybe I should be careful not to make unwarranted assumptions.

jukeboxgrad

Gary: "Now this is the guy who about three days ago on a previous post called me a moron because I pointed out Andrea Mitchell as having been on the record about this."

Here's what you actually said: "Andrea Mitchell is on record as having said it was common knowledge in the community."

Here's what Mitchell actually said: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."

When you said "common knowledge in the community," it sounds like you're saying "most people in their neighborhood and elsewhere knew Plame's identity since a long time ago." Indeed, over the last few months certain people have cited the mysterious Mitchell quote to suggest that exact interpretation.

On the other hand, Mitchell is saying "reporters like me who cover the intelligence community started hearing rumors about Plame subsequent to the 5/6 Kristof article, which mentioned an envoy to Niger."

Big difference.

What did you intend to communicate? If by "common knowledge in the community," you meant what Mitchell actually said, then I owe you an apology for misunderstanding you. Although I think my mistake is understandable, given the words you used ("common knowledge in the community").

On the other hand, if by "common knowledge in the community," you meant "most people in their neighborhood and elsewhere knew Plame's identity since a long time ago," then the one who should apologize is you, for attempting to mislead people.

On the other hand, maybe you meant something entirely different.

jukeboxgrad

TM: "One might wonder, how did they [various reporters] not know?"

I think you're suggesting that lots of reporters knew, post-Kristof, and that perhaps they heard via State or CIA, rather than the White House. Of course that's entirely possible. But so what? None of that, even if it's true and could be proven, gives Libby a free pass to out Plame to anyone. Likewise with regard to lying about it.

jukeboxgrad

clarice: "not only would Pincus and Kristof have known, but if the WaPo and NYT still have editors, so would those people have known."

I think there's a problem with your assumption regarding what was "known." I think it's no stretch to imagine that various people heard about Wilson's trip (pre-7/06). It's another story to assume that these folks were also hearing about Plame (from anyone outside the White House). That's purely speculative.

jukeboxgrad

Creepy, thanks for your supportive words. There isn't much I say that you don't say in a much funnier and more concise way, which is one reason I won't lose any sleep over the question of whether TM deigns to host my recycled electrons.

"there is value in having your assumptions challenged."

Yes. I particularly appreciate it when someone points out a correction to my facts, as Sue did recently. Unfortunately lots of folks around these parts think hollow insults are a substitute for a substantive response.

"The righty sites that don't allow comments or continually ban lefties that dont kiss their ass have grown sclerotic in their dogma and lost all value."

Exactly. And you've just described almost every major righty site.

"in the above quote Mitchell directly contradicts that quote."

A good point, which I would like to highlight. Here TM quotes Mitchell as saying this: "I had learned about it from Novak's column like everyone else."

But here Mitchell is quoted as saying this: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community."

Maybe Mitchell's way out of it is to do some hair-splitting by pointing out this: "But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

So maybe Mitchell would say "yes, It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community that Plame worked for the CIA. But it was only via Novak that I learned of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction."

That seems outrageously lame to me, because she also said "it was erroneously reported in The Washington Post that I was the recipient of the leak before Novak's column came out, and I had not been."

In this sentence when she says "the leak" surely she means "the leak which indicated she worked for the CIA" (since that's what the big deal is all about), not "the leak which indicated that her area was WMD" (which is important, but secondary to the fact that she works at the CIA).

She could also engage in some hair-splitting that looks like this: "when I said I had not been a recipient of the leak, I simply meant that I had not been a recipient of the leak directly via the White House; I was simply trying to say the White House didn't call me; I did hear, however, via other sources."

Very lame. Therefore I agree with CD that Mitchell simply can't be trusted.

jukeboxgrad

TM: "What, and respect the public's right to know?"

I'm glad you're pointing out that reporters have been too reticent. I agree.

