Harry Reid has a thing or two to say to a President (and Vice President) who "won’t comment on an ongoing investigation" (except when they want to leak to the media through "Senior Administration Officials") and calls on them to release the transcripts of their Fitzgerald interviews:
Dear Mr. President:
I was deeply disturbed by your confirmation earlier this week that you and Vice President Cheney authorized the selective leaking of sensitive intelligence information in order to discredit those who raised legitimate questions about your Administration’s case for the war in Iraq. Just as troubling, when presented with opportunities to publicly explain your actions, you and other Administration officials have either issued more misleading statements or hidden behind legalistic defenses. I urge you to immediately heed bipartisan calls to publicly and fully explain to the American people your role in this selective leak of sensitive American intelligence for political purposes.
I regret that you and other Administration officials have had several opportunities over the past week to set the public record straight, but you have repeatedly chosen not to do so. You and your spokesperson have instead chosen to issue more misleading statements or to hide behind a legalistic defense that "ongoing legal proceedings" prevented you from talking about the matter. For example, at a recent press briefing, your spokesperson relied on the defense of "ongoing legal proceedings" sixteen times to avoid responding to reporters questions about this matter. Misleading statements and legalistic jargon are hardly appropriate responses for the Commander in Chief, especially when the questions involve whether the Administration manipulated intelligence information relied on by Congress and the American people to decide the proper course for Iraq.
As long as the defense of "ongoing legal proceedings" is used by the White House to deny critical facts to public, the American people will not "see the truth" you pledged to provide. In fact, the White House strategy only raises further questions. For example, in addition to Mr. Libby, have you directed anyone else in your Administration to disclose classified information to reporters? Was any other highly classified data, beyond that contained in the National Intelligence Estimate, selectively leaked to reporters or other persons outside of your Administration, and if so, why? And, why did you tell the American people on October 13, 2003, that you "don’t know of anybody in (your) administration who leaked classified information"?
These and other questions are best addressed by following the advice of the Republican Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who said that "there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the President said to him, and an explanation from the President as to what he said so that it can be evaluated." A good interim step, if you are unwilling to come forward now, would be for you and the Vice President to immediately release the transcripts of your interviews with investigators. Perhaps this would give the American people some insight into your motivations until you and the Vice President are prepared to speak openly to the American people.
Immediate and full disclosure of your involvement in the manipulation and leaking of sensitive intelligence is the best way to address growing questions about your Administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq as well as other critical national security decisions. For the sake of our troops and our security, I urge you to heed the bipartisan call to level with the American people.
Sincerely,
Harry Reid
Well put, Harry.
Obscured in all of this "can he/can’t he declassify" discussion about the NIE is the fact that Scooter Libby leaked the contents of two other documents that were not declassified to Judy Miller. Given the care Libby took to check with Addington before releasing the NIE, I think it’s quite likely he wasn’t acting as a "lone wolf" when he spoke about the other documents as well.
And I’m sure this matter did not escape the questioning of Patrick Fitzgerald, either. While I have no doubt Bush and Cheney felt they had the ability to order this stuff leaked as well under their grand theory of the Unitary Executive, I wonder what people in the country would think if they knew the extent of the Administration’s arrogance on this front.
I absolutely believe Fitzgerald did not release his biggest bombshells, but was merely raising a giant well-timed fist to keep them from screwing around with the legality of his appointment, or some other sort of mischief we know nothing about.
But Reid raises an excellent point, and my enquiring mind for one would like to know the answer.
So hey, George, whaddup?
Related posts:
- Cheney’s Lawyer Already Leaked the Content of Cheney’s “Privileged” Interview
- Harry Reid “Would Welcome a Legislative Proposal” to Repeal DADT
- The Cheney Interview: Judge Sullivan Rebukes Obama, but Still Shields Crucial Info
- Cheney Interview: Washington Post Losing Its Ability to Report, Too
- Late Night Presents: Harry vs. Harry in a Lightweight Bout for the Future of the Public Option





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Fitzzzzzzzz!
A FITZ on them all.
