Bad news for lefties: Plame leak revealed

[enjolras]

Not a political manuever by Bush at all....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/leak.armitage/index.html

[Ninjafied]

For all of Bush’s political problems, of which there are a numerous many, this one doesn’t even show up on the radar.

Plame says her career is ruined (though I'm waiting for the book deal), Joe Wilson’s mostly false version of events has gone to pieces, Novak lost his job and Patrick Fitzgerald looks the fool for extending a criminal investigation for years after the culprit confessed five days into the Department of Justice probe. And at the end of it all, original target Karl Rove walks away clean.
What a waste of time that was.

[gunns]

Gee, the number of scapegoats in the Bush admin is impressive.

Fitzgerald looks the fool? He has a long way to go to surpass Starr.

[BroncoBuff]

Richard Armitage was the deputy Secretary of State under GEORGE BUSH. He is a Republican. So, why is that "bad news for lefties"?

I think what you meant to say/should have said, is "Bad News for Those Prescient Enough to Oppose the Iraq War From the Start," as Armitage and his boss Colin Powell did. And as Conservative icon Pat Buchanan did. There seems little disagreement now (except among those in neurotic denial) that the Iraq war and occupation was/is a VERY BAD idea.

Besides, just like Rove, Libby, Cheney and the rest, Armitage had no "specific intent," (aka "scienter," (sic)) that he was revealing the identity of a covert agent.

Now, I was fair with you Republicans before: Cheney, Rove and Libby (sliminess aside) did not intentionally reveal a covert agent. I'll be fair now too: Neither did Armitage.


.

[BroncoBuff]

Gee, the number of scapegoats in the Bush admin is impressive.

Fitzgerald looks the fool? He has a long way to go to surpass Starr.
Fitzgerald's efficiency and budgetary restraint make Starr look like a junior high civics student with a no-limit "Platinum Taxpayer's Club" Visa card.


.

[Ninjafied]

Fitzgerald looks the fool? He has a long way to go to surpass Starr.

Fitzgerald was solid gold up until this point. Seriously, the guy came off better than Elliot Ness and I believe it was for the right reasons. And then he started following Wilson’s dead leads…
I hate it when gold tarnishes.

OK he didn’t waste as much money as Starr but I’m not comparing him to Starr; that was another era. BTW, Starr won.

[bendog]

Enjrolas, if you'd even bother to read.....

There were actually TWO leaks, that's what Novak was alluding to. Scooter and Rove and Cheney were leaking to destroy the credibility of Wilson. Novak was saying, 'hey, I wasn't part of that, Armitrage and I were just shooting the crap." And, apparantly that's what happened. Armitrage got in no trouble cause he told his boss, Powell, who told Justice. What's got Libby in trouble is lying about him being the source

[Blueflame]

For all of Bush’s political problems, of which there are a numerous many, this one doesn’t even show up on the radar.

Plame says her career is ruined (though I'm waiting for the book deal), Joe Wilson’s mostly false version of events has gone to pieces, Novak lost his job and Patrick Fitzgerald looks the fool for extending a criminal investigation for years after the culprit confessed five days into the Department of Justice probe. And at the end of it all, original target Karl Rove walks away clean.
What a waste of time that was.

What a waste of time it was? ??? Unless I've missed the announcement, Fitzgerald is not yet finished with his investigation and to say that Rove or anyone else involved will "walk away clean" is premature at best.

[bendog]

Blue, imo it's a waste of time. The issue isn't that Plame was outed. The media is avoiding the real question of why Bushii had to discredit Wilson. Wilson's questions about the veracity of the Niger document that served as the basis for Bushii's "mushroom cloud" reference in the SOTU speech prior to the invasion. That document came to the WH from italy directly after Ledeen (one of the named members at the neocon PNAC site) went to italy. Woodward really doesn't have the stones to go after that story, and in reality, no one in America today wants to know that their govt lied them into a war.

We do that again, and all the kids will get on pot and pills and God knows what else. (-:

[BroncoBuff]

Don't argue with him ... Armitage is a REPUBLICAN!

His premise is WRONG! Armitage is not a "lefty," he's just a Republican who was opposed to the Iraq invasion/war/occupation (see post #4, above).

Bush has met the enemy, and the enemy is him.


The idea that anybody "intentionally revealed" a covert agent was discredited months ago.

[Rohirrim]

Blue, imo it's a waste of time. The issue isn't that Plame was outed. The media is avoiding the real question of why Bushii had to discredit Wilson. Wilson's questions about the veracity of the Niger document that served as the basis for Bushii's "mushroom cloud" reference in the SOTU speech prior to the invasion. That document came to the WH from italy directly after Ledeen (one of the named members at the neocon PNAC site) went to italy. Woodward really doesn't have the stones to go after that story, and in reality, no one in America today wants to know that their govt lied them into a war.

We do that again, and all the kids will get on pot and pills and God knows what else. (-:

Yeah, but can we ever again get that good Owlsley acid? I think not. :peace:

[BroncoBuff]

I might've missed the basic thrust of this thread .... yes, it was an "accidental" outing by Armitage, so the theory that Bush & Co. intentionally outed her to discredit Wilson is wrong. But that theory was already discredited by Fitzgerald.

What I was referring to above is that Colin Powell/Richard Armitage are (fairly) vocal critics of the Iraq invasiion/occupation, and both were pushed outta Bush's State Department. Even though they are "Republicans," they belong to a wing of that party that Bush & Co. neocons dislike and call "them." Bush & Co. would've LOVED to leak/announce Armitage as the leakers to point a finger at those who did NOT support the war ... especially during the heated months last fall when Fitzgerald's investigation had them on pins and needles.

This pretty much exonerates Bush, Rove and Cheney of the whole thing, btw. The sound bite of Bushii saying, "if there's a leak in my administration, I want to know about it," is now a true and accurate statement, in that he did not know, and it did not originate in the WH.

WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO: is that Armitage being the leaker is not "bad news for lefties," because he's not a lefty. Sorry for the confusion. Carry on.

[Spider]

Not a political manuever by Bush at all....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/leak.armitage/index.html

how is this bad news ? then the question is what was Armatige doing with this information ? why 2 leaks ?

[Ninjafied]

What a waste of time it was? ??? Unless I've missed the announcement, Fitzgerald is not yet finished with his investigation and to say that Rove or anyone else involved will "walk away clean" is premature at best.

You're right - I should have said, "What a waste of time it is."
What are you going to do when the culprit has confessed?

I'll go back to my original thought:
For all of Bush’s political problems, of which there are a numerous many, this one doesn’t even show up on the radar.

I know that's just opinion, but I'm going with a strong gut feeling on this one.

[bendog]

What's wierd is when a guy like Armitage is 'anti-war.'

http://www.theindyvoice.com/pnac/

I really had thought of him as a pretty right wing arms dealer, but he fell on his sword with Powell after the admin left him hanging in the UN

[BroncoBuff]

how is this bad news ? then the question is what was Armatige doing with this information ? why 2 leaks ?
Armitage leaked it. Rove, Libby, etc... simply "discussed it," as they said they did. Sorry to say, this exonerates Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc...

Can't win 'em all ...

[Ninjafied]

but he fell on his sword with Powell after the admin left him hanging in the UN

That’s the way it works. First it was Teflon Ron, then Latex Willy. Maybe we can come up with something like Stupid Don’t Stick for George.

[Spider]

Armitage leaked it. Rove, Libby, etc... simply "discussed it," as they said they did. Sorry to say, this exonerates Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc...

Can't win 'em all ...
what was Armatige doing with the info on Plame ?

[BroncoBuff]

what was Armatige doing with the info on Plame ?
I think he was just "gossiping," if the talking heads shows are correct. Based on what I've heard and read, he meant no harm. I believe him because he (along with his boss Colin Powell) were against the war from Day One.

But let's be clear: The leak DID come from THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, just not 'the usual suspects' in the WH. It came from State.

[BroncoBuff]

Actually, I find it AMAZING that, in the middle of this MAJOR WASHINGTON SH!T-STORM ... Robert Novak managed to protect his source through thick and thin, while Bush & Co. were taking oin very heavy water and listing badly ... and while Libby was indicted and Rove was nearly fired.

I NEVER thought I'd say this, but: "I have new found respect for Novak."



Wow. Go figure.

[bendog]

what was Armatige doing with the info on Plame ?

NPR had a piece on this last night with a guy whose writing a book. Armitrage supposedly only knew that Plame was some womd anaylist with the CIA, and she was married to Wilson. He got that out of some memo. So Safire comes breezing through - and mentions 'who the heck is this Joe Wilson guy?" Armitrage says, "I dunno, his wife works for the cia and he went over to niger."

Meanwhile, independently, and for different reasons, Rove and Libby are leaking Plame to Judith Miller. Recall they'd used her to bolster the case for womd earlier. What Rove did was tell her 'saddam is trying to get womd.' She says, 'can someone verify that?" Rove, "sure, Chalabi." What's unspoken is that Chalbi was Rove's source. So essentially, they're using Chalabi as a source to confirm what Chalbi said.

The question is why are Rove and Libby trying to discredit Wilson on a personal level rather than with facts of what they knew of Saddams womd programs? The answer, they didn't want the facts to come to light, because they knew their intell was fabricated or in the case of Chalabi suspicious, and their intell was contradicted by the CIA and Later, but before the invasion, by Blix who was actually in Iraq.

[Spider]

mmmmmm .Sounds like a whipping boy ...... take one for the team .... but either way a Republican outed a CIA agent ....... good job guys

[BroncoBuff]

The question is why are Rove and Libby trying to discredit Wilson on a personal level rather than with facts of what they knew of Saddams womd programs? The answer ...........
.......... is as old as politics itself. Alger Hiss, Eugene McCarthy, Edmund Muskie, Thomas Eagleton, Daniel Ellsburg, Ross Perot, Monica Lewinsky, Cindy Sheehan ...

The desire and means to politically "Discredit" don't always center on policy.


.

[enjolras]

Here is a really good breakdown of the whole incident:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=116511

This revelation does make the whole incident seem far less devious than the lefties had been charging. It seems more like a case of opportunism on the administrations part, more than a concerted effort to leak sensitive and classified information.

[bendog]

It's all politics, but you still aren't asking why bushii had to discredit wilson personally and not on the facts of womd. I mean it wasn't a secret to saddam that bushii thought he had womd. It's not like we had a spy in Iraq who needed protecting. It's rather obvious bushii didn't know ****e about what was actually happening in iraq

[Blueflame]

Blue, imo it's a waste of time. The issue isn't that Plame was outed. The media is avoiding the real question of why Bushii had to discredit Wilson. Wilson's questions about the veracity of the Niger document that served as the basis for Bushii's "mushroom cloud" reference in the SOTU speech prior to the invasion. That document came to the WH from italy directly after Ledeen (one of the named members at the neocon PNAC site) went to italy. Woodward really doesn't have the stones to go after that story, and in reality, no one in America today wants to know that their govt lied them into a war.

We do that again, and all the kids will get on pot and pills and God knows what else. (-:

That is a good question, Bendog... the fact is that in order to sell the American public on war with Iraq...which Bush (and the PNAC) was always determined to do... he needed people to believe in the forged Niger document.

[Blueflame]

You're right - I should have said, "What a waste of time it is."
What are you going to do when the culprit has confessed?

I'll go back to my original thought:
For all of Bush’s political problems, of which there are a numerous many, this one doesn’t even show up on the radar.

I know that's just opinion, but I'm going with a strong gut feeling on this one.

If Fitzgerald is continuing with his investigation, then it would seem to me that he doesn't believe it is over yet.

This issue may not be the largest of Bush's political problems, but it is interconnected to the largest one, imho... the lies that took us into the Iraq war.

[W*GS]

.......... is as old as politics itself. Alger Hiss, Eugene McCarthy, Edmund Muskie, Thomas Eagleton, Daniel Ellsburg, Ross Perot, Monica Lewinsky, Cindy Sheehan ...

Alger Hiss was indeed a Commie spy.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Don't argue with him ... Armitage is a REPUBLICAN!

His premise is WRONG! Armitage is not a "lefty," he's just a Republican who was opposed to the Iraq invasion/war/occupation (see post #4, above).



Bingo.

The guy who started this thread is just another neocon spin jobber.

[BroncoBuff]

Alger Hiss was indeed a Commie spy.

Maybe ... but the hard evidence was VERY thin ... innuendo and personal attacks won the day. In the end, I think he was convicted of perjury only ...


,

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The CIA Leak Case: On Bob Novak, The Washington Post, and the winds of war

Brent Budowsky

With the latest "news" on this case, several points should be clearly understood at the outset. First, Dick Armitage's role was widely and publicly discussed as early as March, and second, Dick Armitage clearly screwed up but was NOT the original source of the leak. While he does share moral culpability, the driving force behind the leak came from the neocon and partisan wings of the White House.

It is their spin, and nothing more, to try to defend themselves by shifting blame to the anti-Iraq war Armitage, and to the anti-Iraq war State Department, who they believe "needs an American desk." If Armitage never existed the leaks would have happened exactly the same way. If the White House-neocon axis never existed the leaks would never have happened. Whatever the shortcomings of Armitage and State, the real culpability for the identity disclosures reside elsewhere and progressives should be very careful to avoid unknowingly pushing the neocon line.

This whole episode of a political vendetta that involved distorting the debate about WMD in Iraq and naming intelligence identities is the single most shameful, unpatriotic, and totally dishonorable business that I have seen from the moment I first set foot in Washington.

And let me disclose my one and only bias: to protect the men and women who serve our country courageously and covertly, and the men and women of foreign nations who help our country courageously and covertly.

I was in the core group of writers of the CIA Identities Bill from the beginning, working for its original sponsor, Senator Bentsen. I was sufficiently involved to have been commended at the level of Director of Central Intelligence. There were many others involved in this law, from both parties. I only state my history to make it clear that my views on this are not stated casually, offered politically or arrived at recently.

I know a lot about the covert business on both the policy and operational sides and this whole business of "naming names" is sickening, nauseating and the ultimate symbol of how far Washington under George Bush has come from what used to be the nonpartisan treatment of intelligence and the traditional standards of honor.

I have always refused to comment, even in off the record conversations with journalists, on the legal guilt or innocence of any party in this case. That is a decision by the legal system, without trial by media, and without trial by partisans. But this matter affects the core of our national security, the heart of our decision- making process about going to war, and the soul of our spirit of patriotism and honor that should rule out public disclosure of intelligence identities by any person, for any reason, ever.

The same people most responsible for peddling Plames name were the same people peddling WMD stories to Judy Miller and others.

Sadly, shamefully, the issue lives. We now have the House Intelligence Committee issuing a public report attacking Iran-related intel that is clearly designed to bang the war drums for an attack on Iran, and to politicize intelligence for ideology and partisanship yet again. We almost certainly do have shortcomings about intelligence from Iran, in part caused by the very people who try to manipulate the issue, in part caused by events and mistakes, but this should be used and abused to push yet another rush, to another unwise war.

One point that the neoconservatives and the partisan right has never understood is this: when they say don't negotiate with this country or that country, don't do business with this country or that country, the result is that major intelligence dries up. That's how it works. On a country by country basis, sometimes it is best to negotiate, or not; to trade, or not. But the way intelligence works, much intelligence comes directly or indirectly from the processes and people of diplomacy and world trade.

It is disingenuous or dishonest for some to say we should go to war with everyone, negotiate with no one, have sanctions against everyone, and then attack the intelligence loss from their very obsessive policies. And I would repeat my point that those who are universally hostile to diplomacy and universally favorable to war should be asked: where will you get the troops, and do you favor a return to the draft?

All of the pressures, distortions, politicization of intelligence cannot hide or mask this matter, as we witness today in Iraq, while the drums of war are being banged again by those who know little about how to fight wars, how to win wars, or how to exit the wars they rush into.

They never learn. They should be respecting, not demeaning, the advice of our military commanders. They should be improving and analyzing the product of intelligence, not twisting or distorting it, to push a predetermined policy for yet another war.

This business about leaking identities is not only about partisan and political vendettas. It is about how and when we go to war, how and when we should not go to war, and why it is so fundamentally important that intelligence should be based on facts and truth, and not twisted and distorted for the ideology of going to war, or the partisanship of exploiting war.

What went wrong in Iraq, is that the democratic process of making the decision to wage war was corrupted and warped from the beginning.

There is plenty to blame to be apportioned, on all sides, for that. It is not partisan. The issue for us, today, is that we not repeat these corruptions again. Intelligence must be returned to its pre-Bush nonpartisanship. Intelligence must be used objectively, to help us achieve the most acceptable outcome in Iraq, and to avoid repeating the fiasco elsewhere.

In my view, whatever the legalities, there is a special place in hell on this issue for Bob Novak, who named the name, and for the Washington Post Editorial Page, which then published the name, and for Bob Woodward, who attacked the prosecutor without disclosing to his readers or the nation his private interest in the case. Though I will give Woodward credit for this: he never published the Plame story, and neither did Judy Miller, by the way.

This whole episode demonstrates how far from traditional moral and patriotic bearing Washington has come, during what historians will call, not fondly, the Bush years. In this environment anything goes, and insiders, surrounded by courtiers, substitute politics and spin for honesty and truth even on the matter of going to war.

Whatever the legal outcome, on fundamental issues of patriotism, morality and honor there is a higher standard for those of us who know how the real world works, on these matters.

Bob Novak is a smart guy who has been around this town for decades. The Washington Post is the paper of record for the national security establishment in Washington and knows exactly how real world intelligence works. These are people who chortled when Bill Clinton defined what is, is, and now they chortle playing word games with what "covert" is.

Without getting into details, right now, today, as you read these words there are brave and courageous Americans working under cover, risking their lives, often giving their lives, to defend our security. Right now, today, as you read these words there are brave and equally courageous foreigners working with our people, some for ulterior motives, others are authentic freedom and democracy fighters in their native lands.

Intelligence can help us avoid wars; intelligence can help us minimize casualties of wars; and intelligence can help us avoid obsessive and disastrously planned wars. Had this been applied before Iraq, we would not be in the mess. If this is applied going forward, we can avoid a future mess at a time when some seem to want war, everywhere.

When any identity is published, by any party, for any reason, at any time, every single one of them is disserved. The message goes out, we cannot be trusted with secrets. Some new information goes out, which can be traced back to our people, or our friends. Our communities are endangered and the terrorists and hostile governments are helped.

The same people who bang the drums of war the loudest, are helping our enemies, by disclosing names. They are hurting our troops, by distorting our intelligence that is so essential to knowing when to wage war and how to wage it, when we must, and why to avoid it, when we can.

Let the courts decide the law, but those who do these dirty deeds deserve a special place in hell, and those who never risked their lives for our country themselves, and endanger the lives of covert people who risk their lives every day, and endanger the lives of troops who go to war with politically distorted intelligence, deserve the hottest place of all.

Let the courts decide the law, but I guarantee that when the sun has set on the Administration now in power, those who did these dirty deeds will be indicted by the court of history, while others will have to clean up the mess they leave.

[W*GS]

Maybe ... but the hard evidence was VERY thin ... innuendo and personal attacks won the day. In the end, I think he was convicted of perjury only ...

The release of records from the Soviet era by Russia proved every one of Whittaker Chambers' statements about Hiss.

[bendog]

Hiss was indeed a spy.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/hissvenona.html

As were the rosenbergs.

[bendog]

I might've missed the basic thrust of this thread .... yes, it was an "accidental" outing by Armitage, so the theory that Bush & Co. intentionally outed her to discredit Wilson is wrong. But that theory was already discredited by Fitzgerald.

What I was referring to above is that Colin Powell/Richard Armitage are (fairly) vocal critics of the Iraq invasiion/occupation, and both were pushed outta Bush's State Department. Even though they are "Republicans," they belong to a wing of that party that Bush & Co. neocons dislike and call "them." Bush & Co. would've LOVED to leak/announce Armitage as the leakers to point a finger at those who did NOT support the war ... especially during the heated months last fall when Fitzgerald's investigation had them on pins and needles.

This pretty much exonerates Bush, Rove and Cheney of the whole thing, btw. The sound bite of Bushii saying, "if there's a leak in my administration, I want to know about it," is now a true and accurate statement, in that he did not know, and it did not originate in the WH.

WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO: is that Armitage being the leaker is not "bad news for lefties," because he's not a lefty. Sorry for the confusion. Carry on.

You're missing something. There were TWO leaks. Neither was aware of the other. rove/libby/cheney were leaking plame to Miller and Cooper, to whom they'd also leaked "evidence" of womd previously. The important question there is why were they leaking?

Armitrage didn't know he was leaking. Novak had read wilson's column, and just said "wtf is THIS guy." Armitrage just told him what he knew - "he's some kind of ambassodor guy who got sent over to Nigeria to look for the yellow cake, and his wife works in womd for the cia." Armitrage had no reason to know any of that was classified or that Plame may have been "covert."

Libby "probably" isn't guilty of leaking classified info. Probably, Bushii had the legal authority to declassify on the fly, and presumably cheney will testify bushii gave him the authority, and he directed Libby to contact Miller and Cooper.

However, Libby is charged with perjury, not leaking.

(of course to this day, I don't see how WJC committed 'perjury' as my wife's divorce lawyer and people lie worse to her every damn day, but that's another story)

So, aside from the question of why bushii had to personally destroy wilson and plame, rather than just put forth the facts of womd, the story is meaningless and political bs.

[epicSocialism4tw]

More evidence pointing to the media's blatant political partisanship.

What a joke. Liberals better turn this into another conspiracy theory quickly before you start doubting whether or not your party offers anything at all outside of american self-loathing.

[Spider]

More evidence pointing to the media's blatant political partisanship.

What a joke. Liberals better turn this into another conspiracy theory quickly before you start doubting whether or not your party offers anything at all outside of american self-loathing.

Did you take your meds this morning ?

[Barry Ramey]

Plame was a nonstory. Working a desk job in the CIA does not make one a covert agent. Joe Wilson wanted his 15 minutes of fame and used his wife to get it. He even contradicted his own "findings" in Niger in the Senate Commitee hearings that member Pat Roberts considered him a liar or didn't know what he's talking about. Joe Wilson and his wife have been on magazine covers and pushing books and Wilson's own bio listed who his wife was long before any of this story came out, all the while claiming to worry about her identity coming out. Like anyone really cared who she was, except for Armitage, known as a DC gossip. For anyone to think these two have any credibility is ridiculous! Joe Wilson can't even keep his story straight on who sent him to Niger and you'd think that couldn't be a hard thing to do if had a legit story. He doesn't even know exactly who signed off him going to Africa? Please. Too many lefties enjoy being tools by the media and letting the media tell them what to think, no matter how stupid it sounds. Next, let's go back to "duh, Bush had the WTC blown up on purpose."

[Rohirrim]

Plame was a nonstory. Working a desk job in the CIA does not make one a covert agent. Joe Wilson wanted his 15 minutes of fame and used his wife to get it. He even contradicted his own "findings" in Niger in the Senate Commitee hearings that member Pat Roberts considered him a liar or didn't know what he's talking about. Joe Wilson and his wife have been on magazine covers and pushing books and Wilson's own bio listed who his wife was long before any of this story came out, all the while claiming to worry about her identity coming out. Like anyone really cared who she was, except for Armitage, known as a DC gossip. For anyone to think these two have any credibility is ridiculous! Joe Wilson can't even keep his story straight on who sent him to Niger and you'd think that couldn't be a hard thing to do if had a legit story. He doesn't even know exactly who signed off him going to Africa? Please. Too many lefties enjoy being tools by the media and letting the media tell them what to think, no matter how stupid it sounds. Next, let's go back to "duh, Bush had the WTC blown up on purpose."

Do you mean that Saddam actually did get some yellow cake uranium from Niger?

[bendog]

So, Barry, I hear they finally found those womd. I guess bush wasn't lying.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060831/lf_nm/usa_arms_chemical_dc_3

[Spider]

So, Barry, I hear they finally found those womd. I guess bush wasn't lying.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060831/lf_nm/usa_arms_chemical_dc_3

of course they found the WMD .......... they was right there the whole time

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Plame was a nonstory. Working a desk job in the CIA does not make one a covert agent.

:stupid:

The CIA itself asked for the investigation, genius.

Do you really think the CIA doesn't know who its own covert ops are?

Better yet, do you really think the prosecutor would spend 3 years pursuing the case if Plame wasn't a covert op?

[SteveTensi13]

Everyone in DC knew Plame was with the CIA. Her own husband would go to elitist cocktail parties introducing her as his "CIA wife". This is no where near a scandal, all that happened was a potential enemy informant was "outed".

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Everyone in DC knew Plame was with the CIA. Her own husband would go to elitist cocktail parties introducing her as his "CIA wife".

:bs:

Pure Oxycontin Boy nonsense.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=1613&type=sigpic&dateline=1157095337


Sell stinger missles to our enemy (Iran) to bankroll an illegal, clandestine war in Central America.

Create enormous deficits and leave the country drowning in a sea of red ink.

Squander what was probably America's last chance to move toward energy independence/break our addiction to oil.

To name just a few crooked and dumb things...

[Barry Ramey]

Oh, here's an interesting editorial and interesting tidbit in it:

"Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials."


End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.


Friday, September 1, 2006; A20

WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey
Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html
<!-- start the copyright for the articles -->

[bendog]

What was Libby and Rove's intent? Why'd they out her?

[defenseman]

Bingo.

The guy who started this thread is just another neocon spin jobber.

Kind of like all your threads being a "lefty" spin jobber. I guess we can all discount your threads to boot. Fair enough...dman

[bendog]

I have differences with LABF, but not because he's either mis-informed or disengenuous. I think this thread is based on the latter.

[errand]

Armitage leaked it. Rove, Libby, etc... simply "discussed it," as they said they did. Sorry to say, this exonerates Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc...

Can't win 'em all ...

The damage is still done....

I'm pretty sure if you took a poll, half of those responding would say that they belived it was Bush, Cheney or Rove despite the truth coming out.

What's odd is Fitzgerald had the truth within a week of starting his 'investigation"...and still chose to go after innocent people.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Kind of like all your threads being a "lefty" spin jobber. I guess we can all discount your threads to boot. Fair enough...dman

Is this sort of "I am rubber - you are glue" (applicable or not) "argument" the best you can do?

Nevermind - I forgot who I was dealing with for a second.

