First off -- I just want to say that there is no shame in admitting a subject has gotten too complex for you to understand. The smart thing to do when that happens is to find something else to write about or this and this is bound to happen. In a word -- ouch.
Now that eRiposte has defended Christy so valiantly, on to the topic of what happened on Air Force II on July 12, 2003. On the heels of Murray Waas's article today, I want to brring back into the picture the Barton Gelman Washington Post article from October 30, 2005. Shortly after it appeared online it was changed radically, as Josh Marshall noted at the time. Valley Girl did us the supreme favor of comparing the original article printed by the Washington Post (available on Lexis/Nexis) to the one which now appears online in its place.
(Note: the deleted portions from the original version appear in strike-out, the added text from the edited version in underline)
A Leak, Then a Deluge
Did a Bush loyalist, trying to protect the case for war in Iraq, obstruct an investigation into who blew the cover of a covert CIA operative?By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 30, 2005; A01Air Force Two arrived in Norfolk on Saturday morning, July 12, 2003, with Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff aboard. They had come "to send forth a great American ship bearing a great American name," as Cheney said from the flag-draped flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan.
As Cheney returned to Washington with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the two men spoke of the news on Iraq -- the most ambitious use of the war machine Reagan built two decades before. A troublesome critic was undermining a principal rationale for the war: the depiction of Baghdad, most urgently by Cheney, as a nuclear threat to the United States.
Defending the war became the animating priority aboard Air Force Two that day. According to his indictment on Friday, Libby "discussed with other officials aboard the plane" how he should respond to "pending media inquiries" about the critic, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Apart from Libby, only press aide Catherine Martin is known to have accompanied Cheney on that flight.
The crimes alleged in Libby's indictment would come later. But the flight from Norfolk marked a
milestonetransition in the four-month slide from politics as usual --theclose combat in defense of the president's policies -- to what a special prosecutor described as perjury and obstruction of justice. Summer would give way to fall before Libby reached the point of no return, with his first alleged lies to the FBI. But he skirted the line soon after stepping off the aircraft.That Saturday afternoon, the indictment states, is when Libby confirmed for Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and disclosed to Judith Miller of the New York Times the classified fact that Wilson's wife, who was known as Valerie Plame, "worked at the CIA." Just over two weeks earlier, after a previous conversation with Cheney, Libby had told Miller more tentatively that Plame "might work at a bureau of the CIA."
It may never be clear what drove Libby, the most cautious of Washington insiders, to take such risks
in leaking classified information, ostensibly to protect the administration. In a news conference Friday, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald describedsuch questionsthe question as unanswerable so far. "If you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it," Fitzgerald said. The obstruction of his inquiry, he said, "prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make."Libby's possible motive is only one of many unknowns left in the aftermath of Friday's indictment, which prompted the resignation of one of the most powerful figures in the White House and left the Bush administration reeling politically. Still to be determined is who first leaked Plame's name to syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak -- the original act that led to Fitzgerald's investigation --
whether a crime was committedand theroleroles of many other administration officials, including Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.[]
Wilson was a former ambassador who
hadtraveled to Niger in February 2002 after Cheney requested elaboration on a Defense Department report -- based on erroneous information originating from the Italian security service -- that Iraq had an agreement to buy processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." Upon his return, Wilson reported to CIA and State Department analysts that he had found no support for the allegation and had reasons to believe it was untrue. When the Bush administration nonetheless launched a public relations campaign that highlighted the uranium report -- most prominently in the president's State of the Union speech on Jan. 28, 2003 -- Wilson began raising questions among friends in government. In March, when the International Atomic Energy Agency exposed the documents as forged, a fact Wilson had not discovered, he began telling journalists in not-for-quotation interviews that the White House propounded a deliberate lie.[]
Why some White House officials -- Rove among them -- used Wilson's wife in their counterattack has yet to be made entirely clear.
ButWilson himself described the outing as punishment, a threat to his family's safety meant to deter future whistle-blowers. Fragments of testimony unveiled Friday, and in published accounts by journalists who testified, suggest that the White House intended to challenge Wilson's competence by asserting that his wife selected him for the mission to Niger.Novak, whose July 14 column was the first to expose Plame, wrote three months later that nepotism provided "the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA."
[]
On Feb. 12, 2002, Cheney received an expanded version of the unconfirmed Italian report. It said Iraq's then-ambassador to the Vatican had led a mission to Niger in 1999 and sealed a deal for the purchase of 500 tons of uranium in July 2000. Cheney asked for more information.
The same day, Plame wrote to her superior in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division that "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." Wilson -- who had undertaken a similar mission three years before -- soon departed
soon afterfor Niamey, the Niger capital. He said he found no support for the uranium report and said so when he returned.Martino continued to peddle his documents, with an asking price of more than 10,000 euros -- this time to Panorama, an Italian magazine owned by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Panorama editor Carlo
Rosella laterRossella said his staff concluded the letters were bogus but in the interim sent copies to the U.S. Embassy in Rome in October 2002. "I believed the Americans were the best source for verifying authenticity," he said. When the documents reached the State Department, according to a commission that investigated prewar intelligence this year, analysts there said they had "serious doubts about the authenticity" of the "transparently forged" documents.By summer 2002, the White House Iraq Group assigned Communications Director James R. Wilkinson to prepare a white paper for public release, describing the "grave and gathering danger" of Iraq's allegedly "reconstituted" nuclear weapons program. Wilkinson gave prominent place to the claim that Iraq "sought uranium oxide, an essential ingredient in the enrichment process, from Africa." That claim, along with repeated use of the "mushroom cloud" image by top officials beginning in September, became the emotional heart of the case against Iraq.
President Bush invoked the mushroom cloud in an Oct. 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati. References to African uranium remained in his speech until its
lastfifth draft, but a last-minute intervention by Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet excised them.Tenet's success was short-lived. The uranium returned repeatedly to Bush administration rhetoric in December and January. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice cited the
later discreditedreport in a Jan. 23 newspaper column, and three days later, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell demanded, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for a nuclear weapon?"16 Words and Wilson Strikes Back
By the time Bush stated the case personally -- in the notorious "16 words" of his Jan. 28 State of the Union address -- the uranium had been thoroughly integrated into his government's case for impending war with Iraq.
The IAEA exposed the documents as forgeries on March 7, 2003. The Bush administration, while acknowledging uncertainty, did not admit its primary evidence had been faked.
Late April and early May saw a succession of Bush administration assertions that the search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had just begun. By then, The Washington Post was reporting that teams looking for weapons in Iraq were departing in frustration, making way for a new Iraq Survey Group that became an 18-month forensic examination of where U.S. intelligence had gone wrong.
Wilson spoke anonymously about his trip to Niger to New York Times opinion writer Nicholas D. Kristof, whose May 6 column accused Cheney of permitting truth to go "missing in action." The failure of the weapons hunt, and
thealleged deception of the public, had been laid at Cheney's feet.In the vice president's office, Libby had long since come to believe that the CIA was undermining Cheney and the president's conduct of the war. One undercurrent of the events to come was a venerable form of Washington institutional combat, between the White House and the executive agencies ostensibly under its command.
Miller of the New York Times wrote later that Libby believed the CIA was hedging against accusations of failure by blaming Cheney and Bush for its mistakes. Another top official, a longtime ally of Libby's, told a reporter at the time that the CIA was working actively to conceal evidence favorable to the White House.
