Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« I'd Rather Be Lucky Than Good | Main | Democrats' Latest "NewD irection" »

September 15, 2006

Comments

Patton

I think you could go two routes.

ONE: Provide Congress a chinese menu of
potential interrogation techniques and have them vote. For instance:

1. The use of LOUD MUSIC is allowed/not allowed to prevent the killing of another 3,000 Americans.

2. The use of TIME CONFUSION is allowed/not allowed to prevent the slaughter of American children.

You could vote all day.

clarice

Patton, everyone's a comedian today! LOL

Patton

The other choice is to not discuss the techniques, just the context:

1. Stress interogation is allowed as long as the government ordering it is a representative democray and not a dictatorship.

2. No interrogation is allowed to be used by known non-government entities such as terrorist organizations that represent no country.

3. Any nation that tortures a citizen agrees to have their capital nuked.

4. The world community and the UN from now on will recognize the moral difference between a representative democray that insures the basic rights of their citizens
and dictatorships and theocracies that are indifferent at best to human rights.

PeterUK

There could be the Pelosi torture,where terrorists are made to listen to the woman.

Up the scale a free viewing of "An Inconvenient Truth".

Howard Dean giving his yell outside the cell at four every morning.

John Kerry park his boat in front of them,they have fifteen seconds to run.

An evenings ride with Ted Kennedy.

If it is good enough for Americans,it is good enough for terrorists

MayBee

Yesterday, I saw about 5 seconds of coverage of the torture debate.
One man (a senator on the floor, I believe) was making the argument that Muslim men being interrogated by female military personnel was insensitve to the muslim religion.

Did anybody else see this? Was he mocking that argument, or was he being a proponent of it?

Enlightened

Has Robert Novak specifically stated that he took it upon himself to look up V/J Wilson in Who's Who? (I know he says that is where he got the info, I want to know WHY he went directly to Who's Who?)

Is it possible that someone said (offhand of course) "Bob - take a look at Who's Who and you will get all the info you need". So someone refering him to that publication, has not technically sourced VP's name to him?

MayBee

Enlightened- I think Bob Novak has been...odd in his discussions on her name. The only thing that is clear to me is that he doesn't want to discuss it.

My own personal guess is that he had a CIA source on that.

It's kind of a pointless issue anyway. I mean, its interesting because he might be hiding something. But there was no way he was going to write the article he did without her name coming out somewhere.
David Corn probably would have just blared her name out when he "asked" if she'd been outed.

Sara (Squiggler)

According to the interview he did on CSPAN this morning ... he came back from his interview with Armitage and started writing up notes and working on his column. Armitage had not given him Val's name, just said she was Wilson's wife, the Ambassador's wife. So, when he was writing his column, he reached for a copy of Who's Who and looked up the Ambassador and found his wife's name was Valerie Plame. His words this morning, "So I used it."

I would think CSPAN would have the video.

MJW

I'm a bit skeptical of the idea that Armitage was completely unaware of the subject Woodward was trying to bring up. Unless Armitage immediatedly hung up whenever Woodward called, how likely is it Woodward couldn't make his basic intent known? And, if Armitage did immediately hang up, did he also hang up on every reporter who might potentially ask him about Novak? -- which would pretty much be every reporter. And if he didn't hang up on every reporter, and he didn't remember mentioning Plame to Woodward, why single out Woodward?

capitano

Is Bubba a JOM lurker or does he limit his curiosity to the Baghdad Bob blogs for his Fitz/Libby news?

Christy and I got to meet Bill Clinton at his offices in Harlem yesterday. Coming off our mutual victory scored in the ABC/911 fight it was something of a celebration. I can’t remember a time when national political figures have picked up on a battle being waged in the blogosphere and managed so successfully to reverberate the message and force it into traditional media.

He was also quite interested in what was happening on the Libby/Fitzgerald front.

MJW

I've wondered if Novak was covering up another source for Valerie Plame's name, but there's a somewhat reasonable explanation for why he might have found it in Who's Who. When Novak talked to Armitage, he was aware of some basic facts about Joe Wilson, which indicates -- not surprisingly -- he'd already done a little background check. Since Wilson was an ambassador, Novak probably already looked him up in Who's Who. When Armitage mentioned Wilson's wife, it would be natural for Novak to recheck the Who's Who entry to find her name.

