
Update: As several people have noted in the comments, Cheney famously said in Sept. 2003 on MTP, "And Joe Wilson—I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back." If Cheney gave Libby the go-ahead to discuss the classified CIA report (below) as well as the NIE, this would appear to a somewhat less-than-honest answer.
Now that Christy has given a fabulous overview of the latest Fitzgerald filing I want to dig a little deeper into some of the details.
One of the things that jumped out at me when I read it was this, on p. 23:
Defendant discussed with Miller the contents of a then classified CIA report which defendant characterized to Miller as having been written by Wilson. Defendant advised Miller that Wilson had reported that he had learned that in 1999 an Iraqi delegation visited Niger and sought to expand commercial relations, which was understood to be a reference to a desire to obtain uranium.
We’ve known all along that Fitz had the goods on Libby for things he hasn’t charged him with. Libby lied about his conversation with Ari Fleischer and it appears Fitz may be working on a case regarding a plot to smear Wilson — in his new filing he certainly says there was a concerted effort to do so. And while everyone is focused on the leaking of the was-it-or-wasn’t-it-declassified NIE, it also appears Libby discussed material with Miller that most certainly wasn’t declassified. Fitzgerald points his finger directly at this fact.
Did Cheney authorize Libby to do this too, for no other reason than political gain?
This CIA report is most probably the one referred to and cited in the SSCI, and also in Wilson’s book The Politics of Truth. It was written not by Wilson but by a reporting officer who was not present at any of Wilson’s debriefings following his return from the Niger trip.
As Emptywheel points out, it appears that the reporting of this event may have been doctored in an attempt to smear Wilson and connect his wife to sending him to Niger. According to the SSCI report (p. 39):
The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife "offered up his name"
But according to Wilson’s book (p. lvi):
When that CIA officer read the quote in the report, he went to see Valerie to tell her that he had never said anything of the kind. He was so distraught that he offered to write a memo to clarify that it had been him, not Valerie, who had initially suggested that the CIA talk to me. Valerie made it clear to him that she could not advise him one way or another. Valerie told me he wrote such a memo and shared the contents with her, but that the supervisor would not allow him to send it to the committee.
Who authorized these leaks? And how far did the Administration go in abusing their power for partisan ends in discrediting Joe Wilson? Scott McClellan’s attempts to lay this at the feet of Democrats and partisan politics won’t cut it, and his lame mantra about not commenting on an ongoing investigation have grown tiresome.




192 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
fitz!
This seems like the part when Tenet could have been involved.
what public interest was served ???
the CIA Memorial Wall likely has at least one star because of this leak, so george better come up with one hell of a “National Interest”
and that’s gonna be hard to do, considering that scooter was authorized to leak the INACCURATE parts of the NIE
I missed this!! Did we know this before? did Judy ever report on having this or knowing about this? Would this have been the smoking gun Fitz had to keep her in jail until she fessed up?
I read that thing 4 times, but missed this.
Pretty heavy. Pretty nice.
Whoa. This thing could be a lot bigger than I thought. Factions at war in the CIA. Selectively leaked classified info to specific reporters. Doctored memos. Documents on yellowcake touted as real that were obvious fakes. NSA programs listening in to purely domestic calls. AT&T facilities handed over to the NSA.
Jaysus.
EPU’d from last thread.
Read Scotty’s gaggle from today with this hypothetical in mind: Cheney lied to Libby about Bush’s authorization for the leaking of the NIE.
Nice catch Jane. Ooh, this is going to be good.
what I’ve never understood is how it would make any difference who sent Wilson to Niger? This irritating bit of irrelevance has been a distraction of valuable brainpower for far too long. The hardcore believers in this administration weren’t going to care if Cheney himself signed off on the trip. Nothing that can blow down their house of cards can penetrate the layers of duct tape holding it together.
Distraction…
Where is Tenet in all of this?
maybe he sold his soul to the devil and was paid with a presidental medal of freedom?
Color me slow here but, this is the same report by Wilson that Cheney proclaimed didn’t exist? I know when Cheney was busy denying knowing anything about a report filed by Wilson upon his return he was hiding behind the word WRITTEN but then Libby discusses this with Miller but doesn’t show her the made up report so she coud quote from it … and where, by the way, is the now requested CIA damage report regarding Plame’s outting?
Zennurse – EPU’d on my response to you below.
libop – 5, that’s just the start, too, isn’t it. *s*
Ummm, I was lurking over at JOM a few moments ago. They have a new theory. Fitz is going after Libby because he is an anti-semite. Seriously. That’s what the wingnuts over there are saying. Shudder. Hope Fitz has a good helmet and flack jacket.
Mary, I saw your note, thanks, and was that a little *s* you just had, O Botox resister?
good.
Sorry for the slightly off topic comment.
It turns out that the site http://thankyouharrytaylor.org/ has gone down because of the overwhelming response. I wanted to offer a suggestion to those who have blogs. If you could post a note about Harry Taylor and let your readers just write a short comment in support, we could collectively generate critical mass.
I’ve posted one on my site, and I was hoping the rest of the sites would also do something similar and see where we all end up. You could ask all your readers to just write a quick note on their way through your sites.
Thanks, and sorry to be off topic.
Not new, but you would think Libby, having been given guidance on this unusual one-off wouldn’t be free-lancing disclosure on so many non-”approved” items.
Fun fun fun.
it looks like Fitzy just telegraphed to Team Libby: we can also charge your boy with divulging classified material to unauthorized personnel …
Interesting experience today. My wife, who was an advertising executive until her employer closed the company almost overnight as culmination of a top management exercise in greed, arrogance, stupidity and ethical bankruptcy (thus putting her and 4,000 other people out of work), is now a caterer and personal chef. Today I delivered a luncheon to one of her best clients, a charming, sharp lady who is closing in on 80 if not already past that milestone (don’t tell her I said that!). She and her late attorney husband are/were life-long establishment Democrats. In the past we rarely touched on politics in our pleasantries, but today almost the first words out of her mouth were how disgusted she was with the spineless Democrats in Congress and their unwillingness to confront the Bush administration’s malfeasance. She also said that she had recently been at a social function with her late husband’s former colleagues, many of whom had been staunch Republicans. She said she was surprised at how many of them blurted out their disgust with Bush without any prompting, and how they are reregistering as independents. One particularly close friend was especially vehement; she said he was most exercised about the ballooning deficits and national debt. She then reiterated how disappointed she is in the Congressional Dems. This is an establishment, grass-roots lady. She doesn’t drive, doesn’t own or use a computer, and thus has no interaction on the ‘net at sites like FDL here. And she is pissed! When are those clowns going to wake up?
On tonight’s KO show, with a substitute host, there was a correpondent from CNBC who likened Libby’s leak of the NIE to Adlai Stevenson’s famous (and true) display of photos to the UN Security Council during the Cuban missle crisis, and to Colin Powell’s (wrong) presentation to the UN in Feb. ‘03. The CNBC person stated that these “leaks” to the UN as he called them were examples of declassifications for the public good.
I was very disappointed that the substitute host does not make the obvious point that Stevenson’s and Powell’s UN reports were obviously done in the open. They were in no way “leaks” of classified information. In contrast Libby spoke to Miller in secret, and told her to obscure his identity. Why do that if these disclosures were meant for the public’s interest? The answer is that Libby’s leaks were insidiously meant to discredit Wilson and undercut what the WH knew then were correct conclusions by Wilson.
I suspect this group inside the WH is pretty tight and probably Cheney is the leader of the cabal. Dubya is the front man… he can act tough and likable and everyone wants to drink beer with him.
When Dubya was selected to be front man, the cabal had cheney appoint himself as VP on the ticket and he has been call the shots and making them (hahahaha) since day one.
Dubya is played like a fiddle by his handlers, words put in his mouth, positions and policies laid out for him in sound bites a 5th grader could understand. They found someone who has such a messed up ego he was willing to be the big man and be a figurehead.
He is very carefully managed, everything he does is usually scripted for him and always around non confrontational audiences.
In 5 years he has managed to memorize a bunch of his main talking points and can barely give a decent performance in an non controlled situation.
If he is intelligent and running the show, he is remarkably skilled at play the empty suit. I don’t buy that. I think Cheney is the leader of this pack and he has his buds from the PNAC doing lots of the heavy lifting. These guys are a cabal of power freaks. ideologues, and military industrialists corporate types who simply want more power and money.
Every move they make is fits into that agenda. Cheney is their man. Bush is their puppet.
Eleanor Clift’s comments about the leaks:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12…../newsweek/
off topic but RawStory states that WashingtonPost are looking for Left & right bloggers…
WoPo Bloggers
Thanks Jane – I was wondering about the report and the cable yesterday. Compulsive though I am, even I have never begun to read the SSCI.
Watched a bit of tweety and a bit of Olberman. Both were concentrating on the “leak” story.. Tweety had Ace gooper lyin lawyer on to deal with the Charges. He seemed to be tired of doing this shit- every month a new pile of shit to try to cover up.
I can’t prove it- but I think the country is getting tired of it too. When the spinners and ass kissers and liars all start showing up again with more of the lies–it makes ya wanna puke- I am getting to the point where I don’t listen to em anymore- it’s just a few more cowpies in a vast vat of bullshit that this administration has been collecting for five years now. The smell is becoming overpowering. Concern about these guys is turning to nausea and disgust. It’s ceasing to be “intellectual” and starting to become visceral hatred..
Wonder how many feel the same?
Misc. wonderings
Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE’s key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8.
Wonder who prepared and selected for that?
Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure†uranium.
Is that true though? I thought not. If not, but he “understood that” he was to tell her it was, uh, wonder who authorized fibbing about the NIE key judgements?
