Powered by TypePad

« Beep Beep | Main | Deconstructing Duke And The Times »

August 29, 2006



"One reason it works for me is that there really was a frame up going on."

For the rest of the administration to stay out of it, they must have either been A) Squeeky Clean, or B) Better liars than Libby.

I think that Cleo and I will disagree on which it is.


I went over to Davidcorn.com to see what he had to say and scan the comments. What garbage!

I can't believe he has the nerve to show his face after what he did. But why not? His mission was accomplished. He and the Shaddow Party suceeded in taking the Bush administration down a notch or two with a web of lies. If we lose in Iraq, and the Middle East blows up in our faces, Corn should pat himself on the back.

I've always thought that Wilson's "mission" was designed to do just that from the beginning. It boggles my mind why some "real" journalist won't dig a little deeper into a) what Joe's business was doing b) his contacts with the nutroots before he was sent c)who EXACTLY at the CIA sent him d) what Valerie really did etc. There can be absolutely no harm in the public knowing all of that at this point. Where is the NYT when you need a leak? Oh, I forgot, this one would benifit the administration--scratch that.

And Fitz has some real explaining to do. Wells needs to get really aggressive. I hope Judge Walton has some sense in the matter and will end this garbage.


Very good points. I am most disappointed in how the FBI and CIA dropped the ball on this case and feel certain if Ashcroft had stayed in place the resulting kerfuffle would never have occurred. This was a partisan witch hunt from the get-go and the fur is going to fly. WSJ article sums it up nicely. Wilson's stock is plummeting as we speak. His wife the my gal Val version of a former government employee will be reduced to selling her book {if it ever gets published} for half price on E-Bay.


Thanks, Boris and Maybee.
I agree with Cecil's take--the prosecutor was using scissors to fit the jigsaw puzzle pieces together and thought we'd not notice that the finished product was smaller thaan it should be and there were a lot of pieces left under the table.

I wrote in March that Armitage was the likely leaker--based larger on MJW's and TM's work but until yesterday I assumed he'd not told Powell or that Powell had behaved so deviously. Until yesterday it hadn't registered with me that Comey (and possibly Ashcroft) knew about Armitage before they appointed Fitz.

Bunch of weak bums.


What Reporters Knew and When They Knew It.

I like that!

Fortunately, or unfortunately as your prejudice may be, there is wealth of printed word to correlate, a lot connected to the trial.

All of which needs to reconciled.

I am certain that the reporters who may have inadvertently indulged fauxreportage will want their facts checked...because it is What The Reporters Knew It, and When They Knew It!


****I assumed he'd not told Powell AND NEVER IMAGINED that Powell had behaved so deviously***(Correction)

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Cheney? He'd have to have a pair of really hot ear muffs.'

I watched the Cheney-Edwards debate with this (then) 19 year-old. She loved the Veep.


John Burris weighs in (more accurately than the NYT and with far more wit.)http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/burtis083006.htm


Thanks for the link to Clarive's article.
Clarice; What an excellent article and a wonderful set of recommendations for President Bush. Let's hope he acts on your suggestions.


Armitage has just admitted that he leaked Plame's name to Novak .


So it was not crazy to wonder whether Libby had invented the "Russert reminded me" story to conceal guilty knowledge.

My beef with Fitz isn't so much that he was investigating but how he conducted the investigation and then made remarks at the presser that didn't match the indictment. If you had someone telling you they got too chatty with the only reporter who went to print, the obvious next question would be who else might he have gotten too chatty with? A simple review of his calendar would have turned up Woodward and that would have either made Armitage a liar or would have made Libby's story more plausible. Reporters could have been talking about it. It would have given pause to a serious prosecutor looking to go to trial on perjury, obstruction and false statements, not the underlying crime.

Reasonable doubt. Reporters could have known. And reporters could have been telling Libby.


"Armitage has just admitted that he leaked Plame's name to Novak."

Ah, I was waiting for confirmation other than AP's FOIA and Isikoff/Corn book. Armitage's public confession pretty much throws both lawsuits out of the window.


Wasn't this during the time when the democrats tried so hard to publicize how evil the Patriot Act was?

Clarice's suggestions should be heeded within the next few weeks to be timed with the November elections.

The more bloggers talk about this lawsuit AND the democrats' propaganda game with the Patriot Act (and they did so hard to delay the vote by several weeks), the more people will reconsider their votes.


Ads with Reid's declaration"We killed the Patriot Act" should have top billing on all the networks. A big ad buy is a necessity here.


I just noticed an ad on the upper right of the page to "meet Joe Wilson" on some cruise in December.

Perhaps we should leverage our numbers for a private meeting - well with us, Joe Wilson and some live blogging by TM.

Altho I probably couldn't bear being stuck on a cruise with that many moonbats.


Check this out at abledangerblog.com

*****My most astonishing, findings involved Patrick Fitzgerald, the former head of OrganizedCrime and Terrorism in the SDNY, who had allowed Ali to remain free as early as 1994 eventhough he named him as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Day of Terror. Another of my key findings was that Fitzgerald buried probative evidence of an al Qaeda New York cell in 1996.*****

So it was not crazy to wonder whether Libby had invented the "Russert reminded me" story to conceal guilty knowledge.
Sure, it's not crazy, but Libby's story is simply not particularly implausible. So the basic logic of Libby's story is this: I didn't pay attention to this trivial detail when it was presented via official government communications, but then when it was presented to me by a journalist I did pay attention to it and remembered it.

Look, that right there is the absolute essence of what a journalist is and does. Journalists don't create information (well, ethical ones don't anyway). What they do is to present information in such a way that their readers/viewers can make sense of it, and, yes, remember it. Because if the readers/viewers don't remember any of the news report, then the reporting has no value at all and was a massive waste of every resource that went into creating it. So Libby's story is that he didn't retain the information until it was presented to him by a professional whose entire profession is devoted to the single task of presenting information to people in a form that they will retain the information. So your argument is that it's "crazy" to think that someone who makes a living as a professional doing something is competent at doing that thing?

The only thing that was ever implausible about Libby's story was that if there weren't any reporters who knew about Plame, except for the ones Libby told, then there was no way (without violating the laws of physics) for any reporter to have been telling Libby about Plame before Libby told any reporters. It is now obvious that Fitzgerald does not know the things that must be known in order to have even a well-founded suspicion that what Fitzgerald has asserted in the indictment is true or false.


The NR's editors jump aboard--Tsunami time.

"FBI investigators knew who the leakers were; they knew that no one had violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or any other national-security law; and they knew there had been no White House conspiracy to attack a critic. Yet then–attorney general John Ashcroft, apparently afraid of the political repercussions of doing the right thing, allowed the investigation to go forward. He recused himself and handed the case over to top Justice Department official James Comey, who then also bowed to political pressure and appointed his friend Patrick Fitzgerald — already busy with his job as the U.S. attorney in Chicago — to head the probe.

Since then, Fitzgerald has called Rove and dozens of others to testify before a grand jury, and has set an awful precedent by finding novel ways to force reporters to reveal their sources in court. And all for what? One indictment, of former Cheney aide Lewis Libby — and not for any crime related to the leak, but on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the subsequent investigation. That isn’t to minimize those crimes if they were committed (the case against Libby looks rather less than airtight), but to emphasize that there was no need for the investigation in the first place.

Today, nearly three on, we are basically right where we started. There’s a lot of blame to go around. First up is Armitage. There was absolutely nothing illegal about the original leak he committed, but he chose to remain silent while others — principally Rove and Libby — endured years of accusations in the press. (Armitage’s close friend Colin Powell also deserves a dishonorable mention for keeping quiet after learning of Armitage’s role.) The administration’s leftist adversaries in and out of government who have spent years shrieking “traitor” should be ashamed of themselves. Likewise the New York Times editorial board, which screamed for an investigation until it got bit it on the backside in the form of the media subpoenas. Fitzgerald should ask himself whether his wild goose chase has shown the judgment and discretion one expects from such an experienced prosecutor. Finally, the higher-ups at the Justice Department — Ashcroft and Comey in particular — bear great responsibility for buckling under political pressure when their own investigators knew there was nothing to the story.

It’s a sorry mess. And yet the investigation continues. If common sense suddenly prevailed — a remote possibility, we concede — it would be shut down. Now."


* * *


National Review and Clarice have outlined the end-game. Let's proceed post haste.

Sara (Squiggler)

I have a question -- back several months ago while I was recuperating from my bad fall that resulted in refracturing a vertebrae (sorry I associate everything in my life with whether I was in excruciating pain that day or not), there was a court hearing that had to do with limiting the timeperiods(?) covered by testimony allowed. A cutoff date where evidence before the date would not be allowed. Or something like that. My memory is totally fuzzy. Does anyone remember what I'm talking about? I'm curious about that date and whether Fitz was trying to avoid anything coming in that would incriminate Armitage/Powell/Grossman?

Sara (Squiggler)

As AJ continues to fisk Fitz, he has in this article Fitzgerald’s Lies To US Appeals Court more "evidence" that Fitzgerald lied in motions he filed with the Court of Appeals and the USSC (previous post). What legal options are available now that could be used against Fitz? He should, in my opinion, face some very severe punishment/penalties for his egregious behavior.

Also, does anyone know what Armitage and Powell are doing now and are clearances required in whatever job they are doing?

JM Hanes


"I have a question...."

It's a great question! You should ask it again in one of the newer threads. I remember highlighting it in one of the legal PDF's, but it's so hot & humid here right now, I can't quite summon up the energy to hit the files. Maybe this evening, if the weather breaks and no other enterprising soul has taken up the challenge. :)


Hey Dog, Sue and the rest of the kids!

I wonder how the US troops would feel about your dismissal of their deaths. I wonder how the Iraqi people would feel about how insignificant you think their lives are.

There are about 100 deaths in Iraq per day as result of our occupation of their country. That's 100 per day in a country with less than 30 million inhabitants. The US on the other hand has 300 million inhabitants. The day I see 1000 deaths per day on american streets as a result of OUR GOVERNMENTS POLICY will be the day I buy your moronic comparison.

You're children.

Sam's Mom


Sara (Squiggler)

The deaths are the result of terrorist thugs you idiot Sam. The Iraqi people have made it abundantly clear that they want us there and that having us there is to their benefit, not their detriment. Whose side are you on anyway? Sounds like you are a shill for the terrorists.


sam, you surely would not have a problem living under Shari'a law.

The US Troops have been known to want to stay and help Iraqi build their own democracy.

There's no dismissing of those deaths on any of our part. We respect them and appreciate them fighting for democracy, liberty, and freedom.

Yup, yawning at your post but respecting our US troops far more than we respect you and your posts.


And those lives are SIGNIFICANT, sam, btw.

It's the Iraqi GOVERNMENT POLICY that wants our help, sam, btw.

The longer you continue with your casualty lists and post like your last one, the more we see you siding with the terrorists and wanting to live under Shari'a law. Go ahead and move to Iran and you'll be happier there than here.


Sam says"I wonder how the US troops would feel about your dismissal of their deaths."
(I wonder how they would feel about you using them as props for a political argument most of them disagree with, why don’t you post what the families say their loved ones believed in?)
"I wonder how the Iraqi people would feel about how insignificant you think their lives are."
(Over 100 Iraqis per day were dying under the Sam/Clinton policy of sanctions/bombings. I am sure the Iraqi people think much better of our country actually making the sacrifice to rescue and liberate the innocent and terminate the guilty rather then the collective punishment of innocent Iraqis Clinton and the UN engaged in for 8 years).
"There are about 100 deaths in Iraq per day as result of our occupation of their country." (NO, over 100 per day were dying between your sanctions and your insistence that Saddam remain in power. Iraqis are dying today due to the remains of the terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein and the war with Al Queda. If you really believe that deaths in Iraq would end with our leaving, I suggest you read up on Cambodia. Your thinking is exactly the problem…you think America is the problem and if they leave everyone will love and embrace each other. When the fact is the terrorists will slaughter the innocent as they have always done. That was happening every day in Iraq under Clinton Sam, where was your outrage?)
You're children.
(So tell us grown-up Sam, what other countries do you believe should not have been liberated from tyranny? Japan? Germany? The United States? A lot of deaths in those wars Sam…did you oppose them? The liberation of the Iraqi Shiite and Kurds is NO different then the liberation of the Holocaust Sam. If you think I am wrong…please explain?)

A few facts Sam:
By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed mass graves climbed to fifty-three. Mass graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies. We’ve already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves. “Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been ‘disappeared’ by the Iraqi government over the past two decades. This represents a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot’s Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.
Would you have stopped the Rwandan genocide Sam? The Cabodian killing fields Sam? The Holocaust Sam??

At Halabja Sam, Saddam killed 5,000 people in one day. ONE DAY Sam.

The American soldiers of WWII would not have liked you using their deaths in order to oppose the ending of the Holocaust; just as the soldiers today don't want you to use their deaths for your support of genocide
of the Iraqi people.


Spamming Sam, Don't you realize that the majority of our US troops and retired US military are Republicans and Conservatives?

Had they read all of your posts, they would be reeling with intense anger toward you and the likes of you.

The Appeasers of World War II were Patriots, of course.


Just making sure that Bush has a counter-reponse for the democrats that claim themselves as Appeasers and Patriots.

The comments to this entry are closed.