Just before bed, I read this curious paragraph in the New York Times about the “Plamegate” investigation:
Three days before the grand jury in the case expires and with the White House in a state of high anxiety, the special counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, appeared still to be trying to determine whether Mr. Rove had been fully forthcoming about his contacts with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist, in July 2003, they said.
I call this paragraph curious because it seems kind of late in the game “still to be trying” to figure out whether a key witness in this case has told investigators all he knew about his contact with reporters.
Granted, unlike Mr. Fitzgerald, I don’t have access to all the facts in this case nor I have heard Mr. Rove’s testimony — or even read a transcript of that testimony. Since Mr. Cooper has been rather forthcoming about his testimony, we know that Rove’s contact with him on the topic was a “brief conversation” during which Rove merely warned Cooper not to “get too far out on Wilson.” To be sure, Rove did not mention this brief conversation in his initial appearance before the grand jury, but when his attorney alerted him to an e-mail he had written confirming the conversation, Rove voluntarily returned to testify.
In a thoughtful analysis of the discovery of that e-mail, the Anonymous Liberal shows how it came to pass that that neither Rove nor his attorneys discovered that e-mail at that outset of the investigation. (Hat tip: JustOneMinute.) Accepting that the White House may not have deliberately withheld this e-mail, this thoughtful liberal concludes:
The question that remains is whether Rove’s failure to mention his conversation with Cooper was the result of a genuine lapse of memory or a purposeful lack of candor. I suspect the latter, but ultimately it’s the opinions of the grand jurors that will matter.
Perhaps, the prosecutor, like this liberal, suspects Rove’s purposeful lack of candor. And that explains what he is still trying to determine at this late date. While I agree with Anonymous’s first sentence, I disagree with his second. As I blogged recently, I suspect Rove’s failure to testify about the conversation was due to a lapse of memory.
Or maybe the Prosecutor has reached a similar conclusion (to my own) and the paragraph in the Times represents wishful thinking on behalf of that paper’s editors and reporters. Or maybe there’s an attorney on the special prosecutor’s staff still trying to find something, anything, to pin on Karl Rove. And Rove’s initial failure to mention his conversation with Cooper is all that attorney has to go on.
The Times‘ curious statement suggests that there is not much to the investigation — at least at it pertains to Karl Rove. But, then again, Fitzgerald may have evidence of which I am not aware and his determination rests on those (as yet) undisclosed facts. With what we do know, it seems whatever case there is against Rove is built upon whether or not Rove has been completely forthcoming about two brief conversations with reporters. And not on attempts to smear an Administration critic.
I think you’re being pretty casually dimissive when it’s established fact that Rove told Cooper it was “Wilson’s wife” who worked at the CIA on WMD issues. Are you saying that Rove was confident Cooper couldn’t put two and two together with the information he told him?
The special prosecutor’s office is now simply tieing down that Valerie Plame was not known as an operative on the “cocktail circuit” as has been purported. More importantly though is to have confirmation of where Rove learned of her identity. Was it through this cocktail circuit cabal, or more likely through Scooter Libby and his efforts to discredit Wilson?
Occam’s Razor anyone? I have an old copy of The Hounds of the Baskerville if anyone would like to brush up.
BTW, doesn’t waiting – one might infer to actually get all your facts straight – imply that Fitzgerald is actually being thorough in his research of the issue rather than preemptively, and potentially damagingly, rushing through the process?
I like how you regurgitate the Wall Street Journal talking points though. Makes it easier than actually having to read it myself.
GCB, you, like so many on the left really do seem to have some great theory about a conspiracy in all this.
No one is disputing that Rove mentioned that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, but the key question (for the statue at issue) is not whether or not Ms. Plame’s neighbors knew she was a covert agent, but whether Rove knew that. And I have yet to find any evidence that he had.
But, then again (as I said in the post) Fitzgerald may have significant information that has not been released (leaked?) to the media. From what we do know, at least from what the Times and other newspapers reports is that the special prosecutor is limiting his current inquiry to perjury, obstruction of justice and withholding evidence — or similar charges.
But, then again, those papers may not know everything either.
Sources familiar with the grand jury hearings are saying it’s revealed in the proceedings that Rove took part in “an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife.”
We know he lied about his activities. In September 2003 when asked by a reporter “did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?” to which he replied no. Obviously he did have knowledge. Obviously he leaked Valerie Plame’s identity. A court of law will not be satisfied that he didn’t “technically” leak her name. Two and two equals four.
GCB, from all press reports that we have read, he had two conversations on the topic, devoting a total of maybe 2 minutes to the topic, in each all he did was acknowledge or indicate that he had heard that his wife got him the job. Perhaps, in this context, it’s derogatory to say that his wife helped him get his job. But, that’s the fact.
If you have other evidence of how Rove tried to discredit Mr. Wilson, please provide it. (Reporters — as well as the Senate Intelligence Committee — have disclosed such information, but Mr. Rove, as far as we know, has not. )
He didn’t lie about those activities. If you bothered to read the post to which you are commenting, you would see that I have already addressed the issue. When his attorney showed him the e-mail indicating that he had had the conversation, he contacted the prosecutor and voluntarily corrected his testimony.
Seems you are describing Rove not as he is, but as the diabolical and dishonest demon you want him to be.
Blaming Media in Leak Case Not Working By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer October 20, 2005
…
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald now knows that Cheney aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby met three times with a New York Times reporter before the leak of Plame’s identity, initiated a call to NBC’s Tim Russert and was a confirming source about Wilson’s wife for a Time magazine reporter.
And in a new twist, presidential political adviser Karl Rove has testified that it’s possible Libby was his source before Rove talked to two reporters about the CIA operative.
…
In grand jury testimony shown to Rove, Libby said he had told Rove about information he had gotten about Wilson’s wife from Russert, according to a person directly familiar with the information.
Prosecutors, however, have a different account from Russert. The TV network has said Russert told authorities he did not know about Wilson’s wife’s identity until it was published and therefore could not have told Libby about it. Russert also says that it was Libby who initiated the contact with him.
CNN – October 26, 2005
…
Rove has testified before the Fitzgerald grand jury that he believes it was I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, who first told him that Plame worked for the CIA and had a role in sending her husband to Africa, according to a source familiar with Rove’s testimony.
…
That combined with the knowledge that he then leaked the information to Matt Cooper sounds pretty damning.
Well, let’s see, GCB, in your comment #6, you still have not provided any information to buttress you claim in comment #4 that Rove “took part in ‘an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife.’”
You also show that Rove was forthcoming in his testimony in about his conversations as he indicates it was possibly Libby was his source.
I don’t find any of this “damning,” at least to Rove. All he did was make known (to all of 2 reporters — in a total of 2 conversations) that Wilson’s wife had a role in sending him to Africa, but no evidence that Rove knew she was undercover. That’s an aggressive campaign to discredit?
The issues you bring up relate to Libby’s possible guilt — but not Rove’s. This post was about Rove. With Libby, however, it seems there is some evidence that he may have perjured himself before the grand jury. But, then again, I don’t have all the facts in this case.
“Sources familiar with the grand jury hearings are saying …”
Grand jury proceeding are supposed to be secret, and theses “sources” undoubtedly know that. This begs the question” How reliable and trustworthy can they be when they themselves are violating the law in leaking this stuff?
Well, let’s see, GCB, in your comment #6, you still have not provided any information to buttress you claim in comment #4 that Rove “took part in ‘an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife.’”
You forget. It’s not my claim. I’m simply repeating what’s been reported fomr grand jury insiders. Take it for what you will.
You also show that Rove was forthcoming in his testimony in about his conversations as he indicates it was possibly Libby was his source.
Forthcoming after Libby fingered him. Not forthcoming until his last (number four) grand jury appearance. Libby’s in hot water and he’s casting blame. It was up to Rove to try to save himself. The rumors are that Fitzgerald offered Rove a plea bargain to drop obstruction if he agreed to perjury. He will be indicted on something.
I don’t find any of this “damning,” at least to Rove. All he did was make known (to all of 2 reporters — in a total of 2 conversations) that Wilson’s wife had a role in sending him to Africa, but no evidence that Rove knew she was undercover.
Now Rove “remembers” it was Libby who told him about Valerie Plame but not that she was undercover before speaking to Cooper. Perhaps he did know and perhaps he didn’t know. It would depend on what was said between Libby and Rove and I guess.
It’s clear from new knowledge that Cheney and Libby were investigating Wilson in June. They knew Plame was a CIA operative. Are we to assume that they then did or didn’t know she was covert? They had to know her position at the CIA and had to investigate to the point to where they could somehow link her to the trip. It seems pretty implausible given this research and the memo that circulated on Air Force One that everyone was in the dark about this especially Libby. And if he passed on information to Rove, knowing that it was confidential, he’s in bigger trouble along with the Vice President than Rove could ever be in.
And who told Novak she was an operative?
“And if [Libby] passed on information to Rove, knowing that it was confidential, he’s in bigger trouble along with the Vice President than Rove could ever be in.”
Not if they all have top security clearances, which all three do.
Who told Novak that Plame was an operative? It could have been none other than Joe Wilson.
#10
Who told Novak that Plame was an operative? It could have been none other than Joe Wilson.
Considering both of them essentially told everybody that she worked for the CIA.
I still find it interesting that libs still believe she could have been covert when she obviously wasn’t.
BTW, GayCowFlop, you may want to go back and read over Jay Rockefeller’s memo.
Cheers to you GCBob for stepping in here and waging battle against the so-called “gay patriots”, who — smelling big trouble — are jumping to the defense of partisan operatives who betrayed our country. Their quick rise to defense of traitorous actions by leaders in their party shouldn’t surprise us Bob; after all, these were the same folks who still defended Shrub after he tried to plug his hatred of them into the Constitution.
Let’s see, GCB in #9, you still provide no “damning” evidence against Mr. Rove, especially none that would indicate he was part of an “aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson.”
Do you have evidence that the Vice President and Libby knew of Plame’s cover status?
For a change, you do say something with which I actually l agree, Libby may be in the bigger trouble with the Vice President than Rove. Please note my post where I indicated something “seemed odd” about Libby. I wouldn’t be surprised if he were indicted. The facts seem to indicate that such an indictment would be warranted.
Oh, and, QP in #13, please show me how these actions were traitorous, how they were designed to help the enemies of our country.
I should think Joe Wilson’s behavior was more traitorous, inasmuch as he went to Africa, ostensibly on a matter of utmost importance to United States security, clearly advertised to everyone that he was working for the US government, and proceeded to tell everyone exactly for what the US was looking.
Really, that’s what I find most inexplicable in this case. Did the CIA expect them to confess to an agent of the US government that they had sold uranium ore to a country to whom it was clearly forbidden — an act which would essentially shut off trade to their country, place them under international sanction, and deprive them of their major source of capital? I suppose anything’s possible, if they were still describing as “covert” a woman whose identity that they were so convinced had been compromised that they unceremoniously yanked her back to the United States and kept her there to keep her from being captured or killed, but I doubt it.
Clearly what the CIA wanted in this case was confirmation they were right; however, instead of sending a skilled agent who could actually gather information, they sent someone whose instructions were to essentially sabotage the operation and reach a foregone conclusion. As it seems, one of them decided that if there was going to be a junket, her husband might as well be the one getting paid for it.
Well said NDT. A special prosecutor might be more useful by investigating individuals in the CIA. What are Joe and Valerie’s motivation for their actions? If Scooter and Karl are guilty of anything, it is the same stupidity that put Martha in jail.
As an aside…how does anyone get the nickname “Scooter”?
They hunted two years for guilty until they could find something which proved their hunt valid. Wilson and the boys within the CIA and State Dept are distracting the public from the real treason found in the crimes existing within Able Danger.
Oh, look at Mr-I’m-An-Expert-On-Everything in #15, describing the inner workings of the CIA. Like he knows what he’s yapping about — what a fraud!
Anyways girls, we’ll all know soon enough who’s wrong here and we’ll either have indictments of 1 or more WH officials or not. If we do, everything you’ve been saying here in defense of all-things-Republican will be just more partisan malarkey from you. And if we don’t — oh, forget about that — we WILL see at least 1 indictment.
Love Pussy
ND30, who do you think forged the Niger documents and why?
I should think Joe Wilson’s behavior was more traitorous, inasmuch as he went to Africa, ostensibly on a matter of utmost importance to United States security, clearly advertised to everyone that he was working for the US government, and proceeded to tell everyone exactly for what the US was looking.
Don’t be stupid. He went and did the mission exactly as it was outlined for him to do as commissioned by the CIA. Are you trying to tell us that yellowcake was really sold? Or that if he were more discreet they would have found some sort of damning evidence? Because if you are, out of all the government agencies and other investigatory organizations, you’d be the only one that somehow still believes that.
Let’s see, GCB in #9, you still provide no “damning” evidence against Mr. Rove, especially none that would indicate he was part of an “aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson.”
What part of “You forget. It’s not my claim. I’m simply repeating what’s been reported from grand jury insiders. Take it for what you will.” don’t you understand?
Do you have evidence that the Vice President and Libby knew of Plame’s cover status?
You’d have to speak to Mr. Fitzgerald or wait for the indictments to come out. But again, it’s what’s being reported. I assume someone from the Vice President’s office put together the dossier that was read on Air Force One. Perhaps it materialized from thin air? And perhaps leprechauns came to Libby’s bedroom at night and whispered “Valerie Plame is a CIA operative” to him as he slept. One never knows in these situations.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he were indicted. The facts seem to indicate that such an indictment would be warranted.
Oh its pretty certain he will be. Libby investigated and knew plenty about Plame. And now consequently, since it’s established that Libby spoke to Rove about the matter and that Rove, perhaps unknowing of her covert status, then passed on the knowledge to the press, he’s at least willfully damaging. I find it highly unlikely that the special prosecutor’s office will find it amusing that it took the fourth grand jury appearance for Rove to “remember” that Libby spoke to him before he spoke to Cooper.
Oh, and, QP in #13, please show me how these actions were traitorous, how they were designed to help the enemies of our country.
I should think Joe Wilson’s behavior was more traitorous, inasmuch as he went to Africa
So who’s more traiterous? The former ambassador who completes his mission truthfully to the dissatisfaction of the administration or that administration that subsequently tries to slander him for not providing false information to support their policies, policies that sent us to invade another country?
As it seems, one of them decided that if there was going to be a junket, her husband might as well be the one getting paid for it.
Are you really regurgetating a talking point from the original Libby/Rove/Novak/Miller leaks? After all this time with facts established that Plame wasn’t in a position to influence or decide who was sent, but rather to suggest Wilson, who was absolutely qualified to take on the mission, are you really trying to pose this lie?
Do you forget that the yellowcake information, the documents, the suppositions, were all found incorrect, forged, or based in half-truths so much so that the administration was forced to admit it was incorrect the day after uttering the famous 16 words? And that no government agency or international government agency has evidence supporting the sale of yellowcake to Iraq? Is there ambiguity in this that I’m not seeing?
instead of sending a skilled agent who could actually gather information, they sent someone whose instructions were to essentially sabotage the operation and reach a foregone conclusion.
This is absolutely untrue. The facts reveal that Joe Wilson was perfectly qualified for the mission with appropriate contacts and background and that he completed his mission as assigned in the manner specified, so much so you’re about the last person purporting this falsehood.
Oh, look at Mr-I’m-An-Expert-On-Everything in #15, describing the inner workings of the CIA. Like he knows what he’s yapping about — what a fraud!
The fact that they are the CIA does not except them from the rules of common sense, thank you.
He went and did the mission exactly as it was outlined for him to do as commissioned by the CIA. Are you trying to tell us that yellowcake was really sold? Or that if he were more discreet they would have found some sort of damning evidence?
I am saying that the way the CIA outlined for him to do his mission made it a virtual certainty that he would NOT find damning evidence, regardless of whether it was there or not. That seems contrary to the point of sending someone to find out information, now doesn’t it?
GCB (in #21), you have yet to repeat any evidence that Rove was part of an “aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson.”
And where has it been reported that the Vice President or Libby knew of Ms. Plame’s covert status?
As to Rove’s fourth grand jury appearance, that one took place because Rove himself volunteered to testify. Given how busy a man he is, given his focus on the president’s re-election campaign at the outset of this investigation, given how little attention he paid to this topic, it makes sense that he might have forgotten that conversation.
So who’s more traiterous? The former ambassador who completes his mission truthfully to the dissatisfaction of the administration or that administration that subsequently tries to slander him for not providing false information to support their policies, policies that sent us to invade another country?
What if the ambassador and the CIA deliberately attempted to sabotage the mission to ensure that no information other than what they wanted to hear was returned?
You still haven’t dealt with the basic issue, Bob; Joe Wilson either took it upon himself or was specifically ordered by the CIA to act in a manner that would completely preclude gathering facts, unless the bureaucrats of Niger were suicidal enough to admit committing gross violations of international law. Why?
After all this time with facts established that Plame wasn’t in a position to influence or decide who was sent, but rather to suggest Wilson, who was absolutely qualified to take on the mission, are you really trying to pose this lie?
I phrase it this way, Bob; Joe Wilson’s original story was that his wife had no involvement whatsoever (“She had definitely not suggested that I make the trip”). Now you and he are trying the spin that, despite the fact that she was on her own initiative setting up meetings, sending glowing emails, and heaven knows what else to make sure he was on this trip, that she had no influence whatsoever.
This is absolutely untrue. The facts reveal that Joe Wilson was perfectly qualified for the mission with appropriate contacts and background and that he completed his mission as assigned in the manner specified, so much so you’re about the last person purporting this falsehood.
If the mission was to sit on his ass in the embassy, proclaim to the world that he was working for the US government and the CIA, and then ask people if they’d ever sold uranium ore to Iraq, you are right.
But if it was to actually gather facts, nope.
I am saying that the way the CIA outlined for him to do his mission made it a virtual certainty that he would NOT find damning evidence, regardless of whether it was there or not. That seems contrary to the point of sending someone to find out information, now doesn’t it?
I don’t agree with your assessment of his mission, nor would I think the CIA or any other investigatory organization looking into the matter. Those are pretty serious allegations you’re posing against the CIA and if there was any truth to the matter, that’s something they are at fault for, not Joe Wilson. In fact, I think we should be grateful that Joe Wilson found and reported the truth, don’t you? Sour grapes, my friend.
Also, you insinuate that he only met with officials in some sort of perfunctory way that would not allow him to get close to the truth of the matter. This is also incorrect. It was because of his former contacts, not necessarily official government contacts, that allowed him to gather the necessary documentation to discredit information that Iraq bought Yellowcake. His findings were not half-baked, pieces of cloth truth as you propose.
What if the ambassador and the CIA deliberately attempted to sabotage the mission to ensure that no information other than what they wanted to hear was returned?
Have you ever heard of the phrase “conspiracy theory?” Let’s remember, Joe Wilson reported what was confirmed later to be the reality of situation. Do you know of proof of something?
And where has it been reported that the Vice President or Libby knew of Ms. Plame’s covert status?
I’ve not heard this confirmed yet. However, I find it highly unlikely they could not know of her status after gathering information that allowed them to know who she was, her role at the CIA, her connection to Joe Wilson and have a classified dossier about them both specifically noting her covert status on Air Force One enough so to leak information to the press in an attempt to discredit him. I believe they assumed that their press contacts could never be forced to reveal their identity, which until the Supreme Court refused to ponder the contempt of court issue against Cooper, Miller et al was standard practice. They gambled, and they lost.
As to Rove’s fourth grand jury appearance, that one took place because Rove himself volunteered to testify. Given how busy a man he is, given his focus on the president’s re-election campaign at the outset of this investigation, given how little attention he paid to this topic, it makes sense that he might have forgotten that conversation.
Volunteered? Uh-huh. Don’t you find it a little convenient that he “remembered” this information after it was revealed to him that Scooter said as much in his last grand jury appearance? How long has he had to ponder how he came about this information? If I was being examined for perjury and obstruction of justice you bet the hell I’d remember too.
Now you and he are trying the spin that, despite the fact that she was on her own initiative setting up meetings, sending glowing emails, and heaven knows what else to make sure he was on this trip, that she had no influence whatsoever.
Me and him? Am I Joe Wilson’s friend now or something? 🙂
Let’s get this straight. What’s being reported is that at the Vice President’s administration’s behest, a mid-level staffers in the Vice President’s office contacted mid-level staffers at the CIA with the request to check out if Iraq had purchased yellowcake. It was posed for suggestions of appropriate personnel to send to investigate and Valerie Plame, as an operative on WMD, was asked for suggestions. She knew that her husband, former esteemed ambassador and envoy to both African and Middle Eastern nations, was appropriately credentialed and had the right contacts to allow him to investigate the situation. It was based on that recommendation that her superiors then chose Joe Wilson for the mission and sent him. He found that yellowcake was not sold to Iraq by Niger and that documents provided from the Italians were fake. His report was subsequently buried and the administration chose to acknowledge other sources, since disproved, to rely on for the choice of words in the SOTN address. The vice president’s administration specifically checked in with George Tenet who chose to also ignore Wilson’s report and support the bogus intelligence.
Then when Wilson made a fuss, drawing attention to himself and the situation, the allegation that Iraq bought yellowcake was immediately rescinded the very next day after the SOTN address and the smearing campaign began.
Again, if Valerie Plame was in a position to influence sending her husband to provide correct and accurate information, which he did, we should be praising her, not buying into ridiculous smear campaigns by the vice presidential administration.
By the way, I wanted to announce that my younger cousin was just honored with a bronze star medal for his service in Iraq. He’s currently stationed north of Fallujah and I had gotten the indication that his missions were taking them more and more into potentially dangerous situations. I don’t know the specifics of his action – in fact it’s a bit upsetting to ponder – but wanted to say how proud I am of him and his service.
[And we’re proud of him as well. –Ed]
Also, you insinuate that he only met with officials in some sort of perfunctory way that would not allow him to get close to the truth of the matter. This is also incorrect. It was because of his former contacts, not necessarily official government contacts, that allowed him to gather the necessary documentation to discredit information that Iraq bought Yellowcake.
I am not insinuating in the least; I am saying flat-out that he did it.
Behold:
After consulting with the State Department’s African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
Later on:
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country’s uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Now, Bob, if your partisanship doesn’t blind you to the obvious, put yourself in these peoples’ shoes. What would happen if you admitted that you sold, that anyone sold, or that anyone even entertained the idea of selling uranium to Iraq to an official representative of the US government? You would, in all likelihood, slam UN sanctions and international restrictions down on your country and destroy its one source of foreign capital that finances your wealth personally — and you yourself would likely be facing criminal charges.
In essence, what the CIA did is akin to conducting a drug sting where somebody walks up and loudly proclaims, “Hi, I’m a police officer! Anybody here buying or selling drugs?” — then, when no one admits to it, walks away with proof that none of these people had ever been involved with buying or selling drugs.
As for the truth, JustOneMinute, in reporting on the Butler report from Britain, points out that there were multiple sources indicating that the Iraqis were seeking uranium. Wilson was sent on a mission, either with deliberate instructions or ones he made up himself, to ensure that he would not get any answer other than “No, nothing like that ever happened”.
The CIA is supposed to find information out, not reach foregone conclusions, and their actions and Wilson’s actions in this case guaranteed the latter. Wilson’s lie about how his wife had never suggested that he make the trip is merely the tip of the iceberg of the coverup within the CIA, in my opinion.
It was posed for suggestions of appropriate personnel to send to investigate and Valerie Plame, as an operative on WMD, was asked for suggestions. She knew that her husband, former esteemed ambassador and envoy to both African and Middle Eastern nations, was appropriately credentialed and had the right contacts to allow him to investigate the situation. It was based on that recommendation that her superiors then chose Joe Wilson for the mission and sent him.
No, no, no, GCB, Joe Wilson said that Valerie Plame had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with his making the trip. She had not suggested it, nor had she emailed anyone about it, nor had she set up meetings about it, nor had she done anything else.
At least that was your previous position. Now that it turns out that you were flat-out lying on the first, you’re admitting that his wife DID influence his being sent to Niger?
Who forged the documents and why?
What would happen if you admitted that you sold, that anyone sold, or that anyone even entertained the idea of selling uranium to Iraq to an official representative of the US government?
Then why in his, as you describe, overt manner was he able to get to the truth, while British Intelligence, in cloak and dagger mode, got duped? Maybe he knew he could ask his contacts a straight question and could expect a straight answer based on his reputation and background. Maybe officials of Niger, gasp, actually tell the truth and actually abide by international rules.
He had credible sources, credible knowledge and credible responses. If they were so incredibly dubious as you claim, why did it take the efforts of so many prominent members of the vice president’s staff to attempt to discredit him in such a cat and mouse way? It just doesn’t add up.
Wilson’s lie about how his wife had never suggested that he make the trip is merely the tip of the iceberg of the coverup within the CIA, in my opinion.
Again, conspiracy theory. There’s no proof that we know of to support this, only supposition. Given the fact of how much more we know about how intelligence was fixed and how the invasion was being planned pre-9/11, I have to say that I have little regard left for the credibility of the Bush government.
However, we do know that the administration has systemically dismantled the effectiveness of the CIA.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
The CIA is supposed to find information out, not reach foregone conclusions…
I agree. It’s too bad they had such wimpy leadership in Tenet and the bullying administration otherwise they might have been able to do their jobs.
Who forged the documents and why?
The Italians are hopefully working on this. It was speculated that the Fitzgerald investigation would actually bring some of that to light. They were put there by someone and it’s fairly easy to guess what their goal was in doing so.
At least that was your previous position. Now that it turns out that you were flat-out lying on the first, you’re admitting that his wife DID influence his being sent to Niger?
Oh will you grow up and stop with the “Aha, Gotchas!”. The request came in, she was in a position to suggest someone and was asked to document Wilson’s credentials, but she ultimately had no power to choose and confirm him for his mission. Again, we now know his fact-finding was correct while the British Intelligence, which ultimately the Bush administration relied on, was faulty. Even if she used some influence to get him selected, and not for some grand conspiracy, his intelligence was spot on.
If it was no big deal that his wife helped him get the job, why then did Wilson lie about it?
And the British continue to stand by their intelligence report.
So who’s more traiterous? The former ambassador who completes his mission truthfully to the dissatisfaction of the administration or that administration that subsequently tries to slander him for not providing false information to support their policies, policies that sent us to invade another country?
The one that was proven a liar by the intelligence review. You know, the one who was immediately dropped from the John F.You Kerry campaign?
Do you forget that the yellowcake information, the documents, the suppositions, were all found incorrect, forged, or based in half-truths so much so that the administration was forced to admit it was incorrect the day after uttering the famous 16 words?
The CIA never objected to it on the grounds that it was unreliable.
Who forged the documents and why?
The Italian Journalist was on the payroll of our “ally” the French.
Then why in his, as you describe, overt manner was he able to get to the truth, while British Intelligence, in cloak and dagger mode, got duped?
Because, Bob, that works off the assumption that Saddam never once sought or thought of seeking uranium ore from Niger. No one except you and Joe Wilson is making that assumption, and you’re making that assumption because you need to prove that the Bush administration and other Western intelligence agencies are wrong, not based on the fact that there are multiple sources that point to Saddam doing exactly that.
Maybe he knew he could ask his contacts a straight question and could expect a straight answer based on his reputation and background. Maybe officials of Niger, gasp, actually tell the truth and actually abide by international rules.
Or maybe he knew that acting the way he did would ensure that he got the answer that he and the CIA wanted. I lean towards the latter.
If they were so incredibly dubious as you claim, why did it take the efforts of so many prominent members of the vice president’s staff to attempt to discredit him in such a cat and mouse way?
Ah yes, the “grand conspiracy” theory.
How exactly, Bob, was Joe Wilson “discredited”? Most of his problems have come from his own words — his claims about reviewing documents he never saw, his arguing that his wife had absolutely nothing to do with his going when her emails and actions clearly show otherwise, his whining about “privacy” while posing for Vanity Fair articles, the usual.
Related to that:
Again, conspiracy theory. There’s no proof that we know of to support this, only supposition.
Of course there is. Wilson publicly stated that his wife had absolutely nothing to do with it and that she had not even suggested him for the trip. Wilson lied in an attempt to cover up the fact.
As for the documents, Anon, you may speculate all you wish. As my previous link pointed out, they were but one of several corroborating pieces of evidence, but magically, their forgery renders all others incorrect as well.
And yet Libby will now be indicted and the grand jury will be reconvened to further investigate Rove…
. . . if this article in the NYT is at all reliable (and that is an open question), the grand jury will reconvene to consider exactly two conversations (in keeping open the investigation of Mr. Rove).
Not only that, GCB, the prosecutor won’t be handing down any indictments on the original charges, the alleged “outing” of Ms. Plame. So, it appears the much-reviled Administration officials did not break any laws in their mean-spirited attempts to “smear” a critic.
Indeed, that the prosecutor persists in pursuing Rove is a sign of how aggressive Mr. Fitzgerald is. And if such an aggressive prosecutor can find no evidence to indict on the offenses which he was hired to investigate, then there really was no there there to begin with.
A huge victory for Republicans–but with a political setback.
#39
And the liberals and their MSM hounds will be left with a nasty case of blue balls.
A huge victory for Republicans–but with a political setback.
The chief of staff to the Vice President is being indicted and that’s a victory? Rove will continue to be investigated and that’s a win? You didn’t campaign for Senator Hutchinson did you?
It’s a victory because this aggressive prosecutor found that no one in the White House was guilty of any of the crimes he was hired to investigate.It’s a victory because this aggressive prosecutor found that no one in the White House was guilty of any of the crimes he was hired to investigate.
Libby stands accused of covering up something that wasn’t a crime.
It’s a victory because for months on end, Administration critics, including a number on this blog, have accused White House officials of violating the law in order to “smear” a supposedly heroic whistle blower. Some even have gone so far as to accuse Mr. Rove of being a traitor.
None of the charges involve the original offense. That’s the victory. A lot of time investigating a crime that didn’t take place.
It seems the only “aggressive campaign” taking place in this case was that of the prosecutor.
It’s a victory because this aggressive prosecutor found that no one in the White House was guilty of any of the crimes he was hired to investigate.It’s a victory because this aggressive prosecutor found that no one in the White House was guilty of any of the crimes he was hired to investigate.
A shamed-faced Hutchinson back-peddled on this line of talking points last night on TV. Are you saying perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal investigators – all of which of felonies – are the “criminalization of politics?”
None of the charges involve the original offense. That’s the victory. A lot of time investigating a crime that didn’t take place.
Didn’t help Clinton much now did it? This is far from over. Rove is still in the hot seat. I’m curious to see as well if Cheney is in the clear yet or not.
Is the message we receive from this “he wasn’t guilty of anything but tried to cover something up” or is it “he may be guilty of something but we can’t get the truth out of him to know.” I really don’t think we know yet. Firzgerald may not be able to prove that Libby outed Plame, but do we know he’s confident that Libby didn’t? Libby’s obstruction and perjury may be to cover him from the larger issue of the outing. We don’t know that yet and you’re jumping the gun.
BTW, I think Harry Reid hits the nail on the head –
“”These are very serious charges,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. “They suggest a senior White House aide put politics ahead of our national security and the rule of law. This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information. It is about how the Bush administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq,” Senate minority leader Harry Reid said in a prepared statement “
No, GCB, Reid is wrong about this. This case is not bigger than the leak of highly classified information.
This is only about how one White House official lied under oath. That’s it. Harry Reid is just looking for an excuse to bash Bush rather than comment on the facts of the indictments.
He is right, however, that these are serious charges. Libby did the right thing in resigning.
This is only about how one White House official lied under oath. That’s it. Harry Reid is just looking for an excuse to bash Bush rather than comment on the facts of the indictments.
Excuse me? A smear campaign, outing a CIA operative covert or otherwise in retribution for proving the administration misled the country, is somehow an honorable endeavor? It may not be criminal per se but is this the kind of leadership you want representing you at the highest level of government?
What campaign? What smear?
What retribution?
And Wilson, who has been thoroughly discredited, proved nothing.
As Lanny Davis said on CNN, White House officials were simply trying to knock down a false story. Rove thought the information was public information. (H/t: The Corner.) Fitzgerald has so far not charged anyone for maliciously (or recklessly) “outing” someone who’s identity he knew was covert. Wilson lied in his NYT piece and he lied in his book.
So far you have provided no evidence, zip nada, to prove the existence of a smear campaign.
What campaign? What smear?
The campaign and smear to eradicate Joe Wilson’s reputation, that he was a bumbling idiot with a wife that conspired to get him the Niger mission to damage the administration’s reputation, the one that outed Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA operative (we’ll leave the covert issue to the side for now) on WMD issues also to ruin her reputation as an honorable public servant unworthy of trust by the CIA, all of this distilled covertly by senior administration officials anonymously through press outlets they assumed could protect their identity.
That smear campaign. Or am I missing the transparency of their actions here?
If they wanted to “knock down a false story” all they had to do was have a simple press conference. No? This is the same Lanny Davis, ex-White House counsel, who said the President and Congress were right to intervene in the Schiavo matter, correct?
If Rove thought the information was public, why did he warn Matt Cooper not to get too far down on Wilson?
Would you like to show where Wilson lied in his Times Op-Ed/book? What is it that he said do you take issue with? And if he did lie, why isn’t someone suing him for libel?
Also the same Lanny Davis who said this?
“There were two major techniques that we used to implement McCurry’s strategy of getting all the bad news out early and helping reporters write bad stories.
The first was overt and fully approved within the White House chain of command, at least in the first few months of 1997: Documents would be released to the press at the same time as they were handed over to the Congress. Over time the press came to call these episodes “document dumps.” The second method was covert, both to the outside world and within the “official” channels of the White House – the selective placement of certain stories and hot documents with a particular news organization, on “deep background,” in a manner designed to minimize damage.”
Seems like he knows all about smear campaigns.
Easy boys, this is NOT over, you know. Fitz isn’t done, and there is the matter of what will Libby do? Plead and be forced to give it up on others to get the plea? Or go to trial and have to give it up there? Plus, there is still the coming Wilsons’ civil trial vs. WH officials — something we can certainly thank the Republicans for there (hey, hey, Paula).
In #48, GCB, you provide no evidence to make your case that anyone in the Administration lead such a campaign.
Many reporters — and not just conservative ones — have pointed out Wilson’s deceptions. But, so far, we only have evidence of one White House official talking to reporters to note that Mr. Wilson was not forthcoming about who picked him for the mission to Niger.
The only two times Mr. Rove brought up the topic is when other reports contacted him. That is, he did not initiate the calls. If he were out to smear Mr. Wilson, you’d think he be more aggressive in getting the word out about this dishonest critic of the Administration.
As to why Rove warned Matt Cooper, it’s pretty easy, he didn’t want that reporter to take Wilson seriously.
As to Wilson’s lies–in his book, he said his wife was not involved in getting him the job (to go to Niger). He claimed he went to Niger at the “behest” of the office of Vice President Cheney.
But, we do know that his wife helped him get the job and the CIA sent him on its own initiative.
Many reporters — and not just conservative ones — have pointed out Wilson’s deceptions. But, so far, we only have evidence of one White House official talking to reporters to note that Mr. Wilson was not forthcoming about who picked him for the mission to Niger.
Then please show me the indictments against Wilson and/or Plame for conspiracy. I’d love to see them.
What exactly does it take for you guys to admit you were wrong? At what point does partisanship overshadowing common sense and become a detriment to government?
That’s right, Bob, move the goalposts.
Would you like to show where Wilson lied in his Times Op-Ed/book? What is it that he said do you take issue with?
GPW showed you, and now you demand indictments as proof. How about the fact that the indictment itself says that the senior CIA official involved believed that Plame had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger?
Why is Wilson so eager to cover up the fact that his wife suggested him AND sent him? Could it be because then her supposed “CIA pariah” position is the result of her official misconduct?
Mother Superior: “Sister Maria, if you were walking through town at night, and were accosted by a man with bad intentions, what would you do?”
“I would lift my habit, Mother Superior.”
Mother Superior (shocked): “And what would you do next?”
Sister Maria: “I would tell him to drop his trousers.”
Mother Superior (even more shocked): “And what then?”
Sister Maria: “I would run away. I can run much faster with my habit up than he can with his trousers down.”