JOM=Just One Minute?
I know Jane likes Maguire, but I can’t handle that site. I have no idea where he is at all.
So now, is the reason Fitz hasn’t included this in the indictment because it is so connected to the NIE? Do we know at all when this occurred? Do we think it’s a little later than the NIE in an effort to get Miller to publish the good stuff they had shared? I have to go back and review the dates of thier meetings.
Somebody had to tell him to spread this around, and it had to be Cheney or Bush, yes? That is if you believe that Libby had the scruples he indicated by insisting on speaking with Addington about declassification of the NIE.
Scotty can’t parse this one under national security, this is pure political spite.
libopinion
Reads like some sort of novel doesn’t it?
Anon,
The fascists got out front with the “all critics of neo-consevative foriegn policy are ant-semites” line way back in 2002 I think and used the National Review and NPR to flush it out of their sewer. This is the line I most worried about at the beginning of the Iraq war and going into the ‘04 elections but it’s lost a lotta it’s sauce since the conviction of Franklin and the indictment of Libby and it’s lost it’s effect even on the radical base.
KEEP THE FAITH AND YER SHIT DETECTOR HANDY!!
Also wonder:
According to defendant, at the time of his conversations with Miller and Cooper, he understood that only three people – the President, the Vice President and defendant – knew that the key judgments of the NIE had been declassified.
So, what is it he told Addington to get Addington to “opine” ?
Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document
“amounted to” isn’t really quite the same as “is” though, is it? Did anyone ever answer Clinton’s “depending on what the meaning of is, is” query?
And did Addington have enough info – was this really a “public disclosure”? I mean, it’s not like it was made on the phone with all of the NSA and AT&T listening.
The behavior of the democrats as a whole is a complete mystery. With few exceptions they did and do not perform as an opposition party. With so many issues to be vociferous and challenge the pres and the repugs, they equivocate.
It looks a lot better when they stand up and even have the repugs ridicule them. The repugs look like asses when they do that. But these dems are too entrenched in the corporatocracy and fear they will be losers at the next election.
Since mounting a challenge to an incumbent is so difficult, the safe thing to do is wait around and do nothing. The repugs have made such a mess the dumbs may not have had to do anything to be back in power.
Hopefully, if that happens they can put forth some progressive legislation and undo the damage. But that is rather unlikely. The ship is taking on too much water and they will find themselves at the helm when the ship completely founders.
Kinda sad because there are so many right thinking a brilliant progressives out there who have no influence in the body politic.
Go figure.
Wow, to the larger issue of tampering with intel coming out of the CIA, but we already know Cheney’s been manipulating that stuff for some time. So, in essence, it falls right in line with all the cherry-picking. This is the one they got caught on. This story, Wilson, Plame is the whole ball of shit exposed.
Not sure if anything can be made of the issue of classification though. Remember, Bush gave Cheney the authority to declassify in that Mar. 23 Executive Order. I think the plan was to use that as the fall back position.
However, ya gotta wonder if Libby done blew open the whole plan with his testimony. Libby isn’t the firewall, Cheney is! But with Libby testifying that Cheney said he was authorized by Bush to disclose the NIE info, and if Leopold on TruthOut is correct and Bush didn’t tell Fitz he authorized it, and Cheney turning over 12 more emails that showed Bush was directly invovled…well, do you see where I’m going?
All hell done broke loose. It’s every man for himself!
yep, sorry. JOM = Justoneminute.
Near the end of the Rawstory article:
This ties right into the hard right/christian influence in media & politics.
Why would Dobson be meeting and influenceing major newspapers?
Then Little Debbie said this:
Did Dobson?
Minnesotachuck
Likewise here in Georgia. Most of the people I work with are die hard republicans (or so I thought). But what I have been hearing the last few days is amazing.Total disgust with the republican party especially Bush.Total hatred for Frist. I’m loving it. My stepfather who would never under any circumstance said at the dinner table the other night that the country had done so much better under Clinton.Coming from him that ought to be national news.
And the Democrats in Washington continue to roll over and play dead. They have no idea of the oppertunity they have right now.
rw, hope you caught this from Christy’s “Team Libby Part 1″ this morning: “Kudos to reader rwcole for his early theory on Fitz’s limiting the charges in this indictment as a firewall to the rest of his ongoing investigation — I think it’s fairly clear that rw was on to something.”
“off topic but RawStory states that WashingtonPost are looking for Left & right bloggers…
WoPo Bloggers “
IF they hire someone like Jane or Christy – great. What I fear is it’s going to be a Hannity and Colmes type of situation. Althought Brady, that ass – did hire Ben, so ….
John at AmericaBlog channeling Wired News:
Whistleblower in the EFF lawsuit against AT&T submitted an affadavit showing that AT&T forwarded all phone calls of everyone on its networks, all emails, downloads, etc.
As Gomer Pyle wd say, Surprise, surprise, surprise.
http://www.wired.com/news/tech…..619-0.html
whoops. shd have specified, “fowarded to NSA.”
Here is a Washington Post article about Fitz’ interview with Bush in the White House:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..Jun24.html
It says that Bush had an attorney with him, but it does not mention who Fitz did (or did not) have with him. I am sure Fitz was not alone.
If I was in Vegas, I would bet 10-1 that there was at least 1 (if not more) FBI Agent(s) with Fitz during that interview taking notes. The Agent(s) then would have probably been able to ask Dubya follow-up questions about things they knew to be false.
Jeralyn has a post documenting several lies Dubya told during the interview to Fitz:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014495.html
Simply put, while Dubya may not have been “under oath” and he may not have been testifying before the grand jury, if my assumption about the likelihood of FBI Agent(s) being present is correct, then Dubya lied to federal investigators.
Moreover, as a practical matter, there are no documents showing an absence of a plot, and it is unclear how any document custodian would set out to find documents showing an “absence of a plot.â€
Oh, but Mr. Prosecutor, did you see this?
July 8 Dear Diary: Once again today I did not talk to Scooter Libby, or Karl Rove, or Dick Cheney or anyone else to not strategerize about, and did not authorize, our plot that doesn’t exist to go after Wilson.
I also, once again today, did not authorize any surveillance involving American Citizens, except with a warrant.
I also, once again today, did not go out to where they were not painting our planes UN colors to tell them I forgot to tell them earlier we weren’t going to do — what I didn’t discuss.
I’m not saying where it came from, just that it appears to have been overlooked.
PABP (Probably Already Been Posted. It’s late and I’m starting to make up my own acronyms.)
Libby testimony shows a White House pattern of intelligence leaks.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com…..291979.htm
Just one thing.I keep seeing this in the MSM, That Fitz has not accused the President of breaking the law.
Folks, yeah he did. He laid out all of the illegal acts the president did. Now see if real people can get out why it is illegal.
Does the phrase trial balloon sound familiar?
The only place he can “accuse” someone of something is in the indictment. He just laid out some facts and is going to get achance to see how the legal establishment weighs in n a very unsettled area of law. This goes directly to the John Yoo unitary executive thing and (who was it I saw testifY???) about how the Pres can declassify by writing the declassifying memo on a cocktail napkin.
Is there a freain cocktail napkin? If not, GWB BROKE THE LAW.
However, if ALL the greybeards buy into the WH spin that GWB can declassify verbally–show me a statutory scheme that says that–I can’t find it, well then there may not be enough support for that legal position and it might be smarter to choose a different option.
There are options, several at each step. You take a step, then you reevaluate. You take another step and check your optios again.
I think this is one of those fork in the road which way do I want to go next things.
Arrgh, Steno Sue? Yuck!
rwcole,
IMO, it crosses the “disgust and hate” line for a majority at 30% approval. And if the Democrats start counting the days every day since the invasion and linking that to the current American dead (it’s 2,015 days today, by the way) the 30% mark could be breached by June. There is absolutely nothing that the fascists can fall back on or point to either to redeem themselves…the economy, the treasury, healthcare, the war, national security, all are in the shitter for the GOP.
KEEP THE FAITH, I DON’T WANNA BE THERE WHEN GOD DEALS WITH THESE BASTARDS!!
Mary, great questions, doubt Cheney himself would have created those “talking points”, although I can see him using the word vigorously. So do we have another character, someone Fitz is protecting because they’re a source?
Defjef- the huge problem with the Dems waiting around for the Repugs to flame out is that there are plenty of folks who are interested in what the Dems want to do to clean up the mess. If they’re not given something soon, they may tune out to anything because they will believe all the Dems want is to get elected for political reasons, not to represent them. My big fear is that if they don’t act soon, voting will suffer more than it does historically due to voter fatigue and apathy.
oh, Jane, wrt to the WaPoO liberal blogger vacancy, I have a great relationship with Little Deb, so if you need a reference let me know.
This post of Jane’s — and RH’s hard work earlier today — certainly proves that while we all love our blogmistresses’ writing, they aren’t too shabby in the reading department either.
=========
Had enough?
=========
Just read today’s White House Briefing. Scotty is becoming a caricature of hiself. Sickening.
“But Scott- the president is standing RIGHT HERE- he’s NAKED AS A JAY BIRD- Not a fuckin stitch on him- what do you say about that?”
“Well first of all- let me say that the president has always been concerned about presenting the right image to the american people and in refusing to cover up things that the american people should be knowledgeable about- as the the rest of your question- you know that it is the policy of this administration not to comment on matters involving a pending investigation”.
Katymine – What did Dobson have scheduled interviews with them for, anyway? Interesting – thanks.
Norske: you may wish to check your arithmetic concerning the 2015 days since the start of the War on Iraq
2015/365=5.5years
2015 might be the days already in GWB’s reign. Didn’t war start on Iraq March 20th, 2003?
Re: the WaPo article, I have to think that one of the assistants he took with him was named Daniel.
Has ANYONE else ever gotten Bush to be interviewed on anything for an hour?
I wonder if he gave them all nicknames?
Cheney has denied ever seeing Wilson’s report. This obviously makes it plain that he did see it. He lied. Su-PRIZE, su-PRIZE, su-PRIZE..
mainsailset says:
April 7th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
and where, by the way, is the now requested CIA damage report regarding Plame’s outting?
I don’t know…but I found this Kos diary yesterday:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/3/16838/88864
minnesota chuck #17
concerning the lame Dems:
This was in my inbox today and it makes a lot of sense. (long but worth the read)
Not as Lame as You Think Democrats learn the art of opposition. By Amy Sullivan
What the GOP did so brilliantly in 1994 was exploit Clinton’s weaknesses (his 1993 tax increase, his wife’s failed health-care initiative), as well as the sense among voters that reigning congressional Democrats had become complacent and corrupt (reviving the Keating Five and House banking scandals). Well, guess what? This is precisely what congressional Democrats have been getting better at doing over the past 18 months. And just as most observers missed the coming Republican revolution in 1994, so they’re missing a similar insurgency today.
Rolling grenades
On virtually all of the major slips this White House has made in the past year, there have been unnoticed Democrats putting down the banana peels. One of the best examples—and certainly the issue that sent Bush’s poll numbers southward—was the Dubai port deal. The little-noticed administration decision to contract with a United Arab Emirate-owned company to run terminals at six ports around the United States mushroomed into a public relations disaster for which the Bush administration was uncharacteristically unprepared. Within a week of the story breaking, congressional Republicans had vowed to pass legislation undoing the deal, Bush angrily declared he would veto such legislation, and polls showed that three-quarters of Americans were concerned the deal would jeopardize American security. Even more damaging, the issue shifted public opinion about who can best protect the country from future acts of terrorism. For the first time since 9/11, Democrats pulled even with Republicans on this question.
If you read the press coverage of the story, you would have thought the issue surfaced on its own. In fact, however, the story was a little grenade rolled into the White House bunker by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). No one was aware of the port deal until Schumer—who had been tipped off by a source in the shipping industry—held a press conference, and another, and another until the press corps finally paid attention. As for Schumer, he popped up in news reports about the deal, but almost always as a “critic of the administration,†not as the initiator of the entire episode.
This is not a lone example. In the winter of 2005, Bush unveiled his Social Security privatization plan, the domestic centerpiece of his second term. The president invested a tremendous amount of personal political capital in the effort, featuring it in his 2005 State of the Union address and holding carefully choreographed town meetings to simulate public support for the idea.
Most of the press corps expected the debate to be a painful defeat for Democrats. Not only were moderates predicted to jump ship and join with Republicans to support the president’s plan, but Social Security—one of the foundational blocks of the New Deal social compact—would be irrevocably changed. But then a funny thing happened. Reid and Pelosi managed to keep the members of their caucuses united in opposition. Day after day they launched coordinated attacks on Bush’s “risky†proposal. Without a single Democrat willing to sign on and give a bipartisanship veneer of credibility, the private accounts plan slowly came to be seen by voters for what it was: another piece of GOP flimflam.
As the privatization ship began sinking, Republicans challenged Democrats to develop their own plan, and when none was forthcoming, pundits whacked the minority party for being without ideas. But not putting forth a plan was the plan. It meant that once the bottom fell out on public support for Bush’s effort—which it did by early summer—Democrats couldn’t be pressured to work with Republicans to form a compromise proposal. It was a brilliant tactical maneuver that resulted in a defeat at least as decisive as the Republicans’ successful effort to kill Clinton’s health-care plan.
One reason many were unable to appreciate the brilliance of Democrats’ Social Security strategy was that they view Reid and Pelosi as ineffective party spokespeople, and therefore ineffective leaders. Reid, with his slight frame and round glasses, looks like he should be running a mercantile in the Old West, not a major political party. Even Democrats find themselves wincing when Pelosi appears on camera, perpetually wide-eyed and on-message, whatever the message may be. Neither has Gingrich’s charisma, strategic vision, or propensity to quote Clausewitz. And that leads reporters to airbrush their tactical successes out of news reports.
Consider, for instance, what happened last fall when Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), a Vietnam veteran and hawk who initially supported the Iraq war, called for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. When reporters asked Pelosi what she thought of Murtha’s statement, she replied that the congressman spoke for himself, not the caucus. Her response was immediately denounced by liberal critics and portrayed by reporters as evidence of Democrats’ lack of message, discipline, and shared conviction. In fact, as Howard Fineman would later report, Pelosi had worked behind the scenes to convince Murtha to go public with his change of heart and orchestrated the timing of his announcement. Knowing that the credibility of Murtha’s position would be damaged if it looked like he was the token hawk being used by “cut and run†liberal Democrats, Pelosi made the strategic calculation to put Murtha in the spotlight by himself for a few weeks before stepping forward to endorse his suggestion.
The strategy worked, and it allowed Murtha to visibly establish Democrats as the advocates of what now looks like the position toward which our Iraq policy is headed. A late February Zogby poll showed that fully 72 percent of American troops think that the United States should leave Iraq within the year; 25 percent say they should leave immediately. In addition, Pelosi’s party now holds the advantage on Iraq. As with Social Security, critics have charged that Democrats can’t win without a plan for Iraq, but a mid-March Gallup poll showed that voters think Democrats would better handle the situation (they hold a 48 to 40 advantage over Republicans), even though only one-quarter of them think that Democrats have a plan for dealing with the country.
Over in the Senate, Reid temporarily silenced his critics when he staged a showdown last fall, shutting down the Senate to compel Republicans to discuss pre-war intelligence. GOP promises to pursue inquiries into how the intelligence was gathered, interpreted, and used had gone nowhere, and Democrats had no institutional means to conduct their own investigation. So Reid forced the issue, invoking an obscure parliamentary procedure that sent the Senate into a closed session. Republicans were furious, but they were also backed into a corner. Reluctantly, the leadership agreed to restart the investigations, putting the issue of intelligence back in the national spotlight. The in-your-face move signaled that Reid had the inclination, and the electoral security, to push Republicans around in a way that his predecessor Tom Daschle never could.
(…) http://www.washingtonmonthly.c…..ivan1.html
39 — is that the same serious, studious Mary of the long, well-written legal commentary on fdl? Nicely snarked, m’am.
It occured to me that Cheney might have lied about Bush’s authorization to declassifly the NIE, but *then( it occured to me that they also might attempt to construct plausible deniability by forcing Cheney to claim that he lied about the authorization from Dear Leaker. I noticed that they managed to leave this loop hole open.
lhp 41 – I very much agree. Plus, per my post above, supposedly even Addington didn’t say it “was” declassification (per what is in the filing), but only that it “amounted to” under what Dave? The unenumerated, unspecified “necessary and proper” powers”?
And I am pretty sure that almost every reference to declassification in the filing is a very cagey – Libby testified it was, Cheney said it, etc. Not really “owning it” on behalf of the Prosecutors office.
I think it does go to “what is declassification” and what are the rules and is there even a way to characterize what was done as “declassification” v. misuse or abuse of info?
John– No I missed it- thanks for pointing it out.
Tom Harken’s petition in support of Feingold’s centure proposal:
http://www.tomharkin.com/petition/ty.asp?n=
I can’t find Froomkin. Just yesterday. Anyone got a link?
The 1999 meeting didn’t even take place in Niger. See eriposte.
Froomkin took a break today :-(
TeddySanFran
“Had Enough?” is beginning to show up elsewhere as well – Even in opposition camps.
looseheadprop @ 6:46 pm However, if ALL the greybeards buy into the WH spin that GWB can declassify verbally–show me a statutory scheme that says that–I can’t find it, well then there may not be enough support for that legal position and it might be smarter to choose a different option.
Call me greybeard, I guess. I think he can do this, but there has to be documented followup. There have to be entries for whatever repository kept the NIE while it was classified that it was removed, and there should be some thing somewhere that says in writing when the change was made.
Plus, like I’ve said before, if they reclassified part of the document (up or down), the document itself must be marked up or edited. Either way, there must be indication of the change somewhere.
zennurse, #44: “the huge problem…is that there are plenty of folks who are interested in what the Dems want to do to clean up the mess. If they’re not given something soon, they may tune out to anything because they will believe all the Dems want is to get elected for political reasons, not to represent them.”
yes, yes, yes and yes.
I haven’t read all the comments from today and don’t know if this has already been added to the mix but I remembered reading that Judy Miller reported that she had a security clearance. I googled that to came up with this TPM post from October 16, 2005 with some quotes from her grand jury testimony regarding Libby and the NIE information. Here’s part of the TPM post/article…
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/16/112238/93
October 16, 2005
Miller’s Security Clearance
By Ivo Daalder | bio
Having now waded through The Times’s articles on Judy Miller, one new fact struck me as particularly bizarre — Miller, by her own admission, was cleared to see secret information as part of her assignment as an “embedded” reporter in Iraq. Â
I had no idea journalists could receive security clearances — and I had no idea that the mainstream media would allow their reporters to have such clearances. After all, one of the most important obligations of a person receiving security clearances is not to reveal that information at any time, while one of the most important obligations of a reporter is precisely to reveal information the public has a need and right to know.
Can someone explain why this glaring conflict of interest is acceptable? Â And does anyone know whether Miller’s clearance was an exception or whether this is a common practice in journalistic circles, be it today or in the past? Â And, finally, as I note below the fold, could it be that this fact becomes the key to Libby’s defense?
Here is how Miller reveals that she had a clearance:
In my grand jury testimony, Mr. Fitzgerald repeatedly turned to the subject of how Mr. Libby handled classified information with me. He asked, for example, whether I had discussed my security status with Mr. Libby. During the Iraq war, the Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret information as part of my assignment “embedded” with a special military unit hunting for unconventional weapons.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I had discussed classified information with Mr. Libby. I said I believed so, but could not be sure. He asked how Mr. Libby treated classified information. I said, Very carefully.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to examine a series of documents. Though I could not identify them with certainty, I said that some seemed familiar, and that they might be excerpts from the National Intelligence Estimate of Iraq’s weapons. Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether Mr. Libby had shown any of the documents to me. I said no, I didn’t think so. I thought I remembered him at one point reading from a piece of paper he pulled from his pocket.
I told Mr. Fitzgerald that Mr. Libby might have thought I still had security clearance, given my special embedded status in Iraq. At the same time, I told the grand jury I thought that at our July 8 meeting I might have expressed frustration to Mr. Libby that I was not permitted to discuss with editors some of the more sensitive information about Iraq.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked me if I knew whether I was cleared to discuss classified information at the time of my meetings with Mr. Libby. I said I did not know.
Cujo, why do you think he can do that, declassify verbally?
Deborah, I think it was decided that Judy’s security clearance was a figment of Judy’s ego and imagination.
nancy
The post you refer to seems to propose that Democratic inaction and spinelessness are really parts of a cunning plan. I don’t buy it. House Republicans as I recall were the ones who sank Bush’s Social Security plan because they recognized it for the third rail it is. I’ll give points for Dubai although there too many Republicans ran from it. I didn’t know that Pelosi ever backed Murtha and his plan. I would like to see the link. I like “putting him in the spotlight by himself for a few weeks”. In my book it sounds like a euphemism for leaving someone to turn slowly in the wind.
Deborah — thanks, that was my next stop. Judy’s Norma Desmond moment. She’s gotten off pretty light after the new filing and it makes her look like shit.
Jane – I have my suspicions too that there is a real difference between what Wilson told the CIA reports officer in his debriefing and what ended up in the written report. But I think you’re mixing up reports here: the report that Wilson says the CPD reports officer complains about is the SSCI report, not his write-up of Wilson’s trip. The quoted lines about Plame offering up Wilson’s name come from the CPD reports officer’s testimony to the SSCI in the course of their investigation; and that officer was upset because he thought he was misquoted. The point is that that is not an instance where the report based on Wilson’s trip, which Libby disclosed to Miller, was doctored.
It’s awfully quiet here tonight, everyone must have gone out to celebrate the great news week!
I have to go to sleep so I can effectively zennurse this weekend and I’ve had some very late FDL nights this week. I would like to ask for thoughts for a wonderful lady named Pat who has been an amazing cancer patient for a very long time. She needs your thought of peace and of comfort. Her 2 sons and her husband need your thoughts of reassurance. I know you will send them lovingly.
Namaste
zen
Nice find Deborah
I guess the “key judgments” of the NIE released did have the reference to “vigoursly pursuing” yellowcake.
http://www.cia.gov/nic/special_keyjudgements.html
At the end, after all the “confidence level” assessments.
Jeff — I wasn’t implying that the document (the CIA prepared report on Wilson’s trip) was necessarily doctored, merely that there were great lengths gone to in order to distort the details of Wilson’s trip. The SSCI report was prepared by Pat Roberts’ committee and quite distinct from that. I don’t believe I said otherwise.
When I read about the actions of this despicable bunch, I’m constantly reminded of the kind of shenanigans these same people engaged in while members of the College Republicans. I can’t help but think that they don’t realize that they’re now in charge of one of the most powerful nations on earth, and not some half-assed organization of power hungry college kids.
Deborah
As I recall and it is probably in the FDL archives or possibly at TNH, Miller did not have an official security clearance, which requires a lengthy and consuming process. She had some unofficial arrangement greased by her connections in the White House.
countryjoe, wrt 9: IMO George Tenet will be the one who testifies that neither the Leaker-in-Chief nor anyone else ever informed him prior to July 8, 2003 that POTUS had declassified parts of the NIE.
“If documents or material being reviewed for declassification under this Section contain information that has been originally classified by another DoD Component or Government Agency, the reviewing activity shall refer the appropriate portions of the request to the originating organization.”
I suspect Fitz already has statements from Tenet consistent with Bush’s failure to notify him.
Couldn’t the classified report that Libby brought with him have been the CIA’s report FROM 1999 when Wilson originally went there as opposed to his second trip in 2002?
MinnesotaChuck–same thing here in Ohio, especially among older people who remember fighters. I mean, you don’t just roll over and let someone kick you. I get a sense of “Who is for us? Anyone?”
Hugh v. Nancy,
I hope Nancy is correct, that it is part of a cunning plan. Hugh, Nancy Pelosi on Kos did say she supported Murtha. I am still angry at the Dems for not supporting Feingold, but there’s still time. Unfortunately, I do believe that we have to lead them. And after all, although it would be nice to have strong leaders, we can’t rely on benevolent dictatorship, but must relentlessly build a democracy into a strong, informed public, that understands the fundamentals of liberty (including civil rights) and that directs its leaders to represent it. This is the ideal we have to return to – not waiting for the messiah.
I would not be surprised if the DOD hadn’t concocted some sort of ‘non-disclosure agreement’ for embedded reporters prohibiting them from writing about some ‘military-secret’ kind of things. That’s probably all Judy had…
OT – More Ralph Reed fun…
In January of 2004, Reed told a national talk show audience that granting a blanket amnesty to all illegal aliens in the U.S. was a “responsible policy” because ” we have got eight to 12 million illegal aliens in our country right now” and “we need to know who these folks are.” (Ralph Reed, MSNBC, January 21, 2004).
Just a year later, Reed was telling Georgia voters that “I am opposed to amnesty in any form whatsoever.” (Ralph Reed, Christian Coalition Forum, February 19, 2005).
http://www.theweekly.com/news/…../Reed.html
re Nancy #52,
I hadn’t seen Amy Sullivan’s piece and it’s good to know that the Congressional leadership has had a hand in these initiatives. However, a couple of points:
1) I remeber the decade or so prior to the GOP recapturing the House in ‘94, and I remember Gingrich visably throwing flash-bomb after flash-bomb first from the back benches, then ultimately from the front bench when he became minority leader. There is no comparable figure on the Dem side today. The grenades roll out unseen and by the time they explode you have no idea who bowled them out there. Maybe it’s just a matter of different leadership styles, but even if it is you have to be concerned about #2, below.
2) The Dem grass roots are unaware that the Pelosis of the Beltway are rolling out those grenades, and the lack of visably aggresssive leadership is disheartening. As my wife’s client and friend said this morning, “I’ll keep working at it, but how many people will just say to hell with it because they don’t see any leadership in opposition?”
God forbid that the Rethugs retain control of both houses in 2006 because more Dems stayed home out of disgust and despair than did Republicans.
Cujo, Thanks for the pickup a few threads ago on this AT&T / NSA bomb. I think it is huge. Since I’m betting there are not many crazy as me to spend 3 hours catching up after being out all day, here is the link to the Google News search I did on the issue — just hit refresh when you get there to see if there is new news.
Just sorry this is another Friday night drop.
http://tinyurl.com/p6p3h
See you all tomorrow — you are all amazing (and BTW, I am delighted to see the grammar and spelling corrections are gone from these past threads — when trying to catch up, those are hard to wade through.)
hugh, you’re probably right, but the article did make me rethink the situation. It does make sense that the wingnuts would pile on even Murtha if Pelosi backed him. Murtha alone is a different animal- they can’t really shoot a guy like him down.
I’m in the camp of being totally sick of all the Dems but Feingold – but always hoping there’s hope.
Wonderful news week indeed. I gotta catch up on Redd’s stuff and everything.
Who knew Gene Pitney wrote “He’s a Rebel”?
We wouldn’t want Timmeh to really address an important issue like this on Press the Meat, would we?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Exclusive! 2004 Democratic nominee for President John Kerry (D-MA) joins us on this Sunday’s “Meet the Press with Tim Russert,” to discuss his new exit strategy for Iraq. On Thursday, Kerry introduced a Senate resolution with two deadlines — one for Iraqi leaders to form a unity government by May 15th or face the immediate withdrawal of American troops; and the second, if the Iraqis do form a government, for American combat forces to be withdrawn by the end of 2006. We’ll also talk to Senator Kerry about new reports that Vice President Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, told prosecutors that President Bush authorized the leaking of sensitive intelligence to refute criticism of the war in Iraq.
Then, we turn to the issue that has sparked an intense, emotional debate nationwide: Illegal Immigration. With us, three Members of Congress with different views on the issue: Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX), Democratic Caucus Immigration Task Force Chair Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), author of “Whatever It Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security and the War on Terror” — only on “Meet the Press.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They have the script pre-written. No time to bother with things like breaking news.
Here’s another bit of paranoia:
I’m certain the administration has the means to shut down the Internet in a matter of hours, via DoD/NSA, in the event of a national emergency, real or manufactured; that plus martial law – wherever it goes from there, I’m sure it won’t be pretty…
Just when I think a thread can’t get any better, Jane mentions Judy’s “Norma Desmond” moment.
Sunset Blvd. (1950)Directed by Billy Wilder
Writing credits Charles Brackett (written by) &
Billy Wilder. Plot Outline: A hack screenwriter writes a screenplay for a former silent-film star who has faded into Hollywood obscurity.
User Comments: A very brave look at Hollywood when Hollywood was bullied by an absurd censorship.
Cast overview, first billed only:
William Holden …. Joe Gillis
Gloria Swanson …. Norma Desmond
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043014/
But, the NY Times says every administration does it. Here’s a nice puff piece. Look forward to hearing your thoughts on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04…..r=homepage
I didn’t know he wrote “Hello Mary Lou” either.
What a day, ‘eh? It seems like all electronic news media have carried this story intensely all day into the evening, and the overwhelming reaction of commentators is one of significant skepticism toward the Bush administration’s motives and the propriety of what they did.
This morning I emailed a letter to my paper on the topic (reposted below). They called me for confirmation within a half hour (Las Vegas Sun). I’m thinking they’ll put it in the Sunday edition. The MSM is starting to get the scent of blood in the water. Perhaps the juices are finally flowing.
—
To the editors,
On the latest President-Leaks-at-Whim revelations:
Let us not fall for the White House red herring here. Assume Mr. Bush indeed has unlimited de-classification discretion. Why, then, did the President not then simply go public at the outset to “refute†Ambassador Wilson (even w/redactions), if it was SO vital to the nation’s interest? Why the necessity to leak it on deep background to Judith Miller, with no one apprised of it other than himself, Cheney, Libby and Ms. Miller? Why?
We know why. This dog just won’t hunt. Wake up, people. The President has been playing politics with national security all along, and the bloody, chaotic consequences are plain for all to see and are likely to just keep getting worse.
Enough is enough.
—
Again, Keep It Simple. Max Principle of Charity toward BushCo. Stipulate that he can de-classify any secrets at will, and that, Big Picture Guy Who Doesn’t Do Details that he is, he didn’t do X procedural paperwork by Date Y regarding the NIE stuff. Grant all of that. NONE OF IT MATTERS.
The only germane point is that, were his motives so frigging Noble and the circumstances so exigent, the route he chose certainly didn’t work; Mata Whori never wrote it up. He COULD have announced this stuff at a Presser and handed out redacted copies of the NIE if the public need to know was SO great.
Libby is fucking cooked, and he knows it. He repeatedly, proactively, lied — in specific detail — about stuff that the WH is now poignantly trying to spin as totally above board and within their authority to disseminate. It simply begs a glaring question that even Joe Lunchbucket Murkin Patriot and waitress Beverly BarAndGrill can understand: WHY did they find it necessary to LIE?
The WH is now in totally reactive shovel-shit mode (delicious, just desserts). Hound them on this point mercilessly. If there was “no underlying crime,” why the need for the evasions and lies? Why did Bush not simply go public at the outset?
Pump up the volume. Keep it simple.
from 88 link:
—————————
Leaking intelligence information to the news media, the committee reports, “costs untold millions of dollars in lost intelligence collection capabilities funded by U.S. taxpayers, literally puts lives in jeopardy, and makes the work by the honorable people of our intelligence community far more difficult.”
In the case of Mr. Libby’s disclosures to Ms. Miller, the consequences were hardly so dire. But neither was the political result evidently sought by the White House achieved.
———————
Would the media — including Bob Woodward, who claims there’s been no damage — please stop speculating about the consequences of the Plame leak? There’s been no public release of an impact report from the CIA, if one has even been prepared. It’s hard to know whether the consequences were “hardly so dire” since the gold stars on the wall at Langley will always be unnamed.
Questions for Legals:
Could Fitz have already prepared sealed indictments?
If he is “fired”, are they still “good”?
just got in, lot to catch up on, don’t know if this has been addressed–
Question 1: If there is some sort of poorly thought out Saturday Night Massacre, and Fitz gets fired, what happens to all the stuff he’s collected thus far? Into the shredder? Can Conyers run over there pronto and start boxing it up for the eventual impeachment? What happens to it?
Question 2: Is Fitz then free to speak out? Could he just go on Olberman or whatever and spill everything he knows?
Question 3: What about the grand jury? The power to fire Fitz doesn’t include the power to dissolve the jury, does it? Would the jury be free to speak out?
Anybody else think we’re really close to Saturday Night Massacre time? Hell, I think we’re close to Pinochet-style disappearings.
nice letter BobbyG.
Look, I’m posting this before I’ve read all th ecomments above and if it’s been said, my apologies. But there are three threads running together here: the general spinelessness of the Dems and the NSA domestic spying as revealed by ATT today. Put that together with the fact that we know that Bush will leak classified information for political gain, and you can see that the obverse is probably true: he will spy for political gain. How many of these politicians have an affair or a drinking problem or some tax issue, or something else that they do not want to see the light of day? I think we can be fairly certain that chains are being yanked and cages are awfully quiet for a reason.
Just sayin’.
Re “Update: As several people have noted in the comments, Cheney famously said in Sept. 2003 on MTP, “And Joe Wilson—I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.”
I think that’s just more Cheney smoke and mirrors. IIRC, Valarie Wilson suggested that her husband should be sent but didn’t actually “send him” herself. And, IIRC, Wilson never gave a written report that could be “seen”
So, technically, he may be correct. He’s a BS artist of the first order.
It’s not only the Ny Times, xyz. We have pushback, courtesy of poolboy VandeHei and Team Libby, in the WP
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00190.html
TeddySanFran -
Thanks, bro’ I am REALLY pissed.
cleter, I’m with you on the funny-feelings-in-my-gut about this crew, and the precedents they’re probably looking at. But I think that here at fdl, there’s a healthy respect for the orderly processes, which I find refreshing and uplifting. You and I are in the minority. Time will tell.
xyz, thanks for the link. My initial response was unprintable. Your description of it as a puff piece was very accurate.
IMO the NYT’s piece reveals how much on the defensive the WH is. Outside of Scooter, they can’t “swift boat” anyone. They don’t want to cut Scooter loose, because he knows too much, he could ask Fitz for a plea. Since the story is all about the WH lying to itself, they are reduced to saying, “everybody has done it back to George Washington.” Rover learned this from like Clinton defending extra-marital sex.
What really boiled my blood pressure Snottie McMuffin’s 1984-like-assertion that the “Leaker-in-Chief”‘ leaks to protect the American people, while the individual whistleblowers at NSA and CIA… do it for political gain.
WH press corps has got to a better job of holding Snottie accountable. It’s tough, Snottie is very good at his job, but they have to do it.
That is a nice letter, BobbyG.
I think “Why did the President lie?” is the new “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” It looks like they may finally have crossed the bridge of no return here. Scottie’s presser reminded me of Nixon’s lame attempt to release nice edited versions of the tapes. It had that same stink of desperation.
oh the horrors! you mean the sainted George W Bush is no better than his Democrat predecessors about leaks of classified national secrets? what will we tell the children?
cleter, good questions. IMO, firing Fitz doesn’t really change things for Libby, because he has already been indicted.
The fact that zero Republicans came to the Leaker-in-Chief’s defense today is important, as are the November mid-terms.
That NYT piece is just awful on too many levels.
So, let’s look at what our President did about “leaks†earlier.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/10/gwb100901.html
President sent this memo, October 5, 2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
THE DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
SUBJECT: Disclosures to the Congress
Basically, he tells them they can’t make any.
Why? Bc he doesn’t like leaks, and btw this is serious stuff, people shouldn’t leak. Plus, he can “take it upon himself” to decide what info Congress is entitled to hear. Next post I’ll tell you what he seems to think they can hear. FOr now:
THE PRESIDENT: Well first, Mr. Chancellor, we had a — we had some security briefings take place up on Capitol Hill that were a discussion about classified information and some of that information was shared with the press.
CHANCELLOR SCHROEDER: Oh, we know that trouble. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, you know that trouble, too. (Laughter.) These are extraordinary times. Our nation has put our troops at risk. And therefore, I felt it was important to send a clear signal to Congress that classified information must be held dear, that there’s a responsibility that if you receive a briefing of classified information, you have a responsibility. And some members did not accept that responsibility, somebody didn’t. So I took it upon myself to notify the leadership of the Congress that I intend to protect our troops.
And that’s why I sent the letter I sent. It’s a serious matter, Dave, it’s very serious that people in positions of responsibility understand, that they have a responsibility to people who are being put in harm’s way. I’m having breakfast tomorrow with members of Congress. I will be glad to bring up this subject.
I understand there may be some heartburn on Capitol Hill. But I suggest if they want to relieve that heartburn, that they take their positions very seriously, and that they take any information they’ve been given by our government very seriously. Because this is serious business we’re talking about.
Gawd, is there any tail-pipe that VanDeHai won’t suck if the White House tells him to?
cleter -
The wingnut mantra: “no underlying crime, no underlying crime, no underlying crime, no underlying crime, no underlying crime…” now buttressed with “Bush had complete authority, Bush had complete authority, Bush had complete authority, Bush had complete authority, Bush had complete authority…”
Then WHY have to evade and lie about it all this time?
Ooh, John Casper, I hadn’t thought of that. Scooter can’t be unindicted, short of a pardon. They would have to do a Saturday Night Massacre couple with a Scooter pardon to make this go away. That’s probably more of a shit storm than they would want to do. Maybe.
it seems to me that the real news should be,
as opposed to the section ijane put in bold,
“Defendant advised Miller that Wilson had reported that he had learned that in 1999 an Iraqi delegation visited Niger and sought to expand commercial relations, which was understood to be a reference to a desire to obtain uranium.”
if i understand this correctly,
libby is flat out lying to miller.
this goes beyond just leaking.
the vice-president’s chief of staff
is deliberately misleading a
NYtwiTimes reporter
(not hard to do of course in these final, bottom-line-days of traditional journalism.)
cleter,
I asked a similar set of questions this morning regarding the data that’s been collectd by the Fitz team and what happens if he’s suddenly “removed” one way or the other. I didn’t get any feedback. Hoping one of the legal experts can provide insight.
Presidential leaking is so pre-911-thinking, isn’t it?
Message to the heartland: they are listening to your phonecalls, they are recording all your emails and internet searches, they are stealing stupendous amounts of your money, they took us into a war of aggression based on utter lies, and they are telling you lies about all of this.
What is Congress allowed to hear? According to Bush, their role is to listen to his “justifications” for his budgets.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/03/gwb031302.html
Q: No, sir. But that’s an area where Congress has said members of both parties have told us they’re not getting enough information from the White House.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, Mike, Mike, we consult with Congress all the time. I’ve had meaningful breakfasts with the leadership in the House and the Senate. I break bread with both Republicans and Democrats right back here in the Oval Office, and have a good, honest discussion about plans, objectives, what’s taking place, what’s not taking place. We have members of our Cabinet briefing. Condoleezza Rice is in touch with the members of the Congress. We are in touch with — we understand the role of the Congress. We must justify budgets to Congress. And so I don’t buy that, to be frank with you.
Q: Given that you’ve not convinced everyone in your own party of that, to what degree are you trying to recalibrate the power between Congress and the presidency?
THE PRESIDENT: Mike, I’m just doing my job. We’ll let all the kind of legal historians figure all that out, you know.
First of all, I’m not going to let Congress erode the power of the Executive Branch. I have a duty to protect the Executive Branch from legislative encroachment. I mean, for example, when the GAO demands documents from us, we’re not going to give them to them. These were privileged conversations. These were conversations when people come into our offices and brief us. Can you imagine having to give up every single transcript of what is — advised me or the Vice President? Our advice wouldn’t be good and honest and open.
And so I viewed that as an encroachment on the power of the Executive Branch. I have an obligation to make sure that the presidency remains robust and the Legislative Branch doesn’t end up running the Executive Branch. On the other hand, there’s plenty of consultation, Mike. I don’t know what single Republican you’re referring to. But if you’d give me the name afterwards, I’ll be glad to have him over for another consultation, if you know what I mean. (Laughter.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yep, nothing so funny as the President threatening a member of Congress who thinks Congress is entitled to information from the Exec Branch.
So what happens when the Pres “justifies†his budget to Congress and they pass it with restrictions on the funding that say – you can only use this money if you come tell us about it?
He laughs and laughs and laughs and makes sure they know he could care less what they put in the law. All he had to do was “justify†not actually follow their laws. I believe this is the “Take the Money and Run†provision of Constitution.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/20…..1002b.html
Section 8007 of the Act prohibits use of funds to initiate a special access program until 30 calendar days of congressional session have elapsed after the executive branch has notified the congressional defense committees of initiation of the program.
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the President’s authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority.
Although 30-day advance notice can be provided in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in wartime, in which the President must promptly establish special access controls on classified national security information under his constitutional grants of the executive power and authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
The executive branch shall construe section 8007 in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President
anon, thanks for the WaPoo link.
I doubt this is new, but it is the first time I recall seeing it, from the last graph of Vandehei’s article:
“The precise status of the information at the time Libby provided it to Woodward is unclear because of conflicting accounts of the declassification process provided by Libby and McClellan. Fitzgerald’s court filing does not provide the date when Bush and Cheney — who have both been interviewed by the special prosecutor — said they authorized Libby’s disclosures.”
The “conflicting accounts,” imo go back to what Cujo, zennurse, and looseheadprop were discussing above, can Bush declassify without a cocktail napkin, just verbally? “Conflicting accounts,” suggests to me that either there is no paper trail, or that there are two.
good stuff BobbyG
Cynthia McK on Bill Maher is quel interesting
Remember, y’all, it wasn’t the blowjobs, it was the subsequent evasions and LIES.
Hammer this point to the indifferent, the fence-sitters, and the Yellow Riboon Decal Patriots.
Maher: you should be on the cover of brave girl magazine, I mean, stuff you’ve said has blown me away, you came out and said that bush knew about 9/11 beforehand – I couldn’t believe he even knew about it after!
Thanks, Sharkbabe, coming from you, that’s major props. I am humbled.
I think it may be time for Russ Feingold to seek an entirely new motion of censure of the president based on what has come out during the past two days.
Did anybody here post a link to the MSNBC poll on “Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with Iraq?”?
Here’s the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969
6.2% of the respondants don’t believe he misled us!
Coz, nice catch on Reed, thanks.
Great post
Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with Iraq? * 80361 responses
Yes 94%
No 6.2%
Blood is in the water.
Thank you Edward Teller:
Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with Iraq?
Yes 94%
No 6.2%
* 80361 responses
I stand corrected on Pelosi’s support for Murtha:
snip
For months now, Democratic leaders have grown increasingly aggressive in their critiques of President Bush’s policies in Iraq but have been largely content to keep their own war strategies vague or under wraps. That ended Wednesday [Nov. 30, 2005] when Pelosi (D-Calif.) aggressively endorsed a proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, leaving only a much smaller rapid-reaction force in the region.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01491.html
She did take two weeks to endorse Murtha but still much better than most Democrats, voir Kerry’s recent statements and Hillary Clinton’s and Biden’s continuing support of our presence in Iraq.
JOhn, yeah that WP is interesting. It is almost Woodward’s warning to the WH. Hey, don’t say you declassified it in July – you leaked it to me in late June. What if OVP leaked it and then only after went back to Bush to get the okay? What kind of legal trouble does that leave Cheney in? Maybe that is why Rove is smiling lately, he gave Fitz the VP.
Oh, by the way…
What is the new policy here regarding censoring of comments???
Personally, I think that this is ludicrous.
At least the policy should be posted including what is and what isn’t acceptable.
Maybe we should know who is in charge of making these judgements…I know it is not Jane.
I have always liked this blog but this is a real bummer, especially coming from Jane.
Edward Teller,
Wow! There were 80K+ respondents to that M$NBC poll. Bush is cooked, no question. Now Americans need to call for impeachment and war crimes trials so that we can get on to the job of getting this country back on track. I don’t know about you, but I’m seeing light at the end of the tunnel. ccmask’s clairvoyance on on display?
Hey John,
Court TV has a message board up on the Duke Investigation if you’re interested.
http://boards.courttv.com/foru…..orumid=242
Ah, the ‘infamous Norma Desmond moment’…How unfortunate for those afflicted
;>)
First; you Rock. Second: Right after PJF.
Ya, Dumbya gots some ’splaining to do.
? If its declassified why the ruse?
What part of declassifying a COVERT operative working on COUNTERPROLIFERATION from IRAN is in the ‘interest of National Security’..
er HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
Indict, Impeach Imprison.
Let’em share a cell with Libby, Cheney, Rove.. hey its getting crowded.
new WaPo article
Disclosures Are Called Unrelated To Plame Case
Libby’s Lawyer Rebuts Special Prosecutor’s Filing
McKinney really is an unusual and quirky and eccentric bird, overall I thought really appealing and funny with Maher.
(Shockingly lameass panel – Joe oh jesus, even here on expensive HBO, wtf Biden, repuke cocktail weenie circuit person Bill Sammon of Morning Moon, and Ben Affleck.)
Why did the President lie?
5 simple words.
Incontrovertible. The White refuses to deny Libby’s claim, that Bush approved the NIE leak/dissemination.
He lied. Repeatedly feigned ignorance, and an earnest desire to know who leaked. Now the WH is left with the lame ‘definition-of-IS’ parse-o-mania schtick.
It ain’t about the blowjobs, it’s about the lies, remember, Goopers?
Prior to VandeHei’s article, Howie Kurtz put one out under this title:
Leaker-in-Chief?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00544.html
Coz, thanks a lot for the Duke link at Court TV.
the WaPo article “Disclosures Are Called Unrelated To Plame Case” is good in that it shows the Team Libby is grasping at public relations straws: Jeffress says the Fitz filing has nothing to do with the Plame leak. Indeed, Libby isn’t being charged with that but with perjury and obstruction of justice.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00190.html
Listening to Scotty today, in between the “ongoing investigation” dodge, he repeatedly said that the declassified material from the NIE was in the public’s interest. Why didn’t anyone ask him why it was only the material that supported their arguments that was chosen for declassification? Isn’t material that might be contrary to the Bush doctrine also in the public’s interest? Would love to hear Scotty final admit what we all know: the public’s interest is apparently limited to whatever is in Bush’s interest.
It seems clear – or maybe it’s magical thinking – that Libby is the worm on the end of Fitz’s hook, and he is going to play out the line, and at some point, he will hook some of the biggest fish in this administration. And, given the penchant for lying, the vast numbers of lies already told, and the growing difficulty of keeping straight which lies have been told to which people, sooner or later, these people are going to tie themselves up into the purtiest little package of criminals we’ve seen in a long time.
It’s gonna be one hell of a fish fry.
So I guess this means that Judy Miller sat
in the can covering for W and our VP of darkness?
nope! Judy sat in the can covering for the Leaker-in-Chief !
I also think it goes to ‘what is declassification’ and under the order it is “(k) “Declassification” means the authorized change in the status of information from classified information to unclassified information.â€
Is that actually what happened? That the NIE was made unclassified? Or was it that that parts were selectively handed over to a favored reporter? I don’t see how that is the same as making the document unclassified, in the generally accepted sense, where it becomes generally available to the public.
For example, were parts put in the database? Sec. 3.7. Declassification Database. (a) The Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, in conjunction with those agencies that originate classified information, shall coordinate the linkage and effective utilization of existing agency databases of records that have been declassified and publicly released.
IOW, what is the substance and what is the form. Using a word “declassified†doesn’t make it declassified if you still keep it under all the protections of a classified document – except for giving it to one reporter you like. Miller, upon receiving her NIE excerpts: They LIKE me, they really really LIKE me Why do I see Sally Fields playing her in the movie version?