What I can't fathom is your reluctance (as far as I've noticed) to apply "the public's right to know" to the reticence being displayed by the White House. The stonewalling we see by the White House is a much bigger problem than the reticence of the press, in my opinion. First of all, the White House knows a lot more than the press; despite wishful thinking by the anti-Wilson faction, it appears that the White House, not Wilson, was ground zero for the effort to leak Plame's name. Also, and more importantly, although the press has a responsibility to the public, I do not pay their salaries; I am certainly under no obligation to buy their products and pay their salaries. On the other hand, every person on the White House payroll is being supported by my tax dollars, which I'm obligated to pay, and therefore has an obligation to respect my right to know what's going on in the White House that belongs to taxpayers and citizens like me.

The current White House mantra that "we can't talk about an ongoing investigation" is bullshit. We have a right to be told what Bush and Cheney knew, and when they knew it. There was never a good reason to hide that information, and there is certainly no good reason to hide that information now. Fitz is not standing in the way of Bush and Cheney coming clean in this manner. All that is standing in the way of Bush and Cheney coming clean in this manner is their desire to save their own miserable butts.

"And I guess everyone knows that Cooper says he did *not* get a name from Rove."

I have a hard time understanding why people (including you) seem to think there's some material, interesting difference between "Wilson's wife" and "Valerie Plame." I think that part of the story is a sideshow. Finding out that her name used to be Plame was a trivial thing to accomplish (as folks on the right are quick to point out, as if it helps their case; it doesn't). Anyone interested in her (reporters, White House, foreign intelligence services, whoever) could have easily found that out, at any time. So I can't fathom why people are making a big deal about it.

As usual, CD has said the same thing, except with a lot more brevity and wit: "Mrs. Maguire's husband has got to drop this stupid idea that because 'no names' were mentioned means you didn't identify someone. Mrs. Cooper's husband is going to testify he learned about Mr. Wilson's wife from Mrs. Rove's husband. Period."

"If your comments start disappearing"

Out of all the tactics I've seen adopted by righty bloggers in an attempt to avoid dealing with contrary opinions and facts, I have very rarely seen anyone actually delete comments that were already posted.

So is that something you've actually done in the past, or just something you're threatening to do? Just curious. I imagine other readers of yours might be curious about this.

jukeboxgrad

Cecil: "Juke's posts tend to be a very few cogent points amid collections of red herrings, converse arguments, and seemingly endless ad hominems"

As usual, you provide not a single example, not even by reference. On the other hand, your evasions, distortions and exaggerations are easy to find. Samples can be found here and here.">http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/08/able_danger_sou.html#comment-8727117%22">here.

"it's not a bug, it's a feature"

Every now and then we agree on something.

"there is the occasional gem"

I sincerely appreciate that compliment. I would also sincerely appreciate you pointing that out, when it happens, because I would sincerely try to produce more of whatever it is that strikes you in that manner.

jukeboxgrad

CD: "HER posts? I'm in love ;)"

First of all, surely you don't need me to remind you that it is wise to take everything Cecil says with a giant grain of salt. If you want to follow his "reasoning" on this question, start here.

Secondly, I'm very flattered by the sentiment.

Thirdly, as much as I deeply respect and enjoy your posts, I have a feeling you're not my type. I'm sure you realize you shouldn't take that personally.

Jim E, thanks for your supportive words.

jukeboxgrad

Truz: "The fact of Plame's employment with the CIA was actually known by the press corps after all ... Mitchell ... would testify that many in the press knew"

There's nothing to indicate it was "actually known by the press corps" until roughly around the time that the White House started leaking (even if you take Mitchell at face value, that's all she seems to be claiming). Aside from that, I think you're taking Mitchell at face value, and it's been pointed out why that's not wise.

By the way, Fitz said this: "In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community."

I have a feeling that unlike various other people (like certain people in the White House, certain people in the press, as well as certain people on this blog), Fitz is extremely careful not to make a statement unless he's sure it's true and he's in a position to prove that it's true.

"nobody with actual knowledge of Plame's status has suggested she was 'covert', expecially Fitzgerald."

Let's be clear about how Fitz handled this point. He said her identity as a CIA officer was classified information. As far as "covert," he put that question aside: "I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert."

So Fitz shouldn't be used to claim she was "covert" (whatever that means), and Fitz also shouldn't be used to claim the opposite.

"I really don't see how the whole 'covert' thing matters at all"

I agree with you there. What matters is that her identity as a CIA officer was classified information.

"why, exactly, is her 'covert' status important?"

Good question. I'd like to know why folks on the right keep trying to blow that particular horn. The bottom line is that her identity as a CIA officer was classified information.

"As has been previously discussed here and in other places at lenght, the IIPA is simply not applicable in this case for various good reasons."

That is very far from clear. There is lots of misinformation on that subject, including on this blog. I point out some of this here.

jukeboxgrad

TM: "I said he [Rove] did not give her name, contra Wilson."

I realize that Wilson made some statement indicating Rove gave her "name." My guess is that Wilson was just being slightly sloppy and careless and should have said "identity." Either way, I think you're making a big deal about something that isn't a big deal.

"I did *not* say Rove did not ID anyone."

True. But many folks are confused about this, and seem to think that the absence of a name indeed proves that "Rove did not ID anyone." So when you make a statement about the name being absent, without adding the clarification that "even lacking the name, we still know that Rove identified her," I think that tends to add to the general confusion.

By the way, I know you "did *not* say Rove did not ID anyone." However, I don't recall if you've pointed out that Rove _did_ indeed ID her. I'm sure you have; I just don't remember.

jukeboxgrad

cathyf: "Harlow has publicly stated that he told Novak that Plame 'probably would never go out covert again.' "

I'm having trouble finding that quote. Can you help?

"pointing out what Novak printed is irrelevant"

I see your point, that just because Novak printed something, it doesn't prove that he got it just from SAO; some elements of what he printed may have been influenced by what Harlow said (although I would like help finding the quote you cited).

However, I was making a different point about the relevance of what Novak printed. I was responding to a claim that is often made, that Novak didn't out Plame, but rather Corn did (such a claim was made here). I responded to that claim here and here.

What Novak printed is indeed relevant to that claim, for obvious reasons.

jukeboxgrad

Syl: "I'm not convinced that even if Wilson was shopping his story around, even if Pincus had dinner with the Wilsons, even if reporters called State and CIA to confirm the trip, that they would necessarily discover that... ....Valery played a role in sending him to Niger."

I think the more interesting question is whether, via Wilson, reporters discovered that Plame worked for the CIA. I have no indication that this is true, although I've seen various people try to make this claim.

jukeboxgrad

TM (quoting me): "I wonder if you'd like to make a prediction on the odds of Power Line ever running a correction."

I indicated Powerline should run a correction, and you are mocking this. How odd, since it is now more clear than ever that they are obliged to run a correction, since what they claimed is not supported by what Mitchell actually said.

This is the claim that Powerline published: "generally known to news people." This is what Mitchell actually said: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."

The Powerline allegation is an exaggeration of what Mitchell said. I explained this in more detail here.

And this is putting aside the fact that even what Mitchell said, such as it is, is highly suspect, since later on she blatantly contradicted herself. This was pointed out upthread by Creepy, and I also said something about this.

So I'll say again what I've said before: Powerline should run a correction. I'm finding it hard to understand what you find hard to understand about this.

"That timeline was first started back in, golly, July 22, 2003, back when I was on blogspot."

Thanks for providing even more proof of what I said: there is nothing radical about asserting that the "hullabaloo" started on 7/6/03. Because this other timeline of yours also presents 7/6/03 as the first dated entry.

In other words, I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you'd be making more sense if Creepy helped you translate your point into German.

To review: here you made a big fuss, suggesting that I was uninformed and clueless, because I was allegedly claiming that the "hullabaloo" started on 7/6/03 (as if that picayune point mattered a whole lot).

In the process of "proving" how clueless I was, you cited your own timeline, which, oddly enough, indeed suggests that the "hullabaloo" started on 7/6/03.

I pointed this out to you, here.

In response, you cite yet another timeline of yours, which, oddly enough, also suggests that the "hullabaloo" started on 7/6/03.

Undoubtedly (but inexplicably), you will respond again with another citation to yet another timeline indicating that it is reasonable to claim that the "hullabaloo" started on 7/6/03. Which means that my original innocuous, offhand, tangential assertion (which leaned in the direction of giving Powerline the benefit of the doubt, by the way) is highly congruent with your own views, as expressed in your own timelines.

"as you note, my entry for July 6 probably could stand some revision."

Likewise for your comments in this thread. I find it hard to decide if this mysterious fuss you made about timelines and hullabaloos is more or less misguided than the fuss you made about Cliff May, which I described here. Both fusses share this ironic element: you castigate me for essentially agreeing with you.

We continue to wonder about the TM correction process.

jukeboxgrad

TM: "stick around"

I appreciate the invitation. Hopefully I'll come and go from time-to-time, as I have in the past. Maybe you've noticed that I'm inclined to be either silent or thorough.

I think you understand that your blog is unusual. As Creepy said with his usual eloquence: "the righty sites that don't allow comments or continually ban lefties that dont kiss their ass have grown sclerotic in their dogma and lost all value." It's to your credit that you go down a different path. I think in the past I've let you know that I don't take this for granted, precisely because it's so exceptional. I think I've also let you know that you're infinitely wittier than folks like Glenn and Assrocket.

"Put your name at the top of your posts, please. Double please."

Fair enough. I think if I do exactly what you suggest, it could be confusing (it could look like a post in which someone is addressing me). So I will come up with some other distinctive element (maybe something like the way kim signs off with ============, except I'll put it at the top).

I respect the request. Give me a couple of days to think about the exact technique I want to use; once I start using it, for obvious reasons I don't want to alter it.

"Tell yourself it is a badge of honor, so that we are sure to read it."

I'm telling the truth when I inform certain people that I don't care if they read my stuff. So whether people use my pre-sig as a negative or positive signal really doesn't matter to me.

A badge of honor I care about a lot more is whether or not I get my facts straight.

"dial back the ad hominem"

I've shown in the past that your attitude on this seems to be tainted by partisanship. To the best of my knowledge, the number of your specific complaints about ad hominems traveling from right to left is exactly zero. In particular, I notice you now complaining about my insults even though it's very clear that the number of insults sent in my direction greatly exceeds the reverse (likewise regarding insults directed at other lefties).

This thread is a perfectly good example. You called me an idiot twice. I guess that would make me a double-idiot.

Speaking of ad hominems, I think my track record shows that I reserve them for people who work hard to earn them. For example, I called the lying weasel a lying weasel because the lying weasel lied, and I proved it.

One would think that your concern would be focused on the lie, rather than on the person who identified the lie.

The helpfulness of your complaint (with regard to the matter of the lying weasel) is limited by the fact that you didn't go to the trouble of pointing out why think the lying weasel is not a lying weasel. Likewise for you implying that I'm a lying weasel, without offering any proof.

"it is true that I have not been a model of restraint today."

You deserve credit for that frank admission. Given the incredible amount of work you produce, it's completely understandable that every now and then the models become unrestrained. Frankly, I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

jukeboxgrad

TM: "Why did he think, on that Monday morning, that anybody was trying to figure anything out?"

I'm no fan of Russert, so I'm not inclined to defend him. But I think there are possible answers to the question you raise.

It's clear that pre-7/6/03, certain reporters were buzzing about certain Wilson-related matters. As soon as Kristof wrote about an "envoy" on 5/6/03, reporters were wondering about the identity of the mysterious envoy. Probably prior to 7/6/03, certain reporters found out it was Wilson.

And by 6/23/03, when Libby outed Plame to Miller, one or more reporters had knowledge about Plame being CIA. (We don't have proof of the White House leaking earlier than that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.)

Certain reporters, including Russert, may have been on the outskirts of this. Imagine that in the weeks just prior to 7/14/03, Russert heard (from another reporter, perhaps) something like this: "the White House is pissed at Wilson, and there are various strange and stinky stories going around, and it somehow involves his tall blonde wife."

I think it's very, very plausible that there might have been a rumor like this. And note that rumor does not include the following information: Plame works for the CIA. Anyone hearing that rumor would have been interested in figuring something out: how is the wife involved.

Now keep that rumor in mind as you read Russert's words again: "And then when I read Novak's column the following Monday, I said, `Oh, my God, that's it. Now I see. It's his wife, Valerie Plame, CIA, sent him on the trip. Now I understand what everybody was trying to figure out.' "

Obviously I'm speculating, but I think the puzzle-pieces fit together pretty well that way.

Note that Russert never said "pre-Novak, I had no idea that the White House was spreading some kind of nasty rumor about Wilson's wife." Russert merely said "pre-Novak, I had no idea that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA."

jukeboxgrad

Syl: "telling everybody everything they've ever said is wrong so what's the point in commenting."

You've just come awfully close to admitting that in your mind the "point in commenting" is to be able to say lots of things that are wrong, and get way with it without anyone noticing.

Pointing out that something is wrong is the right thing to do, provided that it's wrong (I know you know what I mean). If everything you've ever said is wrong, then pointing that out would be the right thing to do.

Even a stopped clock doesn't reach that level (everything you've ever said is wrong), so obviously neither do you, but you come closer than most. If you think that you have a right to promulgate misinformation and not be called on it, then maybe blogging isn't for you. Especially if you lack the integrity to acknowledge glaring factual errors even after they've been pointed out to you (link).

On the other hand, if I claim you made a mistake and you're sure you didn't (for example, if you're sure there's no material difference between "a few million" dollars as compared with a few hundred million dollars), then my unsolicited advice to you is that you should completely ignore every word I say.

"He even insulted my hubby in another thread"

I think you're talking about this. Which only tends to indicate how prone you are to misinterpret what you read, since I was complimenting your husband by suggesting that he would most likely be able to explain something to you that were clearly having trouble grasping on your own.

In other words, I didn't insult your hubby. I insulted you.

jukeboxgrad

Lesley: "In JUST ONE MINUTE After You've Posted Juke Will Appear and Tell You Everything You've Said Is Wrong."

Only if everything you've said is wrong. Which, unfortunately, happens all too often (I don't mean with regard to you personally).

Actually, I don't usually do it a minute later. As this pile of keystrokes illustrates, it's usually hours or days later, after I've had a chance to catch up and think about things.

Yes, it is kinda funny.

TM: " Syl ... makes a good point about the negative consequences of the predictable ad hominem"

Somehow I missed the "good point."

"Syl ... thinks JGB is a man."

Somehow I missed that too (I didn't see where Syl said that).

Tom, you're not deleting Syl's posts, are you?

Truz: "Really? Well, imagine that. A politician [Rove] telling the technical truth and requiring one to parse his words. I am shocked...Shocked! to learn this."

Bush repeatedly promised to restore honesty and dignity to the White House. In other words, he encouraged us to not be jaded, in the exact way that you are. But now I guess we can see that all his talk about honor and dignity was just more crap.

JM: " His point above, for example, about what he calls early “White House” interest is worth noting."

Thanks for the compliment.

Ann

From the American Conservative:

The possible forgery of the information by Defense Department employees would explain the viciousness of the attack on Valerie Plame and her husband. Wilson, when he denounced the forgeries in the New York Times in July 2003, turned an issue in which there was little public interest into something much bigger. The investigation continues, but the campaign against this lone detractor suggests that the administration was concerned about something far weightier than his critical op-ed.
_____________________________________________________

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html

clarice

Thank you, Ann. Cannistraro is a nut.And no part of his charge is factual.


Wilson says now he never saw the forgeries when Pincus (the Wash Po) and Kristof(NYT)said he did.
He told the SSCI he never did see the forgeries (after they noted we'd received none until 8 months AFTER his Mission and his original story was risible.

No one viciously attacked Wilson because no one in the Administration knew the fuck about his under- the- radar -cooked- up- in -the- CIA ersatz Mission until sometime long after he aired his charges, and then merely responded to press inquiries.A less "coordinated, vicious attack" is hard to imagine..

If I sound short tempered, it is because I am--Between the Cannistraro nutcases on the right and the idiot partisans on the left (including most of the press), the truth lies so beaten and raped as to be almost unrecognizable.

kim

It distresses me that even some who now see how Joe utterly betrayed them still cling to the attractiveness of his story. It is sad to see such dishonesty.
==============================================

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame