WaPo Whacks Wilson

The editors of the Washington Post have had enough of the Joe Wilson saga.  Writing on the denouement - Richard Armitage provided the first leak to Bob Novak - they deliver this broadside:

...it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Ouch.

This editorial makes a book-end with the controversial WaPo editorial from a while back which explained that the related leak of portions of the National Intelligence Estimate was "A Good Leak".  Since that editorial prompted a response from the NY Times (helpfully titled "A Bad Leak"), perhaps this latest WaPo effort will prompt a Times response as well.

As to why the WaPo might think that Wilson's "I am hero and victim" story was a load of nonsense, let's reprise the views of a few of their reporters.  Quotes are (or will be) below, but briefly:

Bob Woodward, Pulitzer Prize winner and leak recipient, thought the story was overdone and national security was not harmed;

Walter Pincus, Pulitzer Prize winner and leak recipient, thought the behavior of the Administration was obnoxious but not criminal, and that partisan Democratic hype led to the investigation;

Dana Priest, Pulitzer Prize winner for her story on the CIA secret prisons, was not able to  sleuth out any harm to national security as a result of the Plame leak.

Here is an eerily prescient Bob Wodward on Larry King Live (before his own role was announced):

WOODWARD:  Now there are a couple of things that I think are true. First of all this began not as somebody launching a smear campaign that it actually -- when the story comes out I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter and that somebody learned that Joe Wilson's wife had worked at the CIA and helped him get this job going to Niger to see if there was an Iraq/Niger uranium deal.

And, there's a lot of innocent actions in all of this but what has happened this prosecutor, I mean I used to call Mike Isikoff when he worked at the "Washington Post" the junkyard dog. Well this is a junkyard dog prosecutor and he goes everywhere and asks every question and turns over rocks and rocks under rocks and so forth.

     KING:  And doesn't leak.

WOODWARD: And it doesn't leak and I think it's quite possible that though probably unlikely that he will say, you know, there was no malice or criminal intent at the start of this. Some people kind of had convenient memories before the grand jury. Technically they might be able to be charged with perjury.

But I don't see an underlying crime here and the absence of the underlying crime may cause somebody who is a really thoughtful prosecutor to say, you know, maybe this is not one to go to the court with.

And a bit later:

WOODWARD: ... They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment.

So people have kind of compared -- somebody was saying this was Aldridge James or Bob Hanson, big spies. This didn't cause damage.

Walter Pincus:

Pincus believes that the Bush administration acted obnoxiously when it leaked Valerie Plame’s identity, but he has never been convinced by the argument that the leaks violated the law. “I don’t think it was a crime,” he says. “I think it got turned into a crime by the press, by Joe” — Wilson — “by the Democrats. The New York Times kept running editorials saying that it’s got to be investigated — never thinking that it was going to turn around and bite them.”

Dana Priest in two WaPo chats:

Columbia, S.C.: Great Work!

How do you answer critics who point out this may be a 'leak' that could potentially compromise national security, ala the Plame leak?

Dana Priest: I don't actually think the Plame leak compromised national security, from what I've been able to learn about her position.  As for my article, we tried to minimize that by not naming the countries involved and, otherwise, no, I don't believe it compromised national security at all.

And more Dana Priest from May 4, 2006:

Valley Forge, Pa.: Hi Dana,

Thanks for doing these chats.

Now we are reading that Valerie Plame was involved with tracking nuclear proliferation/capabilities in Iran. Isn't this old news? (I seem to remember reading this same thing quite a while ago in the MSM - I don't generally read blogs)

From what you hear, was Ms. Plame working on Iran, how important was she to the tracking efforts, and how much has her "outing" really set us back?

Dana Priest: It was reported before that she worked on proliferation issues for the CIA. The leap in this new round of information is that her outing significantly impacted our current intel on Iran. I don't buy it. First, no one person who quit clandestine work four years ago is going to make that big of a dent in current knowledge. But also, nothing like this came up at the time of her outing and I believe it would have. Think we need some actual details. At present it just doesn't smell right.

KEEPIN' HOPE ALIVE: The chorus from the left will harmonize in response to this from the Wapo:

Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey

...It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.

Not necesarily!  Although it takes a fantasist to imagine that the White House orchestrated the leak to Novak by way of Armitage (I bet I could find one!), what about the leaks to Matt Cooper and Judy Miller?

With Cooper, it is clear (to some) that after Karl Rove learned from Novak that a column about Wilson and Plame was imminent, Rove ruthlessly sat by the phone and waited for Matt Cooper to call him and ask about Niger.

Then when Cooper interviewed Libby the next day, Libby was so brutal and crafty that he never raised the subject of Ms. Plame, but offered something like "I heard that, too" when Cooper asked him about her.

And the Judy Miller leak?  Libby was so intent on besmirching Wilson with the nepotism charge that he forgot to tell Judy that Ms. Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Niger.

And Special Counsel Fitzgerald still can't prove that Libby was aware of Ms. Plame's classified status back when he was conspiring to punish Joe by outing hs wife.  (Too bad Libby didn't use his psychic powers to get the truth about Saddam's WMDs...).  Oh well - Fitzgerald only had two years to look into this.  The truth will emerge any day now, or at least, within the next 24 business hours.

OVERLY OPTIMISTIC:  I don't think this will work.

THE BEGINNING OF THE END:  The WaPo thumped Joe Wilson when the SSCI report came out in July 2004, so they aren't exactly new to Wilso-phobia.  John Kerry dropped Wilson from his campaign shortly thereafter.

CREATIVE LAWYERING:  All of this will impact the Wilson lawsuit against Cheney, Libby, Rove et al, yes?  Here is a clever suggestion from The Brainster:

...it looks like Rove and Libby didn't leak her name. But, considering that the money [Valerie Plame] was offered for her book was largely based on them doing so, it strikes me that she may still have a case. After all, now she's not going to make nearly as much dough. So maybe she can sue them for not leaking her name?

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE:  An email from Joe Wilson is printed at the Dem Underground:

You may have seen this morning's editorial in the Post. It manages to recycle pretty much every lie and smear over the past three years in a last ditch effort to divert attention from the facts, and the role the Post itself played both in the march to war and in the leak (see Woodward).

I know many of you are better versed in Plamegate than either Valerie or I and I also know that some of you will be addressing the editorial.

I want to let you know how much Valerie and I continue to be buoyed by your support and your dedication to getting the truth out and holding the administration and its lackeys accountable for the terrible policies they have foisted on our country and on the world. We must keep fighting.
   
As you think about this, our website (Wilsonsupport.org) has a copy of the letter I sent to the SSCI when its report first came out, challenging some of its conclusions. The LeftCoaster has a terrific study by eriposte on the whole Niger forgery case from beginning to end. Firedoglake and the Next Hurrah both have highly informative analyses of the case by skilled researchers and former prosecutors. I recommend them all as resoruces to jog memories. by this afternoon, I expect that our own team will have an updated set of talking points to distribute for your use as well.

First, I think there is a breakdown in the parallel structure - Firedoglake has the former prosecutor and The Next Hurrah has the skilled researcher.

Secondly, where is the mission-critical info about tin-foil hats?

MORE:  It's only 6:15 PM on the East Coast, but at this writing I see nothing from the firedogs about the WaPo op-ed [Ahh, but at 4:05 PM, presumably Pacific time, we get this - see SELF AWARENESS WATCH, below]; The Emptywheel at The Next Hurrah has this post:

I'm not surprised by several things in the WaPo's disingenuous editorial on the Plame Affair today. For example, I'm not surprised it relies on the word, "primary."

But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage. [my emphasis]

It's a word Novak conjured up when he went clean last month, and it seems designed to cast the majority of the blame on Armitage and away from Rove. Yet it relates solely to Plame's purported role in Wilson's trip to Niger; Novak never says that Armitage was his source for Plame's classified identity or name (he reverts to much less convincing stories to explain away his use of the word "operative," "Plame," none of which come from Armitage but which are more important to the story than Plame's general role)...

Uh huh.  And nearly three years later, the lights will be burning in Special Counsel Fitzgerald's office this Labor Day Weekend as he continues to plumb these mysteries, right?  Wrong.  Well, according to the Times and WaPo, anyway - regardless of the gaps in the stories Novak has told us, Fitzgerald seems to have thrown in the towel on further investigations last June.

Next, call in the auditors!

First, Fitzgerald's investigation has been anything but costly (Christy, you think you could smack down Fred on this issue? because since you beat Byron silly on it, he has not made such a baseless suggestion).

The link is to a firedog post telling us that "In its first 15 months, the investigation cost $723,000, according to the Government Accountability Office."

Since The Next Hurrah has the skilled researcher, I am sure she will want to square that with this GAO report telling us (Appendix III) that in the six months from March to Sept 2004, Fitzgerald spent $584,899, including $487,089 for personnel compensation and benefits.  Total expenditures for the six months ending in March 2005 were $112,550 and for the six months ending in Sept 2005 were $178,077.  [OK - weirdly, the expenditures for the three months ending March 2004, while Fitzgerald took a lot of grand jury testimony, was only $27,000 - that seems way out of line with the other figures, but how am I going to audit the GAO?]

SELF AWARENESS WATCH:  Classic comedy from Jane "Rape Gurney Joe" Hamsher as she describes "the perpetually bile-choked right wing blogosphere".  Say it with me - I know what you are, but what am I?

To compound the comic effect Ms. Hamsher analogizes the Plame leak thusly, a few short, bile-free sentences later:

Incredibly it is somehow okay to rob the liquor store, shoot the owner, rape the cashier and spatter the walls with blood because someone else was caught shoplifting there the week before.  It is the Sistine Chapel of bad faith editorials.

Always temperate, just as her readers like it.

Comments

[Extraneus]

And was there ever a more deserving jerk?

Too bad they weren't more specific on who "so many people" were.

[windansea]

heh..I just posted the best line in this at emptywheel....they are still rrowing up de nile

[clarice]

Heh, windansea..good.

TM, I call this moi?journalism because nowhere does the WaPo admit and apologize to its readers for the role it played early on in promoting Munchausen and his tale of the Mission.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

I was going to say, the Post needs to have a townhall sitdown between their editorial board and their reporters. It appears they are in conflict with eachother. On one side you have Pincus, Vandehei, Woodward and Priest. On the other you have the editorial board. They should talk to eachother.

Ultimately, this editorial needs to appear in the NY Times. The Times needs to address the fact that the pages of their newspaper were used by Wilson to print LIES, things that Wilson knew were not true at the time of submission.

[Sue]

Ouch is right. But it didn't go far enough. It failed to note the role they played in being played by Wilson. They failed to note his connections to the Kerry campaign and his reasons for lying to begin with. But, at least they called him a liar. ::grin::

[boris]

Having posed the very same sentiment to Jeff (and others) ...

He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.

... still waiting for a reasonable response.

The WaPo just confirmed, it was Joe himself that made her "fair game".

[Chants]

"He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife."

I think he did expect it. His "outing-for-revenge" meme was a preplanned response. But he probably didn't plan it alone.

[Barry Dauphin]

And who in the MSM will accept any responsibility for the time lost on this foolishness, the distractions this caused from more serious matters, and the energy & resources spent by the Adminstration in dealing with this instead of dealing with other things? There still are only 24 hrs. in a day, and focusing on a mirage created by that preening narcissist Joe Wilson comes with a price. There will be no "sorry, folks, we goofed big time on that" from the crowd that regularly demands that Bush admit his mistakes.

[Interested Conservative]

Roseanne Roseannadanna said all that need be said here.

[Patrick]

I still think Clarice hacked the site, and wrote at least the cited paragraph! Nice to see the "Move along, folks, nothing to see here" editorial. The predictable result, too bad it didn't happen three years ago. One of Clinton's biggest regrets was calling for an independent investigation of Whitewater. Bush & the DOJ should have stood more firmly and let the facts come out before calling for the Fitzpatrick investigation, and they sure as shootin' should have given him clear instructions: Find the source of the leak, determine if it was illegal and charge. Once you determine who the leaker was, if it was not illegal, close up shop. Issue a final, public report. If someone lies to investigators or the grand jury, charge them. But stop investigation once you learn the leak was illegal.

Nah, too simple.

[Patrick]

Int. Cons:

I think you mean Emily Litella (sp).

Or not.

Nevermind.

[jerry]

Heard in the grassroots sinosphere:

"The MSM is an establishment tool, this is another cover up by the inside the beltway crowd!"

"It's just outrageous, who are these editorial board people, whoever they are they're in the pockets of the punditocracy - who appoints the WaPo editorial board anyway?"

"Whatever happened to fair and balanced reporting, what's Fitzgerald's position regarding this Editorial Outrage?"

"Why did Rove go to the grand jury 5 times, why did the WH crowd need to spend millions on lawyers when Powell, Armitage, and Fitzgerald spent so little?"

"What does George Tenet think of this Editorial and about the job Fitzgerald is doing? Where does he think the investigation is headed?"

"What does the current CIA leadership think of the WaPo cutting and running thanks to the entanglements of its own reporters in the 'Plame betrayal?'"

"The corpulent and complacent DC press corps has just been handed their marching orders - demonstrate your ability to provide to the public both sides of... the most important scandal in Washington DC since Watergate."

;-)

[maryrose]

Finally admitting what we have known for years now-Joe Wilson is a big fat liar. I agree there should be some admission of guilt or at least a correction statement that refutes the really bad reporting that acompanied this kerfuffle. Merely stating the obvious is not enough. Everyone should know the Emperor{Wilson} has no clothes.

[cathyf]

Partially copied over from the other thread...

Before they get to the final paragraph, they still feel the need to repeat a bunch o' lies, including:

That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium.

...reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role...?!? No, we have no evidence whatsoever that either Mr. Libby or Mr. Cheney had the slightest interest in Mrs. Wilson, and (according to Mr. Fitzgerald) information about her was volunteered to them by people like Mr. Grossman, who was a friend of Mr. Wilson since college and a colleague of Mrs. Wilson (then Ms. Plame) when he was in the Turkish Embassy, and Mr. Tenet, who was Mrs. Wilson's ultimate boss.

Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.

No, Mr. Libby, at the direction of Mr. Cheney, was trying to debunk Mr. Wilson. If Mr. Fitzgerald's account (which Mr. Fitzgerald gave us by apparently committing several felonies concerning grand jury secrecy) is correct, the WH and the OVP were extremely cautious about handling classified information. Mr. Fitzgerald has told us that they declassified the Wilson-debunking NIE twice, once by Cheney, then by Bush, because they wanted to be sure that it was properly declassified, since the rules allowing Cheney to declassify on his own were just 3 months old.

[Patrick]

Uhh, that's stop the investigation once you determine the leak was LEGAL.

Nevermind...

[PeterUK]

I hope someone has put Jeff on 24 hour watch.

[Ranger]

Hmmmm... Sounds like a shot across Wilson's bow to shut down the civil case before reporters have to make depositions.

Translation: Remember, we can do to you what we did for you to the administration.

[Gary Maxwell]

Joe Wilson, may he rest in pieces

Liar Joe is now the Emperor without clothes. He may still parade around on college campuses where they will remark on the thread count of his glittering robes, but then again on campuses these days discernment is not often readily in evidence. More than one has been noted to have 9/11 conspiracy theorists on staff and have not acted to deal with the envitable embarassment that causes.

[verner]

I've always though that this was a carefully woven plan from the beginning. Put it all into context. The systematic CIA leaks from Clinton apointees, Joe's friends in the anti-war/progressive left movement--all experienced at attacking Republican administrations with the same players and the same MO. David Corn and his fellow Bush hating Journos created this conspiracy. That's the real story. I just wish that some proof would surface that Wilson was communicating with them before he ever went to Niger--they were already well organized at that point to attack Bush's Iraq policy.

Where are REAL journalists when you need them.

[lurker]

Amazing! What a 180 degree turnaround by a major newspaper!

Wonder what kind of "breaking news" Corn and Issy have in their new book. They still claim that WH had a vendetta against the Wilsons.

What does this mean to both lawsuits?

Gee, all the work that EW put into at TheNextHurrah website and it was all for naught based on the wrong assumption right from the beginning. She did good and detailed work, though.

[maryrose]

David Brooks has an excellent article today entitled:"If It's Not Rove then who cares"

[lurker]

Guess the only book that Plame can sell...for a few cents...is a book of facts and truths; not lies. Wonder how this would affect her book deal.

Where is David Brooks' article?

And Erwin and CREW both had to be having some serious second thoughts about this lawsuit....

Probably NOT!!

[noah]

Unbelievably sensible WaPo editorial. Nevermind that the thrust of the editorial has been obvious to anyone who reads JOM for quite a while except for perhaps Jeff and "he who should not be named in the interest of propriety" who have a lot of time and mental energy invested in an ongoing scandal.

[Gary Maxwell]

The thought just occurred to me that after Liar Joe the next most invested person I know in this whole unseemly nonsense is Jeff. When has one person been so wrong for so long before? I am starting to feel sorry for him ( dont worry I will get over that ).

[windansea]

OT...Patterico is recommending The Path to 9/11....unbiased and pulls no punches

9/11

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'...it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson.'

Welcome to the party. You're only three years late.

[verner]

Ranger: Hmmmm... Sounds like a shot across Wilson's bow to shut down the civil case before reporters have to make depositions.

Exactly what I wrote on the other thread.I seriously doubt that Rove and company are in a mood to roll over and play dead. If the Wilsons don't shut up and go away, the WaPo will end up having to show it's dirty underbelly at the expense of it's star Pulitzer winning reporters.

[Chants]

I don't think Jeff is Wilson. He never used the word "anodyne".

[windansea]

She did good and detailed work, though.

she writes better than most lefties but still suffers from terminal BDS which makes it all for naught

[noah]

Maybe a counter suit for damages?

[lurker]

"windansea, Fred Hiatt is a neocon. The fact that Fred, the guy at the WaPo most likely to have written this garbage, doesn't know that Novak said he had THREE sources for his initial outing of Plame does not exonerate anyone."

windansea, you gotta response from John Casper at EW's site.

Novak had one original source and two confirming sources. Big difference.

Funny how EW wondered why Rove is so quiet about this story. Why would Rove have anything to say about this story? He is DONE with this story. And I don't blame him for staying out of it. He needs to stay as far away from this as he can.

Well, since Fitz is a runaway special prosecuter, Libby can certainly sue Fitz. Right?

[Florence Schmieg]

All of this was political. All designed to get Bush out of office. Then it took on a life of its own and spun out of the perpetrator's control. The worst part is the distraction it caused to the White House administration. Complaining about Hurricane Katrina response? What was going on then? THIS!! Unless the media have evidence of real, serious crime, they should leave the Presidency alone. No muckracking. The damage to the country is just too great.

[verner]

Flat Tire (EW) and Jeff have no one to blame but themselves if they are hunched in the fetal position in a dark room this AM.

From the beginning, people in the know (Novak, Woodward etc.) have been saying that this was much ado about nothing. The SSIC report said that Wilson was a liar and a fraud. Still they kept hope alive. And they kept spreading Wilson generated lies--not caring what harm it did to innocent people, or what damaged it caused the Bush administration while our soldiers are in the field.

I have zero respect for the Wilsonistas.

[windansea]

Lurker

I saw that, John casper is probably one of Jason's socks

"flat tire wilsonistas" I like it!

[clarice]

I think we should write a letter to the WaPO detailing the thin gruel the case is . Since they played a major role in starting this and promoting it, and failing to take responsibility for that, the least they can do is get the charges against Libby honestly stated. It adds insult to injury to suggest that the whole thing was a fraud but Libby still is to blame, doesn't it?

And lurker, federal law makes it virtually impossible to make Fitz responsible at law for his misdeeds. OTOH maybe it is getting into his obsessive head that he was very, very wrong and caused a lot of damage because of that.

[lurker]

Well, verner, Jeff kept saying that the SSCI report had been known to misquote things; therefore, this report was wrong.

windansea, makes sense! Captains Quarters says that while other leftwing newspapers and bloggers still have the desire to keep the Fitz - Lewis case alive, WaPo knows when to stop and it just did.

Florence,

"All of this was political. All designed to get Bush out of office. Then it took on a life of its own and spun out of the perpetrator's control. The worst part is the distraction it caused to the White House administration. Complaining about Hurricane Katrina response? What was going on then? THIS!! Unless the media have evidence of real, serious crime, they should leave the Presidency alone. No muckracking. The damage to the country is just too great."

Unfortunately, it will get worse if the democrats take over the House and/or Senate with their planned impeachment process.

So be sure to get your votes out.

[Jane]

Hmmmm... Sounds like a shot across Wilson's bow to shut down the civil case before reporters have to make depositions.

That's an interesting take. If true, the pressure should mount and should lead to greater scrutiny of Joey.

I still think that how this story is creeping out is interesting. The Armitage revelation didn't make it to the front page, and most bloggers are not concentrating on it, yet in dribs and drabs the media at least is starting to think about its self-interest, and thus keeping it going. That's something to capitalize on.

And still nothing from Fitzy. He's gotta be a bit peeved about all this. Time for him to act heroic and come out, condemn Wilson, apologize to Libby and walk away.

[windansea]

Lurker

I asked Casper in the thread at EW if Wilson will be on Hardball or Larry King denying the WAPO editorial from every orifice....:)

[verner]

Jane:That's an interesting take. If true, the pressure should mount and should lead to greater scrutiny of Joey

Yeah! And let's start with a detailed article about Joe's business dealings with Alamoudi, followed up by an article with his close personal relationship with a few well heeled Saudi funded arabists and an assortment democrat progressive think tank types. A little expose on his 1999 trip to Niger would be good... Gosh, it would be an easy piece to write. Blog researchers have done much of the ground work for them.

Actually, after all the sand they've thrown into the American public's eyes, it's the least they can do.

[Harry MacD]

Verner:

In addition to what you say, note the similarities to British version of this story - the sexed up dossier story:

The British version:

began at about the same time, May - June 2003

the same purpose, bring down the government responsible for the Iraq war,

trafficked in the same essential lie, that the intelligence supporting the war decision was fabricated, and

was propagated by an essentially similar route, compliant hard left journalists.

Things that make you go, hmmh.

[Sue]

You know, the more I think about Armitage remaining silent the madder I get. They didn't want to tell the President who leaked because they were afraid it would be leaked to the press. Unbelievable.

[Jane]

It occurs to me there absolutely no reporting being done on any of these developments. The only thing we are seeing are editorials which do little besides express buyer's remorse. The media is a bit too shy about the Armitage revelation, which proves to me that there is a lot going on there.

I still believe the Wilson's are operating on the notion that the best defense is a good offense. It's left to us I guess.

[clarice]

Harry, on June 14, 2003 in D.C. Joe spoke at EPIC and telegraphed not only his Bush Lied story, and his harmed whistleblower shtick, but as well that people were working in the UK to get "the truth" out about the war and Blair would fall, too. Coincidence? Heh!

Why the editorial today? If little old me is hearing drumbeats along the Potomac about Wilson and Africa indicating there's a bombshell being loaded in the wings.

[JM Hanes]

Too bad the WaPo didn't deliver this editorial to it's own reporters a year or two ago.

"Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson."

Pathetic, isn't it, when reporters are the last folks to figure this out? Or, even worse than pathetic, are so compromised that they have to pretend this is news.

[jerry]

"I still believe the Wilson's are operating on the notion that the best defense is a good offense. It's left to us I guess."

When in doubt aim high? The ship of state always leaks from the top?

[clarice]

Oooh, Jane..I doubt my stellar record at Battleships would stand if I played the game with you!!

[JJ]

@ Ranger

Depositions by reporters would be really nice!

About Joe Wilson et al: they appear to have the ability to punish themselves -- so they can be written off as a primary concern.

About the Libby trial: it's still on, folks! Bush isn't going to stop it.

About the testimony at trial: If Clarice can prove her theory of their rumors vs facts on Libby's behalf, then there are the folks who need to be taken to task over this.

The only ones who don't have the ability to correct themselves are the reporters like Neil Lewis.

I think Neil Lewis in his recent interview with Jim Lehrer gave a hint about where he wants this to go now:

"...the trial judge here in Washington, has narrowed the issues so much that it's ["it" is the Armitage revelation] not helpful for Mr. Libby. That is, he's narrowed the issues to just whether he [Libby]said untruthful things to the FBI and grand jury..."

I translate that: don't call the reporters about the issue that Libby was so upset about. Let's keep the trial judge after Libby only.

[Jane]

Oooh, Jane..I doubt my stellar record at Battleships would stand if I played the game with you!!

Clarice you would drown me in a NY minute if we are dealing with facts and ability to communicate. I wouldn't even bother to launch.

[Patrick]

TM: "Rove ruthlessly sat by the phone and waited for Matt Cooper to call him and ask about Niger."

That, Mr. Maguire, is why many of us read your stuff! You don't really believe that all of us are interested in the intricacies of this whole affair, do you?

[jerry]

It is me, or have the rovain forces-of-darkness been at a roiling boil ever since the "Armitage (un)secret" went public?

Gathered at Mordor, their forges stoked with high flames lighting the night sky, trolls and blogs and pundits prepare to asault the Peaceful Kingdom of Princess Plame and Gallant Sir Patrick.

Anyway, Jane's right. We do need some basic reporting in response to this ridiculously provocative WaPo editorial (Hiatt to reporters "up an at 'em").

[noah]

Hurts doesn't it jerry...you worthless piffle head? Yesterday it was "mistaken" misreading of a source you cited! Today a "ridiculously provocative" editorial has you whining...geez you are worse than Cleo and Sam and Jeff.

[verner]

Harry, as I've been saying all along, every single scandal against the Bush administration has been based on a hyped up pack of lies, and pushed by the same bunch of scummy left-wingers.

Abu Ghraib=Hackworth who was in the hire of Ben Cohen (Fenton Communications Client, and founder of Win Without War) who passed it on to Mary Mapes AFTER Kennedy wouldn't even touch it.

TANG Memos= Mary Mapes, nuff said.

Downing Street Memo=Pushed by people like Corn of IPS/the Nation Institute even after the Butler Review deemed it a pile of stuff. (and check out who was behind www.downingstreetmemo.org.)

Joe Wilson=brought to you by CIP, Fenton Communications, the Nation Institute, Institute for Policy studies et. al. and their willing co-conspirators in the main stream media.

Secret Gulags=the brainchild of Mrs. Dana Goodfellow-Priest, the first lady of Center for International Policy, where Mel Goodman, VIPER leader is also in residence. Needless to say, almost a year, and an extensive EU investigation later, no proof for her outrageous charges.

The anti-Bolton campaign=spearheaded in large part by Mr. William Goodfellow and CIP.

Are we seeing a pattern here? All lies, yet, unfortunately, all successful to a degree in harming the Bush administration both at home and abroad.

And David Corn has the nerve to try and make money off a stinking book that still claims they were out to get Wilson and Bush lied over WMD pre-war intel. Geez.

[Jane]

Are we seeing a pattern here?

Yes and clearly I started it.

I'm trying to stop it but I really don't know how.

[Jane]

Are we seeing a pattern here?

Yes and clearly I started it.

Stop italics, STOP

[clarice]

Italiacto.

Strata has his take on the Africa bombshell in the wings. http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2418
Did the CIA assassinate the Nigerien leader who was scheduled to travel to Iraq? What was Wilson's role, if so and why was this done?

Oooooww

[Tom Maguire]

Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium.

...reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role...?!? No, we have no evidence whatsoever that either Mr. Libby or Mr. Cheney had the slightest interest in Mrs. Wilson

Welllll - I actually stared at that passage and started to work my self up, but...

Cheney did note some questions about the wife on the margin of the Wilson op-ed; whether and when he verbalized those questons is in dispute, IIRC.

And Libby certainly asked some people specifically about the wife, *IF* the indictment is correct (Libby has disputed some of the indicents, such as Grossman/State, and Ari Fleischer, but not all of them - there is the bit where he asked about paperwork related to nepotism, for example).

So, much as I dislike that passage for over-emphasizing the weight placed on the wife in their reaction, it struck me as defensible - asking about the wife was one small part of their reaction.

[Semanticleo]

"And still nothing from Fitzy. He's gotta be a bit peeved about all this. Time for him to act heroic and come out, condemn Wilson, apologize to Libby and walk away.'

Fitz looks both ways before crossing the street. He wears suspenders AND belts to prevent any possibility of embarassment.

Although it serves your mirrored BDS, it is
a fanciful flight you take on those gossamer wings of Plausible Denialism, which carries you nowhere.

[clarice]

Maybe if he didn't gird his loins so tightly , he'd be better able to distinguish between shit and shinola.

[jerry]

Noah, I am the wiener?

[windansea]

Fitz looks both ways before crossing the street. He wears suspenders AND belts to prevent any possibility of embarassment.

and he leaves pizzas rotting in the oven because?

[verner]

Yeah TM. But were they suppose to ignore the fact that the wife had a role in sending him? It seems like an pretty important part of the truth, all things considered.

That much, the WaPo should at least acknowledge.

[sammy small]

This entire house of cards took on a life of its own, becomming the left leaning media's response to Clinton's Whitewater investigation. There will be many who don't want to give up the pursuit because the counter-chapter to the "stained dress" phase hasn't played out yet. Its all about the payback.

[boris]

I'm trying to stop it but I really don't know how.

Keep the following on a note or postit handy:

</i> </i> </i> </i> Italiacto!

[cathyf]

And lurker, federal law makes it virtually impossible to make Fitz responsible at law for his misdeeds.

Is that really true? Fitzgerald detailed in public filings how the VPOTUS and POTUS went about declassifying the NIE (which did not mention any intelligence generated by either Mr. or Mrs. Wilson), and he also detailed in public filings Cheney's marked-up copy of Wilson's op-ed. There is no law-enforcement significance to either piece of information, so wasn't Fitzgerald's filing of this information a violation of grand jury secrecy? And isn't that a felony?

[noah]

Mark Steyn is a rollicking good read usually and even better in person. Check it out on Washington Journal this AM (available already on streaming video).

[Other Tom]

Cleo has begun Happy Hour a bit early again, but what the hell--it's Friday.

For those of you who are interested (all three of you), I think one reason the plaintiffs in the civil suit haven't aggressively pursued discovery is that no one who has testified before the grand jury is going to be required to give deposition testimony until the criminal investigation is concluded. On the other hand, Wilson and Plame could be deposed without delay.

[noah]

C-SPAN

[Ranger]

Ok, here is a questions for the trial lawyers.

My understanding is that Jury Nulificatioin is a valid defense. Given that UGO has now admited who he is, can Libby's team go back and request reconsideration of the limiting of the timeframe that can be addressed in the trial because showing that Armitage was the "first leaker" is key to a Jury Nulification defense they want to mount?

Here's the argument I'm imagining:

Even if you believe Mr. Libby did intentionally mislead, his statements in no way affected the prosecutors ability to do his job. The prosecutors job was to find the "first leaker." It was the prosecutor who misidentified Mr. Libby as the "first leaker" even though the "first leaker" had already come forward and admitted talking to Mr. Novak. If the prosecutor had investigated Mr. Armitage with any where near the vigor that he investigated Mr. Libby, he would have discovered the June 13th conversation with Mr. Woodward and estalished Mr. Armitage's role as the "first leaker." Mr.s Libby's statements to the FBI and the Grand Jury had no meaningful effect on the prosecutors ability to indentify Mr. Armitage as the "first leaker." Since the prosecutor clearly indicted Mr. Libby on these charges to punish him for being the "first leaker", now that it has been show he was not, the jury should return a not guilty verdict.

I know that this is a meteriality argument, but I was under the impression that materiality was something a judge determined, so putting it before the jury would be different I would think.

[clarice]

Lots of good stugff up toady..and I have to run. But Deranged Press Loses Its Bloodlust struck me as particularly funny. No Passaran takes on Media Matters:
"
So deranged that they’re getting the whole affair in the wrong order. The narrative started with the incompetence of White House not knowing the relationship between Plame and Wilson, and now, somehow, lefty scribblers believe that they had it in for Wilson, Plame, Miller, etal for events yet to happen.
Armitage's role aside, the public record is without question: senior White House aides wanted to use Valerie Wilson's CIA employment against her husband. Rove leaked the information to Cooper, and Libby confirmed Rove's leak to Cooper. Libby also disclosed information on Wilson's wife to New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
The public record that this “media watchdog” outfit is talking about is the hall of mirrors the press contrived by repeating suppositions and whispers based on a phone call - over and over and over. True to the stellar work ethic of the press, finding out about Armitage was no harder than finding out about Plame’s relationship with Wilson - it was in a book.

So what was the year in between about? Was the press' case of “intrepid reporters’ facial expression” the result of intrepid reporting?

Hell no. It was an excuse to have a vendetta without looking like your holding the knife. It's a "stance" they have of events. It’s the only reason anyone in the Washington press learned to read anything longer than the label on a gin bottle."

http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2006/09/deranged-press-loses-its-bloodlust.html

[JM Hanes]

Jane:

"The only thing we are seeing are editorials which do little besides express buyer's remorse."

Well said! I draw a different inference, though; I think the WaPo and almost everybody else in the establishment press just wants this story to disappear. They can't report further without reporting on themselves.

Journalists could have investigated Joe Wilson and his connections -- and thereby sent him tumbling -- anytime along the way. They should have, but they didn't. They could have treated "insider" information with healthy skepticism instead supplying megaphones to all who applied. And if they weren't as concerned about protecting their anonymous sources from each other as from us, they might have actually managed to put 2 & 2 together.

The real heart of this saga is the fundamental conflict of interest when reporters are faced with investigating leaks. The sad truth is that the dilemma they face is not easily resolved. The flagrant hypocrisies which have characterized coverage of this story stem directly from media's failure, indeed unwillingness, to acknowledge the reality of their own compromised position when it comes to "the public's right to know." On the day the WaPo writes that editorial, I'll be ready with kudos.

[JJ]

Said Patrick at 8:15 am --

"That, Mr. Maguire, is why many of us read your stuff! You don't really believe that all of us are interested in the intricacies of this whole affair, do you?"

I realize that is a backhanded compliment in a way, but wait! I am interested in the intricacies of the this whole affair and TM has always don't an excellent job of connecting the dots.

Something our primary news sources do not do, have not, and will not!

Good post, Mr. M.

One day, I want a copy of your book of all the Plame posts. Just follow Thomas Friedmann's and Ann Coulter's pattern -- jam all the columns/posts between hard covers and sell the darn thing! (How could I have been so stupid to part with money for those books...)

[Patrick]

Ranger, Jury Nullification is not a valid argument for an attorney to argue. Ethically, they can only argue facts and law. Jury Nullification, to the extent that it is valid, can (really should) only exist during jury deliberations. E.g. a jury refusing to convict someone who murdered a person who molested his child. On the facts and law, the person is guilty, but if the jury refuses to convict. Realistically, defense attorneys will at least hint at the jury's power to do this. At any rate, your proposed argument seems to attack the elements of the crime, (which I do not have at hand), and therefor would not be nullification.

[JJ]

http://bloggingheads.tv/?id=125&cid=543

Per Mickey Kaus' recommendation, check out this FEUD at the above link.

[Ranger]

Thanks Patrick,

I just bring this up because I seem to recall that the judge denied Libby's lawyers desire to do something similar based on how important it was to keep UGO's identity secret since he "committed no crime." Now that UGO's identity is not longer secret, shouldn't Libby's team be able to go back and reargue?

[cathyf]

"...the trial judge here in Washington, has narrowed the issues so much that it's ["it" is the Armitage revelation] not helpful for Mr. Libby. That is, he's narrowed the issues to just whether he [Libby]said untruthful things to the FBI and grand jury..."

Ok, fine, let's look at it from that lens. The revelation that Armitage told Woodward about Plame's behesting on June 13, 2003, renders it impossible to prove that anything that Libby told the FBI was untruthful.

[Jane]

Fox News had just had the Beltway boys on to discuss Plame et al in their "what's happening on the blogs?" segment. They pretty much took the position that the case is over, and the democrats and media owe the administration an apology. They also said that the NY Times is preparing a piece for tomorrow and it will be telling where it is placed in the paper.

[sad]

*****If you are a hardened, partisan, liberal, whacko-left, activist, whorishly seeking fame and attention then having the Washington Post call you a liar has to hurt. Especially since the Post had been such a staunch supporter of you and your "where's my made-for-TV movie" wife.****

Courtesy of Kevin McCullough at Townhall.com

[Jane]

I draw a different inference, though; I think the WaPo and almost everybody else in the establishment press just wants this story to disappear. They can't report further without reporting on themselves.

JM Hanes,

Oh I think that is absolutely correct. They are protecting their own. So it's up to the rest of us.

Journalists could have investigated Joe Wilson and his connections -- and thereby sent him tumbling -- anytime along the way. They should have, but they didn't. They could have treated "insider" information with healthy skepticism instead supplying megaphones to all who applied. And if they weren't as concerned about protecting their anonymous sources from each other as from us, they might have actually managed to put 2 & 2 together.

Absolutely. And the media should pay a very high prive for this failure.

The flagrant hypocrisies which have characterized coverage of this story stem directly from media's failure, indeed unwillingness, to acknowledge the reality of their own compromised position when it comes to "the public's right to know." On the day the WaPo writes that editorial, I'll be ready with kudos.

You need to write it.

(Boris, does it really take 4 ?

[Other Tom]

Bear in mind that Plame's role was important not because she was Wilson's wife, but because Wilson had fostered the impression that he had been sent by the Vice President. Although he didn't say so directly, a number of commentators (and Sen. Rockefeller) drew that inference from what Wilson wrote, and Wilson never stepped forward to point out their error. Thus one obvious issue to be addressed was, "if we didn't send her, who did?" The truthful answer turned out to be the CIA, on the recommendation of Plame.

[Christopher Fotos]

THE BEGINNING OF THE END: The WaPo thumped Joe Wilson when the SSCI report came out in July 2004, so they aren't exactly new to Wilso-phobia. John Kerry dropped Wilson from his campaign shortly thereafter.

Indeed, but as I've been blogging since mid-July, three stories that month, including one by Howard Kurtz, reverted to Wilson-found-nothing. Here's today's post on that issue.

[cathyf]

So, much as I dislike that passage for over-emphasizing the weight placed on the wife in their reaction, it struck me as defensible - asking about the wife was one small part of their reaction.

Ah, I realized when reading your explanation exactly how I fell into the WaPo's lie-by-omission.

1) Cheney reacted to Pincus and EPIC by asking "who the f*** is doing this and what the f*** is he talking about?!?!?"

2) Grossman reacted to Cheney reacting to Wilson by telling Armitage and Powell all about his college friend's personal life.

3) Cheney reacted to Grossman reacting to Cheney reacting to Wilson by asking, "what the f***?!?!? Is this the way we usually do business?!?!?"

So is it legitimate for the WaPo to claim that the question in #3 represents Cheney's reaction to Wilson rather than Cheney's reaction to Grossman's reaction to Cheney's reaction to Wilson?

[Italics]

The damage assessment did not include foreign nationals, which is why Aimes was allowed to kill over thirty. So, alot like Aimes, Plame has gotten away with a criminal conspiracy blaming her husband, something she probably planned from the beginning.

The Wilson's offence is historical and can be followed in other cases.

The timing here is questionable. There were two beheadins in Afghanistan. Both were accused of being American spies. Sarah Chayes, who may have worked with Shayes while he was on the intelligence committee, has been accused on the internet several times of being a CIA agent. She has not denied this and works closely, according to her book, with the Taliban who are terrorist, drug growers, smugglers, and murderers. So, why is she allowed to work with these in Afghanistan? It is illegal and she should be arrested. If she is not CIA, they will simply use the five year informant law and explain she was classified as secret when she in Afghanistan. Plame.

[sad]

Italics,

Are you saying Plame was actually an informant? Forgive me if it is a stupid question.

[windansea]

the new Clownhouse memo is out:

It's Time to Start Talking About NSA Warrantless Surveillance

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015637.html

[Jane]

Christopher Fotos,

When I go to your link, the piece is spread out so there is one word to a line.
you
have
to
read
it
like
this.

It may just be me (larger font for older eyes) but it is completely unreadable.

[windansea]

a witty poster at the DUmp sez:

Plame May Still Have A Case

After all that nonsense, it looks like Rove and Libby didn't leak her name. But, considering that the money she was offered for her book was largely based on them doing so, it strikes me that she may still have a case. After all, now she's not going to make nearly as much dough. So maybe she can sue them for not leaking her name?

[sad]

Windansea

The first poster in comments at that story said the Democrats needed a "secret Hold Senator" on their side so I posted that they had Robert kkk Byrd. Apparently my comment is being held for review.

[lurker]

Jane, which case were the Beltway Boys referring to: Fitz / Lewis case or the Wilsons' lawsuit?

Or both?

"Absolutely. And the media should pay a very high prive for this failure."

Who will listen to Chris Matthews, Pincus, Waas, Corn, Isikoff, and all of these reporters after this?

I haven't but will they see a declining listenership / readership after this?

The only way they will be vindicated is if Fitz wins against Lewis but Fitz sure doesn't have much ammunition to win it.

[Italics]

I am saying Plame was probably a CIA Operations Officer who used the Directorate of Operations to use her husband.

Yes, we all know clowns are CIA agents!

Jim Belushi's movie says it all. The real answer is'nt the big gun..............

[Lurker]

Guess I'll be writing to my senators and representatives to legalize an already legal program of NSA, which doesn't make sense at all.

I should also write to them about pushing a new bill to stop funding ACLU.

[lurker]

AJStrata should be invited to testify to Arlen Specter's Judicial committee, btw.

[Christopher Fotos]

Jane, thanks very much--I appreciate the info. I dunno what the problem is though--when I check it, both in Firefox and evil Windows IE, it looks fine. I'll have one of my IM buddies check the page from his own broswer as another check.

Sorry for the off-topic item folks.

[cahmd]

To paraphrase T.S. Elliot:

The Hollow Journalists:

...This is the way the Plame coverage ends
This is the way the Plame coverage ends
This is the way the Plame coverage ends
Not with a frogmarch but a whimper.

[windansea]

oops...the above quote I posted was from Brainster, not a DUmmy!!

http://brainster.blogspot.com/

[Jane]

Jane, which case were the Beltway Boys referring to: Fitz / Lewis case or the Wilsons' lawsuit?

Lurker,

I wasn't clear. They weren't referring to either case, in fact they didn't mention Armitage or the lawsuits. What they were referring to was Wilson's wild accusations about the Rove et al. Sorry.

[windansea]

Joe Wilson responds via email:

Via email:

You may have seen this morning's editorial in the Post. It manages to recycle pretty much every lie and smear over the past three years in a last ditch effort to divert attention from the facts, and the role the Post itself played both in the march to war and in the leak (see Woodward).

I know many of you are better versed in Plamegate than either Valerie or I and I also know that some of you will be addressing the editorial.

I want to let you know how much Valerie and I continue to be buoyed by your support and your dedication to getting the truth out and holding the administration and its lackeys accountable for the terrible policies they have foisted on our country and on the world. We must keep fighting.

As you think about this, our website (Wilsonsupport.org) has a copy of the letter I sent to the SSCI when its report first came out, challenging some of its conclusions. The LeftCoaster has a terrific study by eriposte on the whole Niger forgery case from beginning to end. Firedoglake and the Next Hurrah both have highly informative analyses of the case by skilled researchers and former prosecutors. I recommend them all as resoruces to jog memories. by this afternoon, I expect that our own team will have an updated set of talking points to distribute for your use as well.

Each of you in one way or another has contributed to the public's (and in many cases our own) understanding of the issues from the beginning. Thank you for continuing to do so.

Joe Wilson

posted by William Pitt (Truthnot) at the Dump

[jerry]

Man, I don't even read Democratic Underground TM.

[windansea]

Tom

that quote was not at the DUmp but at Brainsters blogspot...sorry posted a correction above

[windansea]

I know many of you are better versed in Plamegate than either Valerie or I and I also know that some of you will be addressing the editorial.

in other words, we can't get caught telling more whoppers so y'all can just make up whatever you like and please hurry, the book bonus is gone and speaking engagements are drying up

[lurker]

Thanks, Jane.

I remember reading Joe Wilson's letter to SSCI. By the time I finished reading it, I thought he had a very, very weak argument to explain his position. If he plans to use this letter as part of his lawsuit, the letter isn't going to help him, especially when there are enough facts disproving his letter.

As for LeftCoaster's "research" on the Niger story, Jeff would be the first in line to believe it but I won't even though I had not read it.

"holding the administration and its lackeys accountable for the terrible policies they have foisted on our country and on the world. We must keep fighting."

If this is what Joe considers as malicious intent, then he doesn't have much hope of winning the lawsuit. As for FireDogLake, after her "Black-faced Lierberman" photo, who would believe her?