FITZ & MARCY!

F I T Z !!!

Fitz!

FITZ

3rd-
a personal best…

Neil–epu’d last thread.

In fact, I think that if there is an issue that requires collective action, it’s stopping the war.

Glenn points out that other issues have raised a greater outcry, and that none of those rise to the level of damage being done by war.

Further Adventures in Reading the New York Times.

In 2 parts. I put up most of this late last night and warned folks then I would repost today

An article entitled “U.S. Says Arms Link Iranians to Iraqi Shiites” by James Glanz with contributors including Michael Gordon who wrote a perfectly abysmal piece on the same subject corrects some of the more blatant bias of that previous article but still leaves important questions unanswered.

The improvements begin with the title. The title of Gordon’s article was “Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says”. By putting the “US says” at the end, it left the clear impression that a fact rather than an allegation was being made.

This article questions the need for the anonymity of those giving the briefing and the disclosure of material, some of which has been known for more than 2 years, at a time when the Bush Administration has increased its saber-rattling. It also points out that the charge that al Quds (elite Revolutionary Guards) is an inference and that the accusation that this implies that the highest levels of the Iranian government are involved is itself an inference based on an inference. Finally, it gives more details about the physical evidence (which was displayed on a table) and about the Erbil raid where Iranians were captured.

So now the critique. While the question of anonymity of sources was raised, it really wasn’t answered. Glanz writes:

“A senior United States military official gave a partial answer, saying that without anonymity, a senior Defense Department analyst who participated in the briefing could not have contributed.”

I am not sure how necessary the contribution of a “senior Defense Department analyst” really was to the briefing. And it fails to explain why the “senior United States military official” or the others needed theirs.

Despite the occasional expressions of skepticism, the New York Times reporters were nevertheless dutifully impressed by a presentation which was in essence a dog and pony show: “the direct physical evidence presented on Sunday was extraordinary.” Among the material on exhibit were mortar shells and RPGs with Iranian serial numbers. Only one of the improved IEDs, an explosively formed penetrator or EFP, was on display. Conspicuously absent was any mention that it bore any identifying number. Instead a kind of argument by omission was given:

The precise machining of the E.F.P. components, the officials said, is another feature that links the weapons to Iran. “We have no evidence that this has ever been done in Iraq,” the senior military official said.

So if you have no evidence, then that must prove it. Must remember that the next time I get into an argument. I might even reference the New York Times.

The article also includes the new assertion that EFPs have killed 170 Americans and wounded 620 since June 2004. The previous number in the Gordon article was around 25% of deaths in the last 3 months of 2006. I figured this was around 70. For his part, Juan Cole heaped a lot of derision on the 25% figure in his February 11 comments at his site, pointing out that most of the attacks and casualties during this period took place in Sunni areas. It is always suspicious when someone trots out an unsubstantiated number and when it is challenged instead of justifying it another unsubstantiated number is brought out in its place.

Part 2
While more information was given about the Erbil raid, there was still no indication that the Iranian office raided was, in fact, an informal consulate that was known to and sanctioned by Kurdish authorities. As for the Baghdad raid, it was related that a high official from al Quds Mohsin Chizari (described as their No. 2 man whatever that means) was picked up. He was found to be carrying false identification yet for some reason the article goes on to say he was released. I wonder why. Could it be because he was traveling under diplomatic immunity, his presence in Baghdad was known to Iraqi authorities, and his arrest caused them considerable embarrassment? Also missing from the article was that Mr. Chizari was arrested inside the Green Zone in what has been described as the compound of Abdul Aziz al Hakim, the leader of the SCIRI party which is both an American ally (al Hakim you may remember visited Bush in the White House a few months ago) and has the closest ties of any party to the Iranians, but which was more specifically the home of Hadi al Ameri, chairman of the security committee in the parliament and head of the Badr Brigades, the SCIRI militia. Given these connections, you might begin to see why Chizari was there.

There are also a few items missing from this article that were included in the Gordon article. Nowhere is it mentioned that the primary target of the EFPs are armored Humvees (although I would like to hope most Humvees in Iraq are now armored). The charge by Secretary Gates that EFPs have been used against Abrams tanks which seemed to reflect not events in Iraq but during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon last year is also gone. Lacking too is an assessment like that of Lt. Col. Danna, the part of which I agree with I will repeat here:

“To me it is a political weapon. There are not a lot of them out there, but every time we crack down on the Shia militias that weapon comes out.”

Now as I said above, overall this article is an improvement on Gordon’s. Of course, almost anything would be. It includes more doubts and does a better job of addressing the political dimension of this presentation of the “Iranian case”. Yet in a very fundamental way, it still refuses to acknowledge a simple truth. Our government didn’t make its case. As I wrote in my analysis of the Gordon article, I would be unsurprised if Iran was involved in various ways in Iraq, including the transfer of some relatively specific and limited weapons and technology to some Iraqi Shia groups. But so far the government has only shown that smuggling occurs across the border between Iraq and Iran. Smuggling occurs across all of Iraq’s borders. Beyond that, the government has done no more than what I have done. It has made inferences. Inference is not proof.

More importantly, neither our government nor the New York Times has made any attempt to evaluate the threat level all this poses relative to the other threats our soldiers face in Iraq.

First, while a few thousand jihadis still remain on the Sunni Arab side, there has never been any indication that there have ever been more than a few handfuls of Iranians operating in Iraq.

Second, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the 1000th American combat death did not occur until September 7, 2004. This is a few months after the Pentagon began its count that produced their number of 170 (and again given its history with fiddling with the numbers, this figure has to be taken with a certain amount of skepticism). Since then, more than 2100 Americans have died in Iraq, and the 170 mentioned in the Times article represent just 8% of those. While 8% is a significant number, the Pentagon is clearly exaggerating this threat when you take into account that 92% of Americans killed in Iraq are killed elsewhere.

