One might have hoped that, two weeks into the Libby trial, the basic facts of the case would be clear to the reporters and editors at the Washington Post.
One would be wrong.
Here is an utter howler from their Sunday effort:
Plame's employment at the CIA was classified, making it illegal for any official to knowingly and intentionally disclose it. Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's 22-month investigation did not produce charges of that offense.
Special Counsel Fitzgerald has asserted that Ms. Plame's status was classified and we have no cause to doubt him. However, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act requires more than that - my goodness, was it two years ago that Victoria Toensing and Bruce Sanford addressed these specifics on the very pages of the Washington Post? Briefly, in addition to having classified status a "covert" agent must have served outside the United States within the previous five years; the US must be taking active steps to conceal the agent's identity; and the discloser must be aware of the agent's status.
This is all quite relevant to the trial - Libby, a lawyer, had received from Addington (Chief Counsel to the Office of the Vice President) a copy of the IIPA, so he was in a good position to judge his legal vulnerability, or lack thereof. Of course, that cuts both ways - maybe it was clear to Libby that he had no legal problems and simply testified without any particular preparation. Or maybe Libby realized he had a serious problem and invented his "I Forgot" story. However, there is no evidence that anyone had apprised Libby's of Plame's status.
PILING ON: I want to come back to this from the WaPo:
Over the course of that week in July, bracketed by Wilson's published criticism and Cheney's flight back from Norfolk, three senior White House officials -- Libby, Fleischer and special presidential assistant Karl Rove -- inaccurately told or suggested to five reporters that Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Plame, according to the testimony. Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage separately told columnist Robert D. Novak that Plame worked at the CIA, and Novak made that news public July 14.
I think Grenier of the CIA said something different; Ms. Plame was, per the Sentate Intel report, instrumental in sending him on a 1999 trip to Niger for the CIA, which put him on the CIA radar.
And what point do we simply acknowledge that they can't ALL be that stupid and are deliberately lying?
Posted by: richard mcenroe | February 04, 2007 at 04:06 PM
I'll acknowledge that,richard.
Now it may be true that at some point Fitz said she was "classified" nevertheless now that we are in the put up or shut up stage, he has said whether she was or was not is irrelevant and therefore he will introduce no evidence of that.Therefore, it is time for the press to stop pimping that line.
Shall we try this sort of thing with the WaPo: For example the special prosecutor asserts that the paper is an unregistered agent for Hezbollah and then when the feds bring criminal charges against them for lying to investigators on some parking tickets, see what they do when the prosecutor says whether they were or weren't an unregistered agent is irrelevant and no evidence will be put on to establish that.
Will the paper say okay and not protest any continued reporting re a connection with Hezbollah?
Will the rest of the media keep reporting forever after that the paper was an unregistered lobbyist for Hezbollah?
Or will the Post and the rest of the media clarify that that issue was never charged or part of the case and say to those who keep misreporting that charge,"Have you no shame?"
Posted by: clarice | February 04, 2007 at 04:19 PM
I'm at the apple store, so I had to say something 'cause of ISPs and stuff.
I thought the protection was for five years too, after serving overseas during the previous five years as well as the ban on congressional committees if a Congressman is served under the five year (informant, not necessarilyh agent) law.
For example, if PC people in Fiji were to be approached by US government agents during this coup time, they might be covered under the five year informant/agent law and get a congressman banned from the committees after s/he is served if something goes, like , you know, worng when they get home, like there supposed to be or somethin.'
Posted by: Family Plan | February 04, 2007 at 04:30 PM
In two media examples from this weekend, I believe the Fox News Watch crowd were genuinely ignorant of the case. Thus, leftist Gabler was able to frame it in "White House smears critic" terms without any rebuttal from the bored other panelists.
OTOH, the WAPO knows the full and true story and is being purposely deceptive. They have a preferred narrative and they will ignore players, details and facts that interfere with that narrative.
Posted by: kate | February 04, 2007 at 05:05 PM
sounds like these writers get their info from Jeff
Posted by: windansea | February 04, 2007 at 05:06 PM
If I had to guess? More Americans "know" about plame being a blonde non-entity, with a great job. Under covers? Why not? But also know that Aldrich Ames "outted" her to the Russians. So russian men knew to keep their mouths shut, even if their pants were wrapped around their ankles.
One doesn't drive into LANGLEY expecting "covert" or classified status.
But ya know? More obvious to me, is the fact that the media is having a TWO PRONG war! One is against good coverage out of Iraq. Or, actually, anything out of the Mideast. Since "The Green Helmet man's" exposure.
Since it's obvious subscription rates are down. And, advertisers can find themselves on a "list" as they do up at AJ's Strata-Sphere.
Why not assume that this war is UGLY. And, that it contains PARTISANS.
And, for all we know? Bush is a genius! Because you couldn't plot a better way to "thin" an army's line, than to make them "defend" two fronts.
Libby also has been getting money from donors. Or as Mona Charen's ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL ARTICLE! That I caught up at Free Republic, statess. "She didn't know her husband worked for Libby's attorney's company. Until she went to donate money to Libby's fund."
I also think that Clarice is on the "bloggers" list, because, so far? The left doesn't dare totally eliminate blogs from the right as actually being seen. Though, I'd guess? THEY ARE SEETHING. (Which means they have much in common with the arab street.)
But ours?
Good luck to Theodore Wells, tomorrow. And, may Fitzerald go burn in hell.
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 04, 2007 at 05:15 PM
Mike Isikoff made a fool of himself on Reliable Sources this morning. For example:
ISIKOFF: Yes, to get out their side of the story. But, you know, the bombshell testimony this week was the FBI agent who says Libby told her in his
first interview or second interview that he may well have discussed -- had a discussion with Cheney about whether to disclose to the press Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA. That puts Cheney right in the middle of this, far more than we ever knew before, and it's going to make for interesting testimony if Cheney, as we expect, takes the stand.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | February 04, 2007 at 05:20 PM
Tom:
Please link to one of your commenter, DonS's, superb fisking of the WaPo Article your post features.
It is found here:
http://dislogue.dansch.net/archives/000171.html
Posted by: vnjagvet | February 04, 2007 at 05:21 PM
TM,
I didn't go into the multiple points required for IIPA, but pointed out that CIA person (Hadley?) who testified said he never told anyoen to whom he mentioned Plame that she was classified. Since IIPA requires all tests to be passed, you only have to fail one, right? So there's no foul based on that alone. Libby, assuming he read what Addington handed him, would know that.
And, yeah, it really POs me that the media continues blithely asserting her status was classified considering the clear on-the-record statements by Judge Walton on Fitzgerald.
Posted by: Dan S | February 04, 2007 at 05:37 PM
POWERLINE once had this up. It's a SPOOF. But it shows why ORDINARY AMERICANS would prefer JUDGE JUDY over most judges. Sure, it's long. But it's also obvious spoofing the evidence against our President, didn't change the press' ways. (Even though this "incident" probably led to Bush gaining votes in 2004. Without losing any.)
January 17, 2005
Judge Judy: Rather and Mapes
(Announcer as Mapes and Rather walk into courtroom)
"Ex-television producer Mary Mapes is suing her former boss, popular TV news anchor Dan Rather, for causing her to be fired from her job after she allegedly provided him with false documents that were used in a news story about President Bush. Dan says Mary knew the documents were phonies but never told him. He's counter-suing for defamation of character."
Judge Judy
Miss Mapes, until recently you worked for the defendant as a television producer for a news show. According to your complaint, you came into possession of some documents that were used as part of a news story for which the defendant was the reporter. Evidently there was some doubt as to the authenticity of these documents, and as a result you were fired from your job. You say that the defendant was every bit as responsible as you, but ultimately you were held responsible and he got off scot-free. You're suing for lost wages and infliction of emotional distress.
Mapes
Yes, your honor.
Judge Judy
The defendant says that he was simply reporting a story using documents that you said were authentic, that he had no idea there were any doubts about them, and that he basically showed up and read a script that had been written for him. He says that if anyone should have been fired it was you. Is that basically correct, sir?
Rather
Your honor, in all my years as a journalist...
Judge Judy
Just answer my question sir - is that basically correct?
Rather
Yes, yes it is.
Judge Judy
Good. Now, Miss Mapes, tell me about these documents.
Mapes
Well, your honor, I had been working on this story for about five years, and I...
Judge Judy
Five years? Why in the world would it take you five years to work on a news story?
Mapes
Well, this wasn't really a news story, it was more like a piece of investigative journalism.
Judge Judy
I don't care if you were building a skyscraper, how could it take you five years?
Mapes
Well, I have to follow up on leads, develop sources...
Judge Judy
Speak English, madame! Just tell me about these documents. Where did you get them?
Mapes
Well, these were some memos that appeared to be very damaging to the President...
Judge Judy
WHERE DID YOU GET THEM?
Mapes
Oh, sorry. I received the memos from a source that...
Judge Judy
I asked you to speak English. What is a "source?"
Mapes
It's someone who provides you with information, either on the record or off...
Judge Judy
You mean it's a person.
Mapes
Yes.
Judge Judy
Then say person! Who gave them to you?
Burkett
I did, your honor.
Judge Judy
What is your name, sir?
Burkett
Bill Burkett.
Judge Judy
Step up. Now, tell me, sir, where you got these memos?
Burkett
I came into possession of these particular documents after I was contacted by a woman by the name of Lucy Ramirez.
Judge Judy
And how do you know this Lucy Ramirez?
Burkett
I don't know her, your honor.
Judge Judy
What do you mean you don't know her?
Burkett
Ms. Ramirez telephoned me one day to tell me that she had some documents about President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service that could be very damaging to him.
Judge Judy
Don't tell me what she said to you, that's hearsay. Did you make arrangements to obtain these documents?
Burkett
Yes, I arranged to meet Ms. Ramirez at a livestock show in Houston.
Judge Judy
And on what date did you meet her?
Burkett
I didn't meet her, your honor. While I was at the livestock show, I was approached by a man who asked if I was Bill Burkett. I said I was, and he handed me an envelope...
Judge Judy
Don't tell me what he said to you, that's hearsay.
Burkett
Actually, he didn't say anything to me after that, he just handed me the envelope and walked away.
Judge Judy
He just handed you an envelope and walked away without saying a word?
Burkett
Yes, he disappeared into the crowd.
Judge Judy
What are you, a secret agent? Mr. Burkett, do I look like a fool to you?
Burkett
No, your honor.
Judge Judy
Because what you've just told me has got to be one of the biggest cock-and-bull stories I've ever heard. Why would someone who you'd never met just call you out of thin air and offer to give you documents that might be damaging to the President of the United States?
Burkett
Well, I was in the Guard...
Judge Judy
OK, now we're getting somewhere! So you had first-hand knowledge of what occurred because you were in the National Guard with the President?
Burkett
No, your honor. Actually, I was in the Army National Guard, Mr. Bush was in the Air National Guard.
Judge Judy
Mr. Burkett, are you taking any medication??
Burkett
Yes, your honor, right now I'm taking an anti-convulsive, two anti-depressants, and...
Judge Judy
Sit down! Miss Mapes, are you telling me that you worked on this story for five years, and all you could come up with is some memos that some mystery man--who may or may not have been sent by this Lucy Ramirez--gave to James Bond here at a livestock show?
Mapes
Well, yes, your honor, but you should remember...
Judge Judy
And someone actually paid you to do this?
Mapes
Well, the underlying facts of the story have never...
Judge Judy
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the behind! Now, Mr. Rather, I want you to tell me what you knew about these memos and when you knew it.
Rather
Well, your honor...
Judge Judy
Look at me when you're testifying, sir. Stop looking into the camera.
Rather
My apologies, force of habit. Your honor, I always say If you try to read the tea leaves before the cup is done you can get yourself burned. Now this whole dust-up has caused quite a bit of consternation for quite a few people, and I wish it had never happened, but then again, if a frog had side pockets he'd probably wear a handgun.
Judge Judy
Mr. Rather, are you taking any medication?
Rather
No, ma'am.
Judge Judy
Then get to the point! Now, please answer my question.
Rather
My pleasure, your honor. To tell you the truth, if I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone ahead with the story as aired.
Judge Judy
What do you mean "as aired?" What evidence did you have besides these memos?
Rather
None, your honor, but I have it on very good authority that the allegations set forth in the memos are true, regardless of whether or not the memos themselves are authentic.
Judge Judy
Do you know how foolish you sound, Mr. Rather? That's like me saying that I have reason to believe that I'm twenty-three, regardless of the date on my birth certificate.
Rather
Well, Judge Judy, if you'll just hear my witness, I think you'll see what I mean.
Judge Judy
All right, step up. What's your name, ma'am?
Knox
My name is Marion Knox. I was the secretary of Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian, who is the alleged author of the memos in question. I used to type all of his memos.
Judge Judy
So you're telling me that these memos did come from this Lieutenant Colonel Killian?
Knox
No, your honor. I didn't type them, but I believe that the information in them is correct.
Judge Judy
So you think that someone else typed them for the Colonel?
Knox
Oh, no, your honor. In fact, those memos contains terms that are specific to the army, not the air force. The formatting is also all wrong, and the signatures don't look anything like the Colonel's.
Judge Judy
This is your witness, Mr. Rather?
Rather
Yes, your honor. In fact, I interviewed Ms. Knox on national television.
Judge Judy
For what purpose?
Rather
To prove that the memos were authentic.
Judge Judy
Are you listening, sir?? She just testified under oath that they're fake!
Rather
Yes, but she also told me that she believes that these are memos that Colonel Killian might have written if he had the opportunity, because he basically agreed with the sentiment that was expressed in them. If you'll just keep asking her questions, the story starts to sound much more believable - you just have to phrase the questions correctly.
Judge Judy
Mr. Rather, you're giving me a lot of 'who-shot-John!' Did you know Ms. Mapes got these memos from Mr. Burkett, and were you aware of the rather bizarre circumstances under which he obtained them?
Rather
No, your honor. I only found out about Mr. Burkett much later, and I have never met him or spoken to him.
Mapes
He said on national television that the memos came from an unimpeachable source!
Judge Judy
Is this true? Did you say that?
Rather
I did, your honor...
Judge Judy
Why would you say that if you'd never met him?
Rather
Well, I was trying to assure our viewers that, uh, that is, uh, we were trying to get to the bottom of this whole thing...
Judge Judy
It sounds more like you were trying to cover your tracks. In my opinion, a five-year-old child would have demonstrated more common sense than the two of you did in this matter.
Ms. Mapes - I don't know how you could do such shoddy work and expect to keep your job, but I certainly would have given you your walking papers if you worked for me. Your case is dismissed.
Mr. Rather, having heard your testimony, not to mention that of your witness, I'm convinced that you not only knew that the documents in question were fishy, to say the least, but it appears that you were trying to cover up that fact. I don't know why you weren't fired, but if I were you, I'd update my resume. Your counterclaim is dismissed. Now if you'll both excuse me, I have a splitting headache - step out!
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 04, 2007 at 05:43 PM
Kate said: ***In two media examples from this weekend, I believe the Fox News Watch crowd were genuinely ignorant of the case. Thus, leftist Gabler was able to frame it in "White House smears critic" terms without any rebuttal from the bored other panelists.***
This reminds me of many years ago, flipping through TV channels, I saw some of a Charlie Rose interview of Johnnie Cochran. I'd been following the Simpson double murder case and knew a lot about it.
Rose, however, knew virtually nothing and told Cochran he hadn't been following it. That was all Cochran needed to hear, as he spun and lied merrily along with no fear whatsoever of being contradicted. Rose mostly gave us his serious head-nodding, which is supposed to show viewers that he has beaucoup de intellect.
Point being, ill-prepared panelists and hosts do everyone a disservice. If they don't know about something, they shouldn't pretend like they can offer intelligent commentary.
Posted by: PaulL | February 04, 2007 at 05:45 PM
Perhaps Judge Walton will read this article and see what Fitz's games with newspaper articles and classified 'state of mind' testimony is doing to the case.
Posted by: MayBee | February 04, 2007 at 05:52 PM
The media is at war! They're gunning PARTISANS. And, they're angry! Because we didn't vote Kerry IN, for one thing. And, we tend to ignore their mast heads. They no longer get the respect that was once accorded to Walter Cronkite.
Yes, we live in dangerous times!
But,given that this playbook was used before, to take out Nixon, at least Bush didn't fall into "this" trap.
It's also possible, given the nature of the conflict, that Bush saw it as a good tactic to let the bozos just "run with their ball."
Because they've yet to sock anything out of the park. And, the clock keeps ticking. By the time we run into 2009, Bush may actually be MISSED.
It's similar to some of the mistakes made by Hollywood elites, when they curtailed Ronald Reagan's acting career (thinking it would be more than likely Jimmy Stewart had a better shot at becoming President?) And, they failed to capitalize on his skills, in da' movies. Their failure? Probably in the realm of PRICELESS. Considering how much the old Disney flicks are worth to that company, today.
FATE will take care of things in her own good time.
So far? Bush is aware that Libby is taking heat. He is also aware the the "run" the press gave to the Green Helmet Man, ended up looking like a car wreck.
These days when people slow down in traffic? Perhaps, they're just stopping to see what's on the pavement?
While t'marra? Judge Walton won't achieve success, like JUDGE JUDY. Maybe, we'll just have to wait for the parody?
Besides. Even if the jurors show up on time; what about the delays, while they wait on the hard benches in the hallway?
Will we know more about David Sanger's attempts to quash his subpeona? What would he know about Judity Miller? Yeah. We're talking about the New Yuk Times.
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 04, 2007 at 05:56 PM
And, speaking of making a fool of yourself on a Sunday talk show, how about Jim Webb on FNS? See how close together these two statements come:
'China was playing inside Vietnam when I was in Vietnam. ....The Chinese situation is a direct parallel to the situation we have with Iran right now.'
and:
'You have the people who are opposed to the Iraq war saying this is just another Vietnam. .... trying to draw direct parallels, and there are no direct parallels.'
The interview ended with this:
---------quote----------
WALLACE: Finally — and we've got less than a minute left — you have a reputation, and it has only strengthened since you were elected, as being — forgive me — combative.
You had that icy exchange with the president when he asked about your son who is serving in Iraq. During the Democratic response, you said if the president doesn't act, we will be showing him the way. Are you combative?
WEBB: I fight for what I believe in. I'm not ashamed of that. But I think that, you know, if people look at me, I've had eight years in government before now. And I know how to work with leadership. I know how to cooperate.
And I think Peggy Noonan said it right about this White House exchange, which has been vastly overblown, and that is we need more courtesy in government. And in that particular situation, I don't think the lack of courtesy was mine.
-----------endquote---------
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | February 04, 2007 at 05:59 PM
Well, now that I've learned that WaPo is an un-registered agent for a foreign terrorist orginization (Hezbollah), I finally understand the tangent that they have taken. See, once you learn the facts, the analysis of the situation becomes very simple.
Posted by: Drew | February 04, 2007 at 06:03 PM
It probably wasn't mentioned but Webbs poll numbers are in the toilet in Virginia.
He has lower poll numbers then any Senator in the past 10 years, including George Allen.
Buyers remorse.
Posted by: Patton | February 04, 2007 at 06:11 PM
Drew--Glad you got it.
Posted by: clarice | February 04, 2007 at 06:24 PM
So this is where the geeks are spending Super Bowl Sunday. I'm taking the liberty of cross posting a (now revised) comment from a previous thread (which is currently being closed out by Patton's pet ghoul):
Curiouser and curiouser. Here's what Eckenrode had to say in Jason Leopold's March 28, 2006 article :
I should hasten to point out that the article cited above was brought to the table by none other than... Sue of course.
As usual, Clarice was already on the trail last year, as well. In retrospect, one can only wonder how the lead investigator could appear to have been so off base, so soon after his own departure. Maybe he's not testifying because Fitz ended up dumping (having to dump?) any Rove/Hadley charges?
Surely leaking from even a retired investigator about an active case have got to be out of line. Could the Defense have conceivably managed to question Eckenrode about the Leopold article & put the Prosecution itself on trial a la OJ? What would it look like, for example, if it turned out that Eckenrode were a source for articles that Fitz is trying to enter into evidence as to Libby's "state of mind"?
I do think there's a story behind the fact that Bond, not Eckenrode, is testifying when E was still widely expected to do so, even post-retirement.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 04, 2007 at 06:27 PM
Patton, really?
That's great news! Have the "buyer's remorse" learned the truth about the MSM reporting by now?
Posted by: lurker | February 04, 2007 at 06:28 PM
The WaPo has taken over the job of goebbels, or Pravda, in the old Soviet Union, that is, spouting anti-American dissinformation. I thought they might calm down after the Nov elections, guess I was wrong.
Know what the top three things used by Tokyo Rose was to disspirit out troops?
1) The President lied to you to get you to go to war.
2) The war is all for Corporate Profits
3) You are losing, you cannot win.
Sound Familiar?
You don't have to just apply it to the war.
Compare it to the DNC talking points and see how it applies to Conservatives.
It's disgusting, really, when enemy propaganda techniques masquerade as political discourse, and our MSM just blissfully goes along.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 04, 2007 at 06:35 PM
Also, better watch out, or Fitz will be trying to enter this WaPo "article" as evidence.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 04, 2007 at 06:38 PM
ofarmer, Tokyo Rose(S), because there was more than one dame using that moniker at the microphone, actually debased the navy's wives at home. Telling the men their wives were screwing around.
That's why, when she came on, the men gathered together. Together, they laughed. And, Tokyo Rose(S), were thought of as a joke.
After the war? One gal, whose parents had come, here, to raise her in the states, before she went home, was the ONE who went on trial. And, spent time in prison, for her "yuks."
Sometimes, I'm more surprised by those who think the media would switch horses; when they're the front line troops in getting America's spirit to collapse.
You think hillary wants to get elected by the general public? This gal is hated so outright that the likelihood she runs is a marketeering MYTH. Unless, of course, through the "Chinese water torture test; the people just fade away. And, run.
And, it IS a "two-pronged" attack as well. Not just against Libby. Or patriots who come to DC to work for the government, by accepting Executive appointments to the cabinet. This one is so sinister, it's also against the troops. In order to LOWER the number of volunteers!
Yes, our left hates the army. Hates everyone who won't spout their lines. Which includes the majority of people. But in some sense we're very lucky! Because those who take the oath to defend this nation, do so by joining our military. And, the left has made NO INROADS.
They also seem shy on talent. Kids, today, in school? Even though they get the full frontal assault of how their education is skewed; for the most part don't participate with their professors. (Okay. In the 1960's, the professors ALSO had the same problem! The kids were wild enough to spout "DON'T TRUST ANYONE OVER 30." And, many in the media? Were young, then, too.
Maybe, it was the parody I read of JUDGE JUDY. But in going through how "she cut to the chase" and tossed out all false information; I realized just HOW HUNGRY AMERICANS ARE FOR THE "REAL TRUTH." For, finally, someone standing up and pointing out "that the emperor is naked."
And, all of this is going on, AFTER the soviets collapsed.
I also take heart from the Internet. I know full well MOST PEOPLE READ AND DO NOT ADD A COMMENT. (Just like in classrooms. More kids don't ask questions. Than those that do.) But the curiosity is there!
The curiosity is ALIVE AND WELL. I'd bet there hasn't been a drop off in how many people come by to the blogs, looking for information. They're certainly not taking it from the editorial pages of newspapers! Let alone "pumpkin head and Tweety."
Heck, when you read that Mary Matilan (sp?) had written a note to Libby, including the phrase "Wilson is a snake," outside of the fake press outrage ... did you think she had also said so to her husband? And, he fell out of bed, laughing?
People know more about Wilson than you can imagine. Including that his 2nd wife, is french. And, works for french intelligence. If this wasn't true? How come the label, Amb. Munchausen still sticks?
And, how about the fact that lots of Americans know what the reference to "Munchausen" means?
You're not getting that from the press!
Yes. Bush has let them run with this ball!
I'll also mention that when Lincoln was running for president in 1860, he DID NOT CAMPAIGN! He didn't want the press to hang him with the albatross that his campaign was "all about the slave issue."
So, he stayed in his house. In Illinois. And, he convinced Henry Seward (who had been the front runner to the GOP nomination. But couldn't quite get over the top on the first ballot. Lost more adherents on the 2nd ballot to Lincoln. And, Lincoln closed on the nomination on the 3rd ballot.)
A credit to Lincoln's skills that he reached out to his oponents. And, in particular, he asked Seward to campaign FOR him. That way the press couldn't put words in Lincoln's mouth. (Though the press called him an ape. And, ignorant. A man who didn't even know English grammar. And, spent so little time in school.)
We've been on a very long learning curve that the press lies.
While it seems this battle remains on the 50 yard line. A lot of Americans no longer think "they're informed" when they listen to the Dan Rather types. And, his hair was always better than Russert's! (While Mandy Grunwald? Nah. She's not amused.)
It just may prove impossible to roll hillary's hips into the winner's circle.
That's among the reasons Bush, who understands politics, knows enough about how the press destorts things ... that "just letting them run with the ball" will guarantee they'll run out of room. Or out of the building. Long before they score!
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 04, 2007 at 07:15 PM
Carol, that is a quick relapse into online Tourette's isn't it?
Posted by: clarice | February 04, 2007 at 07:18 PM
Clarice,
In your post of the 6/12 Libby scribble note, what is the significance of the Y with a line over it. It must be some type of shorthand or something I am not familiar with.
Also, can you read the comment after 4)....expressed strong interest in ???
Posted by: sammy small | February 04, 2007 at 07:29 PM
Sammy small- that is Libby's shorthand for Vice President.
Posted by: MayBee | February 04, 2007 at 07:38 PM
Patton -- I'm kinda sorry to hear that. It usually takes several terms in Congress to season a new Jack Murtha...
Posted by: richard mcenroe | February 04, 2007 at 07:41 PM
sammy on the prior thread I reposted akk the relevant summary of Bond's direct and cross and she says how Libby explained each abbreviation in that note.
Posted by: clarice | February 04, 2007 at 07:41 PM
Patton -- I'm kinda sorry to hear that. It usually takes several terms in Congress to season a new Jack Murtha...
Posted by: richard mcenroe | February 04, 2007 at 07:43 PM
TM- Not a huge point, but you missed the factual inaccuracy of Matalin's position.
Of course it could be argued that "then" actually refers to another point in time altogether.
Posted by: MayBee | February 04, 2007 at 07:45 PM
Good point, Maybee. I forgot to mention that one too.
Posted by: Dan S | February 04, 2007 at 07:49 PM
I'm not sure this question has been raised on the current thread, but it was in the previous one, so I'd like to address it here. Should Libby testify? YES, YES, YES!
The lawyers among you might question my judgment -- but the laymen won't. Unless the Russert cross gives the defense a 'slam dunk', it's absolutely necessary.
Libby needs to look the jurors straight in the eye and say, "I am being framed."
In a high-profile case, with a high-profile person being accused, it's essential. Had Martha Stewart not gotten such execrable legal advice, she could have said, "I'm on top of the world. Do you honestly believe $55K means that much to somebody worth billions?" And they would have had a harder time disbelieving. Also.....juries feel 'dissed' when high-profile people don't testify.
I get a little nervous about saying this when some of you contend that Libby is weird and won't come across well. But I console myself with the thought that Vice President Cheney is super-smart. What are the odds his COS wasn't the same?
Deborah Bond thinks she's a slick chick. I disagree. I think her lapses will be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Posted by: highcotton | February 04, 2007 at 08:02 PM
Highcotton
--Also.....juries feel 'dissed' when high-profile people don't testify.--
I agree and I think his so-called quirkiness will be a plus too.
--Deborah Bond thinks she's a slick chick. I disagree. I think her lapses will be the straw that broke the camel's back.--
Says something when the smartest person in the room uses the cocky rookie vs. the seasoned LEAD prosecutor huh?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 04, 2007 at 08:11 PM
make that...
vs. the seasoned LEAD "investigator" huh?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 04, 2007 at 08:12 PM
Wilson hijacked the press as easily as if the NY Times left the keys in the ignition and Time Magazine left the engine running.
Posted by: sbw | February 04, 2007 at 08:27 PM
Libby's testifying should probably depend on how Wells reads Walton. But, like High Cotton, Martha Stewart killed herself with her awful pick of an attorney. (Shows ya, just because a man is in your country club, doesn't mean he knows diddley about presenting cases to juries.) But she was wise enough "to pick her wallet off the table."
As to Deborah Bond, I read among the comments that the FBI "DOUBLE TAGS." One agent is "so busy" taking notes, that another agent sits there and "WATCHES BODY LANGUAGE." Eikenbode was the one who takes the notes in November, the 3rd time the FIB continues to "question" Libby. But what we don't know? Was Eikenbode IN THE ROOM on the TWO OCCASIONS Deborah Bond "took notes." Or wrote down "almost" what she heard?
Were Deborah Bond's notes "REVIEWED" when she went to type them up? Did she do a straight transcription? Or was she plugging away with re-writes. To get her "memories" to jibe with someone else's, who was in the room for FIB, but not taking notes?
While if Monday is anything like last Thursday, even if the jurors all arrive to the courtroom on time; doesn't mean "someone won't need time off for a dental appointment." Or they'll have to sit in the lobby as they wait for the "judge to go through motions."
What if you just can't go from a BIG CASE "to show state of mind," to what Libby was HANDED, when the judge said his courtroom would only be for "SMALL." As in only the small case was going forward?
Is the trick for Walton to "bullet proof" his decisions, so the "record," for what it's worth becomes hard to appeal?
If this were surgery? The patient is dead on the table, by now. But the surgeons are working, hard. To close. So they can say "the surgery was successful." To bad the patient won't be alive to hear it, though.
You don't need Tourettes to know the swamp muck is rising.
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 04, 2007 at 08:27 PM
Okay legal experts here . . .
What are the chances of the Defense team being able to or needing to introduce info about Eckenrode (did I spell that right) leaking to left wing blogs?
About the WaPo, etc: That the media lies is not a new phenomenon - but there is something scary about how transparent they are becoming in doing so (or, perhaps, that is deperatation).
Posted by: centralcal | February 04, 2007 at 08:28 PM
oops - too many super bowl cocktails -
"desperation"
Posted by: centralcal | February 04, 2007 at 08:29 PM
Dan S- you really did a great job with your blog about the article Tom has posted about:
http://dislogue.dansch.net/archives/000171.html>Dan's take on the WaPo, for those that have missed it.
Posted by: MayBee | February 04, 2007 at 08:35 PM
He wrote the 302 summary of the 2d Libby interview, if Debra Bond's testimony lays a foundation for his testimony I don't see why the defense cannot call him.It would then seem relevant.
Posted by: clarice | February 04, 2007 at 08:36 PM
Thanks Maybee. The blog itself is in a bit of disarray. No working comments, suspect trackbacks down too. The comment and trackback spam sorta drove me away a couple of years ago. Maybe I'll just leave them off and use it to hold longer stuff like that from time to time.
Oh, should link back to here too from the post itself. I have it in the blogroll, but keep forgetting to tack something into the update.
Posted by: Dan S | February 04, 2007 at 08:49 PM
Hear, Hear, Dan S! on your blog fisk.
However, this trial turns out, I think the whole story needs to be done in book form. (Hint, Hint ... Clarice!).
She writes really, really well - clearly and concisely, too. Look at all the research assistants she has already, right here on this blog. I know it would be a best seller and then we would get to see HER on tv, making the interview round.
The lady is intelligent and talented.
Posted by: centralcal | February 04, 2007 at 08:49 PM
Ok, I linked back here and invited those interested in civil discussion to join us here. I suggested the rest might prefer firedoglake.com. :P
Posted by: Dan S | February 04, 2007 at 08:54 PM
URGH--Dan, I like the blog, too and tried to post it on the WaPo article comments site, but it wouldn't print the cite.
I do wish you'd email it to the ombudsmen--or the editors..the email addys are on the paper's site.
Posted by: clarice | February 04, 2007 at 08:54 PM
Thanks, centrcal for those very generous comments.
Posted by: clarice | February 04, 2007 at 08:56 PM
I guess I'm missing something. I understand the prejudicial nature of the articles Fitz wants to introduce, but I don' see the significance re Libby's motive. The question isn't did Libby think they were investigating other conversations with reporters is it? Isn't the real question what was Libby's understanding of Plame's status? The articles in question do not seem to shed any light on that area.
If Wells argued that Libby had no motive to lie because he thought the investigation was only about Novak, it does not follow logically that evidence proffered that he thought it was about other conversations with reporters defeats this argument. Since the Novak article was the first to name Plame and where she worked he may very well have thought the person responsible for that leak was in jeopardy (stupid him) but that none of the things he had told reporters put him in jeopardy. Absent a demonstration by Fitz that Libby believed his statements to have put him in jeopardy I don't see how it is proper to allow these articles in redacted, summarized or otherwise.
Posted by: Barney Frank | February 04, 2007 at 08:59 PM
I think the book would be really interesting if done with the premise that this has been early and late a media extravaganza more than a real investigation. Support for that thesis should be easy, and the contrast with the real facts of the case as comes out in trial and other sources (bi-artisan committee, etc) should be very instructive from a historical perspective.
Clarice appears to have much tighter control of the impulse to deploy sarcasm, irony and flat out mockery than SOME of us do. (Not that *I* ever mock reporters or their statistical skills...)
And she has the legal education to handle those complexities, and translates them well into lay language.
Posted by: Dan S | February 04, 2007 at 08:59 PM
Clarice,
I tried putting the direct link on the WaPo comments, but it poofed, so they must have links disabled (avoids comment spam!).
But it did allow me to post the blog url itself in text, and it's apt to be the only thing there for some time. I do seem to be getting traffic (100 hits today, which is about 20 times the weekly average for the past year... no posts will do that), so it appears to be working. Unless, that is, I got 100 hits from here. :P
Posted by: Dan S | February 04, 2007 at 09:03 PM
I nominate Tom Maguire who has the added advantage of being able to keep all this straight..and type.
Anyway we have an instalanch on this thread..http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2245.php
Posted by: clarice | February 04, 2007 at 09:04 PM
BF: If he is asserting that he had no motive to lie as he thought the investigation was only about Novak, evidence that shows that the investigation was about reporters in general contradicts the premise.
Posted by: TCO | February 04, 2007 at 09:05 PM
Barney Frank- That is an excellent point. Libby knew there was an investigation, he knew someone had told Novak, he knew that person wasn't being forthcoming, and he knew HE was being increasingly scapegoated. He also knew that the press in general had been dismissive of him and had misrepresented the story.
Why *wouldn't* Libby be following reports?
Posted by: MayBee | February 04, 2007 at 09:06 PM
Barney,
I think the idea behind getting those articles in (aside from the stealth and obvious (I know, I know, oxymoron) one to prejudice the jury) is to "establish" the motive that Libby really really thought he was being scapegoated. Those article point the the climate, the feeding frenzy in the media, and his apparent concern about this... or something.
I think the threat of being made a scapegoat is a valid (potential) motive to look for wriggle room in that rope staked to the imaginary stake. But Libby is a smart guy, and a lawyer, so I find it a bit implausible that he'd risk lying and the resultant reasonable chance of getting caught (which might result in a real conviction on perjury and obstruction charges) to a more nebulous (it couldn't have been very concrete a risk, since it doesn't appear to have materialized) risk that he was being scapegoated, sacrificed to the frenzy.
If he was indeed really really paranoid, the level of that might have skewed his judgement. What I've seen and heard of his GJ testimony doesn't appear to fit the sort of behavior I'd expect from someone in that state of mind though. The more logical choice would be to clam up. If he really thinks he's being scapegoated, his loyalty to WH and OVP goes to zero, and there's no reason for him to go along with the WH orders to cooperate. He can hop onto Route 5.
So, as I said in my blog fisk of the WaPo joke, I think Fitz has a long way to establish motive even with those articles. I think Fitz knows it. I think the articles are really meant to prejudice the jury. Yeah, that means Fitz isn't being entirely honest, but I've already come to that conclusion based on all the rest of his behavior, like the existence of these charges in the first place, his overstatement of what his witnesses will testify to, etc.
Posted by: Dan S | February 04, 2007 at 09:12 PM
If he is asserting that he had no motive to lie as he thought the investigation was only about Novak, evidence that shows that the investigation was about reporters in general contradicts the premise.
I guess your reading comprehension is a little off today TCO. If the reason he was unconcerned about the Novak article was because the nature of the information in it was different than any info he disclosed, not just because he hadn't talked to Novak, then evidence that the investigation was looking into other conversations most assuredly does not contradict the premise.
If he said "hush, hush" to Fleischer when discussing her name, as Fleischer testified, this would seem to support the idea that he was unconcerned about his own disclosures to reporters but believed using her name and position was a different kettle of fish. See the difference?
Posted by: Barney Frank | February 04, 2007 at 09:13 PM
DanS,
IIRC the prosecutions argument to allow them in was based primarily on the defense's claim that Libby had no reason to lie, not that he was being scapegoated. I may be wrong, but that's my recollection.
Posted by: Barney Frank | February 04, 2007 at 09:16 PM
This is interesting, from Kurtz today (via TalkLeft)
It shows in the articles like the WAPO article today, that the press is defensive about looking like "conduits" for the administration.
But my problem is- why is it BAD to be a conduit of the administration's side of this story?
Note he doesn't criticize the decision to be a conduit of Wilson's political criticisms.
What kind of press do we have if they are shamed into not carrying an administrations' legitimate efforts to neutralize a critic?
Posted by: MayBee | February 04, 2007 at 09:20 PM
Yeah-megaphoning the serious charges of a serial liar for three years is speaking truth to power.
Have these people any idea of what they look like?
Posted by: clarice | February 04, 2007 at 09:22 PM
Barney,
Right, I think that was their stated aim in the filing.
It does relate to the scapegoating angle too, potentially, all the motives come back to there was reason for him to lie, since prosecution has to show he lied.
Fitz has a tightrope, and he's wobbling. His largest problem is convincing reasonable people that Libby wouldn't think just shutting up was a better risk than lying.
Posted by: Dan S | February 04, 2007 at 09:22 PM
MayBee,
The difference is when they conduit the Administration's "message" they are acting as conduit for lies! Everyone knows that!
And there's no problem with acting as conduit for the Noble Ambassador and the Noble Special Prosecutor because they are the white knights, the epitome of courage and honesty!
Have you no moral compass?
Posted by: Dan S | February 04, 2007 at 09:25 PM
"What kind of press do we have if they are shamed into not carrying an administrations' legitimate efforts to neutralize a critic?"
Democrat.
Or was that rhetorical?
It's really OK though because in the next Democrat administration they'll be happy to carry water about to neutralize a critic. They're very impartial that way.
Ask Linda Tripp if you don't believe me.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 04, 2007 at 09:27 PM
MayBee - it's all political. The media has no qualms about being a conduit for Clinton's views. In fact, they ran interference for him in the impeachment proceedings.
That's the one thing that really annoys me about the media, there is no consistency, no standards. I would respect them if I saw any consistency.
It's such a case of cognitive dissonance that now we have this story with good leaks and bad leaks; good leakers and bad leakers; good sources and bad sources.
Posted by: kate | February 04, 2007 at 09:31 PM
MayBee's comment and Barney's comment and the purpose of this entire post - goes straight to the AUWFUL reporting and the press's inability to print facts, or you know, go with the truth --because it might be seen as carrying the admin's water - which goes to exactly why Libby would track any and all article -- Wilson lied - STRAIGHT UP LIED and the media has consistently REPEATED the lies in virtually every article to this day!
Kurtz's comment is just dishonesty to stave off a blog comment jihad ala FDL - he's a little self consciousness of the fact his profession would go with LIES as in -NOT print the truth- if those lies KEEP them in the right "club".
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 04, 2007 at 09:31 PM
I mean, look at Dickerson (who was on that same panel). He thinks Ari's story contradicts his own, and Dickerson can't stop writing and talking about it.
Imagine if he needed someone else to be a conduit for his story, and they kept misrepresenting it. How frustrated would he be?
Posted by: MayBee | February 04, 2007 at 09:36 PM
Excellent point MayBee and perhaps why Dickerson has shown at least a modicum of integrity in his public statements/reporting about the trial.
Perhaps he fears how this could all turn on a dime against him if he had to rely on the "reporting" of others in his profession.
Posted by: centralcal | February 04, 2007 at 09:40 PM
He's a decent guy (Dickerson). I give him credit for that.
Posted by: clarice | February 04, 2007 at 09:40 PM
Especially, MayBee, where the critic is politically connected to a newly announced candidate for President, and is "telling a story".
Years ago, each party had newspapers partial to them. They could get the word out through their newspaper outlet. Indeed, in cities with a population over, say 75,000 and even in state capitol cities with smaller populations (e.g., Harrisburg, PA, Annapolis, MD, Albany, NY, Lincoln, NE, Springfield, IL), it was usual to have a Republican and a Democratic newspaper.
With this arrangement, any member of the public who could afford a penny or two could get both sides of the story if they so chose. Sort of like reading FDL and JOM about the Libby trial.
What we have now is a press that is a bit more monolithic in its political outlook.
Posted by: vnjagvet | February 04, 2007 at 09:42 PM
Oh shoot, I did it again - I referred to "reporting!" I keep forgetting that is not what they do! They filter and frame.
Okay, consider me corrected.
Posted by: centralcal | February 04, 2007 at 09:42 PM
That's why I have so much respect for Marty Peretz...he has said he does not like Cheney and is an ideological adversary, but he nevertheless sees what sham this WILSON CREATED scandal is and he at least has the gonads to stand up and say so and risk being ejected from the pretend and support the liar "club"
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 04, 2007 at 09:45 PM
Y'know topsecretk9, I read Marty's blog The Spine a lot. He has common sense and I agree with many of his posts, even though I don't necessarily agree with his politics. He has my respect.
Posted by: centralcal | February 04, 2007 at 09:48 PM
I wish we had more of those, tops. The current way the louder part of the left "thinks" doesn't allow for them though. You either hew to the line, or you risk being labeled enemy.
Posted by: Dan S | February 04, 2007 at 09:49 PM
It's stuff like this that makes so many of us so distrustful of the MSM. They keep repeating the same Big Lies so many times that they become the received "wisdom" among those who are unable to differentiate truth from falsehood.
Posted by: Clyde | February 04, 2007 at 09:52 PM
Rick
Good call on Linda Tripp...and the pillars of truth didn't seem to care that she was being railroaded into signing a false affidavit...imagine if she caved to the Clinton machine pressure and had signed the affidavit...which apparently is what the media thought she should have done, I guess.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 04, 2007 at 09:53 PM
BF: Other here (and Libby's defenders) have said that he thought he was in the clear, because he thought the investigation was only about Novak. These articles are evidence that he knew the investigation was about more than Novak. Read the Fitz brief, if you need more explanation.
All: I am wasting too much time on the internet, and have made my points well enough and am just repeating myself. I'm going to take a sabbatical. Will be back when I'm skinny. And up to speed at work.
BF: You catch me backsliding at Patterico or Apolyton or something come down on me, hard.
Posted by: TCO | February 04, 2007 at 09:57 PM
I recently wrote to the Christian Science Monitor on a story that contained no fewer than 6 major errors.
It is not so much that it's actual factual errors, although there is some of that. It's that they leave out critical parts of the story (like Armitage as the leaker in this case).
One of their favorite tactics is the knowledgable expert. They interview someone from a think tank or such that advances the reporters' views, in this way they distance themselves from any error since it's their expert, not them making the error.
They're sneaky.
Posted by: kate | February 04, 2007 at 09:58 PM
Since we're on Linda Tripp, do you recall a similar flap when it became known that a Dem political apointee at DoD authorized the leak of embarrassing personal stuff from her official personnel files? I don't .
Posted by: clarice | February 04, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Was that before or after the Privacy Act, Clarice? I'm guessing it was before. Not that that would have made a LARGE difference, considering the Berger treatment.
Posted by: Dan S | February 04, 2007 at 10:04 PM
And by taking a sabbatical I mean, of course, that I'll still be repeatedly sniping at irrelevancies and posting the same long-discredited talking points, but I'll be using my other psuedonyms.
Posted by: TCO | February 04, 2007 at 10:05 PM
After--It was a clear violation of law.
Posted by: clarice | February 04, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Yeah, act was 1974.
And we have myriad cases of leaking of classified info that is never prosecuted too.
Posted by: Dan S | February 04, 2007 at 10:08 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-03-tripp-lawsuit_x.htm>Tripp The govt settled with her but I believe the person responsible was never punished.
Posted by: clarice | February 04, 2007 at 10:08 PM
We will find out tomorrow, when court begins, IF Walton will let the articles in. Or not.
What we don't know is how this gets weighed. Because to allow in a BIG CASE, in answer to what Wells delivered at his opening; seems like Fitz is trying to "fix" his case. With the aid of a judge who would consider the articles "reasonable."
On the other hand? Tomorrow, both sets of attorneys arrive at the courthouse. Loaded for bear.
It should be interesting to see how long the jurors wait, before they are called "IN." And, if this in anyway helps their own minds filter this story?
I am reminded that Sneddon had the press! Michael Jackson only had a good lawyer. And, while I hardly ever watch TV. I did tune in that jury, when they finally came on, to take some questions from the press.
I think what turned in Michael Jackson's favor was the "grandma" the other jurors elected to the Foreman's seat. And, at first, she just let the jurors talk among themselves. There was a lot of buildup to convict. But she took the reins afterwards. And, to each claim that Michael Jackson is a pervert, she read the jury instructions. And, it turns out Sneddon never provided evidence. That was the crux of the "not guilty" verdict.
You could add the TV never did give these jurors "tickets" to be on any of their shows. But at the same time? The jurors were looking to go home, without garnering "notoriety."
Lawyers think one way. But I'm just a lay person. I think it might be a "plus" for jurors to just go home. Without being dragged into the limelight. To be asked questions, about "why" they voted one way. Or another.
So, you just never know what ordinary people really think. As they understand they're on a jury that is going to get wall-to-wall media attention. (Media attention NOT being beneficial.) Worse than a leg wax.
It's only the elites who think they can PR just about anything. But I'm not so sure that the public hasn't already turned it off.
Anyway, tomorrow's rulings will show Walton's hand better.
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 04, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Oh man, another hermia! Can you put author's name at the top of each post?
Posted by: Molon Labe | February 04, 2007 at 10:15 PM
It's disgusting, really, when enemy propaganda techniques masquerade as political discourse, and our MSM just blissfully goes along.
Maybe when this (the Libby trial) is over, if TM has the stomach for it, we, as a group can start talking about what it wound take to persuade the media to deal with facts not spin.
Posted by: Jane | February 04, 2007 at 10:26 PM
nukes
Posted by: boris | February 04, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Well, I sent the cites to Dan and TM's posts to the editors with a suggestion they might compare the trial transcript to the article and then show the transcript to the authors as they obviously never read it before writing the article.
Posted by: clarice | February 04, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Jane, as much as its the media, remember that these are ordinary people who become journalists. If you want to clean the Augean Stables, the course of the river needs to point to our schools.
Posted by: sbw | February 04, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Same topic, different case:
THOMAS SOWELL: SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
Thinkers must start thinking
Posted by: Dan S | February 04, 2007 at 10:33 PM
"The Duke "rape" fraud is yet another sign that the time is long overdue for all of us to start thinking."
As is the Libby case.
Posted by: Dan S | February 04, 2007 at 10:36 PM
While we are talking about leaks. Does anybody know anything about this latest NIE leaking the day it was released? What's up with that? Leaking of classified info has become so commonplace that it's reported on the daily news multiple times. I wonder if this will go on under the next administration? Of course, I wonder if the blogs and talk radio will survive, too.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 04, 2007 at 10:42 PM
But they're not "thinking" people, they're "feeling" people. "Feeling" trumps "thinking" because it's so much easier. Heck, the back of the brain does it all by itself...
Posted by: richard mcenroe | February 04, 2007 at 10:43 PM
nukes
doubtfull, the template for that is already prepared. It's our fault for meddling in the Mideast.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 04, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Ms. Plame was, per the Sentate Intel report, instrumental in sending him on a 1999 trip to Niger for the CIA
OK, fair enough. I'm willing to accept the findings of a Republican-majority Senate Intelligence Committe. Shall we accept the findings from their 2006 report? For instance, these findings:
Posted by: Foo Bar | February 04, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Shall we accept the findings from their 2006 report? For instance, these findings:
Sure, why not, changes nothing. Saddam having ties with AQ was never one of the reasons for removing him.
Although, you could look at some of the translated docs to see if you think the committee was correct, or not.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 04, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Are those POST war findings, Foo Bar?
Posted by: MayBee | February 04, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Foobar, this is based on the word of Saddam Hussein, who had clearly maintained ties to
the GIA/FIS (the Algerian branch of Al Queda) and Abu Sayyaf (the Phillipine branch) The statements of Farouk Hijazi; Palestinian born Iraqi spymaster who met
with Osama's delegates, and the head of
the Iranian nuclear program, are also taken
at face value; The report isn't worth the ink, much less that paper it's printed on.
By contrast, there was no systemic
evaluation of Cogema (the french consortium
controlling the uranium trade in Niger; a
trade that has involved Libya in the 70s among others
Posted by: narciso | February 04, 2007 at 11:12 PM
One of the left-wing idiots (pete, maybe?) actually brought up an interesting, and potentially important, point the other night. He asked what we'd do when this was all over.
Of course, I'm not as 'invested' in it as some, since I have mostly lurked for years, rarely getting up my nerve to post (basically for fear that boris might notice and rip my argument to shreds in one sentence, or a fragment thereof). But it does present a fascinating question, doesn't it?
If you asked me what I most wished would happen apres-trial, it would be to see Colin Powell publicly humiliated and Richard Armitage on his knees begging forgiveness. But that ain't gonna happen. So I would ask all you more knowledgeable posters, what can I do? Should I content myself with writing letters to the editor? Or is that just spitting into the wind? Is there a better way to demand truthfulness and accountability?
Now that you've got me all riled up, it's only fair that you point me in the right direction, don't you think?
Posted by: highcotton | February 04, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Saddam having ties with AQ was never one of the reasons for removing him.
I count a mere 32 references to Al Qaida and 19 to Zarqawi in Powell's UN address.
Posted by: Foo Bar | February 04, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Are those POST war findings, Foo Bar?
Indeed they are. The Senate committee finding about Zarqawi is based on a 2005 CIA report (see page 92). And yet as recently as August '06, Bush was still claiming Saddam had relations with Zarqawi.
Posted by: Foo Bar | February 04, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Foobar, this is based on the word of Saddam Hussein
It's also based on captured documents. See e.g. page 109 of the report:
Posted by: Foo Bar | February 04, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Foo Bar et al
Do the rest of us really need to wade through yet another round of the same worn out points on the path to war again?
If anyone actually had new info or fresh insights to offer, it would be a different matter; but it's been a long time since that last happened. I'm not sure how boring and/or irritating everybody else to death serves the current dialogue (not to mention the actual topic of this thread).
If there's a crowd that's determined to keep on keeping on, perhaps you'd be kind enough to switch venues to an inactive thread, instead hi-jacking the active ones.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 04, 2007 at 11:45 PM
IMO, of course.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 04, 2007 at 11:46 PM
OK, JM Hanes, I am about to go to bed anyway, but implicit in this very post of TM's is the idea that Senate Intelligence Committee reports are authoritative and reliable. I did not see that principle being applied particularly consistently around here when the September '06 report came out. So I don't think my original comment, at least, was as far afield from the content of the post as you suggest. And in general, the Wilson-undermining aspects of the '04 report are often cited approvingly here when discussing the Plame case, yet the '06 report was issued by a fairly similarly composed committee, also headed by Pat Roberts, so I wonder if those displeased with the '06 report have had their faith shaken at all in the competence of the committee.
I'll leave it alone after this, though.
Posted by: Foo Bar | February 04, 2007 at 11:57 PM