
(Photo credit Pachacutec)
Two quick impresions: When Valerie Wilson came into the hearing room, there were so many camera shutters going off, it sounded like the wings of a butterfly. It kind of enhanced her ethereal presence. But then when Elijah Cummings asked Valerie about Victoria Toensing, I imagine we saw the side of Valerie that--as Jim Marcinkowski once reported--made her the best person at handling an AK-47 in her CIA class. Man, I wish I had an AK-47 face like that!
Jane and Christy and Pach said so much Friday about individual aspects of the Waxman hearing, I thought I’d focus my recap on the way the hearing came off as a totality. Waxman structured the hearing very effectively so that it accomplished several goals. Effectively, the hearing laid out the problem—Valerie Wilson, whose career was ruined out of vindictive spite. It laid out the legally required solution--an Administrative investigation, even while establishing that solution had not been accomplished. And then it explored the legal realities surrounding leaked classified information (which is a polite way of saying it exposed Victoria Toensing for what she is). I’m going to look at each panel, but first let me say a word about the timing.
The Timing
I was skeptical, at first, about a Friday hearing. Democrats have ended the Republican practice of 2.5 day work weeks. But Congressmen do need to be home in their districts on weekends for constituent services. Which means if you’re going to hold a 4 hour hearing on a Friday, you’re really asking your members to jump through hoops to attend the meeting. And Waxman got that commitment from enough of his members to make it an effective hearing. Whereas Davis couldn’t persuade enough Republicans to attend even to give him a chance to launch his bid at closing the hearing.
The result reminded me of the rump hearing the Democrats had on the intelligence leading to the Iraq War—for most of the hearing, Tom Davis was the only Republican present. With cameos, of course, from Congressman Westmoreland so he could leer at Valerie. In truth, the Republicans were most consistently represented by a never-named attorney, a tall guy who sat right next to Davis in Congressman Dan Burton's seat. The lawyer had a look of “oh shit” on his face for the better part of the hearing and he kept swallowing his lips when he thought. For much of the hearing, Davis and GOP Counsel were sitting there, huddled with two aides, which really added to the look of desperation. And by the end, for most of Victoria Toensing’s appearance, the only one (aside from a few aides) sitting on the Republican side was GOP Counsel. That’s what they’ve come to—sending their lawyer in their stead, to protect them from the oversight they’re supposed to be exercising.
Valerie
In many ways, Valerie was the simplest part of this Hearing. While Davis and the Leering Westmoreland tried to take their potshots at Valerie, every attempt just made the Republicans look worse. “Don’t you understand, Leering Westmoreland, my cover was blown several months before Vanity Fair took my picture!?” After which GOP Counsel and Davis would huddle and try to think of some other clever comeback that Valerie could swat down.
Otherwise, though, the message was simple, stated once by Waxman and repeated, over and over, by Valerie. Valerie Wilson was covert. And those who outed her are—in the words of Poppy Bush—the most insidious of traitors.
Don’t get me wrong. Valerie was brilliant. Maybe that’s not even the word. She had the calm of someone who can finally speak the truth. Powerful.
Leonard and Knodell
The truly great part of the hearing was the pairing of Bill Leonard and James Knodell. Because Waxman and Hodes and the rest of the committee grilled Knodell, but they did so using the standards Leonard established. Leonard's one of those stiff law and order types, so it framed Knodell as breaking Leonard's laws, not Knodell's. It was like a game of tennis which the Administration lost, badly. Mr. Leonard, what should happen when there is an unauthorized leak of classified information? Mr. Knodell, did that happen? Mr. Leonard? Mr. Knodell?
And, as we now know, between July 24, when the CIA first voices its concerns about the leak, and September 16, when DOJ finally decided to launch a criminal investigation, the White House did not conduct the Administrative investigation that is required by law in cases of unauthorized leaks of classified information.
WAXMAN: Will the gentleman yield to me…
CUMMINGS: Of course.
WAXMAN: … because I just want to pin this point down? Do you know whether there was an investigation at the White House after the leaks came out?
KNODELL: I don’t have any knowledge of an investigation within my office.
WAXMAN: Ever?
KNODELL: I do not.
WAXMAN: Because the president said he was investigating this matter and was going to get the bottom of it. You’re not aware that any investigation took place?
KNODELL: Not within my office, sir.
Now, let me explain, for those who have been confused by Toensing's perma-headfake. This hearing was not about the IIPA statute. This hearing was about the illegal leaking of classified information. No matter how you parse words about Valerie's travels overseas, the White House was still obliged to launch an Administrative investigation when it learned of the leak--in July 2003, two months before the start of the criminal investigation. It did not do so. Period.
Toensing and Zaid
Once again, this was supposed to be a tennis match: Mr. Zaid, what has happened to your clients who have leaked classified information. Ms. Toensing, now do you see why people in the Administration who leaked classified information should have lost their security clearance? Only Toensing forgot anyone was sitting next to her, and answered almost every question asked, whether directed to her or not.
But apparently Toensing didn't read the memo. No, seriously, she didn't. She had to be reminded that her invite letter specified that the hearing was about the unauthorized leak of classified information, not about the IIPA. But on and on she'd go, babbling about the IIPA--and do you want to hear her stories about Goldwater? By the end, Elijah Cummings made a very heartfelt comment--on the importance of remembering the issues, that a CIA officer protecting us from WMD had been outed. Toensing didn't really have a response to that. Which was, IMO, the most effective moment in Toensing's testimony. Because really, even she doesn't have a good response to the deliberate outing of a CIA officer.
Anyway, as I said, none of the Republicans thought Toensing's testimony sufficiently important to sit through all of it--and remember, she was their gal. Apparently, only GOP Counsel felt it worthwhile (or perhaps was required) to sit through her blathering.
The most striking part of her testimony, though, was the laughter. Not only me, though I was laughing. at times. But some of the good objective journalists sitting around me. And--honest to betsy--there were two Republican aides who were openly laughing at her. I guess they figured that--since the members had already left--they were free to express their real opinion of Toensing.
Finally, I know Jane promised a smackdown and summary of the inaccuracies Toensing used in her testimony. I think when Waxman referred to these he meant they were inaccuracies rather than full-blown perjury (though, just to be sure, Toensing might want to issue a retraction of some of them). I think, quite honestly, Toensing just forgot that she often, um, exaggerates when she's on TV, and that as a result, some of the stuff that falls out of her mouth like blobs of chewing gum actually isn't true. I'm going to wait until I get the (still-open) Congressional Record to do the smackdown, so I'm working with exactly what she said. But there were three, in particular, that stick out in my mind: the claim the INR memo "proved" Valerie sent or suggested Joe, the claim that Grenier told Libby about "Valerie Plame," and the claim that Joe said the Vice President sent him to Niger. The public record doesn't support any of those assertions--yet Toensing offered those as "facts" "she knew." It doesn't reflect well, on Toensing, that in the same appearance where she spouted a number of "facts" "she knew" about the IIPA, she also contradicted the public record on a number of issues she claims "to know." But I guess none of us should be surprised.
The Totality
Which leaves us, two days later, to reflect on what the Hearing accomplished. Importantly, Waxman gave Valerie Wilson an opportunity to correct, under oath, many of the fictions the right has propagated about her in the last four years. Just as importantly, the Hearing served to remind us (as Patrick Fitzgerald did in his closing statements) that Valerie Wilson is a person, not an argument. Not only does she have kids and a husband. But she used to have an important role in protecting our country from the proliferation of nuclear weapons. She served our country, and the gratitude our country showed her was to expose her, her family, her colleagues, and the assets she recruited to a great deal of danger.
But the hearing also did one more thing. It established uncontrovertibly that the White House did not follow statutes governing the unauthorized release of classified information. Regardless of what happens with the other materials Fitzgerald collected during his investigation, establishing that fact gives Waxman the ability to pursue more information. It took a matter of hours for Waxman to take the next step--asking Josh Bolten for a full accounting.
To assist the Committee in its investigation into these issues, I request that you provide the Committee with a complete account of the steps that the White House took following the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity (1) to investigate how the leak occurred; (2) to review the security clearances of the White House officials implicated in the leak; (3) to impose administrative or disciplinary sanctions on the officials involved in the leak; and (4) to review and revise existing White House security procedures to prevent future breaches of national security.