Enlightened

Is Who's Who a required reference guide for those "in the know"? Is a current edition pretty much on every shelf if you cover DC politics/society?

Cecil Turner

When Armitage mentioned Wilson's wife, it would be natural for Novak to recheck the Who's Who entry to find her name.

According to both of them, Harlow asked Novak not to use her name, which was available both in Who's Who and online. And I'd hope Novak would look Wilson up in something, if he were going to do a story on him. I'm having a hard time seeing a mystery here.

clarice

Who's Who is in many offices in DC. I recall years ago dealing with s guy in the DoS (rather low down) and even he had one in his office.

It's a DC white pp for a lot of people.

Assume Novak is telling the truth--after the conversationhe looked up her name. Then he had a question he could ask Harlow. He'd probably have gotten the run around ..He needed her professional name to go further.

clarice

capitano, I doubt he's lurking here. If he is in awe, it's that there's a new powerful disinfo weapon he hasn't yet used.

topsecretk9

Novak would look Wilson up in something, if he were going to do a story on him. I'm having a hard time seeing a mystery here.

Me too! Can anyone else explain how Novak refreshed his memory or learned of ALL of Wilson's past (not just Agent 99) for verification purposes? One particularly useful function of Who's Who is it is supplied by the person, thereby the "mistake" in a column would be Wilson's, not Novak's.

Sara (Squiggler)

Who's Who is everywhere and certainly every newspaper one has access to one. A columnist who has specialized in Washington politics would certainly want one on his office shelf.

Enlightened

This item from an older Wizbang post has me thinking:

"Later, Novak realized the significance of Skippy's (Army) slip when it started being passed around that Wilson's public accounts of his investigation -- that it turned up nothing -- were at odds with reports of his classified report. The notion that Wilson and his wife might have had their own agenda for his trip started looking more and more likely."

Am I reading this wrong? Did Wilson spew his crap prior to his Op Ed also?

Novak Column was in June - the above suggests Novak was hearing Joe's lies BEFORE he wrote his article about VP, because he was curious about the wife/CIA/Niger connection. But JW went into CYA in July in the Op Ed?

So Novak was onto something already? I do not think he looked up VP in W/W. I don't think it matters much, but for the niggling in my head that Novak knows more than he's letting on, and it is bugging the crap out of me that these guys just can't or won't pony up the goods and get it over with ferrcrissakes.

http://wizbangblog.com/2006/07/11/novak-finally-spills-his-guts-on-plame.php

topsecretk9

MJW...says the Who's Who better...as usual

topsecretk9

--Did Wilson spew his crap prior to his Op Ed also?--
Yes.

--Novak Column was in June - the above suggests Novak was hearing Joe's lies BEFORE he wrote his article about VP--

Do you mean Novak's MEETING with Army was in June? If so, you are right.

MayBee

The only reason I think Novak has been odd about her name is because I believe he went from saying he could have looked it up in Who's Who to saying he did look it up.

I could be wrong about that.

clarice

Enlightened--Wilson was talking to DoS people and two Congressional Committees and to Senators (among others) by his own admission in this period. It would not surprise me that an old hand like Novak's ears must have been picking up something.(Probably something from Scowcroft or others with whom he certainly had long relations.)

MayBee

Re:Armitage hanging up on Woodward.

Am I alone in my speculation that it must have been similar hanging-up-on that caused the spat between Andrea Mitchell and Armitage?

I think he gave her a scoop, she wanted to question him about it, and he took his act to Greta instead. Greta didn't know that Armitage had been blabbing, so she couldn't ask him about it.

Jeff

JMH

I am saying Novak gave an evasive answer. It was suggested that he had been a subject of the investigation. And he said he wasn't a target of the investigation. Those are quite distinct categories.

As for the rest, whatever. I qualify a claim when my confidence in it is qualified. I don't when it's not.

