« London Bombers Copycats? | Main | Breaking News: London police reportedly shoot suspected suicide bomber »

Rove, Libby Accounts In Plame Case Differ From Reporters

Richard Keil of Bloomberg's Washington Bureau (infamous for his "The president of the United States is AWOL, and we're with him... the ultimate road trip." line in the story of the President's Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad) has breaking news on Valerie Plame investigation.

July 22 (Bloomberg) -- Two top White House aides have given accounts to a special prosecutor about how reporters first told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to people familiar with the case.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, one person said. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity, the person said.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, according a person familiar with the matter. Novak, who was first to report Plame's name and connection to Wilson, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor, the person said.

These discrepancies may be important because Fitzgerald is investigating whether Libby, Rove or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether any administration officials violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a CIA agent.

Keil's report relies on an anonymous source, so it should be viewed with a health dose of skepticism, but assuming the source is accurate we now have a possible reason why Fitzgerald fought so hard for testimony from Time report Matt Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller. The differing account of Russert, Novak, Libby, and Rove would be hard to make a case for perjury with, as they amount to he said/he said accounts of phone conversations. If Fitzgerald could show a pattern of differing accounts from either Rove or Libby, then perhaps he'd have a case.

The story goes on to recap yesterday's news of a State Department memo that included Plame's name in section marked as "secret."

A memo by the department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) included Plame's name in a paragraph marked "(S)" for 'Secret,' a designation that should have indicated to anyone who read it that the information was classified, the Washington Post reported yesterday.

The memo summarizing the Plame-Wilson connection was provided to Powell as he left with President George W. Bush on a five-day trip to Africa. Fitzgerald is exploring whether other White House officials who accompanied Bush may have gained access to the memo and shared its contents with officials back in Washington. Rove and Libby didn't accompany Bush to Africa.

One key to the inquiry is when White House aides knew of Wilson's connection to Plame and whether they learned about it through this memo or other classified information.

If either Libby or Rove can be tied to the memo it's game over for them. I'm still wholly underwhelmed by the story, but given the details that have emerged (and are likely to emerge), it's just about time that both Rove and Libby take one for the team and step down.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rove, Libby Accounts In Plame Case Differ From Reporters:

» Right Wing Nut House linked with ROVE AND LIBBY PERJURY TARGETS?

» Decision '08 linked with Another PlameGate Revalation

» Iowa Voice linked with Friday Blog Round-Up

» The Impolitic linked with Rove and Libby stretch credibility

» QandO linked with "Too Complicated"

» Macmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense linked with Valerie's Ex-CIA agents co-horts speak out

» The Politburo Diktat linked with Depends on what the meaning of ‘S’ is

» bennellibrothers.com linked with Karl Rove: As Far As The Eyes Can See

» bennellibrothers.com linked with Karl Rove: As Far As The Eyes Can See

Comments (103)

Kevin:With respect, ... (Below threshold)
TerryJ:

Kevin:
With respect, is this premature rejection? Ready, Fire, Aim? Think Ray Donovan.

The allegations and reporting are all a bit skewed, often misleading and occassionally falacious, and the defense has not been heard from. A verdict is premature.

Relax, Kevin.Even ... (Below threshold)
Bill M:

Relax, Kevin.

Even if they somehow saw the memo from thousands of miles away, it still doesn't make Plame a covert agent, it still doesn't show a pattern of trying to expose covert agents, and it's doubtful it even means anything at all.

What other information was in the paragraph in question? From what I've heard there were some seven sentences in the paragraph and Valerie Wilson's name was mentioned in two of them. What other info was there? Is that where the classified info was? Was the paragraph over-classified? There is no info in this that amounts to anything interesting at this point.

And Judith Miller is in pri... (Below threshold)
arb:

And Judith Miller is in prison because...?

The document was classified... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

The document was classified Top Secret, the paragraph in question was at the lower classification of Secret. A covert agent's identity would be Top Secret-Codeword.

I think there's some elemen... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I think there's some element of collective guilt by most in the U.S. about the CBS/Rather debacle. Honestly, I think that because of that unacknowledged shred of collective guilt at bringing down a deceitful "journalist" and journalism process, however accurately and just that was, there's now some sort of unstated collective sympathy for "journalists" such that the heat is somewhat off these two people, particularly.

I don't like Cooper, I don't trust Cooper and the guy has obvious politics in play, married to a Hillary Clinton "associate" for lack of a better term here. And the woman in prison has almost certainly avoided having to state what she knows, at least for now, and I'm betting it's an act of self protection more than anything.

However, the standard of measurement for credibility here -- to suggest that Rove and Libby's statements aren't consistent with what Cooper, predominantly, said, seems skewered in measurement credibility.

What about Cooper being irregular, to be kind here? I certainly think that there is ample evidence there to indicate he had politics and a level of operations involved in him approaching the White House and more.

Because liberals (and Cooper) NEED to denounce Karl Rove (isn't there an obvious element of 'payback' in this issue after the CBSgate thing?), or NEED to engage in a sort of usary of media to accomplish a party goal, a liberal ideology to be frank about it, it seems entirely unreliable and fever-driven to assume that Cooper represents some standard upon which others are to be measured or evaluated against.

The guy seems as much a shill as anyone. Just because he looks, sounds and types in earnest does not mean he's detached from a libearl politic, or worse, political operations to advance liberal ideology and needs.

By comparison, you have two guys (Rove on his own behalf being a huge prize and Libby by merits of attachement to Cheney being another huge prize) who, to liberals, represent the end-all of opposition to the liberal power memes, and the apparent 'cherubic' in appearance chubby, gleeful, happy-o Cooper being earnest in his on-record appearances and the fever pitch and mob mentality festers and festers and festers and...

I'd like to see Karl Rove and Libby extended some courtesy of letting an investigation work through before concluding anything, and, even the federal prosecutor has said that Rove isn't the focus of the investigation.

You know, maybe Cooper is.

I read about this memo yest... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I read about this memo yesterday and I thought, "hey, wow, isn't it something that Powell left the Administration when he did?"

Powell...where there's smoke, there's fire.

I like Democrats who wanted... (Below threshold)

I like Democrats who wanted Clinton nailed for his lying.

I like Repubicans who want Rove and Libby nailed for their lying.

I can't stand hypocrites from either party who'll defend their man/woman on charges they'd love to nail the other side with.

Is this a hard concept to digest ? Must be, as I often feel rather lonely in these thoughts.

Look: if folks can't sniff this one out, it's their partisan blinders doing the nose amputation.
Rove & Libby wanted to nail Wilson, and they had no qualms about outing a CIA agent in the process.

Funny thing is, it's the CIA that's doing the leaking out of the Grand Jury.

-- stan

Arb asked:> Judith... (Below threshold)

Arb asked:

> Judith Miller is in prison because...?

Taking her at face value, she's protecting
her source(s). Now, who would that be ???

Hmmm ......

Given her history, and stories, and who we know
has released reporters from confidentiality (Rove,
Libby) .... I'm guessing the source she's protecting is Cheney.

Kind of ironic, eh ? NYT shields Veep.

Kinda fun watching the whole thing unfold,
I must confess.

-- stan

Stan Krute: and you can re... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Stan Krute: and you can read the minds of Karl Rove and Libby by your olfactory prowess?

I think you'd best be left behind on the next fox hunt, to avoid dragging out the neighbors' dirty socks and barking "bat, bat, bat!"

Barking Stan: Perhaps Mill... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Barking Stan: Perhaps Miller is protecting Miller. Or even Cooper! Or Powell! Or you! Once you start down that road of "suretybaseduponspeculation," it's a nonending circular spiral toward infinity.


The Elevator of the Soul
CHAPTER ONE
...in which passion flares, words are exchanged, but not really...


Cooper and Miller's eyes met in the torrid heat of the only functional elevator stranded between floors in the Manhattan hotbed that was the election year. "From this moment on," moaned Miller silently, "I know, know, that Cooper feels my deep rumbling needful pain." Or, perhaps it was the heat in the elevator, but Miller couldn't be concerned about that now. She needed release! Blind faith! A quick but fully felt embrace before the doors burst forth into the shroud of the reporters' den that was the twentieth floor, typists be damned!

The doors did burst forth and just in time to save them from violating all that was earned by either, by both, by then. "Till our next ride," Miller thought she heard Cooper murmur.

Cooper brushed ever so briefly against Miller's forearm as he rushed toward the dingy dirth of the wretched reporters bay, a barely visible gleam of remorse crossing his cherubic brow, and Miller knew she was understood by a soul mate. Oh, soul mate! If only she could share these precious moments of elevated elevator encounter with her dear, dear friend over Rum Punch in the Park, but, alas, too cold, bitterly so, and the twentieth floor was so high above the Park, beyond the grasp of even this flightless, typeless voice. Miller felt lost in her vulnerability, worried that her Donna Karan was just too last year...

And suddenly, from the throbbing grey mass that was the reporters' bunk, Cooper wiggled into view, his lips searching Miller's face for a possible, sweet meeting. The doors clamped shut behind Miller, leaving her captured before Cooper's overpowering presence, Cooper passing her, never to kiss, never to tell of their elevator passion, never to tell. Miller slumped into the moment, against the wall, hoping for one more moment, one more chance to touch the hand that wrote the name that knew her heart and soul: I'll go to jail, jail I say, before I share our souls' embrace with anyone. Anyone!


According to this brief fil... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

According to this brief filed nobody broke any laws.

http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF

At the threshold, an agent whose identity has been revealed must truly be "covert" for there to be a violation of the Act. To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the "deep cover" required of a covert agent. ... She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active, at Langley. She had been residing in Washington -- not stationed abroad for a number of years. ... [T]he CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name.

Captain's Quarters has the story, but it's mostly the press telling the court that the whole story is a non-story while keeping it front and center on the news every night.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005019.php

If there's a story here at all it'll be that it wasn't Rove or Libby that leaked it, it was someone at CIA or more likely Wilson himself.

Hi Kev, have you read any o... (Below threshold)
BR:

Hi Kev, have you read any of the 20 or so threads already existing at Wizbang since 7/2/05 on the Plame Affair while you were away on vacation? It's game, set and match for Bush - the culprits are in the CIA, State Dept., MSM and Dem party, and Wilson. What we're being given now in the media is the last frantic attempts to CYA, and a lot of asses too.

There are so many indications that Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury have seriously been investigating a RICO-size cabal, sending counter-intelligence experts into the CIA to conduct their investigations into the anti-Bush faction there. It goes all the way back to the Feb 02 Niger fake docs described by Wilson, then denying he ever saw any fake docs, then caught in the lie by the Senate Committee Investigation on Iraq. Wilson was the weak link that pulled down whole joint-Humpty Dumpty cabal.

I stopped posting when it became so obvious, but some of my links and many other commenters' like AnonymousDrivel, etc. are contained in the wizbang archives.

For example, the 8th, 9th and 10th threads at wizbang:

#8 - Another Sunday, Another Rove/Plame Story From Newsweek 7/10/05
#9 - Rove Already Convicted In The Press 7/11/05
#10 - Karl Rove and Occam's Razor 7/13/05


Also, tons of great posts by Tom Maguire and his commenters at http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main .

(If it will help at all, I can list all 20 at wizbang - maybe more now, haven't looked lately. But a lot of trolls arrived around #11 onwards, hee hee, date coincident with Paul the magnet.) The first 9 posts were by your guest hosts, mainly Rob Port, and the tenth by Jay Tea.)

Amen to the "step down"... (Below threshold)
BryanDorrough:

Amen to the "step down", Kevin, but KR will leave the day GW does and no sooner. GW needs him too much. (pardon, anyone?) Plus, IF Ms. Plame still holds a black passport she is considered "covert" ,desk-job or no. She once WAS under-cover and facilitated millions for the agency through consultancy or underwriting through a front company (the details escape me now) Money off the top. Black budget money. That firm was exposed by WHOEVER leaked Plame's status.. No more Plausible Deniability. The spooks might consider this a stab in the back.If culpable, KR needs GW and I mean REALLY. In conclusion,public or no,this is a BIG "F"ING DEAL.----P.S. Scooter should be fired for calling himself Scooter

"it still doesn't make Plam... (Below threshold)
jri:

"it still doesn't make Plame a covert agent"

You're correct. What made her a covert CIA agent was her intelligence, training, and pay-grade.


-

Wrap-up party in progress w... (Below threshold)
BR:

Wrap-up party in progress while we wait for the Grand Jury indictments - Late-night Delight" at JustOneMinute's current headline: "We Need A Visionary."

Hee, I should think by now ... (Below threshold)
BR:

Hee, I should think by now Plame and Wilson's passports, whatever color they are, have been confiscated before they flee the country. I don't know what color French passports are - are they black :)

Seriously, my best deductio... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Seriously, my best deduction on this whole thing is that it's Wilson who is responsible, although difficult-to-impossible to speculate as to Plame. Since she was married to Wilson, accessible to/with the CIA, it's hard to believe she wasn't intimately -- pun/no pun, whatever -- involved with Wilson's mindgame, and, that they were players for/with whom is also impossible to speculate about until/unless the investigation reveals more infornation.

But, with all the credibility and ethical challenges of late about the CIA, I'm not optimistic that they were just a nice big ol' noninvolved organization. Just being realistic.

There've been suggestions for a while now that there's more than a little problem with the Intelligence groups in the country and Wilson and his insistences for so long, despite no one particuarly giving notice to him for so long...I think what he did was bring an investigation but not, perhaps, on the terms he'd tried to arrange.

But to speculate that Rove and/or Libby are responsible for -- what, leaking a non covert agent's covert agent status? -- seems to be focusing on the minnows while ignoring the shark/s. About this issue, that is...

-S- the CIA should have had... (Below threshold)
BR:

-S- the CIA should have had a pro-choice mother at its inception in the 40s. The problem goes way back. Originally, it was going to consist of ONE PERSON - the coordinator of existing groups. Then it grew into thousands, with its own financial empire, autonomous from the US govt. It doesn't need our tax money, and probably laughs as it puts up a show when budget time comes.

Every country needs a good intelligence capability, but an effective, trustworthy group; not people who serve other masters.

Good book by Col. L. Fleltcher Prouty, "The Secret Team - The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World." Reading that will also give an understanding of Bob Woodward's role in US history since pre-Watergate - and why the Mark Felt charade was arranged. Now the real Deep Throat can maintain his cover forever.

Btw, did you ever get that Jim Hougan book you were going to order from Amazon?

bullwinkle said:"I... (Below threshold)
JmaR:

bullwinkle said:

"If there's a story here at all it'll be that it wasn't Rove or Libby that leaked it, it was someone at CIA or more likely Wilson himself."

S said:

"Seriously, my best deduction on this whole thing is that it's Wilson who is responsible"

Where the hell do you guys get this crap? It is so far removed from any of the public facts related to this story that it makes you both sound delusional. You've spun yourselves into oblivion here. Who are you listening to in regard to the details of this story?

Hee, maybe the funniest par... (Below threshold)
BR:

Hee, maybe the funniest part of l'Affair Plame, is that the left at the lower rungs won't know what hit them, when it explodes. They'll probably still be scratching their heads years from now and wondering how Josh Marshall could have deceived them so.

Btw, -S-, I guess we should... (Below threshold)
BR:

Btw, -S-, I guess we should be glad this is the Impeachment season and not the A….. season. Can't be done too often, ya know, might attract attention, even the sheeple sometimes look beyond pizza and beer.

List of those who opposed and wanted to clean up the CIA

Kennedy, JF – A
Kennedy, RF – A
Nixon – resigned before impeachment
Reagan – Attempted A; attempted impeachment (Iran/Contra)
Bush, Jr – Attempted impeachment

Clinton is not on the list.

Bill M is corect about the ... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

Bill M is corect about the classification of the paragraph. A paragraph is classified by the highest-level item mentioned in the paragraph. Suppose there was a paragraph that said something like, "Part of the US policy toward Iraq is use of nuclear weapons in retaliation for a WMD attack on our forces. Many bloggers, including Kevin from Wizbang, have already figured this out." The entire paragraph might be classified TS because of the reference to US nuclear strategy. It does not mean that the identity of Kevin is a secret.

BryanDorrough – yours at 06... (Below threshold)
Guest:

BryanDorrough – yours at 06:07:

"…She [Plame] once WAS under-cover and facilitated millions for the agency through consultancy or underwriting through a front company (the details escape me now) Money off the top. Black budget money. That firm was exposed by WHOEVER leaked Plame's status…"

Do you mean Brewster Jennings – the one she listed under her married name "Valerie Wilson" in her 1999 Gore campaign contribution? Or a different one? While in Europe pre-1997? Any links?

RE: BR's post (July 22, 200... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: BR's post (July 22, 2005 05:46 AM)

Wow, BR. You have been busy. Nice digging. I fear I haven't been carrying enough pails out of the pit. Please forgive my tired hands and aching back... and that lawnchair with a pitcher of mint tea I've been working over nicely. [Um, waiter! Another refill please! And don't spare the scones. I have lots of questions still to ask and misreport.] Now, where were we? Ah yes. Fine digging there, BR.

I quit following because, like others have mentioned, this is now a deeper story to be uncovered by the Special Prosecutor. The witch-hunting of Rove is now dying a slow, steady death. Will it revive intermittently when new "leaks" present or when the far Left gets bored? Sure, though I'd prefer more coverage of shark attacks rather than the drip-drip of anonymous sources and out-of-court "testimony". But it's less and less of an issue as far as Rove is concerned as you and others have discovered.

Fitzgerald will reach a conclusion at some point and we can only hope that the entire book and not just a single chapter is translated. Maybe they should consult your contributions? I don't have the Rosetta Stone and I don't have time to keep digging for it. Fitzgerald might and does. May his archeology be true and his decoder ring be current. [Dang it, man! Where is that tea?!]

My favorite line in the two... (Below threshold)
Lew Clark:

My favorite line in the two articles is this:
"One key to the inquiry is when White House aides knew of Wilson's connection to Plame and whether they learned about it through this memo or other classified information."

They have Rove and Libbey nailed on that one. They did get the information through other classified information. The highly classified 1999 Gore Campaign Financial Disclosure that lists both Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson as donors and lists their home address and her employer. If it can be proved that Rove/Libbey did a google search and accessed this highly classified public document that lists a covert CIA Agent (I know she was covert then because professional journalists say she was)by name, address, and employment with a CIA cover company, then they are gone.

Defend him to the end....lo... (Below threshold)
Joe Mama:

Defend him to the end....lol. I just don't see how you people are so much in love with the Bush Administration that you will not admit Rove is a low down dirty snake who made a mistake by leaking the name of a CIA operative. We all make mistakes, its just his was a BIG one. He may get lucky and escape criminal charges, but if you put your love of the Bush administration aside, you have to admit what he did was morally wrong, and a bad example for all americans. What you republicans don't realize is that people hate to be lied to, and that's all that has been coming out of the whitehouse lately, lies. It is going to hurt the republicans in the end, so maybe a little truth will do you good. That is if you want to win the moderates and independents again. Peace out.

Lew Clark frothed: I kn... (Below threshold)

Lew Clark frothed: I know she was covert then because professional journalists say she was
So, a professional journalist once said:
Bush was AWOL, and I have the memos to prove it!
Stalin has not killed his own people
This pickup truck exploded without our help, just from being rear-ended
FoodLion puts expired meat on the shelves (no, I didn't plant that there, why do you ask)
More Iraqi civilians have been killed by the coalition than Hussein in the 24 years Saddam ruled Iraq
I was held in a cuban prison with 30-foot-high sculpture of an AK-47 at its main gate
I never received any cash from Mohamed Al-Fayed in return for asking questions in the House on his behalf

These things were all fed to us by professional journalists, so they MUST be true.
LOLM

SCSIwussy wrote:L... (Below threshold)
jYt:

SCSIwussy wrote:
Lew Clark frothed: I know she was covert then because professional journalists say she was

Dude, I think that was meant to be sarcasm on the part of Lew, given the rest of the post and its tone. Don't go all wingnutty and start hitting the people on your side for no reason. Leave that to -S-.

Two top White House aide... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Two top White House aides have given accounts to a special prosecutor about how reporters first told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to people familiar with the case.

According to people who are familiar with those other people who are familiar with the case, those other people were found guilty in 1999 of sexually molesting livestock and eating boogers in the presence of the Queen of England.

I just used some reliable anonymous sources, that means I'm a journalist now. Where do I pick up my press pass and huge paycheck?

I won't make any attempt to... (Below threshold)

I won't make any attempt to defend anyone who's committed a crime, but can we first establish that a crime was commmitted?

I stand at polar opposites with Kevin on his last line, suggesting that Rove and Libby "take one for the team." The Republican party has had several prominent figures "take one for the team," and hasn't gained one damn inch as a result. Meanwhile, idiots like Kennedy, Byrd, Boxer, Dean, etc., remain in the DNC limelight, regardless of their actions, words, or involvement in any scandals that arise. It's time that the Republican party learns to put mass-media PR on hold and stick to some solid principles.

As a sidebar, it strikes me as odd that Bush is so frequently accused of drawing attention away from "bad" things such as Rove or Iraq by doing something positive, but there's never any mention of the diversion away from Social Security reform or reports of good economic growth by playing a "scandal" as front-page stuff for weeks on end.

I'm with Bo. If there was a... (Below threshold)
jYt:

I'm with Bo. If there was a time to step down over this, it's long since passed. The only thing to do now is say nothing, ride it out, and hope for the best. If no indictments get handed down to administration officials, which I believe will be the case, then this will be quickly forgotten outside of the conspiracy nuts and everything will be peachy. If indictments do come down, then it'll be time to re-evaluate who needs to fall on his sword.

On a side note, the person who does need to step down is Rove's lawyer. Though he's been quiet recently, he certainly did nothing to help his client with his pronouncements that further drove the news cycle.

Title 18, Part I, Chapte... (Below threshold)
s9:

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information"

(d) Whoever, lawfully having... access to... information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States... willfully communicates... or causes to be communicated... or attempts to communicate... the same to any person not entitled to receive it...

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire... and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided...

Rove admits he confirmed Novak's facts. It looks like Libby is admitting it too. They're both on the hook for a very serious offense here.

