babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the best of babble   » CIA seeks probe of White House

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: CIA seeks probe of White House
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 27 September 2003 12:32 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From MSNBC:

quote:
The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman’s husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush’s since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.

THE FORMER ENVOY, Joseph Wilson, who was acting ambassador to Iraq before the first Gulf War, was dispatched to Niger in 2002 to investigate a British intelligence report that Iraq sought to buy uranium there. Although Wilson discredited the report, Bush cited it in his State of the Union address in January among the evidence he said justified military action in Iraq.

(snip)

Wilson published an article in July alleging, however, that the White House recklessly made the charge knowing it was false.
“We spend billions of dollars on intelligence,” Wilson wrote. “But we end up putting something in the State of the Union address, something we got from another intelligence agency, something we cannot independently verify, in an area of Africa where the British have no on-the-ground presence.”

WHITE HOUSE DENIALS

The next week, columnist Robert Novak published an article in which he revealed that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative specializing in weapons of mass destruction. “Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate,” Novak wrote.

The White House has denied being Novak’s source, whom he has refused to identify. But Wilson has said other reporters have told him White House officials leaked Plame’s identity.


There's more on this at Talking Points Memo which is Josh Marshall's blog.

I'm getting dizzy trying to keep up with all this.

[ 27 September 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 27 September 2003 05:36 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow! They're gonna get Ashcroft's Justice Department to go after the White House! I'm sure the administration are shaking in their boots now!
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 27 September 2003 06:01 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder if Gordon Liddy is going to put liquid LSD on Novak's steering wheel.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 27 September 2003 12:15 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rufus: We can dream, can't we. Well, maybe not.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 27 September 2003 03:03 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

It would be SO amusing to see John Ashcroft's minions and goons tromping through the White House, arresting anyone who even looked like a potential suspect.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 27 September 2003 03:18 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's Wilson's contention that the leak came from Karl Rove himself, which raises the admittedly remote possibility of seeing Rove perp walked out of the White House. I'd be tempted to buy a new TV just to see that.

And to add a bit of irony to the story, the law that the CIA alleges was broken is the brain-child of Bush Sr. He sponsored it after one of his agents was murdered on his watch, i.e. while he was the Director of the CIA, although it wasn't passed until he became VP.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 27 September 2003 07:57 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Wilson War Continues - Time Magazine

quote:
The Justice Department has opened a preliminary inquiry into whether a Bush Administration official illegally revealed the identity of a CIA employee whose husband criticized the Administration's handling of intelligence on Iraq, TIME has learned. The probe will determine whether to order a full-fledged FBI investigation.

(snip)

CIA and Justice spokespersons declined comment, but an Administration official told TIME that the Justice is conducting a preliminary inquiry to "determine whether or not there should be an investigation" by the FBI.

Wilson would not discuss his wife and said he knew nothing about any investigation. But, he said, "It was clear to me from the beginning that this was really done as a signal to others who might step forward,” to criticize the Administration's handling of intelligence on Iraq.


Perhaps what's most noteworthy here is that this is the first confirmation of the MSNBC story that broke last night. The rest of the major media outlets have been eerily quiet all day.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 28 September 2003 01:35 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uh oh. The serpent is eating it's own tail again. Look next for a deep-throat-style scandal leak to bring the Bush administration down for good. That is, assuming there's a legitimate reporter left in the US to cover the story.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 28 September 2003 01:42 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's certainly getting interesting. The Washington Post and the New York Times have both picked up the story now. From the WaPo story:

quote:
A senior administration official said two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. That was shortly after Wilson revealed in July that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account eventually touched off a controversy over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.


So the leakers literally kept shopping this story around until they found a reporter who would print it. And the way the stories read, they know who the "top officials" are, they just won't print the names yet. The Sunday talk shows will be buzzing, and the Monday press scrum should be really interesting.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 September 2003 01:07 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tenet's reactions, his willingness to pursue these charges, will be interesting too, after he was made to fall on his sword for the admin this summer. Well, he's still in his position, so I guess he didn't have to do the full fall.

I've just been reading majorvictory's archive on Ashcroft, and I must say that these stories are beginning to get to me. We know that the thugs behind the scenes in the White House and at Defence have made the rest of the world more dangerous, but this is starting to feel more and more local, more and more claustrophobic, more and more as though there is no place to hide.

Will Ashcroft do his job? Can he?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 28 September 2003 01:19 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As far as I can recall, Ashcroft is one member of the administration who has never been linked with the AEI/PNAC cabal. So is he as cynical as some of the others, in which case he'd be only too happy to block any real investigation? Or is he a zealot who really believes in what he's doing, in which case he may just go after the "evil-doers"?

And from the Dept. of Interesting Coincidences:

Robert Novak's story exposing Plame as a CIA operative ran on July 14th.

Ari Fleischer's last press conference was on July 14th.

[ 28 September 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 September 2003 01:30 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My my my.

But we knew that Fleischer was leaving weeks before, yes?

Y'know, I know it's an overworked metaphor, but this one this time really does have a bit of a Watergate whiff, doesn't it?

I remember Watergate. Such larks, and for so long too. I especially remember the night of the three -- count 'em, three -- attorneys general.

I wonder just whom this regime considers expendable. Nixon, as I recall, finally considered everyone but himself expendable, but they went in an interesting order. Pass the popcorn.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 28 September 2003 05:49 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Ashcroft is a zealot who will initially try and do the right thing. However, if the perp turns out to be as high as Rove, he may have to cave or provide cover as I don’t see him resigning in disgust. This is very Rovian, which means it might be a good one for a special prosecutor, but we don’t do those anymore.

But then you never know. The Justice Dept. is full of careerist hot-shot prima-donna-attorneys, looking to make a name for themselves. And I'm sure the folks at CIA are genuinely PO'ed.


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 28 September 2003 06:28 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The allegation in the news story is that it was done for "revenge" because the story of Saddam's African uranium purchases got shot down.

But what "revenge" were they expecting to occur? Was the leaker seriously trying to put the woman's life in danger?

I believe a CIA agent was murdered in Greece as a result of being named in a relatively obscure magazine a few years ago; and Philip Agee faced life imprisonment for naming agents in his book.

Is it still the case that someone doing this faces life imprisonment? Does anyone know for certain?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 28 September 2003 06:41 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
The allegation in the news story is that it was done for "revenge" because the story of Saddam's African uranium purchases got shot down.

But what "revenge" were they expecting to occur? Was the leaker seriously trying to put the woman's life in danger?


Perhaps, but it seems more likely to me that the intent was to frighten off anyone else who was tempted to come forward in a way that would embarrass the administration.

quote:

I believe a CIA agent was murdered in Greece as a result of being named in a relatively obscure magazine a few years ago; and Philip Agee faced life imprisonment for naming agents in his book.

Is it still the case that someone doing this faces life imprisonment? Does anyone know for certain?


Somewhere in all the blog entries I've read since yesterday there's a quote of the law in question. It was passed in 1982, and the penalty is 10 years or a $50,000 fine. If I can find the exact text I'll post it here.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 28 September 2003 06:54 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Somewhere in all the blog entries I've read since yesterday there's a quote of the law in question. It was passed in 1982, and the penalty is 10 years or a $50,000 fine. If I can find the exact text I'll post it here.
I think it was Marshall or Oxblog that noted the irony of the fact that the law was enacted by the Bush One Team.

From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 28 September 2003 06:57 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's an article written about this back in August by John Dean. Yep, that John Dean.

quote:
Another applicable criminal statute is the Intelligence Identities Act, enacted in 1982.

(snip)

First, there are those with direct access to the classified information about the "covert agents." who leak it. These insiders - including persons in the CIA - may serve up to ten years in jail for leaking this information.

Second, there are those who are authorized to have classified information and learn it, and then leak it. These insiders - including persons in, say, the White House or Defense Department - can be sentenced to up to five years in jail for such leaks.

The statute also has additional requirements before the leak of the identity of a "covert agent" is deemed criminal. But it appears they are all satisfied here.


Edited for spelling.

[ 28 September 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 28 September 2003 06:58 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But what "revenge" were they expecting to occur? Was the leaker seriously trying to put the woman's life in danger?
I think, jeff house, it was simply a message to not fuck with Bush. A cheap political power play.

From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 28 September 2003 09:25 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe, SHH, but I think one has to probe a bit more deeply.

They seem to be saying: "Don't fuck with Bush, because if you do, we will do THIS."

The THIS is the fact that she is CIA. And that is not like a slur on her character, a la Clinton/Lewinsky. Presumably the CIA could reassign her to domestic duties.

So, I think it MAY be at least a showing that they can put her phycial being in danger. For example, I doubt she will be travelling much, or even going out alone.

I think the act which was done is worse than it appears at first glance.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 28 September 2003 09:39 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're not alone in feeling that way, jeff. From a press release by Sen. Charles Schumer on July 24th:

quote:
"This is one of the most reckless and nasty things I’ve seen in all my years of government," Schumer said. "Leaking the name of a CIA agent is tantamount to putting a gun to that agent’s head. It compromises her safety and the safety of her loved ones, not to mention those in her network and other operatives she may have dealt with. On top of that, the officials who have done it may have also seriously jeopardized the national security of this nation."

On the same day, Schumer wrote a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller requesting an immediate investigation into the matter. I don't recall hearing any more about it, so Mueller may have some questions to answer as well.

Since the original leak has been public knowledge since the middle of July, it raises the question of complicity on the part of everyone in the White House including Bush himself. Even if he wasn't complicit in the original leaks, why has no action been taken since then? And since Condi Rice indicated today on Fox News that she knew nothing about this, it suggests that at the very least she's woefully incompetent. How could the National Security Advisor know nothing about a breach of national security that's been public knowledge for months? The more you look at this, the more it smells.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 29 September 2003 01:16 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wilsongate Update (I didn't coin the name):

In the latest Washington Post story is this little gem:

quote:
CIA officials approached the Justice Department about a possible investigation within a week of the column's publication. Tenet's letter was delivered more recently.

