Powered by TypePad

« Shopping For Bombshells | Main | NY Times On Armitage - BS, Round II »

September 01, 2006

Comments

topsecretk9

--However, speaking "about" the matter could mean anything- it could mean he knew who did it, it could mean he was going to say he didn't know anything.--

Mayb's

Yes...or you know how crafty it all gets (leaving out the context)

Later, Mr. Taft spoke with the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, now the attorney general, and advised him that Mr. Armitage, Mr. Bolton, Ms. Rice and mr. Powell were going to speak with lawyers at the Justice Department about the matter

clarice

Not to my knowledge. Indeed even with his calendars it would seem he did not ask him about his conversations with any reporter but Novak.

topsecretk9

I ment to add, that Taft could have said many names were going to speak and "cooperate"

I am just not buying that what DoS told Gonzo was and HUGE red flag. For the DoS ALSO advised Army to shred his resignation letter and stay hush hush.

topsecretk9

sorry for the typos...

meant
any instead on "and Huge"

topsecretk9

BTW...to add a little fuel to my theory...

Amry apparently did not know Novak?

OH...well that makes his "oops, mistake, gossip" appear more innocent to Fitz.

I mean you wouldn't intentional "out" someone to someone you barely knew.

Ranger

Leaving the Woodward part of the story out avoids all the nasty questions that would arise from mentioning it. Best to just ignore it and let people think Libby really was the "first leaker" like Fitz said and that Armitage was a stand up guy and gave up everything right away (like the story implies).

MayBee

Heh.
Wilson really knows what he's doing, fluffing the netroots and mentioning his fundraising site.
Mike Stark got over $3,400 in a few hours just for having an idea. This is the man that calls radio stations and holds "Hannity Sucks A**" posters at Hannity's fundraisers for military families.

$3,400 for that. Imagine what being a handsome hero with wronged wife can bring in.

topsecretk9

MayBee...

--Imagine what being a handsome hero with wronged wife can bring in.--

About $3,400. Maybe a bit more. I suspect that is the only reason Wilson responded -- another chance to remind people that the website is there, because I imagine the donations are not rolling in like they thought.

On that...Why did Will Pitt post that email at DU and not on his TruthOut blog?

MayBee

Pitt obviously has the (mistaken, I'm sure) belief that if he posts his direct contact from Wilson at DU, nobody will notice Wilson is in direct contact with the Truthout team????

MayBee

Pitt obviously has the (mistaken, I'm sure) belief that if he posts his direct contact from Wilson at DU, nobody will notice Wilson is in direct contact with the Truthout team????

richard mcenroe

Clarice -- on an earlier thread, you said you couldn't begin to draft Fitz's opening statement. May I suggest:

"Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution intends to prove, even though a completely different person confessed to the crime, you can still put this man in jail for it..."

Neuro-conservative

Three things don't make sense in the NYT article:

1) Why do they repeat (and embellish) the whole Oct. 1 "Armitage panic attack" story, when the indictment states:
21. On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.

2) "Mr. Armitage knew about Ms. Wilson’s C.I.A. role only because of a memorandum that Mr. Libby had commissioned "
Do they really expect us to believe that Armitage was unaware that his next-in-line, Grossman, was college buds with Wilson? And that this inveterate gossip was the only person in town not to know about Val?

3) "Armitage did not know Mr. Novak..."
This seems highly improbable, given Novak's longstanding ties to Powell.

topsecretk9

Maybee...you're right, it's just silly because Wilson's response to Novak email went up at TruthOut. (as did a JL 'Why they filed a lawsuit")

Notice the ridiculous "UPDATE" email to the Novak revelation (Funny...I thought the novak revelation beat them by a few days.)

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/7/13/1223/94160

SunnyDay

"Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution intends to prove, even though a completely different person confessed to the crime, you can still put this man in jail for it..."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Sara (Squiggler)

I mean you wouldn't intentional "out" someone to someone you barely knew.

Armitage saying he didn't know Novak is totally incredible to me. Everyone knows Novak. He has been around for 30+ years. He has had an influential column for as far back as I can recall and he started on TV with the Evans and Novak show and then moved to Crossfire years ago. The idea that Armitage wouldn't know Novak is ludicrous.

The business about Fitz telling him not to tell the President fires up my anger against Fitz all over again. The man has absolutely no ethics and it seems some of what he has done borders on the criminal. If the judge doesn't smack him down, I hope the defense crucifies him.

Isn't there a way for those outraged to file complaints with his bar association. He should be disbarred.

larwyn

I watched the despicable Bill Maher's Real Time to see what he would say about the Wilson/Plame affair.

Last week with Hitchens on board he used the leaking of a covert CIA agent in one of his lame arguments. And the few times I caught the show he never failed to mention it. I'm remembering him interviewing Joe as remote vs on panel - not sure - have hardly ever watched him - turns my stomach.

He never brought up subject - nothing...nada......zip.
But four exchanges made the hour worth it. The best:

****The Clinton years were years of total abdication"!!****
said by the author of "The Foreigner's Gift" Fquad Alami of John Hopkins who also stated he still believes in the Iraq effort by America and that most Iraqi are thankful to America.
Reaction of Mary Frances Berry (Carter appointment): "I can't believe the professor was
serious, I was waiting for the JOKE!!! and on and on
with the Lefty line.

When Maher did his weekly anti-Christian rant using Katherine Harris comments and Berry added that is was "pseudo Christianity practised in America, Darrell Issa (a RINO)inserted "a good
Christian man, Jimmy Carter, brought you (Berry) into
government".

Harry Anderson was interviewed by remote from New Orleans. He was surrounded by cardboard boxes as he is moving to Ashville N.C. He said:"whole lot of crime, cockroaches walking around
and then we had that &&(^^!! election....they just
rounded up the usual suspects....."
"We had this election, and mayor was reelected with
'secret 100 day plan'
.....Maher sticks up for Nagin as "straight talker"and Harry says
"I got a place for sale, you want to take it?"
Maher shuts up.

Maher got on the number of books GW read - had said in interview with Brian Williams, Bush described his taste in books as
"Epileptic". Maher said his staff figured it would take 2 1/2 hrs a day to read 80 books in 8 months.
Too much time, Maher doesn't have time to read books! Reads newspapers and magazines.
Surprizingly, Penn Jillette jumped on Maher by asking Maher
what is the magic number of books?..If he only read 1 book you would say "we need a president
who reads" - but 60 is too many for you. Would 17 books be good for you?
Maher laughs and goes to next subject.


Maher then disgraces himself and Melhman should capture this to be shown to all the Christian African American congregations and at all the Jewish Community Centers. Mehlman should give this to Lieberman.

Maher begins with a report on Centanni and Olaf's conversion to Islam with lame Jurnos??? jokes. Then he says
"If all will take to get the Terrorists off our backs is coverting to Islam then"
.... he then does an Islamic deal and continues by saying the
two line pledge.....
(Berry thinks is this is all hysterically funny.....(Carter should be proud)

Maher continues:
"Nothing would be different to you, not like changing your email address.....and YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO TAKE HAIR GEL ON PLANES AGAIN .... We wouldn't
really be real muslims just like we're not real Christians in America...... But we would
be able to take hair gel on the plane."

He said more but I'm a slow typist and Berry laughed as hard as she could.
Sick!
VERY SICK!

Hopes someone sends the RNC the tape. If the DEMS get the Jewish vote there is truly something very wrong in America. Likewise the religious Blacks.

Other Tom

"Dude, it was a good week for you and the rest of the right-wing Plamaniaces." Bet your sweet ass it was, FooBar.

If the NYTimes is correct that Fitz knew about Armitage's leak on the day he took office, then his statment at the October, 2005 presser about Libby being the first official "known" to have leaked was a lie.

And don't be surprised about Debra Saunders in the SFChronicle--she's one of the good guys.

topsecretk9

Glad someone called him to mat on the books question, how many is too many and Bush was the opposite - he says he doesn't read newspapers and the left had a shit fit and said he was stupid...alas Maher is so nuanced he caught the part about Chimpy's wife being a former Librarian...

BDS is not only make the left crazy....it's making them stoopid and dumb at the same time.

BTW...screw Bill Maher's har gel, I just have no sorrow he isn't allowed to take his hair gel (he has but 7 on top anyways)

Other Tom

I take it back. Here's what Fitz said: "In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson." That would pre-date Armitage's conversation, so Fitz's statement was (I guess) true.

topsecretk9

Nope...Other Tom...you were right.

topsecretk9

Army talked to Woodward on June 12....Libby spoke Miller June 23.

larwyn

Tops,
When one has only the mouth to breathe thru, it is strangling to truly belly laugh. So I hope that Sam does show up tonight!
What about the converting to Islam bit? People are dying all over the world be they non-muslims or the wrong kind of muslims and this (thinking of your emailed phrase from last night but will type:) JERK makes light of it and says the 2 line oath.

SICK SICK VERY SICK AND CARTER APPOINTEE LAUGHS HER ASS OFF AT HIM!

topsecretk9

And where Fitz says

"In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter ..."


Which was a special distinction Jeff always tried to insist was true...but the special information


He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife’s computer in the course of the inquiry, those associates said. But Mr. Armitage kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the prosecutor asked him not to divulge it, the people said.

not knowing about Woodward appears to be Fitz's own fault. And apparently makes it so Fitz was at least really, realy wrong on his own accord.

SunnyDay

That would pre-date Armitage's conversation, so Fitz's statement was (I guess) true


O.T. - But one of the articles said Fitz got Army's calendar at the time - so he could have known about Woodward.

topsecretk9

Larwyn...don't forget the jerks the beat the crap out of the National Guardsman only because he "saw action" were driving in a Cheney Hallibuton Gas Guzzling War Profiteering Rove helping SUV!

I am sure it was a BITCH to find a parking spot for that mother at the WA State World Bank Riots!

MayBee

Sue and Clarice- regarding what Taft told Gonzales. This is what Newsweek/msnbc said.

So Taft told Gonzales the bare minimum: that the State Department had passed some information about the case to Justice. He didn't mention Armitage

So we seem to have a discrepancy on our hands.

topsecretk9

Sunny...

No you are right, Fitz HAD Army's calendars and datebooks....MAYBE Fitz wasn't lying, but he was not right and it appears to be his own fault...

Which I relish, because this was a precise distinction JEFF always insisted was definitive

first known official.

SunnyDay

Yeah, if he didn't look, he wouldn't have "known."

I am baffled that the people seem to think it's nothing to force someone to renounce their religious beliefs at gunpoint.

Chants

I really do think that you all should look into this unique chance to make a difference.

The Clarice "I'd Look Good in a Bentley" Foundation is about to go global.

This is a discrete matter. But her courage, her COURAGE, will merit a Bentley at least. For her Courage.

Plaease visit www.idlookgoodinabentley.net for details on on YOU can CONTRIBUTE to this worthy fund.

topsecretk9

Jeff sad this when the Woodward revelation came out and for many time after

(to his credit --at the time Jeff-- did allow that maybe Fitz did misspeak or make mistake when Fitz said that, but only allowed that and IIRC insisted it wasn't because Fitz didn't vigorously investigate -- it was info KEPT from him. In fact IIRC the thread correctly, I and many pointed out this fault to Jeff in the form that Fitz DID NOT investigate vigorously as Judy Miller proved. He --again-- disputed that, and did not believe that Fitz limited his question ONLY to Libby as per JMiller)

LARWYN

Sunny,
No one needed to have a gun on Maher, religious beliefs are held in such disdain.

Hope that Ahmed Mohammed whatever show us to take him to Friday prayer now that he's said the requisite words.

Last week Max Cleland played the laughing fool to his jihadi jokes and complaint that he couldn't take
"astro glide" (or somesuch) on a plane anymore, which seriously cut into his action should he meet someone on the plane.

Trying to be Christian, but really would not feel bad if said
Ahmed Mohammed whatever introduced him to his 72 virgin raisins - we
can chip in for the "astro glide".

SunnyDay

Yeah, I've watched Bill Maher when he was on ABC. I'll give him credit for having religious people on his show and letting them talk, but I'm with you - I don't much like him.

clarice

Everyone's pretty funny tonight.chants, you'll get your cut, Scout's honor. Have your girl contact Mr. Rick.

Love the proposed opening statement. I just wrote something on the NYT and WaPo artiles and in doing so I reviewed the basic charges in the case. I have to believe Fitz is having second thoughts.

Cooper is not going to be called--he can't be because of the judge's pre trial ruling.
Miller is a disaster, and if it turns out she spoke to Armitage..ouch.

Russert--even if he is credible--may also be a problem because as ts ound for me he's said he thinks he riased the Wilson/Plame thing with Libby on June 12 after talking toArmitage..that he could be more definitve (in essence) if he'd been given a waiver right away and Fitz had asked him closer in time to the event. I find it hard to believe that one could find beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would convict for condusing two conversations on the same day with two different reporters.

clarice

I never watch Maher. I think it's like being locked in a dorm with a bunch of smart ass know nothing sophomores.

topsecretk9

Holy Jaysus Mother of Buddha -- EW Commenter


"I don't think the johnston article was too slanted. this was the tidbit that caught my eye.

"Later, Mr. Taft spoke with the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, now the attorney general, and advised him that Mr. Armitage was going to speak with lawyers at the Justice Department about the matter, the people familiar with Mr. Armitage’s actions said. Mr. Taft asked Mr. Gonzales whether he wanted to be told the details and was told that he did not want to know."

Plausable deniablity much? Why wouldn't the white house council know the details? And this part:

"But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said."

sounds like a coverup to me. I still think Armitage is a red herring, more plausible deniability. Why else would they peddle it so hard?"


abuGonzales played it ABOVE AND BEYOND THE BOOK and here, behold the emptywheel commenter it STILL Bush's fault...AND...the cover up he sees? still Bush...made everyone sign waivers of confidentially ONLY so he could have plausible deniability...those EWheelers man, the sure spin gold out of crappy polyester.

SunnyDay

Amazing, isn't it? A contagious mental illness.

topsecretk9

Hell, Clarice


Cooper can't be called? i wouldn't surprised if Fitz was taking a bit more time looking at Cooper at this point. Yep, he can't be called but Fitz has to be looking at why all his witnesses can't be called...

Grossman, Fitz recently learned can't be called.

Fitz has to be at east interested in finding out why all his witnesses can't be called ( but he does still has Russet who will say "NO, Libby did not say Plames name because we did not talk abut Plame)

MESS

clarice

Why are we futzing around here when EW's gang seems ripe for the plucking? Chants!!

topsecretk9

OT

How does the left react if Fitz changes course?

What if in a few weeks or a months ( the pressure is on though) Fitz comes out with nothing and ENDS it (he will be eating alive) OR he goes after the few that mislead his investigation from the get go (ONLY way He can explain MISSING so much)!

IF I were in his spot I would choose door 2 at this juncture, only way to save your future,

topsecretk9

One other little point to make...the lefties were tight with the "public record" for Fitz to be "telegraphing" action...to be supervised


so the left was cool with the public record, and that included all NYT's editorial hysterics. WAY agreed with the editorials, brilliant! All apart of the public "record"


SO,,,funny they don't like the new "pubic record", eh?


And WAPO, the place Walter Pincus works at is a cheap "rag"


Serious people.


JM Hanes

I emailed Johnston a guote from Isikoff about Taft leaving out specific mention of Armitage, and suggested that unless he was claiming that Isikoff got it wrong, he might want to make a correction. I also politely suggested that he correct the bit about the memo "that Mr. Libby had commissioned" and explaining why. When you're writing about the Armitage revelation those seem like details worth getting right! Added that Lewis (who got a bottomline credit:) got so much wrong in the first article that it wasn't worth the time it would take to point all the errors out.

Unfortunately, I misspelled Johnston's name, so I'm not optimistic. OTOH, I'm sure I'm not the first to leave him t-less. Maybe he'll write me back with a correction.

JM Hanes

I had the distinct impression that someone said Armitage was a pretty regular Novak source. I think it's hysterical that Army's got a regular army of spinners deployed to tell his story. He can hardly demand anonymity if he talks to anybody now, but if an unamed "confidant" gets something like not knowing Novak wrong, who you gonna call on it?

MayBee:

"Did Fitzgerald pressure Armitage to sign waivers?"

Interesting question. Frankly, I can see Armitage doing the next best thing to begging Fitz to put the cabosh (sp?) on talking out of school.
A: Can I go public with this?
F: Rather you didn't.
A: Mums the word! [Hallelujah, Amen]

Can't get over the business about sneaking folks into court under the radar, either.

MJW

Man, I go on a little computerless vacation and return - tanned, rested, and ready - to find the last sheer veil over Richard Armitage's UGO identity has finally fallen aside; and there are approximately ten zillion comments on the matter. I figure I'll be caught up reading them about the time Libby goes to trial (if he indeed does).

JM Hanes

Since I've got the place to myself, the New York Times says:

Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said.
Instead of asking just how many officials at State were brainstorming this one, maybe we should be migrating to percentages. Shoot, the Times isn't even talking officials with a big O any more, let alone an S.

JM Hanes

MJW!!!!

We've been looking for you!! I knew there was a reason I didn't feel guilty about burning the midnight-somehwere oil. Let me just pull the laurels and the kudos, and the gold stars out of the deep freeze where they've awaited your return.

Don't worry, no one but the WaPo editorial page seems to be willing to get out in front of the news cycle this time around, so you haven't missed as much as you might think. I'm hoping maybe we're just talking sleeper here.

Sooo, welcome home!

Bob

Good Morning!

Here's what we have this morning in the Ventura County Star. Good analysis

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion_columnists/article/0,1375,VCS_223_4963017,00.html>Probe more Damaging then the Leak


"So why was the investigation not halted there, saving millions of taxpayer dollars in actual expenses and much more in the man hours spent by top-ranking government officials defending themselves and their reputations?

Apparently, because the CIA pressed the matter as a diversion from the mounting furor over its own inadequacies in counterintelligence, ranging from the 9/11 terrorist attacks to its assessment of Iraq's nuclear and biochemical capabilities.

The agency clearly was under siege and had sent Plame's husband, a self-promoting former minor ambassador, Joseph Wilson, off to Africa to discover whether British reports of Iraqi nuclear activities there were accurate in that country. Wilson came back convinced they weren't, and immediately began trumpeting his conclusions to the embarrassment of the White House."

Bob

And from Fred Barnes of the http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/648ygtoe.asp?pg=1>Weekly Standard


What's left to do? Fitzgerald, in decency, should terminate his probe immediately. And he should abandon the perjury prosecution of Libby, the former Cheney aide. Libby's foggy memory was no worse than that of Armitage, who forgot for two years to tell Fitzgerald he'd talked to the Post's Woodward but isn't being prosecuted. Last but not least, a few apologies are called for, notably by Powell and Armitage, but also by the press. A correction--perhaps the longest and most overdue in the history of journalism--is in order.

--Fred Barnes, for the Editors

Bob

And even the http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/washington/02leak.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1157169600&en=012af30d606f9608&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin>NYT has a sliver of the truth

"Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision to prolong the inquiry once he took over as special prosecutor in December 2003 had significant political and legal consequences. The inquiry seriously embarrassed and distracted the Bush White House for nearly two years and resulted in five felony charges against Mr. Libby, even as Mr. Fitzgerald decided not to charge Mr. Armitage or anyone else with crimes related to the leak itself.

Moreover, Mr. Fitzgerald’s effort to find out who besides Mr. Armitage had spoken to reporters provoked a fierce battle over whether reporters could withhold the identities of their sources from prosecutors and resulted in one reporter, Judith Miller, then of The New York Times, spending 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify to a grand jury.

Since this week’s disclosures about Mr. Armitage’s role, Bush administration officials have argued that because the original leak came from a State Department official, it was clear there had been no concerted White House effort to disclose Ms. Wilson’s identity."

JM Hanes

Did a little number diving while you lazybones were off sleeping or something [not you Bob!:]. A couple of interesting notes from Tom's GAO docs, starting with a mini-wowser:

The independent counsels are responsible for preparing statements of expenditures in conformity with the basis of accounting described in the accompanying notes. Though not required to do so, the special counsel also elected to prepare a statement of expenditures. [Emphasis mine.]
How do ya like them apples? On the one hand, Fitz has not proved particularly expensive as Independent Counsels go, on the other, considering how little evidence of anything he's managed to turn up, maybe that's not such good thing. Not that Washington much cares if your cost/benefit ratios suck -- unless they want to slap a hold on your bill, of course.

Let's take a look back at what he was spending and what we were seeing, shall we?

Oct 03 - Mar 04 $ 26,592
Apr 04 - Sep 04 $584,899
Oct 04 - Mar 05 $112,550
Apr 05 - Sep 05 $178,077
Do you s'pose he peaked prematurely? Too bad there's a six month time lag here. Oct 05-Mar 06 ought to show up this month. Will that give us the reaction to the Woodward revelation? Can't remember offhand -- ain't that pitiful? Wouldn't bet on seeing $584K again though. Wouldn't be prudent. But I digress.

Anybody notice that he's paid a sum total of $347 (yes, that's three hundred forty-seven) for "Rent, communications, and utilities" in all this time? Now that strikes me as a little low, even if you don't bother with the gas, and from the oversight reports supplied by media, we know he called Joe Wilson at least once. Let's see what Note #4 has to say about rent/comms&utils:

This category primarily consists of charges for express transportation of small packages using commercial courier services.
Huh? Maybe somebody finally told him that him he didn't actually have to fill in every line, because he only tried that one once. After all, the GAO says:
The term expenditures as used in this report generally means cash disbursed.
And better yet:
The statement of expenditures includes only expenditures made from the permanent, indefinite appropriation for OSC-Fitzgerald that are processed through the Department of Justice.
What a relief! Calculating overhead is such a bitch. So is calculating how much those F.B.I. guys you're using really cost you, but never mind:
Such costs of detailees are not reflected in the statement of expenditures.
Are we having fun yet? Oh yes. There's more to be had but we'll leave it at Footnote #:
[3] We reviewed the legal authority for the Department of Justice to use the permanent indefinite appropriation to fund the expenditures relating to Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation and, in our opinion to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, concluded that such was not an illegal, improper, or unauthorized use of the appropriation. B-302582 (Sept. 30, 2004).
Did they really only get around to figuring that out after Fitz had been in business for a full 9 months? Say it ain't so! You'll be glad to know I'm off to check it out, or just checking out, or jussszzzzzzzzz zz z

Jane

Good Morning Bob,

I need an overview on what the NY Times said - what was the thrust of the article. Was it an op-ed or a news piece?

(Do they even do news anymore?)

Sara (Squiggler)

Did I sleep thru these announcements? This is hilarious:

From Wizbang the week that was:

Then Powell himself issued a statement through his attorney -- not even appearing in person -- saying that the former Secretary of State would have no comments on the matter while it was still pending before the courts.

Then Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, got hit with a legal one-two. First, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney hit him with defamation lawsuits, then the New York Times went after him for fraud. Legal experts say the Rove and Cheney suits will most likely be dismissed, but the Times one is on firmer ground -- they published Wilson's account of his trip to Africa on behalf of the CIA, and in it he flatly contradicted his official report -- and that was under oath. Sources within the Times say the real motivation for the suit isn't the embarassment for publishing it, but revenge for starting the whole mess that sent the Times' Judith Miller to jail for almost three months. Miller herself is looking into suing Patrick Fitzgerald over the whole thing, as he apparently knew the real source was Armitage long before she was called in to testify -- and was locked up for refusing to cooperate.

**wink**

Jane

A Miller suit would be delicious pitting the press against Fitzy, with all that involves. But I'm pretty sure there is some immunity issues involved with a prosecutor - altho maybe not with a gross abuse of power!

Jane

Sara,

Why havn't we heard about those defamation suits being filed?

Then Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, got hit with a legal one-two. First, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney hit him with defamation lawsuits, then the New York Times went after him for fraud.

Or have we and I just missed it?

I want to see the pleadings.

Sara (Squiggler)

Jane, go read the whole thing. It is a joke.

kate

I think we need to be realistic and admit that the Plame affair caused serious damage to the Bush Administration and, more importantly, the war effort.

The Administration decided to roll over and play dead and hope it worked out. Rove came very close to being indicted in this charade.

I sense that Bush is afraid of the media. His passive stance with these clowns has caused him about 20 points in his approval rating.

I suggest some boldness. Publicly announce the pardon of Libby next week. This will force the story to the front page and reveal the real narrativep-the collusion of Plame/Wilson; media; DNC in this nonsense.

Sure the left will scream, what else is new.

Jane

I sense that Bush is afraid of the media. His passive stance with these clowns has caused him about 20 points in his approval rating.

Kate

I never thought that Bush was afraid of the media so much as above it. He really seems to hate that whole Washington thing, and appears to have hoped that he could operate on a different level. And it has, as you say, hurt him badly.

The other problem is that he is not particularly articulate,which continues to hurt him.

Sara,

I actually did read it, and didn't get it. Perhaps I should go back to bed!

Jane

This is a pretty interesting outline of the democrats lies about Bush over the years:

http://www.theeveningbulletin.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17139588&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

lurker

OT!

Hyprocrisy, thy name is Democrat!

"Workers Of The World, Rise Up Against Your (Democratic) Oppressors!"

ANSWER spawned from Workers of the World!!

Sound familiar?

lurker

OT:

NGIC Report, 7 page of 34 page report declassified. Old news but worth!!!

lurker

OT:

BOOMING ECONOMY!!!

Extraneus

Italicious.

lurker

Jason Leopold still at it...

Lyin’ Joe Hits Bottom as Patterico claims...with Jason falling below Wilson.

Looks like the Wilsons, Scary Larry, and Fitz are in their final stages with most of us no longer listening to or believing them.


One DU comment received a funny response:

"From the DU comments:

If you hate Karl Rove, support Joe and Valerie.

closely followed by:

freepers are mindless sheep. i don’t understand their hatred of the truth.

You can’t make this stuff up."

lurker

If you want tax and social security reform, get your votes out!

kate

Jane, I remember an interview the President did with Brit Hume I believe right before the 2004 election. Brit asked some question about media coverage and Bush laughed nervously and said something like, "You don't expect me to pick a fight with the media."

Unfortunately, by avoiding this fight with the media he has allowed himself to look weak.

He is now a worldwide figure of derision and disrespect. He should use the latest developments in this case to:

-correct the record
-demonstrate to his enemies, both foreign and domestic,that there is a price to be paid for slandering and abusing him and his Administration.

Pardon Libby now!

lurker

Rick Moran agrees that WaPo delivered the coup de grace to the Wilson / Plame story.

"And that brings us to the end of the Wilson-Plame Affair and how the left is scrambling today to salvage the fragments of that scandal and try and reweave The Narrative to cover the gaping hole left by the total and complete discrediting of liar Wilson."

"The loss of the Wilson portion of The Narrative is a much more devastating a blow. Upon the Wilson house of cards was built the entire “Bush lied, people died” meme as well as much of the rationale for the anti-war movement in the first place. It’s like the old nursery rhyme “For want of a nail, the war was lost.”

If Wilson lied, the uranium story is true.
If the uranium story is true, Bush didn’t lie.
If Bush didn’t lie, Saddam was a threat.
If Saddam was a threat, following 9/11, he should be dealt with.
If we were going to deal with Saddam, we had to invade.

In addition to the anti-war part of The Narrative, the Wilson imbroglio also contributed mightily to the “Bush is dictator” portion of The Narrative. The fact that Karl Rove and others in the Administration told tales about Valerie Plame is now placed in an entirely different light not to mention Fitzgerald’s investigation being undercut substantially. What was going to be “Fitzmas” with White House officials being frog marched to jail willy nilly is now seen for what it always was; a witchunt carried out by an out of control federal prosecutor, egged on by partisans who hoped to use what Fitzgerald uncovered in an impeachment move against the President (and perhaps the Vice President as well). This is still a possibility but its success has become problematic.

The initial “reweaving” of The Narrative comes from Wilson himself. Here is a portion of a letter he had published today at Democratic Underground (no link to DU, please)

In short, they’re not giving up. It should be interesting over the next few days to see how the Plame story can continue without Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson as helpless victims.

What all of this amounts to is that the left has its work cut out for it. For nearly 5 years, The Narrative has proceeded relatively smoothly with the storytellers able to bat aside challenges to the fable rather easily. These are the first real cracks in the facade of lies, exaggerations, false allegations, witchunts, and sometime laughable sometimes serious attempts to undermine the credibility of the President of the United States during a time of war. It all adds up to politics trumping truth. And if these two events contribute in even a small way to undermining The Narrative, we may be at a turning point that could eventually reveal the perpetrators of this myth making as the cads and calumnious haters they truly are."

No, they're not giving up but will the world continue to listen to them...seriously? Fewer tomorrow than today as more and more simply laugh at them.

Jane

Unfortunately, by avoiding this fight with the media he has allowed himself to look weak.

You make a compelling case Kate. I hate to think of it in terms of a Bush weakness, but it is.

Patton

Can you imagine if the Republicans had claimed for three years that Bill Clinton had an affair with an intern in the oval office, wrote hundreds of stories and millions of words condemning the Presidents actions only TO FIND OUT IT WASN'T THE PRESIDENT, IT WAS ACTUALLY AN UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE THAT HAD THE AFFAIR.

Yeah, it's like that.....

Jane

It occurs to me that if you are a moonbat you fall into one of two categories - you either spend your time creating conspiracies to bring down a sitting president or you lap it up. Millions of people lapped up this conspiracy, and every single one of them got duped. The fraction who realize that should be angry as hell.

I wonder if we will see that kind of fall-out.

sad

***** Millions of people lapped up this conspiracy, and every single one of them got duped. The fraction who realize that should be angry as hell.*****

First they would have to believe they were duped and I just don't see that happening. The facts in front of them are just "proof" of an even bigger conspiracy.

kate

President Bush needs to get his confidence back, to take risks in dealing with his increasingly nasty and enboldened enemies.

I recall that the "bullhorn" moment began with Bush seeming a little awkward not feeling confident and ended with him connecting with the firefighters and rescuers at Ground Zero in a powerful way.

He needs to do that connection again but this time with the American people.

Verner

I think if I were Wells, the first witness I would call is Dick Armitage--as a MEMORY expert.

Wells: Mr. Armitage, you had extensive interviews, gave the prosecution your notes and even your wife's computer--yet still you forgot to tell Mr. Fitzgerald about a very important interview with Bob Woodward on June 12 during which you discussed Joe Wilson's wife and her role in sending Wilson to Niger. Is that correct?

Armitage: Yes

Wells: And even though you have acknowledged that you were the person who leaked "Wilson's wife" to Mr. Novak, not Mr. Libby, you were given a letter by Mr. Fitzgerald's office in Feb. 2005 stating that you were not a target of his investigation, and would not be indicted. Is that correct.

Armitage: Yes.

CASE FREAKING CLOSED.

If Armitage isn't charged with perjury, then why is Libby?

Bob

I've always thought that Fitz got himself "boxed in" by the very left wing Democrats. As I've said many times here, I think this was a pre-election ploy to derail Bush's re-election... that backfired!

If Kerry had won - God help us, it would have been all forgotten, but the fact that Bush won, gave it new legs... at least to the loony left nutroots. They made this one of their cornerstones to impeachment. It also helped with the Rove stole the election meme too. Bush correctly didn't fight it, since it would have given the left reason to believe there some truth to it. Ashcroft recused himself, once again to avoid the appearance of fixing the outcome. Giving it to Fitz, tossed the left a bone, and since the administration knew there was no "there" there, figured to just let it play out. The problem for Fitz was he was being set up for failure. Once he figured that out, he needed something or anything as red meat for the liberal moonbats. I think he was hoping for a plea from Libby, and then this would all go away. What he didn't count on was the Wilson's stupidity... this pretty much shut the door to Fitz quietly walking away with a small victory. His only hope now, if he wants to save any face, is to shut this down. But I don't think he has the moral courage to face the moonbats like Corn, etc.

I don't feel one bit sorry for Fitz, even if he owns up to his mistake. As for the left, I think like most of their dumb ass tactics, it's a pleasure to watch!

verner

At this point, Fitz is beyond hope. He's stuck in the briar patch.

Judge Reggie Walton is the one who needs to put an end to this. At the very least, there is overwhelming evidence for selective prosecution. Plus, Fitz made incorrect statements at the Oct. Press conference that he has NEVER corrected publicly. And his key witnesses against Libby have extreme credibility problems. Plus,his "selective" release of the VPOTUS memo indicates that he is on a political vendetta against the innocent and is abusing his position for political reasons.

Wells needs to get busy. Have we heard anything from him?

noah

I am pondering the "dog that didn't bark"...in this case, the missing Tony Snow show this week. Pondering how to respond to the inevitable questions about the Armitage revelations? The standard "not going to comment on an ongoing investigation" line, does not seem to work for either the WH or the press and most certainly not the public.

Todd Plamey

Maybe Halibuton replaced Fred Hiatt with one of those new high tech robots they developed using the money we gave them to but milk for the little children in Iraq!

sad

*****Since this week’s disclosures about Mr. Armitage’s role, Bush administration officials have argued that because the original leak came from a State Department official, it was clear there had been no concerted White House effort to disclose Ms. Wilson’s identity*****

This NYT story sources Bush administration officials. Do we know who these administration officials are and where they made the arguements as stated by the NYT?

sad

*********what are the chances of a conspiracy charge against Bush e al (since he authorized the leak). Somewhere I read that a conspiracy charge would be easier to prove. (I know nothing of the law so this is truly a question???) Isn't there some other law violated by the administration by "perpetuating" the information about plame, if in fact, it resulted in decreasing our knowledge of Iran's nuclear program?? Or do we believe at this point the rhetoric by the right that no damage was done?? Or did they take her out so that they could continue their plan to instigate a major war in the middle east? Is it possible that they needed to out her for several reasons? Is there any evidence that a conspiracy charge could be made that the pres et al conspired in such a way that weakened our national defense?? And therefore results in treason? Is there any chance of such a quest? Or is the best we can hope for (and sounds like unlikely and pardonable) that Libby goes to jail for perjury. Is that the best case we can make or is there some other avenue for Fitz to bring this conspiracy to it's knees??*******

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/09/im_not_surprise.html#more

These are the questions raised on the left by the new Plame revelations. They definitly see an even bigger conspiracy. TM will never convince them otherwise.

Thomas Morrissey

JM Hanes

Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said.

This is amazing, so we have at State at least Powell,probably Grossman,the in-house Counsel,plus these "officials" who knew Armitage was the leaker.

Putting politics and policy aside, the fact that they allowed fellow human beings like Libby and Rove get rung through the proverbial ringer is morally repulsive.

I have no love for my Senior Senator,a noted neer'-do-well and amateur sub-mariner,but if Ted Kennedy were charged with another crime, and I knew he didn't do it, I'd say something.

Verner

SAD:

Remember, Flat Tire has invested virtually her whole life in supporting Wilson's lies. It "is" her identity, and Joe even gave her a pat on the head. This is like finding out that your favorite uncle is a child molester. You defend him against all enemeis, say that the eight year olds are liars--only to be faced with overwhelming evidence that the bastard was guilty all along.

The really sick thing to me is that Joe and Valerie are still begging for money--for their "defense" fund that has not ONE OUNCE of accountability (no board, no supporting individuals, no contact number, anonymous IP address etc etc.) The dumb stumps are giving Val Armani money!!!

I wish I could say that I pity them, but at this point I am too hard hearted. They deserve all the scorn and ridicule that we can heap upon their heads. They have played a part in promoting this garbage, to the great harm of our nation in a time of war--and for NO DAMN REASON AT ALL. They are completely devoid of argument and reason, and can only win with lies. May they rot.

Sue

Man, I go on a little computerless vacation and return - tanned, rested, and ready

You left out the part you played in finding Armitage earlier than anyone. ::grin::

Verner

Fed Barns NAILS IT in the Weekly Standard:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/648ygtoe.asp

Verner

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/648ygtoe.asp

Verner

Dang it! Just go to the Weekly Standard web site and it should pop up.

the last part of the link is:

/648ygtoe.asp

after the /012

Sue

I think if I were Wells, the first witness I would call is Dick Armitage--as a MEMORY expert.

LOL.

Whadda ya want to bet witness lists are amended to include the name of Armitage, not as UGO, but as Richard Armitage. ::grin:: Judge can't deny it public record. Maybe his reasons for denying it didn't make sense at the time, to avoid public embarassment, which is no longer a reason. Armitage will be a witness.

sad

Sue

Do you think Armitage will hire a lawyer now? Or is he still too innocent to need one?

boris

Fed Barns nails it

clarice

The NYT story quotes DoS folks as saying Armitage kept silent because the prosecutor instructed him to, but Fitz was not appointed until some months after Armitage's disclosure to the DoJ and they certainly did not --could not--have instructed him not to tell the WH.

Another crock from the paper of record which stenographs and prints whatever the mandarinate sends them.

clarice

OT: The left has now sailed out of orbit, will it pull Planet D after them..NRO reports MoveOn will not support Hillary in her Senate race:

[quote]We wanted to let you know, MoveOn won't be making an endorsement in the U.S. Senate Democratic primary. In voting over the last day, neither Hillary Rodham Clinton nor Jonathan Tasini garnered the two-thirds support from MoveOn members necessary for an endorsement. The margin in our online vote was 56 percent for Clinton and 44 percent for Tasini.[/quote]

Another victory for the Rove Jehdi

Other Tom

TS9: Granted Fitz certainly should have known about Armitage's conversation with Woodward, but I suspect he simply negligently failed to discover it before his presser misstatement.

One thing that intrigues me is that we don't know the language of the CIA's referral, but I've seen some discussion here to the effect that it may well not have merely requested the identity of the leaker, but instead requested an investiagation into the question of a conspiracy to punish a "whistleblower." There is a great deal to suggest that that is the angle Fitz has been pursuing, and that Judge Walton understood the case that way early on. (The judge has now clearly re-shaped the issues to focus narrowly on the perjury issue.)

My hazy recollection is that a working definition of "conspiracy" is "an agreement to commit an ulawful act." If a bunch of guys got together and said, "let's let the press know that Plame was an undercover agent," that would qualify. However, if they said, "let's find out who sent this clown Wilson, and let's marshal the facts to rebut what he said," that is a conspiracy only behind the most fevered moonbat brows.

I'm with Kate: I think it would be a good move for Bush to come out right now and pardon Libby (better yet, direct the AG to dismiss the charges). That would create a firestorm, but why not? This one is a winner, and I think it would be a net benefit in the elections. As things stand, the GOP has very little left to lose--latest Fox poll shows a 16-point Dem lead in the generic poll. Like so many, I just wish the man would be more aggressive.

verner

Right Clarice. And if Armitage could tell Powell, then Powell could have told the President-- and should have, IMMEDIATELY.

As the brilliant Mr. Hitchens once said, Armitage is Powell's bitch, and obviously, so is the NYT.

Jane

Thanks Clarice,

OT, I can get behind the "pardon Libby now" movement, provided Bush also gives some voice to the vast left wing conspiracy that tried to unseat a legitimately elected president. The only thing I don't like about the idea is that it gets Fitzgerald off the hook. But it's worth it, all things considered.

kate

Hmmmm...just when I was beginning to think (not really) that I was too harsh with my criticism of Bush as weak there's a disconcerting post in the NRO Corner about our Commander in Weak deciding to back off the phrase "Islamic facists" so as not to defend.

Yes, I'm sure that's an effective strategy. I'd like to see some real strength shown here. I'd like to see an announcement pardoning Libby.

Sue

I know I read somewhere that Larry Wilkerson knew Valerie Plame...before the memo surfaced. I can't find where I might have read it, except by a commenter on Amazon reviewing Politics of Truth. I suspect they meant Larry Johnson not Larry Wilkerson by the context of the comment. Anyway, I guess I have to give up my original claim that Wilkerson knew Plame...but do I? She was in the process of transitioning from CIA to State in the Spring of '03. What does transitioning entail? Would she have had contact with Powell's CoS?

tp

I am not holding my breath, but I wonder when the NYT and WAPO will discover that Wilson was working for the Kerry campaign when he wrote the OP-ED. Why didn't they disclose this? What did they know and when did they know it?

topsecretk9

Posted by: Verner | September 02, 2006 at 07:29 AM

You got that one right.

owl

I sense that Bush is afraid of the media.

And well he should be. Take a good look at today's NYTs article and tell me if you can find a hole big enough to drive a truck through.....errors that scream.....and flat out and out lies. Almost everyone on this thread can do those three things to that one article. Soooooo.....is the NYTs really that misinformed?

No. Look at the (way up thread) discussion between Pincus and Kristoff....and Kristoff says he has it confirmed by 2 sources(has to be Val & Joe). None of these clowns could have produced this political firestorm without the other. The MEDIA is the major player and has been with every one of them.

I agree Bush has nada to lose. He needs to have Gonzales dismiss Fitz and reinstate Libby immediately. Anyone listening out there? You kept your mouth shut about Blanco/Landieu on Katrina and look where it got you.

Come out in front of cameras and DO IT. Time is NOT your friend.

Johann

What's there to pardon if Libby did not commit a crime? Good thing this call for a pardon will never materialize as President Bush will not have the courage to do it. What has the WH done about the NYT leaks about ongoing secret programs to fight terrorists? Nothing because an idiot president appointed another idiot for the AG post.

kate

On a personal level, a pardon will relieve Libby from the intense financial and emotional burden of being a subject of a criminal investigation. Bush's father did this for Caspar Weinburger in another politically motivated investigation.

On a political level:

-it will not allow the media to hide the real story on page A21;

-it will further discredit the media;

-it will give the administration an opportunity to revisit other media-inspired scandals

-if Fitzgerald overreacts, he will be revealed as the partisan hack I now fear he is.

Down side:

Some will scream "rule of law" rule of law"
comparisons to Watergate (already done)

clarice

The President can make the dismissal of the case and firing of Fitzgerald a big political plus if he plays it right.Let me venture a guess:Fitzgerald knows it and if he has any brains he'll act on this soon.If he doesn't I want first dibs on writing the President's speech--he can come out as a defender of justice agains a partisan lying press and his enemies.

clarice

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5819

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame