From Newsday:
WASHINGTON -- Ignoring GOP criticism that she's too angry for prime time, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Wednesday walloped Karl Rove and President George W. Bush for "playing the fear card" on terrorism and for failing to kill "the tallest man in Afghanistan," Osama bin Laden.
Maybe we should announce a basketball try-out...
In related news, George Bush will provide some details about his masterful leadership in foiling a 2002 terror plot. Any chance that the NSA surveillance was a factor?
Details will eventually appear at this White House site.
UPDATE: Here is Bush's speech, and the associated press briefing. A highlight - the Administration will not discuss sources and methods, the point of the Presidnt's anecdote was the importanc eof international cooperation, and no connection to the NSA program is meant to be implied.
From the speech:
Since September the 11th, the United States and our coalition partners have disrupted a number of serious al Qaeda terrorist plots -- including plots to attack targets inside the United States. Let me give you an example. In the weeks after September the 11th, while Americans were still recovering from an unprecedented strike on our homeland, al Qaeda was already busy planning its next attack. We now know that in October 2001, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad -- the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks -- had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door, and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We believe the intended target was Liberty [sic] Tower in Los Angeles, California.*
Rather than use Arab hijackers as he had on September the 11th, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad sought out young men from Southeast Asia -- whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion. To help carry out this plan, he tapped a terrorist named Hambali, one of the leaders of an al Qaeda affiliated group in Southeast Asia called "J-I." JI terrorists were responsible for a series of deadly attacks in Southeast Asia, and members of the group had trained with al Qaeda. Hambali recruited several key operatives who had been training in Afghanistan. Once the operatives were recruited, they met with Osama bin Laden, and then began preparations for the West Coast attack.
Their plot was derailed in early 2002 when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative. Subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations made clear the intended target, and how al Qaeda hoped to execute it. This critical intelligence helped other allies capture the ringleaders and other known operatives who had been recruited for this plot. The West Coast plot had been thwarted. Our efforts did not end there. In the summer of 2003, our partners in Southeast Asia conducted another successful manhunt that led to the capture of the terrorist Hambali.
As the West Coast plot shows, in the war on terror we face a relentless and determined enemy that operates in many nations -- so protecting our citizens requires unprecedented cooperation from many nations as well. It took the combined efforts of several countries to break up this plot. By working together, we took dangerous terrorists off the streets; by working together we stopped a catastrophic attack on our homeland.
From the press briefing, about the NSA role (if any):
Q I understand that the House Intelligence Committee was briefed yesterday on the NSA wire tapping program, and I understand that at least some of the members present asked either General Hayden or Mr. Gonzales why they couldn't tell more success stories. So it's interesting to me that news of this is coming out today. So my follow question is, did the NSA wire taps, did they play any role in any of these arrests that you talked about, and in disrupting this particular plot?
MS. TOWNSEND: As I said to you, we use all available sources and methods in the intelligence community, but we have to protect them. So I'm not going to talk about what ones we did or didn't use in this particular case. And I wasn't at the briefing yesterday, so I can't speak directly to that.
Q So you can't say that this is a direct result, a successful result of that initiative?
MS. TOWNSEND: I wouldn't say one way or the other. I wouldn't comment on it.
Q Hi. I had essentially the same question related to the NSA. Is there nothing at all that you can tell us in any regard as to whether the NSA surveillance was at all instrumental?
MS. TOWNSEND: No, I'm sorry, I can't. It continues to be a very sensitive program. It's resulted in successes, but I can't relate it in any way one way or another to this particular plot.
Q As a follow up, because certainly in the light of the hearings going on this week, and the criticism for this surveillance, it would seem that the President talking about a success story such as this sort of skirts the question of the NSA. Is it wrong for us to put two and two together?
MS. TOWNSEND: The point -- as I said in my opening statement, the point of the President's speech was to talk about the international cooperation. This was not meant to be a speech about the NSA surveillance program.
QUESTIONS FOR OSAMA: Per the press briefing, there were to be four hijackers using a shoe bomb to break through the cockpit door. What in the world was their crowd control plan, and why did they not think they would simply have a replay of United Flight 93?
NY Times coverage is here.
Yada Tora Bora. She mad at Bush or bin Laden?
==============================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Keep on talking Hil...
" February 9, 2006--Support for Hillary Clinton's Presidential bid has slipped over the past month to the lowest levels recorded in two dozen surveys over the past year.
Today, just 27% of Americans say they would definitely vote for the former first lady while 43% would definitely vote against. Still, 59% of Americans believe it is somewhat or very likely that she will be the Democrat's nominee in 2008.
Among Democrats, the number who would definitely vote for Clinton dropped 11 percentage points over the past two weeks."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm
Posted by: Lou Grunt | February 09, 2006 at 10:31 AM
I would hope that the same people who claim that revealing the overall aspects of the NSA program was damaging to national security would refrain from discussing any specifics - such as the details of plots foiled - of the program.
Posted by: steve sturm | February 09, 2006 at 10:32 AM
I agree with conventional wisdom that every time Hil opens her mouth, she steps in it. If she's quiet her numbers go up. I agree with Mehlman, she's an angry frustrated candidate. People won't vote for someone like that. At the funeral it was soo obvious she was trying to suck up part of Bill's star power mojo and next to him she looked like "sloppy seconds".
Posted by: maryrose | February 09, 2006 at 10:48 AM
She has only the power of petrified ideas. She has passion, but it is cold fury. When she attempts to be tall at the pulpit she just swells up like an angry toad. She is as hopeless a politician as John Kerry was, but at least she has brains. It is Bill who is the Accidental Political Terminator, and it's just luck he had a few smarts programmed into his facial muscles, or at least his leading parts attached to processors.
===================================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 10:55 AM
The only way I really have much concern about the long term consequences of Bill's blithe misgovernance is if the effects of his foolishness provoke an overreaction. So far, it doesn't seem to be doing so, but please, for the love of Mike, don't let us irritate the immune organ of the body politic by allowing invasion of any part of it by Hillary or Bill. That's the reason for the 43% who'll not vote for her at all. Those are tall negatives to overcome even the wind behind you, the press blowing for all they're worth.
==========================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 11:05 AM
Kim
You liked my cold fury so much you adopted it here?
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 09, 2006 at 11:07 AM
It describe her to a T. That's why her hot fury is so phony. Rove is on it again.
=================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 11:09 AM
The only way she wins is if she triangulates 'cold bitch' and 'hot PMSer' into a big sympathy vote from women. I suppose the election will hang on just where in the news cycle memes implant.
============================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 11:14 AM
Hey, I like Condi '08. It is high time women came out of political purdah into the most powerful rooms of the palace, if they want to do so.
=======================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 11:17 AM
MSM is running out of adjectives to bash the Republican Party with. Walloped? I was once walloped in the third grade. Is this what I have to look forward to until the 2008 Elections? What next, creamed?
Posted by: BurbankErnie | February 09, 2006 at 11:18 AM
Nah. Condi in '16, after eight years as VP.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 09, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Well that calls for a ranking of the powerful. Who argues with this list?
!. Kitchen, including creamery, thanks to BeeEee.
2. Bedroom.
3. Allotherooms.
=============================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Kim,
i think the Bathroom deserves its own rank. Too rich in content to lump in with Allothrooms.
Posted by: BurbankErnie | February 09, 2006 at 11:46 AM
"What next, creamed?"
'dropped an atomic wedgie on'.
Posted by: Lou Grunt | February 09, 2006 at 12:02 PM
BurbankErnie:
How about- ranked out
Posted by: maryrose | February 09, 2006 at 01:35 PM
I noticed Lakoff mentioned in a trackback. Saw him on BookTV last weekend. Urk. He talked about phrases Dems should adopt, like "43 million Americans without healthcare".
That'll help. Not.
It's a lie.
Health insurance, not healthcare, Lakoff. And only 13 million of those because they cannot afford it--the others by choice or only a temporary condition.
Go! Go! Lakoff! Try to help the Dems! You'll turn 'em around for sure. heh.
(Disclaimer. I am now among those without health insurance because I can't afford it. But I am not without healthcare. And the Dems, as usual, have the wrong solution.)
Posted by: Syl | February 09, 2006 at 01:55 PM
As for Hillary bashing Bush, she's just trying to make hay with the KOSKids. For everyone else it's a big turnoff.
The reason I'm no longer a Democrat is simple. I was shocked by the extreme delusional Bush bashing. You can't bring back the '90's and the 'progressive agenda' by hating this man. Using Bush as a scapegoat is simply accelerating the death of the Democratic party.
Posted by: Syl | February 09, 2006 at 02:01 PM
"Tallest man in Afghanistan",somewhat racist,does Hillary think the Afghans are all short brown men? Looks like the the politically correct started to sterotype.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 09, 2006 at 04:35 PM
The good news for Hilary: with 27% for her and 43% opposed, there are still 30% undecided! She only has to get 23 out of that 30 to win!
Posted by: JohnH | February 09, 2006 at 05:09 PM
The tallest man in Afghanistan could be in the deepest grave in Southwest Asia. H.C. should be careful of what she wishes.
Posted by: cahmd | February 09, 2006 at 05:26 PM
Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm
Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.
So my question is if Libby said this in the GJ, why didn't Fitzgerald call Cheney?
Posted by: danking70 | February 09, 2006 at 05:38 PM
I give up. The Dem's have a terminal learning disability. They should have walked away with the last two elections, but here we are and it's '00, '02 and '04 redux. Make that reductio ad absurbum.
Until recently, I had begun to think that Hillary might actually be electable, but the latest 1,2,3 punch has convinced me otherwise. First, the faked up southern accent for the planation crowd, followed by head-shots at the SOTU, and then, the utter insanity of standing on a podium with Bill and speaking (droning) second! She could make John Kerry look effervescent. Even without her unfavorables, the lady doesn't have the political instincts to get herself elected President.
I think she peaked about a year ago, and that it's all going to be pretty much down hill from here, so to speak. More's the pity, because she's still sucking oxygen from any other potential contenders -- something which will continue as long as Bill's on board for the ride and he sure looks rested and ready to me.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 09, 2006 at 05:47 PM
"So my question is if Libby said this in the GJ, why didn't Fitzgerald call Cheney?"
Because it would only confirm is that there was no underlying crime, when Fitz was going for perjury & obstruction.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 09, 2006 at 05:50 PM
Even 27% saying they'd definitely vote for her is still frightening. That means every fourth person I see has some real serious mental issues. Makes me not want to go out alone after dark.
Posted by: Lew Clark | February 09, 2006 at 05:55 PM
Lew,
It's helpful to think of the bell curve wrt IQ distribution. Somebody has to fill the left side. 27% seems a bit high but I imagine if you hung a real lefty whacko out there in competition it would drop into single digits.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 09, 2006 at 06:09 PM
Thanks JM.
I'm surprised this bit of GJ information wasn't leaked earlier.
Posted by: danking70 | February 09, 2006 at 06:10 PM
Just my opinion though, from a admittedly somewhat jaundiced perspective on the prosecutor in question. Others may differ! I suspect further discussion on this point will ensue elsewhere on this site.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 09, 2006 at 06:21 PM
I want to see the "A is not equal to A" discussion that is sure to ensue now that Dirty Harry has his leg firmly gripped by the Abramoff bear trap. I figured a Senate seat would be lost over the scandal. I just wasn't counting on it being the Minority Leader's (not in '06, I know).
Go DoJ!!
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 09, 2006 at 06:41 PM
Can you imagine the idiocy? Pelosi starts the culture of corruption with trvaelgate in which she's in far deeper than Delay who slips away clean.
Reid follows up with the Abramoff song and dance and sinks ..
R/S/S smooches to you little man.
Posted by: clarice | February 09, 2006 at 06:50 PM
You see?
For the Country
To be as Free
As we'd like it to Be,
There cannot Be,
Any Enemy.
========================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 06:52 PM
And Dean stands on the bridge of the battleship screaming out "Dammit, I said dive. Now take this thing down to periscope depth right now." While nervously rolling two steel balls in one hand...
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 09, 2006 at 07:06 PM
Kim
Wow..you nailed it. That is soooo true.
Posted by: Syl | February 09, 2006 at 07:11 PM
I remember reporters challenging Pelosi at one of her press conferences and she blamed it on her underlings not doing the paper work and then said it wasn't the same as Delay. Replace Nancy -she's become dead weight. OT- Turley is still saying this kind of defense is tricky and might be hard to prove. Matthews says Libby wants to slow things down. Can anyone explain how this line of defense could help Libby ,who appears now to be taking the fall.
Posted by: maryrose | February 09, 2006 at 07:11 PM
But Rick-what about the strawberries? You know something is wrong when he can't get an answer about that.
Posted by: maryrose | February 09, 2006 at 07:14 PM
"A is not equal to A" discussion that is sure to ensue now that Dirty Harry has his leg firmly gripped by the Abramoff bear trap.
Oh Rick, I saw a comment to this effect. The "distinction with a difference" or visa versa...Reid didn't take Abramoff's personal money, so you see this is much, much different. I LMAO at the Senior aide being hired by Abramoff then holding a fundraiser!
HEH.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 09, 2006 at 07:19 PM
Not taking a fall, I don't think, MR. It will be shown that any talking out of turn that the reporters think Libby did, or any putative fibbing to the Grand Jury, will be shown to be No Problemo by the involvement of Tenet and Cheney. I don't know why they haven't clued in Fitz, yet. Woodward says Bush knows his source. I think Bush is just waiting for Fitz to bet his whole wad.
To BE, or got to be; somehow bathroom completely slipped my mind but then I was subtly reminded of one of the more powerful portals from a cavern of vast importance and rectitude. File it in a rank by itself. Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
==========================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 07:35 PM
Due to the right wing noise machine the shabbily reported AP story on Reid is going to get a lot of run. But bottom line (heads up to all Republican apologists, here is where you cover your ears and start with the loud "LA LA LA LA LA") Reid never voted for the Marianas proposal Abramoff supported (something they conveniently left out of the article). He's a Senator from Nevada, therefore ANY non-Vegas casino is a threat to his constituency and he is going to oppose it. And Abramoff is a dyed in the wool Republican who loathes Democrats and is on record many times saying as much.
Posted by: DwightKSchrute | February 09, 2006 at 07:36 PM
Maryrose,
Libby's attorneys DENY HAVING SAID ANY SUCH THING.
AL and Jeff are checking keys to the food locker as we read and write here. Expect 8,000 word essays from both - which will end: "QED and if you can't see this, well you're just Dumb, DUmb, DUMb, DUMB! So there.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 09, 2006 at 07:41 PM
.
I'm reasonably sure that the 'tallest man in Afghanistan' at the time that statement was operative was a US soldier.
Unless Hillary! thinks no US Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, or Marines are 6'6".
.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | February 09, 2006 at 07:41 PM
See Rick.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 09, 2006 at 07:48 PM
Dwight
Have you guys organized an email campaign for JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER for the shabbily reported AP story?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 09, 2006 at 07:51 PM
Yeah, Dwight, he loathes the ones who don't give him money. Is he on record loathing Reid?
============================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 07:54 PM
Well, I have to agree that there are definitely a number of stories linking "Dirty Harry" to Nevada casino interests - some with Mafia ties. I'm not sure that is exactly exculaptory but, heh, if you want to claim that Mafia interests trump Indian interests, go for it.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 09, 2006 at 08:00 PM
Check out Reid's family,too--while you're at it Dwight.
I can only think these guys still think they're playing under the old rules where the media was ONLY their friends and no one on the other side fights back. Listen to Kerry, Dwight, we have a bigger--un--megaphone.
Rick, BTW good catch with that Arlie K. (His father was my high school principal and he is one slick lefty pimp.)
Posted by: clarice | February 09, 2006 at 08:05 PM
And Dwight, about that Mariannas thingy:
[quote]Reid himself, along his Senate counsel Jim Ryan, met with Abramoff deputy Ronald Platt on June 5, 2001, "to discuss timing on minimum wage bill" that affected the Marianas, according to a bill that Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff's firm, sent the Marianas.
Three weeks before the meeting, Greenberg Traurig's political action committee donated $1,000 to Reid's Senate re-election committee. Three weeks after the meeting, Platt himself donated $1,000 to Reid.[/quote] http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/09/D8FLR3380.html
Posted by: clarice | February 09, 2006 at 08:08 PM
This seems to be the dems latest talking point. President Bush is lying about thwarting terrorists attacks. AQ is still out there plotting to kill us (to which I say...duh). Bush drew terrorists into Iraq, not out of it (myself, I hope he doesn't draw them out of there, but that's just me). Instead of spying on Americans he should be inspecting cargo ships. Clinton was more affective in stopping terrorist attacks than Bush.
That about sums it up...
Posted by: Sue | February 09, 2006 at 08:09 PM
The good thing about the Reid business is it shows Congress can be bipartisan when it wants to be, Dean was digging into Reid's record to fight off a move to replace him, and the Republicans helped him.
Posted by: clarice | February 09, 2006 at 08:13 PM
Rick,
any links to Libby's attorneys deny those statements?
Posted by: danking70 | February 09, 2006 at 08:14 PM
$1K is way too cheap for a Senator's vote. The most you might get for a grand is a rescheduling. Even then, you'd better back it up with something - more dough or a job for a not too promising young staffer the Seanator might want to be rid of.
Hey - that's what the article said. I'll be darned.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 09, 2006 at 08:16 PM
denying. ugh!
Posted by: danking70 | February 09, 2006 at 08:16 PM
Everytime I hear the Dems mention cargo ships, I think of Berger. I wish to heck they'd demanded to know what he stole. It may still effect national security.
==========================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 08:17 PM
Idiotic Article
"William Jeffress, Libby's lawyer, said, "There is no truth at all" to suggestions that Libby would try to shift blame to his superiors as a defense against the charges."
From idiotic article.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 09, 2006 at 08:24 PM
Maybe we need some sort of law to take the money out of politics so public servants like Reid won't have get caught up in these kinds of appearances of impropriety.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 09, 2006 at 08:26 PM
Unbelievable. A quote from Kennedy about leaking classified information. Yet, the NSA leak is a good thing.
((shaking my head))
Posted by: Sue | February 09, 2006 at 08:28 PM
"I know Jack Abramoff and I know Wayne Berman. They are Republicans; they were Republicans before they were lobbyists." - Ed Gillespie
Personal campaign donations from Abramoff and wife (97-06): Republicans $338,418 Democrats $0
Personal campaign donations from Abramoff and wife (97-06) that went to candidates running for House or Senate: Republicans $204,000 Democrats $0
"When one of my closest and dearest friends, Jack Abramoff, your most able representative in Washington, D.C..." - Tom Delay
Posted by: DwightKShrute | February 09, 2006 at 08:32 PM
Sue,
I guess I'm not surprised-the dems don't have a good hand to play- so they turn to their tired old songs about how Clinton was betterblah blah blah...It's so discouraging that they play this game with our safety and security instead of trying to pass the Patriot Act and strenghthen the war on terror. They can't get out of their own way because of their BDS
Posted by: maryrose | February 09, 2006 at 08:33 PM
Rick,
thanks.
That statement talks to his defense strategy. I'm still intrigue about his leaked GJ testimony claiming that happened and how that didn't get out earlier.
Posted by: danking70 | February 09, 2006 at 08:34 PM
As I understand it--and I think it's in the Fitz affidavit--Libby siad he was tasked to explain some things in the NIE to Miller and other reporters ( not that he was told to leak classified information to them).That his attention was focused on how to do that w and that was more important than Plae which is why he forgot they had told him about her working at the Agency.
Posted by: clarice | February 09, 2006 at 08:38 PM
Thank you Rick and Clarice for correcting the story about Libby. It was the top story on Hardball and also on Keith Olberman. Gotta stop glancing at MSNBS. I typed that by mistake but it seems to fit so i"ll keep it as is.
Posted by: maryrose | February 09, 2006 at 08:40 PM
Not leaked. It's in Fitz's filings. The NIE bit is puffery. Both Tenet and Rice offered up declassified info at around the same time from the NIE for one thing. For another, the reporter neglects to mention that information from the NIE was disclosed - and declassified on a fairly regular basis throughout the spring.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 09, 2006 at 08:43 PM
Dwight
You're trying hard to make the distinction, unfortunately it has with very little difference.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 09, 2006 at 08:44 PM
Dwight- Your guy Reid has 47000 of Abramoff tainted money that he swears he's not giving back. I wonder how long before Dean makes him give it back ? Or his high hat Harry going to abide by that old saw-what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?
Posted by: maryrose | February 09, 2006 at 08:45 PM
DKS. You are droll. Poorly written article and Reid didn't take directly Abe's money. That's your defense? Lots of Republicans have a better defense than that.
You know that Reid, he coulda been a contenduh. Why do you think Dean was crossing him?
==============================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 08:45 PM
I think it's MSALLBS.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 09, 2006 at 08:49 PM
R/S/S pointed out to Harry the Horse that there was money lying around that none of his other interests had picked up. I don't think Reid minded catholic sources, and R/S/S didn't let him know he was clueing in Dean.
=========================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 08:49 PM
What does Abramoff's personal political donations have to do with his fleecing of the Indians?
As well as his direction of client donations for specific "support" on pieces of legislation?
I found it amusing that one Indian tribe was using Abramoff's services to stop another Indian tribe from getting a casino license.
Posted by: danking70 | February 09, 2006 at 08:51 PM
Well they were running with it as Cheney's crime on my Yahoo news a few minutes ago.
Posted by: owl | February 09, 2006 at 08:59 PM
It's off now but I heard them say on FOX that Libby's lawyers said they were not using that.
Posted by: owl | February 09, 2006 at 09:01 PM
When they finally figure out Tenet was the leaker if there ever was one, then it'll all go poof.
=========================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 09:02 PM
So funny because Yahoo replaced the Cheney crime with "Abramoff met with Bush 'almost a dozen times'
Posted by: owl | February 09, 2006 at 09:03 PM
Love to watch them. They always manage to run at least one crime of the administration.
Posted by: owl | February 09, 2006 at 09:04 PM
Tenet.
Well we still don't know Woodruff's or Novak's source.
Could the reason why Novak wasn't stopped from running Plame's name in the usual manner (call from Tenent) because Tenet first told him?
Posted by: danking70 | February 09, 2006 at 09:05 PM
danking
I believe we also don't know Miller's other source.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 09, 2006 at 09:08 PM
They always manage to run at least one crime of the administration.
This morning I watched an ACLU Rep at presser blaming the prison fight on Bush.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 09, 2006 at 09:11 PM
When Woodward said that Bush knew his source, it gave it away. Tenet is the only character this charade could have been built around.
============================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 09:11 PM
I don't believe Fitz and Tenet have had the discussion I think they should.
================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 09:13 PM
Do you suppose Rove's lawyer sent Fitz a letter from Tenet?
Posted by: clarice | February 09, 2006 at 09:17 PM
Who else would Bush protect altruistically, and not on a basis of need or desire?
=============================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 09:19 PM
You must have those glasses reversed, Clarice; surely you are not trying to tell me my dark horse is making his run.
===============================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 09:22 PM
Hey where's TM on this?
Is he off in some "remote" location again?
Come on slacker! More meat!!!
Posted by: danking70 | February 09, 2006 at 09:25 PM
FYI
Didn't Miller have security clearances for Iraq? Pretty sure this made many people mad.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 09, 2006 at 09:29 PM
Kim
I think you are right about Tenet. I also think he never thought it would get this far. Here's a thought that makes you go Hmmmm.
How come Fleisher,Matalin, and Tenet all left the Bush administration around the same time?
Posted by: maryrose | February 09, 2006 at 09:36 PM
We really are Plameologists-this thread is supposed to be about Hillary!
Posted by: maryrose | February 09, 2006 at 09:39 PM
I've been touting Tenet ever since Woodward emerged from his casket. But, MaryRose, his odds have always been long among the turf pros here, I think partly because he's denied being Novak's source. I think the explanation for his denial is simply that Novak called him and had another source already, either Rove, who may have heard from Tenet, or the CIA information guy, who'd heard it the same way half of Washington had heard it. Well half of a certain segment, not all as Andrea would have it.
Or Novak heard it from both before he heard it from Tenet. That's another reason Novak's in the clear. His sources were all authorized to speak. Especially since they all knew it wasn't going to endanger anyone.
=============================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 09:45 PM
It is more than a bit interesting that we have a special prosecutor investigating bad things done to or done by an agency, and the one person he really, really doesn't want to hear from is the director of that agency. I believe he thinks/knows that testimony by Tenet is a big apple cart flipper.
The question is, how does he stop Libby from putting Tenet on the witness stand. Probably, he believes Tenet will refuse to "spill the beans" with the "it's still classified" defense. But even if the judge accepts that Libby's defense can argue that Tenet could clear this whole thing up if he could/would.
Posted by: Lew Clark | February 09, 2006 at 09:47 PM
Look, forget old hat Hillary and his stupid mountain. No one goes there anymore. It's too crowded.
===============================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 09:49 PM
Kim,
I agree. I would sure like to see a transcript of his discussion with Fitz. I wonder how many times the words "need to know" and "I'm sorry but I can't answer that." were spoken. Tenet was Fitz's client as well as a player - a rather odd situation if Tenet did not clarify Val's precise status.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 09, 2006 at 09:51 PM
Danking the whole premise of the article by Waas as it pertains to Libby's defense doesn't make sense. How does saying Cheney authorized Libby in June 2003 to leak info from the NIA assessment help Libby beat a perjury charge for later allegeldy lying to the Grand Jury about converstions he had with reporters about Plame? There's no link. He would need to say that Cheney authorized him to lie to the Grand Jury for it to have any relevance here. Likewise on the obstruction charges. Again, Fitz is going after Libby for things he said or didn't say to the GJ and arguing Libby's actions before the GJ obstructed his investigation.
This is all entirely different from the North case. There he was saying you've charged me with doing X, but I was in fact authorized to do X by my superiors.
Waas was leaked GJ testimony that sounds sensational but is not related to the present case against Libby and is trying to tie it all together to make it even more sensational. And then there's the former attorney for North and Waas'probably been looking for awhile to work that into a story and so he does so here albeit awkwardly.
Posted by: skinnydog | February 09, 2006 at 09:52 PM
It's my fault Maryrose. I hijacked the thread with the Murray Waas article.
I'm sick...Plameologists? Gotta come up with a better name.
I thought the fact that Wilson was working for Kerry's campaign would be the first obvious clue for the media to do some digging. Then you have the "subtle" dropping of Wilson from the Kerry campaign after his testimony about his trip to Niger would also do the trick.
Posted by: danking70 | February 09, 2006 at 09:53 PM
It does have a Lawrence O'Donnell- redacted pages feel to it.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 09, 2006 at 10:03 PM
Hey you can never be too smartdog, I think you've pointed out the reason Fitz persisted with the perjury charge against Libby, when the letter from Rove's lawyer stymied his putz toward Rove. That info may well have stopped charges against Libby, but Fitz had some extraneous stuff, stuff that he may not be able to prove material.
==========================================
Posted by: kim | February 09, 2006 at 10:06 PM
Danking:
How many people were dropped from that Kerry campaign...Let's see -Berger-sticky fingers,socks and pockets-Wilson- King of Niger who almost got a speaking gig at a Kerry fundraiser, His appointed religious person -after no one would give him communion- Am I missing anyone?
Posted by: maryrose | February 09, 2006 at 10:09 PM
Tim;
here's my take:
WHO'S REALLY PLAYING THE FEAR CARD?
Yesterday, Hillary "socialized medicine" Clinton charged that the GOP is playing the "fear card" - as if we shouldn't be afraid of terrorists. She said:
"... the GOP election message is: 'All we've got is fear and we're going to keep playing the fear card.'"
When she makes this charge she's as NUTTY as the LOONY-LEFTIST/DOVE comrades - who are now the base of the party, (if not the rank-and-file).
I think it is REASONABLE to be afraid of the terrorists who:
fly jets into skyscrapers; bomb Israeli pizzerias and Muslim weddings and funerals; riot and burn embassies over CARTOONS; blow up bars in Bali; behead charity workers; torch train-cars of Hindu pilgrims; destroy 1000 year old Buddhist monuments and behead Thai Buddhists; murder Russian school-children; condemn rape-victims to hanging; dress up their children as genocidal suicide bombers; deny the Holocaust; bomb subways in London and trains in Madrid; murder filmmakers; put fatwas on novelists; and generally try to establish tyranny and theocratic totalitarianism through intimidation and terror that KNOWS NO BOUNDS, AND ADHERES TO NO CONVENTIONS OF WAR.
On the other hand the list of things the Left is afraid of IS TOTALLY INSANE:
man-made global warming is the biggest threat we face; we're running out of oil and other natural resources; federal bureaucrats deliberately withheld hurricane rescue services to New Orleanians; the NSA is illegally intercepting all of everyone's international phone calls - (all 200+ BILLION yearly minutes worth!); the FBI is intimidating librarians; Afghanistan was going to be a QUAGMIRE - we weren't supposed to defeat the Afghanis since the USSR couldn't; we weren't going to be able to defeat Saddam - because the strategy was wrong - we went in too fast and our supply lines were too strung out; pharmaceutical companies, Wal Mart and the oil companies are ripping us off BIGTIME; off-shore oil-drilling and oil-drilling in ANWR are desecrations of the environment; the Bush Tax Cuts are destroying our economy - (Bush has the worst jobs record since Hoover - it's the worst economy since Hoover); abortion will become illegal and unconstitutional if you vote GOP; and the GOP will take away your right to have a living-will (even though ALL the Bush's have one!); Bush and the GOP are trying make America into a Christain version of the Iranian religious state.
The list of unreasonable fear-mongering by the Left goes back in time too. Remember these "golden oldies":
Reagan would start WW3; there will be mass global starvation; we're going to run out of oil; NAFTA will ruin our economy; Bobby Kennedy's ol' boss Joe McCarthy was evil personified and Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were innocent; "ending welfare as we know it" will put millions of people on the streets; the Reagan tax cuts will ruin the economy.
And so on. EVERY ONE - as in EVERY FRIGGIN SOLITARY ONE - of the Democrat/Left charges were wrong. WRONG! (There's a whole 'nother humongous list of things the Left said we SHOULDN'T worry about that turned out wrong, too; here's a smidgen:
don't worry - the Domino Theory was wrong; don't worry if we take away some of your 2nd Amendment rights - gun control will lower crime; don't worry if we take away some of your 1st Amendment rights - we will take BIG MONEY out of electoral politics; don't worry - bi-lingual education and multi-culturalism won't dis-integrate our assimilated society.
AGAIN: wrong every time.
The Democrats and the Left have been IRRATIONALLY fear-mongering for 50 years. And they have been wrong every time. ALL the things the Left is afraid are BOGEYMEN!
And when they attack Bush and the war on terror, they are wrong again.
MY ADVICE: if the Left is against it, then you should be for it. If they fear it, then it must be good. The Left has been 180 degrees wrong on just about every issue for the last century. And I see NO signs of that record improving.
OH... there's one other thing (besides jihadoterror) that I am very VERY afraid of: today's Democrats ever taking over the House or the Senate, or the White House. God forbid. Please.
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/02/whos-really-playing-fear-card.html
Posted by: reliapundit | February 09, 2006 at 10:13 PM
I don't know that Waas was leaked anything. I think he made it up out of whole cloth from the Fitz affidavit.
Posted by: clarice | February 09, 2006 at 10:23 PM
Clarice,
Pretty much.
Fedora did a much better job of sourcing on Dirty Harry's dirty laundry. I especially like his "Selected Bibliography". Waas could learn something from Fedora. If Waas could lean anything at all - besides how to prepare rehash with mud topping.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 09, 2006 at 10:29 PM
Well this entire thing could be cleared up for Fitz (if he was interested) by watching my Yahoo frontpage.
They now are running Libby: White House 'superiors' OK'd leaks
They replaced the "Abramoff met Bush" for a few minutes. Geesh..... Do you suppose Fitz ever looks at this stuff?
Posted by: owl | February 09, 2006 at 10:33 PM
You can trust anything Fedora does. He also has some great stuff on Joe Wilson's business conncections and relationship with Cogema and Al-Alamoudi.(He's a free lance writer and that research he posts there is his hobby.)
Posted by: clarice | February 09, 2006 at 10:36 PM
I thought it was "White House superiors (Cough..Rove..Cough..) OK'd leaks" on Yahoo.
Posted by: danking70 | February 09, 2006 at 10:38 PM
(Sets metamixer to medium)
Harry's got a tough row to hoe. He has to walk a tightrope in balancing mob interests with his family's interests in various Indian tribe owned casinos. It's lonely at the top and it takes a special kind of man to be able to walk a crooked path. Harry is a real crook among crooks.
Exits humming "I'm worried now, but I won't be worried long."
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 09, 2006 at 10:47 PM