I also return again to the whole concept of misuse of power and abuse of power. “Having†power is almost never the determinative issue, even if it does exist. Everything in this country stems from common law and it is the common law that originally put breaks on the power of a monarch – even before the Magna Carta. The common law’s footings are equity. The position of President is a fiduciary position, just like, for example, the position of the Trustee of your Pension Plan. “Legally†can a Trustee sell your assets? Almost certainly, yes. But “equitably†can they sell them for their own personal benefit instead of in trust, for you? Nope (ok, these days we also have statutes that spell a lot of that out – but it comes from the common law). All governmental employees, including the President, serve as fiduciaries for the people. A criminal breach of the trust can and does occur when a fiduciary misuses or mishandles the power given to it in trust. All kind of esoteric, but fwiw.
Ya know, it’s funny we are seeing minimizing of the Libby leak in the two papers that were used to hype the WMD arguments. No shame.
Ah, which Norma Desmond moment:
I *am* big. It’s the *pictures* that got small.
or
You see, this is my life! It always will be! Nothing else! Just us, the cameras, and those wonderful people out there in the dark!… All right, Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up.
Ben Affleck doing impassioned soliloquies, really he’s agitated and emotional, can’t contain himself among Biden and media whore guy
heck, Ben’s realest thing here by a mile for my $
Biden, god so ruined by political cock of the walk egomania, what an ENDLESS WORTHLESS tiredass, blahblahblah
Yep, It’s all politics all the time. They are very good at it.
There’s an intriguing little bombshell over at “wired” that I found from Raw Story. It’s at http://www.wired.com/news/tech…..19-0.html. Entitled AT&T Whistleblower and its related to a lawsuit filed in January wherein this AT&T tech relates the NSA Spy Room built in the San Fran AT&T offices. I put a bug in AL’S ear, figured Glenn was locked in his cell for a bit and wouldn’t appreciated being tortured…so to speak. LINDYH thanks for the link to KOS, interesting stuff. And Jane, thanks for helping my brain cells out about Cheney’s denial of Wilson’s report.
Greetings all. Been working on that deadline stuff. So, I’ve only had time to read comments for this thread today.
Bobby G, great letter, and I really liked the after matter (didn’t you say something about your son writing comedy?- hmmm… wonder where that came from):
Libby is fucking cooked, and he knows it. He repeatedly, proactively, lied — in specific detail — about stuff that the WH is now poignantly trying to spin as totally above board and within their authority to disseminate. It simply begs a glaring question that even Joe Lunchbucket Murkin Patriot and waitress Beverly BarAndGrill can understand: WHY did they find it necessary to LIE?
And, probably posted, but not on this thread so far, key portions of Snotty’s presser:
http://www.editorandpublisher……1002314220
-
Knight Ridder nails it (hat tip to Digby):
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld…..291966.htm
Anne -
You’re dead-on. That goes to my sarcastic “why-didn’t-Bush-simply-hold-an-NIE-presser?” taunt. He couldn’t go public ‘cuz that particular NIE was shot through with caveats and contrary views.
The whole exercise didn’t have shit to do with “Important Information Americans Needed to Know.” Anyone with a functioning synapse know it, too.
This prick is finished. But, he may well try some dangerous stuff in upcoming desperation. Vigilance, my friends, vigilance.
Samuel Beckett couldn’t have made up a Joe Biden.
Had to excerpt part of the Knight Ridder piece:
Libby testimony shows a White House pattern of intelligence leaks
BY WARREN P. STROBEL AND RON HUTCHESON
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON – The revelation that President Bush authorized former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby to divulge classified information about Iraq fits a pattern of selective leaks of secret intelligence to further the administration’s political agenda.
Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials have reacted angrily at unauthorized leaks, such as the exposure of a domestic wiretapping program and a network of secret CIA prisons, both of which are now the subject of far-reaching investigations.
But secret information that supports their policies, particularly about the Iraq war, has surfaced everywhere from the U.N. Security Council to major newspapers and magazines. Much of the information that the administration leaked or declassified, however, has proved to be incomplete, exaggerated, incorrect or fabricated.
And, OT but not, earlier I saw someone calling for Me/Me3 to check back in. Second that. I remember so well his posts about Fitz’s methods of flipping and flipping and flipping. Me3? Shez, can you beam him in? It would be great to have a Me3 moment.
EPU’D myself:
angie says:
April 7th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
loosey goosey mcain is a pain the ass and in my state at a rnc fundraiser right– could not get in; duh. he is barf. maverick, my ass.
Jane Hamsher:
Did Cheney authorize Libby to do this too, . . .?
…………………….
If so, then that tells you that Fitzgerald is not buying into the nonsense that the President and Vice-President are above the law when it comes to following procedures for declassifying information. Because Fitzgerald clearly asserts that the information was still classified.
The only other option is that (1) Cheney told Libby to leak “selected portions” of the NIE, (2) Libby was so cautious about leaking classified material that he declined without assurance from Cheney that Bush “authorized” it, (3) Libby was so cautious about leaking classified material that he went to Addington for some sort of additional approval, and then (4) Libby was so incautious about leaking classified material that he leaked this material that Fitzgerald says was clearly classified without “authorization,” or direction, or whatever you want to call it from Cheney.
Take your pick.
Just got back from a 2nd read of link that #51 LindyH posted over to Kos diary. The diary has info that Fitz is looking into including the exposure and subsequent shutdown of Brewster Jennings … and with the several hundred employees working under its cover, it has been guesstimated that at least one such operative was murdered when Brewster Jennings’ cover was blown by Novak’s article. I’ve been angry for a long time about Brewster Jennings exposure but never thought we could hope for Fitz to include them in the wheels of justice, but they, of course, should be. Anyone else heard of Fitz expanding this to include Brewster Jennings??
Valley Girl -
My hilarious Son spent the day in jail. My sister-in-law pulled some strings with a judge she knows and is downtown at the moment getting him out.
Warrants. Unpaid moving violations. Mr lead foot. Collared on the way to work. They impounded the truck he just bought — with money WE loaned him.
Yeah, he’s a fucking barrel of laughs at the moment. About as funny as Strutting-Chief-Leaks-at-a-Whim.
My BP has been elevated all day. His Momma is in Alabama tending to her frail Mother who just fell and broke her OTHER hip. I am not callin’ her.
Interesting information about another leak is also discussed in the Knight Ridder piece. I wouldn’t be surprised if Cheney’s fingerprints are all over this one too:
“In November 2003, the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard published highly classified raw intelligence purporting to a show a link between Saddam and al-Qaida.
The Pentagon disavowed the report. But in early January 2004, Cheney told the Rocky Mountain News newspaper that the magazine report was the “best source of information” about the Saddam/al-Qaida connection. That connection has never been proved.”
BobbyG–Re: It’s about the lies, remember, Goopers?–That is inoperative at this moment in time. It concerns a Republican now so all that stuff just doesn’t apply anymore, see? ;)
On Maher’s show in general, the celebrities represent the angry people and the pundit/pol class just bloviate.
et tu, Biden – god, is EVERYBODY on drugs? Verbose as elmer gantry, saying even more nothing than usual. These people really live in their own rarified cocoon bubble worlds not unlike Dipshit.
Margot- yeah. Still, we must throw it in their faces.
BobbyG says:
April 7th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Take care of yourself, please.
Bush didn’t lie. It was a clever diversion. He sent them out to get to the bottom when he know the leak came from the top.
BobbyG – sendin you and yours
“Sharkbabe says:
April 7th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Samuel Beckett couldn’t have made up a Joe Biden.”
sorry, sharkbabe, that one went over my head, and I used to love Beckett.
??
Angie -
Thanks. And I gotta get up early to give a presentation in front of about 120 lawyers tomorrow at 8, on the risk management/mitigation aspects of EHR technology (Electronic Medical Records).
I expect about half of them will be listening with one ear as they’re sittin’ checking their Blackberrys for tee-times.
Really just wanna sleep in.
Tulsa OK World: headline- Libby testimony points to Bush.
Even in the boonies it is frontpage top
Sharkbabe, Angie, Valley Girl, zennurse…
Major hugs to ya’s ((((((*!*))))))
Gonna go crash. ‘night.
Valley Girl — Me3 has tried to post recently, but his posts don’t show up.
Me3 asked me to post:
http://tinyurl.com/a6erq
just watchin cspan with byron dorgan talking about the Halliburtin/KBR filthy water delivered to the troops on cspan1 at 10 minutes past midnite. Bush is post- toasties. done. finiished. you cannot hide after midnight, NOW. think how little the troops have of clean water and how much less the people of Ira
Edward T, Biden tonight was an absurdist universe unto itself, you had to be there, Beckett’s the best (and comfortingest) who I think of
darkblack~
Your “infamous Norma Desmond moment” was the best all night!!
There has been so much to read tonight that my mind reels.
FDL commenters are the smartest and sometimes the snarkiest on the internets. I wish I had something intelligent to contribute.
Sola Mia ~ I agree that the Dems have to do something. And do it now. That is why we do have to lead them.
And we need to be relentless. Phone. fax. e-mail. Stand outside their offices. They’re all back from DC now. A call to their local offices everyday while they are back. Remind them we voted for them and we can vote for someone else.
q hav. The original story came out 8 mos ago. Iraq and Afghanistan. Both. Tune in.
Well, I have no idea what happened, including misspells. DOH! I will not use this keyboard again.
Difficult Lawyer:
I like the way you are breaking this down.
As I see it, Libby has portrayed himself as a cautious handler of classified information, who will double check with counsel (Addington) even when getting direct authorization from Cheney to disclose such information with regard to NIE’s.
This certainly doesn’t help Libby’s “I forgot because I was busy” defense because it shows Libby to be someone who is quite attentive to issues involving the disclosure of classified information. Someone who is that attentive is not likely to forget about revealing the name of an undercover agent repeatedly to various journalists.
