Powered by TypePad

« Krugman - Calm, Sensible, And Interesting | Main | Haditha - What Happened? »

June 16, 2006

Comments

Lurker

Weren't FDR and Eleanor mentioned at discoverthenetworks.com site?

"Oh and the revelation about Cheney that Leopold's story distracted from was his notes on Wilson's column. And I think several of you are missing its significance, as well as the fact that it was something genuinely new."

This was discussed in other threads in great depth. Why would this be considered significant to you? What made you think this was strong evidence that Cheney outed Plame?

Jeff

Barney Frank - Thanks for the insults. But the key point I took issue with was the claim that nothing or little has changed. So I won't trade my knowledge of history for your ability to read.

And yes, I know you all hashed out, and made bizarre interpretive claims about, Cheney's notes, as though you thought Cheney's question about his wife were non-rhetorical question that somehow came out of the blue and indicated that Cheney did not know about or have suspicions about his wife's role before he scribbled his notes. As though Cheney was struck with wonder about Wilson and came up with . . . the idea that his wife sent him, though he didn't know anything about it. Please.

MayBee

and made bizarre interpretive claims about

And the non-bizarre interpretive claims would be...???
That it showed he was in the throes of masterminding a revenge outing, breaking the IIPA and beginning a conspiracy to cover it up?

Cecil Turner

as though you thought Cheney's question about his wife were non-rhetorical question that somehow came out of the blue . . .

It was fairly obvious these bits were not rhetorical: "Have they done this sort of thing before?" and "Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us?" That's bolstered beyond a reasonable doubt by the conversation Libby had with Addington on the 8th (asking what paperwork would be required for a CIA spouse's assignment). And sorry, but the idea they were crafting the diabolical "out Plame" pushback on July 8th is just a bit hard to credit. (On the other hand, it makes more sense than the phantom "Wilson as womanizer" campaign; or "Rove wasn't indicted, so Cheney must be guilty" meme.)

Jeff

Cecil - 1)The question about Wilson's wife indicates prior knowledge about her possible involvement in his trip on Cheney's part. Otherwise, how on earth could Cheney have come up with it? Such prior knowledge would be conmpletely unsurprising, since it was in circulation among OVP folks for quite some time, and recurrently. 2) "Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us?" is obviously a rhetorical question. Do you seriously think Cheney does not know the answer to that question, is in the dark about how the government works, is genuinely curious? 3)Dropping the strawman rhetoric ("diabolical . . . pushback"), is your claim that a purported decision to out Plame would have had to have been made earlier, specifically before Wilson's op-ed, to be a credible allegation? or would have had to have been made earlier by Cheney? Is that the idea? I'm unclear on what you're trying to claim here. And I'm unclear on why Libby asking Addington about what paperwork would exist if someone in the CIA were involved in sending a spouse on a mission on July 8, apparently immediately after Libby talked to Miller, told her about Plame, and either was asked for more info or promised more info to her about the Wilsons, bolsters the case for the non-rhetorical nature of the questions asked by Cheney.

Cecil Turner

1)The question about Wilson's wife indicates prior knowledge about her possible involvement in his trip on Cheney's part.

No kidding. Along with anyone who read the INR memo, or was briefed on it, or got told by Tenet, or . . .

2) "Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us?" is obviously a rhetorical question.

No. This is supposed to be a secret CIA mission. How they assign those is much more of a gray area, and not subject to the standard government in-triplicate documentation. And again, the fact that Scooter checked up on it shows he wanted an answer.

3)Dropping the strawman rhetoric ("diabolical . . . pushback"), is your claim that a purported decision to out Plame would have had to have been made earlier, specifically before Wilson's op-ed, to be a credible allegation?

If it was supposedly brought up with Miller days earlier, it would kinda have to be, wouldn't it?

My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A.
Or is it your position that the first time Scooter outed Plame it was inadvertent, then after the pushback skull session (that couldn't possibly be before the 8th), it was by design?

Jeff

No kidding.

So the point is, it's a rhetorical question. Not a straightforward question seeking an answer. Cheney thought she was involved, and wanted to push the idea that she sent him.

the fact that Scooter checked up on it shows he wanted an answer

Scooter was not checking up on whether Wilson was sent pro bono. Scooter was not checking up on anything. He wanted documentation of something he believed, that WIlson's wife was involved in his trip.

Or is it your position that the first time Scooter outed Plame it was inadvertent, then after the pushback skull session (that couldn't possibly be before the 8th), it was by design?

I think it's because there is a tendency to posit a strawman left position - it was a grand conspiracy, it was a diabolical pushback - it is assumed that there was either one big action, or none. But my position for quite a long time has been that there were multiple actors doing multiple things, which intersected at various points, and at others not. In this instance, Libby on June 23 was doing one thing, and Libby on July 8 (the obvious difference being, Wilson's op-ed) was doing another, related but not necessarily identical or fully continuous thing. It's possible, of course, that Libby on June 23 was acting at the direction or with the encouragement of Cheney, since we know Cheney was telling Libby a mere ten days to two weeks earlier that Plame worked on the clandestine side of the CIA. But it's perfectly plausible that on June 23 Libby draws a connection for Miller between Wilson and his wife via the CIA; while on July 8, he's more determined to lead Miller toward Plame's purported role in her husband's trip.

Barney Frank

verner said,
"In the 1930s, the political decade,there were many members of the American intellectual establishment who felt that marxism was a viable alternative to market capitalism and democracy. (see Alger Hiss and Whittaker Chambers). Not much has changed"

Jeff said,
"That is pure ideological nonsense that makes hash of history. And it probably depends on the ideological nonsense that sees no essential difference between totalitarianism, on the one hand, and social democratic politics or the American welfare state, on the other. No matter how many times the claim is made that Social Security is incipient totalitarianism, the road to serfdom, it's just not true."

Where in your comment is it at all clear that you are challenging verner's 'not much has changed' comment?
You say she makes a hash of history. The only history she refers to is marxism in the 30's. You then refer to totalitarianism, social democracy and the welfare state, all issues common to the thirties, and then to Social Security, another product of the thirties. How could I not see you were referring to the differences between 1933 and 2006? If I misunderstood your point perhaps the fault lies more in your writing than my reading.

I didn't hash anything out. I made no such claims as you try to attribute to all of us here regarding Cheney's notes. Whether his notes are rhetorical or not or when he learned Plame suggested Wilson for the trip does not indicate 'damning' evidence of any sort. He was apparently concerned/interested about what Wilson was saying and was looking into it. Its quite a leap from that to a conspiracy to out her and punish him. Unless one has lost his objectivity.

Sorry about the insults. Your apparent denial of history was pretty aggravating. If that isn't what you meant, my apologies.

Cecil Turner

Scooter was not checking up on anything. He wanted documentation of something he believed, that WIlson's wife was involved in his trip.

Having decided to do something he has to know is illegal, he decides to blab to the nearest uninvolved lawyer? Seriously dude, this is of a piece with the most far-fetched of conspiracists. Alternate theory: the boss asked a question, he checked on it.

it is assumed that there was either one big action, or none.

At this point, they'd been working the NIE declassification for a month. It was obviously a big action. And, just as obviously, Plame wasn't a part of it.

since we know Cheney was telling Libby a mere ten days to two weeks earlier that Plame worked on the clandestine side of the CIA.

We do? Which CIA side is the "clandestine side"? What did the VP say, exactly? Why didn't the INR guy who went to the meeting know she was clandestine? Why is Wilson blabbing to people in Washington about his wife's employment? Why is Wilson meeting reporters in his home with her present, and why can't we get a straight answer out of Kristof or Pincus on the subject?

But it's perfectly plausible that on June 23 Libby draws a connection for Miller between Wilson and his wife via the CIA; while on July 8, he's more determined to lead Miller toward Plame's purported role in her husband's trip.

You danced around that nicely, but it doesn't really make sense, does it? Either he knew he was blowing her cover on the 23rd, or he didn't. If he did, the ex-post facto machinations with the VP don't make any sense. If he didn't . . . well, that's different, isn't it?

Jeff

Having decided to do something he has to know is illegal, he decides to blab to the nearest uninvolved lawyer?

Dude, this is a serious misdescription of said lawyer. Addington was Cheney's counsel, and one of his very close advisors, completely in sync with Libby, the last two points attested by the fact that Addington replaced Libby as Cheney's chief of staff, and it came on Libby's recommendation. He had also been general counsel to the CIA, and counsel to the House Intelligence Committee.

the boss asked a question, he checked on it.

Just to be clear, then, on your alternate theory, by July 8 Cheney had communicated his question about Plame and Wilson to Libby; but by the time Libby testified to the grand jury, he had specifically remembered that Cheney had not communicated that question or concern to Libby certainly before his July 10 or 11 conversation with Russert, and probably before Novak's column, even though Libby at the same time specifically remembered Cheney expressing the other questions or concerns from his notes during that same period.

At this point, they'd been working the NIE declassification for a month.

Really? I was not aware that the NIE declassification process started back around June 8 or so? I was under the impression that that started, as far as we know, beginning of July, with the leak of it to Woodward on June 27 occupying a somewhat ambiguous position in the chronology. What's the basis for that claim?

We do? Which CIA side is the "clandestine side"? What did the VP say, exactly?

Cheney told Libby that she worked in CPD, which is on the DO side of the CIA.

Either he knew he was blowing her cover on the 23rd, or he didn't. If he did, the ex-post facto machinations with the VP don't make any sense.

I'm not following. It's possible, of course, that he didn't know on June 23 and did know by July 8. But I don't see why it wouldn't make sense if he knew what he was doing on Jun 23 to do what he did with Cheney in July? Which of the machinations don't make sense? And just to be clear, I'm not assuming that Libby was forthcoming with Cheney about all his relevant actions (and we know, for instance, that as of late September 2003, Libby had not told Cheney about his July 11 conversation with Rove where Rove told Libby that he had talked with Novak about Plame and that Novak was going to be publishing a column bearing on the Wilsons). So I'm not assuming that Libby would have necessarily told Cheney what he had told Miller on June 23.

Tom Maguire

What's more interesting to me, however, is how Rove's non-indictment led EmptyWheel to conclude it means Fitz is about to unveil a case against VP Cheney. That's deep.

LOL. FWIW, both Jim E and Jeff attempted an intervention at EmptyWheel on June 13 or 14th, arguing that Fitzgerald's latest dribs and drabs about Cheney were a high-water mark, not a signal of an imminent tidal wave. I guess they weren't convincing (although they convinced me).

Cecil Turner

Just to be clear, then, on your alternate theory . . .

Jeff, I'm letting you have it all your way on this one, accepting each of your premises for the sake of argument . . . and it still doesn't make any sense.

Really? I was not aware that the NIE declassification process started back around June 8 or so?

Rice's press bushwhacking was on June 8. The following is from June 9:

The chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), said that Tenet had agreed to provide "full documentation" of the intelligence material "in regards to Secretary Powell's comments, the president's comments and anybody else's comments." [emphasis added]
Cheney told Libby that she worked in CPD, which is on the DO side of the CIA.

You have a quote? Libby agreed with the characterization? Everyone in the DO is clandestine?

But I don't see why it wouldn't make sense if he knew what he was doing on Jun 23 to do what he did with Cheney in July? Which of the machinations don't make sense?

What, Cheney's marginal notations are rhetorical questions meaning to express his desire that his subordinate do something he's already done? And check for some documentation they can't use? (And again, knowing they're involved in an illegal endeavor, he decides some incriminating marginal notes are de rigeur?) Pass the tinfoil, please.

FWIW, both Jim E and Jeff attempted an intervention . . .

Yeah, and I saw she lost RedDan, as well. If I were EW, I'd take that as a clue.

Jeff

Tom - I actually think I picked up on the idea that Fitzgerald's willingness to be open about all the nasty bits from Cheney was an ode to what could have been, rather than an indication of where he's going, from you, not vice versa. But I wonder whether you're also going back on what seemed to be your genuine disappointment to learn just how involved Cheney was in the real world of summer 2003 - regardless of where the case is going legally right now.

Cecil - I don't think I actually believe you that you were just conceding a whole bunch of stuff about Addington and so on just for the sake of argument. But what do you actually believe about all of that anyway? That Cheney talked to Libby about most of the rest of the concerns reflected in his notes, but not the bit about Wilson's wife, and that the conversation between Libby and Addington never happened? Or Libby remembered all of it except the parts about WIlson's wife, both with Cheney and with Addington? Or Libby told a lie, you have absolutely no idea why?

I didn't realize you were suggesting that something Pat Roberts said on June 9 reflected the efforts of OVP.

You have a quote? Libby agreed with the characterization? Everyone in the DO is clandestine?

I was not saying or implying that everyone everyone in the DO is clandestine. But apart from Fitzgerald's characterizations in the indictment and elsewhere, on p. 84 off Libby's grand jury testimony:

And is it fair to say that he had told you back in June, June 12th or before, prior to the PIncus article, that his wife worked in the functional office of the Counterproliferation of the CIA. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Cheney's marginal notations are rhetorical questions meaning to express his desire that his subordinate do something he's already done? And check for some documentation they can't use? (And again, knowing they're involved in an illegal endeavor, he decides some incriminating marginal notes are de rigeur?)

You appear to be of the view that if something is written down, it is proof that someone couldn't have been involved in illegal activity related to what was written down? Whatever Cheney's marginal notes are (and they need not themselves be directives to Libby to be indicative of what Cheney and Libby were up to, except in the caricature world), again, why do we have to assume that Cheney knew what Libby was telling Miller on June 23? And even if he did, what Libby told Miller on June 23 was rather more vague than, say, what he told her on July 8. Furthermore, what was reflected in Cheney's notes is not something that Libby had told Miller on June 23 - in fact, Libby didn't tell her on July 8 or July 12 either, which can be interpreted variously, including in ways friendly to your perspective. But all of that is to say it's perfectly plausible that Cheney would be expressing something about this to Libby on July 8, Libby having done what he did on June 23. And in what sense was it documentation they couldn't use? Couldn't use at all? Couldn't learn from, and pass along info from, without sourcing it, sourcing it to somewhere else? Couldn't declassify? Huh?

And again, to be clear, my position is that the fact that Byron York, Joe DiGenova and the White House are quite anxious about revelations about Cheney, as I think they clearly are, need not be explained by Cheney's current legal vulnerability. It's based simply on the facts of the matter: what Cheney and OVP did in summer 2003 is rather unsavory, and they don't want it coming out at trial or in pre-trial discovery.

Cecil Turner

- regardless of where the case is going legally right now.

How do you like those theories, then? Is Fitz now going to unveil all that evidence he has been working so hard to avoid turning over to Libby?

I don't think I actually believe you that you were just conceding a whole bunch of stuff about Addington and so on just for the sake of argument.

C'mon Jeff, I'm challenging your logic. The only fair way to do that is to accept your premises. (Pretty basic stuff . . . ) Though some of those points (such as Cheney not forgetting about Plame, and the discussion with Addington) aren't in serious dispute, AFAICT. And obviously Libby's memory of the events is at least out of sequence (and he appears to be doing some CYA) . . . and just as obviously, Addington wasn't a part of anything nefarious.

I didn't realize you were suggesting that something Pat Roberts said on June 9 reflected the efforts of OVP.

The NIE declassification was obviously a big-ticket item, involving the White House, OVP, and CIA. If we can't agree on something as basic as that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

"his wife worked in the functional office of the Counterproliferation of the CIA."

And that means, unequivocally, DO "Counterproliferation Division" as opposed to the DCI "Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control"? Sorry, but you're overreading that one.

You appear to be of the view that if something is written down, it is proof that someone couldn't have been involved in illegal activity related to what was written down?

Oh, please. There is exactly zero evidence to support your "outed for revenge theory," and plenty of indicators it was a topical tidbit mentioned in passing. The marginal notes support the latter theory, not the former. If they'd planned it weeks earlier, would you seriously expect tangential editorial remarks? As if any of that stuff would be news? Oooh, the significance (cue "Twilight Zone" theme).

what Cheney and OVP did in summer 2003 is rather unsavory

For writing perfectly apt marginal notes in their copy of Wilson's fairy tale? (And why was Wilson allowed to go on a CIA mission and leak the results, anyway? Or does it not count as a leak, because it was all B.S.?) As long as you're assuming they're guilty, why not go all the way?

Tom Maguire

I actually think I picked up on the idea that Fitzgerald's willingness to be open about all the nasty bits from Cheney was an ode to what could have been, rather than an indication of where he's going, from you, not vice versa.

Well, I try to downplay the impact of my persuasive powers, not to mention the mind-ray. But seriously, I was reassured that maybe I was actually making sense to a lefty on that point.

Tom Maguire

From Jeff:

my position is that the fact that Byron York, Joe DiGenova and the White House are quite anxious about revelations about Cheney, as I think they clearly are, need not be explained by Cheney's current legal vulnerability. It's based simply on the facts of the matter: what Cheney and OVP did in summer 2003 is rather unsavory, and they don't want it coming out at trial or in pre-trial discovery.

Well, I don't know how unsavory it is, but I have a pretty good idea of how unsavory Chris Matthews will scream that it is. I agree that the WH would be happier not seeing Cheney brought into this, just from a PR persepctive.

As to my disappointment about his actual involvement? Finding out that Armitage was Leaker Zero has reassured me tremendously, as has the seemingly perfect fizzle on the question of whether anyone at the WH or State actually knew that her status was classified.

Charlie Quidnunc

I pulled some audio clips together from Shuster, Leopold, Hamshire, and Johnson before and after the exoneration of Rove for the Wizbang Podcast today. Hear the loons in their own words if you are interested.

Jeff

How do you like those theories, then? Is Fitz now going to unveil all that evidence he has been working so hard to avoid turning over to Libby?

I'm not sure which theories you're talking about, but I like my theory quite a lot, and you can see for yourself where it diverges from and where it coincides with others. I take it the answer to your second, tendentious question is, basically, yes.

Though some of those points (such as Cheney not forgetting about Plame, and the discussion with Addington) aren't in serious dispute, AFAICT.

That's a nice passive construction. Are you saying you don't dispute them? (And do you mean Cheney, or Libby?) And undisputed, they completely contradict Libby's narrative. Saying Libby's memory of events was out of sequence doesn't capture it. It was CYA, I agree. And I am not asserting that Addington did anything nefarious, nor need I to make the point I was making; just as Addington was Libby's go-to guy on the legitimacy of the unique (in Libby's experience) declassification by presidential fiat, without Addington actually knowing what was going on, apparently.

On the declassification of the NIE, I thought you were talking about the insta-declassification that only Bush, Cheney and Libby knew about, not the broader effort to selectively declassify parts of the NIE which eventuated in the July 18 release. That was an important action; but it manifestly wasn't the only game in town, and even with regard to the NIE, OVP was engaged in some side deals of considerable import and interest.

(Which reminds me, has anyone here been able to make sense of just who Libby leaked the NIE to on July 2 - was it Miller, or someone else? This was covered in the really obscure May 5 hearing transcript.)

As for CPD, I don't know about unequivocally. I'll just go with, Cheney told Libby in June that Plame worked in CPD. (And again, Cheney and Libby being important guys in government, and old hands, they know the difference between Counterproliferation - CPD - and Nonproliferation - Winpac.) Which was true.

I don't know about the "outed for revenge" theory, but I think you are having a tendency to seriously caricature the position of the intelligent opposition here (it seems to have picked up recently, maybe you're feeling your oats since Rove got off the hook). To say that Libby and Cheney did something deliberately, one need not say they did it deliberately while twirling their evil mustaches and shouting, "Evil, I want to do evil!" Nor is there any inconsistency or even implausibility in saying that the Wilson matter took on a new urgency, calling for certain kinds of responses in OVP's judgment, after Wilson published his op-ed, while OVP had gathered information earlier, knew a variety of things, but didn't act in the same way they acted after Wilson's op-ed, and didn't even specifically plot and plan any given course of action beforehand, even if they mighta sorta knew the kinds of things they could do to respond to the crisis of integrity they felt Wilson might be in the process of trying to provoke if it became too acute. You can call all that tinfoil hat territory, fine with me. Life is complicated, what can I say, and there's nothing implausible in what I just described.

Similarly, and this is a point that Fitzgerald has made repeatedly to the judge in response to attempted caricatures from Libby's lawyers, there is no need to claim that Plame was the focus of OVP's response to Wilson in order to claim that it was a focus. There is of course much room between Plame having been the central focus of Libby's response - which is not something Fitzgerald or anyone else has ever actually claimed - and Team Libby's claim that Plame was utterly peripheral and of nothing more than passing significance to Libby.

As far as unsavory goes, the simple fact of the matter is that OVP threw everything they had at Wilson, some of it legit, some not, some of it true, some not. Libby selectively leaked, on instructions from Cheney, while denouncing selective leaking from the CIA. They said some true stuff about their role in relation to Wilson's trip, and some false stuff. They made some legitimate criticisms of Wilson, and they tried to smear him. I could actually go on, but the point is Cheney was at the center of it. And that was very unusual, for him to get involved in media strategy and such. Indeed, quite a while back Matalin was quoted saying no way Cheney was involved, he just didn't get himself involved in media strategy. But he took over in this case, and the results were ugly (as well as some okay stuff).

Jeff

Tom - To be honest, that's a sort of evasive answer, shifting over to the response of Matthews, the White House, whoever. Maybe you were reassured by Armitage's involvement. Fine. There was a brief window where, to the horror of most of your commenters, who stayed up all night apparently trying to reassure themselves, you seemed genuinely surprised, disappointed, and troubled by the revelation of just how central Cheney was to the conduct of the White House and OVP in summer 2003, and what we learned he was up to - among other things, scribbling the very item that was understood to be central to the illegitimate attack on Wilson on his copy of Wilson's op-ed. But I guess the window has closed. So it's just a matter of White House pr now.

boris

As far as unsavory goes, the simple fact of the matter is that OVP threw everything they had at Wilson

Believing the Wilsons to be truth telling whistleblowers and Valerie an innocent victim ??? Valerie involved herself in a phoney mission that went public. After that she was never going to remain unknown.

No matter where the misinformation about who sent Joe came from, setting the record straight was valid.

selectively leaked, on instructions from Cheney, while denouncing selective leaking

Oh the hypocrisy!

Releasing relevant portions of PRE-INVASION intel to rebut Joe's lies is not moral equivalence. Joe's lies are the reason releasing that intel was necessary.

Cecil Turner

Saying Libby's memory of events was out of sequence doesn't capture it.

I think it captures it rather well. An eminently forgettable point in a larger picture is the real story here, as is becoming clearer by the day. And some of his other inculpatory misrememberings have no other logical explanation (or, he could've been taking one for Rove, yeah, that's the ticket).

On the declassification of the NIE, I thought you were talking about the insta-declassification that only Bush, Cheney and Libby knew about . . .

The declassification process had been ongoing for a month. The "insta-declassification" exists only in singularly unpersuasive left-wing fantasies.

I think you are having a tendency to seriously caricature the position of the intelligent opposition here . . .

I think it's past time for the "intelligent opposition" to put up or shut up. Weaving conspiracy theories and "guilty until proven innocent" prosecution game plans is getting old. Sorry, Jeff, but there's no "there" there.

As far as unsavory goes, the simple fact of the matter is that OVP threw everything they had at Wilson, some of it legit, some not, some of it true, some not.

How about a single example of something demonstrably false, or illegitimate? (And consider that Wilson was lying about them from the get-go.) Again, the ridiculous formulations that lefties rely on to pretend the NIE said something other than "Saddam had WMD's" and hence "Bush Lied" are past due for some proof. And three years on, it's notable by its absence.

there is no need to claim that Plame was the focus of OVP's response to Wilson in order to claim that it was a focus.

A "focus"? She suggested him for the trip. She was part of the story. Outing her was incidental, and a direct result of her involvement. Trying to blame someone other than JC Wilson IV and his wife is ridiculous.

Libby selectively leaked, on instructions from Cheney, while denouncing selective leaking from the CIA.

Selectively leaked? Surely we're not back at Pincus's key judgments, are we? Sorry, but that one won't stand up under scrutiny, either.

boris

Surely we're not back at Pincus's key judgments, are we?

Or rant in a can over the NSA leaks. As if useless intel about pre-invasion Iraq is comparable to current surveillance methods against Al Qaeda. Looks like master of symbolism and bation of reality.

Rick Ballard

Boris,

That makes him a master bastionist right?

Lurker

Jeff, I have a few questions for you.

Did you think a crime was committed? What kind of damages were inflicted? Who was the original leaker?

Here is what Ronald Kessler says

BTW, Hoekstra says that these leaks were politically driven.

Lurker

Hahaha, Coming from LJ's site, he says:

"What is truly funny is that I have become the "leftist" version of Ann Coulter. She may have a bigger Adam's Apple than me but I bet I look better in a dress. Also, ignore the fact that I am still a registered Republican and consider myself a traditional conservative (not one of those religious nuts). Now, while I would love to have the exposure and reach of Annie, I am thoroughly puzzled how my one mean spirited comment puts me on par with the gal who has said, among other things:


etc..."

maryrose

Jeff:
Don't take this the wrong way but you need to take Bill O'Reilly's advice and provide more"PITHY" comments. You go on and on in your posts and I don't even have to see your name to know it is you posting. As a schoolteacher I must urge you to be more CONCISE. Cheney has absolutely nothing to do with this case and you can rant and rave about this till the cows come home and that FACT will not change. He can declassify anythung he wants so Wilson and Plame-consider yourselves de-classified and stripped of all your relevance and the last vestiges of power. Begone now! Have fun in L.A.-they should love your schtick out there.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame