Who Was Woodward's Source For His Plame Leak?

Many, including yours truly, have derided the recent schizophrenic WaPo coverage of the Plame case and the weird "Good Leak" editorial.

However - the WaPo editors surely know Woodward's source for his Plame leak, which he got in mid-June.  Do you suppose they would have written that editorial if Woodward's source was Stephen Hadley of the NSC (or, as a dark horse, Ari Fleischer)?

Let's tip the scales back towards Richard Armitage of State.

MORE:  I am off to a place with an uncertain internet connection, so I may go dark.

STILL MORE:  From the NY Times - Bush Ordered The Code Red.  Admitting the minimum is a good strategy.  And the Times makes the Woodward connection we noted yesterday - in late June Woodward wanted to talk about the NIE with Libby and Cheney for his upcoming book.

Comments

[MayBee]

clarice- wow!

[topsecretk9]

tnx Larwyn. I need to book one for the flip of it.

[MJW]

TSK9, speaking of Knight-Ridder, last Saturday my newspaper ran a front page article from Knight-Ridder by Warren P. Stobel and Ron Hutcheson, titled "Bush selectively allowing leaks?" which, though printed as if it were a news story, might charitably be described as "news analysis," and would more accurately be called an editorial. For example, referring to Scott McClellan's comments to reporters, it asserts, "McClellan didn't address why administration officials often declassified information that supported their allegations about Iraq but not intelligence that undercut their claims."

[topsecretk9]

MayBee
I noticed the fire lady went a little fingers in ears, humming loudly tonight? What up?

[larwyn]

Any FRONT PAGE stories on the correction?

Keep forgetting to congratulate our Goddess for introducing TAC talk into the AT:
"TWAII"!

[MJW]

I admittedly don't know what I'm talking about, but I somewhat suspect Libby's lawyers will go to the judge tomorrow and request an extension to file their response, in light of Fitzgerald's correction. Both because they want to revise any arguments in the brief concerning the matter, and as a sort of "In your face!" to Fitz.

[MJW]

Something I've wondered about, is why Fitzgerald doesn't include a Table of Authorities in his briefs. I thought it was pretty much a requirement. Libby's brief always include one, but Fitzgerald's seldom do.

[topsecretk9]

MJW

I admittedly don't know what I'm talking about, either...but does Lib's team have Libby's grand jury transcript? if they did, wouldn't they have caught this rather instantly?

I don't know, but if they did and crafted the response absent a Fitz correction, that'd sort of organic, which is likely to be Judges feeling too)

[larwyn]

Waiting for the wonders that Woooof, Jack A**, Chrissy and Keith will present today. As it is almost 3am here - won't see the morning shows - but hope someone checks Imus's guests. He's on MSNBC so the whole NBC gang checks in on regular basis.

They all must be praying (Billy boy just told them it was OK) that some major bomb goes off somewhere, anywhere before they have to fess up. Bet we'll get lots of coverage of Italian elections and continuing French "rallies" plus IMMIGRATION.
Then "That's all the time we have left".

Poor Matthews - it's his anniversary and all.

About an hour ago, there were over 500 comments in this thread. I've read them all and many were long which may be reason it is taken so much time to reload or for comments to post.

Perhaps one of our leaders will find a less full thread for today - it should be a good one.

The Empire Strikes Back kind of day.

[MJW]

Attempting to answer my own question, maybe it's only appellate briefs that require a Table of Authorities.

[MJW]

TSK9, Libby's team does not have all the GJ transcripts. I think they are entitled to Libby's own testimony, and I believe I recall Fitz saying he has released some redacted versions of reporters GJ testimony to Libby. There's a law called the Jencks Act (which was made in response to a SCOTUS decision) that says that if someone who has testified before a grand jury is called as a government witness at trial, the prosecution must reveal the GJ testimony after the witness has testified. Until then, the government can keep it secret. I believe there is an exception for Brady material, which is evidence that tends to exculpate the defendent. I recall that Brady trumps Jencks.

Please don't assume I know what I'm talking about, because I don't.

BTW, the Table of Authorities is a list of the cases and statutes that are cited in the brief, along with the page numbers where they're referred to. It's very useful in looking up the cited cases, and also gives a quick overview of which cases have been most heavily relied on. It's quite useful.

[MayBee]

TS- the fire lady? The one who will not be libeled? I don't visit her often, but there was no jihad to get a Post front page correction on the Fitz thing. I guess Steven Spruiell needs to post a picture if he wants to get a cult following. ;-)

[MJW]

In talking about the Jencks Act, I should have said "after the witness's direct testimony," since the purpose of revealing the GJ testimony is to allow the defense to use it on cross-examination.

I have a fuzzy recollection that at least in the D.C. circut, they tend be a bit more liberal, and generally release the testimony before to the witness has testified. I could easily be mistaken, though.

[MayBee]

Oh! I spoke too soon! FDL/Kos OmBud Jihad calls for WaPo correction...for misrepresenting timing of cheers and boos at Cheney pitching at a Nationals Game.

No, I'm serious.

[MJW]

TSK9, I should have read your comment more carefully, since you asked specifically about Libby's own GJ testimony. The answer to that is yes.

I was tying to do too many things at once.

[MayBee]

MjW- you do more things at once better than I do one thing at once.

[MJW]

Thanks MayBee, you're far too kind -- especially considering I can't even manage to spell "trying" correctly (is that one "r" or none?).

[Kate]

MayBee-we laugh at the Kos Kids and the far left, but perhaps we should be very concerned.

Even on this board, they hint that they want Bush hung for treason, Libby shot, and reporters and editors fired for not reporting what they want. This is perhaps juvenile hyperbole, but the intensity is increasing.

They are becoming increasinly Stalinist and they are driving the behavior of its leaders.

[kim]

I do think we are watching a political ideology lose its mind. The Kos Dancers. Characteristicly hyperbolic, deluded, nasty. It's a tarentella. Compare this to the quiescence of the extreme right. The vast middle has a sense for psychosis.
===========================

[sad]

NYT has a story today about Bush and Cheney in the spotlight via Fitz' filing with nary a word about the correction to the filing.

[Rick Ballard]

Kim,

I suppose Alzheimer's is a form of losing ones mind so you have a definite point. I tend to think of it as sclerosis when the 20 somethings show up babbling ideas drawn from Marcuse and Sartre which were a tiny bit shopworn when the lefty profs were peddling them 35 years ago. The ideology has been moribund for a very long time and there are no 'shining examples' to which its peddlers can point with pride. That 'flaming revolutionary' Castro is pushing 80 and his magnificent efforts have produced a nation where making parts to keep a '55 Chevy on the road is the height of technological advancement.

It is said that a goose awakens to a new world every morning - it's hard to think of a flock of geese as dangerous. Noisy and smelly in the excresence which they leave in passing but not dangerous.

[PeterUK]

My how things have changed,in the old days a covert agent would never reveal herself after only the third date,she would have had to be engaged at the very least.

[jerry]

I'd say the right is still in recovery from it's multi-year reliance on anti-Clinton madness and, just like Gingerich, a speck of lefty fervor reminds the right of it's own raging/raving historical log.

[Sue]

Jeff,

I just noticed where Fitzgerald corrected himself. Have you done so yet? Wouldn't appear to me that Cheney instructed Libby to lie to Miller, after reading the correction by Fitzgerald.

[topsecretk9]

MJW
Thanks for the info...I am especially thankful for the Brady/Jenck== so helpful.

Maybee
DL/Kos OmBud Jihad

For some silly reason, I think this effort should be encouraged. I mean, I think it certainly has teeth, will make another terrific impression and is a wise use of energies in the effort to take back the house.

I"m serious.

Sad

They're just cool with make believe news.

[Sue]

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/04/who_was_woodwar.html#comment-16074428>Jeff

You did.

[cathyf]

My how things have changed,in the old days a covert agent would never reveal herself after only the third date,she would have had to be engaged at the very least.

You missed the best part, Pete -- it was not only the third date, but she was in the midst of sexual activity with someone else's husband, and the someone else is a foreign national with a very-vague hard-to-pin-down job where she appears to earn large amounts of money for doing trivial amounts of work for impoverished foreign governments.

Looks to me like our gal Val violated about every security rule in the book simultaneously.

cathy :-)

[Sue]

Cathy,

A point her former instructor (is that the term for the person who trained her?) made very early on. She was no longer an asset as a covert agent the moment she became romatically involved with Joe Wilson.

[PeterUK]

Cathy,
Are you sure it was "I'm covert",she shouted out?

[Sue]

Peter,

Aldrich Ames was thought to have outed her. She was brought home at that point. She was again outed when papers were inadvertently sent to Cuba. So, how many times do you out a covert agent before they are not covert? Kind of like an Aggie joke...

[Rick Ballard]

It has generally been assumed that Fitz's people don't leak to the press. The letter to Judge Walton correcting Fitz's unartful paraphrasing of Libby's testimony has not been posted on Fitz's site.

If Fitz's folks are so closemouthed, how did a letter to the judge reach the press? Did he post it to PACER?

[PeterUK]

Sue,
This "outing", is it a euphemism for something else?

[maryrose]

Val true to form and her training has kept a low profile through all of this. She has perfected "flying below the radar" to an art form but the crux of all this lies in her unspoken words. Joe is the carny barker , the front man if you will; in charge of bloviating untruths and orchestrating attacks. They make a good team but they went after the wrong people. They will be shrugged off like the vermin that they are and have become.

[clarice]

Maybe it's like that revirgining thingy.

[Sue]

What a waste of time. If the prosecutor can't get this basic part of the case correct, why should we trust him to do any better with the rest of it?

The http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/>Captain doesn't pull punches.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
Ah ,that is why she was at Langley,at the Revirgining Centre.

[Sue]

Peter,

A task for people with better wordsmithing than I. The mission, if you choose to accept it, will provide you with hours and hours of fun and no sun...

[Dwilkers]

Sigh. I am rapidly losing my ability to maintain any faith in Fitz.

This error and "correction" is stupendously unprofessional. It is outrageous for him to have made this mistake in this political environment.

Fitz isn't some ditzy reporter for the Peoria Tribune, he's a duly confirmed US Attorney FGS. He damn well better start reading the motions his people are filing and make sure they stick to the facts.

I was tempted to post a "ROFLMAO", but this is too damn serious to be funny. If it weren't for the political implications of doing so I'd say he should be fired and replaced immediately. However there's no way that could be done politically.

Sheeeesh. Outrageous.

[topsecretk9]

Thanks Sue...didn't read the Captain...thoght this comment left at his site raised interesting points...I agree, I din't think Fitz read in the "public record" about his goof, I think the defense called him on it (but then who knows)

---itzgerald had the benefit of verbatim transcipts and a phalanx of federal prosecutors to get his recollection of the facts straight. And he, at best, errored, at worst, intentionally mistated his position. Should he be judged by the same standard as Libby, who appears to have confused a date and a sequences facts of variuos phone calls and other conversations, while under cross-examination, without the aid of notes or counsel? I wonder why hte correction? Did the defense call him on it or did someone in his ofice finally read it?

Posted by: DCM at April 12, 2006 08:00 AM---

[sad]

Comment posters at the Huffington blog are talking assasination. Is this common on the left side of the blogoshere? I haven't been there much as the profanity and lack of coherent points are a real bore.

[kim]

When Fitz saw what he had written in the newspaper, it seemed as if he were reading it for the first time.
============================

[Rick Ballard]

TS,

Why would the defense inform him privately that he had screwed up? I would think they would want to do that in oral argument in front of Judge Walton.

[kim]

Libby's team shoud introduce 'A la Recherche du Temps Passes' into evidence. Some simple stuff for the jury after the rest of this.
===========================

[kim]

Why, Rick? Comey style feedback, and I'm suddenly serious.

Someone perceptive, maybe not Fitz, saw the limb he was climbing out on, there, and warned him.

The triple whammy of this reversal, the WaPo editorial, and Hitchens's piece is dizzying the left. The quaking even has a few concerned that the walls of the paradigm are cracking. They are generally being dismissed as 'sky is falling' loons, however.
===================================

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'I had assumed Jason was a joke post'

Oh no, that was Jason. He and I are old friends from back in the days when Brad DeLong could still tolerate losing arguments.

[PeterUK]

I had assumed Jason was a joke post'

Oh no, that was Jason. He and I are old friends from back in the days when Brad DeLong could still tolerate losing arguments.

It was still a joke.

[clarice]

Let's just say that this correction will not help Fitz' claim that he can be trusted to accurately weigh the material in his hands to determine what is exculpatory. Mistakes happen, but it was obvious from the reports out the first day of the filing that this mistake was very harmful to the defendant and the Administration, and the delay in correcting it looks terrible.
Captain's Quarters is indeed right..

"
One would expect an attorney to write a little more concisely and accurately than did Fitzgerald in his original brief, and this hasty correction calls into question the performance of this prosecutorial team once again. Tasked with determining whether a crime had been committed in the release of Valerie Plame's identity, Fitzgerald wound up never addressing it at all. Instead, the only crime he discovered was one supposedly committed by Libby in the course of the investigation itself, and now even Fitzgerald can't get his story straight on Libby's testimony and his alleged actions regarding his conversations with Miller.
After creating a firestorm of controversy, Fitzgerald now wants to pull a lame Emily Litella routine. Perhaps this sort of correction happens frequently, but I don't recall it in any high profile investigation in the past. It appears that Fitzgerald wanted to make a public splash with his original filing and quickly discovered that he had miscalculated both the NIE and the declassification process while misrepresenting Libby's supposed misrepresentation.
What a waste of time. If the prosecutor can't get this basic part of the case correct, why should we trust him to do any better with the rest of it?" http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006737.php

[boris]

After creating a firestorm of controversy

It was yet another example of how every little thing has the propensity to catch fire and blow up in a BDS vapor rich enclosed area like DC.

[clarice]

I think between the presser and this, inter alia, Fitz is making the case that he has so prejudiced the public view that a fair trial is impossible.

[PeterUK]

Strikes me,Fitagerald thought that this was his shot at the title,this was his seat next to Jimmy Carter,he was over eager and got sloppy.He expected Libby to roll over like one of the low level mafiosi.
Here the judge would kick the case out because all the publicity would prevent Libby from getting a fair trial.

[clarice]

Wa Po still cherry picking intel.On today's front page they have a big splashy article indicating that the Administration kept bruiting about mobile bio labs after they knew they weren't such. Powerline nails the paper:
"While the Washington Post frets about a U.S. military "propaganda campaign" against Zarqawi that consists of spreading true information reasonably calculated to save American lives, the Post conducts a propaganda campaign against the administration that's based on distortion. The latest instance is today's story on the Bush administration's statements that certain Iraqi trailers were biological laboratories. As Ed Morrissey shows, the Post's report is highly deceptive. While trumpeting the fact that a team of experts concluded after the invasion that, contrary to the administration's claim, the trailers were not bio labs, it does not reveal until a dozen paragraphs later that two other teams of experts reached a contrary conclusion. Thus, the view of the team that the Post highlights appears to have been a minority view at the time the administration referred to the trailers as bio labs. "

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013739.php

[boris]

He expected Libby to roll over ...

Seems like it. Innocent people with gumption don't roll over. If Fitz hadn't skimped on "investigation" before engaging "interrogate and prosecute", he might have figured that out.

[Dwilkers]

I wouldn't call the correction 'hasty'. After a week of scandal mongering on the subject?

Late, inadequate, poorly explained? Yes.

Hasty? No.

Just look at the threads here the last few days. This error has been blown up into a full fledged mini scandal in its own right over a period of a week. How long has Fitz known about this error?

The only acceptable thing for Fitz to have done after a week of front page stories on this was call a press conference and make a public announcement of the error thus forcing the media cover and correct the misimpression he created.

You know, sorta like:

It has come to my attention that a court filing by this office is inn error and has created a misunderstanding of the facts within the media. Mr. Libby never claimed, as we said in the filing, yada yada yada. I regret this error and apologize to those implicated, directly or indirectly, by the misinformation contained in the filing.

Etcetera etcetera.

Prosecutors don't do that type of thing? Well tough titty. Fitz is in a special situation and he needs to get his act together. He needs to start taking responsibility for what he's doing. Maybe after doing a red-faced apology he'd start being a bit more careful.

Fitz has now established then reconfirmed that he says sh*t that aint true.

[Foo Bar]

Thus, the view of the team that the Post highlights appears to have been a minority view at the time the administration referred to the trailers as bio labs

I don't think this is a valid criticism of the story. If you read on to page 3 of the WaPo story, you'll see that DIA already had the opinions of the 2 military groups and contradictory opinions of Iraq informants who said the trailers were related to hydrogen balloons. So they turned to this technical team for a resolution of the dispute. Not for a third opinion to be equally weighted with the opinions of the military groups. A resolution. From the article:

Back at the Pentagon, DIA officials attempted a quick resolution of the dispute. The task fell to the "Jefferson Project," a DIA-led initiative made up of government and civilian technical experts who specialize in analyzing and countering biological threats

[clarice]

Just remember when the press was crowning him as the Prosecutor with the mostest, the Goddess told you he was a second rater ..a careless and sloppy prosecutor. *wink*

He had no way of knowing how hard Libby would fight this and that he'd have the funds to do so.
He is used to being in a situation where the resources are less well distributed..OTOH the press still loves him it seems and can be counted to continue lying for him

That Linzner and Gellhorn were not compelled to print a correction and that Schuster's lies have not yet been corrected, is proof that the press has one interest in this and it's not fair coverage.

[clarice]

foo bar, It was one team of several, its conclusions were incorporated into the Duelfer report, and if there was error in the CIA report about it, the error is the CIA's.
[quote]Spokesmen for the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment on the specific findings of the technical report because it remains classified. A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The survey group's final report in September 2004 -- 15 months after the technical report was written -- said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons.

"Whether the information was offered to others in the political realm I cannot say," said the DIA official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.

Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.[/quote]

[JJ]

Good point, dwilkers.

Just thinking though that it must be tough for Fitz. Every report will be disassembled sentence by sentence, the syntax of sentences will be dissected and analyzed for nuances, and then some of those nuances will become talking points.

In the "vapor-rich" world of DC as someone earlier mentioned, this can lead to explosion.

Which I think reminds us again that the context of these remarks is a court case, which is in its early stages. (Hint, hint, c)

[Patton]

I think the problem comes in when the team says they were not SUITABLE for biological weapons production.

Well what does SUITABLE mean? Saddam used people a test subjects on his biological weapons programs....AND I WOULD GUESS WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT 'NOT SUITABLE' A TEST SUBJECT. Doesn't mean he didn't do it.

Being under sanctions, one may have created a third rate mobile lab with available components.

Reports surface that Saddam tested biological, chemical weapons on humans

By Paul Salopek

The Chicago Tribune
July 16, 2003

What haunts the former Iraqi intelligence officer most about the men he helped kill in 1987 wasn't their numbed silence or their defeated gazes. It was the strange cloud that seemed to come from nowhere, the cloud that killed them.

It was misty white, he said, and it blossomed above the gulch near the Iranian border where he and his security men had deposited 10 truckloads of political prisoners. Hours later, waiting at a nearby roadblock, he watched the trucks return. They were piled with dead bodies. Civilian technicians accompanying the grim convoy angrily ordered him to keep his distance.

"That's when I realized this was no ordinary execution," said the officer, a retired colonel with the Iraqi Second Army Corps who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The government was using prisoners to test its chemical weapons."

[clarice]

All the more reason why the SP should be particularly careful..and he contributed mightily to this atmosphere with his presser, I think.

[Cecil Turner]

I don't think this is a valid criticism of the story.

The story is crap. The CIA came out with an unequivocal, "Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants" report on 28 May, the President recapped it a day later. Two weeks later, the DIA report debunked it (but the CIA kept claiming the issue was in doubt for months afterward). Another Animal House moment: "You f***ed up . . . you trusted us."

Pretending the President is supposed to read field reports, anticipate final reports weeks before they're published, or ignore reports from CIA, is just silly. WaPo's failure to highlight the CIA report, and the pretense that the debate was ongoing in policy circles, is nonsense.

[PeterUK]

"I think the problem comes in when the team says they were not SUITABLE for biological weapons production."

Nobody has come up with a plausible use for these mobile labs,weather balloons and insecticide have been put foreward,but why bother when gas bottles and drums are commonly available.And why were the units cleaned out so thoroughly that the investigators could not say what use they had been put to? Why bother if the usage was innocent?

[Sue]

My guess is Fitz isn't used to playing politics. Not when the media is scrutinizing his every comma and paraphrase. What he is used to doing is playing gotcha games with defense attorneys. Tit for tat. My 2nd guess is someone at DoJ forced Fitzgerald to correct the record, thereby sealing his argument that he is overseen.

[topescretk9]

Why would the defense inform him privately that he had screwed up? I would think they would want to do that in oral argument in front of Judge Walton.

Rick
Since I only play a lawyer here, I am not certain when/how oral arguments are called...but, I would think it to be better to prod the SP to make an embarrassing amendment rather than the defense just responding (an being interpreted my the fawning press as defensive)

But I will take it back, since it is obvious I'm winging it here.

[clarice]

My guess is different. I think the defense called him, said it was an outrageous distortion of the record, and that if he didn't correct it, they'd ask the Court to sanction him.

[Patton]

I think I solved the mystery of the Fitz.

In his letter to the court, the following memo was attached:

You honor,
From now on we will strive for accuracy in our filings and we above all our committed to telling the truth.

Sincerely,
Mr, Fitzgerald Document Team

Janet Cooke, Senior Editor
Jason Blair, Fact Checker
Mary Mapes, Document Verifier

:-)

[clarice]

Lawyers, especially lawyers for the government are held to high standards and really get whacked for misrepresenting the facts. This was particularly egregious as it related to secret grand jury testimony which the public cannot access to see if the represenations are correct.

I'd bank on my scenario.

[JohnH]

Clarice:
My guess is that Fitz panicked when he saw how much the press was making of his misleading statement, and knew he was going to have to eat his words at some point, so he better cut it off quickly.

What I would like to hear you discuss is how this reporting in the "press", both the scandal and the correction, plays into Fitz's claim that he can be monitored by the Justice Dept. through reading press reports.

I love it.

[cathyf]

Innocent people with gumption don't roll over.

In fact, it takes way than just gumption. Innocent people roll over all the time. Which makes the dead serious point that we (as in "We the People") are not adequately carrying out our supervisory tasks in this democracy. When prosecutors roll over innocent people, they are doing so in our names. It is our responsibility to make them stop, and to punish them after the fact if we can't stop them before the fact, and to punish them even for trying.

cathy :-)

[Rick Ballard]

TS,

Thanks, I couldn't see it until Clarice pointed out the threat aspect. That one makes sense. I wonder what the full text of the letter says - and whether it contains additional corrections that didn't quite make it to the press.

"What he is used to doing is playing gotcha games with defense attorneys."

Absolutely, Sue. Completely different caliber of opposition. Think Butch Cassidy - "Who are these guys?"

[boris]

Why bother if the usage was innocent?

What the mobil units were "most likely" used for based on strict linear thinking falls rather short of proof.

Weapons are sometimes disguised as innocent objects (my cel-phone-gun example) and in a suspicious setting an innocent item might be mistaken for a weapon.

[clarice]

I've seen the full text of the letter--It is just what was reported and no more--about 2 graphs I think.

I do so hope Libby pulls together a batch of these hyperventilating reports in the press and uses them to respond to the supervicion by reading the papers.. I'm only afraid the filing as usual will come at closing when I have to dash out..
Fitz waited a week to make the embarrassing correction and I do not think he would have done it if he hadn't been warned by the defense they intended to call him on it.

[JohnH]

Clarice:
My guess is that Fitz panicked when he saw how much the press was making of his misleading statement, and knew he was going to have to eat his words at some point, so he better cut it off quickly.

What I would like to hear you discuss is how this reporting in the "press", both the scandal and the correction, plays into Fitz's claim that he can be monitored by the Justice Dept. through reading press reports.

I love it.

[Foo Bar]

the President recapped it a day later. Two weeks later, the DIA report debunked it (but the CIA kept claiming the issue was in doubt for months afterward).

First of all, I don't see how this excuses Cheney flatly describing the trailers as "mobile biological facilities" in September '03. Not saying you claimed that it did excuse that, but I wonder if you have an explanation for that as well.

Regarding the President's statement back in May, given that the DIA technical team's investigation was at the very least ongoing, shouldn't the information have bubbled up to the President that it remained an open question what these trailers are, and therefore he should hold off on definitive public statements? Isn't DIA part of DOD? Isn't this a failure somewhere along the chain of command and communication from Bush->Rumsfeld->DIA? Is Defense responsible for informing the White House when they disagree with the CIA on an intelligence matter? Or is that only their job when the Defense viewpoint supports the case for war (e.g. their belief in more extensive Iraq-Al Qaeda ties prior to the invasion)?

Re: Cheney, I suppose he may not have been informed of the DIA report, even in September, but if so that seems like a failure of DOD,i.e., a part of the goverment, unlike the CIA, which unambiguously reports to a member of the Bush administration (Rumsfeld).

[clarice]

Doesn't it speak for itself John H? Virtually everything he does is generally praised and every statement amplied into more Bush and Cheney and Libby lied. Outside of the blogosphere, the SP walks on water.(As I showed earlier they even hide his mistakes in other cases). How would DoJ have a clue that he is in need of a leash?

[boris]

In fact, it takes way more than just gumption.

Heh, I thought about additional qualifiers but decided against it. I can expand my definition of gumption so any innocent person with gumption would never roll over.

Lesser forms of gumption, such as spunk or moxie, might possibly crack under pressure, but full blown gumption ... never.

[Sue]

I'm trying to grasp the significance of the WaPo story, beyond the sensationalism it creates. What exactly does this story do to advance anything other than pounding on Bush? If they had information they labs were known not to be used as mobile labs in say January or February 2003 and Bush ignored it, you might have a story. You are talking about a 2 day window at the end of May. Where's the story?

[Dwilkers]

Sue-

My 2nd guess is someone at DoJ forced Fitzgerald to correct the record, thereby sealing his argument that he is overseen.

Exactly what I've been wondering about for the last couple hours. If they did I believe you are correct, it helps Fitz' "supervised" argument.

I doubt it though. FWIW I'm guessing they would rather stick their arm in a box full of rattlesnakes than call Fitz. The political implications of him blubbering about it in the press would be too awful to contemplate.

[clarice]

***ampliFied***

Foo Bar--about that "bubbling up" theory..you have obviously never worked in the government or even a large organization.

The President is simply going to get the final reports whenever they bubble up and they don't bubble up as fast as your Coke..they bubble up s-l-o-w-l-y..

Yes, Dwikers--to call him would take gumption or foolhardiness. They will let him hang himself and as I watch this, that is a good strategery.

Now I know there are some who have the notion that the President should be guarding nuclear plants, inspecting every cargo ship and rereading and parsing each preliminary intel report, but those people are frankly idiots.

[cathyf]

My 2nd guess is someone at DoJ forced Fitzgerald to correct the record, thereby sealing his argument that he is overseen.

Wouldn't that be interesting if it happened. As in compare/contrast how supervised he is in April, 2006, to how supervised he was before April, 2006. But actually I tend to agree with Clarice here:

Fitz waited a week to make the embarrassing correction and I do not think he would have done it if he hadn't been warned by the defense they intended to call him on it.

So now Libby can argue that Fitzgerald is so unsupervised that the only check on his behavior is Libby's attorneys. And if I'm sure of anything, it's that Libby's attorneys do not qualify as "superior officers" of the the United States, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

cathy :-)

[Sue]

I'm just making wild guesses. If I were Fitzgerald and wanted to shore up my supervised argument, what better way than to put something out there that was just a little off kilter and have my 'supervisor' supervise me? Just ignore me. Unless I'm proven right, then tell me how wonderful I am. ::grin::

[Dwilkers]

And besides, the subject of Fitz' mis-statement is what Libby said to the GJ, not the facts of what happened. The only one with absolute knowledge of that is Libby, and you can bet he's been going through those filings with a fine tooth comb.

If you think about it, there's no way for anyone at DoJ to know what Libby said to Fitz. I don't see how DoJ would have the knowledge required to demand a correction on this from Fitz.

[Sue]

Dwilkers,

In my fantasy world, a little phone call here, a little phone call there, and the next thing you know Fitz is getting his own little phone call.

[Cecil Turner]

First of all, I don't see how this excuses Cheney flatly describing the trailers as "mobile biological facilities" in September '03.

If the story were about Cheney's statement, it wouldn't be crap. (But experts were arguing both sides of the issue until Duelfer's report, which still doesn't give a satisfactory explanation for them.)

Regarding the President's statement back in May, given that the DIA technical team's investigation was at the very least ongoing . . .

The DIA's seal is also on that CIA report (upper-right corner). I'd guess the report hit the street before they knew they had a significant dispute. Regardless, it's a CIA-DIA screwup (assuming it's in fact incorrect).

[cathyf]

Lesser forms of gumption, such as spunk or moxie, might possibly crack under pressure, but full blown gumption ... never.

Yeah, but my point is that relying on the gumption of the innocent people rather than having the gumption to restrain the scumbags operating in our name is the inverse of gumption. It's rank craven cowardice. And it's rank craven cowardice on the part of you and me. The one place that a lack of spunk, moxie and gumption can be changed by you and me is in you and me, right?

cathy :-)

[cathyf]

If I were Fitzgerald and wanted to shore up my supervised argument, what better way than to put something out there that was just a little off kilter and have my 'supervisor' supervise me?

Well, ok, I'll playact at being Libby's attorneys being magnanimous: "Your honor, we are willing to stipulate that the previously unsupervised Mr. Fitzgerald has been supervised since April 11, 2006. So we are limiting our request to you throwing out all testimony, evidence, indictments, etc. generated before April 11, 2006."

cathy :-)

[Sue]

::grin::

[Sue]

Just out of curiosity, if Fitz were being supervised right now, would it be Gonzales?

[clarice]

The supervised now argument is silly. The DoJ folks wouldn't do anything now and they wouldn't have the facts at hand to know the filing was false. It had to come from Libby's counsel who as a matter of professional courtesy notified him that if he didn't correct it they'd apply for sanctions. Period.

[kim]

I suspect his error was inadvertent, that he was called on it by someone who noticed the fuss being made, checked with the Key Points already in the record and wondered if the error might not help a poisoned jury defense, or a poisoned prosecutor appeal. I'm beginning to get the ugly feeling that Fitz IS supervised.

And not by anyone funded by taxpayers.
==========================

[Sue]

Come on Clarice, don't call me silly. Just let me wash ashore on the beach all by myself when proven wrong. ::grin::

[boris]

relying on the gumption of the innocent people

I would certainly never claim that all innocent people have gumption !!! My statement was only that rolling over a person that is both innocent and gumptious is more that Fitz can manage.

By all means let those with gumption right this grevious wrong and protect all the innocent.

[topsecretk9]

Libby's counsel who as a matter of professional courtesy notified him that if he didn't correct it they'd apply for sanctions. Period.

Doesn't give me warm fuzzies. A threat with merit in order to correct the record? Yuck

[kim]

Truly, the only experience Fitz has had was rolling up guilty people.
========================================

[Foo Bar]

If the story were about Cheney's statement, it wouldn't be crap

Regardless, it's a CIA-DIA screwup

OK, I think we're actually not that far apart on this.

I will concede this: while the lead of the WaPo story literally only says that Bush said something that was contradicted by a report in the possession of intelligence officials at the time he spoke- which is true- I suppose you could argue that a lazy reader might get the impression that Bush himself had been informed of the report at the time he spoke, which is almost certainly not true.

In any case, you seem not to be inclined to offer a full-throated defense of Cheney, and the concession of DIA error is a concession of error on the part of an agency reporting to the Bush administration, in the unambiguous political sense of "administration". I'll take what I can get! :)

[cathyf]

Clarice -- what do you think of my comment about how this bolsters the "Fitzgerald is unsupervised" argument? It makes concrete something which is otherwise theoretical -- the lack of something is always somewhat hypothetical, while the presence of something is way more concrete. Here's a concrete example to point to and say, "See, he's a totally loose cannon because the only thing resembling supervision is us threatening sanctions."

cathy :-)

[Gary Maxwell]

Well I think that between the actions of SP Fitz and this marionette of a DA down in NC that a lot of folks are getting a real eye full of our legal process in this country. Somehow from this vantage point it certainly does not look like blind justice. And the dolt DA, asks for DNA samples and then wants to ignor them? And has a public forum discussion during an ongoing investigation where he allows members of the community to rant about presumed innocent people and then declares the investigation is not over. What more could there be. Certainly if a rape occurred it seems impossible that any of the 46 team members did it, and the possibility is now quite high that she filed a false statment that has negatively impacted the reputation of innocent young men. Where in all of this should I draw any confidence in the justice system. Of course the DA is a Democrat and my spider senses say Fitz is too. Whilepolitics might explain some of this ridiculous display it certainly does not comport with the ideal I learn in my civics class.

[Rick Ballard]

Well, with Fitz's acknowledged error generating all this negative publicity in the largest DC newspaper, I just don"t see how Libby could possibly get a fair trial there. A change of venue is certainly warranted.

[topsecretk9]

Sue

You on Pacer patrol?

Should we set up a Pacer Pay Pal account for Sue and TM?

[kim]

Yeah, G, and journalists are impartial.
======================