Setting aside the issue of Libby’s defense, the measures that Libby took to confirm the appropriateness of the NIE disclosure indicate to me that ANY disclosure of classified information by Libby MUST have been explicitly authorized by his higher ups, specifically by Cheney with assurances that the request originated with Bush – just as it transpired in the NIE case.
So, reasoning from Libby’s story about how he came to disclose the NIE, one can infer that Libby’s disclosure of Plame’s identity most likely originated in a similar fashion.
Time
for
a real,
independent
investigation.
I find when I get too depressed I fall into a funk where I listen to live Grateful Dead bootlegs repeateadly.
I have an ipod shuffle that I loaded 4 live versions of Dark Star. Not a single one of them is shorter than 13 minutes. I listen to them one after another.
I recall during the Reagan years I once went for 5 years where I listened to nothing but live dead bootlegs. Jerry, we need you now.
Link to a CSM piece that summarizes what the major sources are putting out
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/…..pdate.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/…..pdate.html
Their choice of headline is interesting: “Did Bush Misuse Presidential Powers†and they got to the heart of the quote in the WaPo story that makes the WaPo allegation of “unquestioned†authority be, uh, well, “questioned†I guess would be the word.
The Washington Post reports that “legal experts say that the president had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of the information, but added the leak was highly unusual and amounted to â€using sensitive intelligence data for political gain.”
“It is a question of whether the classified National Intelligence Estimate was used for domestic political purposes,” said Jeffrey H. Smith, a Washington lawyer who formerly served as general counsel for the CIA …
Also in the WaPo article that’s header and lead paragraph claim it is all unquestionably legal?
“There is an institutional interest and ultimately a public interest in having these decisions documented,” said Ronald D. Lee, . . . former general counsel to . . National Security Agency. “
Does WaPo read what they write?
I would expect nothing less than a “less than honest answer” from the Big Dick.
curious in central Texas: Thanks for the link.
But I can’t understand by Me3’s posts didn’t show up. Encourage him to try again. Maybe he posted during one of the awkward moments of comments transistioning back and forth between Haloscan and this. There have been some teething problems, and also were some efforts to change things on Haloscan to get rid of an obnoxious troll that created their own problems.
I will relay message. Thanks.
National Security Archive And if you’ve ever been sailing, it leads to instability. What will the clown show do next?
Defendant discussed with Miller the contents of a then classified CIA report which defendant characterized to Miller as having been written by Wilson.
I am absolutely certain that I have read Joe Wilson saying that he NEVER wrote a report when he came back from Niger. He was debriefed by someone in CIA.
I am not so clear on this next one, but I think Joe may even have said that he was told not to write a report – that his debriefing would be preferable. Won’t swear to this one.
Dr. Jeffrey Griffiths testifying at Byron Dorgan’s thingie is all about poop– bless him for being clear. Bloody diarrhea, hepatitis, loss of a colon, mass sickness, death by POOP in the water. People die…….. The source of the water at that base is concentrated sewage that the troops bathed in and cleaned their teeth with, they would have been better off with water straight out of the Euphrates River. We have known this from the 1800’s. Heeellllloooooo? Think about those other indigenous peeps, too. ;(
Mary, thanks for all of your posts. And thank you for the last, highlighting “legal experts say…”
Had to laugh at that, considering some recent TPs, especially including, but not limited to: “Again, many of the best legal minds disagree.â€
Yeah, I’m gonna tuck that one away.
New thread from Jane.
wow! great topic and commentary. Plus I have finally found out how to use tags. Still dont know how to reference links with just a keyword.
Jane and Christy:
Thank you so much for doing the work that you do. It is spectular to be so well informed as the two of you allow me to be, only for the reading and then to go onto whatever research that you lead me to. Plus! It is such a pleasure to be able to take down rightwing trolls on other sites that I visit who try to make shit up. I have the facts, much because of you two. I feel proud that I know where to pin my hopes, and proud to have discovered the two of you.
Sorry, didn’t meant to get so dramatic, but heh! It’s all true.
Jane – Ok, I must have misunderstood the point you were making about the CPD officer. Sorry.
No problem, Jeff, I always appreciate you keeping me honest ;)
xyz:
There is just one problem with my implication (that Cheney. Bush, or both authorized Scooter to talk about the “classified CIA report”) and your deduction (that his discussions with reporters about Plame “most likely originated in a similar fashion”) – we have to buy into what you term “Libby’s story” – that he was cautious about leaking classified material.
But suppose this.
Suupose that, in fact, when it came to leaking classified material, Scooter was the “go-to” man in this administration. Often, he leaked on his own. Often, if others wanted something leaked, they went to Scooter to get the evild deed done. As a result, there are a lot of skeletons in his closet.
But everything was fine. A compliant Congress and reporters (Judy Miller, Woodward, and the like) who were on board with The Cause, who wouldn’t bite the hand that was feeding them, or both, meant that everything would remain under wraps.
Until Comey appointed Fitzgerald.
All of a sudden, tracks had to be covered. Scooter’s tracks. Because he was the primary source of the evil.
So they did things early on in the Fitzgerald phase of the prosecution like getting Bush to go along with saying that he “authorized” Scooter to divulge the NIE information to Judy (”Mr. President, I appreciate you not wanting to get your hands dirty with this, but if they get into Scooter, they get into all of our dirty laundry, and we can’t afford that. His leaking was so diverse that you’re the only one who can cover it all by claiming you declassified the stuff. We’ll amend the executive order regarding declassification so that Cheney can take the heat from here on out, but for now, you gotta get Scooter in the clear. It’s too soon to pardon him, so this is the only way.”)
As part of this cover, they concocted the “Scooter is cautious” fairy tale. He checked, double-checked, and triple-checked before even talking to reporters. He didn’t even really talk to reporters – that was Cathie Martin’s job. Judy Miller even confirms how cautious Scooter was with classified information.
Problem is (for you and me), “Libby’s story” is all a big lie, and as such, cannot be “reasoned from.”
Problem is (for the administration), a lot of these lies they concocted early on are coming to pieces now, but having told them, they’re kind of stuck with them (at least until Christmas Eve, when they can get out from under all of this).
Jane,
Why would Dobson have appoitments to meet with the Editorial staff at the NYT & WaPo?
Agnie… sorry about McCain… you only get to survive a one night stand…. those of us in AZ are stuck with him until 2010 or….. GOD forbid 2008………….I need to check in with some of my conserative Dems neighbors and see if he still calls himself a “McCain” Democrat.
Bennett (Clinton’s attorney) was on Hardball last night and without any lead-in at all from Matthews, began discussing the ramifications of a presidential pardon for Libby which Bennett–and Matthews–assumed is being actively debated at the White House. Ginsberg was next up so I left to avoid a rise in blood pressure so may have missed an interesting exchange between Bennett and Ginsburg.
Difficult Lawyer: Interesting thought about Libby being the leaker go to guy. Of course, if you are perceived as the go to leaker then it goes without saying that you’re the one who knows who best to leak to … Judith may have been tried and true but in this case, if memory serves, the NIE leak didn’t become part of her writings post haste to square up public understanding of Bush’s position … so to be picky, how did leaking to Judith help fuel Bush’s position? Just what did they get out of the deal?
Thread theorist #18
I thought keith’s guest host was LAME. He pissed off Bill Nye the Science guy, and me, too, by trying to be funny when BNTSG was trying to be serious. I shut it off at that point.
mainsailset:
It’s difficult to say for sure. This, to me, reamins something of a “minimum information” – or more accurately, an “insufficient information” – problem. I need more information about this whole affair to have any confidence in any analysis of it.
That being said, “just what” Scooter and Cheneny and the White House Iraq Group got out of Scooter buttering Judy’s biscuit at the St. Regis might be something like this (and I claim no originality in this proposition – it is a common hypothesis).
The Office of the Vice President (and maybe some members of the White House Iraq Group, maybe Hadley, maybe Rove, depending on who’s telling the story) decide they want to get out classified information. “Selected portions,” to be sure. But the powers that be (Tenet, Bush, or others, depending on who’s telling the story) can’t be persuaded to declassify the information, or are not even approached, due to the political sensitivity of declassifying information for political purposes with the 2004 election approaching.
So the leakers (1) want classified information out, (2) can’t get it declassified, and (3) don’t want to go to jail for leaking it.
The solution: First, plant the information with reporters they are highly confident will not give them up. Judy, Woodruff, and the like. Then, ask them to delay publishing it, or not publish it, give them something else incomplete that they will have to take time to investigate before publishing, tell them that the leaked information is unreliable or contested, or something like that. Second, wait a few weeks. Third, hope that Judy and Woodruff and the like are such big gossips that they will spread the word among other reporters, and when approached for confirmation, the leakers can say something like, “That sounds about right.” Fourth, failing approaches for confirmation, or in the event of a major problem, such as Wilson going public in the New York Times, they start spreading the leak among other reporters, like the boys at Time, Pincus, and others.
The {flawed} thinking is, if ever called to account for breaking the law, they can simply say, “I didn’t leak anything, it was all over Washington by the time I talked to {insert name of reporter here}. As a matter of fact, that’s where I heard of it for the first time. As for that classified report containing the information that was circulated to me, I was so busy protecting my nation from turrists that I never even had a chance to read it. May God Bless America.”
So as to “just what” Scooter got out of buttering Judy’s biscuit, it was not a story, but a cover for the leaks they would ultimately make that would utlimately lead to stories in other publications.
Just a hypothesis, mind you. A little convoluted. On the other hand, when you’re involved in criminal activity and lying to the extent these people were, then convolution is to be expected.