So Justice has known about this for two months. I guess Tenet became impatient.

And then we have this:

quote:
Wilson said that in the week after the Novak column appeared, several journalists told him that the White House was trying to call attention to his wife, apparently hoping to undermine his credibility by implying he had received the Niger assignment only because his wife had suggested the mission and recommended him for the job.

"Each of the reporters quoted the White House official as using some variation on, 'The real story isn't the 16 words. The real story is Wilson and his wife,' " Wilson said the journalists told him. "The time frame led me to deduce that the White House was continuing to try to push this story."

Wilson identified one of the reporters as Andrea Mitchell of NBC News. Mitchell did not respond to requests for comment.


Emphasis added. Apparently Mitchell has been unavailable for comment since the story broke.

[ 29 September 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 29 September 2003 06:48 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrea Mitchell BTW is married to Fed chairman Alan Greenspan.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 29 September 2003 10:13 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So Condoleezza Rice knows nothing? Your morning smile:

[ 29 September 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 29 September 2003 11:53 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the above Wash. Post article:

"But the aides said Bush has no plans to ask his staff members whether they played a role in revealing the name of an undercover officer."

So much for getting to the bottom of things.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 29 September 2003 12:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SHH, please: pass the popcorn.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 29 September 2003 12:28 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can I get in on that, skdadl?

From ABC News

quote:
The White House today emphatically denied that President Bush's chief political strategist [Karl Rove] was involved in revealing the identity of a CIA operative, in possible violation of the law.

(snip)

"He wasn't involved," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of Rove. "The president knows he wasn't involved. … It's simply not true."


So there's the flat out denial. But if Bush knows it wasn't Rove, does he have any curiosity about who it was?

It's been interesting to watch the different media sources. The New York Times was on the story on their web site on Saturday, but now they seem to have buried it. ABC News was pretty quiet over the weekend, but now has the story front and centre.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 29 September 2003 12:34 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Slim: Sure.

Popcorn I can do, even better than cookies. God, but I love popcorn. During '73-'74, I'm not sure I ate much else, so gripping was the TV in those days.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 29 September 2003 01:37 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How much popcorn did you munch the day Alexander Butterfield testified?

[paraphrase]"Hey you know all those Oval Office conversations you've been arguing over these past few months? Well I've got them all on tape over in the White House basement!"[/paraphrase]

Ah memories.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 September 2003 01:38 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just got around to reading this today - haven't been following the story before this. I see what you mean, skdadl - now I'm devouring anything I can find on it.

Man, who needs crazy spy novels with the Bush administration in power?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 29 September 2003 01:52 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's a choice bit from a transcript of this morning's WH press conference posted at TPM:

quote:
McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.

QUESTION: How does he know that?

QUESTION: How does he know that?

McCLELLAN: The President knows.

QUESTION: What, is he clairvoyant? How does he know?



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 29 September 2003 03:00 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slim:
As far as I can recall, Ashcroft is one member of the administration who has never been linked with the AEI/PNAC cabal. So is he as cynical as some of the others,[ 28 September 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]

Of course he is. He may be a zealot, but certainly not about good government or honesty. Look at the way the Ashcroft DoJ suddenly turned around and sabotaged their own case against Microsoft (a major Republican donor; coincidence?). They had them nailed to the wall, and instead of pressing the case they went to MS and crafted a sweetheart settlement with them. A settlement so toothless its only penalty clause is the continuation of the settlement for two extra years. But of course, if you're ignoring the settlement in the first place, being forced to ignore it for two more years isn't exactly a fearsome threat.

Let's face it--Ashcroft may not care about the PNAC directly, because he probably doesn't care about the world outside the US. But he does need it indirectly; if you don't have lots of outside enemies to point out, the citizens complain when you oppress them. Ashcroft has a police state to consolidate, and to do it he needs the foreign policy hawks.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 29 September 2003 03:17 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyBrogan:
How much popcorn did you munch the day Alexander Butterfield testified?

[paraphrase]"Hey you know all those Oval Office conversations you've been arguing over these past few months? Well I've got them all on tape over in the White House basement!"[/paraphrase]

Ah memories.


Broke a tooth that day. Aspirated a hull or two.

I should have asked before, but when you guys refer to PNAC, you mean ... ?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 29 September 2003 03:23 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PNAC = Project for a New American Century, the Sekrit Kabal -- or rather not so Sekrit, since they've been trumpeting their nutbar schemes from the rooftops -- what tells us that if the US only makes a conscious decision to lord it over the rest of the world, all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well.

You may think I exaggerate, and you might be right. But only slightly, alas, only very slightly.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 29 September 2003 03:24 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl:

PNAC is the Project for the New American Century.

An offshoot of the American Enterprise Institute, it's founding members include Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton and other highly placed members of the Bush administration. They're firm believers in the right of the US to use it's military might in a pre-emptive manner to make the world safe for American interests. They started lobbying for the invasion of Iraq in 1998.

Edited to add:

Rufus: You make some good points concerning Ashcroft. Depressing points, but good ones.

[ 29 September 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 29 September 2003 03:29 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They're firm believers in the right of the US to use it's military might in a pre-emptive manner to make the world safe for American interests.

Duuude. What I said, y'know?

(I should take these guys more seriously, and I would if I didn't suspect that, since they've succumbed to the temptation of Hubris, Nemesis is just around the corner. In what form exactly, I can't say, but shurely the news from Iraq is not good; and whatever his shortcomings, Gen. Clark might just kick Bush's ass through all of the Lower 48, next November but one).

[ 29 September 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 29 September 2003 03:30 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I can just imagine myself as a reporter during a White House press conference (...actually, I can't imagine it at all, since I would last approximately 2 minutes):

McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.

ME: You're lying.

ME: Why are you lying?

McCLELLAN: The President knows.

ME: Why won't you stop lying?

...etc.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 29 September 2003 03:32 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
'lance:

If they go down, and I agree they will, it's because of their own greed and impatience. They jumped on 9/11 as their opportunity to get everything they wanted and over extended themselves. Had they been a bit more patient, played their hand a bit more carefully, things could have been even worse.

Edit: Uh, that's kinda what you just said, isn't it?

[ 29 September 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 29 September 2003 03:34 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
True. One shudders to think. But then, if those clowns knew the meaning of "moderation" and "restraint," they wouldn't likely have gotten as far as they have. Most of them, however, know nothing of the RealWorld(tm), having been ensconced in comfy think-tanks for years if not decades.

Edit: yeah, kinda. Though doubtless dear skdadl could educate us on the difference between Hubris, on the one hand, and "greed and impatience" on the other. Perhaps my choice of terms accords the PNAC boys (that sounds remarkably like "peanut boys," as in "peanut gallery") too much dignity.

[ 29 September 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 29 September 2003 03:44 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know these guys as well as y'all obviously do, but I would be inclined to say that the ones who think that they are innelleckshuls indeed exhibit hubris. That, however, would not rule out their being guilty also of greed and overweening ambition.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 September 2003 03:48 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That clip you posted from the press conference had me laughing, Slim. Looks like some reporters are getting sick of kneeling.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 29 September 2003 04:27 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Och, the USian media, the guys who get seats at White House briefings :

They didn't just kneel. They bent over. They are unspeakable. Those guys don't deserve to be called journalists.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 29 September 2003 07:36 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is dispiriting how quickly, as in instantly, they go native when assigned to the White House. But even they have their limits... I mean they did laugh Ari Fleischer out of the room during one of his last appearances.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 30 September 2003 12:44 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A little new info from the Washington Post:

quote:
Another journalist yesterday confirmed receiving a call from an administration official providing the same information about Wilson's wife before the Novak column appeared on July 14 in The Post and other newspapers.

The journalist, who asked not to be identified because of possible legal ramifications, said that the information was provided as part of an effort to discredit Wilson, but that the CIA information was not treated as especially sensitive. "The official I spoke with thought this was a part of Wilson's story that wasn't known and cast doubt on his whole mission," the person said, declining to identify the official he spoke with. "They thought Wilson was having a good ride and this was part of Wilson's story."

(snip)

Wilson said yesterday that he believes Rove "at a minimum condoned the leak," but said he has no evidence Rove was the original leaker. Wilson said that based on reporters' statements, he believes Rove participated in calls that drew attention to his wife's occupation after Novak's column was published. "My knowledge is based on a reporter who called me right after he had spoken to Rove and said that Rove had said my wife was fair game," Wilson said. He said that conversation occurred on July 21.


Emphasis added. The confirmation from another reporter seems to lend credibility to Wilson's claims. And Wilson continues to implicate Rove despite earlier denials by the White House. I think I'll stock up on popcorn, this could take a while.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 30 September 2003 01:19 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And the NY Times gets back in the game:

quote:
Mr. Ashcroft decided during the past several days to move ahead with a preliminary inquiry, and the Justice Department notified the F.B.I. late today that the bureau would lead the investigation.

I'm done now. Say g'night, Gracie.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 30 September 2003 01:34 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seeing Rove indicted is way too good a fantasy to come true but it's certainly headed in an interesting direction. Just what Bush's plummeting pol numbers didn't need in any case.

I don't have a whole lot of faith in Ashcroft's Justice Department, but some in the press may be awakening from their slumber.

Where's Sam Ervin when you need him?


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 September 2003 09:44 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Would you believe I even developed a bit of a crush on Peter Rodino?

I plead temporary insanity and popcorn overdose. Well, you know how powerful TV images can be.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 30 September 2003 10:27 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good morning, and welcome to today's episode of Wilsongate.

quote:
The Justice Department launched a full-blown criminal investigation into who leaked the name of a CIA officer, and President Bush directed his White House staff on Tuesday to cooperate fully.

The White House staff was notified of the investigation by e-mail after the Justice Department decided late Monday to move from a preliminary investigation into a full probe.


Karl Rove, c'mon down.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 30 September 2003 10:28 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jusice department will launch a full criminal investigation into the Wilsongate affair.

quote:
WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department launched a full-blown criminal investigation into who leaked the name of a CIA officer, and President Bush directed his White House staff today to cooperate fully.

The White House staff was notified of the investigation by e-mail after the Justice Department decided late Monday to move from a preliminary investigation into a full probe.



From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 30 September 2003 10:29 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jimmy, you have excellent taste in quotes.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 30 September 2003 10:29 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Slim, your quote selection is impeccable.

[ 30 September 2003: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 30 September 2003 10:30 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 30 September 2003 10:32 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll bet we couldn't that again if we tried.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 30 September 2003 10:35 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Boy the speed of this thing is breathtaking. A full blown criminal investigation is going to turn a moderate media munching into a full blown feeding frenzy.

Pass the popcorn indeed!


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 30 September 2003 10:53 AM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
now , in the finest texan tradition , maybe we'll find out who's all hat and no cattle.there is very little in these neo-cons' resumes to indicate much intestinal fortitude.
i don't think it'll take anywhere near as much heat as watergate to see the rats streaming off the good ship GWB.once the first one goes ,the media will start up the rush-to-judgement machine.CNN is already working on a snappy deadline.
by the way , doesn't bob novak look a little tired?

From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 September 2003 11:06 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Anyone venture a guess about why Ms Rice would have been sent out on Sunday as point-person on this issue, to do the first firm denial?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 30 September 2003 11:19 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that was coincidence. This broke at the same time as the story concerning the weakness of the pre-war intelligence. I think that was the story Rice was out there to address.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 30 September 2003 11:22 AM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I'm thinking she may just be the first ranking Ensign Dispensible...?
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 30 September 2003 11:39 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I watched CNN's interview with Wilson last night and he came across as someone with a big axe to grind against the White House political machine.

Former ambassador blames White House for leak

quote:
ZAHN: And why do you think you're at the receiving end of all this?

WILSON: Well, I had assumed early on that it was probably because the White House wanted to discourage others from coming forward. And I have said that repeatedly, that there was nothing they could do to me. I had already told my story.

The accuracy or the validity, the veracity, of my story had been sort of agreed to by the White House 36 hours or 30 hours after my article appeared in The New York Times. There was nothing particularly to be gained by going after me. But you might want to discourage other people from stepping forward. There were a number of people at the time who were speaking off the record to journalists about pressures that they felt out at the CIA.

Whether those were accurate or not, those were the stories that were going around. So I thought that it might be directed at them.

ZAHN: Do you believe your wife's life is in any increased danger as a result of this?

WILSON: Well, I don't know.

We've always thought about this in the context of what is compromised in terms of national security, what operations, what agents, what networks that have been put in place during her career. That was the focus of our thinking. I will tell you that, increasingly, people are asking that question. And I'm going to have to think about it. But I'm not -- we have not been the recipients of any general threats or even -- or specific threats.

ZAHN: So you're not sure whether you fear for her safety, when you say it's something you have to think through?

WILSON: Well, I'm certainly concerned about her safety, but it's -- we had not thought about it in those terms at this point. We had thought about it more in terms of the violation to our own national security.


[ 30 September 2003: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 September 2003 11:47 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How can it matter "how Wilson comes across"?

Leaking her identity is a serious violation of the law. It doesn't matter whether she is personally in immediate danger. It doesn't even matter whether she really did have "operatives" somewhere.

What matters first is the principle, and the law. Depending on which countries she's been in, of course, any regular contacts she had might now fall under some kind of suspicion.

Someone at the WH was not just malicious but probably, also, stupid.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 30 September 2003 11:52 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't blame Wilson for being angry. Both he and his wife have spent their adult lives in service to their country. The backlash has tried to paint Wilson as a partisan in all this, but in fact he originally worked for Reagan and Bush Sr., and the latter cited him for his service and his heroism in the run up to the first Gulf War.

His crime here is letting the American people know that Bush lied, or at the very least dissembled, in an attempt to exaggerate the threat that Iraq posed to American security. And his reward? Having his wife's career ruined and possibly having her life endangered. Not to mention the fact that since his wife's specialty is/was WMD, the leakers have threatened the national security that's supposed to be such a priority for them.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 30 September 2003 02:06 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Truthout's William Rivers Pitt cuts through White House spin


quote:
The third layer is where the darkness truly lurks, and where the deadly importance of this situation lies. Valerie Plame was not simply an analyst or a data cruncher. She was an operative running a network dedicated to tracking any person or nation that might try to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. That sentence deserves to be written twice. She was an operative running a network dedicated to tracking any person or nation that might try to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

The Bush administration pushed very hard the idea that America is in danger from WMDs being placed into the hands of terrorists. This was one of the central arguments behind the war in Iraq. Yet in order to protect Bush's political standing, a couple of "administration officials" blew Valerie Plame, and by proxy her network, completely out of the water in an attempt to shut her husband up. In short, in order to protect Bush from the ramifications of using fake evidence to support his war, this White House destroyed an intelligence network that was protecting us from the threat posed by chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

We are less safe now that Valerie Plame is no longer performing this vital task, and the members of her network are in mortal danger of being revealed and destroyed. Beyond that, we are facing a level of hypocrisy that shatters any and all previously known boundaries. This administration ginned up a war in Iraq based upon manufactured evidence and wildly overstated threats, all of which was painted over with rhetoric about defending the country from terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. The fate of Valerie Plame, and her network, shows without doubt that the moral standing of this administration is as empty as Saddam Hussein's WMD cache.

In Ambassador Wilson's words, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames."

The current spin from administration defenders within and without the mainstream media is that Valerie Plame was only an analyst, and not an operative. This, somehow, is supposed to lessen the blow of an administration willing to attack the families of its critics. Yet the characterization of Plame as an analyst is factually incorrect. For one, Robert Novak himself indicated that she was an operative in the original report that birthed this scandal. "Wilson never worked for the CIA," wrote Novak, "but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

Ray McGovern, who was for 27-years a senior analyst for the CIA, further confirms the status of Plame within the CIA. "I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know," said McGovern in a telephone conversation we had today, "that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration's first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction."

McGovern further elaborated on the damage done when such an agent has their cover blown. "This causes a great deal of damage," said McGovern. "These kinds of networks take ten years to develop. The reason why they operate under deep cover is that the only people who have access to the kind of data we need cannot be associated in any way with the American intelligence community. Our operatives live a lie to maintain these networks, and do so out of patriotism. When they get blown, the operatives themselves are in physical danger. The people they recruit are also in physical danger, because foreign intelligence services can make the connections and find them. Operatives like Valerie Plame are real patriots."



From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 30 September 2003 02:12 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am certainly enjoying the spectacle of Bob Novak being forced to eat his own vomit. Too bad Ann Coulter didn't break this story at the same time.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 30 September 2003 02:33 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This BUZZFLASH interview with John Dean may make it clear why it furthers Ashcroft's agenda to at least appear that's he taking this seriously:

quote:
BUZZFLASH: You argue in a September 26th FindLaw commentary that John Ashcroft and the Bush administration are trying to implement an "Unofficial Official Secrets Act" by cobbling together existing statutes and pushing them to the edge of the envelope. Can you explain how they could do this?

DEAN: They are doing this by using laws that were never intended for this purpose, but were written so broad that they cover leaks, or actions relating to leaking. While this practice did not start with Ashcroft and the Bush administration (rather Nixon and Reagan), this administration appears to be pushing the envelope. Bush and Cheney run a highly secretive White House, which has set the tone.

The argument I make is that Ashcroft's Justice Department is taking statutes that were never intended to address leaks, or unauthorized disclosures, and cobbling together their own official secrets act. The most glaring example is a prosecution of a DEA intelligence analyst in Atlanta, Jonathan Randal, who leaked unclassified information to a British journalist. To make an example of Randal, they threw the book at him, a twenty count indictment with a statutory maximum sentence over 500 years. It was absurd. Had the case not have arisen before Ashcroft issued his new order that prohibits plea bargaining, Randal would have faced life in jail for doing something that is done every day in Washington: leaking information.


Games within games?

[ 30 September 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 30 September 2003 04:43 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Several of the journalists are saying privately 'yes it was Karl Rove who I talked to.'

That quote is from an audio report (in RealPlayer format) filed by Julian Borger of the Guardian.

Boom?


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 30 September 2003 05:16 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is an amazing report.

And the rhetoric is really heating up. Check out John Kerry's riff from earlier today:

"President Bush's father called those who expose the names of national security sources 'traitors,"' Kerry said. "And this President Bush needs to start going after any traitors in his midst -- and that means more than an inside once-over from his friend -- and Karl Rove's client -- John Ashcroft."

Why is Novak not doing the perp walk. He exposed an operative for no appearant reason except that he could. No matter what his source was why isn't he at least an instant pariah?

Edited to add:

I'm going to drop CNN a line right now asking that they can the little traitor. I'd advise anyone else who loaths the swine to do the same.

[ 30 September 2003: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 30 September 2003 05:23 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the John Dean article I linked to above:

quote:
The Act reaches outsiders who engage in "a pattern of activities" intended to reveal the identities of covert operatives (assuming such identities are not public information, which is virtually always the case).