At any rate, the stuff your fellow Bush flank protectors have been posting on this thread, i.e., about Armitage, etc., is nothing but spin and more WH CYA.

With the latest "news" on this case, several points should be clearly understood at the outset. First, Dick Armitage's role was widely and publicly discussed as early as March, and second, Dick Armitage clearly screwed up but was NOT the original source of the leak. While he does share moral culpability, the driving force behind the leak came from the neocon and partisan wings of the White House.

It is their spin, and nothing more, to try to defend themselves by shifting blame to the anti-Iraq war Armitage, and to the anti-Iraq war State Department, who they believe "needs an American desk." If Armitage never existed the leaks would have happened exactly the same way. If the White House-neocon axis never existed the leaks would never have happened. Whatever the shortcomings of Armitage and State, the real culpability for the identity disclosures reside elsewhere and progressives should be very careful to avoid unknowingly pushing the neocon line.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Smearing Joe Wilson, again

In a world that wasn't upside-down, the editorial page of Washington's biggest newspaper might praise a whistleblower like former Ambassador Joseph Wilson for alerting the American people to a government deception that helped lead the country into a disastrous war that has killed 2,627 U.S. soldiers.

The editorial page also might demand that every senior administration officials who sought to protect that deception by leaking the identity of a covert CIA officer (Wilson's wife) be held accountable, at minimum stripped of their security clearances and fired from government.

But the United States, circa 2006, is an upside-down world. So the Washington Post's editorial page instead makes excuses for the government deceivers, treats their exposure of the CIA officer as justifiable - and attacks the whistleblower by recycling the government's false spin points against him.

If future historians wonder how the United States could have blundered so catastrophically into Iraq under false pretenses and why so few establishment figures dared to speak out, the historians might read the sorry pattern of the Post's editorial-page attacks on those who did dissent.

Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, who fell for virtually every Iraq War deception that the Bush administration could dream up, is back assaulting former Ambassador Wilson, again, in a Sept. 1 editorial, falsely accusing Wilson of lying and concluding that "it's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."

In the view of the Post's editorial page, Wilson's chief offense appears to be that he went public in July 2003 with a firsthand account of a fact-finding trip that he took in early 2002. At the CIA's request, he traveled to the African nation of Niger to check out a report alleging that Iraq was trying to obtain yellowcake uranium, presumably for a nuclear bomb.

The yellowcake allegations had attracted Vice President Dick Cheney's attention because, in 2002, the Bush administration was trying to build a case to justify invading Iraq. But Wilson found no hard evidence to support the suspicion that Iraq had tried to obtain any uranium ore - and U.S. intelligence subsequently agreed that the claim was a fraud.

Government Lies

Nevertheless, President George W. Bush cited the claim of Iraq's supposed attempt to procure the yellowcake during his State of the Union Address in January 2003. The next week, on Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell made his famously bogus presentation to the United Nations accusing Iraq of hiding vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (though Powell knew well enough to leave out the yellowcake canard).

The next day, Hiatt's pro-war editorial page hailed Powell's evidence as "irrefutable" and chastised any remaining skeptics. "It is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction," the editorial said.

Hiatt's judgment was echoed across the Post's Op-Ed page, with Post columnists from Right to Left presenting a solid wall of misguided consensus. [Washington Post, Feb. 6, 2003]

But the Post's gullibility about Powell's testimony wasn't a one-day aberration. As a study by Columbia University journalism professor Todd Gitlin noted, "The [Post] editorials during December [2002] and January [2003] numbered nine, and all were hawkish." [American Prospect, April 1, 2003]

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the failure to discover evidence supporting the administration's pre-war WMD claims, Hiatt acknowledged that the Post should have been more circumspect.

"If you look at the editorials we write running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Hussein] has weapons of mass destruction," Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review. "If that's not true, it would have been better not to say it." [CJR,March/April 2004]

But Hiatt's supposed remorse didn't stop him and the Post editorial page from continuing their attacks on Bush's critics, from Democrats who showed insufficient enthusiasm when Hiatt was detecting war progress in 2005 to retired generals who challenged the war strategy in 2006. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Shame on the Post's Editorial Page."]

Gullibility

While some Americans might still think that a major newspaper would want to know the truth, the Post's hierarchy has behaved with petulance whenever evidence has emerged that reveals the depths of the Bush administration's deceptions - and the extent of the Post's gullibility.

For instance, in 2005, when secret documents were disclosed in Great Britain describing Bush's efforts in 2002 to "fix" the Iraq WMD intelligence to justify the war, the Post first ignored the so-called "Downing Street Memo" and then disparaged those who considered this powerful evidence of Bush's deceptions important.

On June 15, 2005, the Post's lead editorial asserted that "the memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's prewar deliberations. Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002."

But Hiatt's assessment simply wasn't correct. Looking back to 2002 and early 2003, it would be hard to find any "reputable" commentary in the mainstream U.S. press calling Bush's actions fraudulent, which is what the "Downing Street Memo" and other British evidence have since revealed them to be.

The British documents prove that much of the pre-war debate inside the U.S. and British governments was how best to manipulate public opinion by playing games with the intelligence. If that reality "was publicly known" before the war, why hadn't the Post reported it and why did its editorials continue to parrot the administration's lies and distortions?

Yet despite this disturbing record of the Post's credulity (if not outright dishonesty), Hiatt has published yet another editorial concentrating his ugliest attacks not against the administration for misleading the nation to war or against the failure of officials (like Powell) to express their misgivings in a timely fashion, but against Joe Wilson.

The context of this latest broadside is a recent published report asserting that former deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the first administration official to leak to right-wing columnist Robert Novak that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA officer and that she had played a small role in Wilson's Niger trip.

Because Armitage was a reluctant supporter of the Iraq War, the Post editorial then jumps to the conclusion that "it follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House - that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity - is untrue."

But does it lead to that conclusion? Just because Armitage may have blurted out this classified information to Novak supposedly as gossip, that doesn't mean that there was no parallel White House operation to peddle Plame's identity to reporters as retaliation.

In fact, evidence uncovered by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald supports a conclusion that White House officials, under the direction of Vice President Cheney and including Cheney aide Lewis Libby and Bush political adviser Karl Rove, approached a number of reporters with this information.

Indeed, Rove, who remains in Bush's inner circle and presumably still sees secret information, appears to have confirmed Plame's identity for Novak and leaked the information to Time magazine's Matthew Cooper. Meanwhile, Libby, who has been indicted on perjury and obstruction charges, pitched the information to the New York Times' Judith Miller.

Blaming the Victim

The Post's editorial does acknowledge that Libby and other White House officials are not "blameless," since they allegedly released Plame's identity while "trying to discredit Mr. Wilson." But the Post reserves its harshest condemnation for Wilson, blaming his criticism of Bush's false State of the Union claim for Plame's exposure.

"It now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson," the editorial said. "Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming - falsely, as it turned out - that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.

"He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."

The Post's editorial, however, is at best an argumentative smear and most likely a willful lie. Along with other government investigators, Wilson did debunk the reports of Iraq acquiring yellowcake in Niger and those findings did circulate to senior levels, explaining why CIA Director George Tenet struck the yellowcake claims from other Bush speeches.

(The Post's accusation about Wilson "falsely" claiming to have debunked the yellowcake reports apparently is based on Wilson's inclusion in his report of speculation from one Niger official who suspected that Iraq might be interested in buying yellowcake, although the Iraqi officials never mentioned yellowcake and made no effort to buy any. This irrelevant point has been a centerpiece of Republican attacks on Wilson and is now being recycled by the Washington Post.)

Hiatt also is absolving the White House, Novak and implicitly himself (since he published Novak's column revealing Plame's identity) from responsibility for protecting the identity of an undercover CIA officer and her spy network. Plame's operation was then focused on Iran's WMD programs including its alleged nuclear ambitions.

Contrary to the Post's assertion that Wilson "ought to have expected" that the White House and Novak would zero in on Wilson's wife, a reasonable expectation in a normal world would have been just the opposite.

Even amid the ugly partisanship of today's Washington, it was shocking to many longtime observers of government that any administration official or an experienced journalist would disclose the name of a covert CIA officer for such a flimsy reason as trying to discredit her husband.

Only in this upside-down world would a major newspaper be so irresponsible and so dishonest as to lay off the blame for exposing a CIA officer on her husband because he dared criticize lies told by the President of the United States, deceptions that have led the nation into a military debacle.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/090106.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How Obtuse Is the U.S. Press?

(Or the guy who started this thread?)

In the movie “Shawshank Redemption,” the wrongly convicted Andy Dufrense (Tim Robbins) gets frustrated when the corrupt prison warden blocks Dufrense’s chance to prove his innocence. “How can you be so obtuse?” Dufrense asks.

The same question could be addressed today to Washington journalists who are falling over themselves to absolve George W. Bush’s White House of any serious wrongdoing in the three-year-old assault on former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson and the outing of his CIA officer wife, Valerie Plame.

This new backlash against those who challenged the White House on the Plame case follows disclosure that one of the sources for Robert Novak’s July 14, 2003, column, which blew Plame’s cover, was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who was not considered a close White House ally.

In a Sept. 2 front-page story, the New York Times reacted to this news by suggesting that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had been overzealous in pursuing the Plame investigation for more than two years, since Armitage had testified early on that he apparently was Novak’s principal source on Plame. [NYT, Sept. 2, 2006]

The Times article came on the heels of a scathing editorial by the Washington Post putting the primary blame for the exposure of Plame on her husband, Joseph Wilson, because in July 2003, he went public with the findings of his 2002 CIA-organized trip to Niger which helped debunk the false pre-Iraq War claim that Iraq had sought yellowcake uranium from Africa.

“He [Wilson] ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife,” the Post editorial said.

The Post also argued that since Armitage was a reluctant supporter of the Iraq War, “it follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House – that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity – is untrue.” [Washington Post, Sept. 1, 2006]

[b]How Obtuse?

But – as with the corrupt prison warden in “Shawshank Redemption” – it’s hard to believe that national journalists could be this obtuse.

As we explain below, the evidence is overwhelming that the White House assault on Wilson was planned weeks before he published an Op-Ed on July 6, 2003, accusing Bush of twisting the yellowcake claim – and that Bush’s operatives responded by pointing journalists toward Plame’s identity.

Indeed, the available evidence doesn’t even fully support the contention that Novak first learned about Plame from his interview with Armitage on July 8, 2003. According to the Times’ own reporting, Novak apparently had been primed to ask a question on this topic.

The Times buries this crucial point in its Sept. 2 story that questions whether Fitzgerald “properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion.” In the last sentence of the 17th paragraph, the Times reports that Armitage disclosed Plame’s possible role in arranging Wilson’s Niger trip “in reply to a question.”

In other words, Armitage didn’t just toss out Plame’s CIA connection as “gossip,” as the Post editorial assumes. He apparently mentioned it in response to Novak’s question about how the Niger trip had been arranged, which begs the additional question of who might have suggested that Novak ask that.

The distinction is important because other evidence indicates that Bush’s aides were pushing reporters to ask about the circumstances behind the Niger trip, knowing that line of questioning would lead to Plame’s identity.

For instance, Time magazine correspondent John Dickerson, who accompanied a presidential trip to Africa shortly after Wilson’s article was published, said he was twice urged to pursue the seemingly insignificant question of who had been involved in arranging Wilson’s trip.

Revenge

As the President toured Africa in July 2003, questions about Wilson’s article dominated the trip, prompting White House spokesman Ari Fleischer to finally concede that the yellowcake allegation was “incorrect” and should not have been included in the State of the Union speech in January 2003.

The mistake represented one of the first times the Bush administration had retreated on any national security issue. Administration officials were embarrassed, livid and determined to punish Wilson.

On July 11, 2003, CIA Director George Tenet took the fall for the State of the Union screw-up, apologizing for not better vetting the speech. “This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches,” Tenet said.

That same day, however, as Bush was finishing a meeting with the president of Uganda, Dickerson said he was chatting with a “senior administration official” who was tearing down Wilson and disparaging Wilson’s Niger investigation.

The message to Dickerson was that “some low-level person at the CIA was responsible for the mission” and that Dickerson “should go ask the CIA who sent Wilson.”

Later, Dickerson discussed Wilson with a second “senior administration official” and got the same advice: “This official also pointed out a few times that Wilson had been sent by a low-level CIA employee and encouraged me to follow that angle,” Dickerson recalled.

“At the end of the two conversations I wrote down in my notebook: ‘look who sent.’ … What struck me was how hard both officials were working to knock down Wilson. Discrediting your opposition is a standard tactic in Washington, but the Bush team usually played the game differently. At that stage in the first term, Bush aides usually blew off their critics. Or, they continued to assert their set of facts in the hope of overcoming criticism by force of repetition.” ” [See Dickerson’s article, “Where’s My Subpoena?” for Slate, Feb. 7, 2006]

Back in Washington on July 11, 2003, Dickerson’s Time colleague, Matthew Cooper, was getting a similar earful from Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove, who tried to steer Cooper away from Wilson’s information and added that the Niger trip was authorized by “Wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency [CIA] on WMD issues,” according to Cooper’s notes of the interview. [See Newsweek, July 18, 2005, issue]

Cooper later got the information about Wilson’s wife confirmed by Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis Libby, who had been peddling the information even before Cooper’s phone call. Libby had been brought into the get-Wilson cabal in June 2003 when the White House got wind that Wilson might present a problem.

Counterattack

By spring 2003, Wilson had begun talking privately to journalists about his Niger findings and criticizing the administration for hyping the WMD intelligence. Behind the scenes, the White House began to hit back, collecting information about Wilson and his fact-finding trip.

In his memoir, The Politics of Truth, Wilson cited sources as saying that a meeting in the Vice President’s office led to a decision “to produce a workup” to discredit Wilson.

Libby then asked Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, a neoconservative ally in the State Department, to prepare a memo on Wilson. Dated June 10, 2003, the memo referred to “Valerie Plame” as Wilson’s wife. [NYT, July 16, 2005]

CIA Director George Tenet also divulged to Cheney that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and had a hand in arranging Wilson’s trip to Niger – information that Cheney then passed on to Libby in a conversation on June 12, 2003, according to Libby’s notes as described by lawyers in the case. [NYT, Oct. 25, 2005]

Those two facts – Plame’s work for the CIA and her minor role in Wilson’s Niger trip (which was approved and arranged at higher levels of the CIA) – were transformed into key attack points against Wilson.

On June 23, 2003, still two weeks before Wilson’s Op-Ed, Libby briefed New York Times reporter Judith Miller about Wilson and may then have passed on the tip that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. But the anti-Wilson campaign gained new urgency when the ex-ambassador penned his Op-Ed piece in the New York Times on July 6, 2003.

As Cheney read Wilson’s article, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” the Vice President scribbled down questions he wanted pursued. “Have they [CIA officials] done this sort of thing before?” Cheney wrote. “Send an Amb[assador] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?”

Though Cheney did not write down Plame’s name, his questions indicated that he was aware that she worked for the CIA and was in a position (dealing with WMD issues) to have a hand in her husband’s assignment to check out the Niger reports. [Cheney’s notations were disclosed in a May 12, 2006, court filing by special prosecutor Fitzgerald.]

On that morning of July 6, 2003, Wilson appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to elaborate on the yellowcake dispute. Later that day, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage called Carl W. Ford Jr., the assistant secretary for intelligence and research, at home and asked him to send a copy of Grossman’s memo to Secretary of State Colin Powell, according to a former State Department official interviewed by the New York Times.

Since Powell was preparing to leave with Bush on the state visit to Africa, Ford forwarded Grossman’s memo to the White House for delivery to Powell, the former official told the Times. [NYT, July 16, 2005]

The next day, when Bush left for Africa, Powell was carrying the memo containing the information about Plame’s work for the CIA and other details about the yellowcake dispute, the Washington Post reported.

Pressing the Press

On July 8, 2003, two days after Wilson’s article, Libby gave Judith Miller more details about the Wilsons. Cheney’s chief of staff said Wilson’s wife worked at a CIA unit responsible for weapons intelligence and non-proliferation. It was in the context of that interview, that Miller wrote down the words “Valerie Flame,” an apparent misspelling of Mrs. Wilson’s maiden name. [NYT, Oct. 16, 2005]

On that same day, Novak elicited information from Armitage about the role of Wilson’s wife in arranging the Niger trip. According to the Sept. 2, 2006, story in the New York Times, “Armitage said in reply to a question that Ms. Wilson might have had a role in arranging her husband’s trip to Niger.”

On July 12, 2003, in a telephone conversation, Miller and Libby returned to the Wilson topic. Miller’s notes contain a reference to a “Victoria Wilson,” another misspelled reference to Wilson’s wife. [NYT, Oct. 16, 2005]

Two days later, on July 14, 2003, Novak – having gotten confirmation about Plame’s identity from Karl Rove – published a column, citing two administration sources outing Plame as a CIA officer and portraying Wilson’s Niger trip as a case of nepotism.

But the White House counterattack had only just begun. On July 20, 2003, NBC’s correspondent Andrea Mitchell told Wilson that “senior White House sources” had called her to stress “the real story here is not the 16 words [from Bush’s State of the Union speech] but Wilson and his wife.”

The next day, Wilson said he was told by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that “I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He says and I quote, ‘Wilson’s wife is fair game.’”

When Newsday spoke with Novak – before he decided to clam up – Novak said he had been approached by the sources with the information about Plame. “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me,” Novak said. “They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.” [Newsday, July 22, 2003]

That account from Novak clashes with the version cited by the Washington Post editorial of Sept. 1, 2006, which describes the Plame disclosure as reportedly passed along “in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip.” Novak’s account to Newsday only a week after his infamous column would seem to fit better with a scenario in which Bush’s aides had prepped Novak on what to ask Armitage or in which Armitage was part of the anti-Wilson cabal.

Cover-up

On July 22, 2003, the White House began shifting into cover-up mode. Bush’s spokesman Scott McClellan denied any White House role in the Plame leak. “I’m telling you flatly that that is not the way this White House operates,” McClellan told reporters.

Privately, however, some administration officials acknowledged that the Plame disclosure was an act of retaliation against Wilson for being one of the first mainstream public figures to challenge Bush on the WMD intelligence.

In September 2003, a White House official told the Washington Post that at least six reporters had been informed about Plame before Novak’s column. The official said the disclosure was “purely and simply out of revenge.”

Novak’s article indeed did destroy Plame’s career as a CIA officer and exposed her network of operatives who had been investigating Iran’s nuclear program. A CIA complaint to the Justice Department prompted an inquiry into the illegal exposure of a CIA officer.

Initially, when the investigation was still under the direct control of Attorney General John Ashcroft, Bush and other White House officials continued to deny any knowledge about the leak. Bush said he wanted to get to the bottom of the matter.

“If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” Bush said on Sept. 30, 2003. “I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true.”

Yet, even as Bush was professing his curiosity and calling for anyone with information to step forward, he was withholding the fact that he had authorized the declassification of some secrets about the Niger uranium issue and had ordered Cheney to slip those selected secrets to reporters to undercut Wilson.

In other words, though Bush knew a great deal about how the anti-Wilson scheme got started – since he was involved in starting it – he uttered misleading public statements to conceal the White House role and possibly to signal to others that they should follow suit in denying knowledge.

Partial Exposure

The cover-up might have worked, except in late 2003, Ashcroft recused himself because of a conflict of interest, and Fitzgerald – the U.S. Attorney in Chicago – was named as the special prosecutor. Fitzgerald pursued the investigation far more aggressively, even coercing journalists to testify about the White House leaks.

On Oct. 28, 2005, Fitzgerald indicted Libby on five counts of perjury, lying to investigators and obstruction of justice. In a court filing on April 5, 2006, Fitzgerald added that his investigation had uncovered government documents that “could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson” because of his criticism of the administration’s handling of the Niger evidence.