Libby had known enemies inside government -- but an unknown enemy outside. It did not take him long to discover that the
outside threatlatter was Wilson.'There Would Be Complications'
In late May and early June 2003, according to Fitzgerald's indictment, Libby asked for and received information about Wilson's trip from a senior State Department official, who is not named in the indictment but is identified by colleagues as then-Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman.
On June 9, the CIA faxed classified accounts of Wilson's assignment "to the personal attention of Libby and another person in the Office of the Vice President." Two or three days later, Grossman told Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had been involved in planning Wilson's trip. An unidentified "senior officer of the CIA" confirmed Plame's employment for Libby on June 11, and Cheney told Libby the next day which part of the agency employed her.
For Libby, according to a senior official who worked with him at the time, "I think this just hit a nerve." By June, he said, "the blind, deaf and dumb had to be aware that something was wrong in Iraq." Uranium was "always a side issue," but it was also "the beginning of the unraveling of the big story . . . calling attention to a huge mistake he was part of. So it's no wonder he took this personally."
A senior intelligence officer who knew of Libby's inquiries about Wilson and Plame said in an interview yesterday, "It didn't occur to anyone that the reason why was so that her name would go out to reporters." That, the official said, is "the lesson you learn from this."
On June 12,
the same day Cheney and Libby had their conversations about Wilson aboard Air Force Two, The Post published a story challenging the uranium claims. Wilson has since said he was among the sources for that story.A man identified by colleagues as John Hannah, described in the indictment as Libby's "then principal deputy," asked Libby soon afterward whether "information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press." Libby replied, the indictment states, "that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly."
On June 23, Libby allegedly crossed his first big line. At a meeting in his office with Miller of the Times, he said Wilson's wife might be a CIA employee.
Attack and Counterattack
Wilson emerged from anonymity with a splash on July 6, telling his story in a New York Times opinion column, a lengthy on-the-record interview with The Post and an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
The next day, Libby lunched with Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, according to the indictment. He told Fleischer that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and noted that the information was not widely known. The same day,
Powell'sthe State Departmentrequested and receivedsent Powell a classified memorandum written a month earlier identifyingPlame asWilson's wifeand describing her role in recommending himas a CIA employee and saying it was believed she recommended Wilson for the Niger mission. Powell was traveling with Bush to Africa, and sources said the memorandum was widely circulated among officials with appropriate clearances aboard Air Force One.On July 8, Libby met Miller, the reporter, for breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel at 16th and K streets. Asking that she attribute the information to a "former Hill staffer" -- he had once been legal adviser to a House select committee -- Libby criticized CIA reporting of Wilson's trip and "advised reporter Judith Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA," the indictment states.
On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from Norfolk,
the vice president instructed his aide to alert reporters of an attack launched that morning on Wilson's credibility by Fleischer, according to a well-placed source.Libby talked to Miller and Cooper. That same day, another administration official who has not been identified publicly returned a call from Walter Pincus of The Post. He "veered off the precise matter we were discussing" and
told him thatsaid Wilson's trip was a "boondoggle" set up byPlameWilson's wife, Pincus has written in Nieman Reports.
ThatEarlier that week Rove and another unknown source gave the information to Novak as well.
Two days laterOn July 14, for the first time, the name passed into the public domain in sixth paragraph of Novak's syndicated column: "his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative." For all its seismic importance now, that column provoked little immediate response.Time magazine reported on its Web site shortly afterward -- based on sources that Cooper, the author, has since identified as Rove and Libby -- that "some government officials have noted to Time in interviews . . . that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
[]
Out of view of the public, the CIA took the first steps towards a formal investigation. On July 30, it reported to the Justice Department a possible offense "concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." In August the agency completed an 11-question form detailing the potential damage done. In September, Tenet followed up with a memo raising questions about whether the leakers had violated federal law.
On Sept. 26, 2003, the FBI launched an inquiry into who leaked Plame's name and occupation.
'If Only It Were True'
Justice Department lawyers
notifiedalerted then-White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales at about 8 p.m. Monday, Sept. 29, that the investigation had begun. Gonzales, now attorney general, has said he alerted Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. at once. But he did not tell anyone else -- or instruct White House employees to preserve all evidence -- until the following morning. According to Gonzales, lawyers at Justice said it would be fine to wait.John Dion, a veteran counter-espionage prosecutor, ran the
earlyinitial investigation with a team of FBI agents at his disposal. They soon brought in Rove and other top aides for questioning.But early signals from the White House suggested the probe might come to nothing. Bush expressed doubts on Oct. 7. "I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official," he said. "Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials."
Three days later, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters he had talked to three officials -- Libby, Rove and Elliot Abrams -- and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."
The following Tuesday, Oct. 14, Libby reached a decision point. The FBI asked whether he had disclosed Plame's job or identity to any reporter, and he said he had not
learned of themeven known those details until July 10 or 11. His source, he asserted, was NBC's Tim Russert. According to the indictment, he said he passed along Russert's information as gossip to Cooper of Time. He told the FBI that he did not discuss Plame with Miller at all when they met on July 8.Current and former officials said they did not know why Libby made those statements. Perhaps, they said, Libby believed the reporters would never be
calledforced to testify, or that the statements from Bush and McClellan encouraged him to believe the inquiry would reach no result. Whatever his reasons, Libby had committed himself. He would give much the same account to agents again in November, and repeated them twice in sworn testimony before a grand jury."It would be a compelling story that will lead the FBI to go away, if only it were true," Fitzgerald said in his Friday news conference. "It is not true, according to the indictment."
Libby's attorney, Joseph Tate, has said Libby testified to the best of his recollection. "We are quite distressed the special counsel has now sought to pursue alleged inconsistencies in Mr. Libby's recollection and those of others and to charge such inconsistencies as false statements," Tate said in a statement Friday.
'Eliot Ness With a Harvard Law Degree'
On the next to last day of 2003, John D. Ashcroft, then attorney general, abruptly recused himself from the case. He had ignored months of complaints from Democrats that his political ties to potential suspects should disqualify him from supervising the investigation. Rove, in particular, was a longtime friend and paid adviser to Ashcroft's campaigns for Missouri governor and the U.S. Senate.
Through the fall and winter, officials said, Ashcroft received periodic briefings on the case. In the last week of December, about a month after Libby's second interview with the FBI, then-Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey had
repeatedmultiple discussions with Ashcroft about whether it was time forthe attorney general to give up supervision of the probea change, Comey has said.Comey told reporters on Dec. 30 that an "accumulation of facts" in the investigation had brought about Ashcroft's recusal. Details of their conversations have not been made public, and it is not known who initiated
their conversations the previous weekthem."The issue surrounding the attorney general's recusal is not one of actual conflict of interest," Comey said, but "one of appearance."
[]
Ashcroft's departure brought to the probe a man Comey described as "Eliot Ness with a Harvard law degree." Fitzgerald, an old colleague of Comey who had recently become U.S. attorney in Chicago, asked for and received the full delegated powers of the attorney general. A month later, Comey clarified in writing that Fitzgerald could pursue any violation of criminal law associated with the case -- including perjury and obstruction of justice, the heart of the indictment handed up Friday against the vice president's chief of staff.
Indictment and Resignation
After a year-long struggle with journalists, who resisted demands to disclose their sources, Fitzgerald persuaded Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan -- and the appellate judges above him -- that reporters were the only available "eyewitness[es] to the crime." Pincus, Cooper and Russert gave testimony under negotiated limits after receiving the consent of their sources. Miller went to jail for 85 days, then testified after Libby gave her his direct consent, by letter and telephone. Novak has never disclosed whether he spoke to Fitzgerald's grand jury.
The denouement came Friday. Just after noon, six men and 13 women filed silently into Courtroom Four in the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse. They had
sat asserved on Fitzgerald's grand jury for two years. Now they sat silently before U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. Calling the courtroom to order, Robinson asked whether the grand jury had something to present. The forewoman, wearing a black cardigan, rose and walked a few steps with a sheaf of papers. She handed them up to the magistrate's clerk. Robinson declared them in order and adjourned.Charged with five felony counts, Libby resigned from the vice president's office that day.
Fitzgerald, in his news conference, said he could not speculate on whether anyone else would be charged. He said "the substantial bulk of the work of this investigation has concluded," but not all of it.
"I will not end the investigation," he said, "until I can look anyone in the eye and tell them that we have carried out our responsibility."
Many of the edits seem to be there for clarification, but quite a few appear to be very Administration-friendly. Who was the source for the story about what happened aboard Air Force II? Was it Cathie Martin, and if so is she cooperating with Fitzgerald? Is that where this whole thing started to unravel?
At the time the article came out I tried to reach the story's editor, Mike Abramowitz, but he would not return my calls so I never got an official explanation as to what happened.
(graphic by Joel)
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
Fitz!!!
Angie, you’re just to good:)
Feingold.
caught with pants down.
This administration just refuses to recognize the power of the “internets”.
The “internets” will hang them. And their little lapdog press shills too.
If it weren’t for FDL, Jane, Christie et al, I would feel like I was wandering in the darkness.
Love that graphic!
Pincus!
in the very early days of this story someone inside the WH said, in print, anonymously (of course) said they were appalled at the smear tactics on Wilson. That person could be Cathie Martin. It will be interesting to finally find out who has been singing from day one.
OT: a county-sized storm bearing tornados is bearing down upon the city of Indianapolis (population: 1,000,000 or so). Downtown there’s both a basketball and baseball game (large crowds) going on. Thank heavens for TV and sophisticated weather radar. Scary! My power might go out but I have fresh batteries in flashlights and a hidey-place prepared. All 4 of my pitbabies are huddled against me…
Amazing, way to go Jane and Valley Girl!
Wow. This wasn’t for the purposes of clarification…
On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from Norfolk,
the vice president instructed his aide to alert reporters of an attack launched that morning on Wilson’s credibility by Fleischer, according to a well-placed source.Umm, sure. Bet it’s clear to Fitz.
The complexities, contradictions, lies, re-frameing, leaks, and contending legal documents in this Plame/Wilson/Libby/Cheney thing have overwhelmed me. I can’t keep up anymore.
This needs a screenplay or an exhaustive history get things in order and make it one connected narrative. You folks have done magnificently. I can’t imagine a prosecutor being able to make this all understandable to a judge and jury.
Thanks, Jane and Valley Girl.
Beautiful.
Jane and Valley Girl-
God, if someone would just automate this on all the articles Waas’s concern about what is happening to the media’s relationship to journalism could be lifted from his shoulders and he could go on reminding us what Woodward’s legacy is.
Have you noticed how easily America has slipped into this sort of propanda has become a concern of the “far left”?
Jane and Valley Girl-
Added a period.
————————
God, if someone would just automate this on all the articles. Waas’s concern about what is happening to the media’s relationship to journalism could be lifted from his shoulders and he could go on reminding us what Woodward’s legacy is.
Have you noticed how easily America has slipped into this sort of propanda has become a concern of the “far left�
Jane, USA Today quoted your first Plame post.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde.....ney_t.html
Awesome Jane! Expose all the administration castratis.
whew now Greg Saunders is all over Joke.
The Crucial Difference Between Your Ass and a Hole in the Ground
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....19154.html
I also want to say how grateful I am for everyone’s work on Barbara Comstock. Our Late Nite FDL blogswarm forays have turned over her slimy rock and she is intrinsically interwoven into the narrative now — I regularly see stories where people are on to her games, like the one at Kos today by kant.
Excellent work.
“I want to [brring] back into the picture the Barton Gelman….”
Waas’s =? Waas’
*ilson46201,
I’m sending you big waves of bravery, so that you can be a calm and dignified pack leader to your babies.
Do you have a battery-operated radio available? I find EZ-listening or Classical has a calming effect when the power is out and I’m feeling alone.
for you…
-Jacqrat
No word yet from Spraynet Byron, guess he’s still smarting from the judge’s cock-punch yesteday.
What will he write about now?
Jane, I noticed that the text you posted does not show this deletion, which I later decided was very interesting: On June 12, *the same day Cheney and Libby had their conversations about Wilson aboard Air Force Two,*
I can see the strike out in the pdf I sent you. Maybe something was wrong in the word doc?
Also, re: the June 12 date, because this was confusing in the past, the correction from WaPo:Correction to This Article
An Oct. 30 article about the disclosure that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative gave an incorrect date for a burglary at Niger’s embassy in Rome, when official letterhead stationery was stolen. The burglary occurred in 2001, not 1991. In some editions, the article gave conflicting dates for Vice President Cheney’s trip to Norfolk. It was July 12, 2003, not June 12. Also, a reference to the vice president’s principal deputy chief of staff should have identified him as Eric Edelman, not John Hannah.
Ooops, that should have read “*Big-Ass HUG* for you!” ( I forget about not using HTML brackets)
Also, if you can’t get good music, just hearing announcer’s voices on AM Talk or Sports will keep you from feeling alone.
Murray Waas’ article uses phrases like “But two government officials with first-hand knowledge of events said during the summer of 2003 . . .” It is intriguing indeed. Do we have another Deep Throat?
I bet these folks HATE the internet.
LOL
I recall once reading that poor Ari Fleischer said he was laying low since lawyer fees were exorbitant and he was not a wealthy man … it has long been suspected that he sang like a nightingale.
VG — thanks, I had to add all the strike-out text back in manually, the WordPress editor didn’t recognize them and I missed that one.
Again, BIG thanks for doing this. What a great idea.
Thanks Jane and Valley Girl.
I think I have a fair grasp of this tangled mangled mess I refer to as the Plame thing. And I believe I understand the Bush/Republican thrust. That is, raw ruthless power, greed and ideology. In that order. What I don’t understand is who is running “things”? I shudder to think this president and his guys,(and gals) are the best and the brightest and are capable of deciding on a world course. Leaving military might aside for the moment, that is. We talk about the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, trans national corporations, the oil companies and fiefdoms in the Mideast, black helicopters, world government and various nefarious above and below radar organizations. But does anyone really understand what’s actually going on? I know I don’t. Absence of knowledge, for me anyway, is what’s really frightening. I have all these theories I can point to, but I just cannot wrap myself around the answer to the question: Who are ‘those’ guys?
Jane, do you figure the editing is John Harris or more of a team effort?
I am going to do the mother thing now.
It is best to print out these missives. Reading this much info online can mess with your eyes.
At the end of the day I can’t do it. Your eyes are constantly trying to focus on the screen which is always slightly out of focus. Plus,if you print it out and file it you can refer to it later.
And-Fitz!!!!
John Casper — I was told by people at the Washington Post that it was Mike Abramowitz’ responsibility. Whether he was responding to folks higher up I have no idea.
Jane, ouch- adding the strikeout text manually must have been time consuming and a total pain in the butt.
And thank you for the inspiration. I never would have thought of checking w/o the text you posted earlier in your article: http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....formation/
I would say pose the question to the ombudsman as to what happened with the story but you might as well go ask your waffle iron.
“That’s not a lie, it’s a terminological inexactitude.”
Alexander Haig (1983)
it is clearly unraveling. these two paragraphs from Murray Waas’ article really tell it all.
“Libby has insisted that the vice president never authorized or told him to discuss Plame’s identity. Although Libby discussed Plame with Miller and Cooper on July 12, 2003 — the same day he says he was authorized by Cheney to leak portions of the NIE and the CIA report — Libby insists the two actions are unrelated.
The new disclosure also raises the question whether President Bush or his aides knew that Cheney may have been deciding on his own to authorize the leaking of classified information. Senior government officials said that top Bush aides — including then-deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley and White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett — were not aware that Cheney had authorized the disclosure of the CIA report on Wilson’s Niger mission. These officials raised the possibility that Bush himself was unaware at the time of Cheney’s action” (Murray Waas, National Journal, 4/14/06)
this shows the level of involvement of the entire white house. suddenly, he isn’t going to name the name. there is a break here in the rhythm of denial that tells the tale very clearly. this is the chain of which the links lead to the conspiracy. someone seems to have ordered libby to float another leak. the cast of characters and the motus become clear.
harken back to the nixon era, right there where they found the smoking gun and the point of no return. if we can figure this out for ourselves, mr. fitzgerald has certainly divined the details by now. he has the advantage being able to compel the truth from at least some of the witnesses.
Hardly worth mentioning, but:
Should be not, not
not:-)It is a pain not being able to do strike out in Word Press, as I discovered when trying to highlight two additonal corrections that I found worthy: (following does not show what was added and what was striken, but if you check above, you can see what I mean.
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice cited the *later discredited* report in a Jan. 23 newspaper column,
Comey had repeated multiple discussions with Ashcroft about whether it was time for *the attorney general to give up supervision of the probe* a change, Comey has said.
the amount of coordination displayed in the leaking of Joe Wilson’s wife’s identity could not have been possible without approval/knowledge of the 2 top dogs. It is becoming obvious Cheney knew. Bush is known to do ratfucking for shits-and-giggles — he would have enjoyed being in on the fun…
As always, a great post — thank you, Jane for EVERYTHING that you do.
That said, I have a two-fold confession –
I voted for eRiposte instead of FDL for best coverage of an issue (which FDL won for PlameGate — Yea!!!)
And I never read eRiposte — because it is too much for me to digest.
That said, a humble request — cross post Billmon’s Munich.
My two cents on the history — if Chamberlain hadn’t capitulated, we would all be speaking German. But that has little to do with this most excellent post from Billmon.
“Fitz understands how time and politics work together in a corruption scandal… An analogy: A good demolition expert knows where to place the sticks of dynamite and how to time their blasts so that the building implodes on itself avoiding collateral damage and leaving the remaining debris in manageable and easily removable chunks. So it is with a smart corruption conspiracy prosecutor… He knows when and where to place his charges so that the conspiracy infrustructure implodes on itself.”
from my diary at DailyKos…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/14/184740/482
Jane, is there any way of linking to the .pdf I sent you? Photobucket (free) takes photos, and gives a URL for linking, but I can’t find anything comparable for .pdfs. VG
Perhaps the party leaking these juicy details to Gellman did not want the fact of Plame’s name being widely known as important in the case, in particular following the circulation of Powell’s memo on Air Force One.
Maybe this was a Fitz leak, made over not to look like a Fitz leak. Maybe the wrong copy got out….
It’s still relevant that we have ‘Valerie Flame’ in Judy’s June 23rd, 2003 notebook, well before the Air Force One trip to Africa. So who gave Miller ‘Flame’, did Libby cook it up for her? When did the surname ‘Plame’ become important?
Wow, this is — what did we used to call it? oh, yeah — great journalism. Extraordinary to see the invisible hand of the controlling power laid atop reporting in such a clear fashion.
Thank you Valley Girl and Jane.
Clarification re: #37 the strikeouts are there in Jane’s post- I was just trying to highlight them in a comment.
Why was Munich a victory for civilization?
While the public face was appeasement, Britain went on a crash rearmament program — without the Spitfires and Hurricanes built in this 11 month respite before the onset of World War, the Battle of Britain would have been lost.
Is it investigative journalism to pore through versions of others’ works and decipher the editorial propagandizing? Or maybe we are engaging in a different activity—forensic journalism. It’s clearly the kind of honest journalism we’re not seeing from most corporate news these days.
ValleyGirl and Jane ~ What an incredible amount of work! Thank you.
*ilson46201 ~ Stay calm, remember to breathe.
I am ever so grateful to have found FDL. I learn so much every time I’m here.
I would say pose the question to the ombudsman as to what happened with the story but you might as well go ask your waffle iron.
———————————————————-
I’ll go with the waffle iron. It’s never tried to run a line of bullshit over on me.
“At the time the article came out I tried to reach the story’s editor, Mike Abramowitz, but he would not return my calls so I never got an official explanation as to what happened.”
__________________________________________
Wednesday, Apr 12
Post’s Mike Abramowitz Heads To White House, Steps Down as National Editor
Word out of the Post building today that Mike Abramowitz, who has served as the paper’s national editor for more than five years, is stepping down and joining the paper’s White House team.
http://www.mediabistro.com/fis......asp?c=rss
Hmmmm…
and you can use profanity at the waffle iron without provoking an attack of the vapors …
QuickSilver — I actually believe that particular edit was for accuracy. The name “Plame” was not in the memo circulated on Air Force One.
And Gellman is perhaps the best reporter the Post has. If there was any spiking of this story, I do not believe he was responsible for it.
*ilson, we are worried about you, keep us posted.
Re Comstock piling on, happy to oblige!
wapo: Do you rent out op-ed space or just let Barbara Comstock have it for free?
I am interested in learning how to make up stuff and get it published on your editorial page.
Would you please publish your fee list and available discounts for Republican propoganda? Thank you very much.
Posted by: E. “Greg” Ious | April 10, 2006 09:41 AM
49: Nice catch Coz. Do you suppose Mike’s new job covering the White House was in response to CBS’ Bob Scheiffer’s suggestion to assign interns to write down exactly what the spokesman said?
*, are you and the pits okay? I worried for you when I saw the weather tonight on CNN.
The Somerby situation is really sad. By that I mean his rapid descent into irrelevancy. He was once one of the best, and he did great work, but it seems as if he’s just bitter about never having had any effect on the sick media discourse that he so skillfully critiqued. So now he lashes out at any available target that he thinks doesn’t meet his standards. Like I said: Very sad.