A word about the previous thread:
That White House press conference transcript is unbelievable. I’ve seen Scotty McClueless look bad before but this is a new low. It appears he has outlived any usefulness he may have had for the bush administration. I would look to see him resigning soon, except that, given the way he has treated the MSM, he might find it hard to get a job in the private sector. Maybe he could go to work for the Libby defense fund.
neurophius — he already works for the Libby Defense Fund.
Oh you mean officially?
“3 Jane Hamsher says:
April 12th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
neurophius — he already works for the Libby Defense Fund.
Oh you mean officially?”
ROTFLMAO!
re: neurophius #2
I disagree. I’d love to see Scotty remain in his current position for as long as possible. He’s doing a great job in helping to expose these criminals for what they are. True, that’s not what he is intending to do, but I won’t be picky about that.
Isn’t it odd that all-of-a-sudden the long delayed Phase II of the report on going to war is now rumored to be finally coming out?
What has changed in the last week that could prompt that? If it was held up because it discredited the Administration, why release it now? To further the case against them?
Or has it been doctored to support the Administration, and is needed as evidence to refute the latest charges of incompetence?
I’m just asking …
neurophius @ 3:00 pm (#2) I think McClellan would have no trouble finding work for a columnist for the Washington Post. If that gig isn’t available, there are plenty of other right-wing bird cage liners he could work for.
think McClellan could snag a gig at the WaPo–they’re looking for a conservative wingnut type, are they not?
Every time we reach a moment where I think, “Here it is…Scottie’s head is finally going to explode,” it inexplicably doesn’t. I thought we were there today, but we weren’t. I think there is no lie so great he wouldn’t cheerfully utter it 8 times in 2 minutes.
Get with the program people. Very soon, American coinage will reassuringly state, “In Dubya We Trust.”
–Lou
re: my last. Change “finding work for a columnist” to “finding work as a columnist” and it will make more sense.
cleter;ever see that old ’80’s b-horror flik “scanners”?
Was Scottie’s gaggle televised? Probably not if it happened on the plane- it sure looks as if he lost it- and stomped out before he could get caught red handed.
CNN Condi Rice demanding that the UN Security Council “take action” against Iran.
Is it time for her to go give them a show-and-tell in the mold of Colin Powell?
DMM 13
Scanners? yes, I saw it. That Cronenberg is a cheery fella.
1. Courtesy of Suzanne in the previous thread, we read this statement (that carefully avoids mentioning the word Censure) – dated April 12, 2006 – as sent to her by her Senator:
“There will be further hearings in the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. Once the facts are clear, we can decide on appropriate corrective action.”
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator
2. And now, I’d like to share this statement sent to an American Democrat by the “United States Senate Democratic Leader” via the USPostalService – dated March 28, 2006 – which consists of the entire third paragraph of a solicitation by the DSCC for money from said Democrat in order to “give us the resources we need to elect more Democrats in November and stop George Bush“:
“We had to learn from the media that the Bush administration illegally authorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens without judicial oversight – but the GOP Senate cancelled hearings under pressure from the White House.” [emphasis by the DSCC]
Sincerely,
Harry Reid
Jane, sorry to have hijacked your post with the Scotty nonsense. Getting back on topic, it is good to see Harry Reid speaking out on Bush’s manipulation of intelligence. On second thought, rereading the post, I guess the Scotty stuff is on topic.
now visulize scotty’s last press conference(note,the writer of this comment wishes no ill will on anyone,and no P.R.hacks were harmed during the filming of this mental image.)
Harry Reid earned his salary for today. Let’s hope he wants to make this a habit.
Someone here wrote yesterday (I believe it was Mary) that the biggest problem with this whole WH “leak” thing is that it shows just how much they try to control all information flowing out of the government. This isn’t the only instance. We’ve had this incident with the Cosmo-Christian at NASA trying to censor scientific reports that he probably didn’t even understand, the scientists at the Dept. of Interior complaining about how their reports were altered prior to release, and this selective leaking of only those miniscule portions of the NIE and other documents that supported their assertions about Iraq.
I can’t recall any similar incidents in prior Administrations, even Reagan’s, which had a pretty tight grip on their propoganda machine. Can anyone provide examples of similar misbehavior in past Administrations?
RE: Bush’s defense of “ongoing legal proceedings”:
Oh, like the pending criminal indictment of Tom DeLay, whom Bush exonerated in the press?
neurophius
I can’t imagine that a dog-and-pony show on Iran would go over so big at the UN. I imagine Condi would be greeted by peals of derisive laughter.
I expect it would be exactly the same as Powell’s presentation, except that they’d have some intern do a find-and-replace on the Powerpoint, and swap out all the “q”s in Iraq with “n”s.
way, way OT: CNN is using new music while hyping Anderson Cooper. Anybody familiar with Igor Stravinsky’s 1913 ballet “The Rite of Spring” will recognize it … very hoity-toity!
FITZZZZZ you sly dog.
THE VELVET HOT TUB
http://www.thevelvethottub.com
http://www.velvethottub.com
Somehow, when I read Harry’s letter, it reminded me of the old Tucker Carlson story about W and the woman he executed in Texas — after many appealed for her to be spared. I can just hear W in the Oval, reading this letter in his snarky, petulant, mocking voice, “I was deeeeeply disturrrrbed…”
Sure, it’s a great letter, and the American people are owed more than the explanations demanded in it, but our War Preznit is busy, busy, busy in his War Councils (or at least having his War Council foto taken for Vanity Fair, again). There aren’t going to be any explanations for the last war, because they are all planning the next war. After the next war, we’ll be lucky if we’re around to ask any questions at all.
=========
Had enough?
=========
RE: Bush’s defense of “ongoing legal proceedingsâ€:
Oh, like the pending criminal indictment of Tom DeLay, whom Bush exonerated in the press?
****
Not to mention DeLay’s possible pending appointment to be head of OMB.
(not making that up, either)
Back on topic of Bu$h Co.’s lockdown on info,read this interesting post over at HuffPo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..18995.html
Yeah,I saw that too bobbyG.These guys are gonna choke themselves out on their own arrogence.Let’s hope they don’t take us all with them.
From below re: Scott. Too funny.
. The lead in The Washington Post left this impression for the reader that the president was saying something he knew at the time not to be true.
Uh Scott, remember, “9/11 -Iraq, 9/11 – Iraq” Even if it were not true, pot would be meeting kettle.
In any event, President is where the buck stops and he has constructive knowledge of all that stuff and actual control over classification/declassificaton. If he didn’t know May 28, did he know the 29th, 30th, 1st, 2nd, etc.
WHY didn’t he know? Gross negligence? And surely he knew within a month? Two months? By the time, in September, Cheney was still making absolutist statements?
Com’on Scott. You know what has happened b4 when you use those words like irresponsible – those irresponsible claims Libby and Rove, for example? ;)
And btw Scott:
McClellan: I just told you — you shouldn’t make any assumptions, but you should go and ask the intelligence community what was this based on. I can’t tell you what they based that on. They’re the intelligence-gathering agency.
We’d love to – are you guys declassifying so we can ask Intel? Kewl. *g*
It doesn’t matter with these bastards – Harry can write a forest of letters and all will be summarly ignored, they are in charge and the hell with everyone else – Now is the time Fitz…
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0412.html
DMM @ 3:26 pm (#27) Good link. Deals nicely with the question of why information should flow as freely as possible to, from, and within a government.
Delay possibility at OMB:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/n…..hwatch.htm
If anyone finds the new Libby filing on PACER or elsewhere, let me know.
I’m sure Barbara Comstock will be shooting it off to her official stenographer Byron York ASAP.
These myopic turds in the Bush Administration seem to think that this is just another partisan attack. They don’t seem to understand that it is America that is hurting. Americans can be very forgiving. If Bush stepped up right now and admitted what happened, fired Cheney, Rumsfeld, et.al. and really cleaned house, he would probably end up with approval ratings over 60%. I would be willing to suffer that if he would just stop the bleeding now.
putting Tom Delay on the OMB would be like putting Bill Bennett on a Gambling-Control Board…
From Knight Ridder
Special prosecutor amends allegation against Libby
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon…..327589.htm
I don’t think this changes much but I’m sure the wingnuts will try to use this change to discredit Fitz.
Has anyone discussed Fitz’s retraction that he submitted to his previous filing?
I saw that Byron York had mentioned it as bad for our cause.
Am looking for clarification.
I don’t think the commenters on the threads today have shown appropriate respect for our esteemed Minister of Truthiness. Oh, wait! Maybe you have!
Jane, I don’t have Pacer, but I’m keeping my eye on a few sites as well as “Spraynet Byron”.
He usually gets the best scoops, doncha know.
Becki Jane, They already have – the right blogosphere is acting just like Scotty McClueless. These guys are scared. They’re cornered and they know it. They will fight tooth and nail. Bush drops a few more points and all bets are off.
(BTW, the correction was really minor. Yes, Libby misled Judy,Judy,Judy on the NIE. What he didn’t say was the uranium claim was a ‘key judgement’. Still cherrypicking when they knew the claim was bogus.)
Also there is some talk of next Tuesday’s hearing being cancelled. Both sides will file briefs instead.
I think we should start calling Snotty “Baghdad Snotty!!”
Remember Good ol’ “Baghdad Bob?”
Re Dan: “If Bush stepped up right now and admitted what happened, fired Cheney, Rumsfeld, et.al. and really cleaned house, he would probably end up with approval ratings over 60%. I would be willing to suffer that if he would just stop the bleeding now.”
In general I tend to agree, though that would be a cold day in hell. For me, it goes back to something that poster xyz asked yesterday to the effect of ‘why would Fitz wait so long to lower the boon and instead gradually walk us up to the doorstep of Bush’s guilt in all this?’
If and when Fitz reveals all and Bush’s sordid involvement in this big lie is left entirely exposed, people will see how Bush could have avoided this in spite of Fitzgerald, not that it happened because of him.
I try to keep up on what the MSM is saying, and despite my deepest beliefs that they’ve carried Bush’s water for him, enabled him in the destruction of so much, these stories indicate a minor awakening imo.
Editorial from the reddest of red states on the Leaker-in-Chief!
Fineman on msnbc
Kurtz
For Fineman and Kurtz that’s about as hard-hitting as they get when it comes to W.
Also the front page headlines about those non-biologic trailers, and the lack of reporting on Fitz’s “amending†are all good signs that noone is going to cut President 35% as much slack anymore.
Btw, Thanks Harry!
Jane said: “Obscured in all of this “can he/can’t he declassify” discussion about the NIE is the fact that Scooter Libby leaked the contents of two other documents that were not declassified to Judy Miller. Given the care Libby took to check with Addington before releasing the NIE, I think it’s quite likely he wasn’t acting as a “lone wolf” when he spoke about the other documents as well.”
Exactly. To add specificity: Scooter Libby leaked the contents of two other documents that, to our knowledge, were not declassified. Most significantly, from a legal and political standpoint, Libby leaked the identity of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame. The odds that he did this with no form of authorization from Bush and/or Cheney are extremely minute, in my estimation.
So, to recap, it is highly likely that either Bush, Cheney, or both are literally traitors.
Traitors who authorized the disclosure of a CIA agent’s identity and placed countless other patriotic CIA operatives at risk in an attempt to cover up the lies that led to the failed war in Iraq.
Traitors.
Say it a few times out loud; tell your friends; get used to the sound of it.
You are going to be hearing and saying it a great deal in the weeks and months to come.
Traitors.
Thanks, xyz. Credit where credit is due — I picked up the Addington thing from your extension of the point the other day.
anon: Becki Jane, They already have…
Good golly. How to make a mountain out of a molehill. Wingnut blogoshpere racks up more mileage on the Hypemobile. Vroom!
Yeah, I think Fitz has the goods on the whole rotten cabal and more to come that we haven’t seen.
You got to love Harry for calling out the prez.
Tony 38:
It is my understanding that it was not a retraction, it was a correction to one sentence in order to clarify the sentence.
At least, that is my understanding.
I can’t wait to get the scoop on Team Libby’s response and the fine FDL translation of Legal to English.
Tony – there was speculation from the original draft of the Prosecutor’s brief that where it referred to the NIE Key Judgments and the “vigorous pursuit” language, LIbby was saying he had been told to treat the “vigorous pursuit of uranium” language as if it were a Key Judgment (and it is not).
The prosecutor’s amendment clarifies that Libby was *only* saying that he was told to leak the key judgments AND the “vigorous pursuit” language, so it is not fair to claim that he was told to mischaracterize the vigorous purusuit language as being a key judgment.
Now, this is an interesting action on the part of Harry Reid. And I was just thinking to myself that the Dems have been awfully quiet about all this (even Feingold). Hmmm, wonder if this is a first shot over the bow of the Bad Bush Lollipop? Would it be too naive to expect more, soon????
I am particularly hopeful that this statement will be followed up on in the Senate and in the House!
Thanks Jane.
To elaborate on your Addington point, it is my understanding that Scooter stated that he received authorization from Cheney to make the selective NIE disclosure, but that Scooter was still hesitant to release this information until Cheney had given Scooter further assurances (perhaps at a later point in time) that Bush had authorized the disclosure as well.
And, once Scooter had what he considered to be authorization from the top, he still checked with Addington as well because the “declassification” struck him as highly unorthodox based on his many years of experience dealing with classified information.
So, Scooter was cautious enough to make sure that Cheney gave assurances that the authorization came from the top.
Checking with Addington was Scooter’s way of “double checking” the validity of what was done.
But the important point to make is that, in Scooter’s eyes, the key aspect of the authorization process seemed to be the fact that Cheney provided clear assurance that Bush himself had given approval. Only after he had received this information did Scooter do a final double check with Addington and move forward with the disclosure.
If my facts are wrong, please let me know. But if I am correct, then it is highly likely that the source of the authorization for the Plame leak is Bush as well (or, of course, that Cheney falsely gave Libby assurances that Bush provided such authorization).
Thanks very much Suzanne & Mary.
Looking at it doesn’t seem as though this amendment has done anything to weaken the position outlined by Fitz. I guess the shrill ones are going to attempt to grasp at whatever straws they can.
I want very much for these creeps to be held accountable for something.
i think we need to start pressuring for a congressional investigation. even if the repubs won’t do it, at least make them pay the political price in the media. make them explain why they won’t subpoena anyone from the executive branch…
the reid letter rates an “ok” for intention, but not an “A” in craftsmenship, that’s for sure
I hate the term “for political purposes”, it lacks direction, power, impact and meaning.
words…this is what’s important in these times…better would have been “at pain of national security”, or “for your personal gain”, or “to convince us of your war”
things like the reid letter need to be stated with more impact then the benign;
“for political purposes”
Also, Digby has had a flashback that Harry & Co might want to follow up on….
Don’t know if this story has been posted here yet. From today’s WaPo.
On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile “biological laboratories.” He declared, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.”
[snip]
A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq — not made public until now — had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president’s statement.
The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped “secret” and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.
[snip]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..88_pf.html
Bush also found this subject of WMD’s worthy parodying at a White House roast. I’m sure not all the families of the dead and wounded thought it was amusing.
OT, but I love Billmon. It’s good to see him posting more frequently (for the moment).
me to me 55: agreed. Reid’s letters are generally not hard-hitting enough, imo. I’m still glad he sends them, but I wish he’d use some tougher language.
yeah, billmon is good. Someone should etch his posts on some uncorrodable metal and they bury them, so the next race can get a play by play on Armageddon.
I think another item Harry might want to raise is the report of military propaganda being produced in Iraq for, among others, “home audience” Earlier, DiFi asked Gonzales if the President could authorize that kind of a vioaltion of Nat. Sec. Act Sec. 503 and he said it was all a hypothetical, but Congress couldn’t create tension with the President’s powers or something similarly mindboggling.
It is all about the control of information (thanks for the nod Cujo, but it was Waas, who said it all better in his interview with Goodman, that got my wheels turning) and covert military propagandizing for the home market, along with covert payoffs to domestic journalists or op ed writers to endorse admin positions, along with leaking favorable but weak info and hiding away as classified unfavorable and strong info, along with intimidating scientists, hirign based on loyalty rather than competency and public commitment, etc.
I remember part of the Patriot Act issues re: libraries being discounted (how big a deal is it really to monitor library info, etc.) and how much that bothered me. Information is EVERYTHING. Once you clamp down on that, all of society changes.
I was EPU’d on a post to EPU below, but in response to his recommentation of a book about the making of the A-Bomb I asked, does that come with its own NSL or do they issue it later?
At Gitmo, the accused are not even entitled to know the charges against them – classified.
Here in this country we have had people taken to court for violation of a “secret” law, so secret the judge could not get a copy of it.
It’s almost like someone is making this stuff up and they go along. Getting the right answers without, or with poor, information is a risk we can’t take, IMO.
xyz >”…Traitors who authorized the disclosure of a CIA agent’s identity and placed countless other patriotic CIA operatives at risk in an attempt to cover up the lies that led to the failed war in Iraq…”
I know folks here are not yet ready to consider this but I think the leak of Ms. Plame`s identity was because her network(s) had road blocked an attempt by Bush Handlers, Inc. to smuggle into Iraq some WMD stuff so as to “find it” and prove that they were not making the “Saddam has WMD” stuff up
Also I believe that Bush Handlers, Inc. wanted Iran, etc to appear to be close to nuclear capability so as to maintain Perpetual War, partly to maintain Perpetual Profiteering by The Carlyle Group & associated organizations, and partly to create chaos in the center of the Middle East to enable a power grab of the oil reserves using military force of many kinds
(and just what was that deal the ReThug oil men made w/Iran during the 1980 election cycle ? – you know, Iran-Contra; WHAT was that about ?)
I know you folks are not ready to consider all this but I do know you will come around given time & revealed facts
You Are On Notice so don`t forget when you realize the reality of how the world actually functions; look behind the curtain !
We do have just enough time for you to awaken
Go Fitz et al !
“There are three kinds of men:
1. The ones that learn by reading.
2. The few who learn by observation.
3. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
Forgot – I just checked Pacer and nothing is up – it might go very late, or they may have even received a verbal extension that has not been docketed yet. Some conversations may have been going on, bc the court has vacted the 4-18 pretrial and instead just asked for joint status report.
me to me 55
“political purposes”
I have a feeling we are witnessing the launch of a new Dem talking point.
The DNC (Dean) has released a statement re the biological weapons trailers via Raw Story:
More OT – I actually thought it was intersting that DiFi says in her letter that she does believe the law has been broken and doesn’t give all those – but the President may have acted in good faith – arguments.
Also, re: Addington, I’ve raised this before but I wonder about how it is Libby was able to tell A enough that he could feel confident in the advice, and yet – still be sure that “only†Libby, Cheney and the President knew about the leak authorization. Not Addington? I just found that a bit odd.
Wapo published two LTEs today against “Good Leak” editorial and none for – one from a former Justice official and the second from Nancy Pelosi:
LTE to Wapo from a former Justice official:
The April 9 editorial “A Good Leak” defended President Bush’s declassification of previously classified information. The editors probably were right that the president’s action was not unlawful, but The Post’s judgment that this was a “good leak” is badly flawed.
To the extent that government officials make important decisions on the basis of classified information, they are making choices that the people are unable to review and revise.
This is true, and unavoidable, when the classification system works as it should. But far worse (and inexcusable) are the effects of irregular high-level “leaks” involving selective disclosure. The democratic process is distorted when senior government officials use unattributed partial leaks as a weapon, lobbing selected bits of favorable information from behind a wall of classification that shields contrary evidence from public view. This selective “declassification” by presidential leak can so skew the public discourse that it undermines the concept of the consent of the governed.
We don’t know exactly what happened in this instance, and we don’t know to what extent previous administrations engaged in similar behavior, but we should know this: No anonymous, one-sided release of misleadingly selective parts of a report deserves the accolade “A Good Leak.”
WALTER DELLINGER
Chapel Hill, N.C.
The writer was a senior official in the Justice Department from 1993 to 1997.
Nancy Pelosi’s LTE in Wapo today:
For The Post to characterize President Bush’s leaking of portions of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq as “good” was astonishing. The president’s selective leaking of highly sensitive intelligence for political purposes should be condemned, not praised.
The leak was not intended to inform, clarify or aid public debate. It was, instead, straight out of Karl Rove’s politics-of-fear playbook. The motivation was to discredit a critic of Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy.
The president has been caught red-handed doing what he publicly claims to abhor. Presidents should lead by example, including adherence to national security protocols for the proper declassification of sensitive intelligence. From the beginning the Bush administration has manipulated intelligence about Iraq to try to strengthen the president’s political position.
The Post should stop condoning Mr. Bush’s behavior and should join the call for an investigation of the administration’s manipulation of intelligence for political purposes. Congressional oversight is long overdue.
NANCY PELOSI
U.S. Representative (D-Calif.)
Washington
The writer is the House minority leader.
ecoast 67,
Thanks for posting that. Must admit, I like her language better than Reid’s.
xyz, 52
If my facts are wrong, please let me know. But if I am correct, then it is highly likely that the source of the authorization for the Plame leak is Bush as well (or, of course, that Cheney falsely gave Libby assurances that Bush provided such authorization).
Aside from the question of whether the president’s impromptu declassification was legal, it appears that he approved of the leak of the “key judgements” (which as it turns out were not key judgments at all because they were refuted by the NIE) which had to do with WMD’s and not Plame’s identity. In this one specific scenario he apparently was not approving the leak of Plame, though he might have in another scenario that we don’t yet know about.
Put in simple terms he approved the leaking of a set of facts refuted by his own NIE, but at this point in time, not about Plame. And, in any case, while the president has authority to declassify documents, that authority does not extend to declassifying the status of a covert agent.
We have lost a man of peace and social justice, William Sloane Coffin:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin…..r=homepage
Looking at it doesn’t seem as though this amendment has done anything to weaken the position outlined by Fitz.
It does nothing with regard to the legal case per se. But a bad mistake by Fitzgerald: he knows he’s writing for the public as much as for the court, and he mistakenly asserted that Libby had been instructed to lie about a really important matter, the basic intelligence document underlying the argument over the justification for the war. True, he corrected it pretty much as quickly as possible, once its effects — stories everywhere that Scooter had lied about the NIE — made clear the mistake. So he did the right thing. It was a screwup by someone in a position – a prosecutor’s – with a lot of power. I don’t imagine there will be any legal ramifications, though, and it in no way weakens the case against Fitzgerald.
I don’t trust the democratic party to take the Bushites to the mat. Something went horribly wrong with that party in the aftermath of Watergate. Reagan should have been impeached for Iran-Contra. His entire crew, beginning with his Vice President, should have been exposed for what they did. Instead, the democrats failed in their solemn duty to honor their Constitutional oaths.
Gephart in the Rose Garden; Kerry’s vote to entrust GW Bush with a decison to war; their dread of Feingold’s censure resolution; and now their phony shock at the Post’s “revelation” about the bogus WMD RV’s (that I perfectly recall as being laughed down within days of the Boy King’s shout of Eureaka).
The fact that the democratic party is the sole hope this country has to overturn the Bushites should not blind people to their complicity in the crimes of the administration. Until they regain a common sense courage to do right by Constitution and country, I’ll continue to study them as the Allies early on studied Franco’s Spain during WW2.
It’s amazing and quite telling that the Rove smear machine has been unable to even scratch Harry Reid.
It’s not just that Karl has had his hands full lately.
The judo is just too good. Harry’s there. Then, he’s not there. Then, he’s there again.
Christopher Hitchens was on Hardball just now, and made a baffling statement: This is the week the Joe Wilson story fell apart. Joe Wilson has been proven totally wrong.
Huh? Is he drunk? Did anyone else see this?
bekkieann,
Hitchens has to be drunk. That’s crazy talk or organic brain damage speaking.
Like your name btw. : )
Slothrop #73
It’s hard to smear a Mormon, for the most part…pretty clean living. Of course, I am generalizing. I know a lot of drinkin’ partyin’ Mormons.
New thread from Jane – I Don’t Think So
Clinton is on CSPAN talking about health, community and stuff. And Karl Rove is on the other CSPAN talking about tax cuts and stuff.
What a difference?
Hey I don’t know if you guys saw this (even so its always good to see again):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey
Do you believe President Bush’s actions justify impeachment? * 232768 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
86%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
4.5%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
7.7%
I don’t know.
1.8%
Hmmmm…..
windy_city_atty @ 5:33 pm (#79) – I just went over and voted, and the results are about the same. Even though it’s not a scientific poll, it’s still a pretty amazing margin.
Thanks for putting Harry’s letter out there Jane. Harry is no slouch. He puts it out there in pretty plain language (just like Feingold does). “Tell the truth, and then we can talk about it.” Just the way you have to deal with rotten children like GWB, Dick C., and Rummy.
While we’re on the topic of those three, I would like to point out a passage early in “Cobra II”. One of the first briefings about the Iraq invasion took place when Tommy Franks briefed Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld over a videoconference. Bush was in Crawford, Cheney was at his ranch in Wyoming, and Rumsfeld was at his spread in Santa Fe, NM. No kidding folks, those three were planning the fucking war from their VACATION HOMES! ON TAXPAYER-FUNDED SECURE VIDEOCONFERENCE SETUPS!!
I am not making this up.
peace,
jim
Kathi/Nanakat says:
I think we should start calling Snotty “Baghdad Snotty!!â€
Remember Good ol’ “Baghdad Bob?â€
I said that many times say Bagdad Scott and no one has made any comments to doing that. After all he is a joke as was Baghdad Bob.
Kathi/Nanakat #43 says:
I think we should start calling Snotty “Baghdad Snotty!!â€
Remember Good ol’ “Baghdad Bob?â€
I said that many times say Bagdad Scott and no one has made any comments to doing that. After all he is a joke as was Baghdad Bob.
Seems to me that Fitz would have asked Bush to keep his “interview” details to himself. And that releasing the transcript might actually be a crime.
First, because it could harm ongoing investigations against other people. Second because releasing details could be construed as obstruction. Third, considering the far from strict legalistic interpretation Libby and his cronies use, the release of the interview could provide pretext for Libby to sue the government if he is later found not guilty.
I think the press corps should simply ask Chimpy or Scotty:
“Did Mr. Fitzgerald place a gag order on the President?”
I think what that MSNBC poll tells us more than anything else is Bushie sycophants aren’t paying attention to anything but Faux anymore.
So do we all start calling the White House? I mean I know Bush doesn’t care what the people think, but maybe a few thousand phone calls saying “I want to see the testimony too” will upset the cronies.
Harry,
Find some other words than “I was deeply disturbed”.
How about “George you ignorant slut”.
Christopher Hitchens is a NeoFacist Drunken piece of Conservative crap.
He is totally worthless.
Here’s something I’m just not understanding about this whole thing. Libby was indicted for OoJ and lying with regards to the outing of Plame, no? Was that information in the NIE? Isn’t the NIE “declassification” at least two levels removed from Plame? I mean, from a legal standpoint how is it relevant, except to show a pattern. Not that I’m complaining, let’s nail everything we can to this administration, “here dubya, hold this anchor”. But seems to me the NIE leak should be a seperate, additional investigation.
Well, sean, the intentional NIE leak was uncovered during investigation of the Plame affair simply because it involved the same Administration players acting to accomplish the same general goal as the Plame leak served. It only came to the public attention because Fitzgerald used this information to bolster his arguments to deny one of the motions made by Libby’s attorney. As far as I know, it isn’t under investigation as a criminal matter (no one lied under oath about it), although it reeks of poor ethical behavior. So much of what we may learn about the inner White House political machinery will actually be these incidental tidbits.