Powered by TypePad

« Bitter Recriminations (Ongoing) | Main | In Which We Usher Larry Johnson Into February 2007 »

February 21, 2007



Geesch, these people lack comprehension of the truth and facts.


I'd like to clarify one bit of terminology used. Scooter Libby did not 'leak' the NIE findings. He was authorized to talk about them by proper authorities. You can only leak things that aren't supposed to get out.

Cecil Turner

One possible interpretation - leaking the secretly declassified NIE to Judy Miller was what made the meeting important. Just a thought.

Never one to quibble (hah!), but while I'd say you were on firm ground with the interpretation, I'd take issue with the verbiage. First, per American Heritage:

leak . . .
verb, transitive . . .
2. Informal. To disclose without authorization or official sanction: leaked classified information to a reporter.
As there is now no dispute over whether Libby's disclosure to Miller was authorized, "leak" is inapt. Also, it was no secret the declassification process had been ongoing since the previous month. (Besides, "secretly declassified" is oxymoronic.) Say rather:
Previewed the upcoming release of the recently declassified portions of the NIE to Judy Miller.
There, I feel better now.


Another documentation of either incompetance or deliberate misdirection.

Its endless with the NYT and its obvious they are at war with the rubes and bubbas.

bio mom

You should have heard the NY Daily News reporter on c-span today to see biased coverage of the summations of the trial. Every media meme about Wilson and Plame, outing a covert agent, Dick Cheney, et al was trotted out by this supposedly objective reporter. Really vomit-inducing. Also, check out the Reuters blurb posted on NRO's media blog. Don't you know, Libby is guilty until proven innocent!! There must have been a constitutional ammendment that I missed about this.


bio mom, I caught a few minutes of that as well. Really vomit inducing, as you say.


But they ain't biased. It's just that the rest of the country is sooooooo far right.

JM Hanes


This bit in the Rutenberg excerpt seems to be virtually screaming for air!

Mr. Libby said he found a way around that resistance by getting backdoor approval from the president.

I'll have to check the gj testimony, because Rutenberg seems to be the only one who has ever suggested that the idea of declassifying the NIE originated with Libby. Everyone else has Libby checking with Addington because he was worried the VP might be asking him to do something wrong.

This version makes so much more sense! The OVP was not happy with Tenet's proposed public statement (or Tenet's CIA). If Libby (whether on his own or with Cheney) comes up with the declassifying scheme in order to make an end run around Tenet altogether, it's entirely logical that Libby would not only start by checking out the legalities with Addington but also tell Addington to keep his voice down. They certainly wouldn't want to advertise the fact that they're going to try cutting Tenet off at the knees.


C'mon, TM, don't be so obtuse. If Libby took two hours for a lunch, it could only have been to report the amazing fact that Joe Wilson married two different women who double-ovulated and conceived fraternal twins using his sperm. Why, this is like winning the lotto twice! What're the odds?!?! Of course the two hours proves how important Mrs. Wilson was to Libby. (Actually, that would be Mrs. Wilsons plural.)

(Do I get a job being a Times reporter now?)

(Please, somebody find a link to the 60s or 70s era New Yorker cartoon which shows two fellows standing in front of a blackboard. On the left side of the board is dense mass of mathematical equations. Then the words "leap of faith" followed by another mass of dense equations. The caption is a drool, "Tell me a little more about this step here..." Oh, well, I suppose there is nobody at the NYT smart enough to appreciate the insult...)


Talk about a freudian slip... I suppose if one intends to write "droll" and instead writes "drool" it just proves that one is not droll...

JM Hanes

Shoot, am I the only one who thinks Rutenberg's formulation here seems to break a significant piece of new ground?

JM Hanes

I guess so.

The comments to this entry are closed.