Reposted:
I’ve been saying for over two years that it was far more likely that Cheney architected the Plame leak than Rove — even though it is more delicious to imagine “Karl getting frog-marched in handcuffs.â€
Why? Very simple: You just had to watch his body language during the run-up to the war to see that he evidently believed he had the authority (given by God or Bush, I don’t know which) to declassify anything that suited his purpose.
I think most of us got a bit side-tracked by Wilson’s intemperate remark and by Rove being our favorite symbol of everything that’s evil about the Bush administration. I hate Rove too but let’s focus on truth, not truthiness.
The truth is probably this: Cheney is the fascist madman behind almost everything having to do with the GWoT and Iraq. He may also be the one feeding Bush’s self-sense of being the Chosen One. Cheney is like the manipulative Cardinal Richelieu behind the King.
Bush is just a plain and simple dumbf**k.
Re: Ari. I’m not sure he could’ve flipped. It’s not looking like he had anything to say. The action appears to have been on Air Force II. Cheney, Libby, and Cathie Martin. Cathie and Deadeye could’ve said they never talked about Plame. Libby seems to have said so, too, but he forgot that he could still get busted for lying about the leak. That’s what happens when you do the dirty work. Oops.
the storms have seemingly passed over the city without tornados touching down. the massive downpours have flooded so many streets - egg-sized hail smashed windows: both in cars and homes. my electric power stayed on but I had fresh batteries for the boombox and flashlights: Hoosiers know to do that! Sophisticated weather radar is great for warning people of danger… A weather siren 100 yards from my house was irritating but necessary, I suppose…
Len Downey is getting his revenge.
(We leave for NY in the morning, so I’m still around, sorta.)
Page A01 of WaPo, they profile blogging shock jock, MaryScott O’Connor, whom I like, but who comes across in this column as a total fucking loon.
This is Downey trying to paint us all with this brush.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01648.html
I’ve been pissed of at Somerby for quite awhile. He has gone into the most deep into the weeds kind of ‘liberals are fucking up’ shit that I just feel like he needs to be slapped.
Hey, Somerby? Haven’t you ever heard the phrase, ‘choose your battles’? And, hey, get your ego under control! Who are you helping anyway, besides your over inflated ego.
#48 Frank Probst says:
I’ll go with the waffle iron.
The Oracle agrees:
‘Ombudsman’ anagrams to ‘Dumb moans.’
‘Waffle iron’ anagrams to ‘Fine for law.’
Excellent work!!
I think that one thing missing is a mention of David Corn bringing up the fact that it was not quite kosher for Novak to out Plame. Of course, the Post would never allow itself to mention the name of a Nation employee in its’ pages. Helen Thomas doesn’t count, in case Deb Howell is reading.
Remember that they got Al Capone for tax evasion.
peace,
jim
The original break in this case was obtaining Libby’s notes. The FBI knew, from contemporaneous notes written in Libby’s own handwriting, from the very beginning of the investigation that Cheney had told Libby on June 12, 2003 that Wilson’s wife worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA. Libby and Cheney knew that division was part of the Directorate of Operations. They knew, or should have known, that meant she was a covert operative.
Libby spun his Steve Martin defense (I forgot!) in his very first FBI interview. Unfortunately for him, his obession with Joe Wilson had left pretty big trail. When Ari Fleischer told his story, Libby was nailed on the perjury and obstruction charges.
Great work.
The thing I realized from thinking about Waas’ article is that Libby evidently didn’t testify that he disclosed the “expanded commercial relations” piece from the trip report on July 8, instead testifying that he told Miller information from that report only on July 12, and, putting that together with what the Times and Gellman told us back in October, I suspect he testified that everything he told MIller (and Cooper) on July 12 was already declassified in connection with Tenet’s July 11 statement. Further, it seems pretty clear that Fitzgerald evidently sees this as another aspect of Libby’s carefully constructed, false story. That is, Libby basically concocted a story for investigators where he not only didn’t reveal Plame’s identity before hearing it from Russert on July 10 or 11, he didn’t reveal any classified information at all - a story that required him to claim that he was saying on July 12 what he was, in reality, telling Miller on July 8. Note that in his filing Fitzgerald both cites Libby’s own note for McLellan to say that Libby had not leaked classified information, and makes something out of the fact that in fall 2003 the White House talked about firing anyone who had leaked classified information - not specifically and only Plame’s identity.
The really interesting question is where this leaves us with regard to whole question of Cheney’s purported role. If Fitzgerald thinks that Libby was lying about what he said when about the CIA report, does that suspicion cut into what Libby - and, for all we know, Cheney and Addington - testified Cheney’s role was? It’s hard to tell, because in fact all we know is that Cheney instructed Libby to disclose parts of the NIE on July 8, and then what to do regarding Wilson and the NIE on July 12 - as well, perhaps, as instructing Libby to refer to Tenet’s/Fleischer’s statement regarding the Wilson trip-report on July 12, when it was already declassified.
Cathie Martin could probably tell us a lot more. My suspicion, by the way, is that the Post took out that bit about the July 12 strategy session because they only had one source, Martin. Swopa, I believe, either observed or noted someone else’s observation that they may have edited it out because it made it look too much like Fleischer was Pincus’ source, or some such. For what it’s worth, I’m going with Martin as Pincus’ source.
Finally, the ombudsperson did in fact offer some explanation about the article changing. I just don’t think there’s anything nefarious there (though I’m biased in favor of the Post in this case).
Maryscott OConnor is a fucking loon. Sorry, I had to say it. All rage, no reason, and the poster child for the wingnut perception of Left Blogistan.
The ombudsperson addressed this article on November 13. It’s not fully satisfying, but I do think it contains the helpful hint that the information on AF2 may have come from another Post reporter:
A Barton Gellman story on Oct. 30 about the Valerie Plame leak case prompted a lot of mail asking why The Post, between editions, dropped a reference to Vice President Cheney, whose chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, resigned after being indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The reference that was dropped said that Cheney instructed an aide to alert reporters of an attack launched that morning on Wilson’s credibility by Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary.
I looked into this and found that the motive had to do with more reporting. National Editor Mike Abramowitz said: “Bart’s piece gathered and synthesized a lot of information on deadline, with contributions from many Post reporters. Adding, cutting and moving that information around is a normal part of the editing process. This time it was more visible than usual because it happened late and between editions. We decided . . . that it warranted more time and space than we had available that night. Readers should stay tuned.”
TeddySanFran,
“Do you suppose Mike’s new job covering the White House was in response to CBS’ Bob Scheiffer’s suggestion to assign interns to write down exactly what the spokesman said?”
I don’t have a clue what it means. Heck of a coincidence though that I just happened to “Yahoo” his name and that popped out!? And “stepping down”?
Valley Girl #37 & 44:
You
can’tcan do strikeouts and underlines in a comment post. At least they show up that way on my Firefox browser. Normal html functionality, although they may be superceded tags.Re #67.
Curious! The ’strike /strike’ worked on both the preview and the post, however the u /u (within the angle brackets, of course) didn’t although they did work on the preview.
nobody, thanks, I appreciate the heads-up on O’Connor.
Hi Pach, Happy Birthday!
#58: Yup, that’s Len Downie’s answer to Late Night FDL Right-Wing Edition: “See, Ms. Hamsher, my megaphone is bigger than your megaphone.”
Jeff #65 thanks for the info about omb response, and idea about “another reporter”.
WaPo sez: Staff writers Dan Eggen, Dafna Linzer, Dana Milbank and Christopher Lee, and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Is this your short list, or are you thinking of someone else entirely?
Re the Wapo David Finkel piece featuring Maryscott OConnor, Finkel also gives the Rude Pundit some free publicity on a very good day.
The Rude Pundit is an artist. MSOC is just toxic.
wow - a very full day at FDL! and Jane, you sure know how to pick the guest posters - thank you!
I posted a comment to Joke Line but apparently someone found it censorable … if I remember correctly I asked why we should care about Mr. Klein’s liguistic angst and then wondered why he was posting at Huff Po and suggested a few reasons … but then I realized and posted the real reason - he’s afraid we’ll review his book at Amazon! sorta sad this didn’t make it past the censors, it did keep me amused between major housecleaning chores.
*ilson - was thinking of you as I watched the weather - the storms bypassed us tonight but looked mighty nasty in your part of the great midwest. Omar sends hugs to your pitbabies - he doesn’t like those storm things either (and even deigns to share my bed with the 3 cats when they all decide to hide from thunderous storms)
Since this all suggests more climate change stuff, I noticed that Rolling Stone online has the trailer for the new Al Gore movie - (I was looking for an online version of this issue’s amazing story on basic training but it’s not up yet). Stoll and then Gore spoke at the conference I was at last week ( Ceres.org for interesting view of the new corporate thinking on environmental issues) and the presentation Gore gave forms the basis of this new film - a must must must see for everyone as soon as it hits your local theater! http://www.apple.com/trailers/.....h/trailer/
btw- Rolling Stone’s online news pages are exemplary and worth bookmarking for a daily update.
There’s a Maryscott WaPo article thread at kos and I’ve offered some not terribly popular comments:
http://www.dailykos.com/commen...../433/52#52
I’m off to bed now.
Let me say this: I do like Maryscott. Unless she has some really wrong stuff in her oevre I don’t know about, I’ll defend her. Her style is not my style, but she has a following and she channels inchoate rage into a kind of performance art that helps some people get through the day. She’s not a racist, nor a warmonger nor any of the things we’ve surveyed on our right wing racist tour.
Check out my comments at kos and check out the whole thread if you wish.
Good night
Hi everybody, what’d I miss while out having lovely getting-to-know-you semi-pornographic conversation with my new almost-girlfriend?
new thread - old Malkin
Sharkbabe - your evening posts always remind me of how very mundane my life is … damn!
Sharkbabe, I haven’t read Christy’s new one yet, but USA Today quoted Jane’s earlier one today, analyzing Murray Waas’ latest. Jane’s latest reveals the WaPoo’s edits on their article the week of Scooter’s indictment.
Valley Girl - I hadn’t noticed the list of contributors to the article, and my immediate guess was maybe Pincus - but unless that was his one contribution, so that in taking it out he was no longer a contributor, it means it was Gellman or one from your list. The real question it might help answer is who the source is and therefore how reliable the info is - in particular, did it come from Team Libby, or from Martin? And I have no idea from the reporters. But I will say this: the “well-placed source” really sounds like a cute way of indicating that the person was an eyewitness. And elsewhere in the article it specifies that the only other person known to have been on AF2 that day was Cathie Martin. So I am betting that she is the source for the article on July 12, 2003. Which would be a promising fact.
Sharkbabe- *semi-pornographic conversation*
I really do hope that you weren’t discussing Libby’s novel.
Jeff #79- thanks for the response. It seems to me that you are correct in focusing on the “well-placed source”. I am not remotely an expert Plameologist, contra Jane, although it was through the Plame story that I found FDL, and I try to contribute when I can.
pach at #58–
i saw your comments re downey’s revenge at kos. you nailed it… revenge it is. one big cartoon cliche of the left as angry drooling ranters. as i read the wapo story i thought there wasn’t a single stereotype they left out… even choosing a picture that would slam the point home just in case anyone missed it.
you said it so clearly… thanks for expressing it so well. and happy birthday!
If Ari was supposed to launch an attack on Wilson’s credibility (July 12), this is a lame example.
Director Tenet’s statement last night states the same former official, Wilson, also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official, Wilson, meet an Iraqi delegation to discuss expanding commercial relations between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.
This is in Wilson’s report back to the CIA. Wilson’s own report, the very man who was on television saying Niger denies it, who never said anything about forged documents, reports himself that officials in Niger said that Iraq was seeking to contact officials in Niger about sales.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....12-11.html
First, Wilson didn’t meet with someone talking sales in 1999, he met with someone who told him an Iraqi ambassador wanted to talk sales in 1999 and was blown off.
Second, of course Wilson never mentioned forged documents, he never saw them.
Cheney must have been disappointed. Scooter Libby went to all the trouble of taking Fleischer to lunch on the 7th and telling him Wilson’s wife was CIA… but Fleischer kept his mouth shut.
Maybe Ari was too smart to get caught up in this mess.
I emailed Barton Gellman at the time and got this response:
“It was a long piece that came together under deadline pressure, and we commonly rearrange parts and make adds and cuts between editions. In this case I was also getting updated feeds into the evening based on the reporting of my colleagues (as credited at bottom of story), as was Mike Abramowitz, who edited the story.
I know why the change has prompted curiosity but I can’t satisfy it. The question touches a subject of reporting on which we’re still engaged, with plenty of competition. I’ll have to borrow Fitzgerald’s dodge and ‘just take a dive.’”
I’ll admit it: This story is becoming hard for me to folow, which means the average American tuned out long ago.
I feel kind of dirty typing this, but Rita Cosby (of all people) made a valid point on “Hardball” tonight.
She said most people don’t care about the details of the Libby case, they only care if the Administration’s intel was accurate.
Well, it wasn’t, and that point can’t be made often enough.
w0551 #84- very very interesting!!! Jane, are you reading?
VG — yes I heard it at the time, never bought it — which is why I’m resurrecting the article now. I don’t think their excuses fly. The stuff they cut out turned out to be true.
I don’t think their excuses fly. The stuff they cut out turned out to be true.
But there was no indication whatsoever that they thought or claimed the exciting bit they cut was not true. Rather on the contrary, both Abramowitz and Gellman imply that they stand by the claim and that more on it will be forthcoming. Following the Plame case so closely has given me new respect, even admiration, for the real challenges of reporting. And who knows what the vagaries of pursuing a particular story are, which is to say who knows why we have not heard until now more on this aspect of the Plame story from the Post. Maybe the reporter’s source got freaked out and disappeared; maybe they couldn’t get enough confirmation. Who knows. The point is, there’s nothing indicating that the Post buried this story because it was too damagin. I mean, just look at the story Waas gets out of a document that has been public for a week and a half, missed by lots and lots of reporters looking for stories.
Jane,
can you explain why the NYT and WaPo are so reluctant to cover Murray Waas’s stories? His stories always seem to contain bombshells but they are just not taken seriously by our national papers. He sure seems like a serious journalist to me.
Thanks.
Lee
Lee
Jeff — If it hadn’t gone up on the website and been re-edited I don’t think people would be nearly so suspect about the spiking of the story. They promised “more to come” and then more never came.
Are you saying Murray got that story today out of Fitz’s document?
Vice President Dick Cheney directed his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, on July 12, 2003 to leak to the media portions of a then-highly classified CIA report that Cheney hoped would undermine the credibility of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, a critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, according to Libby’s grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case and sources who have read the classified report.
This is Murray’s original reporting, it wasn’t in the Fitz document.
Lee — I’m sure somebody’s out there trying to verify it but I can’t explain it, Murray has had the most rock-solid reporting on this case to date. You think this would be headline news.
What ever happened to Bob Novak - the prick that wrote the Plame article that started this whole mess??? He has completely disappeared from the face of the earth, Plamegate-wise. He seems to be very very very far down the list of players in this whole story. Hell - he doesn’t even seem to be ON the list of players anymore. What’s up with that???
nobody says:
April 14th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Maryscott OConnor is a fucking loon. Sorry, I had to say it. All rage, no reason, and the poster child for the wingnut perception of Left Blogistan.
Our Ann Coulter?
Jane #86 I thought it (the email) was interesting as an example of confusing / confabulating media speak, open to great leeway in interpretation. I really didn’t know what to conclude having read the email. You are giving me more credit than I deserve, in assuming that I was actually making a more specific point. I was just shaking my head, saying to myself, so WTF is this about. (I trust it is the email text you are referring to… not Libby’s novel.)
Rich (#85): I think Rita was just parroting what she heard yesterday on Hardball. On it, Charlie Cook said the bulk of the country didn’t care about this and that it only highlighted the Iraq war fiasco. Something along the line of Bush’s Goose already being cooked there and the only difference was between burnt and well done. I would tend to agree, but view it in terms of credibility and competence. Like, “he lied about this and that, why are we suprised”. Also, if he couldn’t “run a competent smear campaign…”. I agree with another poster. The most interesting part of that Hardball Interview was when Cook suggested that the entire nation was on the verge of pushing the Mute button on Bush.
I agree with Kant that Fitz is a genius and that the perjury charge would create more Fitzmas gifts. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it struck me that we are now in an unqualified discovery mode over the original crime. This week we now have testimony over the fact that Rove did in fact leak Plame’s name. I have all along wondered if after Fitz started squeezing on Perjury, Obstruction, etc., folks would be falling all over themselves to correct the record and put the noose around their necks. “Karl and Ari”. “Karl and Scooter”. Now I think it’s just a matter of who turns on who and what Fitz decides to charge them with. Again, this is speculation on my part–but long term I think that Libby will only be the thread that unraveled a much larger set of indictments.
Are you saying Murray got that story today out of Fitz’s document?
Jane - Partly. And I mean it as a compliment! I mean, it takes real reportorial skill to mine documents for non-obvious insights, insights that have been missed by the hundreds or thousands of other people who have looked at the documents. And I take it Waas is really good at it. He was doing it with the Robb-Silberman report a little while back, if I’m not mistaken. That said, as I mentioned in a previous comment, Waas also has an amazing ability to get senior government - even senior administration - officials (to say nothing of non-senior officials) to tell him stuff they tell no other reporter.
Specifically, I take the Libby testimony bit to come from Fitzgerald’s filing of last week. And this points to an ambiguity in Waas’ account: he seems to leave unanswered the question of whether the specific material from the Wilson trip-report Libby was instructed to leak was still classified (as much of the report still was) or was just declassified, thanks to Tenet’s statement just the previous day.
In some ways, the bigger story coming out of Waas’ story is the pointer to the fact that Libby leaked classified information from the trip report on July 8, and Libby apparently didn’t acknowledge that in his testimony. Was it under Cheney’s instructions then? Of course, if we knew that Cheney told Libby to leak the specifically still-classified stuff on July 12, that would be a huge deal. But I take it Waas’ article doesn’t quite make that claim.
Jeff — yes you’re right, Murray took Fitz’s document and ran with it while others didn’t. And he has amazing abilities to get to people that other reporters either can’t or don’t want to approach.
I’ve gone over and over the Fitz doc and I can’t see any reference to what Libby testified to regarding instructions from Cheney on the trip report. Fitzgerald is the one who says that the trip doc was still classified at the time Libby leaked it:
Defendant discussed with Miller the contents of a then classified CIA report which defendant characterized to Miller as having been written by Wilson.
Murray simply reports that he was ordered to do so by Cheney. But you’re right, Fitz says Libby leaked it on July 8 and the Waas story said Cheney told him to do so on the 12th. But since Fitz claims Cheney told Libby to leak the NIE to Judy on the 8th, and Libby also leaked the trip doc on that day, it’s hard to imagine Cheney didn’t give him the go-ahead on both at the same time.
I get the feeling some got down on Christy for her articles being “too hard” or “too boring” for them. I hope I am wrong, but if this is true, JESUS! Read the other articles! Read different blogs if you are THAT bored!
The reason I even think this are the whiners out there (in every website). Do they expect every post in every website to be interesting to THEM?
If a particular article is too hard for you, or doesn’t interest you, READ SOMETHING ELSE. Or start your own blog.
I want to thank Christy and Jane for having something for everyone (sane, anyway — right-wingers probably don’t like it — but GOOD!).
*ilson: In my thoughts. After our tornados here in Evansville, you take these things much more seriousl.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
After this post I started to think about the beginnings. How much does everything have to do with the job done, at the beginning, but FBI agents and Dion, who did the initial work. I’m’ thinking they are the basement tapes and that the investigation owes them a lot.
Given his newly-found “unitary executive” fetish, isn’t the idea that the president can carve out huge essential portions of his own branch of government — here, the national security apparatus — and deliberately keep them in the dark about what’s declassified and what isn’t, sound a little hinky to you?
Unitary is Bullshit (the dialect of politicians) for ABSOLUTE. Call it what it is. They have hijacked the helm, and control the loudspeakers, but no need to surrender the lexicon.
This is the guy who said it would be “nice” if this were a dictatorship, as long as he were the dictator. Right?
Howell, the ombudsman for the Washington Post, addresses Fred Hiatt’s outrageous Post editorial last weekend, “A Good Leak”, in her column today at the Post website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01393.html
Howell, as she demonstrated when she peddled the lie that Abramoff had contributed to democrats (and then whined about being called out on it), is about as much an ombudsman as I’m an astronaut. The women is an incorrigible hack.
Readers of the Post detected various factual misrepresentations in Hiatt’s pathetic editorial, including (i) Hiatt’s claim that there was nothing unusual about the way Libby was granted a limited authorization to disclose certain portions of the NIE (in fact Libby testified before the grand jury that the arrangement was “unique in his recollection”), (ii) Hiatt’s contention that Fitzpatrick had not presented any evidence in support of Joe Wilson’s claim that the White House had sought to punish him for his criticism of the Administrations claims about yellowcake and Niger (in fact Fitzpatrick referred specifically in his court filing last week that the White House had engaged in precisely such an attempt to punish Wilson), and (iii) Hiatt’s claim that Wilson had asserted he’d been sent to Niger by Cheney (Wilson never made any such claim).
Howell never addresses any of these issues, and instead characterizes the controversy thusly: “The passage in the Post editorial that sent war critics round the bend was this one: ‘ . . . Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.’”
Were critics of Hiatt’s editorial “outraged” or “concerned” or “critical”? No, they were “around the bend.” Deb again overtly demonstrates a shocking hostility towards her paper’s readers. Even worse, however, she absurdly mischaracterizes the response to Hiatt’s editorial. There were over 600 comments posted at the post.blog on Hiatt’s crap editorial, and they touched on various factual misrepresentations by Hiatt, including the ones I cited above. To reduce these detailed and informed criticisms to a single sentence of Hiatt’s editorial, as Howell has done, is egregiously misleading. But it obviously served Deb’s purpose to divert the controversy from Hiatt’s various factual trespasses.
Howell turns her column on the controversy into a technical discussion of the wall between the editorial and news departments by quoting a letter from a reader that asked “Do the Post editorial writers read the Post articles before publishing their opinions?” She then proceeds to argue that Hiatt’s editorial had been written before Gellman and Linzer’s front page story that debunked various of Hiatt’s claims in the editorial. There are two very big problems with Deb’s approach: first, the bigget problem with Hiatt’s editorial is not that it contradicted the Post’s reporting, but that it contradicted various statements made by Fitzpatrick in his court filings (the fact that Hiatt’s editorial got it so wrong while the Post’s reporters were accurately reporting these matters was merely irony); and second, the reader inquiry asking whether “Post editorial writers read the Post articles before publishing their opinions” WAS NOT MADE. Deb just made it up. I know because I’m the guy she cites as asking the question. Here is the e-mail I sent to Howell, which she requested she be able to cite in her column:
“Are we to believe Geller and Linzer’s reporting or the Post’s lead editorial? They are irreconcilable. The Post’s already dwindling reputation for credibility is seeping away with the continued silence from the editorial board and the Post’s ombudsman. I hope you appreciate how
grave this situation is for the Post.”
But Deb wanted to write a column that avoided the factual deficiencies of Hiatt’s Bush propaganda and focus instead on details regarding the Post’s internal housekeeping and so she fabricated a reader inquiry!
This woman has absolutely no shame. I urge everyone to read her ombudsman column and ask yourself: is this the job of an ombudsman, to denigrate her readers by suggesting they are “around the bend”, and then to neatly sidestep numerous misstatements of fact in a Post editorial in order to rationalize brazen pro-war propaganda?
The Washington Post made a concerted effort to make liberal bloggers look foolish today with a front-page article that might as well have been written by Shaun Hannity.
I’ve gone over and over the Fitz doc and I can’t see any reference to what Libby testified to regarding instructions from Cheney on the trip report.
It’s there, on p. 20:
Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare “on the record” statement, and to provide “background” and “deep background” statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time).
Three comments: it’s worth noting that Fitzgerald does not specify whether the information from the CIA trip report that Libby testified he was instructed by Cheney to disclose on July 12 was at that moment in time classified or not - and I would bet in fact that Libby testified that the information he revealed that day did not go beyond what had been declassified for Tenet’s statement the day before. (Both the Times and the Post reports on this episode suggest as much about Libby’s testimony.) It is a further question whether Libby’s testimony on this point was accurate. That’s part of why Cathie Martin’s apparent presence on AF2 that day may prove so fateful. Second, Fitzgerald seems to suggest that Libby failed to acknowledge leaking classified information from the CIA trip report to Miller on July 8. In this regard, I suspect Fitzgerald suspects Libby’s story on the CIA report is just another aspect of the web of falsehoods Libby spun after the fact to cover his inappropriate or even illegal actions, and Cheney’s role, in July 2003. In any case, obviously, then, Libby would not have testified that the presidential authorization to leak otherwise classified information conveyed from Cheney for the July 8 Miller interview covered the CIA trip report as well as the NIE.
Third, and most important, all of this points to the need to clarify Cheney’s role — and I take it the ultimate gist of Waas’ article is to sharpen the question of Cheney’s role, as Waas just follows up on Fitzgerald’s hint, in the passage I cited, that it looks pretty unlikely that Cheney did not instruct Libby on talking about WIlson’s wife at least on July 12. Does Fitzgerald have Cathie Martin’s testimony on this point? Or was she just aboard AF2 but not privy to the strategy session? Finally, if Fitzgerald is convinced that Libby was lying about a lot of this stuff, why not indict him on it?
Late late late to the party, but a quick comment on eRiposte’s takedown of Sommerby.
Part 1 has several points, but here main one can simply be boiled down. One of the key judgements of the NIE stated:
Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them.
Many people, including Sommerby are interpreting this as “Saddam is intent on acquiring “materials,” when in actuallity it means “intent on acquiring nuclear weapons.”
Jeff,
I think Fitzgerald was much more interested in whether or not Libby actually showed the documents to Miller. Leaking classified information is practically a daily occurrence in Washington, but handing over (or showing) actual documents is a much more serious matter (at least in the eyes of the FBI). Look at what happened to Larry Franklin. I think most everyone is missing this fundamental point. Take away the leaking of Plame’s identity and there’s really nothing in what Libby did that’s out of the ordinary for this administration. As morally reprehensible as his other actions were, Fitzgerald is quite correct in not prosecuting them. All you have to do is compare these leaks (again excepting Plame’s identity) to the veritable waterfall from Woodward’s books to see how trivial they were. Which, to my mind, makes it all the more interesting the extent to which Libby gratuitously lied about his actions in this regard.
….“I just want to say that there is no shame in admitting a subject has gotten too complex for you to understand.â€
This statement would be just fine if you actually didn’t understand what the facts were, but apparently that is not the case.
You must be aware that the SSIC and even Joe Wilson (admittedly, only while under oath) state that Bush’s 16 words were accurate. Iraq was “seeking†uranium from Africa as evidenced by the Nigerien Prime Minister’s statement that he interpreted the Iraqi envoy’s overtures as an attempt to trade in uranium. However, whenever you touch on the subject you conflate it with the “forged documents†subject, which was not the basis of the SOTU passage.
This mixing of separate issues seems to be a favorite tactic of the left, as we have just witnessed with the declassification of NIE information. By willfully distorting the image of the administration releasing facts to correct the lies Wilson told into some fantasy about Bush directing Scooter to “out†Plame, the boundary between being confused and outright misleading for partisan purposes is crossed.
If the overarching theme of this blog is to make people feel better about being democrats regardless of the actual facts, then at least let your readers know that you are substituting your version of “facts†and that reality may not apply.
I know I shouldn’t feed the trolls, but this latest talking point is just too funny. I want to know how the British found out about Joe Wilson’s conversations in Niger.
The leaks started when the Niger operations officers in Rome leaked the documents about the unranium to CIA with the intent of running a foreign intelligence operations that went exceeding well when The Directorate of Operations at CIA ‘bought’ the documents and sent Wilson on a foreign intelligence operation, which were used to start the Iraq war and sell off covert CIA WMD policy and training for all operations officers at CIA that was not liked. All the other leaks are interesting a games. The Downing street
memo was a game on the Congressman investigating. Check his name.
The Niger operation went better than hoped exposing a bad CIA agent, some Russian games in Iraq, and treason.
So, can we hire those two operations officers?
lol,
j.west given up on trying to argue with eRiposte I see :P
Do yourself a favor and go readthe post. Particularly enlightening is the apendix 1 of post 1. The selective declassification by the administration is downright hilarious.
Its all very funny games. It was already over. Another retired CIA agent came out with Plame yesterday and admits that covert work is important. The work was already done. Selective declassifiaction is normal, but they are also reclassifying declassified material. So, can’t win.
It’s garbage either way.