Nick Kristof, Tear Down This Wall

Nick Kristof, cloistered behind his TimesSelect barrier, exhorts Dick Cheney to "tear down this wall" and answer a few questions about his role in the Plame leak.  Let me lead with Kristof at his most misleading, rather than at his most amusing (His Q&A emphasis):

When you discussed Joe Wilson with Mr. Libby on Air Force Two on July 12, 2003, what instructions did you give him?

Trial testimony indicates that on that flight, Mr. Libby looked over some questions a reporter had sent in about Mr. Wilson and then said: “Let me go talk to the boss and I’ll be back.” After consulting with you, Mr. Libby later called reporters to feed them a skewed version of Mr. Wilson’s trip.

Mr. Cheney, on that plane, did you specifically tell Mr. Libby to leak to reporters the fact that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the C.I.A.?

Deborah Bond of the F.B.I. has testified that Mr. Libby acknowledged in one of his interviews that on that flight, he might have talked to you about whether to tell the news media about Valerie Wilson. So did he?

Since Mr. Libby is renowned for his caution, it seems highly unlikely that he would have leaked classified information twice to reporters right after talking to you, unless you had sanctioned the leak.

Let's focus in "it seems highly unlikely that he would have leaked classified information".  Does the likelihood of a leak change if Mr. Libby was not aware that the information was classified? 

As I am sure Mr. Kristof is aware, Mr. Fitzgerald has never presented or developed evidence that Mr. Libby was aware of Ms. Plame's classified status prior to the publication of the Novak column on July 14, 2003.  Apparently, Libby's CIA briefer did mention the possible problems of having a covert agent outed after the column appeared, but here is the famous Fitzgerald footnote from 2004:

To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.

The jurors will see even less than that, per Walton's rulings.  But even in his court filings, Fitzgerald has never advanced the case that Libby had prior knowledge that Plame's status was classified.

Is Kristof ignorant of all this, or is he simply attempting to mislead his readers?  Who knows.

Kristof's lead question is pretty funny, if you find an utter absence of self-awareness to be funny:

Mr. Vice President, did you push Mr. Libby to dig into Joe Wilson’s background and discredit him?  

Mr. Libby made such a major effort to gather materials from the C.I.A. and State Department about Mr. Wilson — both before and after you told him on June 12, 2003, that his wife worked at the C.I.A. — that it seems likely that you commanded the effort. True?

So today Kristof is concerned that Cheney tried to get himself educated about the Wilson trip.  Yet here is a younger Nick Kristof, writing in June 2003:

And now an administration official tells The Washington Post that Mr. Cheney's office first learned of its role in the episode by reading that column of mine. Hmm. I have an offer for Mr. Cheney: I'll tell you everything I know about your activities, if you'll tell me all you know.

Sounds like Cheney may have taken Kristof's advice and tried to get up to speed on the Wilson trip.  And was that a bad thing?

As to his language usage, Kristof writes that Libby was trying to "discredit" Wilson.  Why, I wonder, are Cheney's critics so in love with that word?  Why not write that Libby was trying to "refute" Wilson, or "rebut" Wilson? 

Let me illustrate: "Ignore Wilson, he has been married seventeen times and is a drunk" would be an attempt to discredit Wilson; "Ignore Wilson, his report was ambiguous and he never saw the documents we later learned were forgeries" would be an attempt to refute him. Clear?  I challenge the MSM to make that distinction. 

(Note: I am sure Mr. Wilson drinks and marries less frequently than in my illustrative example above, but if it is really bothering you, as an example of "discredit" substitute "Bush's troop surge in Iraq can't work because Bush is a quitter who went AWOL in 1970". Better?!?)

That said, Kristof does seem to want to go in the direction of "discredit", with its implication of personal, ad hominem atttacks.  Why did he write this:

Mr. Libby made such a major effort to gather materials from the C.I.A. and State Department about Mr. Wilson...

Mr. Libby made a "major effort" to gather materials about Joe Wilson? Did that "major effort" include a request for Wilson's personell file from State?  Did it include a request for Ms. Plame's file from the CIA? 

Of course not.  Libby approached State and the CIA in an attempt to gather information about Wilson's trip, not about Wilson himself, and I have no doubt Kristof knows this.

One more:

 

Were you trying to cover up your own reliance on misinformation about Iraqi W.M.D. by blaming the C.I.A. and anybody else within range, like Mr. Wilson?

 

More than anybody, Mr. Vice President, you made the argument in the run-up to the war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And one senses, in the indictment and the trial testimony, that by the early summer of 2003, there was panic in your office that the W.M.D. had failed to materialize.

Well, Cheney touched on this recently in Newsweek.  But as to Kristof's notion that "More than anybody, Mr. Vice President, you made the argument" about Iraqi WMDs, please - the gist of Libby's rant to Judy Miller was that the CIA was trying to distance themselves from their own pre-war intel with selective anti-Administration leaks.  And one might argue that Colin Powell's famous UN speech about Iraqi WMDs had as much impact on public opinion as any presentation by Dick Cheney.

And where might a look at Colin Powell take us?  Well, he was pushing back in early June against the notion that the pre-war intel was flawed. The State Dept had prepared its accounting of the Wilson trip (the INR memo) which took pains to emphasize that it was not a State Dept initiative.  In June 2003 Richard Armitage of State finally agreed to sit down with Bob Novak, after ducking him for years.  They met following Wilson's July 6 op-ed and appearance on Meet The Press and Armitage accidentally let slip the Plame news in the course of discussing the Wilson trip.  And just by the way, Marc Grossman of the State Dept apparently forgot to mention to the FBI that he had discussed the INR report with Armitage and Powell.

Did Cheney arrange all that, or were others also pushing back against Wilson?

Oh, well.  Mr. Kristof exhorts Dick Cheney to come clean, but will he lead by example?  A few questions for Mr. Kristof and the Times:

1.   Did you meet with both Joe and Valerie Wilson in May 2003 at breakfast when Wilson told you his story, as reported in Vanity Fair?

2.  Did you guess, suspect, or know, prior to the Novak column in July, that Ms. Plame had a CIA affiliation?  Your Oct 11, 2003 "denial" was overly specific:

I know Mrs. Wilson, but I knew nothing about her CIA career and hadn't realized she's "a hell of a shot with an AK-47,'' as a classmates at the CIA training "farm,'' Jim Marcinkowski, recalls.

Well, I know Nick Kristof is a columnist at the Times but I would not claim to be knowledgable about his entire career.  Can we try for a simple yes or no to my much easier question - did you know, suspect, or have reason to believe that she was with the CIA?

3.  These other points were covered to my dissatisfaction a while back, but...

Any chance that in a public column, rather than hidden away on your blog, you will acknowledge that your use of the word "behest" in your June 13, 2003 column was an error?  In the secret places of the Times website you offered this:

One of the criticisms from the right is that I say that the vice president dispatched Wilson to Niger, but that's incorrect. The wording in the column is simply that Cheney asked for more information about the uranium deal, and then the former ambassador was dispatched. And that’s what happened.

In fairness, though, it is true that Cheney apparently didn’t know that Wilson had been dispatched. If I’d known that I would have said so. And in a later column I said Wilson had been dispatched "at the behest" of Cheney's office; it's true that he was sent in response to Cheney's prodding, but that wording wasn't choice because it can easily be read to mean that Cheney asked for the trip.

4.  As to the notion that Wilson debunked the Niger forgeries, you wrote this on June 13 2003:

Officials now claim that the C.I.A. inexplicably did not report back to the White House with this envoy's findings and reasoning, or with an assessment of its own that the information was false. I hear something different. My understanding is that while Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet may not have told Mr. Bush that the Niger documents were forged, lower C.I.A. officials did tell both the vice president's office and National Security Council staff members.

Do you want to stand by the claim that lower level officials were told about the forgeries in March 2002?  From your secret confessions post we find this:

The better objection is that the references to the documents themselves make it sound as if the envoy may have had the documents in possession, while in fact he didn’t. The U.S. didn’t obtain the documents themselves until the fall of that year. But we did then have the information in them, including the full text and the names of the ministers who signed the contracts. And Wilson was briefed on the details of the contracts in his meeting with C.I.A. and State Department experts on Feb. 19, 2003.

...So could Wilson have debunked documents that he hadn't seen? Well, yes. If he knew details of the contract and reported back that it was implausible, sure. Did he? By the spring of 2003, the problems in the signatures of the documents had been pointed out, but I don't see much evidence that they had been noted in 2002 by Wilson or anybody else. Rather, the debunking of the contract was based mostly on the implausibility of obtaining uranium in Niger because of the way the industry was structured.
        So Wilson has said that he misspoke when he made references to the documents to me and to two other journalists.

So Wilson "misspoke".  Is it OK with you if Libby tried to get that error acknowledged?

5.  You also write this:

But it does seem to be true that Wilson claims to have debunked the Niger deal more firmly than some people remember him debunking it.

Let's recap - Libby was pushing back against a Kristof column that claimed, in error, that Wilson had gone at the behest of the VP; that Wilson had debunked forgeries he had not seen; and that Wilson's report was definitive.  And pushing back against that pile of rubbish amounted to an attempt to "discredit" Wilson.

6.  Almost done - were you or anyone at the Times aware that Wilson was an adviser to the Kerry campaign as of May 2003?  Shouldn't his partisan affiliation have been noted?

I know Kristof will want to address this.

Comments

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Is "tear down this wall" an allusion to Godwin's Law?

Meanwhile, at court, the poor jurors are LISTENING to tape. There's no video. Or the Maine Blogger, who is live blogging, now, would have used the word "watching." The jurors? Do they stare at the wall? Or look around? And, do they take notes (like a second set of eyes when FIB does "interviews?" SEEKING OUT BODY LANGUAGE?)

Not sure. But I think Sanger has to testify. And, Wells is a POWERHOUSE according to the Maine Blogger's written report.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Where's Gerry Spence? (One of the gods. Also known as a terrific trial attorney.) He once admonished other lawyers, that the worse thing you could do is "badger" a witness. It makes jurors wild with anger.

Fitz? A man of smoke and mirrors.

His 8 hours of tape ploy? (Coming on the heels of saying he was about to rest?) Hmm. Up to the jurors to decide. I'll bet WELLS is winning points for style.

[Joe]

What happens if VP. Cheney just blurts out in the trial that Valeria Plame was a GS-XX Title, and was not "classifed".

?

[Unconventional Jane]

Informants and the five year law and status of federal employees(PC) working overseas(e.g. Shaye's Fiji) under secret clearance kicked up to above secret because of coups and being left there with no agreement to be there:

Instructions to the jury regarding Plame status as a federal employee:

'That is because what her actual status was, or whether any damage would result from disclosure of her status, are totally irrelevant to your decision of guilt or innocence. You must not consider these matters in your deliberations or speculate or guess about them'

So, they come back home as informants having talked to other federal employees and being in a coup state; a CIA operations officers is assigned. Maybe he's bad like Aimes and there are more Plame works? Maybe it's tough to find a job and federal employment is not there? Maybe this is a waste of time unless theyr'e run? Maybe Negroponte can't figure this out and the Congressmen dodge, the President can't really help, and there being used?

I hope the Bond's don't mind five years of Plames.

[michael schrage]

nick kristof is a bright guy but the sheer hypocritical arrogance of this column - given his own sins of omission, commission and shoddy reportage - really does redefine 'chutzpah'... i'm as disappointed in his judgment as i am in his 'journalism'...

[PaulL]

TM,

Are you trying to "discredit" Nick Kristof?

[maryrose]

Kristoff should be made to testify and should be asked to stop writing about this case in which he like Russert is intimitely involved.
Fitz's case is tanking-when do we hear from Russert? This tape scenario is a real time waster-no more tricks up his sleeve obviously

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Kristof does seem to want to go in the direction of "discredit", with its implication of personal, ad hominem atttacks.'

Which happens to be exactly the line Fitz took in his GJ questioning of Libby. Not a coincidence, I think.

However, the question I want asked of Kristoff is, when you wrote on June 13, 2003:

'Piecing the story together from two people directly involved and three others who were briefed on it...'

Did you consider CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson to be one of the two, 'directly involved', or one of the three, 'briefed on it'?

[roanoke]

Nick Kristof, cloistered behind his TimesSelect barrier

I'm having a hard time getting past this line.

Perhaps H&R should FedEx Kristof some photos.

[JJ]

@ PaulL

That's it, he's trying to discredit Kristof! As a matter of fact, he's baldfaced "lying" about him.

How's that bumper sticker go?: If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

Discredited version: "I am paying attention and wondering about your outrage."

[Chris]

So Kristoff is (now) obsessed with what Cheney was behesting Libby to do on July 12, 2003, one day after Novak's completed column had arrived in newsrooms across the fruited plain, a column that already included the publicly available (even that dolt Matt Cooper said he may have found it via Google) name "Valerie Plame".

[reliapundit]

brilliant

[Javani]

"tear down this wall"

In psych terms, that's called projection.

Kristof is creating a flurry before his paper has to reveal the name "Armitage."

[Colonel Dan's Band]

'Coast to Coast AM Radio' had this guy on last night and he was remodeling his house and was talking about Specters and he explained those are ghosts(spook, boo, scary Larry, Plame)like Arlen and 'puff the magic dragon.' Bell digressed into Rock and role 'experiments' and explained he is more a disco/rythm guy, but we all know disco died too. He then said, 'there are as many opinions as body orafices from my point of view.'

Bell's view may not be the best, but was Plame briefed? Sure, she shows - in - the file. Was she directly involved? Well, Arlen, her PA pal, might say was there any action or inaction 'directly involved' as a result of the briefing? Well, the answer would be Russian. So, which briefing specifically is being addressed and what would be the relevence to Scooter lying?

[hit and run]

and what would be the relevence to Scooter lying?

Uh, yeah. I came home the other day after work and it was snowing. And my kids' scooter were lying in the yard. I wasn't happy. To think, after all this time, it was the scooter that was outed?

::grin::

[hit and run]

note: sarcasm aside, that scooter story IS true!

[anonymous]

Cheney won't testify, there's to great a chance he will get steaming mad, bare his fangs and show his 'Made by Haliburton'
tag on the back of his neck. I suspect if he did testify, that day there will be a huge terror alert in DC with leaks of fears of a Al Queda cell plans to assasinate someone.
Cheney pulled off 9/11 and fooled the CIA about Iraqs WMD, even as the head of Haliburton, this would be a cake walk for Cheney.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

The Defense has issues with Russert's testimony: '...defense attorney Bill Jeffress says that Russert's attorney will be called as a witness!'

[theo]

Here are the questions with my answers:

Mr. Vice President, did you push Mr. Libby to dig into Joe Wilson’s background and discredit him?

After Wilson began talking to members of the media friendly to his antiwar stance, including Kristoff, it should surprise no one that Cheney and Libby were interested in who this man was and what ax did he have to grind. Quite naturally, they wanted to know first and foremost the truth of what he was saying about the VP's office. Had he in fact been sent on a mission at the "request" of the VP? Had he reported anything back? If so, what? But as far as I know, there was no digging into his "background" the way the Clinton brigades dug into the "backgrounds" of Monica Lewinsky or Kathleen Willey or Paula Jones in order to spread vicious rumors about them. I do not recall ever reading a single item of gossip about Wilson unrelated to the mission. The fact that his wife "suggested" him for the trip is not unrelated and is hardly a "smear." Wilson was largely discredited by the investigation made by the Senate Committee and signed off on by ALL the members of the panel.

The so-called smears about Wilson -- that he was picked for this assignment by his wife, that he made no conclusive findings, that his report had no value to the CIA, that the only thing interesting about his report was the evidence of an Iraqi attempt to buy yellowcake and that his report was not disseminated to the White House -- are all TRUE. How do you discredit someone with the truth?

What did you mean when you wrote, in a note to Scott McClellan that has been entered into evidence, “not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy the Pres. that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others.”

Cheney was asking McClellan to clear Libby the same as he had cleared Rove. Fitzgerald, who knows the facts very well, says that Libby lied to Cheney and McClellan about his role in the leaks in order to get this clearance. I understand that the liberal press wants the story to be that Libby was only following orders, most likely from Cheney. Kristoff reaches higher. But the basis is very weak. Cheney struck out the words "the Pres." because he knew they were not appropriate. He certainly did not do so in order to hide the facts should the note become evidence. If that was intent, he would have re written the thing. I also think the quote is not quite right. Other articles have said that it referred to the guy who was asked to stick "his neck" in the meat grinder, a much more grisly image. There may be other errors.

I am not sure exactly what Cheney meant, but it seems basically that the WH should not protect Rove and leave Libby, who was asked to deal with the press on the issues raised by Wilson, to twist in the wind. "The incompetence of others" probably refers to the CIA, but I do not know.

There really is not much there there.

When you discussed Joe Wilson with Mr. Libby on Air Force Two on July 12, 2003, what instructions did you give him?

Kristoff goes on to say that after this discussion, Libby gave a "skewed version" of Mr. Wilson's trip. Actually not, according to the UNANIMOUS findings of a Senate panel that looked into it. The one with the "skewed" description of his trip was Wilson. The Senate Committee UNANIMOUSLY found that Wilson's "report" was considered mostly useless by the CIA and was not passed along to the White House or Cheney. The one interesting tidbit in it was that Wilson reported that a former PM of Niger told him of an Iraqi approach that the former PM believed to evidence an interest in yellowcake. Since Wilson was only interested in whether Iraq had in fact acquired such yellowcake, that tidbit seemed irrelevant to him. But since the CIA thought the denials had no value the evidence of an attempt was the only probative part of the trip.

Mr. Cheney, on that plane, did you specifically tell Mr. Libby to leak to reporters the fact that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the C.I.A.?

This question shows that Kristoff is either not paying attention or is intellectually dishonest. Of course, I cannot say for certain whether Cheney specifically ordered Libby to leak this fact on that occasion. I can say that there is no evidence that he did order Libby to do so. I can also say, and I think that this absolutely destroys the innuendo that Kristoff is going for here, that if Cheney so ordered him on that occasion, Libby disobeyed those orders. The uncontradicted fact is that after that conversation with Cheney, Libby did NOT leak the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA to anyone. (The only alleged leak to the press was to Judy Miller and that occurred prior to that plane conversation.) The only reporter that Libby spoke to on the subject after the Cheney July 12 conversation was Matt Cooper. He did not volunteer any information about Mrs. Wilson to Cooper. Cooper -- according to Cooper in any event -- asked Libby if Mrs. Wilson was responsible for the CIA picking Wilson for the trip and Libby responded "I heard that too" or words to that effect. (Libby has a slightly more circumspect recollection. But even Cooper's version does not support a claim that Libby "leaked" to Cooper. Cooper already knew it.)

The desperation to tie in Cheney is evident. But those out to do so are grasping at straws. The story makes no sense if you know the facts. If Cheney in fact ordered Libby to leak -- doubtful at best -- he clearly did not do so.

Were you trying to cover up your own reliance on misinformation about Iraqi W.M.D. by blaming the C.I.A. and anybody else within range, like Mr. Wilson?

This is a brain teaser. Just where did Cheney's information about Iraqi WMD come from? Of course it was ultimately the CIA who told the President that it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had such weapons. (I am sure Clinton fans will not be cheered to hear that John Edwards has claimed that he was misled on this issue not only by the White House but by former advisors in the Clinton administration, who were telling him the same thing at the time of the Iraq war vote.) Of course there was responsibility at the CIA about the WMD issue.

The notion that Cheney was blaming Wilson for the WMD misinformation is ludicrous. When did he do anything like that? Wilson's role was very minor. He was sent -- at the suggestion of his wife -- to check out stories about sale of yellowcake by Niger to Iraq. He did not find any evidence of such sales. No one blames Wilson for "misinformation about Iraqi WMD." Kristoff is being highly disingenuous here.

I think maybe what Kristoff is trying to get at is the hot potato about who was responsible for the "16 words." But again, no one ever blamed Wilson for those words. The White House did blame the CIA for not vetting the speech properly, a blame that Tenet took.

So when are you going to come clean?

This question is objectionable as every fourth grader knows. It is precisely the "have you stopped beating your wife?" question. It assumes something that is not established to be true. The fact that Kristoff resorts to such tactics speaks volumes.

[windansea]

nicely done theo

[gregprich]

Ummm Nick........

One thing that has always bothered me. When you first had breakfast with Joe and Val in May at that Dem conclave, and Joe tells you "I've been on a secret mission for the CIA...." did you just run with that? I mean, no checking as to bona fides? Particularly with Joe's bona fides sitting right next to him? Your editors didn't ask for any corroboration - you just publish stories about anybody you have breakfast with who, over the scrambled eggs, says "btw, I've been on a secret mission for the CIA...."?

Joe didn't nod to his better half sometime during the breakfast and say to the effect, "you know, my wife works at the Agency..."?

Or are you a guy who just believes, and publishes in the NY Times, everything you are told?

As I say, I've always wondered......

[Barney Frank]

If anyone sees a couple of guys with nets you can tell them the anonymous guy they're after was spotted here at 11:16 AM PST.

Unless of course that was parody. Its getting hard to tell the difference these days.

[danking70]

Defense will call Russert's lawyer?

WTF? Speculation please?

How can this be good for the prosecution's case?

Off to see the doctor.

[Extreme Prevelence]

Jane fonda already did all that.

'Made in china.'

[Patton]

Here would be some FUNNY testimony:

Bob Novak on the stand.

Wells: And Mr Novak, what did Wilson say when you asked him about his wife working at the CIA?

Novak: He said, I don't talk about my wife.

Wells: And how did you interpret that statement?

Novak: I took it as confirmation that his wife was CIA.

Wells: So Armitage and Joe Wilson were your sources for 'outing' Ms. Plame?

Novak: Absolutley.

[SS]

Seems like most of the folks here are employees of CIA and have deep knowledge of Valerie Plame's covert status. Heck it seems most of the blogosphere already knows all the "facts" and the deep secrets of all the white house and Air Force 1 conversations. Let the trial proceed guys and let the law take its own course.

[hit and run]

gregprich:
One thing that has always bothered me. When you first had breakfast with Joe and Val in May at that Dem conclave, and Joe tells you "I've been on a secret mission for the CIA...." did you just run with that? I mean, no checking as to bona fides? Particularly with Joe's bona fides sitting right next to him?

Ahhhh,

Wilson had "National Command Authority" that was supposed to intimidate any and all parties in Niger to giving him everything he ever wanted.

Yet, it apparently worked better on reporters.

[Jane]

There appears to be a lull in the action at the trial...

[hit and run]

Seems like most of the folks here...know...the deep secrets of all the white house and Air Force 1 conversations

Those on the left have Townhouse and those of us on the right have......wait, I've said too much...

[hit and run]

Patton - and Who's Who...

[Jim O'Sullivan]

I don't read anything in the NYT anymore because (a) it's inherently untrustworthy; and (2) I don't want to financially support an organization that will seemingly do anything in its power, such as expose to the enemy the existence of top secret methods we are use to track them, for the apparent purpose of causing our defeat. Yes, it's the Times' apparent purpose: the law imputes to actors the intention to bring about the natural consequences of their actions.

But I do enjoy sites like this that expose the biases of its reporters and the illogical arguments of its left-wing columnists. Do keep it up!

[owl]

Nick Kristof, Tear Down This Wall

Must be a favorite contender. Can't decide if my glee is higher over the the MIA Gregory or bringing the subject back to Shy Gal Val munching her breakfast and behesting.

[Jeff Z]

Step back for a minute from all the parsing of NK's comments, his own careful phrasings, his creepy dispassionate, crypto-schizophrenic interpretation of his own work, and so forth: Whatever the details may be, the overall behavior makes it clear that NK is trying to cover up dubious, unethical, and possibly illegal (by Wilson and Plame) acts. Reporters write to be understood and inform, but NK writes to mislead and obscure. It's hardly necessary to decipher the specifics to ascertain the essential truth that his actions reveal.

[Put in Badly]

Mr. Kristof Tear down This Wall

By Cheney, Dick

Nich O' Las or is it Old Nick, Old Scratch, Old Split-Foot, and Der Teufel? Sure, toss in a lass and you ain't. Who is raising what? What's with the Krist of or is it off? For some reason I can't think of old Saint Nick and Christmas, but Something bad, but we'll just follow the chain.........

You owe the nation an explanantion!!

TimesSelect, yes, I'll get the tattoo, but for some reason I don't think your allowed.

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN

You know what strikes me as odd? Kristoff is using a famous Ronald Reagan line.

And, Mark Steyn, did an obituary column when Reagan died. (I think it's the one people request copies of most.)

For those who prefer to Scroll on By, haven't already done so, let me add it's a good idea. Because here's a quote from Steyn's masterpiece. (And, you hate having to read too much. I know.)

(PASSING PARADE,Pg. 18)

..."At the time, the charm and the smile got less credit from the intelligensia, confirming their belief that [Reagan] was a dunce who'd plunge us into Armageddon. Everything you need to know about the establishment's view of Ronald Reagan can be found on page 624 of Dutch, Edmund Morris' weird post-modern biography.

{HERE, STEYN QUOTES MORRIS using the Berlin speech that started "Mr. Gorbacheve, tear down this wall!"]

"Poor old Morris, the plodding, conventional, scholarly writer driven made by 14 years of trying to get a grip on Ronald Reagan. Most world leaders would have taken his advice: you're at the Berlin Wall, so you have to say something abaout it, something profound but oblique, maybe there's a poem on the subject ..."

If you've read this, thanks. I love to read. And, PASSING PARADE just came to me from Amazon. It's a NEW Steyn. With nothing but obituaries and appreciations.

So, while I'm on record as the "house racist," and also as one who thinks most journalists can't write their ways out of paper bags. (And, cooper's article, no less was ghost written by Wilson and Calibresi) ...

Mark Steyn stands out! The really great ones, are few and far between. But when you SEE IT, you know! What'da pundit!

[hit and run]

OK, I hadn't clicked through to Kristof's column. I thought that Tom was riffing on Tear Down that Wall by caricaturing Kristof's article.

Kristof really titled his article with "Tear Down that Wall"????

You do realize today is Ronald Reagan's birthday, right?

And Kristof pulls this?

That's revolting.

Happy Ronald Reagan Birthday Day!

[Wakes Up]

His name is Dick and that's it.

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN

Yes. Hit & Run. Ronald Reagan was born Febraury 6, 1911.

Oh, and the NY Times not only has a "Times Select Barrier. The have editors who "fak-check," and everything. They not only lack a sense of shame. They lack a sense of irony, too.

[topsecretk9]

--Whatever the details may be, the overall behavior makes it clear that NK is trying to cover up dubious, unethical, and possibly illegal (by Wilson and Plame) acts. Reporters write to be understood and inform, but NK writes to mislead and obscure.--

Yeah I was wondering why the drama queen would jump back into the frying pan.

A weak attempt to appear to have the upper hand.

Weeeeee...this is fun!

[topsecretk9]

---did you just run with that? I mean, no checking as to bona fides? Particularly with Joe's bona fides sitting right next to him? Your editors didn't ask for any corroboration - you just publish stories about anybody you have breakfast with who, over the scrambled eggs, says "btw, I've been on a secret mission for the CIA...."?--

Pretty much, see Hatfill and Nick's editors -- he's Mr. Runamuck!!!!

[Extraneus]

theo:

The desperation to tie in Cheney is evident. But those out to do so are grasping at straws. The story makes no sense if you know the facts. If Cheney in fact ordered Libby to leak -- doubtful at best -- he clearly did not do so.

There really are no depths the left will not sink to, but the damage done by Wilson and his little allies has already been done. Nobody but the afficionados are paying any attention or know any facts about this case.

Cheney is like a cop, protecting Nick Kristof and his family, if he has one, and Kristof is like an old drugged-out hippy, slurring his words while calling Cheney a pig and trying to aim a daisy at his gun barrell.

[anonymous]

TRUTH OUT HAS PART OF FITZ'S CLOSING ARGUMENT UP:

Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow prosecutors......
I will not be made a fool of! Do you hear me?
OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT.

[Seixon]

Wilson managed to "misspeak" to three different reporters with the same exact story. What an incredibly unlucky man that Mr. Wilson is. He seems to have no control over his mouth.

Kristof has been in the tank for the Wilsons since the beginning, I can't think of a better person to put under oath and on the stand.

Would it have been a crime for Plame to out herself to Kristof?

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN

Well, anonymous. Work like that should be sourced. What are we blogs? With no editorial staff?

HERMAN WOUK. THE CAINE MUTINY. CAPTAIN QUEEG.

And, I saw Humphrey Bogart play Captain Queeq. Fitz is no Captain Queeg. As Loyd Benson would have foretold.

Besides, I'll lay bets Fitz-to-fizzle, Fitz doesn't get to "close." He'll have to go into the real estate business "to close."

Rule 29. Deep sixes this case witness by witness.

If not? Russert blows the whole thing wide open. He's gotta "describe" da' deal his attorney got Fitz to make. Wanna bet it contains "abbreviations" in testimony, just like Judith Miller's, more high priced Bennett obtained for her? Hmm?

Fitz' best option? To stand before the "now exhausted jurors" and say. Sorry you can't decide on Cooper, Russert, or Miller's testimony. But would you like to buy a used car?"

[Seixon]

From Nick's May 6 column:

"I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged."

So, Mr. Kristof, who put you up to this? Or this:

"The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway."

Passed around the administration. Wow, so I'm guessing you got corroboration on that, right Kristof? If so, from whom? Wilson? Plame?

""It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said."

Name that insider!

[Neo]

When the trial is all over, it will leak that Val Flame work closely with Emmett Fitzhume and Austin Millbarge.

[JM Hanes]

Kristof doesn't get paid to report the story, he's there to feel the story for us, don'tcha know?

[Rocco]

Sorry for getting off the topic but now that more are paying attention out here, perhaps those with more influence than I can help get to the bottom of this one.

When I posted this awhile back, Clarice suggested I write every member on the SSCI. I did and received two replies, both suggesting I write my own Senators since I don't reside in their state.

Page 40 of the SSCI

"(U) On February 18, 2002, the embassy in Niger disseminated a cable which reported that the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal "provides sufficient detail to warrant another hard look at Niger's uranium sales. The names of GON [government of Niger] officials cited in the report track closely with those we know to be in those, or closely-related positions."

Page 41

(U) On February 24, 2002, the US Embassy in Niamey disseminated a cable (NIAMEY 000262) descibing a meeting between the US Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, Deputy Commander, European Command, General Carlton Fulford, Niger's President, Tandja Mamadou, and Foreign Minister Alchatou Mindaoudou."

"When the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting surfaced in early February, Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick decided to ask General Fulford to use the previously scheduled meeting to raise the uranium issue with Nigerien officials. Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick prepared talking points for General Fulford to use during his visit and the CIA coordinated on the talking points.

Yet...according to an article written by Spencer Ackerman in The New Republic Online, called African Dance, posted on 7.23.03, General Fulford denies ever being informed about an Iraq-Niger uranium deal.

"But, as Fulford emphasizes the concern about uranium proliferation had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Fulford's impromtu mission, first reported by Johua Micah Marshall, was to inform President Tandja of Washington's concern that Al Qaeda was seeking Nigerien yellowcake uranium. In fact, as the recently retired General recounts, neither the Pentagon nor the myriad intelligence agencies with which he was in constant contact ever raised the prospect of Saddam seeking uranium from an African country--the prospect the President famously raised in this year's State of the Union address. Which is curious, since practically all of Africa is under EUCOM's jurisdiction--and, by implication, was under Fulford's as well. "If there was a question [about such Iraqi procurements from Africa], "Fulford says, "I would have been made aware of it." He wasn't."

Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick sends a cable requesting another hard look at the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, yet six days later, after coordinating with the CIA, they fail to inform General Fulford of this Iraq-Niger uranium deal? I find this hard to believe!

[Dan]

The entire world was asking who the sources were for the articles written about Plame. Doesn't the fact that Libby and Rove did everything they could to conceal the fact that it was them belie the notion that they were unaware they were doing anything wrong?

How about a little intellectual honesty here? I thought Righties believed perjury to be not only a ghastly crime, but an impeachable one too.

[clarice]

Rocco, that's very interesting. There's a lot of detail in the SSCI report on the coordination of the questioning between the Ambassador and FUlford and Joe and the latter was very confined as to who he could question and about what.
My guess is the Ackerman report is wrong..

[JJ]

TM,

I pulled out the paper version of the K column and with highlighter in hand (like Cheney marks his newspaper!), I went over the column and your post here, together.

I refuse to pass out kudos unless they are really deserve-ed, but this post is a tour de force. Great, great, great. Like watching MJ slam dunk.

[JJ]

BTW, I want to pre-sign-up for your tutorial on how to locate, index, and pull cite material.

How much is it? $19.95!?

Now, if I could just remember where I put my wallet...

[paul]

The million dollar question:

Do you think Nick read this 'undressing'?

The Huffington thrashing of Klein was forty lashes in the public square, (from someone, AH, I thought incapable of-way to hold that chin out Joe.)

but this was a crucifixtion.

How embarrassingly stupid does the editorial staff have to be, before they have objective people help provide the nyt with some reality?
If Kristof was on my 'enemies list', I'd mail him copy of the above spanking every birthday.

[Syl]

Ranger

they fail to inform General Fulford of this Iraq-Niger uranium deal? I find this hard to believe!

Why? Agent Wilson was on the case! He had his special French contacts, you know. Never the twain shall meet.

I must say, though, that I'm never surprised when someone denies knowledge of specific intelligence inquiries.

(1)they are lying (good reason or not)

(2)they are not among the 'need to know' group for acquisition efforts via other channels.

[Syl]

er, I meant Rocco

[gil]

Chenney has any credibility??

With who, the Right Wing of the Republican Party?

Big deal they are down to 28 % of the American population, and 0% of the world population. Or to put it in other words.... You guys are the pimple in the GOP Elephant's ass... Ugly, disgusting, and down right ambarrassing.