Beyond the Plame leak, the White House also oversaw a public-relations strategy to denigrate Wilson. The Republican National Committee put out talking points ridiculing Wilson, and the Republican-run Senate Intelligence Committee made misleading claims about his honesty in a WMD report.

Rather than thank Wilson for undertaking a difficult fact-finding trip to Niger for no pay – and for reporting accurately about the dubious Iraq-Niger claims – the Bush administration sought to smear the former ambassador.

The Republican National Committee even posted an article entitled “Joe Wilson’s Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies and Misstatements,” which itself used glaring inaccuracies and misstatements to discredit Wilson. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Novak Recycles Gannon on ‘Plame-gate.’”] Meanwhile, with her undercover work destroyed, Plame quit the CIA.

Now, based on a new report about Armitage’s role in leaking Plame’s identity, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other leading U.S. news organizations are joining in a new campaign to disparage those who harbored suspicions about the Bush administration’s actions – from special prosecutor Fitzgerald to former Ambassador Wilson.

For these national journalists who act as if they are oblivious to all the evidence of a long-running White House smear campaign and cover-up, it might be time to pose the “Shawshank Redemption” question: “How can you be so obtuse?”

Of course, in the movie, the warden really wasn’t “obtuse.” He just wanted to keep benefiting from Dufrense’s financial skills and, most importantly, to protect his corrupt schemes. The motives of the Washington news media may be more of a mystery.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/090206.html

[Barry Ramey]

From the Libertarian Neal Boortz(who was was a liberal until he woke up or grew up.)


PLAME AFFAIR OFFICIALLY OVER

http://boortz.com/images/richard_armitage_melon.jpgNow that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has officially come out and said he was the one who outed Valerie Plame (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Sep08/0,4670,CIALeakArmitage,00.html) to Robert Novak, the Valerie Plame (non) affair has come to a close. And true to form, the mainstream media isn't making much of the revelation. However, will we hear from the following people that they were wrong?

Democrats who accused Karl Rove and various members of the Bush Administration of treason. Will they admit they were wrong?

Will Joe Wilson finally be exposed as the fraud that he is? What about Wilson's fantasies that Karl Rove be marched out of the White House in handcuffs? Will the media call out Joe Wilson? Nope.

And here's the big one: is Patrick Fitzgerald going to be held accountable for the millions of dollars spent investigating a "crime" that never took place? Will he admit he continued looking for something to indict after it became clear no crime was committed? Doubtful.

And then there's the media. From reports that it was actually George Bush that leaked the name to others that said Dick Cheney did it, they were all wrong. They never knew what they were talking about. They made it all up...every last bit of it. And why? Because it served their Bush-bashing agenda.

The next thing to happen? Watch for the charges against Scooter Libby to be quietly dropped.
Oh .. and there's one more thing that isn't being reported. Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent when her name was leaked. Wasn't then, and hadn't been for about five years. No crime was committed.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

[bendog]

Well Barry, Scooter's gonna be on trial for perjury next year, and most likely his boss, the Dickster, is gonna have to testify ... live and under oath.

[defenseman]

Well Barry, Scooter's gonna be on trial for perjury next year, and most likely his boss, the Dickster, is gonna have to testify ... live and under oath.

And this is concerning why? Valerie plame and wilson are sunk, and sunk hard. It will all blend into the landscape , slowly but surely. BUT, not a peep out of the papers on the plame "smashing" debacle. Status quo for the left leaning media and their liberal buddies...dman

[bendog]

Well, the real issue won't come out because frankly none of the media outlets, aside from the fringe left, have a readership or sponsorship that want to know. And that issue is WHY bush had to personally attack wilson by leaking to Judith Miller and Cooper. Armitrage was never part of that. But the notion of an American president cherry picking intell to form a picture to justify a war that he'd decided long before on personal and neocon grounds is just not something we're comfortable with. The incredible duplicity that bush pulled on America was that Rove and Cheney used Chalabi as a source for saying "saddam's got womd." Then, Rove called Miller and said "saddam's got womd." Miller wants an indep source, so who do they give her .... drumroll.... chalabi ... symbol crash.

Libby is on trial for perjury. Oh the irony. Allegedly he lied to the investigation into the Miller/Cooper leaks. Supposedly, Libby's gonna say, "Cheney told me to do it." Then, supposedly, either scooter or the state will call Cheney. Personally I could care less about the lot of them.

As to the lesser issue that this thread's about ... who leaked what when and where - there's some speculation that Safire is still lying. That libby/rove leaked plame to him BEFORE he called Armitrage. Perhaps I'm naive but I don't think Safire is quite that corrupt, and I believe his story that he read Wilson's op ed piece, and started calling around to see who this guy was, and Armitrage just told him what he knew.

Now if John Conyers or Allcee Hastings starts impeachment hearings on what bushii knew and when he knew it .... the bigger story may get airplay. I'd prefer it just all fade away. I just don't see any reforms that some scandal might bring would really do any good.

[defenseman]

I'd prefer it just all fade away. I just don't see any reforms that some scandal might bring would really do any good.

What you prefer is most likely what will happen....dman

[bendog]

Well, it looks better than 50-50 that the Dems take the house. I dunno what they'd do.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

PLAME AFFAIR OFFICIALLY OVER


How Obtuse?

But – as with the corrupt prison warden in “Shawshank Redemption” – it’s hard to believe that national journalists could be this obtuse.

As we explain below, the evidence is overwhelming that the White House assault on Wilson was planned weeks before he published an Op-Ed on July 6, 2003, accusing Bush of twisting the yellowcake claim – and that Bush’s operatives responded by pointing journalists toward Plame’s identity.

Indeed, the available evidence doesn’t even fully support the contention that Novak first learned about Plame from his interview with Armitage on July 8, 2003. According to the Times’ own reporting, Novak apparently had been primed to ask a question on this topic.

The Times buries this crucial point in its Sept. 2 story that questions whether Fitzgerald “properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion.” In the last sentence of the 17th paragraph, the Times reports that Armitage disclosed Plame’s possible role in arranging Wilson’s Niger trip “in reply to a question.”

In other words, Armitage didn’t just toss out Plame’s CIA connection as “gossip,” as the Post editorial assumes. He apparently mentioned it in response to Novak’s question about how the Niger trip had been arranged, which begs the additional question of who might have suggested that Novak ask that.

The distinction is important because other evidence indicates that Bush’s aides were pushing reporters to ask about the circumstances behind the Niger trip, knowing that line of questioning would lead to Plame’s identity.

For instance, Time magazine correspondent John Dickerson, who accompanied a presidential trip to Africa shortly after Wilson’s article was published, said he was twice urged to pursue the seemingly insignificant question of who had been involved in arranging Wilson’s trip.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/090206.html.