Third, while EFPs are a concern, much more troubling is the increased success of the Sunni insurgency in downing US helicopters. This could greatly complicate the operations of our forces.

Finally, while I think it is perfectly legitimate to discuss Iranian (or Syrian) influence and activities in Iraq, I think this is true of others as well. Many of the jihadis early on were Saudis, Jordanians, and Egyptians, all ostensibly our allies. The Saudis also allowed a fair amount of money from “private citizens” to go to the insurgency and this has probably led to many more than 170 American deaths. Yet the silence on this issue from the government and the media remains deafening. I also wonder what it would take for the Times to recognize saber-rattling or a drumbeat for war for what they are. Instead they can muster no more than “some Democrats say this” and “some Republicans say that”. This is better than an unattributed repetition of Administration talking points but it is still a far cry from a major news organization giving us the news, not as others see it, but as they see it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02…..r=homepage

– Over at Steve Gilliard’s new digs, he catches a DKos article and screenshot of a Salon…um…gaffe, shall we say?

I’ve given up trying to figure out the politics of Salon. There’s Walter Shapiro and occasionally Joe Conason, who both write excellent stuff. Sid Blumenthal also contributes some good stuff. And I like Joan Walsh’s politics.

But then they also allow this nonsense from Edward McClelland. And then there’s Debra Dickerson, who contributes useless drivel from time to time.

What caught my eye was Juan Cole’s debunking of the lie about Iran supplying weapons that were killing our soldiers. Caught it at Steve G’s place.

http://www.thenewsblog.net/200…..audis.html

Jackarouyd at 6

It’s a triage problem for sure. But my take is that Geo will *not* stop this war unless absolutely forced to, and furthermore he is starting another just as fast as he can. He will not bow to pressure of any sort from any source, the only thing that will make him stop is not being president anymore.

As I understand it, Congress does not have to have the votes locked up in order to impeach, just the info. Consider it a trial, consider it an investigation, but start it *now*, like *today*.

And yes, troops home today, too. And protect our two necessary tools, net neutrality and accurate vote-counting. So, we have two tools and two tasks which are of primary urgency:

Tool 1, net neutrality (must keep)
Tool 2, accurate vote-counting (must have by Nov 2008)
Task 1, Impeach *NOW*
Task 2, All troops home *NOW*.

Everything else can follow.

Firedogs can multi-task, and four things aren’t a lot. So we send Anatomy *And* US vs Bush.

Happy lunch time!

This is better than an unattributed repetition of Administration talking points but it is still a far cry from a major news organization giving us the news, not as others see it, but as they see it.

hollywood librul James Brooks® gave us all a helpful heads up almost 20 years ago in Broadcast News wherein the Aaron character reminds everyone ‘that DC reporters talk back and forth with one another, then quote it as anonymous WH sources’

The precise machining of the E.F.P. components, the officials said, is another feature that links the weapons to Iran. “We have no evidence that this has ever been done in Iraq,” the senior military official said.

not to beat a dead horse or anything, but four years ago we were being told that Iraq had the capacity to build centrifuges with extraordinarily precise machined parts….

So, what happened to all that equipment that Iraq had that was capable of such precision “machining”?

3 Grammys for the Dixie Chicks!

Take *that* Toby Keith — ya punk-ass creep…

Not all of America is stupid — only about half of them. Similarly, not all of the Nashville music industry is stupid either. They’ve always been a little behind the wave, and they tend to change a bit late; witness Toby Keith’s latest bullshit – “I was really against the war — honest!” — and right-wing crazy Charlie Daniels was once an apostle of that ol’ devil weed back in the day. Dems are well represented on the Row — http://www.musicrowdemocrats.com/ — , but you just don’t hear about them. As far as the Chicks go, they’re better off NOT being part of the scene here. Go Chicks!

Twisted Martini – what I wouldn’t give to know that someone via Korn gets Jizzicoff to read that post from Gilliard !!!

p.lukasiak @ 14

So, what happened to all that equipment that Iraq had that was capable of such precision “machining”?

Iran stole it.

And Larry Johnson has some thoughts on Doug Feith.

Douglas Feith on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:

(snip)

BLITZER: The inspector general of the Department of Defense says your actions were, quote, “inappropriate,” that you and your colleagues had a mindset to prove that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, a connection that the intelligence community simply couldn’t confirm, but you still went ahead and tried to do that to build a case for the war.

DOGLAS FEITH, FORMER UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE: What the inspector general is criticizing is the fact that people in the Pentagon criticized the quality of the CIA intelligence. And the inspector general, I think wrongly, says that the criticism of intelligence was intelligence work, and it was inappropriate for non- intelligence people to do that.

BLITZER: But in this case, they were right and you were wrong.

FEITH: No, they were not right.

BLITZER: There was no connection that the 9-11 Commission could come up with to show there was a deliberate prewar operable connection between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.

FEITH: Which nobody ever claims. I mean, it shows how much misinformation there is, even somebody as well-informed as you is informed on the point.

My bold. Laughable exchange. Who is misinformed? And who is doing the misinforming? And who is well-informed? It says something when even Wolf Blitzer comes off as a attack dog, which he isn’t by a long shot. (Note: CNN cannot even spell Feith’s first name right.)

Comments awaiting moderation?

Talked to my congressman (Jim Moran) at a local event yesterday, and gave him an attaboy for co-sponsoring the Employee Free Choice Act, and a go-get-em for the upcoming House Iraq debate (he’s a member from way back of the Out Of Iraq Caucus.) And Saturday I was at a town hall meeting by my state legislator, and talked about supporting paper ballots and no-excuse absentee voting, both of which he supports. (Currently in VA you can only get an absentee ballot or do early voting for certain specific reasons.)

So I guess I really am doing politics seven days a week sometimes!

libby trial on CNN now…

–still no decision if scooter will take the stand.

MSM/Iran dog n pony, comment here

Catching up with a quick note of thanks to Hugh for a weekend of fine scrutiny of the New York Times despicable articles. Thanks so much Hugh.

Biodun @ 19

My bold. Laughable exchange. Who is misinformed? And who is doing the misinforming? And who is well-informed? It says something when even Wolf Blitzer comes off as a attack dog, which he isn’t by a long shot. (Note: CNN cannot even spell Feith’s first name right.)

I’m still stunned that after all this time, members of the press don’t seem to have any idea how to deal with people who flat-out lie to them. Is it that hard to have done research on your interview subject, and respond to “no, you’re just confused and this is just a difference of opinion” with “you did say this and it was wrong. Why are you lying about it now?”

Ms Compson will not let me chew on the Dixie Chicks, at lunch or any other time. But thanks for the invite.
-

And Obama is already complaining about MSM:

Barack Obama used his first news conference after announcing his run for president to accuse the media of ignoring his substantive record and falsely depicting him as a lightweight.

“The problem’s not that the info’s not out there,” he said of his record on policy issues. “The problem is that that’s not what you guys have been reporting on. You’ve been reporting on how I look in a swimsuit.”

(snip)

It’s going to be a long two years.

Think Progress has a post this morning about John Hannah, National Security Advisor to Cheney. Hannah was quoted in the Washington Post that “2007 is the year of Iran,” and that a US attack is quite possible.

Col. Pat Lang was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer Sunday on this, which I highly recommend. The transcript can be read at Col. Lang’s site @ turcopolier.typepad.com for February 11, 2007.

Clearly, Karl Rove led the “Charge Of The Leaks Brigade” – and it was he who prepared each of the leakers for their mission.

Now you see why Ari washed-out and went underground. He’s petrified – in fear of his life. He knows how guilty this entire Cabal is…all the way back to the pre-9/11 planning.

Hey Ari, do the live images of the plane slamming into the first tower on 9/11 still haunt you at night? Clearly your boss has a guilty conscience about it – as he’s confessed to viewing it live (in the limo on closed circuit) not once, but twice.

What a tangled web…

Can someone please summarize the discussion about what gets limited from the defense if Libby does not testify?

Seems the defense is now saying they do NOT want him to testify, yet STILL let in a lot of evidence – right? What evidence? What did Walton rule?

Redshift @ 25

Biodun @ 19

My bold. Laughable exchange. Who is misinformed? And who is doing the misinforming? And who is well-informed? It says something when even Wolf Blitzer comes off as a attack dog, which he isn’t by a long shot. (Note: CNN cannot even spell Feith’s first name right.)

I’m still stunned that after all this time, members of the press don’t seem to have any idea how to deal with people who flat-out lie to them. Is it that hard to have done research on your interview subject, and respond to “no, you’re just confused and this is just a difference of opinion” with “you did say this and it was wrong. Why are you lying about it now?”

They don’t do that much of their own research, it is done by gofers and research assistants and presented to them as a digest. It is their job to be pretty and properly powdered. They are called ‘the talent’ and are generally regarded by the folks who actually run things as slightly smarter than fashion models.

Redshift @ 25

Biodun @ 19

My bold. Laughable exchange. Who is misinformed? And who is doing the misinforming? And who is well-informed? It says something when even Wolf Blitzer comes off as a attack dog, which he isn’t by a long shot. (Note: CNN cannot even spell Feith’s first name right.)

I’m still stunned that after all this time, members of the press don’t seem to have any idea how to deal with people who flat-out lie to them. Is it that hard to have done research on your interview subject, and respond to “no, you’re just confused and this is just a difference of opinion” with “you did say this and it was wrong. Why are you lying about it now?”

You expected more of “Wolf The Enabler?”

You mistake him for a journalist.

He and Feith both work for AIPAC.

Quick Question: Why does Judge Walton keep talking about “if the appeals court wants to overrule me, they can?” What would those comments contribute to any of this? It’s like he’s giving Libby a list of things to bring up on appeal.

The transcript can be read at Col. Lang’s site @ turcopolier.typepad.com for February 11, 2007.

Thanks for that link, peony.

Would one of the ‘legals’ explain what jury nullification is before the afternoon testimony resumes? Thx!

Am I right in thinking that Wells was trying to get Woodward to say that he’d told Libby about Plame, or that, at the very least, he’d told Pincus who told Libby about Plame?

In this he did not succeed. But it does seem to be another case of Wells trying to get the jury to make “inferences” — that is, to engage in rank speculation — that will somehow support that “all the reporters knew it.”

But even if the jury were to make such an inference, it still would not support Libby’s defense, because it would not support his claim that he “forgot” about Plame until Tim Russert told him about her. One, it’s completely irrelevant to the “I forgot” defense, and two, there’s no connection to Woodward or Pincus knowing, and Russert knowing, and therefore no connection to Russert telling Libby.

The only “inference” that could be made is that, if Woodward and Pincus knew, then Mitchell knew, and if Mitchell knew, then Russert knew….All way to attenuated, I think, to be evidence of anything.

As for using this as impeachment of Mitchell: impeaching your own witness is a very tricky business. In the best of all possible worlds, Wells would want Mitchell to recant her disavowal of the “everybody knew it” statement. She’s already said, and it’s wouldn’t be inconsistent with the “everybody knew it” statement (assuming she recanted her disavowal), that SHE did not know it before July 14. After all, her statement was after-the-fact. And he’d still have to get her to say that she told Russert.

But Wells knows that she’s not going to re-adopt the “everybody knows it” statement. So he’s going to try to impeach her current testimony — that she misspoke — with the prior “everybody knows it” statement. But since her current statement is meaningless and irrelevant, he’s not just trying to get the jury to disbelieve it; he’s adopt the impeaching “everybody knew it” statement as affirmative evidence. Failing that, he wants the jury to take it as evidence that not only impeaches Mitchell, but impeaches Russert. But Walton seems disinclined to permit that.

Wells seems to have very little ammunition for his defense. He may be able to make the “I forgot” defense without putting Libby on the stand, but it’s not going to be plausible enough to create reasonable doubt given all the testimony that Libby was focused on Wilson and Plame. And the “I forgot because Plame was an insignificant detail in the larger scheme of all the Incredibly Important Things I Was Doing” requires Libby to testify. Walton will not let Fitz’s stipulation in if Libby doesn’t testify. Fitz only stipulated to try to limit Libby’s otherwise endless testimony about Each Very Important Thing He Was Doing.

So I think Wells is nowhere in creating reasonable doubt. Nothing has put a dent in the evidence that Libby lied when he said he had forgotten about Plame in the month between June 12 and July 14, and that Libby lied when he said he did not tell any reporters about her before July 14.

Or am I just being Pollyannaish?

It’s a triage problem for sure. But my take is that Geo will *not* stop this war unless absolutely forced to, and furthermore he is starting another just as fast as he can. He will not bow to pressure of any sort from any source, the only thing that will make him stop is not being president anymore.

I don’t happen to agree on the triage issue. Or, to the degree that it is a triage issue, Iraq is a blown major artery.

I know that there are lots of reasons given for temporizing. There’s no point in calling for a vote on setting a deadline after which funds will be cut off, or for revisiting the AUMF setting a deadline, or for following Kucinich, and direct the next supplemental to withdrawal, and voting no more supplementals.

I’ve read all that. I’ve also read what I think is really going on, that the leadership (in this case, Schumer) thinks the republicans will have to withdraw by mid 08 without dem pressure, or they’ll lose in a landslide. Win win, to Chuck’s way of thinking. And without making democrats cast some tough votes.

Well, I think that’s both immoral and politically stupid. 67 percent of Americans oppose this war. There’s no reason to be afraid. The ones who are afraid are the republicans, especially the 21 senators up in 08. If we make them vote, they’ll eventually mount up to the 60 votes we need. I think a straight up out of Iraq by April 1 2008 deadline would get the necessary votes.

More about Obama:

(snip)

The clich that “you don’t pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel” has been losing much of its relevance at least since Bill Clinton’s presidency. President Bush and his aides prospered politically, at least for a time, by attacking what they called the biased “filter” of the Washington- and New York-based newspapers and television networks. Political figures on the left and the right, and their Internet allies, now compete in their disdain for the “MSM.”

Still, Obama’s pointed riff was unexpected by many in the press. Newsweek’s senior White House correspondent, Richard Wolffe, said he took it as both personal and strategic.

“The key term he used is ‘mainstream media’ – it’s that we’re the establishment and that he’s siding with the people,” Wolffe said. But, he added, “I was surprised by the edge.”

(snip)

Interesting debate is opening up here about MSM and politics. The genie is out of the bottle. The perfume is out of the bottle. How do you put toothpaste back into the tube?

And the fact that this appeared in The Politico, a new online journal about only politics, is interesting as well. As I said, the next two years will be…well interesting. Sorry to be repetitive, but I can’t think up substitutes at this point.

Wells shouldn’t be trying to get Woodward to say anything. Woodward is a defense witness. Wells should know exactly what Woodward will and will not testify to, and should have gone over that testimony more than once.

I followed the bradblog link and then took a peek at Gannon’s site(phew)
Noticed that his book is forthcoming.
Do you think he’d spill all?

Now I see where Team Libby’s going with all the reporters: Team Libby believes it’s an iron rule that reporters babble to each other about anything important, so if ONE reporter – Bob Woodward – heard about Wilson’s wife being a CIA analyst, ALL reporters MUST know, which means Pincus, which means Mitchell, which means, lo and behold, Tim Russert, therefore Libby could have heard the information from Russert as if it was new. (Yes, this relies on Russert being a perjurer and on Libby having a bad memory as to what his boss, the Vice President of the United States of America, told him about a hot button political issue dear to his own heart, but that’s how the theory reads to me.)

But, the fact that the reporters didn’t babble as thoroughly and completely as anticipated means that Libby’s defense looks implausibly thin. One thing I am wondering: did Libby find out about Armitage’s slip to Woodward and consciously decided to use “one reporter knows so all must know” as plausible deniability? And it just didn’t work like he wanted because the reporters didn’t babble like on a perfect flow chart?

seaside @ 35

Would one of the ‘legals’ explain what jury nullification is before the afternoon testimony resumes? Thx!

Short answer: getting the jury to acquit for reasons on the basis of something other than evidence that creates a reasonable doubt. Can be everything from “even though it’s technically a crime, the defendant’s intentions were noble,” to “even though the defendant is guilty, it’s not fair to make the defendant the only one who is punished because he was just a bit player in a larger scheme.”

CIA agent says he was fired over Iraq WMD intel.

U.S. News: “A federal judge has ruled that a CIA agent identified only as ‘Doe,’ allegedly fired after he gathered prewar intelligence showing that Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction, can proceed with his lawsuit against the CIA.
from Think Progress

Hugh, I will not have a chance to read your posts on the NYT til later, but I have sent emails to the NYT voicing my displeasure. Michael Gordon is the same writer along with the now discredited Judith Miller who wrote about aluminum tubes which the Times later admitted was wrong and overblown.

However, it looks like the Administration’s strategy for war with Iran is going to be through Iraq. (Check out dkos for details.)

Biodun @ 27

And Obama is already complaining about MSM:

Barack Obama used his first news conference after announcing his run for president to accuse the media of ignoring his substantive record and falsely depicting him as a lightweight.

“The problem’s not that the info’s not out there,” he said of his record on policy issues. “The problem is that that’s not what you guys have been reporting on. You’ve been reporting on how I look in a swimsuit.”

(snip)

It’s going to be a long two years.