NB: there are others who will tell you that the ten year prison term is the maximum sentence except during wartime. Too bad you can't ask Nguyen Ngoc Loan for his expert views on the appropriate way to handle such betrayals of national security.

Am I the only one who think... (Below threshold)
mcharrison:

Am I the only one who thinks the real crime is that a sleazy ex-diplomat was selected by his politically motivated wife to investigate an allegation that the US embassy in Niger could have handled, and promptly began lying about his meager discoveries? That these two essentially threw American national security under the train for their
self-aggrandizement? BTW, Wilson was ambassador to Iraq during the firsr Gulf war; I wonder how generous Saddam was with him. And La Plame has been outed so many times she shoukd get a lifetime achievement award from GLAAD. She was outed , apparently, by Aldrich Ames, The CIA (accidently), and she outed not only herself but a covert CIA company when she donated $1000.00 to the Algore campaign. ROVE oueted her? Give me a break, even her former supervisor admits that dhe told everyone she knew that she worked for the CIA, and the agency did not change her status, as it should have done when she was first outed.

RE: mcharrison's posst July... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: mcharrison's posst July 22, 2005 08:33 PM

Am I the only one who thinks the real crime is that a sleazy ex-diplomat...

No, you're not. A good many people agree with you. Some, and I would be one, think that the transgression is even worse than has been universally disclosed which is why I'm glad Fitzgerald is taking his time to research the actors. At least I hope he is being thorough and not just sipping that ever-so-ubiquitous mint tea.

"it still doesn't make P... (Below threshold)
Bill M:

"it still doesn't make Plame a covert agent"

You're correct. What made her a covert CIA agent was her intelligence, training, and pay-grade.


-

Posted by: jri at July 22, 2005 06:15 AM

===========

Oh, give me a break. That statement is so absurd it requires no additional comment!

mcharrison writes: <... (Below threshold)
s9:

mcharrison writes: ...and the agency did not change her status, as it should have done when she was first outed.

Even granting these hyperbolic distortions (which really shouldn't be granted, because they're untrue in their essential substance), so what?

The facts are clear: her status as a non-official cover operative is not in dispute. The CIA says she was covert. The fscking WHITE HOUSE, and Rove and Libby's defense attorneys, are declining to dispute this. Why are people here gripping so hard on this flimsy proposition?

Rove and Libby disclosed secret information to reporters, information that was clearly essential to the national security of the United States. And, some would say they did it during a time of War™ too, a time when the President alone should be empowered to declare somebody, even a U.S. citizen captured anywhere inside or outside the country, an enemy combatant and have them detained indefinitely without trial or representation.

Tell me why any rational and sane person should volunteer to risk their lives— and the lives of their families— to work as a non-official cover operative for the U.S. government if Rove and Libby are allowed to get away with burning CIA assets for political advantage.

mcharrison,Yes, yo... (Below threshold)
Joe Mama:

mcharrison,

Yes, you are wrong. Whether or not his wife "suggested" he be the one sent on the assignment or not does not make his report wrong. You people are just like Bush and Rove, you think you can screw people who disagree with your lies, then turn everything back around on the ones you screwed. What a bunch of moronic wimps. Take a little responsibility man. This is so ridiculous. What will it take, Rove in cuffs and an orange jumpsuit to admit he was wrong. You are just like Bush, even with evidence staring you right in the face, you will still lie and lie and lie and say you are right. I am totally sick of this drivel, which appropriately is the name of one of you people with this moronic opinion.

AD, what fun we're having. ... (Below threshold)
BR:

AD, what fun we're having. It's like sending notes in bottles on the cyber ocean :)

From an aesthetic viewpoint, outside the matrix, it's been dazzling!

On many screens showing many threads there's this amazing kaleidoscope happening:

From the left side of the screens, blue streamers frantically dart across, all with the same latest talking points. The decoder last night identified the latest talking point to be targeting a member of homo sap called "Ari". Our chimerical librarians here believe it may be some reference to an earlier earthman called "Aristotle."

At the same time, from the right side of the screens, we see these strong red flashes moving in and out between the blue streamers. The red's laser sharp qualities are light years ahead (we suspect there may have been a leak from our home planet's hi-tech computerized remote viewing division).

It is clear that the blue intended to fake another Watergate, and have not yet realized their own plot, yet again, is Watergate II, incidentally where the Wilsons lived before they got into Niger gold.

All in all, a colorful sight to behold!

:)

AD, you "tea-sipping dilett... (Below threshold)
BR:

AD, you "tea-sipping dilettante, you" :) I almost spilled my Timbuktu-iced tea all over my uranium bill of sale. Anyway, you might enjoy this. Not sure if you're male or female, but who doesn't enjoy a bit of sex, lies and yellow cake.


Re: JustOneMinute's post on 7/21/05:
We Need A Visionary 7/21/05":

Thanks, TM, for your great recent post about what the MSM is withholding from the public and especially the link to the WSJ 10/17/03 article.

While we're awaiting the Coming of the Visionary,
here's some late-night delight:

When I came to this part of the article, I had to suppress my giggles over the Inspector Clousseau behavior of those we trust with our national security:

"Officials familiar with the early 2002 meeting at CIA headquarters said intelligence experts were uncertain about what further steps they could take to try to track down the yellowcake allegations…. State Department officials, in particular, felt that 500 tons of uranium was such a large amount that there was no way it could secretly be transferred to Iraq."

***

What naiveté ! (Is this a result of the Torricelli doctrine – you may henceforth only recruit virgins to the CIA.) Or was it deliberate ignorance? For goodness' sakes, the French company Cogema owns and operates the two Niger uranium mines, according to Wilson himself, as he details his vast knowledge of the Cogema consortium in his 9/18/03 interview by Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo.

("Bare" with me, I promise these next few items will lead to a treat after the climax – but you have to stay with me alllll the way…)

Late-Night Delight cont'd -... (Below threshold)
BR:

Late-Night Delight cont'd - II:

Contrary to the lie Vanity Fair Jan 04: "…Wilson does not work for Rock Creek and merely rents space and facilities there", the
Middle East Policy Council Oct 02 page lists him as:
Joseph C. Wilson - Former U.S. Chargé d'Affaires, Baghdad; Strategic Advisor, Rock Creek Corporation


More sexy Rock Creek Corp. info at RogerLSimon and his commenter sleuths' research on Wilson and Rock Creek Corp. already done a year ago in July 04, in an appropriately named post: Heart of Darkness. (Haven't had time to explore positions like in these links, to see if Rock Creek invests in mines or mineral exploration in Africa. Really, I'm not being a tease, I deliver what I promise:)

Oh please, don't stop now… oh, yes, yes….

But Wilson himself said he was involved with gold mine investment in Niger in the Jan 04 Vanity Fair article:

" 'I have a number of clients, and basically we help them with their sort of investments in countries like Niger,' explains Wilson. 'Niger was of some interest because it has some gold deposits coming onstream. We had some clients who were interested in gold.... We were looking to set up a gold-mine company out of London.' "

(I confess I didn't start out making such a long post, but it just kept growing and growing when there was no real satisfaction in the quickie version:) I know, I know, some like to fake it, but that's not the cowgirl way.)

Here's the original, quickie version first, then the reward comes after the climax:)

The Niger govt receives only tax money for their valuable mineral resources. But even those relatively small tax receipts (compared to Cogema's profits) must far outweigh exporting goats. Niger">http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg02373.html">Niger officials said (scroll down to article entitled "Niger Denies Uranium Sale to Iraq, Accuses U.S. of 'Libel' ") on 12/22/02 that they only know Niger's uranium goes to France, Japan, Spain. Officially, they're not even in the loop when it comes to controlling what Cogema does. Unofficially, who knows how fat the Swiss bank accounts are or how many are assassinated or coup-de-etat'ed (excuse my French) if they don't obey their French ex-colonial masters at Cogema.

(How funny, the Tehran Times does NOT use anonymous sources; they actually name the Niger officials.)

Oh dear, it got longer again:) Behave yourself, Pinocchio. I'm a lady.

9/18/03 Wilson interview comes up again:

"TPM: And when you say the White House, you mean the NSC?

WILSON: The NSC. I was the senior director for Africa at the NSC during a period of time that was marked by convulsions of Niger's politics, including a coup d'etat, and, shortly after I left the White House, the assassination of the then-president who had had a subsequent coup, to which brought someone else to power. So I dealt with these guys. "


Actually, Wilson's liaison with Niger goes back a long, long way. He was stationed in Niger in 1976-78 on his first State Dept. assignment. Link. And nearby in 1978-1979 – Togo (another ex-French colony); 1979-1981 - U.S. State Dept. Bureau of African Affairs. (Too many affairs going on here – is that why California ex-surfers join the State Dept! Hee, what a bummer to be sent practically to Timbuktu.)

Late-Night Delight cont'd -... (Below threshold)
BR:

Late-Night Delight cont'd - III:

So, back to the ridiculous claims reportedly made by CIA and State Dept. officials (ah, those anonymous sources) in the WSJ: - Mommy, I don't know how to tie my shoelaces and besides, I can't find my shoes…

How easy would it be it for Cogema to divert part of their regular shipment to France… instead… to Niger? As easy as (yellow) cake. (What happened to those sexy liaisons promised between agencies after 9/11? Has the CIA ever heard of a seaport in Benin (another former French colony, between Niger and Togo) where the US Navy discovered uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse? (Thanks to WaPo's superior reporting, they left out the date.)

Even easier, if you have Cotechna on your side. (Swiss-based inspection company implicated in Annan's UN/Oil for Food Scandal. Cotechna has a history of corruption going back to Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan days.)

And then there's this on 7/17/03: "The agency [CIA] pointed out that Iraq already had 500 tons of uranium, portions of which came from Niger, according to the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA)." (This is Libby speaking to Cooper. Wonder if that IAEA report was another part of the setup to embarrass the US and UK, so that corrupt French politicians and their minions could continue playing with fire. Can't trust anything you read anymore.)

Hmmmmm… and Plame who has a fiduciary responsibility at the CIA for WMD analysis, said "there's this crazy report"….

(There's a 9-foot long post at JustOneMinute, no, that's crazy, it must be only 9 inches. Where's that darn ruler. I had it in here somewhere with my super-duper-deep-deep-don't tell anyone-covert status tampons.)

****

Ahhhhhhhh, now I can light a cigarette… at last!

That's it, keep declaring v... (Below threshold)
Chris:

That's it, keep declaring victory, even as the evidence piles up against your boys, Rove and Libby (and maybe Fleisher and others.) There's so many possibilities beyond the 1982 law (which continues to be misinterpreted on this and other forums.) Nothing in the law says an operative has to have a permanent posting overseas, only that they worked overseas (I'm guessing primarily because the CIA isn't allowed to operate in the US.) I'm curious how all of you folks are so iintimately knowledgeable about every one of Valerie Plame's comings and goings in the five years prior to her outing. I don't profess to be an expert on undercover operatives, but I can certainly think of enough logical reasons why Plame's identity should be protected, even if she was no longer operating covertly. Do you really think that as soon as an the CIA thinks an operative's cover is blown, every intelligence agency in the world is immediately aware of that fact, and we should treat the operative as if she was never undercover? And who besides the CIA should be responsible for determining that it's now OK to talk with the press about an operative's identity? A White House political aide with an axe to grind? Right wing bloggers?

By the way, since Wilson's comments in his op-ed were ultimately proven correct, and since the Ambassador to Niger agreed with his findings at the time, please point out how his claims endangered national security. I mean real consequences you can point to, not speculation about our enemies being emboldened or some such.

As for the brief at Bakerlaw, it does make the media organizations that filed it look hypocritical, although it's pretty common practice to come up with whatever argument advances your cause, in this case an effort to protect reporters from having to reveal their sources. It's interesting that the brief was preapred by Victoria Toensing, a Republican operative who's all over the news spouting the Republican talking points. Of more interest, though, is the fact that the judge in the case denied every point raised in the brief, so it has no more weight than anything posted on this or any other blog.

And by the way, it's been stated by many in the media that the prime leaker in this case is Lustig, Rove's lawyer (although he's certainly not the only leaker). And since Bush has declared that no one should comment on the case while an investigation is underway, what do we make of Rove's lawyer commenting so extensively? He does work for Rove, after all. So is Rove explicitly ignoring his boss's orders, or does the White House no longer even pretend there's any substance to their declarations?

Here's one I really liked: "Even if they somehow saw the memo from thousands of miles away,"

I've heard they actually have technology now that enables people to communicate, even across thousands of miles. We should look into hooking up Air Force One with some of that gear.

Or this:"Once you start down that road of "suretybaseduponspeculation," it's a nonending circular spiral toward infinity." - Posted by: -S-
"There are so many indications that Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury have seriously been investigating a RICO-size cabal, sending counter-intelligence experts into the CIA to conduct their investigations into the anti-Bush faction there."
Posted by: BR
Boy, you guys really need to get your stories straight.

One point made here I will agree on. Just because a reporter tells a different story than Rove or Libby doesn't automatically mean Rove or Libby are lying (although if I was on a jury I would be looking at who had more to gain from lying.) What has been established is that Rove and Cooper had a conversation, and that Rove either voluntarily or in response to a question, confirmed that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Putting aside all of the fatuous nonsense about what bad people Wilson and Plame were (I don't think there's a bad people exceptrion in any of the statutes) how is that justified? Should Rove even be allowed access to classified material if he can't take a minute to check on whether this is information he's supposed to give out? If there's ever a case where ignorance is no excuse, I'd say this is it.

I could go on, but I know must of you would rather spend time telling each other how right you are than listening to the other side.

"...because the CIA isn't a... (Below threshold)
ROFWL:

"...because the CIA isn't allowed to operate in the US..."

ROFWL. So they sell candy from their myriad domestic offices?

But, yeah, that's how the Dulles boys conned Pres. Harry S. Truman into signing the National Security Act into law in 1947.

Here's what Truman belatedly said in 1963 right after the JFK assassination:

"For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government.... I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak-and-dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment that I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda."

***

Truman would roll over in his grave if he knew about its later domestic intrusion - MK Ultra mind control experiments, electro-shock/drugs/hypnosis, creation of LSD, using LSD on unwitting citizens as done on the hippies of San Francisco, chemical and biological warfare testing on citizens - such as spraying over SF bay and in NY subways, running prostitutes for purpose of compromising US and foreign politicians (for example Columbia Plaza ring operating out of Larry O' Brien/Spencer Oliver's DNC offices in 71-72), infiltrating govt for its own purposes (Watergate and other examples), infiltrating and taking over civilian corporations for its technology and financial assets (remember the "wacko with the allergies" who was under house arrest - Howard Hughes, etc.).

RE: Joe Mama's post (July 2... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Joe Mama's post (July 22, 2005 09:16 PM)

...I am totally sick of this drivel, which appropriately is the name of one of you people with this moronic opinion.


You talkin' to me? You talkin to me?

Heh, this from the well of insight and research that is Joe Mama. A shallow pool indeed with its bilge pump working overtime.

Swim little minnow. Back you go...

How about this article from... (Below threshold)
Joe Mama:

How about this article from the WP?

Ex-CIA Officers Rip Bush Over Rove Leak
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201261.html

Here is an excerpt from one of your kind:

Johnson, who said he is a registered Republican, said he wished a GOP lawmaker would have the courage to stand up and "call the ugly dog the ugly dog."

"Where are these men and women with any integrity to speak out against this?" Johnson asked. "I expect better behavior out of Republicans."

Let the smearing begin...........


To the liberals here -- who... (Below threshold)
-S-:

To the liberals here -- who are SURE it's all about party politics and who'se superior to whom -- anyone not of their reasoning, if that's what it is, has to be unable to think clearly or read "facts" or otherwise function with a brain stem.

To the rest of us, it's about the history, the investigation, the facts. Plame's been established as an employee of the CIA, not as a "secret agent," and over and over and over again, the ONLY person who's reappeared with an attack line along party politics is Jim Wilson, who is ALSO the source and cheerleader for the since many times defunct statement by Wilson that his wife's identity "as a secret agent" was "revealed" and/or "leaked" and by whom...(as in, isn't it odd that Wilson knows with such assurity that it was Karl Rove who "leaked" his wife's "secret agent" status...when, among many other things, his wife was NOT a "secret agent"....goes on and on, but mostly it's been Joe Wilson with literary eruption grandstanding with anyone and everyone who would even notice him, over the years).

Most of us long ago stopped even trying to reason with liberals because you aren't reasonable.

IF Karl Rove revealed an intelligence officer's "secret" and/or security clearance, he'd be in violation of the laws that prohibit such behavior, and should be punished accordingly.

Same for Libby. Same for AnonymousDrivel, same for Kevin, same for anyone, is my point.

However, that has not been established. Establish that -- that Rove, that Libby, both or either, "leaked" the "secret agent" identity of Valerie Plame -- and THEN call for Rove to be fired or otherwised held accountable, for actions to be taken to disparage the guy, or guys.

But that hasn't occured. No one has established that that occured nor that IF it occured, that Rove and/or Libby were responsible.

But it HAS been established time and again that Joe Wilson has: (1.) a flamboyant personality; (2.) a publicity-seeking incentive to his personality; (3.) an imagined tale that he needs to be believed; and, (4.) is seeking literary and film deals for this tale (that his wife's 'secret identity' was "leaked" by Karl Rove).

I think if Wilson is guilty of anything it is of being a crazy person but what else is new among liberals particularly in D.C.? That Joe Wilson would be advisor to John Kerry seems the only reasonable thing he's ever done, what with them both being quite inexact and grandiose frauds as to basic points of reality that are easily observable and proven by most others of similar intelligence.

If there's ANYone who has the appearance of consistently appearing for self-aggrandizing purposes, it is Joe Wilson, and appearing based upon non fact, illustrious charade even.

Thus, it's foolish to NOT consider Joe Wilson as the source of the entire issue (because he has been, but that fact is beyond the scope of liberals here, from what I've read). At least to consider Joe Wilson as a key player in the story as it's both appeared and become unravelled. To not examine Wilson's character and his incentives in this issue would be a huge blunder, would be very stupid of nonsensical proportions.

So, why not consider Joe Wilson as some espionage figure? If he'd persisted in this sort of political intrigue over such a period of time for his own political purpose, and is intent on calculating and maligning the character of others in politics (Rove, for instance), that's espionage.

I think Wilson's almost certainly as cunning as he is ridiculous. That he's managed the degree of credibility he has is probably due to community support because, for the life of me, what's with a Vanity Fair feature on him and his wife? I mean, who asked, who's interested? (Because, at the time that article was published, Joe Wilson was a nobody in media, and his wife, he says, was "a secret agent!" so, hey, put us in Vanity Fair with photographs and interviews!...makes no sense as to any consistency with what Wilson says and has said).

Another thing and that is that John Kerry has had many people of the belief that he did what he did, went where he did, or did not, all that, and has been disproven and even required a Presidential pardon (Jimmy Carter's responsible for that) to even run for the Senate. I mean, look at his actions, look at who that person is beyond the acquired millions...

Sometimes people get so fomented over appearances and material status that they cannot see the trees for the forest. But, you know, anyone can call a tree a forest and then dare everyone else to denounce the definition...doesn't make it so.

Joe Wilson, to my view, is a far more likely player in the whole Plame Affair and it's almost certainly for pedestrian, if not boring, self intersted reasons. Thus, the heart of the issue, the final solution, will be a foolish man with delusions without regard for the damage his delusions could and have wrought on others, both as to character and as to the financial damages his delusions have incurred (someone else will pay, I suppose he assumes, what with his delusions being OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE and, oh, yeah, MY WIFE'S SUPERIORS WILL PAY FOR EVERYTHING...).

Thus, it'll be repeatedly denounced once resolved because it will be anticlimactic: Joe Wilson, a disturbed mine, made the miniscule charade into massive proportions and became accustomed to the heat of publicity and notice and...and...no stopping the political intrigue at that point and if he could take down a national party or two or figure here and there, so be it.

People will probably refuse to accept that Wilson is as nutty as a fruitcake but still criminally responsible, is my point. It's not well dressed as story climax, has no heat, isn't the big finish, so can't be real, so to speak. But, what I think it is is that he's just a crazy man who found a lot of attention from being crazy and is sure, is SURE, that Karl Rove made him crazy. Err, that it's Karl Rove's fault. Err, Karl Rove did it, he's sure. Has to be.

And there's lumbering, smucky self serving John Kerry, all hot and intent for the deal. All too eager to aid and assist...

And that's my intuitive best guess, and what experience has taught me, as to what some personality types will buy and will insist on buying otherwise. Either way, Wilson gets his book and film deal and won't be out a cent if both or either fail. Which they will.

Joe Mama: if you suggest t... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Joe Mama: if you suggest that Republicans don't "rip" or otherwise confront questionable behaviors by other Republicans, you just do not get out of some vacuum. At all.

So far, the only partypolitico comments I read -- here, anywhere -- are from liberals intent on getting Karl Rove and sure that Republicans are all oogey. That's about as cogent so far as it goes.

But, based upon that (^^), then, that "means" that Karl Rove did it? Be careful lest someone ask you to explain what Karl Rove "did." I mean, someone might ask you for specifics. Next they'll ask you to identify all those Republicans who didn't/can't/won't act on behaviors because another Republican might be involved, could be, probably is, who knows...

-S- I haven't read yours ab... (Below threshold)
BR:

-S- I haven't read yours above yet, so excuse me if you've already provided this info. Just want to give Chris his requested links for my earlier post.
________

[By BR]: "There are so many indications that Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury have seriously been investigating a RICO-size cabal, sending counter-intelligence experts into the CIA to conduct their investigations into the anti-Bush faction there. It goes all the way back to the Feb 02 Niger fake docs described by Wilson, then denying he ever saw any fake docs, then caught in the lie by the Senate Committee Investigation on Iraq. Wilson was the weak link that pulled down [the] whole joint-Humpty Dumpty cabal."

Excerpt from WP 12/26/03 article:

"The Justice Department has added a prosecutor specializing in counterintelligence, joining two other counterintelligence prosecutors and one from Justice's Public Integrity section.

Agents investigating the matter have been increasingly apparent at CIA headquarters in Langley over the past three weeks, officials said. "They are still active," a senior official said."

****

Links showing Wilson knew of Niger forgeries in Feb 02: here and here. (Best example is in the NY Times' Kristof 5/6/03 piece, written right after Kristof and his wife had breakfast with the Wilsons, but two months before Wilson's op-ed came out in the NY Times on 7/6/03. (Note: Kristof and Judith Miller are both of NY Times.)

Links showing Wilson denying knowledge of forged Niger docs in Feb 02: here and here.

The Niger section of the July 2004 "Select Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessment on Iraq" is included in the last link.

[Sorry of this double po... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

[Sorry of this double posts - one link had a cgi script parameter that was tagging this post as trouble and I had to edit it out.]


RE: Joe Mama's puddle (July 23, 2005 02:07 AM)

Here is an excerpt from one of your kind:...

What makes you think I'm a Republican ex-CIA?


JM's Excerpt from WaPo: Johnson, who said he is a registered Republican, said he wished a GOP lawmaker would have the courage to stand up and "call the ugly dog the ugly dog."

This is so last week. Aren't you following previous blog entries?

Selective Security Outrage - July 12, 2005

Need quick links to Johnson's interests abroad and his previous position statements re terrorism and the Iraq war? Try chad's post and follow his links.

Excerpted from his post though I think there were more:
Larry C. Johnson [self-presented bio undated]
Is Terrorism Getting Worse? [by Larry C. Johnson undated]
And, of course, there's Google among other numerous search engines.


"Smearing"? Hardly. Everyone has motivations and just as we have ours, Johnson has his. We might want to figure out what they are by performing simple research and analysis. I don't care if he's R, D, I, L, FBI, CIA, SOS, or SOL. His position should be scrutinized as should anyone else's.

For example, if you follow the "Is Terrorism Getting Worse?" link, you'll get Johnson's philosophy, as a corporate advisor, to handling terrorism. Well, after you search and pull up another view on the matter, another site that sourced that same link some time ago references Johnson's relevant data supporting his NYTimes Op-Ed (Berg-Associates):

"Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.

"None of these beliefs are based in fact. ... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way."

--Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," New York Times, July 10, 2001. Johnson, a former CIA officer, was deputy director of the U.S. State Department's Office of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993. A more detailed version of this argument appears here.

Via (Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson
Timothy Noah (Friday, Sept. 21, 2001, at 3:56 PM PT)


Notice anything odd? Do you find the foundation to his argument solid and the conclusions drawn sound? And he's a consultant on terrorism with insight into intelligence gathering? Let's just say I would question his opinion on things. I've already suggested some speculation earlier and I'm not going to pursue this one further. He appears to be damaged goods though you wouldn't know it considering the exposure tour he seems to be enjoying. Makes a nice walking billboard for his corporate terrorism consulting business though as long as you ignore his misstep in the predicting game. Oops, more speculation. That one just slipped. Sorry.

The INR Memo was a Troja... (Below threshold)
BR:

The INR Memo was a Trojan Horse

(INR - State Dept.'s Bureau of Intelligence and Research)

Besides the INR memo being planted in all directions with the intent to detonate it against Bush at the opportune moment, the INR memo itself was contrived. Not fake, because it apparently did come from the State Dept. But contrived, as follows:

Eighteen months ago Washington Post discredited the INR memo on 12/26/03. (So their source spoke to the WP about a classified memo?)

Anyway, according to that article, the INR memo lists the presence of a CIA staffer who couldn't possibly have been present in the CIA meeting mentioned in the INR memo – an added inapplicable name in the INR memo itself. I can't tell whose name that is, whether it's Plame or someone else. Whoever drafted it, didn't realize the massive error. One can explain an omitted name. But to add a name of a participant in a meeting who wasn't there, shows the INR memo's creation had nefarious intent. JustOneMinute site reports there was a shadow writer, not the name who appears as its author. (One could suspect Greg Thielmann, INR staffer mad at Bolton for having kept him out of a certain meeting – from this Seymour Hersh article of 10/20/03.)

Trojan Horse One – p... (Below threshold)
BR:

Trojan Horse One – plant it with top WH people, with spurious "S" code in the margin next to the Valerie Wilson paragraph, as part of a "briefing." Make the INR memo look like just another innocent document in a briefing pack allegedly given to Powell before boarding or on Air Force One right after Wilson's 7/6/03 op-ed. (But dated 6/10/03 ? Has anyone heard an explanation for this date? I thought the briefing pack was supposed to be in response to Wilson's op-ed and tv appearances. This date makes it look even more contrived, like someone at the State Dept.'s INR already knew of Wilson's upcoming op-ed, standing ready to present the Trojan Horse as soon as asked.)

Trojan Horse Two - plant it with conservative news agencies. At the right moment, accuse the WH of leaking the Trojan Horse contents to conservative media. As soon as Novak's article was published on 7/14/03, Wilson and The Nation's David Corn, followed by the rest of the MSM, jumped on it, blaming Bush WH for outing Plame.

The current attack line on ... (Below threshold)
BR:

The current attack line on Ari/Rove/Bush is based on this Trojan Horse document. A "gift" carrying a special paragraph inside it, mentioning Valerie Wilson, with a marking in the margin, allegedly an "S" for Secret. It's been debated to death by all kinds of experts, ex-State Dept. staff, etc. at JustOneMinute whether the "S" would be an appropriate State Dept. confidentiality code at all. Apparently there's something wrong with it – not the code one would expect next to that paragraph.

I'd like to see a copy of it too. I'd like to frame the frame-up. The organized internet operatives forwarding the attack line at various sites know it off by heart, down to the State Dept. confidentiality codes in the margin. Link, anyone? Ha, can't resist… "A link, a link, my kingdom for a link." :)

(Links discussing the WP 12/26/03 article: at Wizbang on 7/17/05, on 7/18/05 and at JustOneMinute on 7/20/05 and 7/21/05 in the main post, with long, dreary discussion of State Dept. secrecy codes in the posts starting the next morning, 7/22/05.)

Something stirs in my memory… margin, margin, wasn't that a factor in Sandy Berger's theft of National Archives memos on and after 9/2/03 ? Something about thingamajiggies in margins. Don't have the exact link for it, but that's a start.

Excerpt from <a href="http... (Below threshold)
BR:

Excerpt from 12/26/03 WP article:

"Sources said [hmm, who is that, giving details of a classified memo to the MSM?] the CIA is angry [depends which faction in the CIA – the anti-Bush or pro-Bush ones] about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it." [Hmmm, if WP doesn't tell us which faction is speaking to them, the article hides their source's intent.]

"CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting."

"It has been circulated around," one official said. CIA and State Department officials have refused to discuss the document.

On Oct. 28 [2003 ?], Talon News, a news company tied to a group called GOP USA, posted on the Internet an interview with Wilson in which the Talon News questioner asks: "An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?"

***

Gosh, now that I've re-read... (Below threshold)
BR:

Gosh, now that I've re-read the part:

"CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting."

- it's even worse than I first thought! So, the very person whose name got ADDED to the memo, who wasn't even present at the meeting, is the one who supposedly brought up Plame's name. Okay... er... so who made that paragraph up? It seems it's a totally fictitious paragraph, this thing that the left is jumping up and down about. What a circus, at a time when our govt's attention should be outward, handling real problems, not being distracted by fifth columnists.

