Valerie Plame, Telling Stories

From yesterday's USA Today:

Plame called on to explain varied accounts

WASHINGTON — Former CIA officer Valerie Plame should explain "differences" in her various accounts of how her husband was sent to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to investigate reports Iraq was trying to buy uranium there, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said.

Plame's differing versions have furthered "misinformation" about the origins of the case that roiled official Washington beginning in July 2003, said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. Plame gave those accounts to the CIA's inspector general, Senate investigators and a House committee in March.

A February 2002 CIA memo released last week as part of a study of pre-Iraq-war intelligence shows that Plame suggested her husband, former State Department official Joseph Wilson, for the Niger trip, Bond said. That "doesn't square" with Plame's March testimony in which she said an unnamed CIA colleague raised her husband's name, Bond told USA TODAY.

Here are Plame's three versions of how Wilson was sent to Niger, Bond said:

•She told the CIA's inspector general in 2003 or 2004 that she had suggested Wilson.

•Plame told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers in 2004 that she couldn't remember whether she had suggested Wilson.

•She told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March that an unidentified person in Vice President Cheney's office asked a CIA colleague about the African uranium report in February 2002. A third officer, overhearing Plame and the colleague discussing this, suggested, "Well, why don't we send Joe?" Plame told the committee.

CIA officials have been unable to verify Plame's March version, Bond said. Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, said the "public record on the matter is extensive, and, at this point, I can't add anything to it."

Byron York had lots over the weekend (1, 2, 3, 4), including this memo from Ms. Plame which she currently claims does not constitute her recommendation of her husband for the Niger trip:

The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion.  Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium.  The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons.  The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can't be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.

So where do I fit in?  As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter].  After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison.  My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not.  End of story.

Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.  To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency's sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again.  However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist.  Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here.  Thank you for your time on this.

The new Senate report is here.  Not a lot of MSM coverage of this Plame angle yet (or probably, ever) - here are the UPI/Wash Times and the TPM Daily Muckraker.  The TPM notes the story and tells us that NBC News also has it.

MORE, eventually...

CRYPTIC:  CHS on perjury.  BS.  JK?!?  OMG - ROFL.  EPU'ed.

MORE:  This is quite an impressive aggregator for the Plame commentary, even if it does put me near the top.

LESS CRYPTIC:  Patterico notes that "the idea that [Fitzgerald] should have dropped his investigation as soon as he “found out Valerie Plame wasn’t covert” just took a pretty big hit."  Well, OK.  Jeff, posting at firedoglake, has an expanded version of that argument:

[Fitzgerald's new filings mean] that, whatever Toensing herself or anyone else thinks about Plame's covertness, those pursuing the investigation determined that she was covert under the statute. (And note that Fitzgerald told the Court of Appeals in August 2004 that his attorneys from the USA office in Illinois had participated in analyzing the relevant statutes.) And the basis for this judgment is no great mystery, now that Fitzgerald has released the unclassified summary of Plame's post-2001 CIA career and cover history. Fitzgerald prepared it in response to an order from Reggie Walton back in June 2006 to give to the defense, after Walton determined that the disclosure of the classified materials bearing on Plame's CIA employment would cause serious if not grave damage to national security, a substitution for that classified material.

Interesting - a document prepared by Fitzgerald in June 2006 is now the basis for Fitzgerald's assertion that "[I]t was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent"?   How does that work?  Wouldn't it be a bit more convincing if Fitzgerald could demonstrate that some research into Ms. Plame's status had been done and a good faith determination had been made in 2003, or at least, "very early in the investigation"?  By June 2006, Fitzgerald was well aware of the challenges being made to his investigation.

Oh, well - I have more fulminations on this point in the "MORE" addendum to yesterday's post, but let me recycle it:

...just how strong was the good faith determination that Ms. Plame was covered by the statute?  Did the DoJ run their opinion past CIA Counsel, or anyone?  Or did they calculate that it was in their interest to assume the statute was relevant and simply proceed, figuring they would do the work to justify charges under the statute only if more facts emerged to support a charge?  In his Oct 2005 press conference Fitzgerald did spend a lot of time on the improbable claim that investigators investigate facts, not statutes, and only open the statute books after the facts are in.  Made no sense, but that was his position then.  Now we are supposed to believe it was "clear from very early in the investigation", and presume they did the work to support it.  Work the CIA Counsel has yet to complete.  Hmm.

Well.  IMHO, the original investigators did proceed in good faith, confident that until they had established some basic facts they could not rule in or out charges under the IIPA, the Espionage Act, or maybe something else.

And Fitzgerald?  In a video tape of comments he made after Libby's trial, he essentially admitted he was handed a perjury case and ran with it.  Which is fine.  But spare us the posturing.

Comments

[lurker9876]

Fitz' comments about the cloud over VP should have been a harbinger for his habitual of introducing something without proof and evidence.

This sort of a statement is the one that the defense team could have challenged Fitz to prove that Libby prevented Fitz from finding out if Cheney did something wrong.

Funny that to date, Fitz still hasn't found anything that Cheney and VP office of any wrongdoings or he would have already charged more people.

Even though it's not required, this is one of the cases that a defense team should have pushed for the underlying crime up front.

[lurker9876]

You know what...

the more the Wilsons sue, the less people want to do anything with them.

Who would want to hire them after yeseterday's filing against CIA?

Oh, Kerry and Edwards wouldn't have a problem hiring them...

[Other Tom]

The Wall Street Journal weighs in on Fitz's sentencing brief. Looks like they've been reading JOM, too.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010154

[boris]

Lazy Link

TSK9 also linked at 12:33AM

[Other Tom]

This is entirely off-topic, but an excellent read, again at the WSJ. It's Peggy Noonan, eloquently capturing Other Tom's thoughts about Bush.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010148

[Appalled Moderate]

OT:

I honestly don't see the divorce on anything other than immigration. And the thrill and joy being expressed as part of that divorce is a little ugly.

There is a certainly a "let's at least attempt to enforce the laws" argument to be had on the immigration bill. But it gets confused with some of the other varieties of stridency being played out on the right.

I think the real problem is that, given his experience in Texas, Bush feels strongly about immigration. And, to be blunt about it, one thing this administration has not been so good about has been following laws that run against his strong beliefs.

[Jane]

And, to be blunt about it, one thing this administration has not been so good about has been following laws that run against his strong beliefs

I hear these kinds of slams all the time, and I consider myself very sensitive to lawbreaking. What really turned me on Clinton was the fact that he didn't think the laws applied to him. I see just the opposite with Bush. I think the interpretation of the laws has been called into question by opponants of this administration, but in all cases, more than one interpretation was appropriate.

So I really don't know where you get this from Appalled. Can you lay out exactly what laws this administration has broken. (Frankly, IMO if there was any evidence of that, given the libs, Bush would have been impeached and given the death penalty by now)

[boris]

following laws that run against his strong beliefs

Based on the NSA program and "outing" Plame?

While your point on immigration is a good one, this claim is not. The administration has been far more punctilious about the letter of law than ... oh say ... BJ's.

They adhered rather strictly to the sealed case interpretaion of FISA law, the closest there is to a judicial ruling. Those who disagree maintain the case was either meaningless or irrelevant or that anything short of declaring FISA unconstitutional in effect supports their interpretaion based on assertions as to the intent of congress.

Whatever. No reasonable person can take issue with the point that having ruled on FISA the sealed case presented the administration with an interpretaion they strictly complied with. That is not "breaking the law" and those claiming it is are simply wrong.

[Appalled Moderate]

boris:

I don't have Plame in mind. I do have NSA, signing statements, the pressure applied to gvernment employees not to testify about the real costs of the prescription drug law and the introduction of enhanced interrogation techniques to the armed forces very much in mind.

[clarice]

I spent 4 hours on my trip back writing an article on this latest sentencing flap and this morning when I look at it, I'm not satisfied with it. PUK is right, it seems as much a justification for his pursuit of this nothingburger matter, but there is more..a bizarre waying of thinking that seems to have the Conrad Black case on the ropes, too--a too eager jumping into cases without adequate research, a snipping the edges off the truth to make them fit the jigsaw case in his mind and then counting on the court's predilection to give the govt the benefit of the doubt and the jury's distaste for the the defendant to carry him thru despite the weaknesses of the case...weaknesses which would have been obvious had the underlying work been more honest . (And again, in the Black case, as in this one and others, Fitz gave immunity to the wrongdoers and tried to punish the innocent.)

[Other Tom]

I think you're technically right about the NSA matter, Boris, but there were any number of ways this administration could have conducted the same surveillance without doing it in a way that was almost guaranteed to infuriate the congress. (I wouldn't count outing Plame as an instance of disregarding the law; it's pretty clear to me that at the time various people discussed her it hadn't occurred to them that they were violating any law--and with good reason.)

I think the "divorce" also arose out of the profligate spending, the failure to veto a single spending measure, and other government-enlarging measures. He'll be loosely described as a "conservative," as is Richard Nixon, but remember that Nixon gave us the EPA, wage and price controls, and a lot more. There was only one Ronaldus Maximus.

AM, I'm sure you are aware that signing statements have been used by a number of previous presidents, although not nearly to the extent that Bush has. And I certainly wouldn't say that enhanced interrogation techniqes were introduced by this administration--it was merely during this administration that an age-old practice came to light. And I don't think the armed forces have done it to anything like the extent the CIA has, although I'm not certain. Do we have evidence of the troops doing it, other than spontaneously and without authorization? The Abu Ghraib fools were prosecuted; in any event, they weren't interrogating, they were just being undisciplined sadists.

Further off topic: can anyone look at the picture of that TB-carrying personal injury lawyer, or read his accounts of his plight, without developing an intense desire to garrott the fellow?

[clarice]

****a bizarre way of thinking that seems to have the Conrad Black case on the ropes, too--a too eager jumping into cases without adequate research, a snipping the edges off the truth to make the facts fit the jigsaw case ***
OT, that TB guy is a product of what my d-in-l calls WTMPR (Way too much positive reenforcement), a child rearing practice designed to create narcissists, I think.

[Jane]

I sort of like the TB guy. No, that's too strong. What I like is how he busts the stereotypes. I know when I heard the story I thought he must be a 3rd world country guy running home to marry his sister before the drug cartel carted him away for not paying past debts. I'm quite thrilled to have been so very wrong.

Oh, and Clarice, it's phrases like this: " snipping the edges off the truth to make them fit the jigsaw case in his mind ... " that put me in awe.

[boris]

introduction of enhanced interrogation techniques to the armed forces

To be specific I assume you consider the waterboarding of KSM to be against some law. I don't.

As OT mentioned, this was not done by "armed forces". Interrogation of illegal combatants is one of the evils made necessary by war with terrorists and unless you consider BJ renderings more lawful, the term "introduced" is inaccurate as well.

[Appalled Moderate]

OT --

As a resident of Atlanta, I think a baseball bat (wielded by some of our better hitting Braves)would be sufficent for Mr. TB. Alternatively, we can have him play catcher for some of our warming up relief pitchers. Unfortunately, TM, I am afraid your toothless Yankees just aren't up to the assault. (Gratuitous -- I know -- but some of those 90s World Series Defeats still rankle...)

On spending -- I know that's some of the reason there has been a divorce among some folks who preferred their conservatism more libertarian, but I don't think the values voters cared a jot about that. They have become excited over (i) Harriet Meyers and (ii) this immigration issue.

The issue with Bush and signing statements is the extent he took things. As for enhanced -- remembr all that cheerful enhanced techniques memo writing? That wasn't done for the CIA. And, honestly, I am commenting on an impression the guy leaves. Generally, you can always defend this policy or that policy on some other basis than the one you suspect, but after a while, a pattern emerges, and you can only believe the common thread you see before you.

[Other Tom]

I think such practices go back far beyond Clinton. It's just that they were left undiscussed--by both political parties--in public forums.

[boris]

a pattern emerges

The pattern that emerges is TANG memos, "Lied us into war!" and all the Katrina BS (BDS actually).

There's your frakkin pattern.

[Other Tom]

As I recall the memo-writing stuff, they were memos written by guys in Justice concerning the state of the law regarding treatment of unlawful combatants. And I haven't seen any indication that the conclusions they reached were erroneous. In any event I'm not aware of the troops doing this stuff, and as a former officer I can tell you it's something that guys really don't want to get involved in.

The Harriet Meiers thing was really a seminal moment for me. It was the final straw in persuading me that this guy simply is not a "movement" conservative, if he's conservative at all.

[Appalled Moderate]

Boris:

Katrina and ignorance of what an Iraq invasion would bring fit into a pattern of incompetence, rather than lawlessness.

[Jane]

I don't blame Katrina, or even the response to Katrina on the WH. I blame Katrina on the weather, as odd as that sounds to many, and the lack of response on the state and local responders and the media for its mis-reporting. Blaming Bush makes me support Bush more.

And I've yet to hear of a war that was fought with extreme competance and where the route it would take was predicted accurately in advance. The first gulf war comes the closest I guess, but that wasn't much of a war. There may be legitimate criticism of Bush in conducting this war, but it is always put forward by people who don't think we are at war, or don't think the war is worth fighting or who have no plan for victory. So that sort of diminishes that criticism in my book too.

[Walter]

--a too eager jumping into cases without adequate research, a snipping the edges off the truth to make them fit the jigsaw case in his mind and then counting on the court's predilection to give the govt the benefit of the doubt and the jury's distaste for the the defendant to carry him through despite the weaknesses of the case...

Clarice, I put my thoughts on Marcy's blog, but the implications of Fitzgerald's sentencing argument have practical overreaching effect:

I wonder how this plays out in Fitzgerald's other cases? In Chicago, he won a conviction for obstruction of justice when the defendant refused to answer questions even after being granted immunity. As Fitzgerald was investigating terrorist activity, would the most severe possible terrorist-related crime be the appropriate cross-reference?

Upon further reflection, it seems as though Fitzgerald does not consider the logical extension of his argument to be as farcical as the defense intended--that is, he truly believes that if he is investigating a death-penalty case, any obstruction, even refusing to neither lie or aid the prosecutor, justifies a sentence 6 points below the death penalty. Even if he makes no attempt to show by a predominance of the evidence (let alone a reasonable doubt) that the defendant's (in)action actually prevented the successful prosecution of a death-penalty crime. Or that the obstruction, such as it is, related to conduct constituting a crime.

But I've been arguing against this application of obstruction of justice statutes in investigatory settings here for some time. Although, as I've admitted before, the current state of the law does not make Fitzgerald's position frivolous, recent USSC decisions trend more towards my position than his.

Truly odd that those who regard themselves as the guardians of our liberties would choose this man and these arguments to revere.

[Other Tom]

When GWB said, "you're doin' a great job, Brownie," that was another cringe-making moment for me. As was his praise of George Tenet in the days after 9/11--the man should have been sent home to spend more time with his family, given that he didn't have a sufficient sense of honor to simply resign.

As for the war, as Eisenhower said, "every war will surprise you." And a useful maxim (maybe also from Ike) is "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy." Or as Mike Tyson said, "everybody's got a plan until he gets hit."

[Appalled Moderate]

Jane:

Katrina gave us the unedifying vision of three uniquely dysfunctional executives totally botching a crisis. It's possible to hold Nagin, Blanco and Bush in varying levels of contempt. It does not speak well of New Orleans that they reelected their particular moron. (in the same way that our electorate gave itself an international duncecap for reelecting Bush.)

If you want to think about Bush as poor executive, think about this. if he truly felt Iraq needed to be invaded, why did he do nothing in the days following 9/11 to increase the staffing of our military? This was certainly a unique moment in history to have accomplished this, and it is something of a no-brainer.

So why not?

[Other Tom]

Walter, I was trying to make the point yesterday that if Fitz can proceed this way, it would seem to suggest a slippery slope in which, in every perjury or false statement case, a prosecutor can claim that "if the defendant hadn't lied, I could have proved X, Y and Z," without ever introducing evidence of X, Y or Z. And in this case, of course, he earnestly and successfully sought to keep any such evidence out of discovery and out of the trial. I would think a principled civil libertarian would be very troubled by this, but when BDS sets in, principle be damned.

[boris]

Didn't mean to hijack the thread over Katrina. By including it with "TANG memos" I thought my point would be obvious: a pattern of falsely blaming Bush.

Since AM actually considers Katrina a legitimate bash, the point was missed. Fine. No recitation of facts to illustrate MSM lies, Nagin's follies or Blanco's BDS is going to change such immoderate bias.

[Other Tom]

Here it is: "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy." — Field Marshall Helmuth Carl Bernard von Moltke

[PatrickR]

'Truly odd that those who regard themselves as the guardians of our liberties would choose this man and these arguments to revere.'

Yeah, a prosecutor with a God-complex. Remember what he told that kid who interviewed him for his high school newspaper; he didn't like having to satisfy a client in private practice.

He preferred government work where he could just do what he knew was 'right'. Which seems to mean, if you don't like Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby's boss, or Conrad Black, it's 'right' to conjure up a crime out of nothing and prosecute.

[lurker9876]

"If you want to think about Bush as poor executive, think about this. if he truly felt Iraq needed to be invaded, why did he do nothing in the days following 9/11 to increase the staffing of our military? This was certainly a unique moment in history to have accomplished this, and it is something of a no-brainer."

Actually, it's something of a brainer. It was close to the end of a fiscal year. Bush has to ask for budget approval from Congress before increasing military. Pentagan has to go through RPF cycles to request new equipment, updates to new equipments, etc. Before they can complete RPF cycles, they have to figure out what they want and get everyone to agree to it in order to get RFPs out. There are also RFI's and so on. These take a long time. Then they have to place orders and those orders take time, too.

As long as Bush initiated things shortly after 9/11, then don't blame Bush for the process.

[lurker9876]

Clinton did many signatures so Bush's signatures was not new.

[DouglasS]

Rich: "How again wasn't she involved?"

Nice job distorting and taking things out of context. The reports officer didn't say she wasn't "involved" in any manner whatsover. He said she wasn't "involved in the decisionmaking." In other words, it was one or more other people, not her, who made the decision. Here's the simple concept you're finding hard to grasp: making a suggestion and making a decision are two different things.

"her 12 Feb memo"

I guess you mean her memo (pdf, p. 207) which says this: "As you may recall [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently [2001] approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [redacted] [a separate Niger matter]." In other words, her memo which indicates that someone else, not her, was apparently first to start raising the idea that CIA might have reason to send Wilson to Niger.

By the way, here's a simple question about that memo. The key paragraph contains an ellipsis, in a key place. Is that ellipsis in the original? The context seems to indicate that the answer is no. But it's essentially impossible to answer this question, because for some strange reason, Bond gave us a retyped version of Plame's email, rather than a photo of a printed original. How odd. Here's something else that's odd: he used two different redaction techniques (or three, if the ellipses is yet another redaction). It's hard to imagine why, unless he wanted to obscure the length of certain particular redactions.

"her 13 Feb cable distributed to the larger IC and FS community"

Where did you get "distributed to the larger IC and FS community?" This is what Bond told us (p. 212) about that cable: "Mrs. Wilson drafted a cable that was sent overseas requesting concurrence with Ambassador Wilson's travel to Niger." Since when is "overseas" translated as "to the larger IC and FS community?"

Anyway, even if this cable (which Bond doesn't want us to see, for some strange reason; instead, we're supposed to trust his characterization of it) was indeed "requesting concurrence" with something, that doesn't contradict what the reports officer said: that she wasn't "involved in the decisionmaking."

"her introduction of Joe at an interagency meeting"

The idea that she convened a meeting or introduced him at a meeting (or sent a memo "requesting concurrence" with something) doesn't mean she was "involved in the decisionmaking." It's completely consistent with the following scenario: she helped carry out a decision made by someone else.

Mike: "you caught me being a bit careless with the language"

That's hysterically funny. Guess who else has been "a bit careless with the language" in exactly the same manner as you: the White House. Rove told Cooper that Plame "authorized the trip." That's another way of saying what you said: she sent him. Guess who else said she sent him: Libby, talking to Fleischer. And Bartlett, talking to Fleischer. That's in Fleischer's testimony. And then Fleischer conveyed that misinformation to multiple reporters.

And the righty noise machine took that idea and ran with it. Here's a very typical example from Fox: "the vice president [was] entitled to say: I didn't send that guy to Niger. It was his wife."

One small problem: Plame didn't send him. The reports officer is on record saying she wasn't "involved in the decisionmaking." Even Bond has been forced to backpedal (pdf, p. 210): "[we] never claimed that Mrs. Wilson made the decision to send him …"

"When I said all real journalist wanted to know who sent Joe to Niger, I didn't mean that they wanted to know whose signature was on the authorization"

Thanks for the laugh. Please continue trying to convince us that "sent" doesn't mean "sent." This makes as much sense as Clinton discussing the meaning of "is."

When journalists asked who "sent Joe to Niger," I think this is what they wanted to know, oddly enough: who sent Joe to Niger. "Sent," as in "authorized." As in "made the decision."

"I suppose they really wanted to know who suggested the mission and why."

Your first distortion is to pretend that "suggested" and "decided" mean the same thing. Your further distortion is pretend there's no difference between the following two statements:

A) Plame was the first person and the primary person who thought that sending Joe was a good idea

B) A number of people thought of Joe and Plame concurred that he could do the job

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that Plame's 2/12/02 memo indicates that someone else had already approached Wilson with an idea about sending him to Niger.

By the way, this distortion (pretending that A and B are the same) is very similar to the way Armitage's role is distorted, by pretending that the following are the same:

C) Armitage was one of four known leakers (the others are Libby, Rove and Fleischer)

D) Armitage was the leaker

C is an honest statement. D is not. But righty rhetoric is all about promoting D. Just like it's all about promoting A.

"They … wanted to know who suggested Wilson for the mission … Valerie Plame did."

You're promoting A, even though you don't have facts to show that A is closer to the truth than B.

[Jane]

Katrina gave us the unedifying vision of three uniquely dysfunctional executives totally botching a crisis. It's possible to hold Nagin, Blanco and Bush in varying levels of contempt.

Appalled,

Maybe, but I get blinded by the rush to blame Bush for everything that Nagin and Blanco caused. The left's BDS causes me to diminish all the criticism. I've yet to discover what Bush did so wrong in Katrina - other than in a PR sense, and your post doesn't explain it further.

If you want to think about Bush as poor executive, think about this. if he truly felt Iraq needed to be invaded, why did he do nothing in the days following 9/11 to increase the staffing of our military?

Staff our military how? You mean start a draft? Our military pretty much staffed itself in response to 911 from what I can tell. I've always thought Iraq was the best place to get a strategic toehold in the middle east, and we had complete justification for going there given all the failed promises by Saddam. I mean why pass all these stupid resolutions if there is no chance in hell you will enforce them? I have no respect for that practice and it appears to be that practice that has gotten us in the position we are today.

My issues with Bush have to do with his PR and communications skills (pointed out adeptly by OT above). I imagine that CLinton could have done the exact same things (well assuming he grews some cajones) and the people who hate Bush would declare Clinton a hero. I guess when it comes to Bush I see everything as payback for an impeachment he had nothing to do with, and that pisses me off.

[boris]

D_asS,

She planned the trip, arranged the meetings, and got somebody else to sign off. It was her agenda to rebut "this crazy report".

There is an interpretation of the term "leaker" where there can only be one.

Since the CIA disclosed her affiliation without the REQUIRED designation as classified information (if it even was), there was no leak at all.

[Walter]

OT, I read your comments and agree wholeheartedly. I think both you and TM (& even I, though long ago and less artfully) have made the point that Fitzgerald's approach is premised on the idea that, had Libby confessed unreservedly to committing a crime, he could have been prosecuted and convicted for committing that crime.

The Chicago case brings the argument out of the realm of possibility and into the real world. Can, could, might, and other possibilities resolve into "actually does".

However flawed the trial, Libby was found to have taken several specific acts to affirmatively mislead.

It's a cleaner case to consider the ramifications because the defendant took no affirmative action to obstruct. Note that I take no issue with civil or criminal contempt charges when disobeying a judge--but obstruction is a bridge too far. Particularly when the sentencing judge is allowed to speculate upon what might have been said. He could have confessed to being the puppet master of KSM or OBL, for Mohammed's sake! That gives him 3K conspiracy to murder charges--or life in prison even with a 6 point reduction in each murder.

As I mentioned at Marcy's, my understanding of the current state of the law is that, while the application of the guidelines are no longer mandatory, the calculation of them remains necessary as they must be considered in imposing sentence. In the good old days before Booker, a judge had to find the facts underlying a sentence enhancement by a predominance of the evidence. As far as I can tell, that hasn't changed.

While I still am not convinced by the trial evidence that Libby deliberately concocted a fable, I accept that reasonable people could and did determine that he did so. Given that, I accept that it is reasonable to consider the "justice" he intended to "obstruct" in sentencing him. Since I hew to the "he didn't want to be embarrassed and lose his job and clearance and reputation" theory rather than the "he was covering a broad-based conspiracy orchestrated by Rove and Cheney to destroy the one person who could have saved us from nuclear annihilation" theory, I think incorporating the IIPA penalties is not appropriate without a finding based on sworn evidence that Libby's intent was the latter rather than the former.

[Other Tom]

The principal significance of Plame's participation in the selection of her husband is that it establishes conclusively that Joe Wilson simply lied when he said she had "nothing to do with it." I have never understood that she "sent" him, nor have I cared.

Wilson also remained silent when others--including Senator Rockefeller--interpreted him as claiming that the Vice President had sent him. Remaining silent when on notice of a material false statement is a species of fraud--as is the portly former ambassador himself.

Walter, another troubling matter to me is that, as I understand it, the "summary" offered by Fitzgerald isn't evidence at all--it would never have been admitted in evidence even had it been offered, which it wasn't. I just think he knows exactly what Walton will allow, which is damn near anything, and he is unconstrained by the instincts that govern most practitioners.

[MikeS]

Douglas:
You nailed me again. Let me say that I agree with the word definitions you put forth, and of course I don’t really know what was in the minds of the journalists I mentioned. I was merely inferring from all the headlines and general mention in the media that they wanted to know the ‘story’ behind the Niger Mission, because the VP claimed that he hadn’t ‘suggested’ or ‘requested’ it.

I understand that you do agree that Plame ‘suggested’ the mission, and that she ‘suggested’ Wilson for the mission, and that she ‘convened’ the interagency meeting where she introduced herself and Joe Wilson.

[DouglasS]

boris: "She planned the trip …"

Really? Let us know when you have some proof.

Anyway, nice job trying to dance away from the central issue. You folks (following the lead of the White House) have spent years claiming she sent him. Trouble is, even Bond has now admitted that this claim is not supported by the facts. Which is why we're hearing a lot of nonsense promoting the idea that "suggesting" and "deciding" are the same thing.

"There is an interpretation of the term 'leaker' where there can only be one."

Yes, just like there's an interpretation of the word "sex" which supports the claim that 'I didn't have sex with that woman.' Trouble is, it's not an interpretation an honest person would use.

Armitage leaking to Novak did not give Libby a free pass to leak to Miller (especially since Libby leaked to Miller before Novak published). The fact that Novak wrote an article and Miller didn't also does not constitute a free pass for Libby.

"Since the CIA disclosed her affiliation without the REQUIRED designation as classified information (if it even was), there was no leak at all."

Likewise, if someone at the CIA did something wrong that doesn't constitute a free pass for everyone else.

The four (at least) leakers all signed an SF-312 that says this: "I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it."

If they weren't sure, they had an obligation to ask first. This is pure common sense. Your claim about a "REQUIRED designation as classified information" is nonsense.

SF-312 also points out more common sense, that one leak doesn't make other leaks OK: "Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information."

[Other Tom]

For your information, Douglas, I have never "followed the lead" of this or any other White House. Nor have I claimed that Plame "sent" Wilson. I don't care much about Plame at all. I do care about Wilson, and am pleased that he is now well-exposed as a serial liar. Out of her mouth, as well as her writings, it is clear by him that any claim that she had nothing to do with the trip is falsehood.

[Appalled Moderate]

Jane:

The main proble with Bush on Katrina was FEMA's response. He appointed Brown, who, as we all know, would have been better employed judging horse shows. Also, Bush's wierd immediate response -- which left folks with the impression he did not care -- surely did not have the effect of calming people in the days following the storm. When a man is President - PR is important, like it or not.

As for increasing the military -- it seemed Bush quickly came to the conclusion that, in the light of 9/11, an Iraq that might have nukes was unacceptable. That's not an unreasonable conclusion. But having reached this conclusion, what did Bush do to ensure that the invasion of Iraq was not a cluster----?

Yes, I hear the crickets chirping, too. I don't blame him that the original war did not take the course expected. I blame him for not considering the possibility, and having any kind of backup plan. That's poor leadership.

[boris]

if someone at the CIA did something wrong that doesn't constitute a free pass for everyone else

What BS.

If the CIA doesn't treat their own information as classified that obligation does not pass to others. The CIA officials disclosed the information without designation, therefore one may assume it's not classified.

Otherwise one is in the position of asking "is this classified" for every single item of information they provide. That would clearly be ridiculous.

[Other Tom]

I would add, Douglas, that you seem unduly picayune in branding as a "lie" the assertion that "Armitage was the leaker." The question posed first, and far more than any other, was "who leaked to Bob Novak." The answer is, "Armitge was the leaker."

[Other Tom]

By the way, I've seen no "proof" that Plame drove herself to work at Langley every day (nor have I claimed she did, nor do I care). But I have seen the assertion made often, and I have never seen it refuted or even denied by those who would be in a position, and would have a motive, to do so.

But if she didn't, how on earth did she get to her desk? Is there a secret tunnel? Did she ride in someone else's trunk?

[boris]

what did Bush do ...

The invasion went well actually.

You have a strange understanding of planning though. US efforts at reconstruction were out in the open and therefore subject to new enemy plans of attack. Our response to their response would necessarily be speculative.

The quantity and quality of enemy activity coming from Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia could not have been "prevented" by some magical plan. All you can say is "if only we'd known how hard it was going to be we would have run home and hid under our beds".

[Jane]

The main proble with Bush on Katrina was FEMA's response. He appointed Brown, who, as we all know, would have been better employed judging horse shows. Also, Bush's wierd immediate response -- which left folks with the impression he did not care -- surely did not have the effect of calming people in the days following the storm. When a man is President - PR is important, like it or not.

Appalled,

I concede the PR angle, and partially concede FEMA. I was reading something yesterday about how many lives the first responders saved - 50k if I recall correctly, an article which blamed the press for causing a lot of the problems by reporting lies. Personally for me that far outweighs anything Bush may have done. I feel the same way about the war. I believe that if the left had gotten behind this war from the beginning, it would be over now. Instead we have Americans constantly undercutting Americans, the NY Times and half of Congress revealing national security info and stuff that is as close to treason as I've seen in my lifetime. In the long line of people to blame for anything, Bush would still be at the bottom of my pack.

But having reached this conclusion, what did Bush do to ensure that the invasion of Iraq was not a cluster----?

I dunno, but I'm still wondering if you are faulting him for not instituting a draft or if you wanted to increase the military in some other fashion.

I think every war is a cluster----. I think it goes with the terriitory. The real error is not rallying the public when it is going badly - not having it go badly which is inevitable. And I don't think it is realisitic to have presidents plan wars. I think they have to rely on others for that. So you can fault Bush for picking the wrong staff, but at the same time, every single success we have had has been underreported designed specifically to undermine our efforts. I put a huge amount of blame on the press who are in my opinion rooting for our defeat.

Now as I said I concede Bush's failure to change the public opinion of him, but frankly if you look back to Florida in 2000, that probably was a completely unrealistic goal.

[Jane]

oops - sorry about that!

[Jeff Dobbs]

REP. DIANE WATSON (D-CA): some people are still trying to minimize your service by suggesting you really weren't at risk and that your position was not classified because you worked at a desk job at the CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia.

Let me give you an actual example: Representative Roy Blunt said on the television program "Face the Nation," "You know, this was a job that the ambassador's wife had that she went to every day. It was a desk job. I think many people in Washington understood that her employment was at the CIA and she went to that office every day."

MS. PLAME WILSON: ...And I'd just like to add that when an operations officer -- whether they are posted in the field or back at headquarters -- we are given training to understand surveillance detection training so that we understand very carefully that we are not being followed and that we feel very comfortable that our status can be protected.

[Jeff Dobbs]

Other Tom:
But if she didn't, how on earth did she get to her desk? Is there a secret tunnel? Did she ride in someone else's trunk?

That was the real travesty of that Vanity Fair article/photo shoot!!!! She gave away the training to understand surveillance detection training regarding car travel.

Scarves and sunglasses.

Now they know.

[boris]

Scarves and sunglasses.

Whatever you do don't reveal the very very important earmuffs!

Oooops ...

[Jeff Dobbs]

via My Fair Jeralyn

"Law Prof and Sentencing Guideline Guru Doug Berman"

In answering the question post in the title of this post, I keep returning to the fact that Victor Rita, whose sentenced in now being reviewed by the Supreme Court, was sentenced to 33 months for similar (but less serious) crimes as Libby. I think, for a variety of reasons, Libby should/will get some prison time, and my money would be on him getting something between 1-2 years.

[Appalled Moderate]

boris:

If all Bush wanted to do was invade and leave, he did get the first part right. We are kind of waiting on the second part.

Jane:

Sure, the media loves its body count jornalism -- but after a while, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that something is deeply wrong with the US war effort, and the person you have to hold accountable for that is the Commander in Chief. The war is conducted with same elan as the Harriet Meyers appointment, which was conducted with the same disregard for everyone's opinion as was the NSA surveillance.

There's a pattern, and it results in people of all groupings getting shafted.

[lurker9876]

FEMA was ready to go in before Katrina.

Bush offered to help but Blanco declined.

[Jeff Dobbs]

Jane:
oops - sorry about that!

Boris:
Oooops ...

I Blame Bush.

[Walter]

"[T]he "summary" offered by Fitzgerald isn't evidence at all--it would never have been admitted in evidence even had it been offered"

This bothers me much less. Judges are allowed, even encouraged to consider a wide variety of information to arrive at an appropriate sentence. Thus the consideration of the unsworn and unauthenticated letters sent to beatify or belittle Libby. In state court the presentence report incorporates such non-admissible items as interviews with family, investigators and victims, prior arrest and conviction history, and the defendant's social life. Deconstructionist at TalkLeft explains that Federal reports are similar.

I do not believe it inappropriate to consider these items (the inclusion of which can work to the defendant's benefit or detriment). In Libby's case, the Probation Office suggested that its compilation of related (but not admissible) information should cause J. Walton to consider downward departure from the range determined by the sentencing guidelines.

But, as I understand the law (and there are one and a half* cases heard this term awaiting decisions from USSC to clarify this issue), a judge must find that the likelihood that factors justifying an enhancement exist is at least 50% and a smidgen. And the defense must be given a reasonable opportunity to contest that likelihood.

So, unless Fitzgerald is correct that Libby's sentence must incorporate consideration of any conceivable potential rather than a specific actual crime, he must demonstrate that an actual (not merely potential) crime actually occurred.

And of course, this problem exists only because Libby was convicted of obstructing an investigation of a possible crime, a conviction the proof for which does not require a showing that the alleged obstruction actually or could have affected a prosecution for the substantive crime. (The instructions called for the jury to determine whether Libby believed that the falsehoods could affect the course of the investigation, not whether they could have or actually did obstruct a successful prosecution.)

Thus I return to my normative argument for an outcome-based definition of materiality in obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements prosecutions.

[boris]

it is impossible to avoid the conclusion ...

My brother went there twice with the Army Corps of Engineers.

We find it quite possible to avoid the conclusion. It is what it is and the main problem with it is the lying about it.

Since you do not perceive the lying your other perceptions are suspect.

[Walter]

*The "half" a case will likely never be finally decided, as the defendant (out on bond pending appeal of his sentencing) was shot to death while carjacking the wrong person about four miles from my house.

[cathyf]

So, suppose that Fitzgerald had popped out with this sentencing memorandum saying,

Well, we were really investigating that Cheney committed treason by selling out the country to invisible pink unicorns from outer space for 30 pieces of silver. Libby obstructed our investigation by refusing to confess that he was part of the conspiracy (even though, like, we never asked -- after all he should have volunteered, and the jury agrees and that's why they convicted him.) Since treason is a death penalty offense, Libby should receive the death penalty.

So, does anyone think that we would hear a peep of protest from the left? What is it the instapundit says? They told me tht if George Bush was reelected we would see terrible attacks on the Rule of Law, and they were right.

[lurker9876]

I have not been convinced of the illegalities of the NSA terrorist surveillance program. Many judges after reviewing the process have deemed it legal. I remain convinced that the NSA terrorist surveillance program has not hampered our civil rights. I am also grateful that our NSA terrorist surveillance programs detect AND prevent as many of the terrorist plans as this program can.

The war is conducted much the same way as many previous wars were conducted. Each and every war were fraught with errors and commanders replaced. Each and every war had many critics as many as this war.

Most of the wars...we win and will win this one.

[CH]

Cycloptichorn, You had better hope to god that if you were ever sued, that the prosecutors and the jurors wouldn't be like you or think like you because you would squeal like a stuck pig! On the other hand, it would be fun to watch because, as the saying goes, "What goes around, comes around!" You would then be the sorry victom of your own twisted and sadistic kangaroo court tactics that you have championed on this site. I would pay good money to watch you squirm!

[Walter]

"Is there a secret tunnel?"

Dale in Atlanta said that there is a back door.

As a proper Marine, he presumably didn't use it.

Anyway, after '93, if he hasn't told us, we are not allowed to ask.

[Jane]

but after a while, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that something is deeply wrong with the US war effort, and the person you have to hold accountable for that is the Commander in Chief.

Appalled,

Only twice in the last 7 years have I entertained that notion, and both times I dismissed it soon after. I'm not saying I am right, but it is possible to avoid that conclusion. I think this war is the right course to be on. I think in large part we have done a phenominal job.

Now I can readily concede that I have taken the actions of the left and the media, perhaps too much to heart, and that may cloud my judgment. At this point I hate the left and media as much as they hate Bush, and that's a clue that my judgement is clouded. But at the same time, I think the war is going far better than is being reported in the msm.

I actually and truly believe that Bush will be regarded as a good if not great president because he had the guts to face our enemies. And I think this period of time will also mark the lowest point for the media which has done everything possible to destroy this country.

I can also say with certainty that Bush will never be known as a great communicator.

Liberals don't judge Clinton by the ham-handedness of Don't ask Don't tell, and conservatives won't judge this president by the appointment of Harriet Meyers. I didn't have a problem with the NSA thing. And that sort of is the difference in our opinions - you have problems with stuff this president has done that don't bother me in the least - but probably would bother me if Hillary Clinton did them. I like this president. I admire him. I don't agree with him on a lot of things - I don't have a social coservative bone in my body and I'm not the least bit religious. But I like him.

[Enlightened]

I love the Blame Bush Meme.

I suppose the same Blame Bush crowd blames the coach for the quarerback throwing an interception at the goal line with 4 seconds left in the game, and also expect the coach to walk into the wrap-up presser and say "our quarterback is an incompetent leader".

Give me a break.

No one - Not Clinton, Not Bush One, Not Reagan and not GWB, ever imagined such a vicious enemy, and the savagery they use in the name of their religion. An enemy that does not respect human life in any form - man, woman, child - cannot be fought with conventional means.

Blaming that soley on GWB is easy for armchair generals.

[danking]

"Sure, the media loves its body count jornalism -- but after a while, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that something is deeply wrong with the US war effort"

Appalled, what are you comparing the body count to?

As far as I can tell the only body count the media loves is our own.

[boris]

but probably would bother me if Hillary Clinton did them ...

Stuff like interrogation and the NSA program would not bother me with Hillary or Gore as president. The main difference is that we would never have learned about them.

[Walter]

Cathy,

"[W]e were really investigating that Cheney committed treason by selling out the country to invisible pink unicorns from outer space for 30 pieces of silver..."

Even under Fitzgerald's formulation, he would have to show that the grand jury really was investigating that fact pattern. But then again, since the entirety of Libby's grand jury testimony was admitted into evidence, all it would take is one moonbat question from a lowly grand juror to demonstrate the investigatory interest.

[Jeff Dobbs]

Enlightened:
I suppose the same Blame Bush crowd blames the coach for the quarerback throwing an interception at the goal line with 4 seconds left in the game

All I'm saying is that Bill Parcels is gone and Tony Romo will be the starting quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys on opening day, barring injury.

(sorry that has nothing to do with nothing, just an excuse to put out some Sue bait)

[DouglasS]

Other Tom: "Nor have I claimed that Plame 'sent' Wilson."

Then it must have been some other Other Tom who seemed to claim that it was a "fact" that "Plame sent Wilson:"

"...he knew Rove was pushing the story shortly thereafter." Pushing? You mean, like, calling people up and alerting them to the fact that Plame sent Wilson?

More later.

[Cycloptichorn]

Lurker,
Many judges after reviewing the process have deemed it legal

Can you link to their opinions on this?

CH,
You had better hope to god that if you were ever sued, that the prosecutors and the jurors wouldn't be like you or think like you because you would squeal like a stuck pig!

Well, if I was guilty, I would deserve it.

It's easy to run around waving your hands in the air screaming 'kangaroo court! Sadistic and twisted tactics!' But it's far more difficult to show that this is what went on in the Libby case. I challenge you to provide specific instances of misconduct in the case which were pernicious to the rendering of justice. But I suspect you will not provide these instances.

[Sue]

Douglas has an answer for everything. I wonder why Douglas hasn't answered the basic premise of this thread. Valerie Plame Wilson has told 3 separate stories to 3 separate agencies. Which one is correct?

[Walter]

Off for my annual two-week camping trip.

I leave you with the hope that Judge Walton will somehow craft a sentence that satisfies both those here at JoM and the (overly) concerned citizens at FireDogLake. But I'll not 'bate my breath.

[Sue]

My gawd. If a Bush appointee was using the same tactics Fitzgerald is using against a Democrat, I shudder to think of the uproar from the left side of the aisle. At least be honest. You don't care what precedent Fitz sets if you get Libby, someone you neither knew nor cared about prior to 2003.

[Appalled Moderate]

danking:

What I'm talking about with body count journalism is that, on any medium to slow news day, the top story on NPR is that two or three people were killed in Iraq today. Like most people on this board, I find that an idotic way to sum up the day in Iraq (or in any war).

Enlightened. We're hardly in the forth quarter, and our QB has already thrown 15 or so interceptions, and somehow we have fallen behind five games in the standings, and we're still playing in the first game. I don't blame everyting on Bush. I blame a lot on the people he chose to have advise him.

Jane. I think we're at the point of respectful disagreement. It may be that something Bush has done domestically (No Child Left Behind, or this Immigration Bill) may have great, unforseen benefits. Or, Al Qaeda has already lost, and like with the Cold War and Reagan, that will only become evident a year or so after Bush's term is over. But, I don't think it likely. And now, I am hard put to identify a Bush policy triumph that has made our country better or safer.

boris: We just see things differently. If you turn out to be right, I'll be happier than if my more pessimistic take is right.

[boris]

Off for my annual two-week camping trip.

Have sunny warm days, cool dry nights, and more fish bites than mosquito bites.

[boris]

identify a Bush policy triumph that has made our country better or safer

Zero terrorist attacks in 5 years doesn't cout?

[Jeff Dobbs]

Walter:
Off for my annual two-week camping trip.

What? But you just got back here? You show up, make a few posts, and then off to go camping?

If you want, you can have the name hit and run...

[boris]

... count ...

[Jane]

Jane. I think we're at the point of respectful disagreement.

Appalled,

I'll take that as a victory (for both of us) because I've had a heck of a time respectfully disagreeing lately.

[MikeS]

We seem to be having a lot of trouble with the definition of the word 'sent'. Thisis from an online dictionary.

sent - caused or enabled to go or be conveyed or transmitted

The first thing I noticed is that the definiton doesn't include the word authorized.

Could it be that Douglas is being just a bit anal about this?

[MikeS]

****anal retentive****

[hoosierhoops]

I concede the PR angle, and partially concede FEMA. I was reading something yesterday about how many lives the first responders saved - 50k if I recall correctly, an article which blamed the press for causing a lot of the problems by reporting lies...
Jane

First off Jane, I really do enjoy reading your posting..of course I disagree with some of your views but I repect your insight
and passion..
RE: Katrina, I think 90% of the problem was PR as is the case with most of Bush's term.
For instance..the very day after Katrina i thought to myself..oh boy..the prez better get down there and fast..
I know you hate Clinton..But here was the genius of Bill.. The day after Bill would have flown to N.O. via helo and reached out to all those people 'feeling thier pain'..( 1/2 of the military would have been following him trying to keep up, bring with them needed supplies )
Bill would have been comforting the masses and bringing hope and the MSM would have been lapping it up like puppies. The Air Force one helo landing at the Superdome would have changed the whole perception of the crisis and the media and the american people. It has kind of been that way with Iraq..You blame the media wanting us too lose the war..but..but..Reagan, JFK, Clinton
and others would have had the MSM on board big time,,daily briefings..in depth reports on terrorists ops..i dunno..whatever great spin machines do in Washington..they spin.
I know what I have just wrote may upset your views in many respects, but I have no intent upon that.. It's just a humble opinion from the middle of the corn fields.
Regards Jane

[Jeff Dobbs]

(sorry that has nothing to do with nothing, just an excuse to put out some Sue bait)

Posted by: hit and run | June 01, 2007 at 02:07 PM

...

Posted by: Sue | June 01, 2007 at 02:11 PM

weird.

[danking]

"What I'm talking about with body count journalism is that, on any medium to slow news day, the top story on NPR is that two or three people were killed in Iraq today. Like most people on this board, I find that an idotic way to sum up the day in Iraq (or in any war)."

Agreed. But what about this drip drip effect on morale on the home front or perceived progress in Iraq? It would help explain the situation more if the MSM included 45 insurgents/terrorists captured, 20 killed, along with our 2 soldiers.

The military is quoted as not doing body counts but that shouldn't stop the media even if the math's hard.

[Other Tom]

Well, Douglas, I should certainly hope that there is "more later," because without it you would have the distinction of making Joe Wilson look like an honest man by comparison. Let me quote below, in full, a passage written by me but of which you posted only a part:

"'...he knew Rove was pushing the story shortly thereafter.' Pushing? You mean, like, calling people up and alerting them to the fact that Plame sent Wilson? Didn't happen."

I'll leave it to you to explain to everyone here why you chose not to include the phrase, "Didn't happen." Good God, man, how dumb do you think we are here? (I'll leave it to the JOM'ers to follow the link you posted, and to determine for themselves whether you are a trustworthy man.)

Walter, I'm well aware that non-evidentiary matters are allowed at sentencing proceedings. However, this circumstance seems to me to be highly unusual, in that it involves the submission of material that the defense sought and the prosecution declined to produce, and it is offered to prove the commission of a crime. That seems to me to go beyond the permissible bounds, and I believe the defense cited D.C. Circuit precedent to that effect in its reply brief.

AM, I think the only thing that is truly going wrong in this war is that the American people, in this day and age, are simply not prepared to wage a protracted war, and are not willing to sustain casualties that in every other war would have been considered very light.

[Sara]

Who cares what the whiny Peggy Noonan/Bill Kristol wing of the Republican party says? They've done more to destroy the Party than any leftist could. I am with AJ 100%:

Noonan's Nonsense

Peggy Noonan is now blaming Bush for the far right’s three years of attacking moderates and attacking Bush on issues ranging from Miers, to Dubai Ports (another grand example of nativism which cost us cargo container inspection machines across the globe - paid for by our allies in the UAE) and now immigration reform:

President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.

Sorry Peggy, but those who used the word RINO and who would keep the status quo on immigration at any cost (and with lots and lots of vitriol added in) are the ones who tore the conservative coalition apart. Don’t blame Bush. He didn’t accuse Miers of being a closet abortion rights activist, based on the muttering of one David Fromm who apparently had a personal vendetta against Miers. Bush did not go overboard when he allowed a perfectly legitimate business acquisition go forward simply because the acquiring company was in the Middle East. A country that provides security and port services to our Navy and Marines in one of our largest overseas ports.

And Bush is not the one who will tank a bill that would finally allow us to deport immigrants who commit crimes (no - you cannot do that now since the law doesn’t allow it - which is why the cries to enforce the laws on the books are so naive). Those of us who support the guest worker program have been pilloried, while the far right goes on a hysterical tear claiming we are for open borders (no one is) and voting rights for aliens (no one is). And here is the essence of the insanity from the immigration hypochondriacs. While the Bill we want passed will finally allow us to remove the violent criminal immigrants (legal and illegal) from our streets, it is being held hostage by people who want more than a fine and back taxes from honest hard working people. Yep, that’s right. The bizarre logic on the right is it is better to let the criminals roam around our streets so we can meet out more punishment on those fixing houses, doing women’s hair, landscaping, watching our children. When confronted with this cold, objective picture the far right goes on an even larger rampage. Don’t believe me? Watch the comments on this post and others.

Right now the far right has lost all credibility. I know droves of conservatives who are turning off talk radio. They can’t take the vitriol and self aggrandizing anymore. Radio microphones do not make one omnipotent. I can predict that the talking heads are going to see a huge drop off in loyal listeners. The fawning fans will still be there in some numbers, but the critical thinkers will have moved on. When a group of people would allow violent criminals even a month more in this country because the fines and penalties for the workers who toil beside us day in and day out is not as severe as they wanted then their priorities are screwed up. And yes, they are NOT doing what is right for America. Anytime we decide to let crime fester we are not doing right for America.

So Peggy, don’t blame Bush. He is still making sense. He would compromise with Dems to secure the border, get rid of criminal aliens and make it easier to find and detect terrorists. It is the far right who would throw all this away for some extra pound of flesh. Just like some liberals want to throw away the NSA monitoring program to get a pound of flesh from Bush. Peggy says Bush broke with them. I am here to say loudly I have broke with them too.

Update: Read more about dumb far right tricks. When you can be counted on to screw things up, then you cannot be counted on to govern well. Clearly the conservative movement that is aligned now repeatedly against Bush is out of gas. Their patience is exhausted and they are tired of compromise because it delays the coming of their perfect world. A vision they did not realize was not shared by all in every detail.

[JJ]

Gee, open thread time?

[Sue]

weird.

Awesome! It worked. ::grin::

I'm not sure what to expect this year. Hopefully the best looking quarterback in the NFL theory will work, since Romo is kinda hot. ::grin::

[Sue]

Who cares what the whiny Peggy Noonan/Bill Kristol wing of the Republican party says?

You better care, just a little. The percentage of those who disagree with you will cost the republican party the WH.

Just sayin'....

[cathyf]

but after a while, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that something is deeply wrong with the US war effort,

Gee, the only "evidence" I see of that are the furious spinnings of the Islamofascists' allies in the media and left-wing politics. It's such junior-high behavior, and I started making those judgements for myself, well, back in about 7th grade.

[clarice]

Walter, Have a good time on your trip.I finished my first draft of the article and it made me so angry that I'm going for a swim to cool off..Imagine having to deal with all those real threats and feckless turf fights like Comey and being pilloried for this Plame nothingburger at the same time.This is why my husband and I do our best to caution people out of accepting important public office.
Except for Asst Sec of Commerce for Tourism nothing is worth it.

[Sue]

Their patience is exhausted and they are tired of compromise because it delays the coming of their perfect world.

I like AJ. I really do. And his opinion is usually one I find valuable. But I take serious offense at this characterization of "those of us" who are against the immigration bill as proposed by Kennedy/McCain.

[clarice]

***"and feckless turf fightERs like Comey***

[CH]

Cyclo,
For the past several months, this site, along with others, has given you more than an ample treasure trove of facts concerning this case and you ignored all of them! Many very well educated people have contributed
to the discussion, not the least of them, Clarice, a lawyer, who gave up her time to sit in that courtroom and had to suffer through this farce. It would be useless and embarrassing for me to try to add anything more to this discussion, because I could never top many of the brilliant and thoughtful comments on this site. I choose to read and be educated, but I just had to comment because, from my point of view, your comments are weak and seriously flawed!
How does that saying go, "Fools rush in...?"

[Roger]

Grassy Nole was one of the guys who started PC with Kennedy. They had him shot.

Ambassador. Howard was hung by an x PC like Joe, serving his country and killing a loyal deep cover CIA agent.

9/11 was known because the US was in the middle of an exercise looking for precisely what happened, just like London.

CIA headquarters. Someone was snipered in the parking lot. Maybe they were after Plame. Most people who got involved with her were.

Getting to CIA headquaters is teleportation. It's the same as the NASA executive program move to Langely(original time travellers)and how Plame went back in time to 'Vanity Fair.' She forgot Bush's warning not to look back, always go forward in time.

Plame spy training. How does it work when travelling with someone?

Real travesty of 'Vanity Fair' was the picture of Plame and Joe where she looks all confused the day the woman who ran Iraq's bio weapons program was released by the Iraqi courts. Deal.

NSA program was targeted by Plame during her domestic investigation of 500 things, which turned up pals like MoveOn, etc. She got mad and complained, when Dad was working there in the Air Force (original time travellers) this wasn't done. X Air Force Directors move all CIA analysts to NSA because Tenet doubled the CIA with linguists. Plame leads CIA to the original target, DIA.

Enhanced interrogation. I met one once. It's called a medical package. Most speak a foreign language. Doctor. Psychiatrist. We find this out because the real Jack Bauer is.............
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/217952

Drugs. All illegal drugs are considered poison. Shrooms are bad. The other stuff is worse because it disables. The other other stuff isn't known. Twice was because of the other times, a reminder.

Battle plan was conceived by CIA. Plame is using that plan. The guys who thought this up all drowned. The guys who tried to help, died.

[CH]

In other words Cyclo, you're out of your league! A word of advice, just sit and learn for a while and stop embarrassing yourself.

[Sue]

Twice was because of the other times, a reminder.

Explanations. Not reminders. Too late. Shrooms grow wild. Learn to swim.

[Roger]

Well the DEA NOC who did the shroom thing didn't mean it. He ended up shooting his partner, but he may have been going under cover.

So, the other poisoning happens from a bug or someone using something like an umbrella with one of things on the end, but, I doubt it. Shoes should always be worn.

I am an expert swimmer and diver, so I don't see the drowing thing happening, but I never did illegal drugs either.

Too late. It's not.

Surfing. I'm not too good at it, but I'm an expert board sailor.

[Roger]

What is really going on in the IC is the refusal to confirm someone as classified beyond the original classification. This is what Plame was using.

[Roger]

http://www.examiner.com/blogs/tapscotts_copy_desk/2007/6/1/Kyl-Unmasked-as-Senator-Secrecy-on-FOIA-Reform-Defends-Big-Governments-First-Line-of-Defense

Sorry.

[Cycloptichorn]

CH,

For the past several months, this site, along with others, has given you more than an ample treasure trove of facts concerning this case and you ignored all of them!

You are absolutely incorrect. I submit that I have not only not ignored the 'treasure trove' presented here, I've read every post and pretty much every comment regarding the Plame affair over the last few months. This is a pretty bold judgment to have made upon someone you've never met and have had little to no interaction with.

I disagree with many of the conclusions and arguments presented here, as the vast majority of them are built upon a faulty assumption, that being 'there was no underlying crime!' This leads to poor argumentation and incorrect conclusions.

And, you are quite correct that many if not most of the posters here are intelligent and learned people. That makes their errors worse; there's no excuse for letting emotional arguments based upon one's political affiliation warp one's logical argumentative structure. None at all, and some of the posters here really should know better.

An ironic juxtaposition of your comments:

It would be useless and embarrassing for me to try to add anything more to this discussion

But, at the same time, you conclude:

In other words Cyclo, you're out of your league! A word of advice, just sit and learn for a while and stop embarrassing yourself.

I, unlike you, make no claim that my contribution to this conversation is 'foolish and embarrassing.' I will take your advice to me in consideration, while holding your first comment in the front of my mind. I'm sure you can guess what conclusion I will come to about it.

[Roger]

Iran diplomats.

http://patdollard.com/2007/05/30/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-our-talks-with-iran/

I thought MCI meant Motor Coach Industries, but I guess the Air Craft carriers are different.

http://www.mcicoach.com/parts-service-support/partsStore.htm

Enjoy the two days. Sue, maybe that's a bad idea.

[Other Tom]

Yo, Douglas! How you doin', my man? Feeling a bit ill, are we?

While you root around trying to find a way to explain your most recent spasm of rank dishonesty, why don't you figure a way to address the following:

1) What difference does it make whether anyone claimed that Plame "sent" her husband, as opposed to claiming merely that she "recommended" him? Isn't the point that her husband lied in saying she had "nothing to do" with the assignment? Can't we all agree that, "but for" Valerie, Joe wouldn't have gone? And even if not, isn't his statement a plain and simple lie?

2) Isn't it true beyond serious doubt that the answer to the question, "who leaked to Bob Novak" is "Armitage was the leaker?" If not, why not?

3) Don't you think you'd be well-served to go back down to Triple-A ball for a while? People who read and post here tend to be well-informed, smart and honest, and they're quick to spot those who don't measure up. You keep up this kind of slipshod stuff and they'll beat you like a rented mule.

No disgrace. Even Mickey Mantle went down to the minors for a spell. Take a break, son. Maybe come up to the bigs later under a different name.

[Sara]

I like AJ. I really do. And his opinion is usually one I find valuable. But I take serious offense at this characterization of "those of us" who are against the immigration bill as proposed by Kennedy/McCain.

Oh puhleeze. This is about bashing Bush and about how a far right whiny wing of the party wants THEIR INTERESTS and the hell with what happens to the Party or the next election as a result. Ronald Reagan would be appalled at what is being put forward in his name. These are "country club" Republicans and are no better than the "limousine liberals." Out of touch elitists. This is all about power and has nothing to do with immigration reform. This is about a bunch of children stomping their feet and having a tantrum. This is about hating GWB just as much as the moonbats do.

GWB put forth a 5-point plan, what three or four years ago, and said it would need to be done in stages. Now you conflate it with Kennedy/McCain and blame GWB.