I think this quote for Politicoocoo is telling:

Obama’s peevish comment reflected an ambivalent relationship with the national media, rooted in his transformation from an obscure Chicago politician into a bona fide celebrity over just 2 1/2 years. Obama has been the subject of almost entirely favorable coverage from the national media, and his aides acknowledge that he’s parlayed that new profile into his presidential campaign.

Reading between the lines, Ben Smith is not getting the special inside access he expects. And he wants to make Obama pay.

This whole second coming of Christ story is the national media grousing NOT about the media uplifting Obama, but the actual phenomenon that Obama represents. Nobody has generated this much charisma since Bobby Kennedy. That’s not the media doing that. It’s Obama doing that.

Obama is also endangering the MSM’s role of anointing the front-runners. They have to take Obama down to keep that gatekeeper role.

But they haven’t figured out a frame yet. One article says he’s too black. Another says he’s not black enough. Or he’s uppity smug. Or he’s inexperienced. Or he’s a terrorist.

To his credit, Obama is confronting these attacks directly, even to the point of cutting off press access. That’s going to generate bad press in the short run, but if he’ll consistently stand up to the media, take flak and keep standing up, he’ll own the netroots.

Even if he does seem kinda wishy-washy…..

[disclaimer: I am supporting nobody, and expect to support nobody. All the candidates with a plausible chance of getting the nomination would be a fine president.]

Jury nullification is a jury’s refusal to render a verdict according to the law, as instructed by the court, regardless of the weight of evidence presented. Instead, a jury bases its verdict on validity of the law itself and so asserts the jurors’ own view of justice; a consequence of providing a right to trial by one’s peers.[1] Although a jury’s refusal only relates to the particular case before them, juries are reluctant to pass a verdict contrary to law and therefore jury nullification often has far reaching implications signalling as it does an unwillingness by ordinary people to accept the law:

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

― Thomas Jefferson, co-author of the Declaration of Independence and third U. S. President. http://www.answers.com/topic/jury-nullification

Quick Question: Why does Judge Walton keep talking about “if the appeals court wants to overrule me, they can?” What would those comments contribute to any of this? It’s like he’s giving Libby a list of things to bring up on appeal.

its just Walton’s way of saying telling Wells to STFU because he’s made his decision.

Meanwhile, blogger at MSM gets himself into trouble:

William M. Arkin, a military analyst who writes a blog for The Washington Post’s Web site, says he knew that his criticism of American troops would be “highly inflammatory.”

He got that part right.

(snip)

A federal judge has ruled that a CIA agent identified only as “Doe,” allegedly fired after he gathered prewar intelligence showing that Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction, can proceed with his lawsuit against the CIA. The judge has ordered both parties to submit discovery requests–evidence they want for their case–to be completed by March 15, according to the CIA agent’s lawyer and a spokesman for the Justice Department, which is defending the CIA in court.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/n…..9/9cia.htm

These well-deserved giggles ocurred when they won the COUNTRY album of the year. Maines had just quoted the “great Simpsons — HA-ha!”.

They had just taken the highest honor for the category where they had been roundly snubbed and mocked and so I am certain that laugh felt GOOD!

It also explains why there were such dour expressions on some black cowboy hat wearers when the camera panned into the audience right after that. I imagine it must smart a little bit to make a bunch of money off of smearing the Chicks and then have your own PEERS vote them into the best album category.

Heh and snarkalicious!

JB from Canada @ 41

Now I see where Team Libby’s going with all the reporters: Team Libby believes it’s an iron rule that reporters babble to each other about anything important, so if ONE reporter – Bob Woodward – heard about Wilson’s wife being a CIA analyst, ALL reporters MUST know, which means Pincus, which means Mitchell, which means, lo and behold, Tim Russert, therefore Libby could have heard the information from Russert as if it was new.

Right. They ALL value insider story gossip trafficking more highly than getting and benefiting from their own exclusive scoops. I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night, LOL!
_

litigatormom @ 42

seaside @ 35

Would one of the ‘legals’ explain what jury nullification is before the afternoon testimony resumes? Thx!

Short answer: getting the jury to acquit for reasons on the basis of something other than evidence that creates a reasonable doubt. Can be everything from “even though it’s technically a crime, the defendant’s intentions were noble,” to “even though the defendant is guilty, it’s not fair to make the defendant the only one who is punished because he was just a bit player in a larger scheme.”

In this case what I (anyway) mean is that they are trying to label the entire cast of players–OVP, media, POTUS staff–as a buncha liars. They’re hoping that some juror(s) will decide that even if he did lie, everyone else did too, and Libby is being unfairly scapegoated.

It’s getting pretty heavy here. How about something light? I clicked on fashion in the NYT by mistake last night. Here’s what I read, for a change of pace:

Cutting to the Bone Without the Angst

Misguided though it may be, American fashion is not complacent. One can point to the provocative designs of Thom Browne and Kate and Laura Mulleavy of Rodarte, recent winners of industry laurels, as proof of an independent, even transgressive, spirit.

Of course, transgression takes many forms, from men in skirts to skull tattoos to football fans fashioning turbans from hollowed-out watermelons. Doubtlessly Mr. Watermelon Head isn’t concerned with flouting convention as much as he is spoiling in the sun, but a consoling virtue of being provoked and annoyed is that, generally, you recognize the point.

I’ve been mulling over Mr. Browne’s show since I saw it Monday afternoon, amid some transplanted birch and Christmas spruce, the perfect setting, I realize now, for a retelling of the Alcott story “Little Women,” with Jo and Meg now as Joe and Reg. I saw ample larders, dry goods emporiums stocked with the best woolens of dying New England mills, dressers lined with hair tonics and peppermint soap.

In all this rich romantic goodness, I also saw, perhaps not surprisingly, moral decay. Indeed, Mr. Brown’s miniaturizing aesthetic is a reflection of a decadent society — obsessed with design, obsessed with food, obsessed with money and fame…

I wonder what it means…

litigatormom @ 36

So I think Wells is nowhere in creating reasonable doubt. Nothing has put a dent in the evidence that Libby lied when he said he had forgotten about Plame in the month between June 12 and July 14, and that Libby lied when he said he did not tell any reporters about her before July 14.

Or am I just being Pollyannaish?

Thanks for your thoughts on today’s testimony. I wasn’t able to follow as the witnesses were testifying and when I reveiwed EW’s brilliant coverage, I really didn’t understand the point of the testimony. I also didn’t understand the legal discussions going on about what Wells should or should not be presenting to the jury.

It certainly does sound like Wells doesn’t have much to work with. I would think the jury would be pretty fed up with his tactics at this point.

jayackroyd said-

Well, I think that’s both immoral and politically stupid. 67 percent of Americans oppose this war. There’s no reason to be afraid. The ones who are afraid are the republicans, especially the 21 senators up in 08. If we make them vote, they’ll eventually mount up to the 60 votes we need. I think a straight up out of Iraq by April 1 2008 deadline would get the necessary votes.

The next best thing to winning domination of Iraqi oil is maintaining a nice flow of defense dollars. It pays for congress to delay. /stifling cynical rant

One observation. The MSM seems, generally, to promote Admin talking points, and we have seen how during this trial some examples of how the Admin does this, which is intentionally, systematically and also with every appearance of cooperation by the media.

So. Joe Wilson was ‘around town’ talking up his side of the yellowcake/Niger story, going on TV, (MTP? I don’t watch TV so I don’t know the shows) and getting an op-ed published in the NYT. Now this is no mean feat, and the Times had published a great deal of BushCo cheerleading esp wrt the war.

So, what kind of clout did Joe Wilson have to get all this media exposure?

Maybe our diligent FDL live-bloggers can make this one, assuming the trial will still be going on by then:

Jeff Gannon: One Lunch Only

Nathans of Georgetown owner Carol Joynt will sit down and interview Jeff Gannon on April 19, as part of her “Q&A Cafe” lunch series at the restaurant.

It’s open to anyone who wants to make a res. The fee is $35, all inclusive. Reservations should be made M-F with Jon Moss at 202.338.2000 or through our website: http://www.nathansgeorgetown.com.

new thread

One day people will refer to me as “uppity” and I will know I have arrived.

And the fact that this appeared in The Politico, a new online journal about only politics, is interesting as well. @38

Remember who these people are–John Harris and Jim VandeHei. When these guys were at the WaPo they were Bush enablers. They are in the forefront of preserving the beltway bubble. So while the journal is new, the players are not.

Biodun @38:

I’m not that familiar with Politico, but I was watching a segment with Mike Allen (formerly of WaPo, now with Politico) on CSpan talking about Obama. I don’t trust Allen as far as I can throw him. They were playing a clip of Obama talking to somebody in 2002 (when he was still a State Senator), I don’t remember who, I think it must’ve been a local Chicago news person. Basically Obama said that 1) he was surprised and pleased that Bush was going through the U.N. first to try to confront Saddam; but 2) he did not think voting for the war was justified, and we needed to proceed with extreme caution.

The CSpan host asked Mike Allen to comment on the tape, and Mike Allen said that what struck him most about it was how uncomfortable Obama’s body language was, and he interpreted this as Obama being uncomfortable and unfamiliar talking about foreign policy.

Well, I had just watched the SAME TAPE and I didn’t see any of the discomfort Allen was talking about, and what struck me most about the tape was how wise and prescient Obama seemed. So, essentially, WTF?? I trust none of these media shits. I only trust my own eyes and ears.

jayackroyd @ 37

It’s a triage problem for sure. But my take is that Geo will *not* stop this war unless absolutely forced to, and furthermore he is starting another just as fast as he can. He will not bow to pressure of any sort from any source, the only thing that will make him stop is not being president anymore.

I don’t happen to agree on the triage issue. Or, to the degree that it is a triage issue, Iraq is a blown major artery.

I know that there are lots of reasons given for temporizing. There’s no point in calling for a vote on setting a deadline after which funds will be cut off, or for revisiting the AUMF setting a deadline, or for following Kucinich, and direct the next supplemental to withdrawal, and voting no more supplementals.

I’ve read all that. I’ve also read what I think is really going on, that the leadership (in this case, Schumer) thinks the republicans will have to withdraw by mid 08 without dem pressure, or they’ll lose in a landslide. Win win, to Chuck’s way of thinking. And without making democrats cast some tough votes.

Well, I think that’s both immoral and politically stupid. 67 percent of Americans oppose this war. There’s no reason to be afraid. The ones who are afraid are the republicans, especially the 21 senators up in 08. If we make them vote, they’ll eventually mount up to the 60 votes we need. I think a straight up out of Iraq by April 1 2008 deadline would get the necessary votes.

Jackaroyd, I do not understand what you are saying. In my full comment I say Impeach *NOW*, troops out *NOW*. How am I ‘temporizing?’ Although I suppose ‘now’ is a time.

Biodun @ 19

Sort of as a complement to your quote of Feith above. Juan Cole in his February 10 comments noticed that Feith seems to want to have it both ways when it comes to the CIA.

BLITZER: There wasn’t the stockpiles. What about on the al Qaeda connection?

FEITH: On the al Qaeda connection, George Tenet on October 7th, 2002 wrote an unclassified letter to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee laying out the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

BLITZER: So you believed there was a connection?

FEITH: I believed George Tenet.

Oh, now he has blind faith in the CIA? I thought it was completely unreliable because of its “filters” and had to be contradicted by Abram Shulsky?

Even tho I have followed this ever so closely over the years I get very confused very easily.

This article helps explain what the defense is doing….

“Libby argues that he never discussed Plame with Fleischer. Pincus’ testimony helps defense attorneys make the argument that Fleischer needed someone to blame to cover up his own leaking.” (That Fleischer is lying when he said that Libby told him about Plame at lunch.)

“Woodward’s testimony doesn’t directly undercut Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s case but it offers fodder to Libby’s attorneys, who say Libby is being made a scapegoat by the administration.” (not sure about that?)

http://www.breitbart.com/news/…..ANBG0.html

Everyone talks like “the whole evil plan” may get uncovered and, that looks quite likely. We are taking back our nation, the Dixie Chicks represent that populist sentiment.

But guess what… for so many of the most guilty, it has already yielded billions in taxpayer-financed graft and corruption that it is doubtful we will ever recover, let alone uncover.

So no matter how much justice might come from our public scrutiny and retribution, whether in a court of law or at the pearly gates, there’s no excuse for us letting somethng like this ever happen again.

We need to continue the quest for answers that starts here with Libby and concludes, inevitably, at Cheney’s doorstep. And we need to continue to dissect this history as it is being made, and try to understand how we bacame so easily manipulated as a nation.

We will all look back one day, and see the real extent of the death and destruction that was hidden from our complicit media’s pages. And our justice will be hollow, knowing that our watchdogs were working for the robbers.

Jury Nullification is when a jury votes to acquit for reasons other than the evidence, or other than what the law “requires”. Judges are fond of telling juries that they are not to judge the law, only to apply it as instructed after weighing the facts and evidence in the trial.

It is a somewhat controversial topic because all judges who tell you this are wrong. It is within your right, as a juror, to vote for acquital if you think a law is unjust. Judges don’t like that, but it’s the truth and it’s a longstanding tradition.

Here’s a website that offers to tell you “What Lawyers and Judges Won’t Tell You About Juries”.

It’s also a good term to throw out during the voir dire (potential juror Q & A) if you want to get out of jury duty for a criminal case. Just telling them you know what Jury Nullification is will almost certainly get the prosecutor to send you on your way. Especially if you can blurt out how you think most laws are unfair. :)

CNN – tentative agreement reached at N. Korea nuke talks…

Jackaroyd, I do not understand what you are saying. In my full comment I say Impeach *NOW*, troops out *NOW*. How am I ‘temporizing?’ Although I suppose ‘now’ is a time.

Sorry, hotflash. I’m doing too much at once.

“So, what kind of clout did Joe Wilson have to get all this media exposure?”

Why, he was a former ambassador the CIA sent to Africa check on a story about Saddam trying to buy yellow-cake from Niger.

Wouldn’t just that alone make him newsworthy?

Start to add all the other layers to the story, and its more reasonable to ask how could the media have left it alone like a hot potato at the time it came out?

This is just now getting the kind of media coverage it should have received when Wilson said the yellowcake claim was bogus in the first place.

If the MSM press had FEATURED it and not shuffled it to the bottom of their daily news deck, this trillion dollar war may have been averted.

At least the 16 words would never have appeard in the fearmongering rhetoric of Bush’s SOTU. And those words were the reason he got the votes to go to Iraq in the first place, that and a few well-placed mushroom cloud references from the usual suspects.

This isn’t just a trial of Scooter Libby for perjury, he perjured himself as part of a larger conspiracy to hide the fact that we went to war based on lies that were concocted, when the trhuth that Joe Wilson and others failed to justify the run-up to war.

This well-documented conspiracy certainly constitutes a series of both “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

And, in the process of covering up those high crimes and misdemeanors, these fellows also outed a covert CIA Agent to silence their critics, which constituted aiding the enemy. That adds treason to their high crimes as ultimately impeachable offenses.

Re: Sting

Good lord did you see the guy? For someone pushing 60 he certainly looks like he is about 40. Vegetarian, yoga and running, what else is the guy doing?

p.lukasiak @ 47

Quick Question: Why does Judge Walton keep talking about “if the appeals court wants to overrule me, they can?” What would those comments contribute to any of this? It’s like he’s giving Libby a list of things to bring up on appeal.

its just Walton’s way of saying telling Wells to STFU because he’s made his decision.

I believe he is also doing this in case of an appeal. It will then be on record why he is ruling the way he is if this ruling is a basis of an appeal. He obviously can be overruled by an appeals court and so he is going on record with the intent of his ruling. I think it is kind of nice that he admits that he may not be the ultimate arbriter of this trial. Also, it looks like he thinks Libby is going to lose and the defense is going to have to appeal.

Just have to give a shout out to Dan Wilson of Semisonic and Gary Louris of the Jayhawks. Both are songwriter, contributors to the Dixie Chicks Taking the Long Way Home album. And, of course, they are both marvelous examples of Minnesota songwriting excellence. Kudos to the Dixie Chicks. Kudos Dan and Gary!

bellesouth @
71

p.lukasiak @ 47

Quick Question: Why does Judge Walton keep talking about “if the appeals court wants to overrule me, they can?” What would those comments contribute to any of this? It’s like he’s giving Libby a list of things to bring up on appeal.

its just Walton’s way of saying telling Wells to STFU because he’s made his decision.

I believe he is also doing this in case of an appeal. It will then be on record why he is ruling the way he is if this ruling is a basis of an appeal. He obviously can be overruled by an appeals court and so he is going on record with the intent of his ruling. I think it is kind of nice that he admits that he may not be the ultimate arbriter of this trial. Also, it looks like he thinks Libby is going to lose and the defense is going to have to appeal.

It also puts Wells on notice that he’s not going to do to Walton what Johnnie Cochran did to Lance Ito.

FWIW, here’s my post about last night’s Grammys (Full disclosure: I’m a voting member of the Academy).

Some commmentors are C&L & HuffPo get it wrong about the Grammy process, as I try to explain.

BWAHAHA! Bush is telling some folksy little story about “Bonnie” for Black History Month (and what this has to do with the price of tea in China – I couldn’t guess)…

But he’s talking about Bonnie’s accomplishments and he mentions she wants to be a skier but “there isn’t much snow in California but she perservered and…” Chances are if you got enough money for the lift ticket, you got enough money for the gas…

I really don’t know too many places here in CA that aren’t within 2 hours of snow… even way down here by Los Angeles – lots of snow, pretty close by…. we do have lots and lots of mountains and all…

Twisted Martini @ 10

What caught my eye was Juan Cole’s debunking of the lie about Iran supplying weapons that were killing our soldiers. Caught it at Steve G’s place.

http://www.thenewsblog.net/200…..audis.html

Yes, the Pentagon should be compelled to show precisely where these EPG attacks are occurring. Are they occurring in Sunni held areas in Baghdad (Haifa Street)? Are they occurring in the Sunni traingle in towns and cities under Sunni control?

How many cases? How do they explain that some Shiite bomber is infiltrating the Sunni-held areas, planting a bomb along streets in which US vehicles are patrolling, and then waiting around to detonate that bomb?

Boy! That’s very devious! These “Iranian-supplied militias” are so on top of it that they have already realized that the US will discover that the bombs are of Iranian design and are risking life-and-limb to plant them in Sunni held fire zones!

Makes you wonder if they were that smart then why didn’t the Iranians just get bombs from a third-party source, or, at the very least remove the markings that would indicate that these came from Iran?

It really seems that the fact that some of these attacks are coming from Sunni held areas that these materials are available, either on the black-market in Iraq, or have OTHER, non-Iranian sourcing.

Perhaps the Mujahadeen Khalq (al Qaida linked BEFORE the invasion) may have robbed an Iranian weapons depot or bribed someone to obtain this stuff…and given them to their anti-American friends? That same Mujahadeen Khalq which the US military NOW has allowed to thrive because it is an anti-Iranian terrorist group?

And lets not forget that the US certainly ecouraged SCIRI to establish well armed “revolutionary” militias in IRAN…trained and supplied by the Iranian Revolutionary Gaurds on the eve of the invasion. Just perhaps some of the weaponry in these Badr Brigade arsenals that were used to “police” the south came from IRAN! You don’t think…?????

JB from Canada @ 41

Now I see where Team Libby’s going with all the reporters: Team Libby believes it’s an iron rule that reporters babble to each other about anything important, so if ONE reporter – Bob Woodward – heard about Wilson’s wife being a CIA analyst, ALL reporters MUST know, which means Pincus, which means Mitchell, which means, lo and behold, Tim Russert, therefore Libby could have heard the information from Russert as if it was new. (Yes, this relies on Russert being a perjurer and on Libby having a bad memory as to what his boss, the Vice President of the United States of America, told him about a hot button political issue dear to his own heart, but that’s how the theory reads to me.)

But, the fact that the reporters didn’t babble as thoroughly and completely as anticipated means that Libby’s defense looks implausibly thin. One thing I am wondering: did Libby find out about Armitage’s slip to Woodward and consciously decided to use “one reporter knows so all must know” as plausible deniability? And it just didn’t work like he wanted because the reporters didn’t babble like on a perfect flow chart?

Which raises the issue…if they all knew…then why did they all hold off to let Novak get the “scoop”.

And if it were common knowledge…why was it a “scoop” and suddenly create a firestorm of controversy at all?

lowly grunt @ 50

These well-deserved giggles ocurred when they won the COUNTRY album of the year. Maines had just quoted the “great Simpsons — HA-ha!”.

They had just taken the highest honor for the category where they had been roundly snubbed and mocked and so I am certain that laugh felt GOOD!

It also explains why there were such dour expressions on some black cowboy hat wearers when the camera panned into the audience right after that. I imagine it must smart a little bit to make a bunch of money off of smearing the Chicks and then have your own PEERS vote them into the best album category.

Heh and snarkalicious!

Indeed. While the Grammy voters do not include Radio DJ’s, talk-show hosts, or Clearchannel Programmers…those that vote for the Country Awards are those that are involved directly in the music.

To be a nominating voter in a genre one has to have been involved in the production, arrangement, writing, orchestration, or performance of six commercially released tracks (or their equivalent) in that genre.

Basically those who really know about country music responded to the “book burners”.

BTW- I wonder if Bush had the terrorists who called in death threats to the Dixie Chicks investigated and prosecuted under the Patriot Act. Sure seems that these folks “hate us for our freedoms”!

Hugh @ 63

Biodun @ 19

Sort of as a complement to your quote of Feith above. Juan Cole in his February 10 comments noticed that Feith seems to want to have it both ways when it comes to the CIA.

BLITZER: There wasn’t the stockpiles. What about on the al Qaeda connection?

FEITH: On the al Qaeda connection, George Tenet on October 7th, 2002 wrote an unclassified letter to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee laying out the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

BLITZER: So you believed there was a connection?

FEITH: I believed George Tenet.

Oh, now he has blind faith in the CIA? I thought it was completely unreliable because of its “filters” and had to be contradicted by Abram Shulsky?

IT’s even worse than that! Tenet’s own open letter basically rejected most of the points that Feith was promoting as unsubstantiated or from questionable sources. And the material that Feith is referring to above he was “provided” to Tenet by a) phoney Iraqi “intelligence operatives” manufactured by Chalabi, and b) a tortured al Qaida member who “gave up” the story “that the Americans wanted” to stop being tortured.

Cliff Varnell @ 15

3 Grammys for the Dixie Chicks!

Take *that* Toby Keith — ya punk-ass creep…

Damn, dig that Cliff, but there’s more sir!! Keith went on tour with draft dodger Ted Nugent who admitted in the Detroit Free Press of urinating and defecating in his pants for an entire week to avoid serving his country during the Vietnam war. Now he (Nugent)earns as much as $30,000 a night preaching about the Constitution, free speech and his respect for veterans. This while the true American warriors still suffering emotional and physical wounds 40 years later from the very war that the coward Nugent ran from are languishing in veterans hospitals across the country without a penny. All this happened when the Chicks were being vilified and Keith got away with his phony patriotism.