Sara's characterization of what Novak said about Who's Who is interesting. It might tell us what the focus of the questioning of Wilson's friend who ran into Novak was: whether Novak really did use "Valerie" with him on the street, since if he had, it would have blown his story about how he learned about Plame's name. And presumably the friend's testimony was that he could not vouch for Novak having used "Valerie."

topsecretk9

==Am I alone in my speculation that it must have been similar hanging-up-on that caused the spat between Andrea Mitchell and Armitage?==

MayBee -- someone here (sorry someone, can't remember) posted a a report around relevant spanning time period that Andrea was PEEVed Armitage had shut here out and giving exclusive face time to others -- someone got an exclusive and she was ticked, ticked, ticked...as she had been requesting alot.

Enlightened

Correction, Novak column of July 14.

MaidMarion

Clarice,

"In trying to figure out what was behind preposterous official conduct in DC, you can't go wrong by first considering ego (including bruised egos) and pusillanimity."

I think Fitzgerald's prosecutorial past may factor into the equation:

"Speaking at a nationally televised hearing, under oath, Fitzgerald went into great detail about how Ali Mohammed had been stationed at Fort Bragg, from which he trained “some of the persons who would later carry out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,” and how he had “arranged bin Laden’s security in the Sudan” and later “lived as an American citizen in California, applying for a job as an FBI translator and working as a security guard for a defense contractor.”

But what Fitzgerald didn’t tell the Commission – or the American public, was that Mohammed had served as an FBI informant for five years from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the 1998 African Embassy bombings; that Fitzgerald had been unable to get Mohammed to cooperate; that Mohamed had been given a plea deal that somehow did not compel him to testify about al Qaeda, bin Laden, or what he might have known about the 9/11 plot."

http://www.peterlance.com/plrelease.htm

clarice

Interesting MM. I think there's a book to be written about a whole series of SDNY US attys ..I haven't read Lance's stuff but I know someone who sat thru those. Last week Quattrone was finally cleared of a preposterous obstuction chaege brought by Fits ,et c etc..
It is absurd that afte the Arthus Anderson neither the Courts nor Congress have made clear that intent to obstruct MUST be written into the Fed criminal law on obstruction.

It's time for a major OPR investigation..

MayBee

I qualify a claim when my confidence in it is qualified. I don't when it's not.

Ok, Jeff. I think you are great but your confidence is very often based on your special ability to speculate more precisely than others.
Novak may very well have used his own special speculation skills and had complete confidence in his own opinion. Just like you, my dear.

MayBee

Andrea was PEEVed Armitage had shut here out and giving exclusive face time to others -- someone got an exclusive and she was ticked, ticked, ticked...as she had been requesting alot.

Yeah, ts, I remember that. It came to a head when Armitage appeared on Greta VanSustern (sp?) rather than with Andrea on MTP. I suspect it is because Andrea refused not to question him about something for which he was the source- the Wilson stuff "everyone" knew.

cathyf
Do you mean Novak's MEETING with Army was in June? If so, you are right.
No, Novak's meeting with Armitage was on July 8. The meeting with the Wilson "friend on the street" was that late afternoon, the column was on the wire July 11, and publication date was July 14.

If Fitzgerald was investigating stuff that WH people did that was before July 8, then it was not unreasonable for him to think that Armitage's blabbing after Libby blabbed was not so important. Of course the same logic goes now that we know that Armitage told Woodward about The Wifey before Libby even knew...

Lew Clark

Gee,

Is it possible that Novak, who does have sources, had an unnamed (and never to be named)source in the CIA. And that source told Novak who was responsible for Joe's trip to Niger. And that source called her Valerie Plame, because that's who she was at CIA. Before and after she married Joe. And Novak later found the reference in Who's Who and found it more prudent to go from, "I could have discovered her name in Who's Who", to I did "Get her name from Who's Who." Because, "I've got a secret source in CIA who told me the truth about Val, the not-so-secret agent", opens a can of worms, he doesn't want opened.

topsecretk9

"Speaking at a nationally televised hearing, under oath, Fitzgerald went into great detail about how Ali Mohammed had been stationed at Fort Bragg, from which he trained “some of the persons who would later carry out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,” and how he had “arranged bin Laden’s security in the Sudan” and later “lived as an American citizen in California, applying for a job as an FBI translator and working as a security guard for a defense contractor.”

