Max Frankel Of Times - Libby Trial Not Worth It

Max Frankel, a Times elder statesman, writes in the Sunday Times Magazine that the Fitzgerald investigation and Libby trial exacted too high a price in terms of lost press freedom and dimunition of the free flow of leaks.

Critics will surely note that this recognition is conveniently timed, since there is at least a possibility that another round of leak investigations will hit the Times a bit closer to home - the NSA warrantless eavesdropping case springs to mind.

And nowhere in this account does Mr. Frankel mention David Gregory by name - Ari Fleischer testified that he leaked to Mr. Gregory, but Mr. Gregory has not, as best I know, ever confirmed or denied that.  We are deeply intrigued because Mr. Gregory's story (if he ever tells it) would effect the credibility of either prosecution witness Ari Fleischer or prosecution witness and NBC heavyweight Tim Russert. 

Now Max Frankel is playing along with that little part of the NBC cover-up - nice to see such solidarity on the journalism team.

Here we go:

Libby’s reasonable expectation that reporters would keep his confidences — and protect his perjury — was foiled by some weird mishaps and finally by the shrewd maneuvers of a passionate and politically independent prosecutor. The resulting trial produced a fascinating display of how information is harvested in Washington and how secrets are dripped out by officialdom. But I kept thinking that the compelled testimony about reporters and their sources would end up doing more damage than even the reckless violation of a C.I.A.

...

VIII. So was Libby’s prosecution worth a four-year judicial and journalistic circus? Was it worth turning the White House into a defensive fortress? Was it worth invading newsroom files and alerting other sources that their chance of exposure has been significantly increased? Was tracking down one leak worth the risk that greater wrongdoing will go unreported in the future?

The damage to newsgathering, I believe, has been significant. Celebrity journalists like Bob Woodward and Tim Russert may not lose access to sources, but more vulnerable reporters and less-wealthy media outlets will surrender to the subpoenas and jail threats now descending on them in unprecedented numbers. Some will betray confidences; some will suppress articles whose defense would be costly. Others may avoid risky reporting altogether.

...

Much as I enjoyed the human drama and revelations of the Libby case, I wound up regretting the rough ride of the law through the marketplace of information.

Fitzgerald may be forgiven his passionate defense of the integrity of grand-jury proceedings and F.B.I. investigations. But attorneys general should resist the temptation to interfere with newsgathering or to delegate such a decision to a single-minded special counsel. When a White House leak is suspected, it is hard to avoid an independent prosecutor, but it’s a pressure worth resisting. Nothing in the last four decades has altered my preference for the chaotic condition I described when I asked the courts not to fret over the lost secrets of the Pentagon Papers:

For the vast majority of “secrets,” there has developed between the government and the press (and Congress) a rather simple rule of thumb: The government hides what it can, pleading necessity as long as it can, and the press pries out what it can, pleading a need and right to know.  Each side in this “game” regularly “wins” and “loses” a round or two. Each fights with the weapons at its command. When the government loses a secret or two, it simply adjusts to a new reality. When the press loses a quest or two, it simply reports (or misreports) as best it can. Or so it has been, until this moment.

It may sound cynical to conclude that tolerating abusive leaks by government is the price that society has to pay for the benefit of receiving essential leaks about government. But that awkward condition has long served to protect the most vital secrets while dislodging the many the public deserves to know.

The article provides a long review of the Libby trial and merits the red pen.  Here are just a few points Mr. Frankel's editor might have queried (emphasis added throughout):

Howler 1:

 

When in early 2002, Cheney and Libby came upon a fresh report about uranium sales, they insistently asked an already dubious C.I.A. to check into it further. So with the assistance of Valerie Wilson, two of her colleagues in the agency’s counterproliferation division invited Joseph Wilson, her husband, to seek out friends in Niger, where he quickly gathered proof that no such deal had been or could be made without being discovered.

Wilson’s oral report to that effect and other findings...

The "other findings" included an approach interpreted by the CIA as an attempt by Iraq to open talks about buying Niger's uranium.  And I would be curious to see Mr. Frankel support the word "insistently" - per the trial, Cheney asked a question of his CIA briefer, the CIA sent a memo back the next day, and Cheney was out of it; on its own intitative, and in response to questions from State and Defense as well as the VP, the CIA organized the Wilson trip.

Howler 2:

The Libby case, however, did not serve to enhance government discipline. If President Bush had truly wanted to find and fire the people who outed Valerie Wilson, as he vowed, he could have extracted confessions from the White House staffs in a single stern meeting.

The role of Richard armitage, Deputy Secretary od State, is discussed elsewhere in this story - would a White House staff meeting have unmasked him?  And would screaming Democrats and their press allies have really accepted such an informal Presidential investigation as conclusive?  Please.

Or, to really dive into the mire, what about Karl Rove, who testified that he simply forgot his casual mention of Wilson's wife to Matt Cooper.  Would a Presidential staff meeting have jogged his memory, or is Mr. Frankel sure Rove is lying about that?

I can quit anytime, but...

Howler 3, on Armitage's motive:

The claim that Wilson’s mission to Niger had been an irrelevant junket arranged by his wife was duly conveyed, probably by Cheney, to Karl Rove, the president’s top political aide and most practiced spinmeister. And he promptly mobilized White House aides on July 8, observing that they were already late to the battle, “a day behind” in the pursuit of Wilson.

Reporters covering the president in Africa and some in Washington suddenly found themselves receiving broad hints to inquire about who had arranged the Wilson mission. And Robert Novak, a Rove favorite among conservative columnists, was the first to get an answer. After years of trying, he had obtained an interview with Armitage for July 8, at the end of which Armitage told him about Wilson’s wife, Valerie, and her job at the C.I.A. It was a chatty, offhand comment, according to Armitage; it was a calculated leak that he was urged to print, Novak said.

...First Woodward, now Novak: Why did Armitage dump on Wilson a second time? I suspect that he was half annoyed and half amused by the fuss an upstart diplomat had created — for other departments. But he may also have known of Rove’s interest in spreading the junket tale.

So let's see - Armitage contacted Novak in June and set up a meeting for July 8 to help out Karl Rove?  Psychic.

I have a different idea - however much Cheney may have been discredited by the failure to find WMDs in Iraq, it was Secretray of State Colin Powell that made the dramatic speech to the United Nations laying out the Administration case against Saddam Hussein.

So although Powell did not specificaly cite the uranium piece in his speech, Joe Wilson's broad charge that the Administration had manipulated the pre-war intelligence was also an attack on Colin Powell. And Armitage was pushing back.

Nominate your own howlers below.

Comments

[lurker]

There were a few articles published right after Libby's convictions implying that Fitz had set a new precedence for the journalists as well as our Cabinet Officers.

One article even said that Fitz created the fourth branch of our Federal Government!!

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I can quit anytime, but...

The first step is to admit you're powerless over your addiction.

[clarice]

I'm busy and I will not wade thru 16 pp of this drivel today. But look at it this way, if Frankel was to accurately report the facts of this case, it would pmlu shock the readers of the NYT which to date have been told a vastly different story about the case.

OTOH, I expect as I wrote at the time, this will come back to bite the press on the ass. It's an ill-wind ...........

[Other Tom]

"Was tracking down one leak worth the risk that greater wrongdoing will go unreported in the future?"

Frankel has apparently lost sight of the fact that Fitzgerald's entire enterprise was utterly unrelated to the tracking down of a leak. As of the day Fitz was appointed he knew the source of the leak, and he also knew that the FBI believed Libby had lied in his interviews. From that day forward he was seeking evidence of perjury and obstruction against Libby and anyone else who might stumble. He was never engaged in tracking down a leak.

[Semanticleo]

The damage to newsgathering,

Pooey.

Unearthing the incestuous affair between
Media Insiders within the Beltway is
the boil that Fitzorro lanced, and the
resulting ooze has everyone upset about
it's bacterial content. Get over.

You're gonna actually do actual investigative journalism. That outcome is well worth the price of infamy.

[Cecil Turner]

Libby’s reasonable expectation that reporters would keep his confidences — and protect his perjury . . .

Utter crap. Only Joe Wilson and Val Plame had reasonable expectation the reporters would keep their confidences . . . and they did. Fitz helped.

[sylvia]

Yes sometimes I think the line between drama and reality is blurred for journalists, as they want their stories to flow and excite the readers. You know who is really bad about this are the UK papers. I always thought their writing style was more exciting and wondered how they did that. But then I realized their stories might read like an exciting Shakespeare play, but that's because the boring details seems to be an unimportant second. The more you know about the facts of a case the more you notice it everywhere. For instance, I started noticing the fudging years ago in local newspaper stories. Anytime I had any personal knowledge of a small story, many of the details were always wrong. And that concept can be extrapolated out to the MSM sadly.

[sylvia]

I agree with Other Tom that, no it wasn't worth it because it was never about a leak. It was about an insignificant statement about a non-crime. All the important things were known when Fitz came on. The only investigating he should have done was whether Plame was indeed covert. Putting Judy in jail for months and all the hardball tactics used by Fitz were totally pointless and did damage the relationship of a free flow of information to the media.

Looks like the left is on a come down now, as the harsh cold reality is sinking in. Oh well. They should have remembered the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for..."

[danking70]

"there is at least a possibility that another round of leak investigations will hit the Times a bit closer to home - the NSA warrantless eavesdropping case springs to mind."

Yeah right, the way this and other trials (Jefferson springs to mind) are going, we'll die of old age first.

[Tom Maguire]

Frankel has apparently lost sight of the fact that Fitzgerald's entire enterprise was utterly unrelated to the tracking down of a leak.

Ahh! That was high on my howler list - Frankel said this:

Knowing of Armitage’s role, why didn’t Fitzgerald fold his tent and return at once to his “day job” as U.S. attorney in Chicago? Because Libby’s already evident lies to the F.B.I. and Fleischer’s multiple leaks in far-off Uganda convinced him that there had been more than a single careless source. He smelled an illegal White House smear campaign and thought Libby could help him crack the case. And if Libby persisted in his story before the grand jury, he would at least have a perjury case — if, against all precedent, he could force reporters to testify.

1. He didn't even know of Fleischer's leak when he took the case in late December.

2. If he "smelled" an illegal "smear" campaign, what law did he have in mind, and what was the "smear"?

(That said, I think Frankel is accurately guessing at part of Fitzgerald's mindset; however, Fitzgerald also essentially said in his post-trial presser that he was handed a perjury case and ran with it).

As to Libby's evident lies, Russert gets off very easily here; Frankel never notes that Fleischer was wrong about Pincus and never names Dickerson or Gregory.

[Ranger]

Libby’s reasonable expectation that reporters would keep his confidences — and protect his perjury . . .

He's just pimping Fitz's big lie of the case. Considering Russert talked about their conversation in detail with the FBI with no more effort on the government's part than dialing the phone, I'd say Libby was absolutely correct that the press would talk and he absolutely expected them to.

[danking70]

Ranger, I'm still surprised Novak hasn't written about Russert's informal talk with Eckenrode after the grilling he got on Meet the Press.

I can't imagine Novak holding back on that.

I'm still surprised the press hasn't shoved a mike in front of Armitage's face and ask him about his Woodward interview. Where's FoxNews on this?

[Enderbury]

The real travesty in the Frankel piece is that this experienced, intelligent man with far more writing chops than any of us will ever have, in the end simply wants everbody else to "back off" and "butt out" of his business.

Where's the disinfectant of sunlight, Max? Won't it work for the reporting game?

The mighty Frankel disapoints by turning out to be just as rent seeking, lazy, and protectionist as the rest of us. He's bummed that his profession might have to actually start working as hard as the rest of the world.

[sylvia]

"2. If he "smelled" an illegal "smear" campaign, what law did he have in mind, and what was the "smear"?"

Yes that's the point to me. You can't just investigate something because you don't like it. There has to be some potential broken law associated with it. And when Fitz came on, he knew no laws applied. In fact Fitz didn't even have a perjury case when he came on, because Miller hadn't fessed up, and Russert at that point had only had a vague statement about not being sure what Libby said. The only perjury tinged statement that Fitz had to hang his hat on at that point was perhaps Fleischer's statement that he spoke about Plame on Tuesday with Libby, when Libby said he didn't remember on Thursday. But no big deal actually, there was no underlying crime, so not the end of the world, and hardly worth a huge deal because of what a man may or may not have had in his head on a certain day.

I don't know, maybe the MSM will get to that point of realization someday that it was a big nothing. It sounds like they are starting to go down that road with baby steps.

[Ranger]

Yes, it takes a particular type of slime ball to publicly abuse someone for less than you know you've done yourself. It's really too bad that people will continue to treat Russert with respect after this whole thing. Novak should demand a public appology from him.

[sylvia]

Well now that I've gotten sufficiently riled up with a new Plame post, that will give me the energy to go about my day. It's like a shot of espresso in the morning.

[sferris]

Yes, the trial was worth every penny of it. First, we got a peak at how the White House and journalist operated. Not pretty. Second, a look into how the office of the VP operated. Ugly. Libby's conviction left a indelible mark on the VP office, that will not be removed by any pardon. It will also have salutary affect of diminishing the Cheney's standing.

[BarbaraS]

Don't forget Echenrode. He was the FBI in charge of this investigation before Fitzgerald came on board. He was the one who underhandedly called Russert. He was the one who convinced Ashcroft to recuse himself. And he was the one who lost his notes exonerating Libby. He was the one who doctored Deborah Bonds notes in her summary. The list goes on and on. Why didn't Fitzgerald call him as a witness? Maybe because he would be seen a liar on the stand?

[sferris]

Yes, the trial was worth every penny of it. First, we got a peak at how the White House and journalist operated. Not pretty. Second, a look into how the office of the VP operated. Ugly. Libby's conviction left a indelible mark on the VP office, that will not be removed by any pardon. It will also have salutary affect of diminishing Cheney's standing.

[BarbaraS]

It's really amusing how the left are now saying the present WH is so corrupt when the dems are finding all these non crimes and when Clinton was in office it was a revolving door every day on crimes. It must suck for the left NOT to find anything of substance and have to go with these piddling little do-nothings.

[Tom Maguire]

The first step is to admit you're powerless over your addiction.

LOL.

Just to let people know - I have now added a Gregory paragraph to see if any attention can be brought his way.

[Dalton]

BarbaraS,
Just hide and watch.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Nominate your own howlers below.'

Not at all hard to find:

'...Valerie Wilson, she was a covert (and, as befits a spy story, comely) agent of the Central Intelligence Agency so covert, in fact, that she had traveled in the guise of an energy consultant while recruiting spies abroad to track the traffic in weapons of mass destruction.'

and

'Nor was the jury told about Libby’s lawyerly knowledge that he could talk about Plame to reporters and still avoid violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by claiming to have learned about her from reporters.'

and

'So with the assistance of Valerie Wilson, two of her colleagues in the agency’s counterproliferation division invited Joseph Wilson, her husband, to seek out friends in Niger, where he quickly gathered proof that no such deal had been or could be made without being discovered.'

And those are all from one page.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

If TM is an addict, we are his enablers. :)

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Oh, my God:

'Wilson aired his suspicions and Niger experience at a panel discussion on Iraq and agreed there to let Nicholas Kristof report them in his Times column on May 6, 2003, attributed only to a “former ambassador.” That’s how it’s done by critics who want to appear modest or discreet...'

It's more likely how it's done by politically ambitious former diplomats with egos the size of Alaska.

[Lew Clark]

Clarice,
The PMLU (Pulse Modulated Laser Upsweep) is still a highly classified weapon system. Please avoid mentioning it in your posts.

[Lew Clark]

If we have learned anything, we should realize that David Gregory is a covert CIA agent and his "cover employer" and the CIA are making affirmative efforts to protect his identity. I think Tom is treading on dangerous ground trying to expose agent Gregory.

[Larry]

The first step is to admit you're powerless over your addiction.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 25, 2007 at 11:29 AM
~..that your life has become unmanageable.~

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, pleaded ignorance, even scoffing that the negative Niger report must be languishing “in the bowels of” the C.I.A. That put-down brought forth a second column by Kristof, on June 13, still not naming Wilson.'

Which column is clearly a response to Walter Pincus's story denying the VP knew about Wilson's trip. Get your talking NY Times Reporter Doll; when you pull the string it says, 'Reporting is hard.'

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

This is enough to make me sympathize with Fitzgerald, NY Times reporters ought to be put in jail:

'Did Libby mean simply to instruct Fleischer further about the affair? Or was he planting a seed that he hoped would germinate? He and Cheney knew that calling it a spousal perk would discredit Wilson’s mission. Yet they surely also recognized the legal risk in exposing Valerie Plame’s covert status...'

[MikeS]

Pointing out Frankel's factual errors will not impress him or the NYT anymore than Dan Rather was impressed when he found out his story was based on forged documents.

Journalists are not in the 'facts' or 'truth' business. They are in the fable or narrative business. To them the facts are inconvenient substances that sometimes find their way into a narrative.

That's why blogs are so popular.

[Tom]

MikeS,
You're actually subscribing to the notion
that ALL journalists are not the least bit interested in facts or truth, but are really only interested in "fable and narrative?"

Really?

[MikeS]

Wrong Tom:

Did I say all? Funny the keys are on my keyboard yet I didn't use them.

[BarbaraS]

BarbaraS,
Just hide and watch

I leave that to lefties. They are so good at it. Very little of their doings could stand up to the light of day.

[Rick Ballard]

MikeS,

Ssssh - you're interfering in the construction of strawmen. They only come out just right when constructed in complete silence.

[MikeS]

Did I say "not the least bit interested" or "really only interested?"

Hmmm.

[Tom]

MikeS,
This is exactly what you said: "Journalists are not in the 'facts' or 'truth' business. They are in the fable or narrative business. To them the facts are inconvenient substances that sometimes find their way into a narrative."

I don't see where you've established any distinction between ALL or just SOME.

Oh, wait, I get it...what you really meant to say was journalists who might not be conservative are only interested in "fable and narrative."

Sorry, my bad.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

This seems such a basic question, but I'll ask it anyway. Why would knowledge that his wife was behind Wilson's trip discredit anything? I still don't get that connection. I've worked for companies where nepotism is prohibited by company policy, even going so far as to require one party to quit if they marry another employee, but the government doesn't prohibit relatives working for the government. I drew a paycheck from the House of Representatives while my husband was drawing a paycheck from the Department of Defense. No one said that was nepotism. I'm sure that in Washington there are thousands and thousands of relatives, spouses, kids, drawing government paychecks.

[PeterUK]

"Journalists are not in the 'facts' or 'truth' business. They are in the fable or narrative business. To them the facts are inconvenient substances that sometimes find their way into a narrative."

More to the point they write copy to fill newspapers which generate profits from sales and advertising revenue - well except the New York Times.

[Jeff]

I nominate this as my howler:

Cheney asked a question of his CIA briefer, the CIA sent a memo back the next day, and Cheney was out of it

Cheney was out of it? Huh? Per Libby's grand jury testimony, they recognized the memo back on February 14 as a sort of temporary answer. Libby also testified that that was the last on the intelligence from Cheney. But we know that's not so. In early March 2002, Cheney asked for an update, and, as his briefer was told by Winpac analysts they were working on it and that the CIA would be debriefing a source who might have more information (Wilson), it's safe to infer that Cheney was told that same information.

So Cheney was not out of it.

Now, as for what happened next, it's a mystery. The oral report from Wilson came in. But apparently not another word on the entire matter passed to or from Cheney about the whole Niger story, despite the fact that the report from Wilson's trip was flagged for Winpac analysts by Directorate of Operations officials - presumably in the unit that dealt with Wilson - because they knew the high priority of the issue, i.e. the VP's interest. The report was widely distributed in routine channels. But it was evidently not briefed to Cheney or Libby, which is mighty odd, regardless of whether you think the report went against the initial idea of the Niger story, supported it, or was inconclusive.

But in any case, February 14 was not the end of the story for Cheney.

[MikeS]

which is mighty odd
It would be more than odd, if someone at the CIA really thought Wilson's mission was requested by the OVP.

On the other hand, the VP didn't have to wait for the NIE to be declassified. He new through July, 2003 that no matter who had seen Wilson's report, no one had been swayed by it.

[sferris]

Libby was the Chief of Staff to the VP and senior advisor to the president. Libby was found guilty on one count of obstruction of justice; two counts of making false statements; and two counts of perjury. He has an appeal left. In the unlikely event of a new trial, attempting to minimize Libby's conviction is irrelevant, because it’s only background noise. It would be helpful at this point if the White House or Cheney's office would give the public an explanation, but they're refusing using the cover of Libby's appeal. The White House will likely NEVER say anything more about Libby's conviction because it's too embarrassing. So, it's left to the right-wing noise machine to offer all manner of excuses and explanations. Up next for Libby is his sentencing trial in June. Because of mandatory U.S. sentencing guidelines, Libby will be either remanded to prison, or he will remain free awaiting his appeal. Yes, Bush can pardon him. However, Bush claimed early in his administration he would maintain the highest standards in granting pardons. This would seem to disqualify a pardon for Libby based on a waiting period of at least five years required by the Office of the Pardon Attorney.

[stevesh]

Facts v. Narrative (For the "greater" truth)
------------------------------------------------------

NYT: Wounded female soldier raped in Iraq
Fact: Neither raped, wounded nor in Iraq (ever)

Des Moines Register: Soldier commits suicide prior to Iraq deployment (DMR publishes prior to the boy's funeral!)
Fact: Accident

http://www.iowavoice.com/2007/03/25/new-york-times-gets-it-wrongagain/

[MikeS]

Reality is a beautiful thing!

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I understand there is a woman in the 15 Brits who were captured. Anyone want to speculate on what her fate is right now? Or how she is being used to get the other 14 to do whatever it is the Iranians want them to do?

[Other Tom]

Sferris is having great difficulty coming to grips with the fact that this is all there is. Fitzmas is over. One indictment, one conviction. We'll always have the standards set by the Clinton administration as a reference point, against which the Bush administation will endure as a model of rectitude. Fools may talk of "stains" all they wish; the grownups will press forward with the nation's business, in particular the Surge In Iraq, which those same fools are powerless to prevent. Perhaps Hillary will set them on a new course in January of 2009, but I am pleasantly moved to doubt.

[stevesh]

OSTHFS
-------
Oblique (to thread), Shameless Topic Hijack re. Favorite Sport:

Duke Men's Lacrosse - #5, Div-1 Poll (aka: Pole)
Duke Women's Lacrosse - #4, Div-1 Poll (cf.)

[Tom]

SteveS,
Speaking of out and out lies, distortions and just plain bullshit coming from YOUR side of the aisle: WMD, aluminum tubes, chemical wagons, stockpiles of anthrax, mushroom clouds, etc.

You people are sooooooo easy.

*And, hey, why not send your silly little NYT's slam on to the families of the 3,200 dead and 24,000 wounded soldiers. I'm sure they'd be impressed by your ability to ferret out of such important mistakes.

[Foo Bar]

The "other findings" included an approach interpreted by the CIA as an attempt by Iraq to open talks about buying Niger's uranium. And I would be curious to see Mr. Frankel support the word "insistently"

I don't see a problem with "other findings" or with "insistently". Both are supported by that fact that the CIA was already skeptical of the Niger uranium story. See e.g. this from the Post:

While not definitive, Wilson's assessment fit with the skepticism already existing on the subject. Wilson's report was "not memorable" because it confirmed previously held doubts, said several U.S. officials.

So the other findings may have been the basis for the preexisting skepticism. It also doesn't seem unreasonable to describe a single request to look into it as insistent if the CIA was already skeptical.

Are you parsing "other findings" to mean Wilson's other findings? I don't think it's meant that way.

[PeterUK]

Sara,
The woman will be raped,as will the men.Special forces are warned what to expect,these poor souls probably are not.
Interesting they were blindfolded,photographed and accused of a capital offence,yet strangely there hasn't been a peep out of thr al Ferris or the abu Toms about the violation of the Geneva Conventions.I wonder why that is?

[Tom]

Other Tom,
Actually the Libster came away with four (4) convictions...and of course, you have to throw Former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles who was just convicted into the ever growing mix, the ninth such conviction in a continuing Justice Department probe...SO FAR.

By the time Georgie leaves office (and maybe not by his own accord) there will be a string of convictions we just haven't heard about yet.

[Other Tom]

Oh, my goodness--are we really back to "lies" coming from "our" side? Well, if they're really lies, let's give credit where credit is due. Herewith a few honors for the "other" side:

"And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen…

"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.”
W. J. Clinton, February 17, 1998

“He has used such [chemical] weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked he would do so again..."
W.J. Clinton, December 19, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

The craven retreat from their own words by prominent Democratic politicians is one of the most disgraceful episodes in American history. With the nation in great peril, they have consciously chosen to seek others to blame, and to ignore and deny their very own pronouncements of such recent vintage. It is a permanent, indelible shame. They are a low, dishonest political party.

[PeterUK]

Other Tom,
Speaking hypothetically,how many people could undergo eight hours of interrogation without notes and not make a mistake,This more than anything horrified me about the possibilities for abuse in the Grand Jury system.

[Other Tom]

One man was convicted, Tom, and you know it. I am talking about Scooter Libby. No honest person would describe his conviction of four counts as "four convictions," but if that's the calculus you want to use we'd have to go back and break out a new abacus for the Clinton criminals.

As to "former deputy interior secretaries," if that's what turns you on, go for it. No one else cares about it at all.

[stevesh]

HAMLET: I'll play this bout first; set it by awhile. Come. (They play)

Another hit; what say you?

LAERTES: A touch, a touch, I do confess.
---------------------------------------------
Tom,

No poison, OK. The NYT did what they did.

[Other Tom]

Just because it's so much fun--and because the Moonbats cannot and will not ever address the issue--let's have some more "lies," shall we?

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Democrats lied--oh, so many Democrats lied. People died.

[Tom]

Other Tom,
I guarantee you that Scooter and his attorneys consider there to be FOUR convictions, each carrying a specific potential penalty.

As for your rehash of what Clinton or anybody else thought about Saddam...ONLY Bush and his neocon buddies pushed through an actual invasion...based on skewed evidence. (And where by the way...is OSAMA??)

As far as I'm concerned, they could have gone in and ripped Saddam's balls off, but I'm not very impressed with the Bush team's advance planning or the aftermath, something you would think might have been considered before the invasion.

I realize nobody here probably watches Bill Maher, but last night Frum (one of the architects of the Iraqi fiasco) was asked a very simple question: "What do we do now?"

He took plenty of time, stumbled all over himself, but could not articulate an answer of any sort.

Now, if one of the architects of the entire affair can't answer the question...why do so many here think the Democrats should immediately have a PLAN???

We're trapped like rats and no matter when we leave, all hell will probably cut loose...but, you know what?

THAT AIN'T OUR PROBLEM...it's the IRAQI'S PROBLEM.

Period.

[lurker]

Posting again for Clarice:

"

Clarice!

I just read Fred Barnes' March 12, 2007 Bush Turns the Other Cheek "

Fred says that Bush needs to start standing up to the Democrats - just like Oliver North did.

Fred says:

"The way Washington works in 2007, with Democrats in control of Congress, being nice and conciliatory, as Bush has been, is counterproductive. It's never reciprocated.

Fred's article begins with Bush's return from South America where he was calm, reasonable, and even a big apologetic. Little good iy fif him. Reid said the Bush ADM was guilty if "immoral" and "illegal" behavior. The next day, Schumer followed suit by saying, "This is the worst crisis of confidence at the DoJ that I have seen in my time in the Senate. It is a crisis of confidence, a crisis of credibility, and a crisis of management."

Schumer may be a partisan hack, but as the Democratic point-man on the firings, he is carrying the day. He guided the Democrats as they transformed the perfectly legal and quite normal removal of federal prosecutors into a raging scandal. They've done this for raw political reasons. And Busb, with his timidity and style in the face of Democratic accusations, has let them. He hasn't fought back, He's become an enabler.

Look at what Bush has enabled. By not intantly and unflichingly denouncing the Democratic offensive for what it is, an entirely bogus attack on his adm, he has allowed a mere flap to get out of hand. And now he faces unpleasant decisions over whether to fire Gonzales and permit Democrats to haul Rove before a congressional committee. Shoule he do either, his adm will be tremendously weakened and his presidency stained.

Sop there's a crisis, but not the one Schumer talked about. It's a crisis of presidential leadership. Bush excels as a leader of his country. He is unrelenting in pursuing the war on Islamic terrorists and performed admirably on his recent tour of Latin America. But he's also responsible for leading and defending his adm and Republican party. He's failing in both of these duties.

Bush needs to fight back, rhetorically and otherwise, without hesitation and without fear that his critics will end up even more opposed to his politicies.

So far, the Democrats have been encouraged to be more billigerent and discourages the Republican allies.

A WH official says the president's instinct is not to denounce opponents...not necessarily because he thinks politeness will curry favor with Democrats. It's just Bush's style.

Republican senator, John Thune, of SD, says that "if you don't come up very aggressively and push back, it takes on a life of its own. And that's what happened here."

Fred says that Bush should have said, "It's an outrage that Democrats would attack, solely for political gain, a president's constitutional authority to name US attorneys and remove them from office. Clinton removed all 93 federal prosecutors in 1993 as was his right. I have removed 8, none of them for political reasons. That Democrats are now willing to play political games with our criminal justice sysem is a sham and I will vigorously oppose their efforts."

It wouldn't have stopped Democrats in their tracks. But they would have known they were in for a fight if they tried to use the firings as a political weapon.

The president's failure to defend those 16-words led ultimately to the CIA leak case and the prosecution of Libby.

Conclusion:

Trouble will visit Bush again and again if he does not stand up to the Democrats. He could begin by informing them that they won't get the scalp of Gonzales, Rove, or anyone else. Following that, he could tell Democrats to quit wasting their time on antiwar resolutions and other issues that will never become law and concentrate on issues like immigration and education.

KUDOS TO FRED BARNES!!"

[PeterUK]

"why do so many here think the Democrats should immediately have a PLAN???"

"words of bin Laden himself: "The most... serious issue today for the whole world," he said, "is this Third World War...[that is] raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He said, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." And in words directed at the American people, Osama bin Laden declares, quote, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever." This leader of al Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the Caliphate. He has also said, and I quote, "Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars."

A plan would be good.

[Robin Roberts]

Tom, the Bush administration has actually been among the cleanest of presidential administrations going back to probably Gerald Ford. It is almost amusing to see the trivial incidents that the BDS sufferers try to fill with hot air.

[clarice]

Fred and I fought together once before--He was Jock Yablonski's press man when I was one of his lawyers. The men who murdered Jock first came to Fred's office and it was just chance that Jock was not there at the time or Fred would have been murdered, too.
We both know what hard battles are like.We are old friends who have been in the trenches together before. There's not a thing in his article I wouldn't have been proud to write myself.

[lurker]

Wow, I had no idea that you personally knew (and worked with) Fred Barnes. I have enjoyed watching him on All Fox News panel when he shows up. There were a few comments that he's made on TV that I did not like but most of the time I agree with him.

Did you read Sweetness and light about the trade proposal that Iran is making - 15 Brits for all 300 Iranian soldiers. Our own DOS and CIA were pushing Pentagon for the trade. Petreaus says no!

Remember Lesson 3 of Andrew Roberts' book:

"Don't hesitate to intern our enemies for long, indefinite periods of time" and it worked well in Ireland and during WWII.

Hope Britain has the will this time (Lesson 2 of Andrew Roberts). While I'm concerned about all 15 Brits, I'm particularly more concerned about what Iran would do to that woman, if true.

Hopefully, all of the Western alliances will denounce Iran for the capture of 15 Brits. And Britain will modify its processes to ensure the safety of all of its soldiers.

[lurker]

Sorry, wrong site. It's the PJM site.

BREAKING: US Holds 300 Prisoners Linked to Iran

" The number of bombings associated with Iran-backed groups seems to be declining, although both sources cautioned it is too soon to be sure.

The Pentagon received “considerable pressure” from officials in the State department and CIA to release some or all of the Iran-linked prisoners to facilitate discussions between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian officials. Apparently, Gen. Petraeus sharply disagreed, saying that he intends to hold the prisoners “until they run out of information or we run out of food,” according to our sources who heard these remarks through channels.

[lurker]

Clarice, Mac Ranger is now saying that the AG Story is starting to fall apart.

[windansea]

"a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam."

easy for osama to say...he's got like 15 wives?

[clarice]

lurker, read it again--he's talking about the media disinfo campaign AGAINST Gonzales.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

If the dems have their way, Petraeus and his soldiers will run out of food before the information concerning our enemies runs out. The dems, of course, see only the U.S. military as the enemy.

[lurker]

Clarice, you're right. For MSM. I didn't word it properly. And will this be the beginning of the backfire against Democrats.

[PeterUK]

"easy for osama to say...he's got like 15 wives?"

Why do you think he is hiding in a cave?

[clarice]

Smile, TM. This post is on Lucianne's Most Reads today!

[Sara (Squiggler)]

"easy for osama to say...he's got like 15 wives?"

Why do you think he is hiding in a cave?

Posted by: PeterUK | March 25, 2007 at 06:31 PM

LOL.

[hit and run]

Clarice:
Smile, TM. This post is on Lucianne's Most Reads today!

Did you mean Mist Reads? Or Mast Reads? Or???

[lurker]

Because cave living represents the 7th century lifestyle? And he expects (or expected) all of us to live the way people lived in the 7th century?

OT:

Democrat's Propose the Largest Tax Increase in American History

Hugh Hewitt says:

"While the Kung Pau Democrats were passing p[ort for peanuts and shrimp as well as a timetable for defeat, they were also busy laying the groundwork for the largest tax hike in history."

And provided the link above.

No wonder they were in a hurry to get this "Defense with Pork" bill passed.

Anyone wonder how the new pork was going to be paid?

[PeterUK]

Ah! H&R, A message from head office.
A BEER BEFORE IT STARTS

A man came home from work, sat down in his favorite chair, turned on the
TV, and said to his wife, "Quick, bring me a beer before it starts."
She looked a little puzzled, but brought him a beer. When he finished
it, he said, "Quick, bring me another beer. It's gonna start."
This time she looked a little angry, but brought him a beer. When it was
gone, he said, "Quick, another beer, it's gonna start any second."
"That's it!" She blows her top, "You bastard! You waltz in here, flop
your fat ass down, don't even say hello to me and then expect me to run
around like your slave. Don't you realize that I cook and clean and wash
and iron all day long?" The husband sighed. "Oh shit, it's started.

[clarice]

MUst , mUst,mUst reads, h & r--That's what I get for trying to do 20 things all at the same time.

[Specter]

Tom (or whatever you choose to call yourself) Troll,

Get a grip. Yep. All of the WMD evidence was manufactured just as soon as Bush took office. And he planned 911 just so he could use that evidence - and did it before he took office so that the hijackers could learn to fly planes under Clinton's administration. What foresight Bush must have. And then Bush used the infamous "Comey-Fitzgerald" mind rays to have all of those Dims come out and condemn Hussein about the WMDs before he took office. Wow - the guy is just unstoppable. And Clinton undertook Operation Desert Fox because? Oh yea - using your logic it was because Bush must have held old Billy in his power. Do you understand how irrational you sound? I suspect not... Try understanding history and not rewriting it.

[Syl]

Well, I learned some important things about the media that Frankel would rather keep hidden:

-hypocrisy that allows them to blab to the FBI then turn around and proclaim they're acting on principle to protect sources.

-incompetent note taking

-sloppy sourcing

-Claiming the people's right to know while suppressing information the people need to know.

-Media dependance on other media sources for facts, as illustrated by Frankel's own misconceptions about the Libby case.

[jerry]

TM, this is a great thread topic. Inspired to carefully read Frankel, I looked to see if this famous DC jouralist would break any news (rather than fit JOM styled tea leaves).

"Libby’s leak from the N.I.E. would have exposed it as a deeply flawed analysis, a cut-and-paste collection of stale reports.... the worst N.I.E. ever produced and one obviously tailored to support a policy decision already made."

- Interesting, having not followed this topic as relentlessly as JOM this made me wonder what contribution Val and her analysts had made to the NIE after long pressure from the WH.

"several analysts had indeed complained about excessive pressure to the C.I.A.’s ombudsman and that the news of their unhappiness had been leaked to The Times and The Washington Post"

- I guess I had rad these stories but missed the context, I'd like to see some more reporting on this now... was Plame long on the OVP radar because of this issue, before they ever learned that Joe was the person sent to Niger?

"Libby mentioned the Wilsons while complaining to the C.I.A. that some of its analysts had been griping to reporters about being pressured into distorting intelligence during his and Cheney’s frequent prewar visits to the agency."

- Now this is the money quote from my perspective (suspicious that the OVP targeted Val knowing very well what her status was at the CIA). Just when did Libby mention the Wilsons to the CIA while complaining about analysts? This would have been after he learned about both Wilsons... June 2003?

============================================

"This seems such a basic question, but I'll ask it anyway. Why would knowledge that his wife was behind Wilson's trip discredit anything?"

I've wondered the same thing Sara, why did the WH/OVP make a big deal about this (esp as it isn't even true)? My answer has been that it allowed them to out Plame.

[lurker]

Clarice, looks like Laura Ingraham has joined Captain's Quarters. Check Hot Air that has the video showing Laura and Fred Barnes talking to each other.

[hit and run]

I asked a few days ago about the new new Tom perhaps adding a qualifier to his name here to differentiate between he and the host. And pointed out how the estimable Other Tom had done so...::welcome back!::

Although I won't be engaging him personally, I hope that no one will refer to him simply as Tom. That name should only be used to refer to Dear Leader.

What to do?

I say call him Tommeh (or is it Tommuh?), as a play on Jimmy Carter's blogospheric name.

And he can be proud of being in the company of a former president.

(and any similarities with that name and the Timmy character on southpark are completely unintentional)

[Specter]

LOL

[Syl]

jerry

I guess you didn't follow the trial or the testimony. Look at c. martin's for example. That also explains the timing that you find suspicious.

I guess you also don't understand bureaucracies. You don't work in an office, do you?

[hit and run]

PUK:
The husband sighed. "Oh shit, it's started.

Whoa. He got two beers out of that.

lol

[hit and run]

Clarice:
That's what I get for trying to do 20 things all at the same time.

Well, if you would drop everything else and just pay attention to me, there would be no mistakes. ::grin::

[clarice]

Laura Ingraham thinks Gonzales is incompetent. Again, that is not reason to throw him to wolves who claimed he lied.

[clarice]

I would pay more attention to you but you are always out buying beer or searching for more.(Actually, I was sending Soylent a weekly update. I told him you'd run off with firedoglake. Hope you don't mind,h & r, but I figure he needs something to keep him going in the last weeks of basic training.)

[PeterUK]

""This seems such a basic question, but I'll ask it anyway. Why would knowledge that his wife was behind Wilson's trip discredit anything?"

I've wondered the same thing Sara, why did the WH/OVP make a big deal about this (esp as it isn't even true)? My answer has been that it allowed them to out Plame."

I'm sure there is some logic behind that....somewhere....were you educated by Jesuits?

[hit and run]

Clarice:
I told him you'd run off with firedoglake. Hope you don't mind,h & r

WHAAAAAAA!!!?!?!?!?!?

My Jeralyn is not FDL!

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
"I told him you'd run off with firedoglake. Hope you don't mind,h & r,"

..and you wonder why he drinks?

[hit and run]

I'd be hiding in a cave.

[PeterUK]

If you meet a tall thin bearded guy,make sure he buys his round.

[clarice]

Pray for me. Tomorrow I head off to L.A. for over a week to take care of my darling, sweet looking 21 month old grand daughter who is called by those who truly know her "the wolverine".

[stevesh]

A Wolverine Novena, perhaps?

[jerry]

"I'm sure there is some logic behind that....somewhere....were you educated by Jesuits?"

The idea is that they could attack Joe because of his op-ed but not Val; when they pushed the (false) idea that she sent him she became part of the story and was outed.

Syl, I'll dig around for Martin's testimony... but if you could just briefly tell me it would be easier.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Where in L.A. Clarice? Will you be in waving distance?

[lurker]

False idea? There's enough proof that Val did send Joe to Niger.

[MikeS]

she became part of the story and was outed.

Slow down a little so I can catch up. "they" tricked the CIA into sending Joe or was the CIA in on the plot to out Val?

Was Joe in on it?

[lurker]

They weren't attacking Joe but rather correcting (pushing back) Joe's Op-Ed.

[PeterUK]

"My answer has been that it allowed them to out Plame."
First you explain why outing made any difference whatsoever,apart from it was a good career move for Plame.Nonentity middle ranking bureaucrat to celebrity overnight.
Governments don't punish by outing employees, they call them insane,unreliable, loose cannons,have psychological flaws.There is plenty of history on this look it up.

[jerry]

"False idea? There's enough proof that Val did send Joe to Niger."

- no, someone suggested it to her.

"Slow down a little so I can catch up. 'they' tricked the CIA into sending Joe or was the CIA in on the plot to out Val?"

- neither.

"They weren't attacking Joe but rather correcting (pushing back) Joe's Op-Ed."

- I agree with that, correctly pushing back at Joe.

"Governments don't punish by outing employees..."

- but that is what happened, that's why there was an investigation, that's why the trial showed Libby expending a bit of time in June 2003 getting info on Val from something like 9 different government officials. Odd behavior if Joe was the person they were pushing back against.