But so far, there is no evidence that any journalist has engaged in such a pattern. Accepting Administration leaks - even repeatedly - should not count as a violation, for First Amendment reasons.


I don't think Novak has a legal problem here because there's been no "pattern of activities", just this one incident, and he has the First Amendment to hide behind. As to whether he's a pariah, that depends on who you talk to. I've seen him referred to as "pond scum" on one blog.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 30 September 2003 05:33 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No the first amendment should trump all. I'm really just wondering why such a thing wouldn't make you so unpopular with the general public that CNN would dump him?

They haven't yet, cause his ugly puss is on Crossfire right now.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 September 2003 05:34 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On principle, we do not wish to see the law go after journalists (unless, of course, they break other sorts of laws).

We as citizens and consumers of media, of course, should feel free to blow raspberries at anyone who seems to have become a patsy for a despicable administration.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 30 September 2003 05:36 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is this a good time to mention that Rove was fired by Bush Sr. in '92 for just this kind of dirty trick? Novak was the journalist involved in that, too.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 September 2003 05:40 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ooh! I'm all ears. Please fill us in.

I've been having another Bush Sr memory, however, somewhat less happy.

Aren't there numbers of people now appointed to various high positions by this gov't who were pardoned or otherwise got off various legal hooks by Bush pere?

Doesn't this group have a history of not minding felonies committed by their own?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 30 September 2003 05:49 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From an article by Ron Suskind published in Esquire, Jan. 2003:

quote:
Sources close to the former president say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted.

skdadl, the two names that come to mind are John Poindexter, with whom I believe you're familiar, and Elliot Abrams, who was convicted of lying to Congress in the Iran/Contra affair. He was subsequently pardoned by Bush Sr. He now has a senior position in the Bush Jr. administration where, I believe, he's responsible for American policy in the Middle East, i.e. Israel/Palestine. That last part is from memory and is subject to correction.

Edit: I guess my memory isn't bad.

quote:
Neoconservative hawks in the administration of President George W. Bush have won a major battle against the State Department in the fight for control of U.S. Mideast policy with the surprise appointment of Iran-Contra figure Elliott Abrams to the region's top policy spot in the National Security Council (NSC).

[ 30 September 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 September 2003 06:31 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One thing I'll say for the New American Corruption: it is definitely more ethnically diverse than organized crime used to be.

I mean: Poindexter?!?!

The Sopranos and extended family must be enjoying Bush White Houses so much. For sure they never had a Poindexter.

[ 30 September 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2878

posted 30 September 2003 09:51 PM      Profile for majorvictory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been under cover for three decades. She is not as Bob Novak suggested a "CIA analyst."

quote:
Given that, i was a CIA analyst for 4 years. I was under cover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the CIA unti I left the Intelligence Agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it. The fact that she was under cover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous. She was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she works with overseas could be compromised...

For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal... and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that, well, this was just an analyst. Fine. Let them go undercover. Let's put them go overseas. Let's out them and see how they like it...

I say this as a registered Republican. I am on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear, of an individual who had no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it because the entire intent was, correctly as Amb. Wilson noted, to intimidate, to suggest taht there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision-making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy, and frankly what was a false policy of suggesting that there was nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend it was something else, to get into this parsing of words.

I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

-Larry Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official at the CIA and the State Department.



From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2878

posted 30 September 2003 09:54 PM      Profile for majorvictory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Whitewash House: Return to Nixonian Stonewalling

quote:
By Mike Allen and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 30, 2003; Page A01


President Bush's chief spokesman said yesterday that the allegation that administration officials leaked the name of a CIA operative is "a very serious matter" and vowed that Bush would fire anybody responsible for such actions.



The vow came as numerous Democratic leaders demanded the administration appoint a special counsel to investigate the charges that a CIA operative's name was divulged in an effort to discredit her husband, a prominent critic of Bush's Iraq policy. The White House rejected those calls, also saying it has no evidence of wrongdoing by Bush adviser Karl Rove or others and therefore no reason to begin an internal investigation.

"There's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president's office, as well," said Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary. He said that "if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

Justice Department officials said yesterday they have begun a preliminary probe into whether an administration official violated the law by telling journalists that the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a prominent critic of Bush's use of intelligence related to Iraq, worked for the CIA. Wilson has drawn attention for his report on a trip he took to Niger for the CIA that, he said, did not confirm an administration charge that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear materiel in that country.

A senior official quoted Bush as saying, "I want to get to the bottom of this,"



From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 01 October 2003 02:00 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Too bad Ann Coulter didn't break this story at the same time.

I know you're joking, 'cos Ann Coulter doesn't break stories -- she's not that sort of, ah, journalist. But really, what difference would it have made if she had? Novak et al at least have some sort of residual touch with reality. Ms Coulter is mercifully free of such encumbrances, and therefore is perfectly at liberty to argue that black is white, freedom is slavery, etc. & so forth.

quote:
skdadl, the two names that come to mind are John Poindexter, with whom I believe you're familiar, and Elliot Abrams, who was convicted of lying to Congress in the Iran/Contra affair. He was subsequently pardoned by Bush Sr. He now has a senior position in the Bush Jr. administration where, I believe, he's responsible for American policy in the Middle East, i.e. Israel/Palestine. That last part is from memory and is subject to correction.

As for (former?) Admiral Poindexter, wasn't he the bright boy responsible for the short-lived idea of the so-called "terror exchange," whereby people could bet on the probabilities of bombings, assassinations and other such pleasantries?

[ 01 October 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 01 October 2003 03:21 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was thinking about this earlier tonight.

Let's assume guilt here for a moment, just for fun. Bush goes after Wilson through his wife.

Could it be the first time?

Remember when McCain was a brief threat in the primaries? Didn't someone at arm's length from the campaign (Christian Coalition?) telephone people telling them that McCain's wife was a drug addict?


And, remember crazy ol' Ross Perot who dropped out of the Presidential race because, as he claimed then that he received death threats aimed at his daughter, from the Bushes?

We all thought that put the icing on the looney tunes label for Perot, but I'm starting to think it less crazy all of a sudden.


Just musing out loud, of course.


Ah, foggy memory. It wasn't death threats, but threats to disrupt his daughter's wedding.

quote:
Perot's paranoia is pretty well known, due to his announcement in 1992 that he was quitting the presidential race (in which he was a very strong contender) because Republican's were planning to disrupt his daughters wedding (by forging photos of phony lesbian sex.) But it has long been typical of him.

From a website that didn't like Perot.

Still sounds a more than a little crazy, but not as crazy as it sounded at one time in light of all this.

[ 01 October 2003: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 01 October 2003 09:35 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Naming names

quote:
Wilson, on ABC's "Nightline" last night, said that if investigators ask, "I will be revealing the names of everybody who called me," before or after the disclosure of his wife's identity. He said those reporters said White House sources or specific individuals had knowledge of the leak.

Stay tuned.

And why do some (meaning mostly Novak) keep trying to insist that Plame was really "just an analyst" and that no crime was commited here?

quote:
... on July 22, Newsday reported: "Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. 'I didn't dig it out, it was given to me,' he said. 'They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.' "

That article was written by Phelps and Royce, the other two journalists named in the White House order to preserve records. The article was the first to identify Plame as a clandestine operative, reporting: "Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday yesterday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity -- at least she was undercover until last week, when she was named by columnist Robert Novak."

Plame currently is an analyst at the CIA. But, intelligence officials said, she previously served overseas in a clandestine capacity, which means her name is kept classified to protect her previous contacts and operations, and her ability to work again undercover overseas.


Emphasis added.

[ 01 October 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 01 October 2003 11:56 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know Watergate started as a trickle before becoming a huge wave of a scandal, but this current scandal seems to be getting subdued coverage at the moment.

Other than this thread, I've seen no media frenzy.

Mind you, the only mainstream media I've checked are the CBC and CTV, but their coverage is quite low-key. The stories are buried near the ends of the broadcasts, few if any names are mentioned and Bush is described as someone completely out of the picture who is going to investigate the matter.

Very subdued.

[ 01 October 2003: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 01 October 2003 01:03 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On CNN and the US papers its been getting extensive coverage since Sunday. If the ratings are high and more juicy details emerge you can expect this story to have long legs. Compared to Watergate this thing is moving at warp speed.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 01 October 2003 01:35 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was front page above the fold of USA Today yesterday. It's a big story down there. Watergate/ Who knows. Whitewater? definitely. It's not about to go away, even though the Dems lack the ability to strike a Senate investigation or special prosecutor.

I wouldn't say the story's been travelling at light speed though. I remember Wilson appearing on Jon Stewart several months ago and basically joking about this - very darkly of course - because the media's outrage about the revelation consisted of about 5 seconds of shrugging back then. Tenet decided to give it a prod, it seems. Wonder why.

...the Coulter thing was just me looking forward to seeing Novak hounded all the way to jail for 'treason" or whatever this is, and wishing our gal Annie was following him into the slammer. Not that I condone limiting speech, I don't of course, but Novak and Coulter do, so let them die on their own swords, I say.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 01 October 2003 01:44 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
This is anything but a treat...more of a distracting bore, as usual. Watergate, Iran-Contra, OJ, Lewinski...all those things dragged on way beyond the point where anyone (anyone Canadian I knew, anyway) cared anymore or even thought there was any hope for real justice. Wake me up when a) Rove or some other member of the administration is sent to prison or b) Bush is impeached. Alternately, rouse me lightly from my slumber to administer a strong purgative should everyone be exonerated (or pardoned) and the case closed.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 01 October 2003 02:47 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, I can't agree with Hinterland. Watergate and Iran-Contra were extremely important stories having to do with the tendency of the American President to see himself as above the law, and to violate that law where it seems inconvenient.

When that occurs, no one is assured protection from tyranny.

Nixon repeatedly claimed that Watergate was unimportant, given his accomplishments in foreign policy; his watchword was "Let's Put Watergate Behind Us". He didn't want anyone to pay it any attention, hoping we'd watch sports on tv, instead.

Iran-Contra involved the President and his staff funding a war which Congress had refused to fund, in a secretive and unlawful manner. Abuse of the war power is an important issue.

The Monica Lewinsky scandal was far less important, since it involved illicit sex only, not "high crimes and misdemeanours". The most important aspect of the Lewinsky case was the attempt to overturn the results of the 1996 election, when 120 million people cast their ballots, because the President lied about his sex life. As a coup attempt, it meritted our attention.

The present scandal may not measure up. But it's early yet; we don't even know if anyone taped anything yet.

As for the "Canadian" perspective, I do think that the USA is important enough to our futures that we pay attention to its politics.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 01 October 2003 02:52 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmmm. Tapes. Where's Linda Tripp now that her country could really use her unique talents?
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 01 October 2003 03:22 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I was being sardonic, Jeff; these issues are of extreme importance, of course, and yet they never seem to result in actual long-term justice or real change which will ensure they do not re-occur. What real change would look like in terms of the American government I haven't got a clue; closer media scrutiny, greater transparency in the executive branch, reduction of complexity in the administration and reduction of unelected courtiers might be a start. However, the unvarying process of uncovering these scandals, the hype, the media circus, the lying (..oh, the lying) and then the outcome drifting off into some sort of half-justice, false contrition and subsequent pardons is, well, not interesting; I've seen it all before.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 01 October 2003 05:12 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The strangest thing so far is that no Republican has yet found a way to blame the Clintons. They have clearly been put off their game.

[ 01 October 2003: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 October 2003 05:14 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Och, but Jimmy Brogan, can't you see? This whole thread: it's obviously a vast left-wing conspiracy!
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 01 October 2003 05:51 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What ever happened to left wing conspiracies skdadl. I miss those.

If this scandal is going to have real legs its going to need a sexier name than Wilsongate. Its also going to need theme music and a nifty graffic on CNN, Fox, etc...

ronb, I get the impression this is moving fast since this thread went from eerie silence in the media to wall to wall coverage in days. Watergate lanquished on the back burner for nearly a year after the break-in.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 01 October 2003 06:01 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Has anybody else noticed that Bob Novak's self-satisfied smirk looks a lot like Bush's? How about Operation Wipe That Smirk Off Their Faces?

Edited because it's just been that kind of day.

[ 01 October 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 01 October 2003 08:48 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of these self-satisfied smirks...who here is capable of pulling one? I see the Bush sycophants doing this all the time (...I have this vivid memory of Condi Rice smirking when when she was asked to comment on George Stephanopoulis's interview with Chrétien...'how long are we supposed to wait'..she said, smirkily, when JC mentionned that the UN weapons inspectors should get more time). I've also seen Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer pull the same smirk. I can't imagine myself pulling a smirk like this, unless I'm really angry and out for revenge...and, well, evil.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 01 October 2003 09:13 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Saw Blitzer grilling Novack tonight. Not pretty. He was squirmin' like a toad. He's not giving anything up though, pretty well denying the person who leaked to him was in the White House.

He was particularly reptillian when he denied any responsibility for the damage done to Palme and/or national security.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 01 October 2003 09:27 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Meanwhile Larry Johnson was on Buchanan and Press tonight and dropped a pretty broad hint that Lewis "Scooter" Libby is involved in this. As Cheney's Chief of Staff and assistant for national security, I wouldn't be surprised if Libby has the necessary clearance to know of Plame's status. But so far there's no proof that I've heard.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 01 October 2003 09:34 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If it was Libby who tipped Novack would that make Novack technically right in saying the leaker wasn't in the White House (he seemed to emphasize that}, since Libby would work in the EOB?
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 01 October 2003 09:41 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Nina Totenberg on NPR by way of Atrios:

quote:
The White house asked for and got permission earlier this week to wait a day before issuing a directive to preserve all documents and logs which led one seasoned federal prosecutor to wonder why they wanted to wait a day, and who at the justice department told them they could do that, and why?


Jimmy, I suppose the answer to your question is yes, technically. And that's exactly the kind of game Novak is playing with words now. But I would think anyone else would figure that "senior White House official" includes Cheney and Libby. This is the same game Novak is trying to play with "analyst" and "operative" to try and minimize his own culpability.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 01 October 2003 10:00 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah he really seemed to over play his hand on those two points. Kinda like; see how clever I am. It was nauseating.

So if we're doing Watergate comparisons Libby would be the Magruder to Cheney's Mitchell? Hey we can dream.

How are some of our more conservative babblers seeing this?


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 02 October 2003 12:45 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Outside Probe of Leaks Is Favored

quote:
Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe a special prosecutor should be named to investigate allegations that Bush administration officials illegally leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released yesterday.

The poll, taken after the Justice Department announced that it had opened a criminal probe into the matter, pointed to several troubling signs for the White House as Bush aides decide how to contain the damage. The survey found that 81 percent of Americans considered the matter serious, while 72 percent thought it likely that someone in the White House leaked the agent's name.

Confronted with little public support for the White House view that the investigation should be handled by the Justice Department, Bush aides began yesterday to adjust their response to the expanding probe. They reined in earlier, broad portrayals of innocence in favor of more technical arguments that it is possible the disclosure was made without knowledge that a covert operative was being exposed and therefore might not have been a crime.


Emphasis added. That didn't take long.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 02 October 2003 09:48 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does anyone recall the episode of Meet The Press from September 14th, starring one evasive and lizardlike Dick Cheney? At the time he stated "I don't know any Joe Wilson, I've never met Joe Wilson." That, as everything else out of the White House recently, was a lie:

quote:
While Cheney may not know Wilson, there is little doubt he knows of him. When Cheney was helping run the Persian Gulf War, as secretary of defense, Wilson was one of the key players. As the acting US ambassador on the ground in Baghdad in the weeks leading up to the war, the White House consulted Wilson daily. In those weeks, he was the only open line of communication between Washington and Saddam Hussein. Cheney was the Secretary of Defense at the time and a key player in the day-to-day operations and intelligence gathering. Furthermore, Wilson was formally commended by the Bush administration for his bravery and heroism in the weeks leading up to the war. In that time, Wilson helped evacuate thousands of foreigners from Kuwait, negotiated the release of more than 120 American hostages and sheltered nearly 800 Americans in the embassy compound.


"Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq," President Bush wrote Wilson in a letter. "The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job."


Wilson says that he heard from people who were at meetings chaired by Bush in the lead up to the Gulf War, "When people would come up with an idea, George Bush would often lean forward and ask them, 'What does Joe Wilson say about that? What does Joe Wilson think about that?' So at the highest level of our government there was keen interest in knowing what the field was saying and Dick Cheney was probably at those meetings."


click!

Why does the media never come prepared to interviews anymore? It doesn't take much thought to figure out that White House staffers are going to deny knowledge of anything which makes them (or their lying boss) look bad. If you have a prepared set of questions for your guest, you can guess what some of the answers are going to be - plausible denials. A good interviewer should have some ammunition at the ready to blow those plausible denials apart. How much digging would it have taken to learn that Joe Wilson was the Baghdad attache in the run up to The Gulf War, or that Cheney was the Secretary of Defense? Cheney must have sat in on some meetings where Wilson's work came up. I can only assume that the researchers and interviewers working for MSNBC are incompetent boobs.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 October 2003 10:09 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I had a chuckle this morning as well at the expense of the Grope: mid-way through the paper you can read the continuation of a report on this scandal that they say started on p A1 -- but in my edition, anyway, no such story appears on A1. Maybe they cut it to fit in that shot of the Concorde.

See why editors matter?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 02 October 2003 10:17 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the New York Daily News

quote:
Even as they accused Democrats of playing politics with intelligence matters, White House officials privately expected one or more staffers to lose their jobs for blowing the cover of a CIA officer, Bush administration sources said yesterday.

"Somebody will have to go before it's over," an official said. "The only question is whether it's a low-level person following orders or somebody higher up."


How would a low-level person know about Plame's status unless he/she was told by a higher up?

Meanwhile, from TPM:

quote:
A mountain of rumor doesn't amount to a single fact. But two respected ex-CIA officers have now publicly pointed to the vice president's office -- a good sign, I think, that that's what they're hearing from ex-colleagues at CIA. An increasing range of circumstantial evidence points in that direction. And now a United States Senator of the president's own party has suggested the same.

If true, Libby's involvement would mean much more than a rapid escalation in his attorneys' billable hours. Much more.


Emphasis in original. Boom yet?

[ 02 October 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 02 October 2003 03:17 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Leak Probe May Expand Beyond White House

quote:
The investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's name is likely to expand to other Bush administration agencies such as the State and Defense departments, officials said Thursday.

A senior Justice Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said those agencies, and possibly others, could get letters urging officials to preserve documents such as phone logs and not to delete e-mails. Similar letters have already gone to the White House and CIA.

Defense Department officials confirmed Thursday they were told to expect such a letter.


And the beat goes on.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 02 October 2003 11:53 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Justice to Begin Leak Interviews Within Days

quote:
Justice Department investigators plan to begin interviewing Bush administration officials within days in an effort to swiftly identify anyone who may have leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent, a department official said yesterday.

"We will move quickly to interview likely suspects in the next few days," the official said. He declined to provide names, but said the first interviews will be with officials whose names have surfaced in news reports as possible sources of the information.

The move appears intended to short-circuit Democratic calls for the appointment of a special counsel and avoid what could otherwise be a long and politically damaging investigation. Moreover, a decision to begin interviewing officials immediately could increase pressure on a leaker to step forward promptly or risk charges of lying to investigators

(snip)

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft demanded yesterday that the FBI begin the investigation quickly. He was infuriated by a news report quoting an FBI official saying the bureau intended to move slowly because of the high-profile nature of the newly opened investigation, an Ashcroft aide said. The aide said Ashcroft directed an assistant to call FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and inform him "that is not the way we are treating this at all."



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 04 October 2003 01:19 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Novak strikes again!

Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm

quote:
The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA...

(snip)

The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.

(snip)

The name of the CIA front company was broadcast yesterday by Novak, the syndicated journalist who originally identified Plame. Novak, highlighting Wilson's ties to Democrats, said on CNN that Wilson's "wife, the CIA employee, gave $1,000 to Gore and she listed herself as an employee of Brewster-Jennings & Associates."

"There is no such firm, I'm convinced," he continued. "CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep cover -- they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. Sort of adds to the little mystery."


Since Novak is so much a part of this story, why is CNN continuing to allow him to pretend to cover it like a journalist?


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 October 2003 12:42 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The interesting thing is nobody has yet reported on whether CIA front companies have donated to Repubs. I suspect that the CIA would not be averse to violating rules about government bodies supporting election campaigns, and that by and large they would tend to support Republicans, who seem to have child-like fantasies about "spy stuff" and gettin' the Commies but good.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 October 2003 01:32 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Slim, you promise, don't you, to re-open this thread when the mods close it for being too long? And you will give us a link to this ole thread? Ta very much.

These are such interesting basic problems of principle to democrats, I feel. Few things apart from foreign policy interest me so much.

I mean, the CIA, like all intelligence agencies but more than most, is such a problem to democrats. It has been globally poisonous, and for a very long time, and I have often thought that the only cure for what it does would be to take it apart from the top down, debriefing every single soul as one goes, since the further down one goes, the more otherwise-unknown operatives one is going to turn up.

However, to the issue at hand: as long as the CIA persists, then the people who get sucked into its system must be protected. Most of them have volunteered in good faith to do more or less risky stuff, and they therefore deserve the protection at least of American law, since that's the law they volunteered to risk their necks to protect.

Read this:

quote:
A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.

"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said.


Like, duh. I don't know which countries she was in, but depending on the country, anyone she came in contact with could now be suspect -- maybe real operatives, but maybe her laundry lady.

Yes, the whole bloody system is rotten. At the same time, there is something called honour among thieves. She was a faithful servant of a system that has now betrayed her -- and maybe a lot of other people.

As for Novak, I think the best thing that can happen to him is what is happening right now. He will be discredited among his peers (please God), and that will finish him, disgrace him professionally. Leave him to journalist's heaven. For the bad journalists, that is serious hell.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 04 October 2003 01:51 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Slim, you promise, don't you, to re-open this thread when the mods close it for being too long? And you will give us a link to this ole thread? Ta very much.

I shall, indeed.

quote:

However, to the issue at hand: as long as the CIA persists, then the people who get sucked into its system must be protected. Most of them have volunteered in good faith to do more or less risky stuff, and they therefore deserve the protection at least of American law, since that's the law they volunteered to risk their necks to protect.

I made this point earlier in the thread when I wrote that both Wilson and his wife have spent their adult lives in service to their country. The people behind these leaks may have thought that Wilson would roll over and play dead. They obviously misjudged him, but it was silly to do so. Anyone looking at his record, especially in Iraq, should have known he would push back.

quote:
Like, duh. I don't know which countries she was in, but depending on the country, anyone she came in contact with could now be suspect -- maybe real operatives, but maybe her laundry lady.

In the same way, those countries will now be reviewing contacts with anyone from the front company Novak exposed. And for all we know, there may already have been people killed over this and we'll never find out.

quote:

As for Novak, I think the best thing that can happen to him is what is happening right now. He will be discredited among his peers (please God), and that will finish him, disgrace him professionally. Leave him to journalist's heaven. For the bad journalists, that is serious hell.

I don't have anything to add here. I just quoted this paragraph because it bears repetition.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2878

posted 05 October 2003 01:49 AM      Profile for majorvictory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More vicious than Tricky Dick

quote:
John Dean says the Bush team's leaks are even viler than his former boss's -- and that Plame and Wilson should file a civil suit.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By John W. Dean

Oct. 3, 2003 | I thought I had seen political dirty tricks as foul as they could get, but I was wrong. In blowing the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame to take political revenge on her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for telling the truth, Bush's people have out-Nixoned Nixon's people. And my former colleagues were not amateurs by any means.

For example, special counsel Chuck Colson, once considered the best hatchet man of modern presidential politics, went to prison for leaking false information to discredit Daniel Ellsberg's lawyer. Ellsberg was being prosecuted by Nixon's Justice Department for disclosing the so-called Pentagon Papers (the classified study of the origins of the Vietnam War). But Colson at his worst could barely qualify to play on Bush's team. The same with assistant to the president John Ehrlichman, a jaw-jutting fellow who left them "twisting in the wind," and went to jail denying he'd done anything wrong in ordering a break-in at Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, where the burglars went and looked for, but did not find, real information to discredit Ellsberg.


But neither Colson nor Ehrlichman nor anyone else I knew while working at the Nixon White House had the necessary viciousness, or depravity, to attack the wife of a perceived enemy by employing potentially life-threatening tactics.

So let me share a bit of history with Ambassador Wilson and his wife. And, well aware that gratuitous advice is rightfully suspect, let me also offer them a suggestion -- drawn from some pages of Watergate history that till now I've only had occasion to discuss privately. Long before Congress became involved and a special prosecutor was appointed, Joe Califano, then general counsel to the Democratic National Committee and later a Cabinet officer, persuaded his Democratic colleagues to file a civil suit against the Nixon reelection committee. And that maneuver almost broke the Watergate coverup wide open. In seeking justice from the closed ranks of the Bush White House, Wilson and Plame should follow a similar strategy.



From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 05 October 2003 01:55 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apparently Chris Matthews is another of the journalists involved in this. From David Corn's Capital Games column:

quote:
In the issue coming out October 6, Newsweek will be reporting that after Bob Novak published a July 14 column containing the leak attributed to "senior adminsitration officials" that identified former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as an undercover CIA operative, NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell was contacted by White House officials who touted the Novak column and encouraged her to pursue the story about Wilson's wife. The newsmagazine also notes that, according to a source close to Wilson, shortly after the leak occurred Bush's senior aide Karl Rove told Hardball host Chris Matthews that Wilson's wife was "fair game." Matthews told Newsweek that he would not discuss any confidential conversation. (He told me the same weeks ago when I made a similar inquiry about this chat with Rove.) An anonymous source described as familiar with the exchange--presumably Rove or someone designated to speak for him--maintained that Rove had only said to Matthews it was appropriate to raise questions about her role in Wilson's mission to Niger....

(snip)

Mitchell's remark and even the Rove-friendly account of the Rove-Matthews conversation are evidence the White House tried to further the Plame story--that is, to exploit the leak for political gain. Rather than respond by trying to determine the source of a leak that possibly violated federal law and perhaps undermined national security ( The Washington Post reported that the leak also blew the cover of a CIA front company, "potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure"), White House officials sought to take advantage of it. Spin that, McClellan.



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 October 2003 01:02 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Ok. I'm trying to get a handle on all this, and get my mind around the whole issue here.

So, a very simple question.

Is the President's hatchet job on a relatively junior CIA official the potential anvil on which can be broken this Administration?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 05 October 2003 01:09 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Realistically, I don't expect this to blossom into a full-blown Watergate. I doubt that Rove or Cheney or Libby will actually be forced out of the White House and into a prison term. It seems more likely that if anyone takes a fall, it will be a lower level sacrificial lamb.

But there's been serious political damage done to Bush. When even publications like the Washington Times and NewsMax have run editorials condemning both the leak itself, and Bush's inaction on dealing with it, then it seems fair to say that Bush's credibility has been damaged even among a portion of his core constituency. When Larry Johnson goes on television and makes a point of saying that he's a Republican and this incident makes him ashamed to be one then, at the very least, this makes Bush's hopes for a second term a little more dicey. It's better than nothing.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 October 2003 01:48 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Slim: Oh ye of little faith!
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 05 October 2003 01:51 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On this score, I'm afraid my cynicism is winning out. The crux of the matter is the five or six journalists to whom Plame's covert status was leaked before Novak's story. If they all have the same partisan attitude as Novak, then they'll never come clean - and the First Amendment has nothing to do with it.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 October 2003 02:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There will be an Alexander Butterfield. There will be a Cox and a Richardson and a Ruckelshaus.

Trust me, Slim. I am not a crook.

[ 05 October 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 05 October 2003 02:08 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's not you I don't trust, skdadl. And I won't stop watching the story, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm still hoping for a bang, but I'm prepared for a whimper.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 05 October 2003 06:08 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm with Slim in the cynicism department, I fear. I remember Iran-Contra too well. There were guys who basically got up and said, "Yeah, I broke the law, because I'm all patriotic and stuff!" and got away with that garbage. Then made money writing right-wing propaganda books.

The rot, I'm afraid, goes deep.


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 06 October 2003 12:00 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fair Game by William Rivers Pitt

(Really no new info here. I just love it when Pitt gets really pissed.)

quote:
So, to recap, the wives of Bush administration critics are fair game. CIA operatives are likewise fair game. If said CIA operative is working to defend our national security by keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists, that does not matter, because they are fair game. Also, front companies used to protect the identities of CIA operatives working to defend our national security, and by proxy all of the agents whose lives are protected by that cover, are fair game as well.

Seeing as how this is the case, that the barest standards and principles no longer have a place within this administration, that the national security of the United States can be sacrificed for low-rent political retribution, that George W. Bush and his people have been exposed as the rankest and bloodiest hypocrites in the history of American government, that everything is now fair game, I say let’s have at it. If politics is now nothing more than a WWF cage match, I want in.



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 October 2003 03:34 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 06 October 2003 07:49 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A Sense of Betrayal

quote:
In the shadowy world of the espionage, where the truth can endanger lives, the recent leaking of a CIA operative's name has left the intelligence community feeling enraged, bitter and betrayed.

For CIA officials who put their lives at risk to serve their country, accepting a very different, very strict code of conduct under which their families are often kept in the dark about their work, the alleged leak has come as an unwelcome shock.

As the Justice Department investigates allegations that the White House maliciously leaked the name of a CIA operative, five former CIA officials told ABCNEWS' Nightline the scandal could have far-reaching consequences for American security and the international war on terror.

[snip]

[Q]uite apart from legal issues, ex-CIA officials warn that this case has raised fears within the agency that taking a position in opposition to the current administration could lead to an agent's outing.

"This was a political act, for the first time an agency, a clandestine officer was outed for political reasons," said Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer. "[It] puts fear in other people who are undercover, that if you take a position in opposition to the White House, they'll out you."

[snip]

At a time when Washington is waging a war on terror as anti-U.S. sentiment across the Muslim world has been running at record highs, the leaking, according to Brent Cavan, could spell dangerous times ahead.

"I think it sets a precedent that will make anyone that would consider working with us think twice about it," warned the former CIA officer. "Money, status or the prestige of working for the U.S. in those capacities won't matter because you'll wind up potentially dead."



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 October 2003 09:39 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bush calls leak a criminal action

quote:
President Bush said on Monday that the unauthorized disclosure of an undercover C.I.A. officer's identity was a "very serious matter" and "a criminal action" as the White House announced that at least 500 of its 2,000 employees had responded to a Justice Department demand for documents as part of an investigation into the source of the leak.

The announcement — and Mr. Bush's adamant words — reflected a tougher public approach by the White House to the leak, which has been attributed to senior administration officials. Democrats have criticized the administration for not treating the disclosure of the classified information more forcefully.


That should certainly make life easier for the right wing pundits who have been tying themselves up in knots trying find a way to claim that no crime was committed.

But it's not so serious that the White House is in a rush to turn over the evidence.

quote:
White House lawyers will review phone logs and other records supplied by presidential aides before turning the documents over to the Justice Department officials conducting the investigation into who leaked a CIA undercover operative's identity, officials said Monday.

....Administration officials said the White House counsel's office may need up to two weeks to organize documents that some 2,000 employees are required to submit by 5 p.m. Tuesday.


That's by way of Calpundit since the Dallas News requires registration.

Novak's record continues to come under scrutiny.

quote:
Let's review: Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak gets a leak of classified information from foreign-policy hardliners. The column he writes causes a huge embarrassment for the Republican White House and moderates throughout the administration. Capitol Hill erupts with protests about the leak.

Sound familiar? Actually, this occurred in December 1975. Novak, with his late partner Rowland Evans, got the classified leak -- that President Gerald R. Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were ready to make concessions to the Soviet Union to save the SALT II treaty. Donald H. Rumsfeld, then, as now, the secretary of defense, intervened to block Kissinger.

The main leak suspect: Richard Perle, then an influential aide to Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-Wash.) and now a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and a confidant of neoconservatives in the Bush administration. The account was described in a 1977 article in The Washington Post, noting Perle's "special access" to Evans and Novak.

Evans and Novak, the National Journal wrote in 1979, were among the three "chief recipients" of classified leaks from Perle. "Several sources in Congress and the executive branch who regard Perle as an opponent said that he and his allies make masterful use of the Evans and Novak column," The Post reported 26 years ago. "One congressional aide who tries to counter Perle's and Jackson's influence on arms issues said the Evans and Novak 'connection' helps Perle create a 'murky, threatening atmosphere' in his dealings with others."


And the Wilsons have hired a lawyer.

quote:
Wilson is considering legal options that could result in the leak being investigated through discovery in a civil action against administration officials who might have caused the disclosure or tried to draw attention to it, a legal source said. Possible allegations include invasion of privacy, the source said.

"There's no question that both Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson's legal rights have been violated," said Christopher Wolf, a Washington lawyer they have retained. "They don't want to do anything that might interfere in any way with the criminal investigation. But they are very eager to find out who set in motion the chain of events that has caused them harm."


Considering the fact that Mrs. Wilson's life may be in danger, and that her career has been ruined in her early 40's, this may at least cost someone some serious coin.

[ 07 October 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 07 October 2003 11:04 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What kind of world are we living in when all of a sudden the CIA suddenly become the good guys?
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 October 2003 11:19 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've had that thought too, N-p-p.

Fortunately, a different investigation written up in the Grope today reminds us of the normal activities of the CIA, which are often not just wicked but truly weird.

Apparently, back in the nineties, the agency was funding Hamas through a businessman/double agent: they wanted to watch where the money went.

Turns out that it went entirely to educational and charity projects.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 08 October 2003 09:49 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When is a leak not a leak?

In this Newsweek article, it's suggested that the half dozen cold calls to journalists weren't actually placed until after the Novak column came out.

quote:
[M]ore than 10 days after the story exploded, an alternative theory is emerging among those who are directly involved in the leak case: that the “senior administration official” quoted in the Washington Post piece simply got it wrong. There were indeed White House phone calls to reporters about Wilson’s wife. But most, if not all, of these phone calls, were made after the Novak column appeared, some government officials now believe. They were placed as part of a blundering effort to persuade journalists to concentrate on Wilson’s presumed lack of credentials as a critic of pre-Iraq war intelligence rather than the substance of his critique.

That could mean that the only leak that might qualify as a criminal act was the one to Novak himself. This would blow the theory that any of the other journalists could reveal the criminal(s). And we can be pretty sure Novak won't, at least not short of contempt of court charges. And Novak's source wasn't listed as a "top White House official". (In fact if that's where the only crime is here, my vote on the identity of the perp changes to Richard Perle but that's strictly speculation on my part.)

There is still political damage here, since the cold calls were obviously partisan attempts to damage Wilson's reputation. As the article concludes:

quote:
All of that may mean that no White House official actually committed a crime, but that doesn’t mean they’re in the clear. [Former CIA Director James] Woolsey said what White House officials did do was worse than a crime, “it was stupid.”

From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
banquosghost
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4520

posted 08 October 2003 11:45 PM      Profile for banquosghost     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This thing is already being consigned to the dust-bin. It'll hang around for a bit out on the edges but it's basically done now. The mainstream press has already begun the quibbling and qualifying that'll let the Bushies off the hook. The new WH press guy, Scott Whatsit, will play his lawyerly word games for a couple more weeks. Shrub will continue to smirk away that he wants to get to the bottom of it but that just as likely no one will be identified. And the whole thing will just become another conrtributing factor in the dismantling of the CIA's influence. Which is a good thing and a bad thing. Bad because we may not be able to discover what takes it's place. Likely at first it'll run out of Cheney's office and be as black-bagged as hell. The PNAC folks must be lovin' it.
From: north vancouver, bc | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 09 October 2003 10:19 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or maybe it was a leak

quote:
Another journalist yesterday confirmed receiving a call from an administration official providing the same information about Wilson's wife before the Novak column appeared on July 14 in The Post and other newspapers.

The journalist, who asked not to be identified because of possible legal ramifications, said that the information was provided as part of an effort to discredit Wilson, but that the CIA information was not treated as especially sensitive. "The official I spoke with thought this was a part of Wilson's story that wasn't known and cast doubt on his whole mission," the person said, declining to identify the official he spoke with. "They thought Wilson was having a good ride and this was part of Wilson's story."


This story was published on Sept. 29th, but I offer it here because it contradicts the Newsweek story above.

In other news, the Justice Dept. has suggested that the investigation will take at least until the end of the year. That's an anecdotal report - sorry, no link.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 October 2003 10:45 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe schmaybe.

Surely the Dems will work to keep this alive?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 10 October 2003 09:49 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Plame Game in pictures:

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002384.html


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 10 October 2003 10:17 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And we can be pretty sure Novak won't, at least not short of contempt of court charges.

If the leak had appeared in a Muslim or left-leaning media outlet, would the journalist be taken to Guantanamo Bay for "questioning" until such time they could be prosecuted?

From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
banquosghost
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4520

posted 10 October 2003 10:25 AM      Profile for banquosghost     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Slim, that cartoon is great! Thanx.

The thing is that there is a pattern discernible here with regard to Novak as well as with regard to Rove.

They've both done similar things before. Novak especially.

But who cares...it's just some liberal paranoia...pass the tax cuts!


From: north vancouver, bc | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 10 October 2003 01:17 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
John Dean, who certainly has some experience in these matters, seems to feel the administration may yet pay a serious price for this.

A Further Look At The Criminal ChargesThat May Arise From the Plame Scandal, In Which a CIA Agent's Cover Was Blown

quote:
But even if the White House was not initially involved with the leak, it has exploited it. As a result, it may have opened itself to additional criminal charges under the federal conspiracy statute.

This elegantly simple law has snared countless people working for, or with, the federal government. Suppose a conspiracy is in progress. Even those who come in later, and who share in the purpose of the conspiracy, can become responsible for all that has gone on before they joined. They need not realize they are breaking the law; they need only have joined the conspiracy.

Most likely, in this instance the conspiracy would be a conspiracy to defraud - for the broad federal fraud statute, too, may apply here. If two federal government employees agree to undertake actions that are not within the scope of their employment, they can be found guilty of defrauding the U.S. by depriving it of the "faithful and honest services of its employee." It is difficult to imagine that President Bush is going to say he hired anyone to call reporters to wreak more havoc on Valerie Plame. Thus, anyone who did so - or helped another to do so - was acting outside the scope of his or her employment, and may be open to a fraud prosecution.

What counts as "fraud" under the statute? Simply put, "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government." (Emphasis added.) If telephoning reporters to further destroy a CIA asset whose identity has been revealed, and whose safety is now in jeopardy, does not fit this description, I would be quite surprised.

If Newsweek is correct that Karl Rove declared Valerie Plame Wilson "fair game," then he should make sure he's got a good criminal lawyer, for he made need one. I've only suggested the most obvious criminal statute that might come into play for those who exploit the leak of a CIA asset's identity. There are others.



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 10 October 2003 01:29 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Heh. Heh. Heh.

Dean, of course, would know.

quote:

Seems like old times, having you to walk with,
Seems like old times, having you to talk with ...

From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 10 October 2003 01:29 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
John Dean wrote above that the Watergate scandal was almost broken wide open by a civil suit filed by aggrieved parties.

In Ontario, we have seen what the George family lawsuit has done to keep Ipperwash in the public eye; and that's when the proceedings have been secret til now.

Even if the administration is able to bury the criminal probe, a civil suit (now being prepared) will bleed the administration for the next year or two. Long enough.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
banquosghost
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4520

posted 10 October 2003 02:50 PM      Profile for banquosghost     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I really hope you're right. My faith in the US system is at an all time low and that means it's really low. I've never thought it was as great a system as my American friends like to claim it is to begin with. Now it appears badly bruised if not broken and that river in Egypt is running strong below the 49th.
From: north vancouver, bc | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 10 October 2003 05:16 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The system is only as good as the people who hold it accountable. It may be, as I hear people imply, that the US public is beyond all hope, but I seriously doubt it.

I mean, sure, it may take a sledgehammer over the head for them to see the obvious (this is a common failing as regards perceiving your own weakness), but when they do they will act. USAmericans are an extreme people given to extreme actions. The long-term consequences of this whole debacle could be quite severe for the republican party in general, let alone Bush personally.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 12 October 2003 01:06 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Probe Focuses on Month Before Leak to Reporters

This story has a good summary of the events leading up to the original Novak column that outed Valerie Plame. It also includes this:

quote:
That same week, two top White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to least six Washington journalists, an administration official told The Post for an article published Sept. 28. The source elaborated on the conversations last week, saying that officials brought up Plame as part of their broader case against Wilson.

"It was unsolicited," the source said. "They were pushing back. They used everything they had."


Emphasis added. This debunks the theory that the administration attack dogs didn't swing into action until after Novak had done the real dirty work.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 15 October 2003 05:00 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"CIA FU!," Ben Tripp, Counterpunch, Oct 11

quote:
I may be terribly old-fashioned --I still wear a waistcoat and spats -- but I've always lived by the simple dictum "don't dick with the Central Intelligence Agency". This is the same organization that has overthrown several dozen governments, assassinated countless persons, and hunted down Robert Redford in '3 Days of the Condor'.

Not only has she been exposed, but the front company she worked with, and anybody who showed up at the annual picnic, and her entire list of pen pals. If that isn't tweaking the bull on the bag, I don't know what is.

I'm just guessing here, but it seems to me that an agency willing to overthrow the government of Guatemala in the name of banana imports ought to have no problem saying "screw you right back" to a bunch of venal, inbred frat boys blundering their way through their last terms in public office.

Expect events in the next few months to get very interesting as political revelations start to occur at the most embarrassing moments, policy notions don't get properly cooked intelligence to back them up, and personal secrets float into public view for no apparent reason.



From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 October 2003 09:53 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That was tonic, WW.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 17 October 2003 08:17 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Senior Federal Prosecutors and F.B.I. Officials Fault Ashcroft Over Leak Inquiry

quote:
Several senior criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department and top F.B.I. officials have privately criticized Attorney General John Ashcroft for failing to recuse himself or appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the leak of a C.I.A. operative's identity.

The criticism reflects the first sign of dissension in the department and the F.B.I. as the inquiry nears a critical phase. The attorney general must decide whether to convene a grand jury, which could compel White House officials to testify.

The criminal justice officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be identified, represent a cross section of experienced criminal prosecutors and include political supporters of Mr. Ashcroft at the department's headquarters here and at United States attorneys' offices around the country.

The officials said they feared Mr. Ashcroft could be damaged by continuing accusations that as an attorney general with a long career in Republican partisan politics, he could not credibly lead a criminal investigation that centered on the aides to a Republican president.


(I'll bet y'all thought I'd forgotten this thread. No such luck.)


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
banquosghost
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4520

posted 17 October 2003 09:09 PM      Profile for banquosghost     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Notice though that the unnamed JD officials aren't expressing concern regarding uncovering who may have outed a spy. They're concerned for their boss's job. Admittedly that may be a survival tactic. But the discovery of the traitor is way less important already than the protection of turf.
From: north vancouver, bc | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 17 October 2003 09:55 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
With regards to the Counterpunch article Willowdale quoted: I would give various unnameable (in polite company) body parts to be able to write like that. I laughed myself sillier.

Slim: as pennance for the self-deprecating tone above, we sentence you to continue updating us on all the topics you're currently following, plus a few. Your updates save us lazy folks some work.


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 17 October 2003 10:08 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by April Follies:
...plus a few

Did you have some specifically in mind? Or should I just please myself?


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 17 October 2003 10:30 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slim:

Did you have some specifically in mind? Or should I just please myself?


Oh, please, please yourself. It's all about trusting your judgement, after all.

Lest the moderators rap my knuckles for flagrant thread drift, I hastily proffer a New York Times article on topic: Ashcroft Says His Investigators Have Made Gains in Leak Case

quote:
Under pressure over his handling of the investigation into the disclosure of an undercover C.I.A. officer's identity, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday that investigators had made good progress but that he had not ruled out removing himself from the case.

Mr. Ashcroft also left open the possibility of appointing a special counsel to take over the case and of approving subpoenas to reporters in order to find the source of the leak. "I have not foreclosed any options in this matter," he said.


[ 17 October 2003: Message edited by: April Follies ]


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 18 October 2003 04:28 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The DNC has decided to try and score some political points from the Plame Game (or Wilsongate or whatever we're calling it this week). In this entry dailykos provides links to a new ad in RealPlayer, WMP and QuickTime formats.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 22 October 2003 12:09 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
CIA-leak scapegoat still at large

quote:
WASHINGTON, DC—A White House administration official who can be blamed for leaking the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to the press remains at large, White House officials announced Monday.

Above: Ashcroft says the scapegoat is "out there."

"We are doing everything in our power to see that the scapegoat is found and held accountable," President Bush said. "We will not stop until he—or she—is located. Believe me, nobody wants to see the blame placed squarely on the shoulders of a single person, and photos of that individual in every newspaper in the country, more than I do."

As the White House's search for the scapegoat continues, the Justice Department's investigative team is also working around the clock to find the ostensibly guilty party.

"We're doing everything we can," Attorney General John Ashcroft said. "I have assured the president that I will let him know the second we find either the leak or a decent scapegoat. It will happen. He's out there somewhere."

Bush has ordered his staff to cooperate fully with the Justice Department's investigation, which has already included interviews with dozens of White House officials.

"The team is hard at work, but the process of finding the perfect scapegoat is very time-consuming," Bush said. "While we can assume that this person will not be a member of my senior staff, we have few other concrete ideas about his identity. Why, the scapegoat may turn out to be someone who knew absolutely nothing about the leak. You can see how difficult the job is."



From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 22 October 2003 12:42 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scott, you've linked to the Onion's handy salary negotiation tips. I'll be sure to give those a try.

But I think you meant to link here.

[ 22 October 2003: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 27 October 2003 09:20 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Naming of agent 'was aimed at discrediting CIA'

quote:
The Bush administration's exposure of a clandestine Central Intelligence Agency operative was part of a campaign aimed at discrediting US intelligence agencies for not supporting White House claims that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear weapons programme, former agency officials said yesterday.

In a rare hearing called by Senate Democratic leaders, the officials said the White House engaged in pressure and intimidation aimed at generating intelligence evidence to support the decision to make war on Iraq.

[snip]

Vince Cannistraro, former CIA operations chief, charged yesterday: "She was outed as a vindictive act because the agency was not providing support for policy statements that Saddam Hussein was reviving his nuclear programme."

The leak was a way to "demonstrate an underlying contempt for the intelligence community, the CIA in particular".

[snip]

In written testimony, he said that Vice-President Dick Cheney and his top aide Lewis Libby went to CIA headquarters to press mid-level analysts to provide support for the claim. Mr Cheney, he said, "insisted that desk analysts were not looking hard enough for the evidence". Mr Cannistraro said his information came from current agency analysts.



From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 October 2003 09:37 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Republican-controlled Senate intelligence committee is preparing a highly critical report of the pre-war intelligence, the Washington Post reported yesterday, which will conclude that the CIA overstated any evidence about Iraq's weapons programmes and ties to terrorism.

But surely, if the Repubs are stupid enough to do something so transparent, their report will simply revive this story.

Slim, this thread is so inspiring. I know that you already have a vocation, but now you have another.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 27 October 2003 09:56 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
But surely, if the Repubs are stupid enough to do something so transparent, their report will simply revive this story.

It already has. The hearing Cannistraro testified at was called by the Democrats precisely because of the GOP's attempt to protect the White House and try to blame the whole mess on the CIA. The Rebublican Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, is well known as a reliable front man for Bush.

quote:

Slim, this thread is so inspiring. I know that you already have a vocation, but now you have another.

I can't fight the feelin'.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 27 October 2003 11:14 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
audra estrones seeks probe of 145-post thread.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca