Powered by TypePad

« Andrew And Armando | Main | "Will Mr. Fitzgerald Now Say He Was Wrong?" »

November 15, 2005

Comments

Jim E.

I need to start playing Ozzie Osbourne's "Crazy Train" when I read the comment threads here. You people are nuts.

This new information is HORRIBLE news for the administration, and everyone here is popping corks because this somehow sinks the latest "enemy" of the last 12 hours...Walter Pincus? WTF? Since when did Pincus become a traitor?

Fitz's case for conspiracy just got bolstered, and you yahoos now think Libby is off the hook. Legalities aside, this shows a disturbing pattern by the administration that is not limited to Libby. It seems clear that there was a concerted effort by administration officials to leak about Wilson's wife. If everything is so kosher, why in the world has the senior administrtion official been so secretive about his role in all of this? Aside from Fox's John Gibson -- who said Rove deserved a medal for his leak -- most people realize this is a dangerous game, and that is why no one wants to be associated with doing the leaking. (Speaking of Gibson, did he offer to give Libby a medal, too? If not, why not? Will Gibson run out of medals before this is through, or will he have to resort to lame "participation ribbons.")

Plus, Woodward's credibility -- at least in regards to this specific Plame matter -- is in tatters. Why should he get a pass for publicly commenting on this case without ever once disclosing -- not even to his editors -- his own personal, insider knowledge of the case?? Or is that suddenly OK with everyone here? Would you think the same if Wooward had been bashing, rather than defending, the administration over the Plame matter?

The reporters' collective testimony -- which includes two pro-Bush sympathizers, Miller and Woodward -- is strangely similar in terms of how the conversations went. In particular, the reporters all testified they were recipients about "Wilson's wife" tips, not the other way around. No reporter fed information to the administration. Woodward's testimony brings into the mix another SENIOR administration official who was leaking classified information.

And let's clear up clarice's repeated misinformation. clarice keeps writing that Woodward's source didn't think info regarding Wilson's wife was top secret. Nope. That's not what Woodward says. Woodward says that due to the casual manner in which his source brought the information up led Woodward, NOT the source, to believe the information was not secret.

arrowhead

"Legalities aside..."

LOL! That seems to be the watch word over at the SP's shop.

The whole "Plame matter" was supposed to be about who leaked the name of a CIA covert agent. Fitz neatly, well not so neatly, changed the name of the game to "leaking classified information" and then didn't even charge on that but rather perjury & obstruction related specifically to who said what to whom in a conversation with Russert.

Woodward's testimony undermines the premise for the indictment, if not the perjury charge itself, and places the basis for Libby lying on very shaky ground. In addition, apart from Woodward there seems to be a growing group of persons for whom the statement "Wilson's wife works at the CIA" was common knowledge. We're left with he said/she said/they said. Try though you might, the discovery of new information that was apparently ignored or overlooked during the SP's "investigation" damages Fitz's case.

DougJ

Pincus is certainly in a lot of trouble. At the end of the day, who will people believe legendary Bob Woodward or some third-rate reporter with an obvious agenda to destroy the Bush adminstration.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turns out that it was Pincus who first told Scooter Libby about Valerie Plame's identity. And that this all happened before Woodward was told of it. Think about it: in May, Pincus learns of Plame's indentity from Richard Clarke, then passes it on to Libby or someone else in the Administration, who thinks little of it and later passes it on, innocently enough to Woodward. Then Pincus has to make a big deal of the "leak" in order to cover his tracks.

Is it possible that Pincus will be indicted? Some of the people over at LGF were saying that, but it seems optimistic to me. The Post has to fire him, though, at any rate. I guess that's good enough.

Slartibartfast

Well, I think this is interesting and certainly fans the flames (so to speak), but doesn't really tell us anything conclusive. Does it proves conclusively that there was no underlying crime? I rather doubt it. Does it identify the source? No, but it does tend to point to that the source is not Libby. Does it say anything at all about the level of classification of Plame's identity? Not at all.

I've seen it claimed (over at Captain's Quarters) that a senior administration official equates to a member of the President's Cabinet, which I also don't buy (unless it's true by usage). I'd think it'd do just as well to describe a member of the National Security Council, for instance.

TP

I don't think the suits at WaPO, NYT, or NBC want the Libby case to come to trial. This non-story of Wilson's trip was, in all liklihood, a political stunt in which Kristof and Libby were badly used. I think they just want to be rid of it, because it is a tar baby for them. Woodward is as close as a reporter gets to management.

Also, Woodward says his source was an administration official, not a WH official. Why would Woodward have a question in his notes for Libby if he already had the information from Libby's boss Cheney. My guess is that his original source is Tenet. My other guess is that it was Powell.

p.lukasiak

Why would Woodward have a question in his notes for Libby if he already had the information from Libby's boss Cheney.

because when a suck-up like Woodward is in the presence of someone like Cheney, he never asks questions that challenge the latter.

TP

p.luk,

So, are you saying you don't think Woodward's Administration source is Cheney?

Smithy

p.lukasiak: "because when a suck-up like Woodward is in the presence of someone like Cheney, he never asks questions that challenge the latter"

You are just so funny ain't ya?
Is this the same Woodward, the Republican hating reporter from the Washington Post, who ILLEGALLY connived with a deputy FBI director to being down the Republican Nixon Administration, in cahoots with the RATS vermin?
When did he become a Republican stuck-up, then?
Woodward is, was, and has always been part of the RATS propaganda disinformation and dirty tricks campaign.

You gotta lay off the crack , dude.

Smithy

TP :"I don't think the suits at WaPO, NYT, or NBC want the Libby case to come to trial. This non-story of Wilson's trip was, in all likelihood, a political stunt in which Kristof and Libby were badly used"

BINGO!
I can't wait for the Libby trial.
I am just licking my lips in anticipation of Libby's very tough lawyers putting the slime from the NYT, The WaPo, and lets ot forget Tim Russert,on the tand, and really taking the vermin apart.
That Tim Russert sucker is in this nasty, deep RATS/CIA conspiracy up to his eyeballs.

Before this case is over, we are going to bring down some vermin from the Bush-hating liberal media.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Has Jim E also been taking Ozzie O's drugs?

The Woodward revelation is the sound of another wheel coming off the Fitzgerald wagon. Unless Woodward's source is George Tenet, then it was 'common knowledge' outside the intelligence community, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Which blows up the entire premise of the investigation.

That Woodward is ready to say it's possible he discussed what he already knew with Libby is reasonable doubt for Libby's story about having heard about Valerie from reporters.

clarice

Jim E--I think it is fair to conclude from Woodward's remarks that he belived Plame was no covert because his source was in a position to know her status and treated it as if she were not covert.

Jim E.

"Unless Woodward's source is George Tenet, then it was 'common knowledge' outside the intelligence community, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA."

So if enough administration official leak the same state secret, and it's no longer a state secret due to their persistent leaking, that means the leakers did nothing wrong? Give me a break.

"his source was in a position to know her status and treated it as if she were not covert."

This can be interpreted two ways. One, it shows how reckless the source was with classified info and Woodward's perception is thus very damning, rather than mitigating, evidence.

Or, two, if the source honestly had no idea that it was classified, that source might avoid legal problems. But Fitz would obviously want that source to roll on the person that gave him the classified information in the first place. Either way, Woodward's information hardly helps the administration, and it certainly doesn't clear Libby.

Slartibartfast
Unless Woodward's source is George Tenet, then it was 'common knowledge' outside the intelligence community, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

Woodward believing it to be common knowledge doesn't equate to unclassified.

R FLANAGAN

So Woodward's testimony means Fitz
will have a hard time proving his charge that Libby violated the IIPA. Except
that that's not what Fitz charged .

BTW doesn't arguing that Woodward's testimony weakens the case for the "underlying crime" imply that perjury by itself fully merits prosecution even absent an underlying crime ?

Sue

I don't think this is good for either side, Fitzgerald or Libby. Who was the official? That's the ticket. And it also depends on whether or not that official had already testified/gave statements.

Fun days are ahead, but for which side? :O)

Sue

((slapping myself up side the head))

I just had a thought. Is it possible this is what Rove told Fitzgerald that kept him off the indictment list?

clarice

No. Neither Libby nor Rove is the source. The source himself provided this information to the SP.
Frankly, I think no one took this very seriously until Libby was indicted--it's such a ridiculous charge.

clarice

If the source was anyone who was in a position to have the facts about her status--Tenet, McLaughlin(the Asst DCI, Pavitt, Plame's boss), etc. it is particularly devastating to Fitz..It means that the claim that triggered the investigation and was the basis for the Miller case was fraudulent .

clarice

Beers started out in drug enforcement where he caught Albright's eye and was promoted to national security matters. I have no doubt that Clarke, Beers and Wilson (who also worked on NSC matters in the Clinton administration) all knew eachother very well. Clarke appears to have enlisted Beers to work for Kerry and Beers solicited Wilson. I'd be astonished if Clarke and Beers didn't know who Plame was. Did Lehane know? Did he tell anyone?
Heh

topsecretk9

This can be interpreted two ways. One, it shows how reckless the source was with classified info and Woodward's perception is thus very damning, rather than mitigating, evidence.

Just a thought but since Woodward was in the WH working on his book did he get any clearances (ala Judy). Also, isn't it noteworthy that Woodward had the question written BEFORE talking to Libby (or whomever) or am I missing something?

p.lukasiak

So, are you saying you don't think Woodward's Administration source is Cheney?

no, I don't think he was.

I even had a good reason why I thought it was implausible...but I forgot it. Must be having a "Libby moment" :)

Cecil Turner

I assume the Times will whine about intimidation, but the WH targetted an editorial - it did not question their journalistic credibility.

Well, perhaps someone should. As Timeswatch notes, the Times has been less than stellar on the whole Iraq-Al Qaeda relationship, especially when reporting on the 9/11 Commission. First they tell us there's "no connection," then they admit there is, then misrepresent statements of the Committee Chairs, and then misstate the final report. They do finally manage to find the "collaborative operational relationship" phrase.

The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. [NOTE - this is now discredited, as noted].

Well, it's worth noting that al Libi was not the only source for the claim. For example, Dr. Richard Spertzel (chief UNSCOM BW inspector '94-98), cited the timing of the anthrax attack, and continued:

And then when you combine that with the repeated contacts between Iraq personnel by some of their security agents and the al-Qaeda network, it even adds to that, as well as the three defectors that have all independently made the allegation of Iraq training terrorists, non-Iraqi personnel, at one of my favorite locations in Iraq, Salman Pak Peninsula.

JM Hanes

Cecil -

By coincidence, I just finished reading Byron York's reminder that Richard Clark once voiced concern that when things got hot in Afghaniston, bin Laden would Boogie to Baghdad.

TP

p.luk

I agree about Cheney. Why would Woodward ask Libby about something Cheney told him. My understanding is that Cheney would only answer written questions from Woodward which Libby would screen.

become a home inspector

Bush and Cheney are liars... maybe?

fiesta online money

I gain a lot of fiesta online money and harvest in life.

LOTRO Gold

When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame