If an editorial can induce aneurysms, the Washington Post may have killed or wounded a significant slice of left-leaning America with their effort on Sunday - in "A Good Leak" they both defend Libby's leak of the NIE to Judy Miller and beat on Joe Wilson. Since they also buried a seemingly-significant story about who at the White House knew what and when on the Niger-uranium question, we wonder if there has been a Ben Domenech-inspired coup at the WaPo. [A more serious defense of the WaPo is here - basically, Woodward, Pincus, and the editors have insider knowledge about who leaked and why.]
First, their praise of the leak, with emphasis added:
A Good Leak
President Bush declassified some of the intelligence he used to decide on war in Iraq. Is that a scandal?PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do. But the administration handled the release clumsily, exposing Mr. Bush to the hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy that Democrats are leveling.
...There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about that; nor is this presidentially authorized leak necessarily comparable to other, unauthorized disclosures that the president believes, rightly or wrongly, compromise national security. Nevertheless, Mr. Cheney's tactics make Mr. Bush look foolish for having subsequently denounced a different leak in the same controversy and vowing to "get to the bottom" of it.
Wow. Of course, these are presumably the same editors hyping the "punish Wilson" excerpt from the Fitzgerald filing, so go figure.
LOTS of reaction at Memeorandum; I may scout a few lefty sites to perform a body count, but let me try to anticipate their outrage on the Wilson segment. To do that I have to take the unaccustomed role of Joe Wilson apologist, but here we go:
Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraq threat." The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.
Well, per the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report from July 2004, it is true that there were aspects of his report that supported that conclusion, since Wilson noted an Iraqi overture from 1999 that may have been related to uranium. However, his report was considered inconclusive. From the report:
Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.
Let's go back to the editorial:
Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge.
As much as I agree, this editorial is appearing in the very same paper that reported this on Saturday, in the lead:
As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.
And this was in the Friday edition:
Fitzgerald's brief uses unusually strong language to rebut this claim. In light of the grand jury testimony, the prosecutor said, "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson."
My goodness, regular readers of the WaPo risk whiplash. [That said, the WaPo editors surely know who Bob Woodward's source is for his Plame leak; they also must know Walter Pincus' source. So they may have unpublished reasons to be skeptical of the "punishment" theory.] Let's press on:
Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife.
Devoted Wilso-philes will swoon at the notion that Libby's motive may have been to correct the record. As to the idea that it is a "fact" that Wilson's wife recommended him for the trip, stand back!
Wilson's position has shown admirable flexibility in the face of new facts; here he is chatting with TIME in the famous Matt Cooper article:
In an interview with TIME, Wilson, who served as an ambassador to Gabon and as a senior American diplomat in Baghdad under the current president's father, angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case," Wilson told TIME. "I met with between six and eight analysts and operators from CIA and elsewhere [before the Feb 2002 trip]. None of the people in that meeting did I know, and they took the decision to send me. This is a smear job."
The Senate report told a different story - here is Susan Schmidt of the WaPo from July 2004:
Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.
Can't fault the WaPo editors for lack of consistency. Joe Wilson fired back, and it is fair to say this has been a point of contention (some of my thoughts here).
In any case, both Wilson's position and the coverage at TIME have been evolving - here is a TIME account from August 2005:
...That means Wilson was also shading the story: "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he wrote in his 2004 book The Politics of Truth. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." When asked last week by TIME if he still denies that she was the origin of his involvement in the trip, he avoided answering. But he has maintained all along that Administration officials conducted a "smear job" on him and outed his wife in revenge.
Time to survey the battlefield.
MORE: Odd - Joe Wilson emails SusanG at the Daily Kos, but skips past the spousal question to focus on the schizophrenia at the WaPo. Joe and I, thinking as one - that ought to make at least one of us uncomfortable.
Brad DeLong uses the one of my favorite phrases to describe the WaPo.
ERiposte and ThinkProgress make me look concise, but add some points. I am going to dispute Think Progress on this:
CLAIM: Wilson said Cheney sent him to Africa “Mr. Libby’s motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney.” [Washington Post, 4/9/06]
FACT:
Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president’s office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney’s questions. [Bloomberg, 7/14/05]
Groan - Nick Kristof is hazy on who said it or how it got started, but *someone* asserted that Wilson was sent "at the behest" (Kristof's phrase) of the office of the Vice President, and the White House certainly felt pressured to rebut it. Here, for example, is the fact-proof Chris Matthews insisting repeatedly that Wilson was sent "at the behest" of the VP's office. Perhaps the WaPo editors should have separated the office from the man, but to pretend that the idea was not out there (following, we should note, the Kristof columns (May 6, 2003; June 13, 2003) with Wilson as an anonymous source) is not reasonable.
MORE: And if Wilson did not say Cheney sent him, he ought to ask his publicist to correct his current on-line bio. or maybe the WaPo made their mistake by reading his bio, which says this:
Wilson is now at the center of a major political maelstrom involving the White House, the C.I.A. and the second gulf war in Iraq. In 2002, at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney, Wilson was assigned by the C.I.A. to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was seeking to acquire uranium from Niger for the purpose of advancing his nuclear program. When his investigation turned up nothing, Wilson reported back to officials in Washington that there was no basis for the claims.
Hat tip to Maybee.
I think if the FBI wants to clear up this whole thing, all they've got to do is get a warrant to search the premises of the Wilsons' home.
Wilson has changed his story so often that it is almost impossible to keep track of it all.
Something I see as odd is that the CIA did not properly redact the SSCI report, as to easily reveal that it was the Italians they got intelligence on Niger from early on in the end of 2001.
Why? Well think about it. The Plame cell within the CIA could have simply claimed that it was the Italians who gave them the information, instead of... say... the French. That way they cover their tracks and implicate the Italians.
Wilson claimed that his CIA contacts told him about the documents in February 2002. Yet the DO reports officers disputed that, and said that they didn't even have any documents at the time.
There is definitely some funny business going on there, which is why the sloppy redacting of the Italians in the SSCI report is so alarming.
Didn't Plame use to work in France?
Posted by: Seixon | April 10, 2006 at 09:36 AM
Heh. eriposte over at Left Coaster called me a GOP liar. I've challenged him to a duel. Bring it on!
Posted by: Seixon | April 10, 2006 at 09:46 AM
eriposte: I debunk thee ! I debunk thee ! I debunk thee ! ... so there ... now you're debunked !
Posted by: boris | April 10, 2006 at 10:07 AM
Rick Moran does a good job on the backdrop--why did the CIA send Wilson who consistently opposed regime change in Iraq? I'm not sure why he throws TM in the mix of those questioning the editorial, but TM did just not the way Rosen et al who are listed do.
Posted by: clarice | April 10, 2006 at 10:12 AM
Good God, man, don't shoot. They've only got blanks in theirs.
================================
Posted by: kim | April 10, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Yeah, I'd like to see eriposte answer why Plame and the CIA sent her husband to Niger twice. Well, I'd like to see eriposte actually bring anything to the table. I have a feeling I won't be needing a plate any time soon.
Posted by: Seixon | April 10, 2006 at 10:33 AM
"And, you know, Jane Hamsher is really pretty."
But dayyum, that is one ugly spleen.
Posted by: richard mcenroe | April 10, 2006 at 10:34 AM
Don't poke it. It'll turn into two.
===================
Posted by: kim | April 10, 2006 at 10:37 AM
hilarious, boris!
Posted by: MayBee | April 10, 2006 at 10:38 AM
Myabee
and dangers of Iraq working on Nukes, and Joe answers the question but mentions nothing about nukes.
yeah, I like how he mocked the previous guys answer too -- Saddams spys-henchmen trying buy bad weaponery? HAH idiots, thats a laugh ! (In that smug, I know Saddam and Iraq better than anyone in the entire world kinda way he does)
This mocking of course comes 7 months after a former Niger official did tell Wilson to his face Baghdad Bob drop into Niger to see if he could buy some yellowcake.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 11:06 AM
"Wilson is now at the center of a major political maelstrom involving the White House, the C.I.A. and the second gulf war in Iraq. In 2002, at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney, Wilson was assigned by the C.I.A. to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was seeking to acquire uranium from Niger for the purpose of advancing his nuclear program. When his investigation turned up nothing, Wilson reported back to officials in Washington that there was no basis for the claims."
No one asserts that Cheney did not request that someone be assigned by the CIA to take a jucket to the sun drenched paradise of Niger. The quoted statement does not say that he requested that that someone be Wilson - unless you have an overwhelming desire to read it that way in order to call Wilson a liar. The Niger trip was Cheney's idea - assigning Wilson to be the person to make it was the CIA's.
Posted by: TexasToast | April 10, 2006 at 11:23 AM
"At the request" modifies what in the italicized portion you claim I am misreading.
I will tell you that nearly everyone will read it to modify "was assigned"
but go ahead and rewrite it putting the phrase at the correct point where we are suppose to read and understand it and then post it here for us dimwits to better understand.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | April 10, 2006 at 11:30 AM
The Niger trip was Cheney's idea - assigning Wilson to be the person to make it was the CIA's.
This is news to me. Where do we know that Cheney requested the CIA to send someone, anyone, to Niger?
Posted by: Sue | April 10, 2006 at 11:33 AM
They are still firing blanks at Seixon over at Left Coaster, and eriposte has gone to ground. It is an interesting little show over there.
===================================
Posted by: kim | April 10, 2006 at 12:01 PM
"No one asserts that Cheney did not request that someone be assigned by the CIA to take a jucket to the sun drenched paradise of Niger. The quoted statement does not say that he requested that that someone be Wilson - unless you have an overwhelming desire to read it that way in order to call Wilson a liar. The Niger trip was Cheney's idea - assigning Wilson to be the person to make it was the CIA's."
Not true at all. Cheney never reqeusted a Niger trip of any kind. IIRC, Cheney got a daily breifing with info in it about Iraq buying yellowcake from Niger and his office asked the CIA what they knew about it. The CIA actually answered back fairly quickly that they didn't think there was anything to it. Then becuase the DOD and State as well as the office of the VP were asking about Niger and yellowcake, the CIA decided on their own iniative (spy agencies do that sometimes) to send sowmeone to Niger and that person turned out to be superspy Joe.
Posted by: skinnydog | April 10, 2006 at 02:00 PM
Mostly ok skinny but ...
Not through official channels.
Unsanctioned rogue operations are not SOP.
Posted by: boris | April 10, 2006 at 02:39 PM
Patton,
"I HAVE ALWAYS WONDERED WHY KHADAFI WAS SO QUICK TO GIVE UP ALL OF HIS PROGRAM WHEN SADDAM WAS OVERTHROWN."
Aside from the AQ Khan network and the North Korea connection, what else have we learned from Khadafi's WMD program?
Posted by: danking70 | April 10, 2006 at 02:50 PM
I wish I posted a response to MayBee's cite of Wilson's bio when I first saw it last night, because I was going to predict that left-of-center folks would twist the words like pretzels, trying to convince us that they don't mean what they clearly say. TexasToast would have proved my prediction correct.
On this issue, TexasToast is toast. If the quote had been something like, "In response to a request by Vice President Dick Cheney, Wilson was assigned by the C.I.A. to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was seeking to acquire uranium from Niger," TT's interpretation might be reasonable; or at least not silly. But "at the request of" doesn't leave much wiggle room. Not to mention, as others have pointed out, even if TT's interpretation were correct, it's still contrary to the fact that Cheney never asked the CIA to send anyone to Niger.
Posted by: MJW | April 10, 2006 at 04:19 PM
Maybee
I thought I'd pass this on too... the Wilson Bio you found? You can be sure it is Wilson supplied, because it is the same for this speakers bureau too
Leading Authorities, World Class Talent and Creative Media, bio download in right hand corner
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 05:50 PM
In case anyone missed it, here is a fasinating comment from some time ago by Cecil, showing that the story that Wilson's trip resulted from Cheney's questions is, at best, highly unlikely. It seems the report which inspired the VP's questions was dated Feb. 12, 2002; the same day Plame wrote a memo suggesting her husband for the Niger trip. So either our government is unbelievably efficient, or something else is unbelievable.
Posted by: MJW | April 10, 2006 at 06:03 PM
MayBee,
Who is this Jane Hamster? She sounds like my kind of woman.
Posted by: Joe Wilson | April 10, 2006 at 06:13 PM
Interesting, tops!
The more I was reading his bios/old forum transcripts yesterday, the more surprised I was that the CIA had chosen him. He was definitely a 'realist', not a neo-. But more than that, he was a man working for an international/ME business consulting company- and they didn't ask him to sign a non-disclosure agreement? I don't know what they were thinking.
Posted by: MayBee | April 10, 2006 at 06:15 PM
"No one asserts that Cheney did not request that someone be assigned by the CIA to take a jucket to the sun drenched paradise of Niger. The quoted statement does not say that he requested that that someone be Wilson "
Yes, but they probably would have liked value for money,this sounds like the one they got cheap from the brother-in-law.
The mighty CIA,"Your husband is between jobs Val and we are a bit short staffed at the moment,modest expenses and all the publicity he can handle..don't mention our name".
Posted by: PeterUK | April 10, 2006 at 06:20 PM
Why do we have to continually be subjected to Wilson's lies 24/7? First he is on Wolf Blitzer then Keith Olberman's show. Don't they or their bosses realize he is lying accusing Rove of leaking classified info? It was de-classified. Is Joe a moron about the facts?
Posted by: maryrose | April 10, 2006 at 06:31 PM
Oh God, Peter, they thought it would be good for him to open his mouth. How come he retired in the glory Clinton years? Not enough money?
===========================
Posted by: kim | April 10, 2006 at 06:36 PM
MJW
Thank you for digging that up, I think Sue was asking this question just today
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 06:46 PM
A very interesting connection between Iraqi nuclear ambitions and Rome
Posted by: PeterUK | April 10, 2006 at 06:51 PM
Kim,
Obviously if you want to throw ordure at the fan,you need a tool with which to do it.
Posted by: PeterUK | April 10, 2006 at 06:53 PM
WOW, MJW
What a time warp?...I can't believe it was me that spawned the typical amazing catch by Cecil
Well, I guess "What do you know about this" means "asked for and investigation"
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 06:56 PM
MJW,
Thanks. I thought I remembered something odd about the timing. I wasn't sure where I read it. Should have known it was here with the bestest researchers in the world.
Posted by: Sue | April 10, 2006 at 06:58 PM
Sue
I should say, you are the original spawner...I was responding to you.
I love this, by Hitchens today
Sorry everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 07:04 PM
oops, Sorry..my link is the same as PeteUK's...I just found out.
Great minds Pete.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 07:07 PM
Wondering why JOE WILSON will be on OLBERMAN TONIGHT
vs
with Chrissy?
Is there too much danger with the Matthews/Russert/Mitchell buddy-buddies?
Or is it just to try to get some ratings?
If Wilson is free at 9PM may he step over to Fox. News will have Hannity to greet him, Fox network will have Jack Bauer. I'm betting on Larry King.
Posted by: larwyn | April 10, 2006 at 07:14 PM
From Peter and Top's link...
Interagency feuding has ruined the Bush administration's capacity to make its case in public, and a high-level preference for deniable leaking has further compounded the problem.
Ain't that the truth...
Posted by: Sue | April 10, 2006 at 07:19 PM
If the parties were reversed, the democrats would be shouting to the rooftop that Saddam tried to purchase uranium from Niger. There is enough evidence in the public record to support the claim, let alone that which we will never see. Funny how politics work. Especially when it comes to national security.
Posted by: Sue | April 10, 2006 at 07:22 PM
Something else that struck me as funny today...every word that comes out of Libby's mouth is a lie, unless and until he says something that could damage Bush/Cheney. Then he speaks the truth. ::grin:: I love politics.
Posted by: Sue | April 10, 2006 at 07:25 PM
Tops,
Can't be said often enough.
"In the late 1980s, the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency—Iraq's senior public envoy for nuclear matters, in effect—was a man named Wissam al-Zahawie."
"In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report."
"Time magazine "exclusive" about Zahawie, written by Hassan Fattah on Oct. 1, 2003:
The veteran diplomat has spent the eight months since President Bush's speech trying to set the record straight and clear his name. In a rare interview with Time, al-Zahawie outlined how forgery and circumstantial evidence was used to talk up Iraq's nuclear weapons threat, and leave him holding the smoking gun.
A few paragraphs later appear, the wonderful and unchallenged words from Zahawie: "Frankly, I didn't know that Niger produced uranium at all."
..and the lickspittle cockroaches of the MSM aided and abetted this filthy farrago of lies simply because it suited their political purposes!
Posted by: PeterUK | April 10, 2006 at 07:31 PM
...every word that comes out of Libby's mouth is a lie, unless and until he says something that could damage Bush/Cheney.
Every word that comes out of Wilson, Mitchell, Fitzgerald etc. mouths that is highly questionable (and that list keeps getting longer) should be - dismissed, is misspoken, is misquoted, is misattributed, not the "intention", literary flair, open to interpretation and on and on
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 07:37 PM
..and the lickspittle cockroaches of the MSM aided and abetted this filthy farrago of lies simply because it suited their political purposes!
-----Can't be said often enough------
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 07:39 PM
That is what Wilson is referring to, isn't it? He confirmed what other sources already knew. That someone approached Niger officials for trade relations.
Posted by: Sue | April 10, 2006 at 07:40 PM
That could be why Joe Baby kept quiet until he was almost certain there was not going to be any uranium found in Iraq. Otherwise, he would have started his campaign earlier, if he truly didn't believe it had happened. Like in September 2002 when the British released their document. Or in December 2002 when State released theirs. He wasn't sure so he waited until May, when it was pretty obvious we weren't going to find anything.
Posted by: Sue | April 10, 2006 at 07:42 PM
Was there any discussion today on Rick Moran's posting on Right Wing Nut House. I've read Rick before and he always seems sensible. He seems to think Bush is in trouble for lying to Fitz and obstructing justice. He's taking Jason Leopold as gospel. I thought it might be tongue in cheek, but I don't think so.
Posted by: Kate | April 10, 2006 at 07:47 PM
Sue,
"The Duelfer Report also cites "a second contact between Iraq and Niger," which occurred in 2001, when a Niger minister visited Baghdad "to request assistance in obtaining petroleum products to alleviate Niger's economic problems." According to the deposition of Ja'far Diya' Ja'far (the head of Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear weapons program), these negotiations involved no offer of uranium ore but only "cash in exchange for petroleum." West Africa is awash in petroleum, and Niger is poor in cash. Iraq in 2001 was cash-rich through the oil-for-food racket,"
Either cash,chick peas or beautiful goats.
Posted by: PeterUK | April 10, 2006 at 07:47 PM
Almost everybody in the world now affects to believe that Saddam Hussein was framed on the Niger rap.
poor, poor Saddam.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 07:47 PM
Per Wilson on Olberman just now:
P-uk's Iraqi rat was "touring to get sanctions on Iraqis right to travel lifted." Wilson referred to the article as proof.
Wilson's proof that his wife was "classified" were:
CIA complaint
Fitzgerald's indictment
PRESS CONFERENCE & filings!
Tomorrow he will used the CNN & MSNBC Teasers as more proof.
Woooof replayed Wilson at 7pm broadcast.
Rove can rest easy - Joe is willing to give up handcuffs when he is frogmarched.
Posted by: larwyn | April 10, 2006 at 08:21 PM
Joe-
Get off the friggen computer and get up here and rub my bunions. Bring me my ciggies and a bourbon on your way. Oh, and put on that outfit I bought you- the pants you have on make you look fat.
Posted by: Val | April 10, 2006 at 08:29 PM
Won't be a minute Dear,just nipping out to Higer>
Posted by: Joe Wilson | April 10, 2006 at 08:37 PM
eeewwwwwwwww
Posted by: Specter | April 10, 2006 at 08:42 PM
Kate, I don't think he's doing it tongue incheck either. Should we post the Leopold story and discuss it. As far as I can tell it's his same old crap with anonymous sources.
Posted by: clarice | April 10, 2006 at 08:51 PM
Clarice-I was very surprised to read that post. Moran must not know Leopold's reputation. Even if the meeting were true, Wilson put how he got to go on the trip in play by claiming Cheney sent him.
Interestingly enough, even though Leopold is always wrong and I suspect his sources include third hand info from Larry Johnson, Moran put an even more negative spin on the story.
He's the first who is hinting that Bush could be guily of obstruction and perjury.
Let's post the article and let others weigh in.
Posted by: Kate | April 10, 2006 at 09:02 PM
Go ahead, Kate.
Posted by: clarice | April 10, 2006 at 09:07 PM
But Jack is on.....
Posted by: Specter | April 10, 2006 at 09:09 PM
The latest from Jason Leopold.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041006Z.shtml
Posted by: Kate | April 10, 2006 at 09:12 PM
Leopold is just plain nutz....
Posted by: Specter | April 10, 2006 at 09:19 PM
I read Rick's take and I don't see how Bush is in trouble.
Bush can know about Wilson/Plame, right? He's the President. That doesn't mean he told someone to tell the press, or expected someone to tell the press, or knows who told the press. Ironically, Fitzgerald knows and isn't pressing charges.
Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see what has Rick Moran so bothered.
Posted by: MayBee | April 10, 2006 at 09:19 PM
Let the parsing begin--the first graph is that Cheney told Bush in June 2003 that Plame worked at the CIA and ws responsible for Holy Joe's Niger Mission.
It continues:
"This information was provided to this reporter by attorneys and US officials who have remained close to the case. Investigators working with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald compiled the information after interviewing 36 Bush administration officials over the past two and a half years.
The revelation puts a new wrinkle into Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's two-year-old criminal probe into the leak and suggests for the first time that President Bush knew from early on that the vice president and senior officials on his staff were involved in a coordinated effort to attack Wilson's credibility by leaking his wife's classified CIA status.
Now that President Bush's knowledge of the Plame Wilson affair has been exposed, there are thorny questions about whether the president has broken the law - specifically, whether he obstructed justice when he was interviewed about his knowledge of the Plame Wilson leak and the campaign to discredit her husband."
Whie he tries to slip slide it to make it appear the sources are on Fitz' staff, he says they are "attorneys and US officials who have remained close to the case"
Who could that be?
Posted by: clarice | April 10, 2006 at 09:19 PM
Odd that in his recent Florida speech, Wilson said we now know that the admin started trying IN MARCH to talk about his womanizing and drug-doing.
I think the source is Wilson. Or someone is telling Wilson. I don't know how he now 'knew' any such thing- and then voila! this Leopold story.
Posted by: MayBee | April 10, 2006 at 09:28 PM
Speaking to college students and faculty at California State University Northridge last week, Wilson said that after President Bush cited the uranium claims in his State of the Union address he tried unsuccessfully for five months to get the White House to correct the record.
"I had direct discussions with the State Department, Senate committees," Wilson said during a speech last Thursday. "I had numerous conversations to change what they were saying publicly. I had a civic duty to hold my government to account for what it had said and done."
Wilson said he was rebuffed at every instance and finally decided to write an op-ed in the New York Times and expose the administration for knowingly "twisting" the intelligence on the Iraqi nuclear threat to make a case for war. The op-ed appeared in the newspaper July 6, 2003. Wilson wrote that had he personally traveled to Niger to check out the Niger intelligence and had determined it was bogus.
"Nothing more, nothing less than challenging the government to come clean on this matter," Wilson said. "That's all I did."
In the interest of fairness, any person identified in this story who believes he has been portrayed unfairly or that the information about him is untrue will have the opportunity to respond in this space.
Good grief, Wilson isn't even hiding his Leopold collaboration anymore...sad when this is your only choice huh?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 09:28 PM
MayBee
Get out of my head!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 09:29 PM
For 5 months, Wilson is running around talking to State and Senate committees and Fitzgerald continues to say that Wilson didn't identify himself until July 6th? By July 6th, everyone in Washington knew who the envoy was.
Posted by: Sue | April 10, 2006 at 09:34 PM
True, July 6 at the witching hour is preposterous. But I can't for the life of me see why a smart guy like Rick is concerned about this article. It seems no diffewrent that 22 to be indicted or Rove about to be indicted or any of the other stories we've been hearing since last October.
Posted by: clarice | April 10, 2006 at 09:40 PM
I'm inclined to drop Rick's Blog from my favorites list if Rick is anticipating obstruction of justice and perjury charges against Bush based on a Jason Leopold article.
Really, I think Bush, Cheney had much more on their minds than a mid-level bureaucrat and her hack husband. They had both a war to run.
Posted by: Kate | April 10, 2006 at 09:44 PM
It seems almost coordinated around Fitz's last filing, with the lefty blogs doing a little dance followed by Joe's appearances the last couple of days. The only one out of step is the WaPo - which says enough of this crap.
Interesting. I can't figure Moran's piece out either. Occasionally someone will shoot for irony and miss by a little bit. It sure doesn't tie in to his AT piece this morning.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 10, 2006 at 09:48 PM
clarice- I can't for the life of me see it either. I don't even think the article actually says what it pretends to say, but I'd love to hear Rick's thoughts.
tops- can't I stay in your head for just a little while?
Posted by: MayBee | April 10, 2006 at 09:51 PM
Kate,
This is the fundamental point of the whole matter,Wilson and Plame are important because they say they are.This is an old trick of the MSM,inflate the status or virtue of the alleged victim to make the "crime" seem more heinous.
Posted by: Joe Wilson | April 10, 2006 at 09:53 PM
I'm utterly baffled.
But then perhaps it's hard for me to see another viewpoint because I've spent so much time reading and analyzing whatever I can about this matter, and it would be hard to see it as other than a serial liar and Clouvert.
Posted by: clarice | April 10, 2006 at 09:54 PM
Am I missing something on Rick Moran, granted I didn't read every single word but, I'm getting what you guys are referring to?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 09:56 PM
I'm not, I mean.
Oh and according to emptynesters comment section, some one commenting on TM's site was rushing back to ew for a little help
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 09:58 PM
What's with all the impersonation of me lately? ::grin::
Posted by: U Can't B Joe Wilson I'm Joe Wilson | April 10, 2006 at 09:59 PM
Joe-yes, Mary Matalin said that Joe Wilson was 59th of the list of things they were worried about at that time. Really a cipher, an annoyance. A blabbermouth and liar running around spreading falsehoods and he need to be countered, that's all.
Posted by: Kate | April 10, 2006 at 10:01 PM
Is blood thicker than water?
A mole? Sleeper?
Too much "24" for me?
But stranger things have and are happening - Fukuyama's turnabout on Iraq. And now he is claiming that this was always his feeling.
Posted by: larwyn | April 10, 2006 at 10:03 PM
Taranto is on a roll today--please note the first sentence:
"Yesterday Kerry was on "Meet the Press," where host Tim Russert neglected to press him on his commitment, on the same show 435 short days ago, to release his military records. But there was this enlightening exchange:
Russert: The Boston Globe, your hometown paper, did an article on this subject. They quoted Don Fowler, the former chairman of the Democratic Committee, and he said in the party, "Many in the party remain upset about Kerry's inability in 2004 to refine his policy positions into a coherent vision, a shortcoming that crystallized with his statement that he voted for Iraq war funding before he voted against it." Fair criticism?
Kerry: Well, as I said in the debate with the president, I made a mistake in the way that I talked about the war, but the president made a mistake in going to war. Now, which is worse? I could have done a better job in the campaign explaining what I meant. I voted against it because I believed we should pay for it, and because they didn't have a plan. And our mistake was one of a campaign strategy of not going out and explaining that. I voted out of principle, and I will continue to vote out of principle.
I have a short plan for America, Tim, and I--you know, it's called, "Tell the truth, fire the incompetents, get out of Iraq***, have health care for all Americans." These are pretty simple messages, and they're worth fighting for today.
Wow, it's hard to believe everyone voted against this guy! He should definitely run in 2008."
Posted by: clarice | April 10, 2006 at 10:08 PM
Leopold's Love Letter
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 10:13 PM
The funny thing is...they might actually nominate him again.
Posted by: Sue | April 10, 2006 at 10:38 PM
No, scratch that. The funny thing is Kerry thinks they might actually nominate him again.
Posted by: Sue | April 10, 2006 at 10:40 PM
I just had this weird Jason Leopold moment...I had forgotten that is was Leopold who was the author of the breathless story about the classified document that proved some faulty procedure (can't remember exactly what) about the Bush Admin and something to do with 9-11 ...
anyways the left-o-sphere went a little nutso over it and and a pretty respected right side blogger (can't remember who) sat down to read the doc, as he was reading through he agreed that some of the content could be breathless...until he came upon the document date and it was in Dec. 2000 and then time stamped the same .... he realized the left and apparently Leopold, couldn't do math because Bush didn't take office until Jan. 2001...he also did an update that he should have known better and considered the source (Leopold, truthout)
Does anyone recall this and the blogger who recorded this hilarious moment?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 10, 2006 at 10:43 PM
After seeing Kerry on MTP I am amazed so many people ended up voting for him in 2004. The more he talks the less sense he makes. Joe Wilson has the same problem and leaves the same impression. Its too much of a bad thing.
Posted by: maryrose | April 10, 2006 at 10:48 PM
John Kerry deserves another chance at the office of President. He came so close.
And the more that you make fun, ridicule, mock, and fisk his other-worldly talents when it comes to interviews and cable news show, the LESS HIS CHANCES become for deciding whether to run or not.
Please, I could use the entertainment.
Posted by: danking70 | April 10, 2006 at 11:05 PM
Hope you all read Vanderleun's "The Hamlet Men" on Kerry and the Dems. Brilliant.
and Vasko Kohlmayer also contributed a marvelous post to American Thinker today after he saw the MTP Kerry appearance.
Taranto also rocked today on
Fukayama and "propaganda".
Getting hard to keep track of all the tracks lately.
And on CNN and MSNBC they keep pointing out all the American flags at the demos today. Only Fox makes sure you know that the organizers passed them out and told them not to fly the Mexican flags. However, Lou Dobbs pointed out that many of the American Flags
were being flown upsidedown.
Must have been copying Peolosi's Real Security plan.
Posted by: larwyn | April 10, 2006 at 11:07 PM
Hi. I'm here to tell all of you that I so enjoy reading these lies about me. It's really great to see that I have all of you wound up. I LOVE IT! I plan on continuing to report this story EVERY DAY. So thanks for givng me great publicity. I especially love Clarice Feldman. She's so crazy insane and funny! Thank you Clarice! Say something else funny!
Posted by: Jason Leopold | April 11, 2006 at 07:04 PM
By the way, I wrote a book called NEWS JUNKIE and I ADMIT that I am a recovering drug addict and that I have a felony for grand theft. Feel free to order it on Amazon. So as you can see I've outed myself. Nothing said here really affects me since I put all of the dirt out there already. But again, thanks!
Posted by: Jason Leopold | April 11, 2006 at 07:33 PM
Every shovelful of Plame stuff you write just buries you deeper.
======================================
Posted by: kim | April 12, 2006 at 11:01 AM
There is this reward of ... $5 for the first person who can name one thing, anything, Joseph Wilson found on his 2002 trip to Niger that proved "false" President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union statement, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Posted by: Neo | April 12, 2006 at 12:03 PM
Jason,
If nothing said here affects you, why are you here telling us nothing here affects you?
Posted by: Sue | April 12, 2006 at 12:12 PM
He couldn't really tell anyone else about it, but it was clearly written in the leaves at the bottom of his cup three distinct times. The meaning of all became clear when .....hey, I just had a thought. I'll bet Joe thought Saddam had nuclear WMD, but also knew about the yellow cake papers way back in Jan and Feb of '03 when he was opposing the war on grounds that Saddam would use his Bio ancd Chem WMD on our troops. He could alert Levin, then when none were found, swing into action with his lie. He probably did hope to preserve his or at least Val's anonymity, but when it started to fall apart in June, and he smelt the lure of fame, he just drove on recklessly and plamed the resulting wreck on the White House. A kamikaze mission really; Joe lives through the need for the disloyal opposition to preserve his meme. No wonder he looks, acts, and talks like a zombie. Pity the children.
===============================
Posted by: kim | April 15, 2006 at 04:56 PM
The disjunct between his public persona and his figure as public speaker is too hard to sustain. Surely, he needs a lawyer. The disjunct between his meme and reality in Iraq is increasingly hard to sustain. The Dems need a politician.
====================================
Posted by: kim | April 16, 2006 at 09:46 AM