Waxman established the groundwork for further investigation. Given his tenaciousness, given the fact that Waxman already used the threat of a subpoena to "encourage" Knodell to appear, I fully expect this investigation will continue. That's what the Hearing established--the basis for further investigation.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Needle!
Thanks for being there, Marcy. Greatly appreciate you and Pach catching the hearing live.
But that’s not what Brit Hume said:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/.....lame-oath/
*wink
Great summary, EW.
Nancy Pelosi may have said that impeachment is off the table. But some of her colleagues are slowly, patiently, and correctly building the case for it.
Bless you, Marcy!
ESTEN!
Before I get EPU’d in the last thread, I thought I’d post this here. It’s my letter in response to Broder’s inane article in today’s ComPost.
Dear Mr. Broder,
I read your column from March 18 with much interest. I have several questions about the conclusions you drew:
First, can you point out where prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald concluded that there was no crime? I thought that, in fact, he just convicted the vice president’s senior aide of perjury and obstruction of justice! Those are serious crimes that many Republicans thought justified the impeachment of a United States President a few years back. Additionally, obstruction of justice means just what it says: Scooter Libby obstructed Fitzgerald’s investigation, preventing anyone from being prosecuted for a violation of the IIPA law.
You state that “no one behaved well in the whole mess.” I would appreciate you pointing me to an instance in which Joe Wilson did not behave well. To me, it appears that he saw an administration twisting intelligence so that it could lead the country into a war. He first attempted to bring this to light anonomously, and only when that failed did he sign his name to the accusation. And if Rove behaved badly (it is now part of the public record that he did, indeed, reveal the name of a covert officer to at least two people who had no right to know), why does anyone owe him an apology?
The original leak was not the leak to Robert Novak. It is also now part of the public record that Scooter Libby leaked Plame’s name to Judith Miller BEFORE Armitage leaked her name to Novak. You state that there is a conspiracy theory, but all I see is an actual conspiracy–one to leak the name of a covert agent as a warning about the lengths that this administration would go to to destroy anyone who would criticize it.
So, one of us is quite wrong about what happened with this entire fiasco. I would appreciate if you would take the time to point out where I’m incorrect. I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Mike Novak (no relation to Bob or Viveca)
There was something extraordinary about hearing several congresspeople tell Toensing “I’m reclaiming my time” as she gibbered away. (Honestly, was she coked up or something?)
“I’m reclaiming my time.” Yeah, it kind of felt that way. What a civilized, assertive way of telling someone to shut the fuck up.
Wow, emptywheel, thanks!
Henry Waxman is a beautiful man.
emptywheel. great post. check this out when you get a minute.
I will add my thanks to those above. My copy of your book finally arrived here in Greece, and I am enjoying it even as my anger rises.
Brit Hume, or as I like to now call him: Shit Fume.
Someone get the Febreze out again, this Fox-bot is letting loose with another stinker.
-GSD
And Marcy,
It was a pleasure meeting you last week in NYC. I tried to email you the name of that kitschy store in Ann Arbor, but my emails kept getting sent back.
It’s Kaleidescope at 217 S. State St. (at least it was there about five years ago).
Thanks again for all of your hard work on this case.
Tithonia @ 10
elegant and graceful
commented on this downstairs - somewhere in these threads and I believe it was long before the trial - someone called out something called Title 28 and Title 50 wherein they are required to explain to Congress, in writing, just why they did not do this - I think the term was ‘exception reports’
feel like I’m being somewhat of a pest here - but you guys created all us Plamensteins :)
“Now, let me explain, for those who have been confused by Toensing’s perma-headfake.”
Now there’s a bobblehead I’d actually buy!
Noodle overcooked. Al Abudente.
Thanks emptywheel. If you have time or care to respond, I am interested in any opinion you have as to why Comstock chose
ToensingToesuck. Was gender a concern, because of Valerie? Could they find no one better? All she did was piss off Waxman, I realize that may play well at 1600 Pennsylvania, but I’m not sure it helps with the larger cause.Also are she and Joe pissed off at Rove for spending all his money on a Democrat, Bob
gold barsLuskin? Was she solely trying to advertise for GOP clients?I couldn’t agree more with what you said about Valerie’s calm. She was extremely articulate and quietly passionate, a true patriot. It was a thundering demonstration of patriotism and a quiet but devastating indictment of patriarchy.