Hmmm...this would not be because of that 5-year informant law type thing would it?

topsecretk9

Novak may very well have used his own special speculation skills and had complete confidence in his own opinion. Just like you, my dear.

OH for the love of the _ there, but and so, by way of, hence forth, because, therefore, however, by way of, and so by which, of course, however, by way of which couldn't be - GWAD! Amen sistah!

Verner

And speaking of "Scary", Sue, how desperate must Kerry be if he had to quote Larry Johnson in the WSJ.

maryrose

Maybee:
I've liked your posts and found them to be very informative. I am now thoroughly convinced that all these reporters knew and like Armitage were afraid they would be called in by Fitz so they just kept silent and let Libby take the rap. Andrea Mitchell's screw-up on Imus and her conversation with Russert make her one person who knew more than she let on. If you saw that Imus show her voice and body language gave her away as she started to backtrack. Some people are just terrible liars.
Val has used her training to make it appear she was uninvolved and not a player. My belief is that she was calling a lot of the shots with the hope that a Kerry presidency would resurrect her and Joe's careers. Armitage is a weasel covering his behind-I wouldn't trust anything he says at this juncture.

windansea

I'm having a hard time seeing a mystery here.

Vote Democrat and Die

MayBee

Maybee:
I've liked your posts and found them to be very informative.

Ah, maryrose, you're very sweet. But I'm the biggest babbler here. I just like hanging out with greatness. :-)

MayBee

ps. Yes, Andrea Mitchell has been pretty interesting throughout all of this. Well, to us anyway. Fitzgerald seems not to have found her very interesting.

Tom Maguire

Did they interview both Armitage and Woodward for Hubris? or just Armitage?

If Novak's and Armitage's characterization of their meeting differs as much as it does, seems to me Armitage and Woodward might each have different 'recollections' of those attempts by Woodward to get Armitage to come clean.

Excellent point - without even checking the book, I will bet heavily that they got nothing from Woodward.

SO let's say Armitage at least told a plausible story; maybe it's even true.

I could have sworn that at one point, perhaps last summer, Novak said he *didn't* just look up Plame's name in Who's Who?

In an early column (Oct 2003?) Novak said the name was available in Who's Who. IIRC (and I am hazy here) he may have, in 2005, reminded people that just becuase he said it was available, he was not saying he had actually gotten it there. Or maybe that was other commentators making that point.

Is Bubba a JOM lurker or does he limit his curiosity to the Baghdad Bob blogs for his Fitz/Libby news?

Well, what is his goal - to learn something, or to get the mood of "The Base"?

The firedogs are helpful for people who can't remember from one day to the next that Cheney and Rove are evil evil EVIL, and that Fitzgerald walks on water.

But if Clinton read Jeralyn Merritt or Next Hurrah, he'd be fine. Wrong on the organizing premise (the "Get Joe" conspiracy and cover-up), natch, but not hopelessly misinformed.

MayBee -- someone here (sorry someone, can't remember) posted a a report around relevant spanning time period that Andrea was PEEVed Armitage had shut here out and giving exclusive face time to others

IIRC, that was in the ABC Note on July 20, 2003 (I posted it in the last few days, or weeks anyway.)

And Novak later found the reference in Who's Who and found it more prudent to go from, "I could have discovered her name in Who's Who", to I did "Get her name from Who's Who." Because, "I've got a secret source in CIA who told me the truth about Val, the not-so-secret agent", opens a can of worms, he doesn't want opened.

I have been pushing that as well. If Novak has been told that the CIA arranged the Wilson trip, why wouldn't he call a contact at the CIA (and not just the press office)? Maybe he did and got "No Comment", or maybe he has a prime CIA source he will protect to his grave - Novak had only interviewed Armitage the one time but he kept that name quiet for three years, and only gave it to Fitzgerald (he says) when Fitzgerald showed him exactly three waivers.

What sort of loyalty would Novak have for a long-time source (Hmm, like Rove?)

Jeff

Tom

Only real tidbit in the newest Libby filing, in defense of having their memory expert, is that they note - seemingly going out of there way to do so, which is undersandable in light of Hubris - that Libby described his early-June 1003 conversation with Cheney to the FBI in his very first interview. That doesn't quite settle it - Libby could have been confronted with his notes by the FBI in that very first interview - but it certainly is designed to suggest that Hubris got it wrong and Libby was forthcoming about the Cheney conversation, which he'd forgotten, from the outset.

Oh yeah, they're going to impeach Cooper because his notes don't confirm that Libby said something about Plame. Big surprise.

Tom Maguire

Re the Toensing piece: Ms. Toensing repeats her view of the statutory meaning of " serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;", which is part of the definition of "covert" under the IIPA.

From Ms. Toensing:

She was neither covert at the time of publication nor had a covert foreign assignment within five years. He acknowledged so in his book: "My move back to Washington [in June 1997] coincided with the return to D.C. of a woman named Valerie Plame." As the Senate negotiator for this 1982 act, I know a trip or two by Ms. Plame to a foreign country while assigned to Langley, where she worked in July 2003, is not considered a foreign assignment. I also know covert officers are not assigned to Langley.

IIRC, the official lefty response to this - in tribute to EW I may start calling that the "moonbat" response - is to engage in a bit of foot-stamping and shout "Ignore The Rovian Hacks!"

Of course, since no one has ever been tried under the law, who knows?

However, I cling to the hope that one day someone will exploit the fact that, in this magnificent bureaucracy we call the US Government, there is a rule for everything; the notion of "service aborad" is not exactly limited exclusively to covert CIA operatives.

Just as an example, I did Google this up - it is from the U.S. Geological Survey Manual, which is pretty much my Go-To Guide on every key issue of the day:

Service abroad means service on or after September 6, 1960, by an employee at a post of duty outside the United States and outside the employee's place of residence if that place of residence is a territory or possession of the United States.

"Post of duty" - that pretty clearly rules out a flight to Jordan to chat with the local intel folks as "service abroad".

Of course, Ms. Plame was not going to chat about rocks. However, the military will have a similar definition - "serving" in a theater is different from traveling to it.

And I don't know why the Rocks people would be blazing their own trail on this - one might expect a harmonious definition across the agencies and arms of the government.

Well - someday someone may find a relevant definition from a more closely related handbook (I would pick State, myself, unless the CIA employee handbook is online.)

Meanwhile, notwithstanding Larry Johnson wishing it were otherwise, this little bit of evidence points in favor of Ms. Toensing.

MayBee

Oh yeah, they're going to impeach Cooper because his notes don't confirm that Libby said something about Plame. Big surprise.

I'd say that's pretty troublesome for Cooper.

Syl

JMH and Clarice

Shucks, thanks. But you all do it day after day after day. Thread after thread. It's a privilege to share the comments section at JOM with so many articulate and smart folks.

Syl

NYT Now Advising Reporters On How To Falsify Records In Order To Protect Classified Info Leakers

This is war.

Now let's see if the NY Times discovers the 2nd Ammendment. :)

JM Hanes

Tom

"What sort of loyalty would Novak have for a long-time source (Hmm, like Rove?)"

Such a tease!


topsecretk9

--MayBee -- someone here (sorry someone, can't remember) posted a a report around relevant spanning time period that Andrea was PEEVed Armitage had shut here out and giving exclusive face time to others

IIRC, that was in the ABC Note on July 20, 2003 (I posted it in the last few days, or weeks anyway.)--

Mind gone...but swear to budha there was also something MORE than "the note"-- and it was Lexis found.

topsecretk9

--Oh yeah, they're going to impeach Cooper because his notes don't confirm that Libby said something about Plame. Big surprise.--

I cannot, after all the conspiracy you've held onto, discount this as a silly technicality. Jeff! You don't even make sense anymore.

topsecretk9

And how about that Cooper prolific writing the last few, he was DROPPED from Time, if a similar situation were for Rove? Headlines of doom...your adeptness is impressive, your wishfull nuance sucks.

MayBee

TS-- I'm thinking of this:

Media Mix-It-Up At State Department

By Lloyd Grove [Washington Post]
Sunday, July 20, 2003; Page D03

It can't be said often enough: Don't mess with Andrea Mitchell.

Last Monday afternoon, the State Department's public affairs shop e-mailed beat reporters that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had agreed to appear that very night on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News Channel show, "On the Record."



___ Past Columns___
The Reliable Source can be reached at leibyr@washpost.com, or c/o The Washington Post, 1150 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20071.
Here is an archive of his columns.



Add The Reliable Source to your personal home page.

Free E-mail Newsletters

* Washington Entertainment Guide
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
* Movies
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
* Travel
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
* Home & Shopping
See a Sample | Sign Up Now

Mitchell went ballistic.

"This is OUTRAGEOUS," NBC's foreign policy correspondent scorched the State Department flacks in an e-mail. "He [Armitage] can't answer telephone calls or REPEATED requests for backgrounders or an on-camera interview from the correspondent representing the most widely watched NETWORK newscast . . . and he's doing a FOX talk show that has no relationship to foreign policy?"

Mitchell vented: "I don't get it but it is very upsetting. It also defies any understanding of the difference between the NBC Nightly News, TODAY program, CNBC and MSNBC PLUS the nation's biggest Web site. Is the administration that desperate to appeal to a niche audience? If I sound upset, it's because I am."

Mitchell's e-mail was widely circulated to an appreciative audience and eventually came to us. State Department spokesman Phillip Reeker defended Armitage's level of accessibility. "He is well represented across the spectrum of this nation's and the world's electronic media." But Reeker declined to discuss Mitchell's complaints. "That," he said cheerfully, "would betray my relationship with Andrea Mitchell."

Mitchell, meanwhile, said: "I'm never going to apologize for aggressively trying to get the deputy secretary of state to come on NBC, especially since we have the biggest audience and do such extensive reporting on foreign policy."

Tom Maguire

More on "Service abroad" - this is from the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (p. 37 of 159 .pdf):

SEC. 504. 78 SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD.— (a) Career members of the Service shall be obligated to serve abroad and shall be expected to serve abroad for substantial portions of their careers. The Secretary shall establish by regulation limitations upon assignments of members of the Serv-ice within the United States. A member of the Service may not be assigned to duty within the United States for any period of continuous service exceeding eight years unless the Secretary approves an extension of such period for that member be-cause of special circumstances. (b) Consistent with the needs of the Service, the Secretary shall seek to assign each career member of the Service who is a citizen of the United States (other than those employed in accordance with section 311) 79 to duty within the United States at least once during each period of fifteen years that the member is in the Service.

Well, this would be nonsense if the service requirements could be fulfilled by a weekend trip abroad (or to the States).

However, I assunme this won't convince Larry Johnson.

MayBee

Sorry, formatting awful on that one.

MayBee

What more does Hubris say about her traveling to Jordan to meet with their intelligence officers? Did she travel as a CIA employee?

Or are we to believe that Jordan Intelligence agencies called an American energy consulting company, Brewster Jennings, to get the final word on the tubes? I mean, did they get the name Brewster Jennings in the phone book? Or did some US Agents recommend this really great energy consultant?

I don't buy it. I bet she went as a CIA employee to meet Jordan intelligence.

topsecretk9

MayB's

Yes, that is the one...was this what the Note was referring to?

MayBee

TS-
Yeah, I think so.
So we know Armitage is a hanger-upper when he doesn't want to be confronted by people to whom he's given sensitive information.
And we know Armitage started ignoring Mitchell.
And we know Mitchell used to seem to know more about Wilson and his wife.

I think her "I misspoke, I didn't know anything" translates into "Call me, Rich".

topsecretk9

Also, Maybs'

The DATE - July 20th - the day of rage, yep, I say Miz Andrea had been trying real, real hard to get a follow up, closer to an ON THE RECORS to what she was already told by RA and so her frustration was on parade...why was he stonewalling now and going on Greta? Especially since she was all greased up for the scoopy exclusiveness since Tim was on vacation.

topsecretk9

--However, I assunme this won't convince Larry Johnson.--

How can it? He's too busy responding to Plame's dog whistle.

Syl

Tom

What sort of loyalty would Novak have for a long-time source (Hmm, like Rove?)

I don't believe I've seen anything showing the name 'Plame' was ever spoken/written/whispered on the White House side.

In fact, we don't see it anywhere, actually.

'Flame' in Judy's notebook. Unknown source.
'Plame' in the Novak article.

'Valery Plame' is the biggest red.herring.ever.

MJW

I went over to TalkLeft to see if I could find a link to the Libby filing mentioned by Jeff. No luck, but I did notice a new "keep hope alive" theory being floated. It seems Armitage and Rove worked amiably together to get Powell confirmed as Secretary of State -- thus proving THEY WERE IN CAHOOTS TO OUT SUPER-SPY PLAME!

Rocco

Good morning all

Novak stood by his claim that Armitage specifically said that Ms. Plame "worked in the CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Division".

How Armitage would have known that is not clear - the CPD connection was not specifically noted in the INR memo. On the other hand, Armitage has a telephone and lots of Washington connections.

Just a thought? "The Niger Documents" chapter of the SSCI, page 58 states

None of the four CIA representatives recall picking up the documents, however, during the CIA Inspector General's investigation of this issue, copies of the documents were found in the DO's CPD vault.

State Department Headquarters received the Niger Documents first. Page 58...

Also on October 11, 2002, the U.S. Embassy in Rome reported to State Department headquarters that it had acquired photocopies of documents on a purported uranium deal between Iraq and Niger from an Italian journalist. The cable said that the embassy had passed the documents to the CIA'5 The embassy faxed the documents to the State Department's Bureau of Nonproliferation (NP) on October 15, 2002, which passed a copy of the documents to INR.

Do you think it's possible Armitage was privy to the Inspector Generals investigation?

Bob

clarice... you've outdone yourself!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/720lutwz.asp?pg=1>The Case of the
Missing Crime

The CIA leaker has been found. No law was broken. Why is the prosecutor still going after Scooter Libby?
by Clarice Feldman
09/25/2006, Volume 012, Issue 02

simply the best roundup ever... bravo!

Birdseye

Clarice ends her great piece saying "It's long past time for the president to call in the attorney general, seek an accounting of the case from Fitzgerald, and order him to dismiss the charges or be dismissed himself."

This needs courage. "It's long past time" perhaps because President Bush does not have the courage to blow the final whistle or he simply does not want to interfere with the Justice system however boneheaded matters seem to be. Or could it be that Fitzgerald is not on shaky ground that many would like to believe he is? That's why Libby's lawyers have not cried foul thus far?

Bob

After reading clarice's wonderful story about all the "lies" of plamegate, The NYT decides that the Pope telling the truth about mohammad, is what they find worth admonishing.

Once again, when reading http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/opinion/16sat2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>The Pope’s Words I get the feeling that Rosie O' is the editorial writer for today's cheap shot at Christianity!

The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.

Hopefully they'll read http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/720lutwz.asp?pg=1>clarice's article in the Weekly Standard, and offer up the same criticism of the abuse of Libby!

Jane

I thought so too Clarice. I need to read it several more times just to digest it all. Bravo!

kate

I am a Weekly Standard subscriber and read Clarice's article this morning. An excellent documentation of this whole sorry case.

I agree that the case against Libby is disgraceful and should be halted. My only hesitation is that Tim Russert, in his interview with Cheney, seemed to be rooting for a Presidential pardon for Libby also. Perhaps I'm reading too much into the exchange, but I find it interesting that the key witness for the prosecution now seems so eager for the case to go away.

Should we let them off the hook so easily. Especially since the media coverage was so disgraceful and biased.

sbw

Clarice, I can't wait for the New Yorker to ask to run your Weekly Standard article as a feature. It deserves to be there. It's thorough, straight-forward, and compelling. It covers the full time line and breadth of the issue. It teases out those who have some explaining to do.

Yep. It's the sort of article that would do the New Yorker proud. ... And that I'd be proud to have the New Yorker run, if only to trumpet its rediscovery of what liberal really means.

clarice

Thanks. I waired and checked the site last night, thought they'd changed their minds and weren't publishing it after all, said damn and went to bed.

They made it publicly available so you needn't be a subscriber to read it.

I didn't know Russert had said that. I think journos think this case is wrong in their hearts, because if it stands it would cut off all their sources.

Larry

However, the military will have a similar definition - "serving" in a theater is different from traveling to it.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | September 15, 2006 at 10:17 PM
Yes, but........widespread practice in the Vietnam war was for desk jockey brass serving in the greater Southeast Asia theater to fly into the combat zone on the last day of a month, stay overnight, leave on the first of next month and thus qualify for two months' combat pay and other attendant bennies. If they were aircrew, two combat missions, too. A guy on a three year accompanied tour in Okinawa or RPI could do this six times a year and get continuous combat pay for three years. BOO! HISS!

Tom Maguire

that Libby described his early-June 1003 conversation with Cheney to the FBI in his very first interview. That doesn't quite settle it - Libby could have been confronted with his notes by the FBI in that very first interview

OK, maybe it is not 100% settled, but... how stupid would a person have to be to (a) hand over the notes, (b) not review them, and (c) not qualify one's testimony with "as best I remember not having checked my notes"?

OK, pretty stupid - Libby shoul dhave used line (c) throughout his testimony, and it is ptetty clear that his notes do not refer to his many other Plame encounters. Still.

Oh yeah, they're going to impeach Cooper because his notes don't confirm that Libby said something about Plame. Big surprise.

Cooper had no notes about either Rove or Libby? I wouldn't say "surprise", but what a joke of a witness he'll be.

But since Libby didn't exactly deny talking to Cooper, where does that take them? Auto-answer - the perjury charge based on Cooper's testimony is vulnerable.

Yes, but........widespread practice in the Vietnam war was for desk jockey brass serving in the greater Southeast Asia theater to fly into the combat zone on the last day of a month...

Interesting, but... our involvement ended in 1973; maybe rules were updated.

Or maybe that only worked for folks "serving in the theater", as you noted. Or could folks fly from the States and do that?

PeterUK

With all these high flying suspects,nobody is considering Melvin the janitor at Langley and his brother-in -law Denzil the barman at the Press Club.

clarice

TM< I think it obvious that the investigators had not reviewed his notes when they questioned him. Don't you recall it was only after the indictment, in the discovery phase, that the SP indicated they could not read Libby's writing and asked that he provide them with a "translation"?

Larry

Tom, I have no direct knowledge of anyone doing that from the states. Seems like anyone with a semi-plausible reason for being "in country" could, though. I'd bet a lot that more than one Pentagoner did it.

Cecil Turner

simply the best roundup ever... bravo!

Loved it! This bit especially, which had me rolling:

This blonde Emma Peel-tied-to-the-railroad-tracks-by-lying-warmongers version of the story (assisted by a timely leak from the CIA that Director Tenet had referred the case to the Justice Department) led to press and congressional demands for an investigation by an outside prosecutor.
Interesting, but... our involvement ended in 1973; maybe rules were updated.

Rules on this sort of thing tend to be fuzzy, and conflict specific. During the Gulf War, for example, crossing some arbitrary line (Kuwait border and some congruent offshore area, IIRC) entitled one to a combat action ribbon, which flew in the face of the issue regulations (and caused quite a bit of heartburn amongst those who actually got shot at).

But in any event I think the better analogy is to assignment policy, where anything less than a year is generally "temporary duty"; and an assignment to a station is from 1-3 years.

clarice

Thanks, Cecil.

Neo

One question that has bounced around in my brain for a while ..

if Ms. McCarthy was "fired" from the CIA for unauthorized meetings with reporters .. what was Ms. Plame and Joe Wilson doing with Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times in May of 2003, weeks before here reported "outing" ? Kristof was interested why WMDs, a particular expertise of Ms. Plame duties with the CIA I'm told, hadn't yet turned up in Iraq ?

Had Ms. Plame damaged her position with the CIA prior to her "outing" ? Perhaps this explains the CIA's like warm defense given to Bob Novak and that "suspension" I've seem to remember reading about.

Larry

Brava, Clarice! I have to confess,though, "...This blonde Emma Peel-tied-to-the-railroad-tracks-by-lying-warmongers...", makes me need to go take a cold shower.

PeterUK

Clarice,
A very pithy and succinct piece,like dropping a bomb in a cesspool.

clarice

Larry,PUK,Thanks. (PUK Sometime you have to tell us exactly how many years you spent in juvenile detention..You seem to have so much knowledge of adolescent pranks.)

PeterUK

Clarice,
I'm the Peter Pan of Juevenile Crime.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame