Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« "A Victory Of Sorts" | Main | Edwards Was For Their Dismissal Before He Was Against It »

February 09, 2007

Comments

Terrye

Who the hell do these people think Plame is/was? Jack Bauer? No "one" person does all of anything in intel.

And besides all that Cheney is not the one running his mouth in the NYT, for that bit of national security hanky panky we can thank the lady's husband. So the question then arises, if she was so super duper important and secret etc, why did she send someone related to her over to Africa and then allow him to give contradictory accounts of what he found there to several sources....including a nationally syndicated newspaper the US Senate.

Speaking of nationally syndicated newspapers, did any of these people give a rat's behind when one loud mouth CIA source after another was spilling the beans on national security matters? Hell no, they called that whistleblowing.

Walter

Totally off-topic, but I'm wondering if TM is going to defeat the dreaded thread-herder through sheer force of will and mad typing skills.

Extraneus

No matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, the outing template survives. I know what I know about the case from reading this blog, but for days now I've been hearing ABC News or similar radio reports about how Libby's on trial for leaking Plame's name in retaliation for Wilson's anti-war statements. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not, as long as the point gets hammered home effectively, and it continues to be.

lurker

Ext, Shame on them, huh? They just cannot see that Libby is not charged with leaking her name. GRRR.

I see that Walton has allowed the defense to put Jill Abramson on the stand over the objections of the prosecution team and her lawyer.

Walter

And while we're discussing Plame Misconceptions, can I put in a plug for Richard B. Schmitt, La Times?

To my untrained eye, he appears to have written a Plame piece without a significant mischaracterization. Matt Apuzzo has been doing a good job for the AP, but this is a first in my experience for a writer from a major paper.

"The Associated Press contributed to this report."

Oh...Never mind.

Patton

How to make a liberals head explode:

Inform them that they are making the same mistake about Bush/Cheney that the CIA made about Iraq and WMD.

The CIA believed Iraq had WMD, therefore any intelligence that leaned toward them not having WMD was deemed bad/inaccurate; while intelligence that pointed to the having WMD was considered good/accurate.

The left does the same with Cheney, except in overdrive. Any sliver of information they can discern points to Cheney being the devil, because they already know Cheney is the devil. Therefore, anyone who shows them evidence that maybe Cheney isn't the devil has to be dismissed/impuned.

It will only take 30 seconds to be banned from Firedoglake if you bring this subject up.

its the same with Chris Mathews and the gang at MSNBC, except the are so schizo that even evidence that shows Cheney/Libby innocent, thy spin into therefore he must be guilty.

Its fun to watch, like watching Dan Rather hang onto his Bush National Guard forgeries.

'FAKE BUT ACCURATE' WILL FOREVER BE THE EPITATH OF RATHERS CAREER.

TO MATHEWS AND OBLBERMAN ET AL, THE FACT THEY CAN'T FIND EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY, JUST PROVES HOW GOOD AT LYING, DECEIT AND DECEPTION CHENEY IS, BECAUSE CHENEY IS EVIL.
There fore even the lack of any evidence proves his guilt.

theAmericanist

Ya know, TM, you're gonna ruin what reputation you may have with posts like this.

What Dana Prist was speaking to is NOT the problem you're trying to refute. Learn to read, dude.

Plame had been a clandestine recruiter for folks who would tell the United States stuff that we would not otherwise know. The last CIA guy I talked to about this pointed out there are only three motivations for guys like that -- they are carnal (Plame is a dish), moral (they want truth and justice), or venal (bribes).

Once recruited, sources like that can be useful indefinitely -- and they are vulnerable, indefinitely.

Only a fool would look at Plame's outing and NOT conclude that every potential source being woo'd by an American recruiter, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, will think twice now, because they will know that a future Cheney might rat 'em out, by outing their recruiter for narrow, partisan political gain.

A carnal guy would look at the next CIA babe and think -- well, they outed Plame, didn't they?

A venal guy would look at the money and think -- how much is THIS risk worth?

You might get a moral guy to think, hey, martyrdom would be cool: but those guys aren't reliable assets.

Priest knows this, which is why she wasn't speaking to your point. She was speaking to the idea that Plame HERSELF was still bringing in information.

So -- are you really that stupid, TM?

Pofarmer

Well, the shit, americanist, Wilson should have been more careful with her identity, and his information, shouldn't he? blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Pofarmer

When does something go from being a misconception to just being an outright lie? The media spin on this has to be getting close. They can't all be that stupid.

Patton

I don't think Wells asked, but I think a good question for Russert would have been:

Mr. Russert, you have stated that you didn't learn anything about Wilsons wife until the Novak column came out....Do you always get the news on the day a paper is published (in this case the 14th), or do you sometimes get the news when it is distributed to the press bureaus (this case the 11th)? Is it likely that in your position you do see many news items prior to reading the morning paper?

Jane

Just heard Russert on Imus, puffing about how one does well in front of a jury.

To Imus credit he slipped in the question of whether Russert talked to the FBI before or after the subpoena.

A sheepish "before" was the answer.

He also touted how big and tough Mitchell and Gregory are.

centralcal

Jane - who touted Imus or Russert?

jerry

1. "Think we need some actual details. At present it just doesn't smell right."

2. The position of pudits like TM is -- if Plame was so important, tell us about it.

3. And the position of the CIA and Fitzgerald has been -- we ain't gonna talk about it.

My position is similar to #1, I can see why the CIA would say #3 and ignore #4 - exactly because she and Brewster Jennings were/are important.

When responsible people like Priest or Woodward say no damage was done, I of course see this as some form of disinformation.

dorf

Damage control Big Rus?

hit and run

Walter:
Totally off-topic, but I'm wondering if TM is going to defeat the dreaded thread-herder through sheer force of will and mad typing skills.


Oh, he did. Tom most certainly did. Defeated by dinner last night.

I do question this post, though.

Is Tom baiting a bunch of trolls and moonbats to this site? Going after a commenter at FDL? When word circles back there, what will be the consequence here?

Pete

Think we need some actual details. At present it just doesn't smell right.

That is not exactly a ringing endorsement from Ms. Priest that supports Maguire's position.

Subsequent to what Priest wrote, "Hubris" by Isikoff&Corn also provided some additional details, and also contradicts Priest's assumption that Plame did no clandestine work for four years:
"Valerie Wilson was no analyst or paper-pusher. She was an operations officer working on a top priority of the Bush Administration.
...
Wilson, too, occasionally flew overseas to monitor operations. She also went to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence officials who had intercepted a shipment of aluminum tubes heading to Iraq that CIA analysts were claiming--wrongly--were for a nuclear weapons program. (The analysts rolled over the government's top nuclear experts, who had concluded the tubes were not destined for a nuclear program.)"

And finally the CIA concluded that the Plame outing damaged national security.

Jane

Jane - who touted Imus or Russert?

Russert -

Paraphrase: "Mitchell and Gregory are big tough reporters who would never sit on this story if they knew".

Sort of screws with Fleisher.

My theory of course - is that it wasn't a story, no one was after Val so no one bothered.

And yeah, it was huge damage control. He compared how much more skill is needed on the witness stand compared with how fair he is on Meet the Press.

It was pretty comincal really, at least to someone who will never see Russert in the same way again.

Extraneus

Just heard Russert on Imus, puffing about how one does well in front of a jury.

How one "does well" for the prosecution, or oneself, or the presumed-innocent defendant, or the cause of justice or what? Because I thought Tim was neutral in this case.

lurker
And finally the CIA concluded that the Plame outing damaged national security.

What does this have to do with this case? Libby is not charged with leaking her name to the public (aka reporters).

Having nothing to do with this case, what proof did the outing of Plame damage national security when her name is well-known in the Beltway?

BTW, wasn't Armitage the original leaker?

Walter

HnR,

So that's what I miss when I take time to spend with my family. Won't make that mistake again.

"...my, look how much you've grown..."

lurker
"Valerie Wilson was no analyst or paper-pusher. She was an operations officer working on a top priority of the Bush Administration.

Isikoff / Corn book has been discredited because it's filled with inaccuracies. Don't believe it.

Funny...

People were trying to figure out who she was in year 2003.

fdcol63

The liberal memes have become established, and have thus become "common knowledge" through repeated inculcation by the liberal-dominated MSM, academia, and Hollywood.

No amount of facts will be able to overcome these Big Lies.

Unfortunate and scary, but true.

dorf

Jane: skill at what? -Lamely avoiding answering cross?

Jane

I think how well he did for himself, that despite how tough Wells was, the trick was to get him off his timing, make him repeat all the questions, so Timmy controlled the venue not WElls. And my guess is that Russert's minions have been touting to him how well he did that all night.

(Now remember, I was listening while I was running around, getting dressed, making breakfast and about 10 other things, so you'd be well advised to look at a transcript.)

hit and run

Patton:
Mr. Russert, you have stated that you didn't learn anything about Wilsons wife until the Novak column came out....Do you always get the news on the day a paper is published (in this case the 14th), or do you sometimes get the news when it is distributed to the press bureaus (this case the 11th)?

In his testimony, didn't Russert say how NBC got Wilson on MTP the day the op-ed came out because they saw it hit the wires the night before? (he was on vacation, of course, it was the producers who did the booking and Mitchell who did the show).

Pete

Isikoff / Corn book has been discredited because it's filled with inaccuracies. Don't believe it.

That is a head in the sand approach of not believeing anything that does not fit wth your pre-concieved notions.

Talking of someone being discredited - leading neocon war enabler Doug Feith formerly head of OSP in Pentagon has been discredited for his role in cooking the intelligence:
Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html>Link

kate

Pete-so Feith joins the CIA in supplying faulty intelligence. All this shows is that the intelligence was wrong all around.

kate

I think we need to understand why Cheney lost faith in the intelligence provided him. IIRC-the intelligence in the Gulf War was so bad that Cheney-then Sec of Defense-was disturbed. He did not trust the intelligence coming out of the CIA and looked for alternate views. Not a crime, not a shock.

A less partisan view would look to improve our intelligence overall. Maybe we need to go back to the more streamlined organizations of the past.

dorf

Rus making the defense repeat questions looks like avoidance to observers, jurors, etc. That he fought the defense on ansewering questions about appearing on "Today" and Imus is less than pathetic. The guy has been exposed.

theo

Jane --

THe "screws with Fleischer" thing SHOULD be the headline. Of course, in the MSM it will not be. But the prosecution witnesses say that Ari told Gregory and that Russert did not know. If, as Russert says, Gregory for sure would have told him, one of two things MUST be true -- either Ari did NOT tell Gregory or Russert in fact knew. Therefore some significant part of the prosecution case falls apart. I suspect Russert does not care about that. All that matters to him is HIS performance.

centralcal

Jane, thanks.

How much more skill is needed? Indeed. How about honesty? Oh right, skillful honesty.

Isn't it funny how we usually hear "skillful" used to describe lying, rather than describing the truth?

Jane


Pete,

Captain Ed says you are all wet:

It's difficult to understand the objection of the IG. If the activity broke no laws and violated no policies, what is inappropriate about having competing sets of analysts looking at intelligence to get alternative viewpoints? One of the criticisms made by Bush administration critics is that the White House relied on stovepiped intel analysis for the WMD question -- which came from the official CIA analysts and directed by George Tenet.

In this case, the Secretary and Undersecretary of Defense wanted an investigation of intel to determine whether Iraq had operational ties to al-Qaeda, a reasonable question given the circumstances. The CIA -- which the Democrats believe got it wrong on WMD -- didn't believe that radical Islamists would cooperate with the supposedly secular Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz authorized Feith to review the intelligence to see if evidence existed for a different conclusion, and Feith found enough contacts between Saddam and AQ to at least challenge the notion that they would have never considered a partnership.

Instead, the IG scolded Feith for not following the consensus, and then not following the procedures for "rare" disagreement. That differs rather dramatically from the scolding given to the intel communities by the 9/11 Commission and enthusiastically supported by the same elements in Congress that now want a piece of Douglas Feith for daring to disagree and to do so publicly. Back then, dissenters got celebrated as visionaries who had the courage to try to wake up the decisionmakers. Now Congress wants to punish someone who essentially did what Congress demanded during those reviews.

None of this has anything to do with the war or its intel analysis. Feith and Wolfowitz have served as targets for Democrats for years, and now that they have returned to power, they want to use whatever they can to finish them politically. Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller can't wait to start holding hearings on the matter, even though the IG explicitly states that no laws were broken and the effort was properly revealed to Congress. This is just another venue for political payback, and nothing more.

~~~~

So which is it Pete?

Jane

All that matters to him is HIS performance.

Actually I think what matters to him is his credibility. It remains to be seen if that has been tarnished.

Patton

Pete, martin, etc.

It kind of rings hollow citing journalists reports about Valerie Plame being a super secret agent, GIVEN THE TESTIMONY WE'VE HEARD ABOUT JOURNALIST SOURCING.

HOW ABOUT SOME REAL EVIDENCE, ALL YOU'VE GIVEN US IS SECOND HAND HEARSAY.

The simple fact/evidence is that the JUDGE, the PROSECUTOR and the DEFENSE all agree and stipulate that their was NO evidence the Plame was a covert agent at all.

They have even gone beyond that when the judge said to this day he doesn't
even know if he status was even secret.

Having said all that, re-read Wilsons book, even he hadn't thought his wife was a covert agent until Corn told him so.

They may explain why he went running off at the mouth to the papers. I would think that if she actually was a covert agent, she, and everyone above her that approved Wilsons trip, with no cover and no non-disclosure agreement should have been fired long ago.

The first thing they tell a real covert egent is keeping their covert status under wraps is their number 1 job. Plame failed miserably at that simple task.

No whether your claim is true that she pretended to be a whore for the agency to attract intelligence sources strkes me as just as dumb as torture. If the left constantly tells us that torture doesn't work because the subject will tie to stop the torture, imagine the lies a source will tell to jump in bed with someone.

Not that I have any first hand knowledeg of such actions, but I've heard talk.

I guess the bottom line is your saying the CIA was fed false intellgence about Iraqs WMD because sources were trying to get into Plame's pants.

fdcol

" ... didn't believe that radical Islamists would cooperate with the supposedly secular Saddam Hussein ..."

Liberals still use this argument to doubt the possibility that Saddam would cooperate with al Qaeda, but is it not indeed what we're currently seeing between the radical "clerical mullahs" in Iran and Assad - the secular Baathist - in Syria?

Cromagnon

I wonder if Scootie-boy is gonna have to balls to testify in his own defense?? My guess is that he doesn't. The prospect of having Fitz grilling him again probably has him pissing his pants already

theAmericanist

Forgive me, but this seems worth saying, especially when folks piously wonder if maybe we should 'improve our intelligence'. (Yeah, outing Plame helped that how?)

Injecting a Clinton parallel is perilous, because the one was about, well, nothing, while the other is about a war in which many thousands have died, but the point is, oddly, the same and may help to establish perspective, which most of y'all badly need.

The most troubling thing to me about the Lewinsky scandal is the way the Republican Party allowed the House and Senate to be taken over by the crazies' agenda. Remember, people heard about Lewinsky because of the Paula Jones lawsuit. There was nothing TO the Jones lawsuit. She sued Clinton for making her famous, with money from the people ... who made her famous. (Clinton wanted nobody to have ever heard of her.) You could argue that she had a harassment suit, but that wasn't what her case was about. Her original lawyers flat out advised her to take the money because her case had no merit, so she fired them and refused a remarkably generous settlement for a case with no merit, because she wanted an apology, too, which for political reasons Clinton didn't want to give. (Which is why her new lawyers demanded it, making me wonder why they weren't disbarred, cuz they didn't have HER interests in mind.) Lewinsky became part of that bogus lawsuit.

The second most troubling thing to me in the Lewinsky scandal was the moment, before the dress (it still creeps me out that she saved it), when there were indications that political people were going to go after HER credibility, along the lines of David Brock's other hatchet job "a little bit slutty, and a little bit nutty".

Is it so hard to recognize that was WRONG?

So it makes a little sense to say that, gee, CLINTON would have done the same thing, going after a critic's wife -- if you've utterly abandoned patriotism and lost all perspective.

The Lewinsky case is the epitome of a manufactured political scandal. The Plame case is about going to war on false premises.

So it is telling that folks won't simply admit that it was WRONG to out Plame, and it was WRONG for Libby to tell the grand jury that he heard about Plame from Russert, when in fact he'd heard about it from Cheney. What do you think an orchestrated attempt to slime and intimidate critics would look like? The crazies' agenda has taken over, again.

Ya want better intelligence? Nail people who help out CIA agents for partisan political gain -- including 'public servants' who lie to grand juries about it.

Game theorists find by experiment that there are three kinds of players: cooperators, who look for the greater good; reciprocators, who reward cooperation and punish folks who stiff 'em; and defectors, who take advantage of folks who seek the greater good.

I trust you guys realize that Bush, Cheney and the GOP are clearly defectors, folks whose reflex is to strike first and hope for advantage: somebody on the taxpayers' payroll like Libby has no business attacking an ambassador's wife because he accurately pointed out that the President made a false claim to Congress, any more than somebody on the taxpayers' dime had any business attacking Lewinsky.

And keep some perspective: Iraq is one helluva lot more important. Ya might try a little more (cooperative) patriotism and a little less (incompetent) partisanship.

Pete

The defense may be that no laws were broken by Feith.

But in the court of public opinion this is one more nail in the coffin of the cabal that cooked intelligence.

kate

Libby did not seem afraid of Fitz. He should have been - perjury trap set by FBI guy and sprung by Fitz. I think the defense will weight all the usual issues when deciding to put a defendent on the stand.

Fitz is a mediocre prosecutor, no great shakes.

MaidMarion

I saw the Imus phone interview with Russert this a.m. on MSNBC.

Russert was trying to defend himself against some journalist's observation that he was slow with some of his responses and required some repeats of Well's questions.

I was in court yesterday. It was clear that Russert knew how to handle himself carefully. Comments I heard yesterday and Wedneday from the anti-Libby peanut gallery during breaks was "Russert seemed to have a lot of memory gaps, but geez, how can you expect him to remember all these details. He was such a busy guy and it was a few years ago."

These same people, however, do not cut any of that same slack for Mr. Libby.

I find this mentality not only astounding but frightful.

fdcol63

MaidMarion said:
"These same people, however, do not cut any of that same slack for Mr. Libby."

"I find this mentality not only astounding but frightful."

I find it opportunistic and hypocritical.

Jane

The defense may be that no laws were broken by Feith.

But in the court of public opinion this is one more nail in the coffin of the cabal that cooked intelligence.

So we have you and the left now on record that 2nd opinions should not be allowed, right Pete? Good to know.

Chris


Question:

Would Libby be able to file a deformation suit against all the news orgs broadcasting and printing he's on trial for something he's not? It's clearly false and inflamitory.

Thanks,
Chris

Sue

Injecting a Clinton parallel is perilous,

Not sure who your candidate of choice in 08 is going to be but if it is Edwards, you might want to get some information to him that stops his latest excuse for voting for the war. Not only did he have the intelligence provided by the Bush administration he also claims to have talked to members of the Clinton administration who verified the intelligence was the same as they had and they also believed it to be accurate. I wonder if Edwards will be willing to testify under oath when this subject comes up in the coming fiasco of democratic investigations?

Sue

There was nothing TO the Jones lawsuit.

There was about $800k worth of nothing to the Jones lawsuit.

bethl

course we have little Johnny Edwards blaming his support of the war resolution on Clinton Administration officials. This next election should get interesting

Patton

The Americanist;

You are in serious need of some education. Clinton was killing more Iraqis then Bush could dream of..look it up. Google the term genocide, Clinton UN sanctions, Iraq.

The Clinton policy was to kill as many Iraqis as necessary to punish the population at the same time getting in bed with Saddam so the UN members could get bribes from Saddam.

You may want to look up madeline albrights quote when she was asked whether killing 500,000 innocent Iraqis was worth it and she said YES, it was worth it.

So, simple lesson:

Clinton policy - kill innoents, prop up terrorist.

Bush policy - Liberate innocents, kill terrorists.

You of course pick the Clinton plan, which of course gave us Osama Bin Laden.

Pete

So we have you and the left now on record that 2nd opinions should not be allowed, right Pete? Good to know.

On the contrary, my position is not that second opinions not be allowed. My position is that sound opinions should not be replaced by faulty ones.

People should state their opinions, as long as there is accountability later on about whose opinions were right and whose opinions were wrong. Bush has held nobody accountable for Iraq failures.

As an example spoiled brat Goldberg stated that his opinion about Iraq was superior to that of Professor Juan Cole. Goldberg stated that two years later his position would be vindicated. Two years later Golberg has been thoroughly discredited. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/8/91323/78114>Link

fdcol63

We're supposed to now believe that Edwards, Hillary, et al were merely "gullible" enough to be duped by "cooked intelligence" by BushCo - information provided by their own president and intelligence agencies, which they vetted themselves independently - and which they all agreed with BEFORE the war.

But we're also supposed to believe that we can trust the Dems to NOT be gullible and duped by intentionally misleading and deceitful information that potential adversaries like Iran, Syria, China, Russia, et al might provide in the future?

If liberals had a clue, they might be able to see the cognitive dissonance inherent in this argument.

LOL

Cecil Turner

I wonder if Scootie-boy is gonna have to balls to testify in his own defense?? My guess is that he doesn't.

If Fitz had put on a stronger show, he'd have to. As it is . . .? 'Bout a coin-flip, I'd say.

Injecting a Clinton parallel is perilous, because the one was about, well, nothing . . .

Except the chief law enforcement officer "fixing" a court case . . . complete with perjurious "talking points" for the prospective witnesses. Luckily for him, they were unable to track the memo back to its source, or he'd have been removed from office instead of just impeached and suspended from the bar.

So it is telling that folks won't simply admit that it was WRONG to out Plame . . .

Tell it to Armitage. While you're at it, though, you might want to admit that a CIA agent whose spouse is writing NY Times OpEds about his CIA mission isn't really all that good a secret.

Iraq is one helluva lot more important. Ya might try a little more (cooperative) patriotism . . .

Coming from someone defending the ongoing leftist propaganda campaign, I find this more than a little rich. Unless you're asking us to cooperate in an American defeat . . . which is less than attractive.

PeterUK

Americanist,
"The last CIA guy I talked to about this pointed out there are only three motivations for guys like that -- they are carnal (Plame is a dish), moral (they want truth and justice), or venal (bribes).

Which bar did you meet him in? He/she obviously hadn't finished the training course,did he/she miss the modules on revenge,jealousy,hatred,fanaticism,politics,revolutionary or sectarian, personal safety and just plain contrarianism.
Are you actually implying that Ms Plame was to simulate adultery for her country?

owl

Well, I wonder if we have Matthews on the thread....

The defense may be that no laws were broken by Feith.

But in the court of public opinion this is one more nail in the coffin of the cabal that cooked intelligence

.

Feith....neo con...cabal...cooked intellitence....this was the constant drumbeat at MSNBC from the beginning.

The MSM have run a war and rewrote history. Fitz's gj transcripts could have been written by Chris Matthews. And what is this crap about the judge letting in MSM articles as evidence but it is not evidence when a reporter tells millions (to their faces)?

This trial looks like Fitz is just building his own personal railroad track and the judge is letting him. After all, Fitz and his scriptwriters (who also happen to be his witnesses) have already held a gigantic scriptwriters movie and pronounced him guilty of 'something' that is all about a LEAK but lets not call it a LEAK. Fitz should be charged with something by someone that still thinks 'justice' means something.

Fitz was allowed to keep an administration under the gun for 4 years. And the law allows this piece of lint to not even have to bring Powell and Armitage into his picture? Yeah....justice.

Sue

PUK,

Think Scary Larry. He is the source for most claims that Val was the gal.

Florence Schmieg

What depresses me most about Russert here is that the very day after he testifies he is on the NBC shows talking about himself and the case, even about Gregory and Mitchell who have yet to testify. That is irresponsible, unprofessional, inappropriate,and just plain wrong. But it demonstrates how arrogant and "we're above it all and can do what we want" the attitude of the MSM is these days.

Sue

owl,

How about Grossman? You think he didn't tell his bosses about his phone calls? He certainly didn't tell Libby that he had heard from the 'unnamed envoy'. Powell and Armitage knew more about Plame/Wilson than Libby/Cheney ever did. They had an inside source. Grossman.

Dan S

Peter,

Sleeping with someone other than your spouse is not a big deal to Pete's end of the spectrum. So, yeah, they are implying she sleeps with potential agents, and "not that there's anything wrong with that."

Truth by consensus. It has a long history of good results.

Extraneus

The Plame case is about going to war on false premises.

Actually, this isn't true. The Plame case is about the MSM and a lying scumbag that didn't get his comeuppance. The WMD evidence was there long before Bush, and we can all post dozens of statements from Clinton, his wife, Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry, and all your buddies -- statements made long before Bush took office -- that accuse Saddam of manufacturing WMDs, and in fact using them on his own people. That whole point is a red herring. Wilson gave the low-life Democrats a fig-leaf to hide behind while they sabatoge their own country in wartime -- a war many of them voted for --and when they or anyone else make accusations about "false premises" or being misled or anything similar, they only display their lack of integrity.

Sue

She told a married man on their 3rd date during heavy petting (smirk) that she was CIA, and apparently covert at that, since he asked her if her name was really Valerie. ::shaking head in amazement at the gullibility of the left::

Florence Schmieg

Actually the case is about Joe Wilson and the Democrats (with help from their sympathetic media) trying to sabotage Bush so he wouldn't get reelected. And it all backfired on them. May they all rot in hell.

maryrose

I could not see Imus this morning. I was also getting ready for work and the timing was off. I still think the fact that he talked to the FBI and then tried to avoid testifying for Fitz will not sit well with the jury.I don't think Libby suffered as a result of his testimony. The fix was in with Fitz before this trial began.

owl

Sue...agreed and also what AJ pounded.

clarice

I have to hand it to Wilson,Plame,the VIPS and their running dogs in Congress and the Press-I have not seen so successful a disinformation campaign since Stalin's death. And that is could be so in the face of three reports:The SCCI, the 9/11 Commission and the Butler Report and the historic record that the same intel pointed to the same conclusions for a decade, AND that all our allies in the ME concurred with our fears about Iraq, is a tribute to human gullibility and the enduring facility of really BIG LIES.

owl

Sorry Flo....I don't see it as backfired. Oh possibly on a few but overall....this is still a case about 'who leaked a poor covert agent' because she would not stand still for the evil Bushies lying.

I say Fitz took 4 years and the full power of the law and sold their story good.

tina

Can someone answer a few questions for me?

1. What will be the next step? Will Wells file to dismiss all or some charges? Is that a filing, or just a hearing before the judge? Or does he just start into the defense portion of the trial, and file to dismiss after its over?

Thanks in advance.

owl

okay...I stop....my puter/connection just never keeps up...so will just continue to leave occasional rants.

fdcol63

The simple truth is this:

If Edwards, Hillary, and all the other Dems who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq were "gullible" enough to believe all the "cooked intelligence" that BushCo presented - without using "due diligience" and vetting the information using their own sources in the intelligence communities available to them in their capacities as Senators and other elected officials - then they are guilty of gross malfeasance to the American public.

In short, they failed in their obligations to the American people.

Yet, we're supposed to trust them now?

Gimme a break.

theAmericanist

Yeah, so my source is Larry Johnson, formerly of the CIA. He's a damn fine person and I trust everything he says implicitly. He knows Plame, and knows how important her work was. It's clear to me that people like Pete and Cromagnon (who are not my sockpuppets) are the only ones here that seem to see the truth.

The rest of you are are blinded by your neocon, Doug Feith-loving, Israel-first mentality.

Curly Smith

Just a couple of questions...

Given the success Plame had in counter-proliferation did we really want her working on Iran?

How much of this ongoing nonsense is intended to make us believe that the counter-proliferation group was, in fact, counter-proliferating?

OK, one more question: Is Fitzgerald who is meant by "we must federalize to professionalize"?

Sue

Yeah, so my source is Larry Johnson, formerly of the CIA.

ROTFLMAO.

He knows Plame, and knows how important her work was.

He only knows if someone revealed classified information to him. Remember? Formerly of the CIA? Oh well...carry on...you will anyway.

Dan S

The will to believe is primal. They NEED to believe the Bush administration is evil, so they block any undermining facts while seizing on any small square pegs that can be forced into round holes.

When the premise on which your whole worldview is based is false, the results may be internally consistent, but they will also be false.

The base premise of the BDS is Bush=evil.

All things stem from that.

Arguing with them is as impossible as arguing with a believer in God... except the believer in God will be a lot happier in the end if she is right.

fdcol63

Funny how liberals now trust all things CIA - an agency they use to despise and claim was guilty of helping pursue American "imperialist" aggressions.

Personally, I think it's because the agency is now a former shell of itself after having been infested with liberals and emasculated during the Clinton administration.

No wonder there have been so many leaks from within aimed at damaging the Bush administration.

Sara (Squiggler)

The left and right blogs are missing the "tenor" of the average American right now, IMHO.

We had a huge Super Bowl party here last weekend with close to 50 thirty-something adults. During the course of the evening, after the game, the talk turned to "world events" and I was shocked to hear how this group was so angry at President Bush because he wasn't taking action to "just blow the MFers off the face of the earth" and be done with the whole thing.

They went on with Bush should be impeached for not pardoning the Border Patrol Agents now in Federal prison for doing their jobs. (And getting severely beaten by illegals while in prison.) This was the subject that had this group so angry.

Not one person cared about the WMD issue in Iraq. In fact, they all figured Saddam had plenty of time to get rid of any WMD before we arrived there. It was a total nonissue. It is the Border Patrol agents, stupid, was the gist of their anger.

fdcol63

DanS,

Indeed. Much of the BDS, "global warming" hysteria, and anti-Americanism/anti-Westernism/anti-Semitism we now see is nothing more than a replacement "pseudo-religion" for those who have denounced their belief in a Creator and something larger than themselves.

Sue

Someone get Fitz on the phone. Scary Larry has been the recipient of classified information. Maybe Wells too. This could be the biggest thing since hot dogs.

I would love to see Scary under oath revealing who is telling him all of these classified details he is so happy to impart. Wonder if his story would change if he was held accountable for them? ::grin::

Bill in AZ

I see theAmerikanist has been pwn3d. I predict the "fascist" bomb within a couple more posts. Scary Larry Johnson as a source? heh heh...

Sara (Squiggler)

theAmericanist -- Larry Johnson is a joke. And, INMHO, a very sick man.

Other Tom

You're dreaming, Pete--you claim Cheney's statement that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons was a nail in the coffin, too. Dishonest claims do not drive nails, and you're being intentionally dishonest.

On the question of whether national security was harmed, I'm going to rest assured that, were it so, Fitzgerald would have pleaded it and proved it. He didn't. Quod erat demonstrandum. Martin would call this the "best evidence rule."

Dan S

Sue,

Larry wouldn't admit to any sources. He dreams this stuff up.

maryrose

FlorenceScmieg:
I agree it is wrong and unprofessional to go on national TV and talk about this case and tout how tough and strong Mitchell and Gregory are. OK then put them in the witness chair so we can all see what they have been hiding. By tonight Russert will be rehabilitated by the Left as their new hero .
Newspaper articles-biased as they are should never have been admitted into evidence. Mitchell on Imus -let the tape roll. Drunk my fanny!

Sue

He dreams this stuff up.

I would have said he lies. ::grin:: But I'm not as polite as you.

Dan S

Sue!

But it's not lies if he really believes it!

And he really really believes it.

Sue

I see theAmerikanist has been pwn3d.

Any reason to think the Amerikanist (love that spelling, btw, so...patriotic...) isn't Scary? ::grin::

Dan S

Sue,

Would Larry post under anything but his own name so he'd get the credit?

Well, unless he was acting as his own choir. Hmm.

maryrose

Amerikanist seems awfully close to communist.
As for Clinton -guilty as charged . If he wasn't president he would be in the slammer right now. Start with Whitewater and Flowers and go from there. His own arrogance did him in. He thought he could beat the Jones rap but didn't count on Tripp or Monica or Kathleen. Only a gigolo...

Sue

Would Larry post under anything but his own name so he'd get the credit?

I don't know. But if Scary can dream stuff up, so can I.

Tom Maguire

I'm wondering if TM is going to defeat the dreaded thread-herder through sheer force of will and mad typing skills.

Its mano a mano, or mano a sheepo, or something. Anyway, women are nervous.

Tom Maguire

So -- are you really that stupid, TM?

I must be pretty stupid, because I read it all the way to the bottom of your fact-free fantasy.

I suggest you take up your "argument" with Dana Priest - my impression is she knows almost as much about the intel community as you.

dorf

Cabal: is that the ind og TV service I have?

dorf

Oh, only if its tuned to CNBC. I get it now.

hit and run

Tom:
I'm wondering if TM is going to defeat the dreaded thread-herder through sheer force of will and mad typing skills.

Its mano a mano, or mano a sheepo, or something. Anyway, women are nervous.


Uncle.

Tom Maguire

2. The position of pudits like TM is -- if Plame was so important, tell us about it.

Well, at this point I would settle for "tell anyone". NO credible reporter has run a serious story about harm done by the leak,

NO congressman has made any credible claims.

Is it likely that, four years later, all we would have is Raw Story and Shuster if there was something there?

Bruce Hayden

One place where this whole case is going to affect things for the future is in the relationship between the press and the courts.

Remember, it was a fairly united press screaming for a special prosecutor that got Fitzgerald appointed. But what did he do? He went out and subpoened them. And when one refused to testify, she found herself in jail.

But most importantly, it was determined that the press does not have any sort of immunity from testifying under U.S. law or our Constitution. None. Yes, DoJ rules frown on it right now. But that can be changed at the stroke of the pen of the AG.

And the press is not going to get any sort of federal press shield protection in the near future, given their actions here. The whole Plame thing has been political from the get go, with husband Joe attacking the Administration from the pages of the NYT, then joining (for a short period of time) the Kerry campaign, both of the Wilsons turning out to be Democratic party faithful, and the press going out on this limb to protect them. So, why should at least 9 Republican Senators and a Republican President enact a law that would give the press even more power to do this? Don't think so.

Eugene Volokh has written a lot about slippery slopes. Where does this slippery slope end? When someone leaks classified information to the press, why not just throw the reporters in jail until they identify the person breaking the law? Or when they have inside information on some crime, or ultimately, some civil matter. Yes, at present my understanding is that the party trying to do this has to show that they have made a good faith effort to find the information out by other means and can't, but...

Dan S

TM,

You're ignoring the media complicity with the Bush Administration. Rove has the muzzle slapped securely over the real story.

What's really going on is the CIA is being eviscerated muscle and sinew and the role it was so lackluster in since the end of VN is being split up and scattered among myriad defense agencies. Didn't you get the memo?

(I can dream)

Another Bob

Say "theAmericanist", are you ever going to respond to the seemingly fact-based criticisms of your screeds?

For instance, your opinion of Joe Wilson's actions and how they contributed to the "outing" of Val?

Hello? This thing on???

Cecil Turner

"Valerie Wilson was no analyst or paper-pusher. She was an operations officer working on a top priority of the Bush Administration.

This is another nice try. I have little doubt she was a type of Operations Officer, in the clandestine support section at Langley. Specifically, a Staff Operations Officer:

The Staff Operations Officer (SOO) guides, coordinates and supports overseas intelligence collection. To do this, SOO's have a thorough understanding of operations in general and specifically in their developed areas of expertise such as terrorism, counterproliferation or a geographic region.
The bad news: where I come from, we call this sort of person a "paper pusher."

Jane

As an example spoiled brat Goldberg stated that his opinion about Iraq was superior to that of Professor Juan Cole.

A toddler's opinion would be superior to Juan Cole's. He's about the least credible person on the war I can think of.

Tom Maguire

She told a married man on their 3rd date during heavy petting (smirk) that she was CIA, and apparently covert at that, since he asked her if her name was really Valerie.

Well, he had the appropriate undercover clearances.

No, really - he was on the NSC at the time. I there was an apparent "need to know". And that is all I want to say about Joe's needs just now.

Look, I apologize for having responded to the American Idolist - anyone who wants to debate the Clinton impeachment *and* the Iraq war on one thread is clearly a troll in the classic sense (i.e., inflammatory and distracting, not the current lefty sense of "someone who interferes with my current dream state").

However, this is priceless:

Yeah, so my source is Larry Johnson, formerly of the CIA. He's a damn fine person and I trust everything he says implicitly.

I am somewhat the opposite of an LJ fan, yet even I will state (no fair peeking), that he is formerly of the INR, not the CIA.

Bets, anyone?

And anticipating my win, let me add, geez, know your heroes.

Bruce Hayden

I agree with TM on this. With all that is invested by so many in proving that the Plame "outing" harmed national security, etc., we should by now have had all sorts of evidence leaked to the press, which would, given the circumstances, be running it on page 1 above the fold.

And this is esp. true since it turned out to be State that outed Plame, and not the Administration, and given the rivalry between the CIA and State, many at the CIA had every incentive to leak this sort of information - and haven't. Not that a lot at the CIA wouldn't want to harm the Administration if they could in this matter. It is hard to believe that Plame was the only civil servant at the CIA who backed liberal politicians.

Dan S

Bruce,

"When someone leaks classified information to the press, why not just throw the reporters in jail until they identify the person breaking the law?"

Even with my strong libertarian tendencies, I am so there already. The one major function that justifies government in the first place is the common defense. This undermines that overtly.

Yes, it also CAN serve a check & balance function, but I would prefer to see whistleblowing supported on the back end, as jury nullification in a trial. Breaking the law, even for noble causes, should be justified. As the system stands, we pretty much immunize this lawbreaking.

Being punished for choosing to be a patriot, even in the face of law, is just another form of feeding the tree of libery its quota of blood. Volunteering for that duty is analogous to volunteering to serve in the military in time of war. I would repest whistle-blowers far more if the act held far more real risk than it does at present. Reporters would also be a LOT more careful about verifying the information they use if they knew they were going to have to give up their sources. Anonymous sourcing would become rare (as it should be). Anonymouos sourcing would also be a signal that someone was willing to bear the full weight of the law. It would be a tactical maneuver, to buy time perhaps, rather than a simple means of escaping responsibility (on which liberty is based) for what is more often than not, at minimum spinning.

And look where it gets us. Intelligence gathering and analysis is politicized. Law enforcement is politicized. Both partly as a result of giving freedom of the press priority over the common defense. Both of those function, and others, should be as impartial as we can encourage them to be. We're sending cross signals as things stand.

Without a common defense there is no freedom. It's a balancing act, indeed, but right now we are clearly in an unbalanced state. We need to nudge the scale back in the other direction a couple grains.

Sue

And that is all I want to say about Joe's needs just now.

Especially in context with appropriate undercover clearances.

I am somewhat the opposite of an LJ fan

Yeah, well, me too. I'm not sure you have reached the status with him that I appeared to reach though. Has he sent you personal emails? ::grin::

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame