
I've written many times before about the inappropriate leaking done by Scooter Libby of classified information contained within the NIE, whether legal or not. Now that the President is directly linked to that leaking I feel compelled to revisit the circumstances that made it so very wrong.
Although Fitzgerald's inquiry relates to Libby and Miller's meetings in June and July of 2003, BooMan has an excellent post which strongly suggests that Libby was feeding Miller this classified information as early as September 2002 (and more here).
It's been reported that Dick Durbin was just on CSPAN deeply upset by this latest revelation and no wonder. It was Durbin who wrestled with his conscience, who couldn't tell the public during the run-up to war what he well knew because it was classified: that there was serious dissent within the intelligence community about whether or not WMDs actually existed.
I wrote this when Cheney's involvement in the leak was revealed, and my opinion has not changed:
[I]rony and hackery abound in [Cheney's] decision to let Scooter release information from the NIE to Judy Miller for no other reason than to lead her to political kool-aid that contradicted what they well knew to be true. And since the subject of the NIE is a sore spot on my gum that I just like to poke at from time to time this allows me to revisit the topic once again.
Thanks, Dick.
I've actually slogged through the 568 page SSCI report, a document so interminably boring and politically biased it would be unreadable were it not for the periodic outrage it elicits. In one of many bitchfests I've pitched about the NIE I wrote this back in November 2005:
That NIE (or National Intelligence Estimate -- a compilation from the various intelligence departments of all the available information relating to a particular situation) was a crock from the git-go. BushCo. didn't even want to do one, even though they are typically done before launching any major military operation like oh, say, a war. Unbelievably, Dick Durbin had to make a special request to even get one prior to granting Dubya the authority to declare war (p. 12 of the SSCI).
National Intelligence Officers assert that ideally it takes three months to produce an accurate NIE, but Preznit Itchy Trigger Finger and the Stovepipe Posse claimed that the threat Sadaam posed was so imminent that they couldn't wait.
The NIE was produced in less than twenty days, and its findings were never sent out for peer review or to a panel of outside experts because Bush and company said there wasn't time. (p. 13, SSCI).
At the time they compiled the NIE, an INR dissent was included which stated that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."
And what happened to this dissent when the NIE was published on October 1, 2002?
The language on Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium from Africa appeared as it did in the draft version and INR's position that "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are highly dubious" was included in a text box, separated by about 60 pages from the discussion of the uranium issue.
And what happened when people started to ask questions in July 2003 about the 16 words and wondered why BushCo. had never taken the INR dissent into consideration before launching a full-scale war?
A senior administration official who briefed reporters yesterday said neither Bush nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rice read the NIE in its entirety. "They did not read footnotes in a 90-page document," said the official, referring to the "Annex" that contained the State Department's dissent.*
Okay so here we have a critical document compiled under duress by people who didn't care for people who didn't want to read it. Except, that is, Dick Durbin, who had also requested that a white paper be prepared at the same time that wasn't classified so the public could know why the country had to be taken to war. But when the white paper was prepared, there was no mention of the INR dissent. Dick Durbin was having kittens. He referred to it the other day when Abu G was being questioned by the Judiciary Committee on the NSA wiretaps:I've been on the Intelligence Committee. And I can tell you that when you're briefed with classified material -- I sat in briefings not from here, just a few feet away and listened to what I thought was very meager evidence about weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of Iraq.
Based on that, I voted against it. But I couldn't walk outside that room until it became public much later and say this administration was at war within when it came to this issue.
So Dick Durbin had to bite his tongue and watch the country go to war on what he knew to be a steaming pile bullshit because the NIE was classified and he couldn't speak about the INR dissent. The public remained blissfully ignorant and thousands died.
But Cheney told Scooter he could fling it around like a dirty napkin while he and Judy were buttering each other's toast at the St. Regis for no other purpose than perpetuating a public, ass-covering hoax.
Such is the regard that Dick, Scooter and the rest of the future perps treat national secrets and their own security clearances. People should be screaming at the top of their lungs that these callow political hacks have access to anything more sensitive than a three month old copy of People Magazine.
*note: Since that time it's been pointed out by eRiposte of The Left Coaster that Condi did, in fact, read it in its entirety and this was nothing but another big bag of bullshit.
The firewall is crumbling. This goes all the way to Bush, and it looks like there might finally be some traction. Steve Rhodes from Tiger Beat tells us Nightline will be covering it tonight.
Maybe at last.
(graphic by Cathy H.)
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
FITZZZZZ!!!
WTF! Bush authorized the Plame leak!!! Impeachment now!!!!!
Awesome graphic and Fitz!!!!!!!
http://www.boomantribune.com/s.....82522/5719
I have a more clear post up now.
Hi BooMan– nice to see you over here; I check in over there a lot!
Incarcerate the criminal, lying, treasonous rat bastards! NOW!!!
Maybe having an Amnesty Day for Administration officials and the MSM is the way to go here…….
Thanks, BooMan. I updated the post to reflect this too.
“inappropriate leaking”
I’ve asked Redd when it came up so now its your turn - do you apply the same standard to the NSA leakers?
I can hardly wait for Bush 3.0
The difference is, the NSA leaks were whistleblowing about government wrongdoing. The Bush/Libby leaks were manipulation of public opinion and Congressional authority by releasing half-truths to take us into an unnecessary and unjust war.
Hmmm… The firewall is already crumbling at this early stage in Libby’s preparation for trial.
I wonder if Libby realizes that he’s been set up by Fitz, who will continue to drop bombs like this in each response to Libby’s discovery requests. Chinese water torture.
From a political and public relations perspective, the firewall is meaningless because Fitz has sources on both sides of it. Fitz has shown can maneuver around the firewall as easily as pulling aside a curtain.
In fact the firewall is worse than meaningless, because it sets up a discovery process that allows public disclosure of all sorts of unsavory facts.
Now, it is true that the firewall has an important use, as it currently provides the only legal barrier protecting Libby’s superiors.
The question is - how long can a firewall last when it is simulataneously (a) the last legal protection for Libby’s higher-ups and (b) the mechanism by which Fitzgerald can gradually drag the truth before the public eye?
It is more complex than this, of course, because once the firewall is gone things only get worse from a legal and political perspective. But that being said, from Libby’s personal perspective, once he sees that Fitzgerald can do harm to the administration with or without his cooperation, will he continue to fight the “good” fight in court. Or will he give up the ghost and save himself?
The more political damage Fitzgerald can do via discovery, etc. while the firewall intact, the less inclined Libby will be to soldier on.
OCSteve? What’s the point of your question? Seriously, I don’t get it.
John Kerry is sticking it to Bush on Tweety.
thanks Jane. You rock.
Ah, Jane - you do this so well! I love your snark, but when you zero in on the facts in such a clear and precise manner I feel immense gratitude at your brains and abilities. The best thing is that you always know what is needed to truly understand a situation. I have spent a good portion of the day here between running all over the blogscape literally reading hundreds of pages. No one has the depth and history that this site has. You and Christy have put your heart and soul into Plamegate and it shows. The commenters here are the best in the blogs too. Thank You and a belated congratulations on your Koufax award.
Ummmmmmmmmm……..Tractionnnnnnnnn.
I don’t understand how this guy can’t be censured. It’s time to broaden the scope of Feingold’s resolution.
Any interviews with the guy who criticized bush? What’s his background? someone suggested he was a plant (by the WH), which would be interesting if true.
Ryan says: “It’s time to broaden the scope of Feingold’s resolution.”
Hell, it’s time to begin impeachment proceedings.
CNN/blitzer just showed the clip of chimpy in charlotte and the brave american than confronted him. chimpy a little squirmy like a little wormy. but, once again, the ‘friendly’ crowd was on his side.
Kerry says current Iraq policy is “immoral.”
The gist of this & BooMan’s posts is wonderfully damning, and hopefully unanticipated by Bush & Co.
But the original revelation of the day puzzles me because today’s news is based on Libby’s testimony of months ago, so I’m trying to understand why he testified that way to begin with, and why, as a result of his legal team’s actions, it was made public now. In other words, today’s apparently damaging headline is not some Murray Waas scoop, but more like a Luskin plant - part of their defense strategy. I just don’t get it though.
I commented earlier on one of Christy’s excellent pieces (probably too late to generate any response), and my wonder was if anyone has any thoughts on the timing of the Card resignation, the recent Fitzgerald news, and the fact that the principals must have seen something like this coming and feared it for quite a long time. Any thoughts?
OCSteve? What’s the point of your question? Seriously, I don’t get it.
A leak is a leak – both are serious crimes. It is not whistle blowing from one perspective and high crimes from the other – then switch parties and reverse.
When I engaged Redd on the topic she gave me what I thought was a very good and intellectually honest answer. Just curious to hear Jane’s perspective on it.
“today’s apparently damaging headline is not some Murray Waas scoop, but more like a Luskin plant -” obsessed No. 22
Is that correct? I thought Fitz disclosed it today?
Sounds a lot like fraud to me. Fraud perpetrated upon the people of the United States. Throw them all out.
I wonder, too, about the timing of the resignations.
“It is not whistle blowing from one perspective and high crimes from the other”
whistle blowing has a specific meaning. It is a government employee alerting the public to official wrongdoing.
What official wrongdoing do you think Bush/Libby were alerting the public to?
Unlike the clear correlation between Rudy’s plea and DeLay resignation, it doesn’t seem like Card’s departure is related to FitzPlame, but rather to the pressure from Republicans for Bush to clean house before the elections.
If Card’s resignation WERE related to FitzPlame, that would be way cool though!
What official wrongdoing do you think Bush/Libby were alerting the public to?
Not that I agree, but they might argue nepotism.
neurophius: I meant to say that Libby’s motions resulted in Fitz disclosing this, but Libby of course knew what would be disclosed, so that (like a Luskin leak), the fact that we’re all talking about it is the result of an intentional act on their part.
“If Card’s resignation WERE related to FitzPlame, that would be way cool though!”
If Bush authorized Libby to leak classified info, what was his method of authorization? He could have done it directly to Libby, he could have done it through Cheney–or he could have done it through his chief of staff, Andy Card. That seems like a possibility that could have prompted Card’s resignation.
Thanks, BooMan–seeing them side-by-side like that really makes it crystal clear, doesn’t it?
Hey guys! Missed you all this week, having been able to pop in only rarely. Am sick as a dog at the moment, but still have enough functioning brain cells to realized this info is BIG.
Go Fitz! Go FDL!
[Anybody interested in guessing when the Bush approval ratings drop into the twenties? The more he gets hammered, the more difficult it will be for them to attack Iran. Am still a little worried about a “terrorist ‘attack’” as a desperate means to pump up approval. Can anyone calm my worries on that front?]
whistle blowing has a specific meaning. It is a government employee alerting the public to official wrongdoing.
Number one – that question (wrongdoing) is still unanswered. Some of the best legal minds in the country disagree.
Number two – there are channels in place to address these concerns while keeping secrets, uhm, secret, and they were not followed. It is not up to a civil servant to decide the bounds of Article II.
Both cases are clearly (IMO) the same crime, but partisans (on both) sides line up in the obvious way.
I just try to say look – it is the same thing. Actually, I can make the case that the NSA leak is much more damaging to national security than revealing the identity of 1 (questionably) covert asset. I’m sure no one here wants hear that though…
And I will go on to right wing sights and make the opposite arguments. The law is the law and I just think folks need to accept that and stop interpreting it to partisan advantage.
neurophius #32—
Card’s involvement might have to do with the infamous 12 hour gap in which he alerted Abu Gonzales, then WH counsel, to the fact that the FBI had contacted him and had informed him that the FBI would like all documents related to the Plame leak at the WH preserved, BEFORE telling everyone else in the WH that the FBI was conducting an investigation.
There has been some speculation that Abu (and possibly Card) utilized that 12 hour head start to burn the more damaging emails and documents before the official word went out the next morning to preserve everything.
Don’t know if it’s true, but it could relate to Fitz knowing about certain emails not “being properly archived.” Perhaps Card might have been in some legal hot water for obstruction, and that’s why he had to resign.
more like a Luskin plant - part of their defense strategy. I just don’t get it though.
obsessed –
How could it be a defense plant (whether Libby or Rove’s Luskin) if this info is made public because of a document released by FITZGERALD? Or do I have the basic facts wrong?
OCSteve: the law in all its majesty prohibits both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges…
obsessed –
Oops, sorry! Your #31 post came in while I was posting my #37. I get it now.
OCSteve:
Illustrates why there need to be more specific protections for “national security” whistleblowers. See Sibel Edmunds case and her fight for such protections.
Horrible things are happening to the corageous people coming forward to expose government wrongdoing and incompetence. Secrecy and lack of protection for whistleblowers is a bad thing for our country. Shining a light on wrong doing is always a good thing in my book, but particularly when the government is doing things not in keeping with the Constitution.
obsessed - Are you really that sure Libby knows what Fitz will disclose in response to Libby’s discovery requests?
I think what may actually be happening is that Fitz is disclosing bits of information that Libby didn’t know Fitz was aware of.
So each time Libby makes a discovery request, for any purpose, he has to live in fear that Fitz might decide that he has something responsive that also just so happens to be incredibly politically damaging to Bush.
The bottom line is that Libby doesn’t know the extent of what Fitz knows.
And consequently, Libby doesn’t know the full amount of information that his requests for discovery might actually elicit. So, discovery becomes a game of cat and mouse. Libby needs to defend himself, but in order to do so he has to shadowbox with Fitz. I think Libby is beginning to realize that he brought a knife to a gunfight.
Props to Matthews for a change. David Gregory was spouting the White House line as a declarative truth during their colloquoy. Matthews pointed out that he was channeling the WH preferred talking points.
Chris got it right on that one. Shame on Gregory. Shoulda started that graph with, WH sources say….
P.S. to Jane…love the graphic. What a putz.
FitzJustice!!!
The wheels of FitzJustice are slow, but grind exceedingly fine. Right now, Scooter has one foot hanging out of the Fitz-O-Matic BushChipper, and it would be wise to flip before he is completely consumed.
Jane,
I am concerned that those in the government such as Durbin, would not say what they saw, when it was getting clear that many would die for a lie. At this point the whole BS about clearance seems to not matter. It sounds more like an excuse to not buck the “current wisdom” at the time.. or the rising drumbeat that the media and those in gov were making.
What would have actually happened if some of those who saw things that were classified revealed what they saw? Why are these people so intimidated? Would they really be sent to jail for doing something as noble as reveal the truth?
OK OK whistle blowing is not what is should be… but we need some more courageous whistle blowers… and a few senators would certainly qualify. No?
OCSteve: I’m not sure which law it is you think was broken by Risen’s NYT article. As far as I can tell, the law that was broken - knowingly, arrogantly, and continually - is the FISA law. The president went before the American people 3 months ago and admitted that he broke that law, because it just doesn’t suit him. He also promised to continue breaking it, whenever he damn feels like it. And I think you’re in a fantasy world if you believe that legal scholars are split down the middle on the issue. BTW, do you recall that Judge Robertson, who sat on the FISA court, quit that post right after the president’s lawbreaking was publicized? Yeah. His resignation from that court was in protest of the president’s crime. Civics 101 - there are three branches of government: the legislature, which writes the laws; the courts, which interpret the laws; and the executive, who carries out the laws.
That is, if he even fucking cares about rule of law in the first place.
Mr. Bush,The bell tolls for thee….
“Inappropriate Leaking”
We all knew this was going on, but who knew that the Moral Incontinence went all the way to the top? Well, I guess we knew that one too.
It’s a bit flabbergasting that Bush is too stupid to keep his firewalls functioning and happy.
For anyone who thinks that a cautious approach by Dems is still wise, think about today’s events. I see that DeLay filed an ethics complaint against McKinney. And DeLay sent out some goons to push on old lady around (right in the face) and disrupt a peaceful and legal campaing event, right on TV, which shows you how much they give a damn about publicizing their indecency. It also appears that the President has decided that he really is a law unto himself -he can declassify, and the re-classify, reports at a whim. Or perhaps better yet, implicitly and de facto and retroactively, or by whatever standard at all, treat as classified or unclassified any material or information whatever, depending on whether its use happens to benefit him or his political party, or not.
So what is the use of Democrats not filing ethics complaints, for fear the GOP will file in retaliation? What is the use of being all meek and mild in fear of seeming extreme or irresponsible, when goons will come and attack you for merely having a very small and peaceful campaign rally? And what is the use of attempting to be very responsible and meek and polite and beyond any conceivable criticism on national security issues, if the President makes up any rules he pleases as he goes along, in order to attack and smear you?
I think that today, all of the previous excuses for Dems trying to behave responsible have fallen apart at the seams. These people are thugs and if Dems and responsible Republicans need to fight Bushites, or they will be attacked mercilessly. You might say, oh well they can’t go any further. But maybe they will. Perhaps this is the only way that remains for them to get their base out to vote.
Here’s an idea: What if Darth Cheney TOLD Libby the president had approved the leaking, but in fact Bush had not done so? Might Cheney have done this all on his own? Has Cheney ever made up anything before…?
I can see him falling backward into a sulfur-smelling chasm that has opened up under him. His eyes would redden and he’d be laughing maniacally as St. Elmo’s fire dances up and down his arms.
So each time Libby makes a discovery request, for any purpose, he has to live in fear that Fitz might decide that he has something responsive that also just so happens to be incredibly politically damaging to Bush.
xyz — that thought cracks me up.
Keith should be fun this evening and TDS writers should have a field day too!
You know, that part in the Harry vs chinmpy video where chimpy is holding up his hand blocking the light so he can mebbe see dares challenge the leaker-in-chief? It, I think, is representative of chimpy shielding himself from the truth. A perfect metaphor.
Rosie O’Donnell on Tweety talking about her gay family cruise. Pretty cool.
OCSteve—
You know, I’ll tell you what I think. I think you’re right, they are the same crime. And I say, go ahead and try to prosecute these leakers. See where that gets you in the court of public opinion.
Because, I’d have to believe that these NSA leakers, whomever they may be, wouldn’t have risked their continuing freedom, disrupting the lives of their families, their future job prospects, hell, even the honor of their good names, UNLESS they really felt compelled to do so, and honor bound to do so. Meaning, that they had personally witnessed operations that to them seemed to be unconstitutional, and they felt that they would be in violation of their oath of office if they didn’t report said violations. (Remember, the one that goes “I solemnly swear… to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”?).
As you said, the legality of these programs is a matter of debate, and the proper place for such debate is in the Judiciary branch (not the Executive, btw). But here’s the catch-22: how can the Judiciary have this debate if all the details are classified? I am fairly certain that these NSA leakers tried to go through the official channels first (possibly to Congress, maybe even through qui tam lawsuits), but their efforts were stymied by the powers that be. So what other option did they have?
But, because they risked their very freedom, we’re now having Congressional hearings on this, it’s a regular matter of debate, and it will embolden other leakers and supervisors to reveal more details, and possibly goad Congress into actually doing its Constitutionally-mandated oversight duties. That would be nice.
SO, I say, let’s see a trial. I don’t think you’ll find any jury willing to convict these people, especially if the judiciary has found the programs unconstitutional.
The same cannot be said about the VP, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
Jane - I love that pic. Says it ALL. What a bunch of pricks we have in charge. We need to go to Wash. Listen to me. Several million in Wash is what it will take. Shut the Congress down. Shut the country DOWN. That is the only way now.
I’m serious.
wesgpc — I’ve been over at Kos asking similar questions of Nancy Pelosi again today. Not that I have any hope that anyone higher than a staffer will read it, but some days knowing you did what you could is all you’ve got.
OCSteve,
The illegality of the secret NSA wiretapping program(s) has not been questioned. Further, we don’t know that they haven’t been used for political advantage–dollars to donuts they have.
Valerie Plame’s former covert status is likewise not in dispute. Whoever blew her cover committed a felony.
“One’s just the same as the other” is the countersign of mendacious Freeper relativism. Balance does not mean countering something right with something wrong.
I’m not sure which law it is you think was broken by Risen’s NYT article. As far as I can tell, the law that was broken - knowingly, arrogantly, and continually - is the FISA law.
Wishing does not make it so, and Greenwald is not the final authority in this matter… FISA, Article 2, etc. is still an open question. Again, many of the best legal minds disagree. Bush may be wrong, FISA may be wrong. When you start from an unproven assumption then all else that follows is suspect.
What is not in question is the illegality of the NSA leakers.
John Dean will be on the KO show
Olbermann leads with Plamegate
viget #35:
Exactly.
No wonder you guys won a Koufax for this stroy coverage. Damn you all are the bomb! Great work, I for one do not take for granted that all of your work is delivered here daily for free. Still a bargain left in America.
? Why did they try to amend FISA during this time period, July03?
OC Steve–but the NSA leakers are working in the tradition of conscientious objection to oppressive/illegal law, not simply following orders. Think Nuremberg trials.And Libby, Cheney and Bush? Not so much.
Keith is on it and I’m back from other stuff
KO:
“the political equivalent of Tinker to Evers to Chance”
I like that!
Here ya go- new JARs out for Clusterfuck- 36%- From Fox. Lowest on record from them.
OCSteve - If you cannot see a difference between 1. a “whistle blower” “leaking” allegedly confidential information to expose governmental wrongdoing (whether civil or criminal), and 2. the leaking of confidential information for no known purpose other than partisan political advantage (i.e. - not to expose governmental wrongdoing), then you are not looking hard enough or you are being disingenuous.
In both criminal and civil law intent is a vital component (not all the time, but most of the time). And there is a clear difference the intent of a “whistle blower” and the intent of the Admin in outing Plame.
There is no “hair splitting” in the above analysis.
Believe what you want, it doesn’t mean your argument makes sense that b/c both involve “national security” issues they are therefor one and the same thing.
Now, back to Vegas.
Shorter OCsteve: Mark Felt should be exhumed and prosecuted.
OCSteve: Bush may be wrong, FISA may be wrong.
Oh great, now a 28-y-o law that has never been Constitutionally challenged might be “wrong.” The sky might be blue, the sky might be red. Only our guy can make the call.
Bullshit.
Hey, has anybody really looked into whether the Constitution is constitutional? I mean, does it have a watermark or something? Maybe it doesn’t provide for its own existence.
This song has been running through my head all day. Each discovery request by Libby is answered by another bomb from Fitz.
“You turned me out, you turned me on
And then you dropped me to the ground
You dropped a bomb on me.”
rwcole - You still think now is not exactly the right time to press for impeachment?
at this rate, soon Alan Keyes (who got 27% of the vote in Illinois) will outpoll the Preznit …
OCSteve: The Preznit already admitted they broke the law. I think you might be a troll.
OCSteve #60—
Actually, the “illegality of the NSA leakers” is still a question. And it’s one for a jury to decide. Not you, not me. (oh, and then of course, said leakers have to be indicted first, too)
The illegality of the NSA program vis-a-vis FISA and Art. II is again not up to you or I to decide. And it’s certainly not up to Bush to decide. That’s for the Supreme Court, I suspect.
The point is, let the judiciary branch do its job. If the details of an investigation of the NSA program reveal, and SCOTUS rules, that it was clearly in violation of FISA and the Fourth Amendment, I think you’d have a hard time as a prosecutor to convict the leakers of passing classified information.
OCSteve, please retreat from troll talk (many of the best legal minds…) and give us a cite.
I am missing posts 48 - 61.
Is this on purpose or did we have a massive troll attack?
I am always trying to keep up, sorry for the silly question in advance.
Even shorter OCSteve: Martin Luther King broke the law.
Shorter reply: Yeah. He did.
Comment: And those laws were statutes. But others broke the Constitution.
John Dean
“He has to follow the procedure. This follows no procedure.”
oh course, after I post the missing posts appear!
Jane:
Your last words summed up both the hope and fear I have regarding this situation…..Maybe. at. last.
Because if the Dems don’t help out the MSM (or CM?) to keep this on the front pages, it will atrophy into coverage of the depth of the President’s power to unilaterally declassify documents, etc. Of course, that’s a bullshit argument, but it will overtake the egregiousness of Shrub’s (and/or Cheney’s) actions unless the Dems pull their thumbs out of their asses and scream incessently about the lawlessness of this administration.
meant viget #55.
OCSteve: sorry. The president doesn’t get to decide on his own which laws are groovy and which aren’t. If he did, that would be called “tyranny” rather than “democracy”. Whether Bush likes it or not - and whether you like it or not - FISA is currently the law on the books. If Bush didn’t like it, he should have gone to Congress and tried to get it changed. He didn’t do that.
He broke the law. But maybe we need to be speaking in some foreign language for you to get it.
Wishing doesn’t make it so, Steve. I’d love to stick around and argue about things that are as obvious as the nose on your face, but I’m hosting a public forum on corporate subsidies this evening, so I’ll be on my way now. Good luck with that civics 101.
And in the evil parallel universe that I inhabit (which is not an ersatz one), I am one of the best legal mind. That damn ego thing. Can’t……help…….my…se…lf. :)
OCSteve - Gosh, someone from Orange County (home of the thugs). You have any ideas?
If you cannot see a difference between 1. a “whistle blower†“leaking†allegedly confidential information to expose governmental wrongdoing (whether civil or criminal), and 2. the leaking of confidential information for no known purpose other than partisan political advantage (i.e. - not to expose governmental wrongdoing), then you are not looking hard enough or you are being disingenuous.
Sorry – but giving reporters a heads up that they may want to take their source (Wilson) with a grain of salt, because he is a) partisan; b) unqualified for the mission; c) the spouse of a CIA employee who is also partisan and got him the job – well, you can guess what his report will say… How much did he have to retract in the end?
Anyway – my point is that you will see these things based on which side of the aisle you sit – to me they are both crimes of equal weight.
I know I have no facts or links to back up my assertions, but my purpose here is to be as disruptive as I can be, feeding red herring after red herring to anyone willing to bite. No one on Balloon Juice digs my fart jokes anymore, and when my hemorrhoids itch this much, I have to go type somewhere.
Jane — Just another in a long series of thank-yous, but REALLY thank you for trying yet again with Pelosi. I am so proud to be, in some tiny way, a part of what you and Christy are doing here. (And let me put in another plug for “I was EPU’d at FDL” sweatshirts, mugs, bumper-stickers, etc…) The bumper-sticker idea, especially, (I forget whose it was) I think is brilliant — you talk about maximizing exposure!
In any case, kudos once again, and prayers for success — keep up the good work!
Misty water-colored memories:
That would be none other than Chimpy hisownself back in September, 2003.
Looks like Chimpy, once again, has been proven nothing more than a goddam liar.
Spoke with my son in Taos tonight and he reports that the peace-loving citizens of Taos and El Prado have sent Rummy packing. He says they “buried him in shit, hassled him every time he came into town” by sitting on the lawn and holding protest, including making a paper mache Donald Rumsfeld and burning it in the Taos square. He has sold his house and run away.
There are some rich folks there, but there are many Indians and low income residents who support the tourist economy and they saw the writing on the wall.
Hi Matt, I love you. xm Mommy
“Again, many of the best legal minds disagree.”
Yeah, I’m gonna tuck that one away.
(Marky, above was my thought before I saw your post)
I’ve been in and out, up and down, so let me ask: did EPU’d make it into Wikipedia? Encyclopedia Britannica? Webster’s Collegiate?
Sharpening pitchfork,Fumbling in pocket for matches,looking for new torch….
OCsteve, you just based an argument on 3 points, of which 2 1/2 are false. Congrat.. you just gave birth to a wingnut phd thesis.
http://blogsearch.google.com/b.....;q=OCsteve
is worth checking out, btw.
OCSteve: disengenous comments re: Wilson because you have no proof. Cites speak volumes on this site. Repeating Rethug talking points is boring and unproductive. Bring evidence.
Hey, the preznit broke many laws and needs to be impeached. Leaking for political gain and taking this country into an illegal war is criminal. Just what part of our national security was bush protecting? I think we know. His ego. Thousands are dead for his ego. He needs to leave, yesterday, last week, last year and since he has hijacked the office. OC Steve– those other whistleblowers are trying to take back our country from these murderous wankers. (kudos mfi). It seems they understand and respect the oath they took, the Constitution and laws infinitely better than the leaker-in-chief.
shoephone –
And in synchronicity with you on #82, John Dean just stated on KO that if the President can do anything he wants, unrestricted, all in the name of “terrorism” — “then we have something OTHER than a democracy.”
zennurse - Wish I coulda been there. That woulda been lots of fun. Those folks know what’s right. Fuck rummy.
OCS Steve:
“inappropriate leakingâ€
I’ve asked Redd when it came up so now its your turn - do you apply the same standard to the NSA leakers?
I apply the same “standards” but due to the different underlying facts there is a different result.
THe NSA program is illegal and unconstitutional as applied to US citizens on US soil. Under the existing Executive Order, no one, including the President, is allowed to “classify” information that is evidence of illegal exec branch activities. Even if this were not in the Exec Order, it would be the case as a necessary incident of separation of powers.
Outing “hidden” and “cover up” info of illegal activities is whistleblower - not violation of classification requirements. Especially in the context of our not having a State Secrets Act. Especially when it was done so carefully to not reveal the underlying mechanics, but only the illegal failure to obtain warrants, factors.
OTOH, selectively leaking info to make an illegal war “look better” and engaging, at the same time, in the cover up of “alternative views” expressed with respect to and in that document, which make your illegal war look “even worse” — not the same. I’m not sure if it is illegal or not, but not the same at all.
Finally - outing a covert agent - WAY different. Statute directly on point for one reason - so the Exec order is not as much at issue. Outing the covert agent as an act of political petulance and impacting not just that agent but her whole cover organization, especially when their work was non-proliferation - WAY WAY different.
NSA leaks didn’t tell terrorists anythign they didn’t already know - they knew that they could be eavesdropped upon at any time and usually without warrant and always with a secret warrant. The NSA leaks only told US citizens somethign THEY did not know - that the Govt was also engaging in YEARS of warrantless wiretapps of its own citizens, in violation of the 4th amendmetn and FISA.
Good and Evil are not that hard to tell apart. *g*
according to Google, EPU means the EUROPÄISCHES PATENTÜBEREINKOMMEN
OCSteve #85–
Ummm…correct me if I’m wrong, but it wasn’t just Wilson saying there was nothing to the Niger claims. The State Dept.’s own intelligence agency (INR) also found them highly dubious (and Wilson had nothing to do with that).
In fact, the refutation of said claims are in that very NIE that Libby was leaking (but Libby didn’t disclose that to Judy Miller, huh?).
And I’ll repeat that you are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine, but in the end neither matter very much. Only the SCOTUS’s opinion and the jury’s verdict will determine legality of these actions.
Yeah Marky!!!!
marky (#76) –
Why do I have the suspicion that our good “friend” would characterize as one of “the best legal minds” a certain disgrace to constitutional law who goes by the name of John Yoo?
Jane, honey, could you plug in the trexer? I’m hearing the word partisan applied to a non-leaking, Diplomatic, heroic friend of ours at firedoglake and I think we may need to cut off the feeding tube.
dannyboy - T-shirts, sweatshirts, mugs, bumper stickers. With EPU approval, of course. Let’s do it. I’ll help. Really.
dannyboy — thanks. Bob Adams just sent me a photo of him in an “I just got EPU’d at FDL” t-shirt. Maybe we’ll try to do one. Remind me to ask Dark Black the next time he’s around.
marky @ 18:
I don’t buy the ‘plant’ theory, for the reason that planting an operative to appear antagonistic so that the subject can appear sympathetic requires that the subject does their best to define their role favorably in the public eye by playacting the victim…You know, be compassionate, ‘weep’ or something.
Bush looked at the funny little man with his funny little concerns and smirked for the crowd.
*ilson46201 - That’s not the EPU that we want. How to do it?
OCSteve - Wilson was wrong? Really? It depends which side one is on? Really? (FYI - those are ALL rhetorical). I don’t know if you are a troll or not, but your argument that it is all subjective is trollish (trollesque?).
It isn’t subjective. Your analysis is basically that b/c we don’t like Chimpy and his friends and his policies that we cannot analyze him, them, the policies or the legalities in a unbiased fashion. That is pure BS and is classic Repug “universal blocker” talk that seeks to portray what are legitimate analyses as nothing more than partisan rantings. Do your ascribe the same subjectivity to a John Dean? Just b/c we don’t like the guy doesn’t take away from the cogency of the arguments.
the problem now again is the coverage and the media
sad to say, I believe the president actually does have the authority to declassify at will, so long as he can make any claim at all he thought the national interest is served, it is indeed his beck and call.
the media would have to raise the alarm, because the courts would be pretty impotent bringing this particular offense to any kind of justice.
and indeed, if the president transferred his power of declassification over to Cheney, Cheney could then again transfer that power to Libby, and on and on.
again, sad to say, this beans there is no crime that could be charged in a court of law, only a charge of impeachment to unseat the irresponsible who would be responsible for those decisions
and we all know impeachment will not happen
Lessee…hmmmm…
Bush allegedly unilaterally “de-classified” the NIE, but NO ONE but he, Cheney, Scooter, and Mata Whori Miller were to know of it. Everyone else was to assume it was still classified.
Sometimes I feel like I’m trippin’.
OCSteve is a troll, folks: no more cheetos.
OCSteve’s recitation (#85) of “problems” with Wilson’s report on Niger wilfully ignores the fact that TWO OTHER reports were filed with the EXACT SAME conclusions — one by an ambassador (appointed by Bush) and one by a Marine Colonel (or was it General? I don’t remember the rank now, but it was up there in the hierarchy).
All three reports from Niger stated the exact same thing. Explain how these “partisan” problems apply to a Bush-appointed ambassador and a high-ranking Marine officer, please.
“Wizbang: “If trashy pop culture and angry conservatism had a baby”
Very nice cred, OC Steve!
Seeya
Liberal realist claims not to be the same as liberalrealist.blogspot. ya. maybe maybe not. if not i retain my thesis it is a harried Dem staffer: quote “Just offering a different view of what politicians might think about the blogosphere” NOOO. Why do we care wh