Democrats & Liberals Archives

Robert Novak's Other Source

We have all read many times that only a hardened “Bush hater” would blame anyone in the White House for the Valerie Plame leak, because Robert Novak’s source was Richard Armitage.

As Gomer Pyle would say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise!” Novak had two sources.

Robert Novak just testified that his other source was none other than Karl Rove. What a delicious development*. For over a year we've been hearing from the right about how liberals were obsessed with nailing Karl Rove and despondent when he wasn't indicted. I always thought that these points, particularly the latter one, were urban legends promulgated by self-satisfied conservatives.

How ironic is it that the very person whom we have loudly, repeatedly heard was not responsible for the leak was one of the two people responsible for the leak?

I am happy to admit that I got this one wrong. In September 2005 I claimed that Scooter Libby was the leaker. It just goes to show that you can't be cynical enough. I should have looked at the usual suspects, not some obscure White House functionary.

*Cynical, moi? Hey, I didn't compromise national security to screw anybody...

Posted by Woody Mena at February 13, 2007 6:11 AM
Comments
Comment #207822

From your story:

At one point, Novak said he asked Armitage, “Why in the world would they name Ambassador Wilson when he had been a staffer in (the) Carter administration, critical of Bush, no experience in nuclear policy … had not been to Niger since he was a very junior foreign service official?”
According to Novak, Armitage said it was suggested by Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, who worked in the counterproliferation division at the CIA.

Novak said he asked Rove several questions about Wilson’s mission to Niger, and near the end of the conversation, “I commented that I heard she was a — I had been told she was an employee of the counterproliferation division of the CIA. He said, ” ‘Oh, you know about that, too.’ I took that as a clear affirmation.”

It doesn’t sound like much of conspiracy on Rove’s part. Try to get a conviction or even an indictment on something like that. Maybe that is why Fitzgerald chose not to bring any charges. There is not justifiable reason.

It sure looks a lot worse for Wilson than for Rove, BTW. It more or less confirms that Wilson got the job by nepotism and certainly was not an unbiased source. Given those facts, that the man had not been to the country since he was a junior officer and was politically active on the other side, don’t you think it is valid to question his bona fides. What we are looking at here is a Democratic/bureaucratic conspiracy.

It DOES take a Bush hater to make a lot about what Rove said. “Oh, you know about that, too,” is not exactly the kind of thing you can make much over. Fortunately we live under the rule of law, not the tyranny of innuendo, so you still got nothing.

You know what this is really beating a dead horse, a very apt comparison. What you are saying is Rove walked by the dead horse and said, “Oh, I see you know he is dead too”.

Posted by: Jack at February 13, 2007 8:53 AM
Comment #207827

Jack,

“”Oh, you know about that, too,” is not exactly the kind of thing you can make much over.”

I may not know much, but “Oh, you know about that too”, sounds more like an confirmation than a denial.
Or are we going back to parsing every word?

Posted by: Rocky at February 13, 2007 9:39 AM
Comment #207828

It’s down to “nyah nyah you can’t convict us so let us make some irrelevent and illogical connections.” It’s a long way from claiming innocence.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 13, 2007 9:50 AM
Comment #207829

Jack,

I figured you would respond this way.

The guys on your side insisted, INSISTED that Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak. The plain fact is that there were two sources for the story, and Rove was one of them. Rove didn’t start the leak, but he chose to confirm the story. He could have denied what Novak said, or just mumbled “That’s interesting.” Instead he supported the story.

I admitted that I was wrong about Libby. Why can’t you admit that you were wrong about Rove?

The Democratic conspiracy angle is laughable. Democrats must be pretty crafty if they can get the Bush administration to do what they want without having any actual power.

Even if Wilson were unqualified , that hardly counts as a scandal. Being unqualified is practically a qualification itself in this administration. To relate to the leak is childish moral logic. “Johnny was bad, too.”

The nepotism angle is too flimsy to take seriously. And if you are so obsessed with nepotism, then you did you vote for Bush in the first place?

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 13, 2007 10:00 AM
Comment #207832

By the way, it doesn’t bother me that Rove wasn’t indicted, because he is going to get fired anyway. On 9/29/03, Scott McClellan said that “if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

“It” being the Plame leak. Rove was involved, so he will surely be fired. Right?

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 13, 2007 10:10 AM
Comment #207834

I may not know much, but “Oh, you know about that too”, sounds more like an confirmation than a denial.

I suppose it all depends on his tone of voice…

He may have said it in a way that implied, “Holy shit… does everyone know about her???”

Seriously, if Novak’s story is true Rove was wrong to say what he did, but this does seem to disprove the “conspiracy to out Plame” theory. Sorry.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 13, 2007 10:13 AM
Comment #207835

Woody,

“It” being the Plame leak. Rove was involved, so he will surely be fired. Right?

Since when do you believe Bush? ;-)

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 13, 2007 10:15 AM
Comment #207836

Tone of voice? That’s beyond Clintonesque.

No, I was never a big fan of Bush, but they’re out there. Remember, he was supposed to be the honest and consistent. He sticks to his guns.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 13, 2007 10:18 AM
Comment #207839

So, I wonder if this means that Jason Leopold’s source told him the truth, and the sealed indictment that exists in this case had Karl Rove’s name written on it?

Posted by: Adrienne at February 13, 2007 10:26 AM
Comment #207840
“Oh, you know about that, too,” is not exactly the kind of thing you can make much over.

Why, because Rove is so stupid he doesn’t understand what it means to confirm a fact for a reporter? He’s so dumb he doesn’t know it’s illegal to out an undercover agent? Maybe Rove doesn’t understand how politics or the press works? Please.

What we’ve seen from this case time and again is Republicans who cover their tracks using the flimsiest excuses, and Republicans who buy it. It’s beyond old.

They were attacking people that critiqued their made up evidence used to justify a war. Does that not bother you people at all? I’m disgusted.

Posted by: Max at February 13, 2007 10:36 AM
Comment #207841

I’m disgusted too, Max. But what else can we expect from Bushco apologists?
Btw you guys, Why is everyone acting like Armitage wasn’t in on this conspiracy?

Posted by: Adrienne at February 13, 2007 10:44 AM
Comment #207847

The real thing to consider Jack is that when asked about an undercover agent, the proper response is “I can neither confirm nor deny the identities of our agents” To confirm such information is just as bad as to tell it outright, since the enemy might just be fishing for the identity of your agents. Nobody should have been talking about Valerie Wilson.

As for confirmation of the Nepotism theory, it shouldn’t matter, first of all: there are internal mechanisms for taking care of such misconduct. Nobody should be skirting the law if not taking it into their own hands to punish an agent in this way. But secondly, Just how does sending somebody to Niger, a part of the desolate Sahel region, qualify as the kind of dream vacation that would indicate some kind of corruption? I could understand the brouhaha if Wilson was touring Europe through four star hotels, but a trip to Niger? I don’t buy it. There’s not enough to gain for the family connection to indicate that there were ill motives. You don’t go to a place like that unless you have legitimate business there.

As for unbiased sources, you neglect one important aspect of what these people were saying: they wanted to paint the very picture that you are offering now: that this whole Niger thing was just corrupt, partisan opposition to the president. Yet the background of Wilson, who was strongly pro-war and anti-Saddam, the discretion with which they operated, conflict with such an assessment.

This whole affair is about rationalization. You are confronted with undeniable evidence that these people were talking to reporters about an agent whose identity was classified information, before that information was common knowledge beyond the White House. You are confronted with the fact that this was apparently done for political purposes, to rebut an opponent whose knowledge of the letter’s falsity was not classified information, a letter whose false status refutes part of the case for broken containment on nuclear materials that was a fundamental part of the public case for war.

The difference is important, since this was supposed to be a pre-emptive war. Broken containment is an immediate threat. The wish to break it, is not. If they knew that Iraq was not an immediate threat, then the war wasn’t justified. If the war wasn’t justified, then the weight of the blame for the error rests on those who pushed this war primarily: the Bush Administration.

What the Wilson affair demonstrates is the politicizing of intelligence to such a degree that the agreement of that intelligence with a preset agenda is more important than establishing the credibility of the information we are asked to act upon, more important than discerning whether our theories about the situation are falsified or verified by reliable of the reports.

A foreign policy built on this is dangerous to the American people, as is behavior that treats the security of this nation as secondary to the security of a politicians job or reputation.

Leaders cannot be allowed to maintain these delusions that their security and that of the nation are one and the same.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 13, 2007 12:07 PM
Comment #207848

Woody

Why you would send a guy like Wilson is the central question of the story. Wilson came back and several months later wrote an op-ed presenting himself as an expert sent as a special envoy because of his skills. It is right to question his bona fides and when you learn that his wife is the one who sent him, it makes much more sense.

I lived in Brazil 20 years ago. I spoke Portuguese. If the government sent me to Brazil to find something out, I would be qualified to do it, but certainly not the best qualified. Wouldn’t you wonder why and if you found out my wife was the one who suggested me, would you not question my bona fides?

Rocky et al

This is not a mere technicality. Plame’s status is still not clear. She had been under cover, but she had since come back to the U.S. Lots of people work at the CIA. Plame was a desk officer there. Her current job was not under cover. If the Wilsons applied for a mortgage, the loan company could probably have confirmed her employment status and everybody knew she was his wife. That is probably why Fitzgerald brought no charges even after he knew the identity of the leakers.

Even if Plame was covert AND Rove knew to protect her identity, he should have just said that he could not comment. He should not have denied it. In which case, Nowak would have had all the confirmation he needed. More likely, neither Nowak nor Rove thought it was a very important thing because they thought they were just talking about a mid-level government bureaucrat who had helped her husband get a lucrative contract.

The bottom line is this: Fitzgerald spend months and piles of money investigating this. He knows (and long has known) who leaked what to whom. IF he thinks somone broke the law, why is he going after only Libby for perjury? It is obvious to all but Bush haters that there just is nothing here to see. Merry Fitzmas with your bag of coal.

Posted by: Jack at February 13, 2007 12:10 PM
Comment #207851

Jack,

I don’t buy that they didn’t know her status. Especially since one thing that’s become clear is that they were obsessing over it. Even if he was unsure - he should have just said “no comment”. Oh yeah, and they shouldn’t have lied about it afterwards. You are bending over backwards to defend these guys.

Posted by: Max at February 13, 2007 12:22 PM
Comment #207854

So much for Rove being in the dark…

In the grand jury recordings, the prosecutor also asked Libby about his interaction with Rove a few days before Novak exposed Plame‘s CIA identity. Libby said Rove “was animated that Novak was animated about this.” Libby added that Rove “thought it was a good thing that somebody was writing about” Wilson and his wife.

Posted by: Max at February 13, 2007 12:34 PM
Comment #207855

Jack,

I have to admire your discipline, because you are really sticking to your talking points here: Wilson’s qualifications being the scandal, Libby is a small fry, Plame worked at a desk, “nothing to see here”, Bush-haters getting their lump of coal.

None of that really challenges the premise of my post, so I will ignore it.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 13, 2007 12:43 PM
Comment #207861

Max

Her status is not decided to this day. She WAS covert. That does not mean you stay covert forever.

IF she was covert - AND they knew it - THEN Fitzgerald should indict both Armitage and Rove.

The fact that he has not indicates that one or both of those factors is not present.

Woody

The above also goes for you. If the case is so clear, why does is Fitzgerald avoiding his duty?

Posted by: Jack at February 13, 2007 1:37 PM
Comment #207862
IF she was covert - AND they knew it - THEN Fitzgerald should indict both Armitage and Rove. The fact that he has not indicates that one or both of those factors is not present…Posted by: Jack at February 13, 2007 01:37 PM
No it doesn’t. It only means that he has not yet indicted them or that Bush giving Dick the authority to unveil her cover for traitorous short term political gain means he can’t indict. The second doesn’t make them innocent. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 13, 2007 1:50 PM
Comment #207865

Woody-

Where is the news here? The Washington Post covered Rove’s conversation with Novak about a year and a half ago.

In accounts of both conversations [Novak and Cooper] that have been made public, Rove does not give Plame’s name and discusses the matter only at the end of an interview on an unrelated topic. Rove has said he did not know Plame’s name and did not know she was undercover. If that is the case, it is unlikely that the disclosure is a crime.

Posted by: George in SC at February 13, 2007 2:07 PM
Comment #207869

Wooody,

Tone of voice? That’s beyond Clintonesque.

We’ll see if Rove asks what the definition of “oh” is…

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 13, 2007 2:23 PM
Comment #207870

Why is there any interest in this trial anymore? It was concluded that there was no “wrong doing” in the case; no one outed her.


The Bi-paritsan commission already concluded that Joe Wilson’s claim that Saddam wasn’t seeking Yellow cake uranium from Niger was false. This is a complete, waste of time.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 13, 2007 2:35 PM
Comment #207873

Dave1

You can speculate all you want, but that is all it is. Currently Fitzgerald believes there is not sufficient grounds even to bring a case against anybody for leaking the name. This is just the truth. More things are always possible than are true.

You had nothing before; you have got nothing now; you will not have anything more tomorrow.

I would like to say “we won” but in a real sense truth and the rule of law won.

Posted by: Jack at February 13, 2007 2:46 PM
Comment #207874
Rove has said he did not know Plame’s name and did not know she was undercover.

If that was the news a year ago, then read the article, because the news just changed. Rove did confirm Plame’s identity.

Here’s what we know: They leaked Plame’s identity to the press. They knew Plame was undercover. They did it to cover up their own manufactured intelligence. Republicans now say there’s nothing to see here - move along. What a load.

Posted by: Max at February 13, 2007 2:58 PM
Comment #207875

This reminds me of the yellow dog defense. My yellow dog never bit that man. My yellow dog never bites anyone, and besides I don’t have a yellow dog.

How anyone cannot see the conspiracy to smear Wilson was afoot at the highest levels of the Whitehouse is beyond me. I guess if you choose to be obtuse, it can be understood. As straying spouses know. Deny. Deny. Deny. It doesn’t matter what proof is offered. Deny.

Everyone now knows the limits of the law. The Whitehouse can declassify and leak anything they want and lie about it. Problem is that Scooter did it in front of a Grand Jury.

I understand why there was no prosecution for the leak. I don’t understand why Republicans can’t just admit that this administration is awash with liars.

Posted by: gergle at February 13, 2007 3:02 PM
Comment #207876

Max

She HAD been under cover. Her current desk job was not. The question is how long should she stay under cover after returning from an undercover assignment and what are her and her husband’s responsibilities to be discrete.

Posted by: Jack at February 13, 2007 3:03 PM
Comment #207877

George in SC,

It’s news because you guys dismiss newspaper reports when you don’t like them. Now it has been established in court so you can’t be so dismissive, or at least you need new excuses.

Jack,

If you want to know what no one was indicted for leaking the name, you will have to ask Fitzgerald. I am not going to pretend to be on expert on the law. Apparently it is very difficult to prosecute in this area.

We know the facts now (unless Novak is perjuring himself, which would be pretty dumb). If you want to feel happy about them I can’t stop you.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 13, 2007 3:04 PM
Comment #207878

Max,


There is nothing to see here; and I’m not a Republican. If anything, you can turn it around and say it’s a anti-Bush thing, they want to take them out so bad that they won’t let this thing go. Let it go! Believe it or not, there’s actually real bad guys out there that we have to stop; not fight internally.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 13, 2007 3:05 PM
Comment #207881

Woody

Maybe he is not indicting them because what they did was not a crime and his investigation showed that. He would have to indict both Rove and Armitage, BTW. You cannot just get at the guy you want.

And while they are at it, they might go after all those guys who leaked to the Times about wiretapping etc. We write the laws the way we do to protect the innocent and allow reasonable information exchange.

Yes, I am happy that the rule of law has evidently triumphed over mob rule and innuendo.

The frustration among the Bush haters is palpable. They are balling their little fists and crying that it is unfair that no laws were broken. They want to go right to the punishment stage. Our rule of law does not work like that.

Posted by: Jack at February 13, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #207887
I would like to say “we won” but in a real sense truth and the rule of law won…Posted by: Jack at February 13, 2007 02:46 PM
I would say evil won. They got away with it by using mob lawyers to cover their ass. It is fact, not speculation, that Cheney outed Plame by removing her cover. That is why the trial is about perjury. It’s a shame that there is anyone who could be proud of that. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 13, 2007 3:35 PM
Comment #207888

What really matters?

Did Bush uphold the Presidential oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”?

Did Cheney uphold his oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”?

IMO neither upheld those oath’s of office and should be immediately impeached and then criminally prosecuted as traitors! Those who criticized the administrations misinformation have been vindicated! There was no nuclear program! There were no WMD’s!

Holy $h!t, rather than Feith thanking his lucky stars that he’s not accused of any illegality, he’s bitching that “inappropriate” is too strong of a condemnation!

As a nation, our failure to reign in this bunch and really kick some butt is bound to only breed more corruption and disregard for our own Constitution and international law. We are on the brink of losing our credibility as a world power and, perhaps rightfully so, if we fail to hold our nations leaders responsible for their transgressions.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 13, 2007 3:38 PM
Comment #207891

Gergle,
“Everyone now knows the limits of the law. The Whitehouse can declassify and leak anything they want and lie about it. Problem is that Scooter did it in front of a Grand Jury.”

Didn’t Bill Clinton do the same thing? Didn’t he perjure himself, too?? Now there’s a problem with perjury, when it’s a Bush Administration offical, right?!

“I understand why there was no prosecution for the leak. I don’t understand why Republicans can’t just admit that this administration is awash with liars.”


Because this is not about you and your wish to slander Bush; this is supposed to be about a leaking (one in which didn’t occur). You’re trying to nail Bush so bad that you don’t care about the case itself. You can’t beat him at the ballot box, so let get him via courts.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 13, 2007 3:50 PM
Comment #207893

“Believe it or not, there’s actually real bad guys out there that we have to stop”

rahdigly,

Agreed, but IMO some of the “bad guys” are leading our country. We’re already facing more “cooked up” info, re: Iran, especially regarding the Iranian government supplying armaments to Iraqi insurgents.

I posted this in the “red column” last night:

“I have a question for everyone though. Please look at some of the news photos of purportedly Iranian munitions (they’re spread all over the web) and tell me why the printing is in english. You can look at the Persian alphabet here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_alphabet

“Same is true of the dates printed on these unexploded armaments. This is 1385 according to the Iranian Calendar, how can the munitions bear the dates 2005 or 2006.
http://www.iranchamber.com/calendar/iranian_calendar_converter.php

“If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck……….well it might be Neo-Con spin. Me thinks something is rotten in, well, not Denmark.
Posted by: KansasDem at February 12, 2007 08:45 PM”

I guess everyone thinks I’m just nuts, and they may be right, but the markings on these supposedly Iranian manufactured armaments makes no sense. Iran uses a different calendar and I really doubt they’d print their munitions with english text.

This is why the Libby trial, the Feith revelations, etc. matter. I sure as hell want to know that those leading our country are NOT leading us to annihilation.

Holy crap, Putin basically called us on the carpet! I’m beginning to think that David R. Remer is right about amending the Constitution to allow for a vote of no confidence to allow removal of a President. (My apologies if my memory is wrong here)

When our leaders no longer seem to be serving the best interests of those who elected them, there must be some ‘vehicle’ by which the public can act to remove said leader!

Posted by: KansasDem at February 13, 2007 4:12 PM
Comment #207896

Jack, desk job or not, she still had sources out there, and she still had a front company tied to her. The White House compromised intelligence operations to intimidate a whistleblower.

You rationalize this in terms of nepotism, but he didn’t profit from his relationship. He went to Niger, which Republicans claim is some kind of vacation spot. That’s not what Wilson described in his editorial. Wilson worked in Central Africa earlier in his career, and knew people in that region. He had security clearance, and at that point was a supporter for taking action against Saddam Hussein.

Armitage didn’t leak by himself. I think the likely story, given that he and Rove and Libby were not on the same page concerning things, is that the information about this agent, something that is supposed to be kept rather close to the vest, was spread around rather freely. The actions of Libby with Judith Miller and Rove with Matt Cooper indicate that there was something coordinated about this release of information. As far as Rove not naming Valerie Wilson, he identified her in a pretty definitive fashion as Wilson’s wife. Since Wilson has only one, that narrows things down quite a bit.

I’m sick and tired of hearing about Bush hatred. The guy’s screwed things up royally. He’s politicized security at a time when there was bipartisan support for it anyways, dividing a country that badly wanted to be united on the issue. That is going to inspire negative feelings.

Even you at this point are wary of what this President will do next. Bush has brought a great deal of his troubles on himself, and the Republicans brought Bush on themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 13, 2007 4:46 PM
Comment #207901
The frustration among the Bush haters is palpable. They are balling their little fists and crying that it is unfair that no laws were broken. They want to go right to the punishment stage. Our rule of law does not work like that.

Sigh.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 13, 2007 5:00 PM
Comment #207902

From the Washington Post’s coverage of the I. Lewi”s Scooter” Libby trial:

At length, Martin explained how she, Libby and deputy national security adviser Steve Hadley worked late into the night writing a statement to be issued by George Tenet in 2004 in which the CIA boss would take blame for the bogus claim in Bush’s State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Africa.

After “delicate” talks, Tenet agreed to say the CIA “approved” the claim and “I am responsible” — but even that disappointed Martin, who had wanted Tenet to say that “we did not express any doubt about Niger.”

So everyone had it right about the yellowcake, but the administration cooked up a way to pin the “blame” on Tenet? I’m just askin’.

Posted by: mental wimp at February 13, 2007 5:00 PM
Comment #207910

“The White House compromised intelligence operations to intimidate a whistleblower.”

Thank you Stephen D.

I would add that most of the defenses put forward in support of Bush & Co. are equivalent to a thief saying, “the door was wide open”. I still remember the sheepish look on Bushy’s face when he admitted he’d declassified parts of an NIE.

COME ON FOLKS! This was an orchestrasted effort. Why is Valerie Plame-Wilson no longer working for the CIA? Where will the lawsuit lead? Everyone simply must read Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn.

Our leadership is filthy to the core! AND the newly elected House majority is doing nothing about it! Note to Nancy Pelosi: “PUT IMPEACHMENT BACK ON THE TABLE”! We “the people” deserve honest and accountable representation.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 13, 2007 5:51 PM
Comment #207948

Stephen

It really does matter what she was doing. She was evidently undercover before. When she came home, she was not. At what point is it possible to know where she works? This is not a rhetorical question. I am sure there is some sort of SOP.

The law on this is written even more specifically. We all keep on returning to our original points. Mine is simple. If Fitzgerald thought the statute had been violated he had the power and the duty to indict the person who violated it. The fact that he did not indicates that in his expert opinion he lacks the evidence even to bring the case.

If it was as you guys say, he certainly would do it differently. You guys, who have access to less information and probably do not have Fitzgerald’s experience or training would indict. The expert would not. Who should we believe?

Beyond that, an indictment is ONLY the first step. IF you cannot sustain even that, in a case like this where the facts are well known, there really is nothing.

It is just people talking.

Kansas

Maybe the Dems are backing off this impeachment talk because they also see clearer now that they really have to make decisions.

Posted by: Jack at February 13, 2007 8:56 PM
Comment #207966

rahdigly,

Because this is not about you and your wish to slander Bush; this is supposed to be about a leaking (one in which didn’t occur).

I don’t need to slander Bush. He has demonstrated his “Brownie” skills. He lied about the WMD intelligence, as other presidents have done. It isn’t a crime. It was just dishonest and stupid. Apparently you believe that Ken Starr went easy on Clinton. That seems to me more problem of the Republican machine’s inability to control it’s hatchet men, even though I simply don’t think that assertion is true.

I doubt Scooter will be convicted for lying. He did lie, and so did Cheney, Bush and Condi.Even Powell lied.

Unless you are a complete moron, you know there is a difference between lying and perjury.

Keep sticking to your story…America believes every word. To paraphrase a political sage, “It’s the lies, stupid.”


Posted by: gergle at February 13, 2007 10:35 PM
Comment #207968

With this trial we’ve learned that this administration is as guilty as hell of being traitors to our country. This is exactly what the trial exposed. Guilt at the highest levels. An administration that lied about the reasons for war, and who were then willing to betray many agents (not just Plame) who risked their lives for this country in order to cover for those lies.
Will justice be served? Likely not. Even Scooter will likely get a pardon. The law to put these people behind bars for outting a CIA agent was so narrowly written that there was never a chance of that, and most of us knew this going in. We knew we were never going to see justice — but we still wanted to know the TRUTH about what they did. And now we do.

THEY’RE GUILTY.
THEY’RE LIARS WHO ARE TRAITORS TO OUR COUNTRY.
THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION DESERVES BE IMPEACHED.

Every one of us knows this.
Even Jack knows this. That’s why every word he’s ever written about this case has sounded so peevish, and snotty, and childish.
I think it really must be eating away at these people’s consciences — to know what happened here is the very definition of what it means to be a traitor — but still feel they have to keep defending it anyway.
I don’t envy them. I pity them.

Whether justice is served or not, this case: the administrations conspiracy to leak to the press in order to discredit Wilson for having the audacity to tell the truth about their lies leading up to the war, by blowing the CIA cover of his wife and everyone she ever worked with, has served as one of the major components that have turned people away in disgust from the Republican Party.

What Jack calls: “the tyranny of innuendo” is actually the facts and the truth we have learned. And those facts and the truth are killing his party. When he says we’ve “got nothing” that too refers to his party. The GOP has got nothing left to recommend them to the American people. They aren’t conservative, and they lied us into a war, and they’re traitors to our country. Period.

No matter how much lipstick they try to put on that pig, the smell of the sty is just too overwhelming.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 13, 2007 10:39 PM
Comment #207981

Phew, remind me not to tick off Adrienne ;-)

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 13, 2007 11:28 PM
Comment #207991

Hey Dave, have you heard that Randy Duke Cunningham’s poker buddies Kyle “Dusty” Foggo (#3 at the CIA) and Brent Wilkes (Defense Contractor) were indicted today? Hmmm, wonder if Porter Goss will be next?

Whew baby! The facts, and the truth, and the smell of that sty…

Posted by: Adrienne at February 14, 2007 12:17 AM
Comment #207993
It really does matter what she was doing. She was evidently undercover before. When she came home, she was not. At what point is it possible to know where she works? This is not a rhetorical question.

Jack, she worked with hundreds of uncover agents abroad whose cover was also blown when her identity was leaked. An undercover agent is only undercover when they are abroad? This is not true for commonsense reasons. Nice try though.

And Adrienne, fantastic post.

Posted by: Max at February 14, 2007 12:21 AM
Comment #207996

Thank you, Max.
Hey, that sounded like Agent 99! Do any of you guys remember “Get Smart”? :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at February 14, 2007 12:44 AM
Comment #208000

Maxwell Smart….. ;) Keep posting, Adrienne..I like your style !! Have no mercy and take no prisoners.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 14, 2007 1:13 AM
Comment #208019
So, I wonder if this means that Jason Leopold’s source told him the truth, and the sealed indictment that exists in this case had Karl Rove’s name written on it?

Adrienne,

The sealed indictment in this case is apparently a myth. See this story in Salon.

The fact is that there were dozens of federal indictments in 2006 that were called “Sealed vs. Sealed”. The description is always “Case is not available to the public.” So sure, one of them might be Rove, or Cheney, or me, or…


Posted by: Woody Mena at February 14, 2007 7:47 AM
Comment #208025

Jack,

Just for the record… None of us know whether Libby will be convicted. If he is, will you still insist that there is “nothing to see here”?

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 14, 2007 8:56 AM
Comment #208034

Woody, that salon link doesn’t work.

“The fact is that there were dozens of federal indictments in 2006 that were called “Sealed vs. Sealed”. The description is always “Case is not available to the public.””

Truthout had this to say about one particular “sealed vs. sealed”:

We know for certain several things about federal indictment “06 cr 128” (Sealed vs. Sealed). The indictment was returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. The indictment was filed in the time frame (around May the 10th) that the indictment of Karl Rove was first reported. The title of the indictment, Sealed vs. Sealed, is unusual. Typically a sealed federal indictment will be titled, “US vs. Sealed.” The indictment has been sealed for roughly five weeks, an unusually long time (although not unheard-of).

That article was written eight months ago, and the indictment is still sealed. That’s why I’m so curious about it.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 14, 2007 10:35 AM
Comment #208035

Thanks Sandra!

Posted by: Adrienne at February 14, 2007 10:36 AM
Comment #208040

Max

I am sure there are SOPs and legal aspects of how long one stays under cover. If someone goes on a mission undercover, it does not mean they are forever protected from public scrutiny. Surely, a liberal would not want that. IF the law was broken I would have expected a case to be brought against those Fitzgerald KNOWS did it. Since he did not, I expect he (and you) have nothing but inuendo and anger.

Re blowing cover - Novak wrote that Plame worked at the CIA. Few people would have paid attention. He did not include a picture. You know that the “intelligence networks” of many countries are not very efficient and the bad guys are even worse when it comes to open sources. But when Wilson and Plame made a big deal about it, splashing her picture everywhere, they certainly got the message. Wilson & Plame obviously cared more about themselves than protecting anybody - if they thought somebody needed protecting.

Adrienne

Do you feel that strongly about the liars who revealed secrets re electronic monitoring of potential terrorist calls or the very successful SWIFT means of tracking terror financing? These leaks certainly caused more damage AND whoever leaked it certainly knew he/she was breaking the law.

Woody

If they convict Libby, I will say, as I have all along, that they convicted a man for lying about something where no crime was ever charged. There might be something to see - an out of control prosecutor, evidence once again of what a bad idea a special prosecutor is. You guys remember how it worked with Clinton too?

Posted by: Jack at February 14, 2007 11:02 AM
Comment #208153

Jack-
There are methods and cases dating back before WWI that are still secret. While not everything should be classified, we shouldn’t be stupid about national security.

If you read the actual indictment, Fitzgerald makes the determination that Plame’s identity was indeed classified information. In the press conference announcing this indictment, Fitzgerald stated that Libby’s lies made it impossible for him to judge precisely what went on, comparing it to sand being tossed in the eyes of an umpire.

In indicting and prosecuting a case, Fitzgerald makes judgments on whether he can successfully gain a guilty verdict. He cannot arbitrarily charge a person, he must do so according to the law, or else risk overturns on appeal. From what I’ve heard, the law on leaks of classified information are somewhat poorly written. Often prosecutors will steer clear of that sort of stuff. The question of why Fitzgerald did not prosecute remains to be answered, but there is one undeniable truth here: he did decide to prosecute Libby, and to slam him pretty hard for lying to him and the FBI.

You say that if Libby is convicted, it will be a man convicted for lying about something where no crime was charged.

Three things: First, lying to investigators is a crime itself, regardless of what the motivation is. Second, as Fitzgerald said, the dishonesty interfered with his investigation, and perhaps denied him the ability to fully examine the facts of the case. Lastly, given how many times Libby recalled the fact of Plame’s identity before he supposedly learned it, and the fact that the guy who he claims told him said they never discussed it, the real question is why he would be motivated to misprepresent the truth to the FBI and the grand jury otherwise.

As for the blown cover? It seems like you’re playing a game of minimization here and trying to shift the blame towards the Wilsons. However, your choice of words. Just as you hand the privilege of being able to lie to grand juries and FBI agents, having before so roundly berated Clinton for doing it, you now try and excuse it by saying it was small.

Well, first, let’s see just how small. I don’t know what the circulation for Novak’s column is, but it’s certainly measured in the millions, if it’s carried in the Washington Post or the New York Times. The disclosure got immediate attention on television news networks, which would spread awareness to million. Just how hard would somebody who regularly scanned news stories for information on American governments have to look for Novak’s column, or coverage of it?

You’ve ignored and rationalized these issues instead of eliminating them as problems.

As for Swift, there was public record documentation available on it five years ago. On the subject of the electronic monitoring? I admit I’m uncomfortable about it. However, citing the reporters’s conduct to defend the administration’s is problematic at best. Is Leaking bad for them, but not bad for thee? Is what matters the proximity of the deed to our own beliefs, or do we generally believe that compromising national security is a bad thing?

That’s the argument you don’t want to have. Then, you might feel compelled to reconcile your natural support for the Republicans with common sense limits of right and wrong concerning what can be done or not done in the service of that. Like many Republicans, you don’t want to feel as if you can’t support your party.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 14, 2007 8:43 PM
Comment #208158

Jack,
Why are you trying to change the subject, and derail this thread?

Posted by: Adrienne at February 14, 2007 9:26 PM
Comment #208203
Do you feel that strongly about the liars who revealed secrets re electronic monitoring of potential terrorist calls or the very successful SWIFT means of tracking terror financing? These leaks certainly caused more damage AND whoever leaked it certainly knew he/she was breaking the law.

If only there was a way to find out who the leakers were… there should be people who investigate this kind of thing… nah, it would never work, because the people being investigated would just lie and throw them off the trail…

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 15, 2007 6:57 AM
Comment #208204
If they convict Libby, I will say, as I have all along, that they convicted a man for lying about something where no crime was ever charged. There might be something to see - an out of control prosecutor, evidence once again of what a bad idea a special prosecutor is. You guys remember how it worked with Clinton too?

Comparing Libby to Clinton, I think that motive counts for something. Clinton lied because he was embarrassed about having an affair. Most people thought of this as a matter of personal weakness and were willing to forgive him, myself included.

In Libby’s case, well I can’t claim to read his mind, but it looks like he was trying to cover up how his bosses tried to retaliate against the Wilsons. Given the context of the Iraq War, this was a very serious policy issue. If the jury sincerely believes that he forgot, I hope they acquit him. If they believe that he really lied, he belongs in jail for obstructing a serious investigation of paramount national importance.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 15, 2007 7:20 AM
Comment #208220
Why are you trying to change the subject, and derail this thread? Posted by: Adrienne at February 14, 2007 09:26 PM
It’s a tactic as old as the three stooges… “Look! Over there!…(run off screen right) nyuk nyuk nyuk” Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 15, 2007 10:38 AM
Comment #208268

rahdigly:

Would you contend, then, that there no difference between a man [Clinton] covering up his lie about having sex with another woman which had zero impact on national security and a man [Cheney, Rove, Bush, Scooter, Armitage, etc.] covering up his lie about outing an undercover CIA agent, which then destroyed an entire CIA operation that does impact national security???

Posted by: Lynne at February 15, 2007 4:05 PM
Comment #208274

Dave,
Indeed. Very Stooge-like. Maybe that’s why my reaction to it is also, because every time I see the tactic being tried, it makes me want reach out, grab a nose, and twist as though it were made of bread dough! :^)

Interesting National Journal article by Murray Waas:
INTELLIGENCE LEAKS
Cheney’s Call

Posted by: Adrienne at February 15, 2007 4:26 PM
Comment #208276

Lawrence O’Donnell:
Libby Is Guilty

Posted by: Adrienne at February 15, 2007 4:39 PM
Comment #208281

Rahdigly the revisionist is at it again I see.

Let’s review a few of his whoppers, and Rahdigly, I’ll challenge you to back any of these up:

A “Bi-paritsan commission already concluded that Joe Wilson’s claim that Saddam wasn’t seeking Yellow cake uranium from Niger was false.” Can you let us know where we can find this one? It’s not in the 9/11 Commission Report. Didn’t see it in the oft-cited Senate Intelligence Committee report on ths issue. Not that he was wrong about who sent him, or even if his report was 100% accurate or not, but please show us where a “bipartisan commission” said he was wrong and Saddam WAS seeking Nigerian yellowcake. Just one commission that gives us the quote that Saddam was seeking to buy yellowcake from Niger.

‘Plame wasn’t outed - there was no leak.’ A right wing classic. The dead elephant is laying on the table and the righties are saying, “There’s no elephant, what elephant?” I’m not asking if Libby was duped, or forgot, or didn’t know he was outing her, or slipped, or didn’t know it was classified, or whether he committed a crime or not. You’re saying Plame wasn’t outed. This one’s pretty simple Rahgdily, if she wasn’t outed, name one, just one person, without security clearance, that knew she was a CIA agent prior to her name getting in the newspapers. Just one. A neighbor, friend, writer, hair dresser, anyone, just one. Not one that says, “I heard many people knew,” or “I think based on the circumstances some people probably knew,” or “I bet people knew.” I want the name of one person that did know and says they knew. A simple quote, just one.

‘Bill Clinton perjured himself.’ Can you cite the case where he was found “Guilty” of the crime perjury? Just one case. As I recall, the GOP Senate found him “not guilty.” Perjury is a criminal offense, it’s what Libby is charged with. It’s for the courts (or Senate in impeachment) to determine the guilt and whether the crime of perjury was committed. Limbaugh.com as a source doesn’t count.

Rahdgily writes, “I’m not a Republican.” Of course I don’t know how or if Rahgdily registered, or votes, but, please provide then one posting, just one, in which you views weren’t anti-Democrat or pro-Republican. Just one.

Here’s the problem Rahdigly, you make up stuff, or rely on false statements from right-wing op-ed pieces and websites. Just back it up. Just once.

Posted by: Boomer at February 15, 2007 5:02 PM
Comment #208462

I think JFK said it quite well:

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought
I think I’ll post this in the religious thread too…

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 16, 2007 4:13 PM
Comment #208678

Case closed boys & girls.

PLAME WAS NOT COVERT UNDER THE CIA RULES.

Read how Plame was not covert & Wilson lied in the Washington Post. That is all she wrote. You by definition cannot have a crime. Fitzgerald knew who leaked almost from the start. Even the liberal Washington Post has got the news. Stop the liberal lying and get with the truth. After the passions have cooled you will feel ashamed of your foolishness.

I feel foolish myself for not knowing the facts that should have shut you all down at the beginning of this post instead of the end.

Posted by: Jack at February 18, 2007 10:51 AM
Comment #208691

Jack:

Any more lies to tell today???

People may not be covert today when they were covert yesterday…outing Valerie Plame’s former position in the CIA destroyed an entire operation that took years to put together and endangered all those related to the operation…

Posted by: Rachel at February 18, 2007 11:49 AM
Comment #208710

Rachel

Is anything I wrote a lie? The CIA rules say a person is covert when overseas and two years after. That is just true.

Wilson made no attempt to hide her status and why should he. She was an analyst who worked for the government.

Take a look at the “Washington Post” link. It lays out the facts. You may come to a different conclusion, but you really cannot find different facts.

It is a political, not a legal issue. We should never have wasted the taxpayers money on a special prosecutor.

Posted by: Jack at February 18, 2007 2:15 PM
Comment #208729

Huh Jack? We shouldn’t have wasted a special prosecutor’s time on the outing of a CIA Agent by the White House, but $40 million on a BJ wasn’t out of line? Ah, the GOP hypocrisy never rests.

Maybe you need to read Bush’s Assistant, Irving Libby’s indictment papers. Fitzgerald makes it pretty clear that the identity of a CIA agent was leaked. So why the continued denial and lies?

Plame wasn’t outed?! Is it because no one involved in the leak was fired as promised by Bush? I can find no other rational reason to believe she wasn’t outed, limbaugh.com, et al assertions aside.

Whether you want to spin the definitions, present that if it wasn’t a crime nothing happened or not, she wasn’t covert or not (not sure how you would know), I’ll lay out the same challenge to you that I did Ragdily before he went away - name one person, without security clearance, that knew she was CIA before that information was leaked. Just one. If you can’t, then she was outed by the White House leak. Period. Now, if you can present to me just one quote from someone that said, “I knew she was CIA” then I’ll admit you are right, she wasn’t outed. Again, not someone that gives us the old “I bet others knew,” or “I heard others knew,” or “Probably others knew.” A source that knew. A quote. Just one.

But if you wish to stick with the inane arguement that she wasn’t outed because no one was convicted of outing her, then I guess you’ll agree that Willy never lied right? Even your hypocrital partisan views can see the problem with your wordsmithing I would hope.

Whether or not Fitzgrald determined a crime was committed or not, or more likely whether he could convict or not, it is absolutely dangerous and disgusting that the White House decided to make public (i.e., outing) the identity of a CIA agent for political purposes. How safe would you (or your family) feel if you were in the CIA and your identity was made known to the world by the very institution charged with protecting you? Would you happily say, “Some say I wasn’t covert,” or “I wasn’t overseas,” or “No one was charged with outing me,” so, “no big deal.”

Plame was outed. Make convenient definitions all you wish, but the word “shameful” is one to look at as well. Hint, you won’t find it in the GOP dictionary.

Posted by: Boomer at February 18, 2007 4:48 PM
Comment #208754

Boomer

Try to understand this. Read it slowly. The CIA has specific rules. By these rules, Plame was not covert. Therefore it would be impossible to “out” her.

I know she was not covert because the CIA said so. Read the article. So we have no possible crime except the lying. In that case the Libby case and the Clinton case are very similar.

It is the nature of the law you do not seem to understand. I know you hate Bush, but you are up against a fact here and you cannot get off.

Posted by: Jack at February 18, 2007 8:11 PM
Comment #208803

Yeah, Plame wasn’t covert at all…that’s why the CIA demanded the person who outed her be prosecuted…

Dream on, Jack.

Posted by: Rachel at February 19, 2007 9:38 AM
Comment #208804

Jack…you obviously didn’t actually read Rachel’s first posting…she said Plame was covert and that that had been revealed, bringing down an entire operation. The fact that she isn’t covert at this time has no bearing on the case.

Do you understand the difference??? It doesn’t seem like it.

Posted by: Lynne at February 19, 2007 9:40 AM
Comment #208811
It is a political, not a legal issue. We should never have wasted the taxpayers money on a special prosecutor.

So Libby’s perjury about a national security matter is equated with Clinton’s perjury about having sex with “that” woman and you feel that the former is not important??

That speaks volumes to your “political” thinking…it’s obvious you can’t think “legally”…

Posted by: Rachel at February 19, 2007 10:05 AM
Comment #208815

Rachel

Perjury is a serious issue for both Libby & Clinton. It is also very difficult to prove or even understand. Memory is often flawed. I am glad that Clinton was not convicted. I hope Libby is not.

In both cases, there was no underlying crime. Clinton and Libby were pushed into perjury only because of the prosecution of a crime that didn’t happen. So, yes it BECAME a legal issue, but it was not a legal issue when the prosecution started. The Plame affair was a political event. W/o that there would have been no perjury.

Imagine it this way. The police come to your house and accuses you of burglary. You have not committed this crime and in fact no burglary has been committed, but you fear you son might have done something because he is a wild boy, so you lie. Later when it is revealed that no burglary has taken place and your son has done nothing illegal, the police prosecute you for perjury. Did you do it? Yes.

Lynn

There is no indication that the Plame revelation destroyed much of anything. That is why the CIA no longer considered her covert. There are different levels of covert. Many CIA employees are officially under cover, but it is not really secret to anybody who wants to find out. If you are under cover using your real name, it indicates it is not a very deep cover. When she came back, it was no secret that Plame worked at the CIA. A mortgage firm could have called to confirm her employment. She was not being well hidden.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Posted by: Jack at February 19, 2007 10:31 AM
Comment #208818

Just name one person who knew Plame was CIA Jack. Just one.

Checkmate.

Posted by: Boomer at February 19, 2007 10:48 AM
Comment #208819
There is no indication that the Plame revelation destroyed much of anything.

Brewster-Jennings doesn’t mean a thing, huh? It was a covert front…now it’s destroyed and people who were associated with it (especially those in foreign countries) are now in danger…but, of course, it means nothing.

Jack, aren’t you getting dizzy from all your spinning yet???

Posted by: Lynne at February 19, 2007 11:02 AM
Comment #208820

Jack:

So glad to hear you don’t consider perjury very important…since it’s the backbone of our court system. Perjury is a crime. Period. It’s called “lying under oath”…but then neither Cheney nor Bush took their oaths of office very seriously, either…

Posted by: Rachel at February 19, 2007 11:04 AM
Comment #208964

Boomer

I repeat - by CIA definition Plame was NOT covert. I agree that Wilson should have been more circumspect and put his wife’s career above his own personal needs.

Lynn

See above. If the CIA wanted to keep her covert, why didn’t they do it? I agree that we should be careful what we reveal. The NYT printing information about SWIFT or electronic surviellence of terror suspects cost us a lot more.

Rachel

I have repeated hundreds of times that perjury is a serious offense. In both the Clinton and the Libby cases, however, there was no underlying crime on which to base it. It is unfortunate that these men felt it necessary to lie about something that was not a crime. Clinton was not convicted. We will see what happens to Libby.

Posted by: Jack at February 19, 2007 10:12 PM
Comment #209001

OK, last try here. You’re pretty clever Jack, but here’s how the discourse went, you can even look it up with the “scroll up” key: You said Plame wasn’t outed, I asked you to tell me who knew, you didn’t. Then you come back, somehow thinking it’s the same argument, with “Plame was NOT covert.” Two different thing there, that’s why “covert” and “outed” have different meanings.

Lots of rhetoric there Jack, but still waiting for the one quote, from one person that said, “I knew she was CIA.” Just one.

I’ve challenged you three times now, and still haven’t seen the name and quote. But yet, you insist she wasn’t outed. Interesting. Nobody knew she was CIA, then the White House leaked that she was CIA, now everybody knows she was CIA. But she wasn’t outed? I’m failing to see the logic there.

So time for you to read slowly Jack, do you understand what is meant by the word “outed?” It’s a common reference often used for gay people that don’t wish to make their sexual preference known to the world, typically because of social biases. When somebody finds out they are gay, and tells others, then they were “outed.” No crime in that. Nothing to do with twisting definitions. The were “outed” because the identity of what they do was involuntarilly made known to others, usually against their wishes. So with Plame, you can debate all you wish that there ws not a crime, and all the other logic twist you’re hoping we accept, but the simple FACT is, she was outed. Period. In her case, it wasn’t “just” about her sexual preference, it was a dangerous outing to the world that she was a CIA Agent. Do you understand how if you are a CIA Agent you might not want the world to know it? I think you’re bright enough to pick up on that.

What’s next Jack, her name was in “Who’s Who,” so that proves she wasn’t outed? I can just see the next quote from you, “People knew her name!”

Covert, or not, here in America, or not, married to an Ambassador, or not, a criminal charge, or not…it’s all irrelevent and a bunch of red herrings to the main point - she was absolutely, without a doubt outed.

Again, read slowly here…checkmate (unless you have one, just one, person that knew).

Jack, I’ve seen plenty of posts from you to know that you are an intelligent person. Give this one up…unless of course you have that quote, just one.

Posted by: Boomer at February 20, 2007 8:17 AM
Comment #209013

Jack:

You don’t need an underlying crime to commit perjury…the lie itself is the crime. What don’t you understand about perjury? Perjury is lying under oath…guess after all those Bush/Cheney lies after taking their oath of office you are no longer able to realize that lying is wrong, and in the case of Clinton AND Libby, it is a prosecutable crime.

As for keeping Plame covert, many CIA people are covert for specific programs, times, maneuvers and then work in the open back home or elsewhere…your spin is becoming quite old and you’ve spun so much and so fast your falling down now…stop before you hurt yourself.

Posted by: Rachel at February 20, 2007 9:43 AM
Comment #209050

Boomer/Rachel,

Good job putting it to Jack. As a review, Jacks argument rests that perjury shouldn’t be/isn’t a crime if there was no underlying crime. Therefore, it is paramount in his paradigm that Plame NOT be covert. What he chooses to ignore as inconvenient truths is (a) perjury is a crime in itself irregardless of what is being lied about and (b) that Plame WAS (probably) covert at the time of Libby’s lies.

As usual, to the right wing, it’s more important to protect and excuse DickBush and to deride liberals than to protect our nation and our freedoms.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 20, 2007 12:33 PM
Comment #209087

Boomer

You have a political, but not a legal issue. Legally, by the rules of the CIA, she was NOT covert. This is the legal checkmate.

Politically is it a good thing to do what Armitage did? Probably not. But there have been many worse security breaches, such as the SWIFT revelations, the “secret prisons” in Europe or the terror monitoring. Let’s find the guys who did them. They are BOTH illegal and politically wrong.

Rachel

They ARE covert for a particular time. It is specifically governed by the rules. As I wrote above, Armitage probably should not have done it, but he committed no crime. Wilson’s wife also should not have sent her husband on that job if she was concerned about the connection and Wilson should not have implied Cheney sent him. There was lots of bad judgement, but no crimes.

I agree that perjury is serious and I agree that Clinton and Libby should be held accountable. I will let the jury decide in Libby’s case. Clinton already beat the rap. I accept the rule of law in both cases.

I never said perjury was not a crime. I think it is ironic in the cases of Clinton and Libby that they were caught lying about something that was not a crime. My only concern is that an out of control special prosecutor leads people into positions where they feel they must lie, even though no crime had been committed before.

It is probably not a good thing to do that.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2007 4:19 PM
Comment #209146

Libby lies to protect his boss from political fall out for policy decisions by Cheney and Bush that outed a covert operative of the CIA.
Willie lied because he thought he could leagally wiggle out of having it be a lie for an answer that he should never have been forced to give in the first place, since it was his personal life.

National Security vs. BJ. Why is it even relevent, except to excuse the traitorus behaviour of this administration.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 21, 2007 10:35 AM
Comment #209299

Jack,

So, I guess you can’t name just one, just one person that knew Plame was CIA?

Therefore, she was outed.

Posted by: Boomer at February 22, 2007 12:05 PM
Comment #209318

Another thing the wing has forgotten

(a) To prove perjury there is no need to prove that Plame WAS an agent.
(b) To prove Plame was “outted” the prosecution would have to prove she was a covert agent.

I pick strategy (a), although the White House and their supporters didn’t seem to care about the viability of our intelligence agencies and their agents, I still do.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 22, 2007 3:38 PM
Comment #209437

Boomer

I do not know these things. I do know is that she was not covert by the rules of the CIA. That is all I (or you) need to know. The camera hungry Wilson certainly did not try to minimize the damage if he believed there was any, BTW.

I only wish you were so enthusiastic about real security breaches, such as revealing the wiretapping of terrorist, “secret prisons” or SWIFT.

Dave

To prove perjury, they just have to prove Libby lied under oath. He could have lied about whether he drank draft beer. It doesn’t matter. As in the Clinton case, the lying becamee the issue.

Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2007 1:35 PM
Comment #209519

Jack,

Still not one. As I indicated to you before, and you just keep ducking, you can’t name one person that knew Plame was CIA, so she was outed. Convert or not, she was outed. If you wish to argue whether or not she was convert when outed, that’s an entirely different debate. That the CIA thinks it was a problem that her identity was made know via a White House leak is good enough for me.

Security breaches? Are you kidding me? Of course I’m more worried about the White House outing a CIA Agent for political gain than the “breaches” you mention. And yes, that’s more of a security breach than a news source reporting on an illegal wire tapping program.

As you so naive as to believe that members of Al Qaeda don’t know we can tap phones? This is right up there with “we are giving away huge secrets when it was made known we were trying to track their financial information.” And damnit, nobody better let them know we are trying to use military force against them, as well. If no one puts it in the paper, they’ll never figure it out.

Secret prisons? Tell me exactly how the knowldege of those prisons somehow threatens our security? What, an Al Qaeda operative says, “Well, I was going to blow up a plane, but now that we found out they have secret prisons, that plan has to be scrapped.” Tell me, what’s going on in these secret prisons that we can’t do legally anywhere else?

Posted by: Boomer at February 24, 2007 10:15 AM
Comment #209544

Boomer

I do not work in the CIA or the Whitehouse. Just because I do not know it, doesn’t mean it is unknown. And even if it was not generally known, it does not mean it was classified under the law.

These other security breaches are more dangerous. Even in the worst case scenario, when anybody found out about Plame, it could compromise a limited operation from five years ago. In these other cases, it compromised existing anti-terror programs. The most obvious is the SWIFT, which everybody thought was very useful. The scruity has made it much more difficult.

You do not get to choose only the instances when you want to blame Bush.

I take the consistent view. There are laws about classification. If you break these laws, you should suffer the conseqences. If you do not, we cannot just spread a broader net until we catch you. Fitzgerald did not find sufficient evidence to bring a case on the classification issue, he did not even determine a crime. You may have information unavailable to the special prosecutor and perhaps should share it with him.

Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2007 12:50 PM
Comment #209640

All I know is you haven’t told me one name yet. that’s a consistent view. Plame was outed. Period. Move along now.

Posted by: boomer at February 24, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #210622

I’m surprised that AirHead America failed so miserably, when there appears to be such a plethora of like-minded airheads posting here…

Please go READ Richard Armitage himself in the Michael Isikoff story: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/), wherein HE confessed to being THE Source (to Robert Novak) for “outing” Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA affiliation (Not Rove, Cheney, Libby, etc.).

How is it that Colin Powell KNEW that Armitage “outed” Valerie Plame WAY back in October, 2003 (and said NOTHING).


Jack,

“IT makes absolutely no difference if Plame was covert or not. Just as in the Clinton case, the “crime” becomes lying, not what originally was sought.” – WRONG

In the case of Bill Clinton’s perjury, his testimony (lie) was regarding a MATERIAL FACT in the case (that of sexual assault/harassment, and his past “habit” of similar assault/harassment on other women).

Even if Libby deliberately LIED about what he knew (and when he knew it), it was STILL not a material matter (as there was NO VIOLATION OF LAW is “outing” Valerie Plame’s CIA status). Remember, NO ONE (including Libby) has been charged/indicted with “leaking”.


Tom Snediker,

Valerie Plame MIGHT have been working in a dummy company, but that does NOT (according to people who help WRITE THE LAW you seek to use to convict Libby) make her “Covert” (in the LEGAL sense).

According to the LAW, she was NOT covert, therefore, there’s no “there” there.


Boomer,

Go read this: (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/26/112629.shtml).

I’ll grant you SOME of her neighbors might not have known her CIA status, but, clearly, OTHERS DID (end of story)… This is not a jury conviction criteria – you don’t have to have ALL her neighbors know that she was CIA for it to be “well known” – if even ONE knew, then it was NOT a “secret”.


Rachel (and the rest of you “perjury is a lie” and nothing else matters),

Please, people, do your homework…

LEGAL definitions of Perjury (there are LOTS more, but…):
(Here)
(or Here)
(or Here)

“Perjury is the ‘willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding’. It is sometimes called ‘lying under oath’; that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand—that it Could affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case.

Let me repeat that last sentence: “It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case.”

In other words, it’s NOT perjury to (allegedly) lie about “outing” Valerie Plame’s CIA employment, unless Valerie Plame’s CIA employment is a key factor in proving the case.

AND, since NO ONE has been indicted for “outing” Valerie Plame, it CANNOT be considered a “key factor” in the case (because there IS NO CASE).

A COMPENTENT judge would have thrown this out of court before it even began!


Boomer,

You wanted someone WHO KNEW… Cliff May Knew

Shut up, now…

Posted by: wardmd at March 5, 2007 7:35 PM
Post a comment