Know how you could tell that Toensing screwed the pooch?
She was all but ignored in the MSM stories on the hearing. If her “I wrote the IIPA” blather — which was obviously intended to shoot down Plame — hadn’t backfired on her, it would have got nearly as much ink as Valerie Plame herself.
But since there is no way to spin this in Toensing’s favor, it was ignored by the media.
It was so obvious that the Republicans couldn’t get any one but Davis and Lynnie Westmoreland to show up,
but your descriptions, expecially the Republican lawyers laughing at Toensing…
Priceless!
Marcy;
Thanks, as always, your stuff is clarifying.
Seems as if Ms. Toensing’s still got some splainin’ to do, isn’t that why the record was kept open?
Isn’t the decider the guy who decide’s things? If the decider said that they were going to investigate then why was there no investigation of the leaking of classified material (Valerie’s name)? Would not the lack of an investigation of treason be treason itself? Bush called for an investigation according to the law as Waxman notes there should have been one. Since only bush has the power to countermand his own words, the decider has implicated himself! I smell cover up and impeachment! That and more lame excuses from Dean Broder!
i’ve linked the video
of the waxman hearing
on my site at this spot.
you’ll need to have windows media
player installed, and may need
to accept the active x prompt,
but it will stream onto your
screen — well worth the ‘lectrons. . .
thanks again for a great piece, emptywheel. . .
it is well-past time to demand
explanations — in short, first person,
sentences, free of clutter-speak — from
the office of dick cheney.
JEP @ 22
Yes, Waxman flat out told her that he was going to keep the record open to correct her inaccuracies. She was insufferable, I wanted to throw something at my teevee more than a few times.
Field Marshall Tom Delay (Hey, isn’t that a French name?) gets a lesson from Retired Vice Admiral Sestak.
“At one point, DeLay claimed that places like Bahrain and Qatar wouldn’t accept U.S. troops who had redeployed out of Iraq. Sestak put his hand on DeLay’s arm and informed him that the U.S. military already has bases in those countries.”
Delay is just another word for put-off.
-GSD
tbsa @ 25
I loved the look on her face when he said that!
Did anyone ask Valerie if she had ever personally met Libby or Cheney? The testimony by Addington when Scooter asks how he would know if he met a covert agent, speaks to the importance of this question.
Valerie was not asked if she had met them, however, she was asked whether or not any of them had phoned her to appoligize for what they had done to her.
Thank you for the post..you have helped educate me me. Good work all involved.
So you know..bought and am reading your book. You do a good job of making straight the convoluted machinations, mendacity and hubris this group of thugs has spun.
Nice overall wrap-up of Friday’s hearings Emptywheel, and I think the various conclusions you draw from it in this post are accurate. I see nothing that I would differ/quibble with you on this post of yours. Again, thank you for your very hard work and I look forward to the time my local library finally gets a copy of your book (I would order it save I am unable to because of income reasons and the fact I have never had a credit card, which makes online purchasing a bit difficult…) as from all that I have seen regarding that book it is an excellent reference work on the Plame Betrayal and the way this GOP government have done all they can to pretend nothing bad happened here despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Elliott @ 28
It was priceless wasn’t it…
Marcy,
Thanks again for all the great work you and the other FDLers have done to keep things clarified.
I wonder what Toestink could have said/done to make her look any WORSE than she did on Friday.
Fitz!
From Scott Horton’s St. Patrick’s Day email:
The Prosecutor, and Future Attorney General? Today being St Patrick’s Day, it’s time to throw a bouquet to a Hibernian. My pick is Patrick Fitzgerald. In a day when federal prosecutors around the country are under a cloud, Fitzgerald shows that in some places a proud tradition has been maintained. Earlier this week, Fitzgerald was invited to speak to Henry Waxman’s Oversight Committee. He declined. It was an opportunity for political limelight. But as usual, Fitzgerald showed appropriate prosecutorial restraint. His comments have likewise shown beyond any doubt that an interest in justice is always uppermost in his mind, as it should be. Today, Fitzgerald speaks at an ABA function in Dublin, and he calls for respect for international and foreign law. That may seem innocuous enough. But in the age of Bush, that’s a virtual act of insubordination – and another reason to admire this quiet, cautious, professional figure. There are a few Republicans in this country who live to the traditions of Abraham Lincoln. Patrick Fitzgerald is one. And today, Andrew Cohen concludes his four-part WaPo series entitled The Case Against Alberto Gonzales with an appeal for the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald as Attorney General. He won’t be Bush’s pick, that much is certain – but a clear-eyed president in the future?
Faux update-Hume claimed that Valerie outed herself by having breakfast with Kristoff. He claims covert CIA agents aren’t supposed to talk to the media, and if they do they have to report it to their bosses. He assumes she was interviewed, rather than having breakfast and being social like normal people do every freakin’ day! Joe was invited to speak at the Democratic event, Valerie was his guest. When most people attend events, they bring their spouse. It’s normal. The breakfast was the next day, after Joe’s speech (iirc).
Here are some facts for Britney Hume and other fools:
#1-It wasn’t classified information that Valerie Wilson existed.
#2-It wasn’t classified information that Valerie was married to Joe Wilson.
#3-It was classified information that Valerie worked for the CIA.
It’s that simple.
I thought one of the most important things was the statement from CIA Director Gen. Hayden about Plame’s covert status which Waxman read.
“At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert.”
This has removed any doubt about Plame’s status. That Republican talking point seems to be fading away. The statement also blows away the “she was just a desk jockey” denial.
It’s posted here:
http://oversight.house.gov/Doc.....-43341.pdf
One reason why Toensing is stuck on the IIPA is because she is one of the authors of it back when she worked at DOJ, and a convicted CIA turncoat (Agee?), revealed names of some of his covert CIA colleagues. So Toensing thinks this makes her an expert on the IIPA, which in a sense it does. However, it is a terribly written law almost impossible to enforce, and no one has ever been convicted on it to my knowledge. To prove someone guilty of the IIPA you have to demonstrate the accused had prior knowledge of the agent’s status, intent to harm, and actual damage done.
Which may be one reason why Fitz avoided a charge based on the IIPA law. He went for something he could indict and convict on. Ultimately, this may have been a mistake because it leaves the issue hanging in the air, we will never know, but that is what he did. And, if Fitz had gone for the IIPA charge, he probably would have had to drag Cheney in, a dubious proposition since that would run into executive privilege issues.
Marcy:
Excellent post, as usual. Just finished watching Wolf Blitzer, who treated the whole hearing as OK-she-had-her-say-story’s-over. I emailed him and suggested that he go back and watch the entire hearing and pay attention to Mr. Knodell’s testimony. Hinted there might be a story “worthy of a journalist of your calibre.” Thank heavens snark doesn’t travel through the toobz well.
Oh and I love the mental gymnastics and the syndrome of cognitive dissonance from the people who claim that at the same time Valerie Plame was just a desk jockey at the CIA, she also had the authority to send former Ambassadors on intelligence missions.
These Republicans on the committee can’t get it thru their damaged brains that if someone works at the CIA, there’s a chance that they are covert and if they work at the counterproliferation division of the Directorate of OPERATIONS!! they are most definitely COVERT!! To think someone like Libby or Cheney wouldn’t know this after working in government for decades, means one of two things and in both cases they should be put in prison.
IANAL
1. Complicity (treason)
2. Incompetance (gross criminal negligence)
I put a picture up top that I snapped at the hearing, showing Valerie behind the wall of cameras.
It also shows a rather empty row of Republican committee seats.
tbsa @ 31
Next to Pelosi, Waxman is probably the most powerful congressman in the House. He was pissed off. She should be losing sleep.
dreamcatcher @ 37
Bush 41 signed an executive order regarding this issue. The outing of Valerie was a clear violation of this executive order. The administration was supposed to have conducted an investigation on the matter which was NEVER done. My theory is Darth Vader went to the CIA and demanded Valerie’s information then disseminated said info through “scooter and KKKarl” when Mister Wilson exposed his lie to the American people.
To the lawyers here — When Brit Hume claims that Valerie Plame lied under oath about who suggested Joe to go to Niger, is that something she could take him to court over?
dreamcatcher @ 37
There has been one conviction under the statute.
When Davis asked Valerie if the director of the CIA ever TOLD her she was covert, being impeccably honest, she ultimately said no (kind of goes without saying when a cover identity set up for you). Though she’s too classy to do so, I wish she’d added, “Did the speaker of the house ever tell you you were a congressman?”
Pachacutec @ 40
Pach, great shot. Was that taken from where you and Marcy were seated? I was watching on Friday, trying to figure out where you might be.
I’ve been waiting for this post since the hearing. Thank you, Marcy!
thank you marcy - much appreciated
Political Cartoon:
Valerie Plame is standing outside a house, holding a newspaper with the headline “CIA: Plame Covert”, in one hand, while the other hand is raised to the door.
Inside the house sit Boris & Natasha. Boris is reading the same paper. He says to Natasha:
“Victoria, there’s a kNOCk at the door”
Elliott @
28
I loved it when he all but accused her of lying about her age.
“We’ll be checking that out, too.”
I was, like, “Oh, NO he DIH-UN’T!!”
That was not from my seat. I got up and positioned myself for that shot.
TRex @ 47
Probably not as much as you were waiting for the B-52’s!
tbsa @ 42
Judging by Toensing’s testimony, IIPA was the only thing she did in her life and she wasn’t going to let anyone forget it. Even if one weren’t familiar with the case, Toensing’s continual harping on IIPA made her seem pathetic. There’s a sitcom mother she resembles, but I haven’t placed her yet.
As for Bush pere’s executive order, it’s another example of Bush fils trying to best his dad. I hope someone is keeping track. The list is long, and quite delicious by now.
Thanks for the recap and perspectives, ew, as always.
Question - I asked this in a thread the other day but haven’t learned anything: What do we already know about the higher ups in Office of Administration to whom Knodell reports? In the hearing he mentioned a Tom Dreyer, a Sandra Evans, and a so-and-so (Allan?) Swindeman (couldn’t quite make out the name on tv). Am I just ignorant about commonly known admin figures? They are all “Office of Administration.” What is the scope of this office? Is basically everybody in the WH admin part of the OA (like, would Rove qualify?), or is it a smaller circle than that? Might they be the sort of people Waxman’s letter could lead to next as far as why no investigation was undertaken (going up the chain, of course)?
tbsa @ 42
Such is the irony of history that the son breaks a law the father authorized.
Oedipus Wrecks?
AZ Matt @ 52
You know, that was awesome, but if I had honestly been given a choice between being at the hearing and meeting Valkyrie Plame or staying home and meeting the B-52’s, I would have to think for a minute.
G’day, pups.
*
*xyz says:
March 18th, 2007 at 8:31 am
TV Notice.
I just saw a notice on CSPAN that they will be re-airing at least part of their Valerie Plame testimony coverage beginning at 3:40 ET this afternoon.
————————————–
View the entire hearing at the link below at your pleasure. The hearing is from the “recent archives” page. One would think it w/b highlighted on cspan’s home page? Also, this is stream-on-demand, so one can drag the radial button to FF or reverse to the best parts. The other (Valerie Plame) hits on this page are great, too. Enjoy.
http://12.170.145.161/search/b.....erie_plame
TRex @ 56
Ah, Life’s little choices…
OT: I hadn’t noticed this mentioned here at FDL in the past couple of days. The WH Correspondent’s Association has decided to allow Helen Thomas to keep her seat in the front row of the newly renovated WH Briefing Room. CNN has been given the other seats in the front row, and Fox did not get any front row seats, despite their request.
Each row of the newly renovated room apparently has two fewer seats than before (more rows, fewer seats per row). There was talk about moving Thomas back a few rows to make way for Fox. That has officially been nixed.
Here’s the story from mediabistro.com’s TV Newser:
CNN gets the front row, along with Helen Thomas
Cheers to Ms. Thomas, who definitely deserves to sit front and center, as she has for decades. I’ve enjoyed her tenacity in putting every politician’s Press Secretary on the hot seat. Here’s to many more years of that!
LotF at 59: That is the topic of my Late Nite post, dude. Don’t wear it out.
TheOtherWA @ 35
Of course it is which is why the GOP shills are now reduced to bald faced lying since reality is that simple. They are employing a classic grad student approach, if your cannot dazzle them with your brilliance baffle them with bullshit. That is all Hume and those like him have left, as you so clearly demonstrated with your swift evisceration of Hume’s idiotic attempts to claim Plame outed herself because she went as her husband’s guest to a breakfast where her husband the noted former Ambassador to Iraq before GWI started as well as to various African nations including Niger spoke to a reporter also attending the breakfast about his work (not hers, nor is there any evidence I have ever seen that she spoke to any reporters about anything prior to her cover being blown regarding security issues, I qualify because she could have talked to reporters acting under her cover as an energy consultant). The level of delusion behind thinking that makes any logical sense let alone can be treated as fact given the lack of *ANY* corroborating evidence underscores the bullshit nature of this approach.
Not to mention Hume’s other aspect to this claim he made. The reporter claims two sources, one of which is confirmed as Wilson so in Hume’s “mind” that means automatically the other source can be no one else than Plame despite zero evidence to support any such conclusion. Yet this is the Washington Bureau Chief of FoxNEWS?!? If he is so clearly either ignorant/stupid about how reality is Washington works he should be fired/out of a job, and if he is acting not as a journalist but as a party operative/shill (which his conduct today as well as many times prior on all sorts of issues not just this one clearly demonstrates/shows/proves) he should also be fired for blatantly corrupting the responsibility/role of his job/profession to be loyal to facts first and not political agendas/ideologies first. Oh wait, that’s right, he works for FOXNEWS which is a GOP aligned “news” network so of course their Washington news bureau must be is a true GOP loyalist before any other loyalties to facts, the profession of journalist, and indeed as a responsible citizen of the democratic society/culture of America.
FEH!
well woe be unto me for disagreeing with ya, but it really felt more like March Madness, Madness, Madness
for once, I wasn’t happy merely bc a Dem had the microphone. outside of the pleasure at hearing Valerie so clearly speak to the issues at long last - it was stunning to see how disciplined and cohesive Coach W had prepared his team
during Toesuck’s ‘testimony’ my co workers and guests were treated to sight of me jumping up and down, pointing at the screen, yelling “omg, Trap Press !”
Did I mention that when my brother and I showed up at the club on Friday night, we were dressed almost exactly alike? That happens to us a lot.
ManagedChaos @
39
I was just thinking, if we give the repubs a benifit of the doubt, in believing Valerie Plame was a “desk Jockey” (OK, I just vurped as a typed that), could she possibly be working at a computer with a phone at her desk, thus allowing her to keep in contact with oversea opps and other “contacts”? Even if she wasn’t physically overseas, she could’ve been “working” overseas via phone and email… and still need Covert/Undercover status. Where was the front company Brewster Jennings located? I don’t know how this stuff works, but I could see a reason why she would still need covert status, even if she doesn’t go overseas.
Obviusly it’ll be long time if ever that we’ll find out how she actually did her job, but regardless, the CIA felt it necessary to keep her status Covert. The WH blew her cover. No matter what Toensing babbles on about.
TRex @ 60
Cool - I hope you’ll be giving Fox a nice raspberry a la “ha ha nanny nanny nanny LOSERS!”
By the way, if you did have the situation wherein you had to choose between dinner with Valerie Plame or the B52s, I think most of us would be very green with envy. Ok, we’d probably just hate ya outright for having such a cool life. ;)
beautiful, articulate post, marcy.
Montag @ #44 - good catch!
Marcy - excellent and succinct.
looseheadprop - if you’re reading - Insta-De-Classification and Other Bedtime Stories was one of the best essays I’ve ever read here! I found it bizarre that some readers found it too long. I found it absorbing. I learned a lot.
Brit Hume - if you’re lurking - go fuck yourself with Dick Cheney’s shotgun.
Regarding the Hearing on Friday, is there any way to get a written transcript of the hearing for those of us unable to run video files? If anyone knows where one can go to read the hearings I would be most appreciative and grateful.
Thanks.
tbsa @
42
Do you have a link for that executive order and/or its number, please?
Howdy, Houghton MI!!
Had to do that, sorry.
Fiyero @ 54
My understanding is that Swinderman is the political appointee, while the others are government employees.
OA does the nuts-and-bolts day-to-day administrative affairs for the WH, makes sure there are people to cut the grass, do the secretarial work, and (not very well, apparently) handles the ordinary security matters not covered by the Secret Service.
So, yeah, there would be opportunity to work up the ladder, but, I would guess that Waxman got the answer he wanted from Knodell–no investigation done–and that made George the Younger a liar, which was part of purpose of this hearing. Having created that suspicion, it will, no doubt, generate more. :)
scory @
4
Pelosi didn’t say it would always be.
montag 71 - thanks.
Scotian @
68
Since Marcy alluded in her post to the Congressional Record, you should be able to read therein a printed transcript of the hearing.
MODS-Please purge #25. This obsession is quite enough!
Marcy… thank you for the update…
Finally able to get your book here in Phoenix… every time the bookstores received a shipment, poof they were gone… They had just received a shipment the day I bought the second to the last book and my friend bought the last one.
Watched the hearing through the first time, caught most of it again a second time. You know, watching Toestink the second time was more enjoyable knowing that in the peppered through it were the smackdowns. Think Waxman’s office needs to follow up on perjury to congress investigation …..
Don’t you love the smell of Repugs getting roasted?
LandOfTheFree @ 65
Even people who hang out with rock stars have to wash their clothes and scoop the cat box. Which actually is what I ought to be doing with this beautiful afternoon. Or I should at least make some effort to get outside. It’s lovely here.
Marcy, when you are called by Representative Waxman to help by using facts you have sifted through and seemingly no one else has much bothered with, you might aim for clearing up the serious difference between exposing a covert CIA officer on the spot, with no advance warning to the officer or to the Agency, and that of declassifying in the same way classified material such as the NIE. I cannot fathom that anyone can think there is not a big difference between the two but I can’t see that anyone has made the point.
Hume said Rove’s involvement was limited to his stating to Novak: “I heard that too.” How convenient for Hume to forget the Cooper conversation. I will say the Fox panel in general left the impression that there were serious question yet unanswered about the Adminstrations involvement. But Hume and Kristol were particularly offensive in posturing about things about which they had obviously failed to take the time to inform themselves. Kriston in fact seemed to have that “deer in the headlights” look as he groped to appear relavent.
*ilbo @
75
that was wierd, eh?
Delurking long enough to thank Marcy and tell ET at 67 he’s right, especially the last comment. I was sickened by Clinton’s mishaps in office even though they were of a personal nature and would not even try to defend his tryst. What amazes me is the the lengths the Hume and others will defend the President even though it’s not a personal nature. It actually endangers us all…..
Brit Hume - if you’re lurking - go fuck yourself with Dick Cheney’s shotgun.
ET @ 67….. tell us how you really feel, don’t hold back there…..
Kriston = Kristol
Brit Hume - if you’re lurking - go fuck yourself with Dick Cheney’s shotgun.
I second that emotion!
Oh, I refreshed the whole page to find a new photo taken by Pachacutec in the hearing room!!
Groovy!!
hey fyi - and standing apologies if prev. posted
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) co-chair a meeting on the national security implicatings of disclosing a covert agent’s identity. Former intelligence agents participate in the meeting, co-sponsored by the Sen. Democratic Policy Committee and Democratic members of the Hse. Gov. Reform Comm.
7/22/2005: WASHINGTON, DC: 2 hr. 15 min.: CSPAN3
tbsa @ 84
Bet that would be an instance where Hume would be all for trigger locks….
Thanks Marcy. Am I the only one who thinks the presence of the pink “chick” standing in the back didn’t help promote the gravitas of the hearing ?
Please don’t go all “freedom of expression” on my tail. I’m just sayin’….
One of my favorite parts of the hearing was at the end when cspan let the camera roll on Toensing alone, scared and broken. I hope she is held accountable for her lies that day.
fahrender @ 80
It’s Sunday. Seems I’ll have to vaccum twice as hard.
i was dosing on and off during MTP… was there any mention of the Valerie Plame Hearing? Anything from Timmy?