Powered by TypePad

« The NSA Program | Main | The Faith Based Community In Action! »

February 05, 2006



One wonders what Rove's lawyer dropped on Fitz in October and how he had it.

Lou Grunt

I like the way p.luk couldn't support his case so he invites his fellow moonbats to another site. Damn, facts are a nasty thing. LOL!


I think by August 2004 Fitz knew he had nothing under IIPA. Can you read the bolded part of this sentence to mean anything but? Is it possible at all to read the bolded portion as a reference to perjury? I don't see how anyone could..I think once again he was jivin' the Court________________

The First Amendment interests are clearly, different when the "source" being sought may have committed a crime in order to attack a person such as Wilson who,-correctly or incorrectly, sought to expose what he perceived as misconduct by the White House._______________

Rick Ballard

The sweat - the little rivulets, the gush of CYA info so carefully rehearsed - see - a sitting Federal judge already bought it - see - see.

Do you want your toast extra crispy Mr. Fitzgerald?


The bold got lost in the copying process--

"The First Amendment interests are clearly, different when the "source" being sought may have committed a crime in order to attack a person such as Wilson who,-correctly or incorrectly, sought to expose what he perceived as misconduct by the White House._______________

Lew Clark

And forget about the railroading of Libby under false premises. This affidavit resulted in throwing one person in jail for 85 days and threatening others, under the false premise that he had strong evidence a crime had been committed and all he needed was that testimony to nail it down. I think he may be in as great or greater jeopardy for what he did to Miller than what he's done and is trying to do to Libby.


The phrase about First Amendment rights being clearly different in the two cases will come back to haunt. He's a dead man walking.


Any ideas about what was redacted in this sentence? And hoe can he claim that not interviewing other reporters with knowledge of Plame wouldn't be exculpatory given Libby's contention that he heard it first from reporters who spoke to him or to other officials who conveyed those conversations with him?

Indeed, failure to take effective steps to identify such sources might chill future whistleblowers such as Wilson, thus impairing "a reporter's responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial public issues." (28 CFR Section 50.10.) We have also not issued subpoenas to date where the reporter may have relevant information but it is not shown to be likely that the reporter does REDACTED or where the information is not essential to determining guilt or innocence of a crime reasonably likely to be charged

Rick Ballard


He got the panel to agree with his specious argument - and the reality is that no one could gainsay his affidavit. No one with knowledge had standing. Miller and the NYT were running retread First Amendment arguments plus specious twaddle claiming a non-existant priviledge.

The judges had to accept his affidavit - he is an experienced prosecutor.

Of course, they didn't have to goldplate his affidavit in the ruling while sawing out a nice escape hatch. Now Fitz is all alone and night is falling.


As for whistleblowers dealing with classified information, I don't recall the statute listing the NYT or WaPo as appropriate places to report that information.

Rick Ballard

We really need to look at what Miller reported her testimony to be. Did it match Fitz's assertions as laid out in the affidavit?

At least we know what the charge involving her is about. She may be a worthless witness but she makes a nice buttcover.


" I am less and less thrilled with his work as more and more is revealed"
You and me both Kate. I can't believe he automatically and immediately bought that garbage that Wilson was a whistleblower. He based his whole case on that premise. He knew there was no covert violation almost 2 years ago. And what was that veiled threat to Rove all about? I saw some recent footage of Fitz, contrary to the flop sweat presser, he now looks suited out to the nines and has been co-opted by the washington spin cycle-if you say it or infer it it must be true.


Maryrose, I still believe that someone in the White House pushed Fitzgerald to believe the story. I remember in Sept 2003, a newsreporter from MSNBC saying that someone in the White House was reminding her to not forget the Plame case where "they revealed her identity for revenge."

I am now wondering if that person was the Communications person in the VP's office.


I just never for one minute bought this revenge theory . It's a fiction that as Kate says MSNBC just picked up and ran with , without any proof and the result was whining by Wilson and threats by Wilson to frogmarch Karl Rove out of the White House. I still think he was a main target and Luskin probably told Fitz as one lawyer to another- "Hey pal you are skating on some pretty thin ice without proff of any statute violation. Fitz is probably covering his own posterior right now so why not come clean and post on his web-site that he doesn't have the goods on Rove. No he's still on his power trip.


larwyn, in this kind of site, you have to add some HTML characters to make links show up correctly. If you have an address, such as "http://justoneminute.typepad.com", and some text you want to show up, for exampe "this website", it needs to look like the following when you enter it (with the [ and ] characters replaced by < and >):

[a href="address"]text[/a]

For example, if you type this,

[a href="http://justoneminute.typepad.com"]this website[/a]

with the brackets replaced by < and > characters, it shows up looking like this:

this website

Rick Ballard


Watch for him to fold on dismissal with no appeal - no more charges and a slowly diminishing overall presence capped by a weak rebuttal to Team Libby's motion to dismiss.

The Libby indictment was a weak sop to begin with - looking at this affidavit, which he knew would come to light, provides his rationale for carrying forward but it is simply inexcusable.


Many thanks. Will try with this one - very important for many may
be up for consideration of either
the B.A.D. OR W.O.R.S.E. diagnosis.


February 05, 2006

Blogosphere Addictive Disorder

Since it is Superbowl Sunday, one of America's national holidays, I thought it would be a good time to "lighten up" and describe a new faux-problem.

As most people realize, the Psychiatric profession is always looking for more people who are victims of serious mental disorders. In order to assist the American Psychiatric Association in their noble quest of finding at least one DSM diagnosis for everyone, I would like to describe the diagnostic criteria for a new Psychiatric problem that is already prevalent and threatening to become an epidemic. I am, of course, speaking, with tongue held firmly in cheek, of Blogosphere Addictive Disorder or BAD

Only lead by 4!

Click here: ShrinkWrapped: Blogosphere Addictive Disorder
Blogosphere Addictive Disorder


I have to admit I'm rooting for the Seahawks because I always go for the underdog. Tomorrow-get ready for- 24!


how more underdog could you get
than playing all those games away
and winning.

Steelers were the wild card - not more underdog than that.

And Pennsylvania is really Purple not deep deep BLUE like
Washington. We have a Dem Gov
now - but he didn't steal the

And Lynne Swann - one of the
MVP's of former Super Bowls was
introduced today - is challenging

Rendell is not a bad Dem by any
means and certainly a likable guy -
but we need a red PA!

Check out your "underdog" criteria and you'll see the good
guys won!!!!


Over on the NSA post Extraneous
has a link and comment to TIME
article - not complimentary - they
are telling what Gonzales will say

My comment to him:

Is he going to tell us Jack Bauer
is real?

as their fellow moonbats at Newsweek suggest:
Exclusive: Can the President Order a Killing on U.S. Soil? - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com


Heh, heh, we already knew that
at JOM!

ON TO THE 2ND UP 11!!!!!!

Lou Grunt

'stranger on the sidewalk'...What are the chances of some stranger, who is a friend of Joe's, just happening to bump in to Novak on the street? Larry Johnson? Some other plant?


Jim E -- I think the female in the communications department is Catherine Martin, not Mary Matalin.


After Fitz's first few minutes, I was on here typing my heart out that he was a "idiot that bought the entire CIA/MSM/DNC, hook, line and sinker."

Nary a single reporter witness, could have told a better story than ole Fitz. So if he had guts enough to run this kind of scam for this long, I am going against Rick and Clarice. I think his little power trip will have him trying to file more charges. He is in a box. He looks like the idiot that bought the goods. He has put a person that never wrote a word in prison for 85 days.

What's a fellow to do? (I couldn't make it past his "whistleblower" bs)


Man that's rich...

Fitz trashes the image and "rule" of Freedom of the Press by locking up Miller and threatening Cooper with the same and no crime was committed?

Well, the press did ask for it.


I haven't heard the righties here sound this out of touch since the days leading up to Fitzgerald indicting not Wilson, not Plame, not Kristof, and not Pincus but Libby.

For a while I was thinking the redacted reporter was Novak, since his name appeared to fit much better in the appointed space in paragraph 3 (second redacted spot) than "Kessler", and since this is a response to Pincus' effort to quash his subpoena, I really doubt he had already talked about Libby with Fitzgerald at this point and Fitzgerald was just going for his other source (although it's possible). But then I came across paragraph 23, and I really doubt that Fitzgerald would refer to Robert Novak by his full name initially (as he does with Miller and Cooper here) and then in the very same sentence, refer to him in the parentheses again by his full name. The second reference, were Novak's name redacted initially, would probably be just to "Novak" or "reporter Novak". Moreover, elsewhere, if I'm not mistaken (I haven't checked each occurrence), Novak is referred to not as a reporter but as a syndicated columnist. Furthermore, it appears pretty clear that the redacted reporter spoke with Libby on July 12, and we know that Kessler did that.

So I'm going with Kessler.

Rick Ballard


I don't read him as a "steamer". I just don't think that he'll split a pair of deuces. Look at his response to Team Libby's evidence request. "I'm not giving you anything about her status and it doesn't matter anyway."

Maybe I'm misreading but that doesn't look like a strong hand answer. Plus, who's the "mystery witness" who would save his butt?


Don't you think that Wells has a stack of affidavits from people all over the world affirming that Wilson himself told them about Plame and her employment, and these disclosures were made all over the world over a substantial period of time?

Don't you think they include May and Peretz ? And many, many people who Fitz deliberately never questioned despite their public statements that everybody knew.

I do.


So clarice you're saying that Wilson was May's source? And Peretz'? Because surely you're not saying they would lie in their affidavits, right?

JM Hanes

What affadavits?


Wilson blabbed to a lot of people. I Don't know Peretz and May's (or Mitchell's) sources..It may have been Wilson. It's past my bedtime--I meant that I think Wells has affidavits also fom May and Peretz that they knew about Plame and that her employment was not a secret in D.C.

I do not think May or Peretz would lie about their sources.

I do think we know why Fitz never interviewed them though.

On the night before the affidavit we puzzled about Fitz' interviews with Plame's neighbors. I suspect the answer is a Keystone Kop attempt to suggest he really was tracking down anyone who might have known that she worked for the CIA. Pity that he confined that last minute search to those least likely to know and indicated under seal to the court something quite different--that he wasn't looking for anything Wilson or Plame might have leaked themselves .



On the night before the INDICTMENT WAS ISSUED we puzzled about Fitz' interviews



I don't think anyone has mentioned that Fitz's affidavit seems to contradict the theory that Libby called Russert to complain about Matthew's supposed anti-semitism. According to Fitz, Libby called about Matthew's coverage of Wilson's Niger trip. Which sort of makes Russert's line that Libby merely called to complain about MSNBC's programming humorous. Yeah, no reason for the subject of Plame to come up.



Exactly. If Libby were complaining to Russert about Matthews's coverage of Wilson's Niger trip, he was probably complaining about these false words Chris spoke on Hardball, July 8th:

"MATTHEWS: Why would the vice president's office, Scooter Libby or whoever is running that office -- why would they send a CIA effort down in Niger to verify something, find out there wasn't a uranium sale, and then not follow-up by putting that information -- or correcting that information -- in the president's State of the Union? If they went to the trouble to sending Joe Wilson all the way to Africa to find out whether that country had ever sold uranium to Saddam Hussein, why wouldn't they follow-up on that?"

If Libby was correcting the record with Russert on July 10/11 insisting "We did NOT send Wilson to Niger", wouldn't Russert, Chief of NBC's Washington Bureau, wonder "Well then, who did?" If you believe Russert's story that they didn't discuss Wilson's wife, it's STILL hard to believe, after getting off the phone with Libby, Russert didn't demand that his reporters get to the bottom of this.

Unless, that is, he was comfortable with the spin Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews had given the Niger story on July 6 & 8. In that case, it makes total sense.


MaidMarion, I can see how that might have gotten under Libby's skin. What's slightly hard to explain is that if, as Fitz claims, Libby was intent on getting the Plame story out, and was willing to mention her to Miller on July 8, he passed up the golden opportunity to tell Russert on July 10. Yet, according to Fitz, Russert neither gave nor received a leak.


This whole mess is because everyone was too careful about Tenet's sensibilities to give Fitz a clue.


Elsewhere in the affidavit (p. 12), we learn that Russert said that he had not heard any reporters talking about Wilson's wife working at the CIA prior to the Novak column.

Hmmph. That does nothing for the Mitchell-Russert conspiracy.

And I believe that Russert never mentioned the anti-semitism angle to Fitzgerald; I can imagine that Libby didn't, either.

If Libby was correcting the record with Russert on July 10/11 insisting "We did NOT send Wilson to Niger", wouldn't Russert, Chief of NBC's Washington Bureau, wonder "Well then, who did?"

I would.



I'm guessing that the main thrust of the Kessler-Libby conversations may be related to North Korea, and that Libby is the source for this comment:

A White House official, however, disputed any notion the administration had shifted in its public refusal to negotiate with North Korea. "As we have said many times, we will not submit to blackmail or grant inducements for the North to live up to its obligations," he said.

And one of the sources for this comment:

Officials at the Pentagon, State Department and White House declined to respond to Perry's criticism on the record. But speaking anonymously, administration officials vehemently disagreed with his analysis, saying they have succeeded in building a multilateral consensus that North Korea's nuclear program is unacceptable, leaving Pyongyang increasingly isolated.

Those are two of only three Kessler articles that include the words "senior administration official" for the relevent time period. The first is dated July 22 (and includes contributions from Pincus) and the second is dated July 15.

Jim E.

Cliff May *was* interviewed by the FBI. At least, that's what Cliff May claims--so take it with a grain of salt.


Empty - if you bury Kessler and I bury Pincus, who is left?

This WaPo article from Aug 10 is either written to deliberately obscure the possibility that Pincus testified about Libby prior to Sept 2004, or it means that he had not yet cooperated with Fitzgerald:

Lawyers involved in the case said it appears that Fitzgerald is now armed with a strong and unambiguous court ruling to demand the testimony of two journalists -- syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who first disclosed the CIA officer's name, and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, who has written that a Post reporter received information about her from a Bush administration official.

Pincus was served with a subpoena yesterday after Hogan's order was unsealed.

In their statement, NBC officials said Russert agreed to the interview after first resisting on First Amendment grounds. NBC lawyers reached an accommodation with the prosecutor in which Russert "was not required to appear before the grand jury and was not asked questions that would have required him to disclose information provided to him in confidence."

Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler agreed to a similar interview with Fitzgerald's office earlier this summer. In both Kessler's case and Russert's, prosecutors' questions concerned conversations the reporters had in early July 2003 with Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby...

That is a pretty weird way of informing readers that Pincus had also taken the Kessler deal and cooperated partially.

Good job on the No Korea stuff - I was following my owen fantasy to see if Kessler was working the "who botched the intel" story in May-June 2003, and came up with a lot of Israel/Mid East stories, some non-proliferation, and nothing for myself. Well, that means Pincus had it covered.

OK, so maybe Libby lied about Kessler.

Or maybe [Redacted] is yet another reporter, who cooperated quietly and is being redacted to avoid embarrassment.

And why is this other reporter not a useful witness?



TM - I don't get why you think ew is burying Kessler. Kessler testified that the Wilsons didn't come up in his conversation(s) with Libby. They talked on July 12. Libby testified that he told our redacted reporter, between calls with Cooper and with Miller, that he was hearing from reporters about Plame working at the CIA. So if Kessler is the reporter, his testimony and Libby's contradict each other. Fitzgerald in the affidavit says that every material witness contradicts Libby's story in substance. It all fits. There could be another reporter that we haven't heard about. But I see no problem with Kessler.


We might guess that Libby already knew about Val. We might also guess that had he heard about her also from Novak, then he could truthfully claim he was hearing it from reporters. This would fit in with the mindset he was trying to explain when he used words that Fitz considers perjury. He was carefully compartmentalizing all this, because there were licit and less licit sources of his information.

And Tenet should be given the Key to the City in excange for the key to this lockbox of secret treasure.


The 10/20/05 WAPO states that the Pincus source is a "White House official". This, to my knowledge was new information.

Pincus, who spoke with Fitzgerald early in the case after his source said he could, has never revealed who told him that Wilson's wife helped arrange the trip to Niger. Pincus has said the source was not Libby, and has described the person as a "White House official" who called him. The source came forward to the prosecutor and released Pincus to discuss their conversation with Fitzgerald but not with the public.

Here are the previous accounts of the Pincus source.

Pincus himself said this about his source.

On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction.

I didn't write about that information at that time because I did not believe it true that she had arranged his Niger trip.

WAPO mentions Pincus's source in a Nov 2004 article.

One current or former administration official has told Fitzgerald that he or she had a conversation with Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus on Saturday, July 12, Pincus has said publicly. Pincus also has said his source was not Libby. Pincus has previously said that an administration official told him that day that Wilson's trip to Niger was set up as a boondoggle by his CIA-employed wife.

I also found a reference to the Pincus source in the Columbia Journalism Review January/Febuary 2005. This is a different CJR than the issue sited at Talkleft.

after his source on Plame (not Libby) authorized him to talk to Fitzgerald, Pincus agreed to give a deposition in which he confirmed the time, date, and length of his conversation with the source but would not reveal the source's identity.

Pincus also gave testimony exonerating Libby, after a different source on Plame okayed his talking with Fitzgerald.

Who else could the different source be...gotta be Libby himself.

and this from the First Amendment Center 9/03/04 (note the date)

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan agreed to the release of the papers, filed last week in the case of reporters from The New York Times and The Washington Post, who have been called to testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of a covert CIA officer.
The news groups said they wanted the new arguments considered as Hogan took up the case of Judith Miller of The New York Times and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, possibly today.

There is no doubt that Pincus testified about a conversation with Libby. When is the question.

Tom Maguire

The 10/20/05 WAPO states that the Pincus source is a "White House official". This, to my knowledge was new information.

Let's give a nod to

Tom Maguire

TM - I don't get why you think ew is burying Kessler.

I'm kidding around a bit, actually - Kessler is my current favorite.

Sort of weird that Libby could twist a talk about No Korea into one about Plame, whereas with Russert, they seem to agree the subject was Matthews and the genesis of Wilson's Niger trip.



Based on what you've laid out here, appears Pincus's "other White House" source was female.

Pincus himself cleverly hides the gender of his non-Libby source in his July 6, 2005 article. But the Nov 2004 WaPo article is not as artful:

"One current or former administration official has told Fitzgerald that he or she had a conversation with Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus on Saturday, July 12, Pincus has said publicly."

I would conclude from the November 2004 article that a) the other White House source was female and b) she was no longer in the White House as of Nov 26, 2004.

Lew Clark

I'm not being facetious here. Can anyone here define a "White House Official"? Do you just have to work for the president, because that makes me a "White House Official" having worked for an agency in the Executive Branch of the government, the head of which reported directly to the president.

Or, do you have to have an office in that big white building. I'm serious here, because throughout all of this, they have played lose and fast with "White House Official" being one of Bush's guys and government officials not necessarily being one of Bush's guys. To the point that it appears that Fitzgerald had no interest in anyone that drew a government paycheck if they didn't belong to that special club "White House Official".
But I would challenge anyone to show me that official government document that defines what positions are "White House Officials". So we seem to have another term, kind of like "covert" that means what the speaker wants it to mean.


Good question, LC, because I've been promoting Tenet at every possible turn(backstretch, homestretch, who knows?) and I think he could be described as a White House official. Even fits the current or former description.



Let's give a nod to

Forgive me, I knew it was in my head for a reason.


I would conclude from the November 2004 article that a) the other White House source was female and b) she was no longer in the White House as of Nov 26, 2004.

I wouldn't reach that conclusion. It could just as easily be a current male WH official.

I was attemping to put the news accounts regarding Pincus and his sources in reverse order of publish date.

I forgot this 9/16/04 WaPo which is the article relating that Pincus had just given his deposition. In that article Schmidt has this:

Pincus answered questions about Libby as well. Both he and Cooper said they did so with Libby's approval, and both said that their conversations with Libby did not touch on the identity of Wilson's wife.

It reads to me that Schmidt is saying that Pincus discussed his conversation with Libby in his September 15, 2004 deposition.


It will be interesting what is said in court as opposed to what is said in newspapers.

Here's a paradox. Presumably Fitz is following what is said in court, and we are critically following what is said in the papers. How come he's wrong, and we're right?

Maybe the critically apt word is critically.


Now I'm reading Murray Waas' latest that already has the blue blogs on fire...and I'm trying to figure it out. Who or what is his source for this revelation? What page was that on?

Would Cheney really tell an underling to run out and hype the name of a CIA employee?

Would Libby be dumb enough to do that?

Would Libby be dumb enough to drop a dime and tell the prosecutor too?

Is it snowing in the Bahamas?


Murray Waasn't is a better moniker.


In any event as I read the piece, he says Cheney okayed reporting some of the NIE, not Plame's name. And I suspect the WH does have authority to declassify that. Indeed, as I recall, on July 11, 2003 in his statement Tenet declassified part of that. As to this being Libby's claim..Funny Waasn't is the only one who's said so and given his reputation, I'd not bet on it.


The President, of course, has the authority to declassify anything, since the classification system derives from Executive Order 13292, which is an amendment of EO 12958.

The VP, in the performance of his executive duties, has original authority to classify information:

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and
(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

Therefore, he also has authority to declassify information:

(l) "Declassification authority" means:
(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position;
(2) the originators current successor in function;
(3) a supervisory official of either; or
(4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official.

As Clarice points out, what may have been declassified was NIE information. This seems to be another example of people misunderstanding something and going off half-cocked.


Here's a link to Power Line for it's take on AP's big scoop, appropriately titled "Dumbest News Story Ever?"


Indeed, as I recall, on July 11, 2003 in his statement Tenet declassified part of that. As to this being Libby's claim..Funny Waasn't is the only one who's said so and given his reputation, I'd not bet on it.

clarice - you should be so lucky to one day have a reputation like Waas'. He's broken more news in this story than just about everyone else combined, and almost all of his scoops have held up. (The only one I can think of that didn't, as far as we can tell, is his report that Rove had not told Bush about his role.) But you'll never have his reputation because your partisanship gets in the way of your facts. I'd be willing to bet Waas' scoop holds up. After all, it's not just Waas' story - the bit he adds is that it was specifically Cheney, among others, who authorized Libby to disclose information from the NIE to reporters. It was Libby himself who testified, according to Fitzgerald's letter to Libby's team (included as Exhibit C in Libby's 1-31 filing), that he was authorized by his superiors to disclose information from the NIE to reporters in June and July 2003, and specifically to Miller on July 8 2003. And Libby doesn't have that many superiors, does he?

Wouldn't it be rich if it turned out that Libby didn't actually commit a crime of unauthorized disclosure of classified information or IIPA violation in disclosing Plame because Cheney and/or other superiors, knowing her status was classified, declassified the info and authorized Libby to disclose it?

Rick Ballard

Yeah, Clarice. With hard work and a little luck you could be the next Sidney Blumenthal.

Jeff - Point out the 'news' in Waas' flash for those of us who can only see recycled twaddle, if you would. Mischaracterization and conjecture are Waas specialties so if there were any 'news' in there it would be surprising.


Wouldn't it be rich if it turned out that Libby didn't actually commit a crime of unauthorized disclosure of classified information or IIPA violation in disclosing Plame because Cheney and/or other superiors, knowing her status was classified, declassified the info and authorized Libby to disclose it?

Fun, too, but why would that be a big deal? Aren't these the guys we pay to do the cost/benefit analysis on stuff like that?

Rick Ballard


Cheney declassified information from the 2002 NIE report for use by Secretary Powell in his presentation to the UN in January 2003!!!!

Powell is still a little ticked at the level of incompetence shown by certain parts of the CIA (like Val's group) in preparing the estimate. The fact that they used a washed up diplo as a legman (on the basis of satisfying nepotistic urges) may have some bearing on the quality of the overall product.

Cecil Turner

Are we talking about this lame piece from Waas, or something else? Because the only thing interesting in that one was the repeated assertion that the White House thought Plame worked at WinPac (and the fact that Waas apparently can't find the Butler Report).


Jeff, bet's on! *wink*

The story is interesting to me for one reason only--to show how credulous the msm is. Today's WaPo repeats this crap. No one apparently carefully read the article or knows about the declassification process or even read the Fitz affidavit.

I'd have to be way more paranoid to approximate Blumenthal though his techniques would certainly be easy to follow.

I am jealous though that one can make a nice living at a major newspaper (for the moment any way) without doing a moment's work.

The comments to this entry are closed.