BRMy God, you take... (Below threshold)
Chris:

BR

My God, you take up so much space, and don't include a single fact! OK, maybe one, but I'm certainly not going to go back and re-read all of that stuff. It's time out of my life that I'll never get back. You can certainly disagree with my post, but I do take pains to list the facts as they're known. You posted a million paragraphs alleging, as near as I can figure, that Joe Wilson is behind everything because he seems kind of hinky to you. That's all you got?? And by the way, since time immemorial, it's been a common tactic to blame the victim in these cases as part of some nefarious plot. It's the old "They blew up their own headquarters just so they could blame us," dodge.

And I have to say, your attempts at getting factual are kind of laughable. To you, a news item that says "The Justice Department has added a prosecutor specializing in counterintelligence, joining two other counterintelligence prosecutors and one from Justice's Public Integrity section.

Agents investigating the matter have been increasingly apparent at CIA headquarters in Langley over the past three weeks, officials said. "They are still active," a senior official said."

Can only mean ""There are so many indications that Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury have seriously been investigating a RICO-size cabal, sending counter-intelligence experts into the CIA to conduct their investigations into the anti-Bush faction there. It goes all the way back to the Feb 02 Niger fake docs described by Wilson, then denying he ever saw any fake docs, then caught in the lie by the Senate Committee Investigation on Iraq. Wilson was the weak link that pulled down [the] whole joint-Humpty Dumpty cabal."

I guess I missed the part in the news article where they mentioned a RICO sized cabal and an anti-Bush faction. Can I borrow the magic glasses you use when you read these articles?

So in your world, a memo that describes a meeting at the CIA and implicates Valerie Plame as sending her husband to Niger, a memo that was circulated to conservative news outlets, is actually a trojan horse designed to make Bush look bad. Huh? I guess Wilson is the crazy man you make him out to be, if he's distributing to conservative news outlets a memo that makes him out to be a liar. Good one.

By the way, you do know that there'a two different State Department memos in question, don't you? The one the CIA is mad about was entered as evidence in the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings, and details the meeting in which Wilson was briefed on his trip to Niger. The memo's author assumed that Plame had arranged for Wilson to go, even though he hadn't been part of any of the arrangements. The reason the CIA was angry is because the committe took the word of a State Dept. guy about what went on at CIA, instead of asking the CIA. The second memo is the one that was prepared for POwell to take on the plane to Africa, and is an after the fact recounting prepared in response to Wilson's op-ed, because the White House was freaking out. This is the memo that mentions Plame as a covert agent, and is marked secret. It was immediately leaked that Powell was seen walking around with the memo, and then leaked that Ari Fleisher was seen reading it by a "senior official no longer with the administration" (probably Powell, or as Billmon put it:"Powell: Fuck me? No, fuck you!")
The existence of the second memo, its contents and who actually read it are all speculation, although as far as I know no administration leaker has tried to deny its existence.

To sum up: first memo: factual, referenced in Senate report. Second memo: pure speculation.

And by the way, I never mentioned the State Department memo that was supposedly read on the trip to Africa. Everything in my post was factual as we know it. That memo sounds like it could be trouble for the White House, but it's still just speculation, and I recognize that. The fact is that both Rove and Cooper agree that they discussed Plame, and that Rove asserted or confirmed that Plame was at the CIA, a fact that he was not authorized to reveal. Claiming after the fact that Plame shouldn't really have been classified as covert has no more bearing than liberals saying Bush shouldn't really have been President because he stole the election.

Hey BR, nice conspiricy the... (Below threshold)
Joe Mama:

Hey BR, nice conspiricy theories. And how ironic it is that the left is supposed to be the ones with them....

Wow.... the INR is a trojan... (Below threshold)

Wow.... the INR is a trojan horse. The same trojan horse that was released by Talon News. You remember them. The so called news organization that put that GayBoy into the White House Press Corp on a day pass....

Never Knew that Talon News was a CIA Front....

Or is it really that the CIA is a Gay Organization???

Why is it that the VoCHA (Victims Of ChickenHawk Angst) are trying so hard to save Rove? Could it be that they have forgotten that the nation is suppose to be at WAR? And that the unlawful release of classified information is a CAPITAL CRIME called SPYING? Americans do understand that the excuses made for Gitmo and the Whole "military tribunal" gambit rest upon the legal leg work of WWII, and that they did shoot spies during real wars....

So Which is it boys and girls?

Want to back the Troops in a Time of War?

Or has the need for domestic political expediency finally overrun the need for that old saw....

The smearing has begun, tha... (Below threshold)
Joe Mama:

The smearing has begun, thanks AnonymousDrivel, I knew i could count on you.

Joe Mama writes: ... (Below threshold)
s9:

Joe Mama writes: The smearing has begun...

Indeed, and it makes all these waterheads currently carrying a torch for Rove and Libby complicit in their ongoing crime. What crime is that? Conspiracy to obstruct justice, that's what crime.

The whole point of maintaining the smear of Joe Wilson, and Valerie Plame (and the whole CIA, it seems) is to soften the battlefield for when they go after the prosecution for handing down an espionage indictment.

Fitzgerald has to know that if they're willing to burn a CIA asset merely for a little domestic political advantage, then they won't hesitate in trying to smear a federal prosecutor when it's their ass on the line. So, it's clear— they're not bluffing. They really are preparing to discredit the prosecution with the public. If that doesn't work, then they'll go after the judges, then the Supreme Court if necessary.

No one has immunity.

RE: Joe Mama's post (July 2... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Joe Mama's post (July 24, 2005 01:48 AM)

The smearing has begun, thanks AnonymousDrivel, I knew i could count on you.

Likewise. I extend my hand in gratitude that your inconsequential reply is as dependable as the rising sun but without any of the illumination. I guess in that regard, you're more like a giant moon. No wonder we often avert our eyes when we see you on the horizon.

Hee hee, hi AD. The blue ... (Below threshold)
BR:

Hee hee, hi AD. The blue streamers' franticness is reaching 10 on the Richter scale. They can't even tell the difference between BR and -S- :)

Those who commit criminal c... (Below threshold)
BR:

Those who commit criminal conspiracies have tried to wipe the word from the dictionary by denigrating anyone who would analyze data, draw rational conclusions and call a spade a spade. I hope Fitzgerald is an expert in RICO prosecution.

RE: s9's post (July 24, 200... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: s9's post (July 24, 2005 02:38 AM)

Indeed, and it makes all these waterheads currently carrying a torch for Rove and Libby complicit in their ongoing crime. What crime is that? Conspiracy to obstruct justice, that's what crime.

To which "waterheads" do you refer? Further, (and I'll speculate as to whom you are referring) you now tag those who question Plame's/Wilson's veracity and don't reflexively condemn a man who has not been indicted of a crime to be guilty of obstruction of justice?


The whole point of maintaining the smear of Joe Wilson, and Valerie Plame (and the whole CIA, it seems) is to soften the battlefield for when they go after the prosecution for handing down an espionage indictment.

That's an interesting extrapolation of motive and may be true though that's not a position I take. Volumes have been referenced as to why Wilson's "reputation" (my quotes) is more than deserving of a bit of tarnish. Plame's reputation may be sullied but the publicly available data is limited; so, some assumptions about her possible complicity are based upon that smaller repository of information. Presumably, Fitzgerald has access to such material and is using a fine-toothed comb to review it. Practical application of what many may conclude are reasonable incentives/behaviors and human interaction substitute for limited facts. Just to exemplify what I mean, consider any husband-wife relationship. It is not unreasonable to make certain assumptions about that interaction because it is a marriage. In this particular case, the actors are both in similar business. Further, they both were involved in the subject of yellowcake. Further still? They both have something to gain/lose for their insertion into this matter. To not make educated guesses as to their complimentary involvement on this particular topic would be terribly naive - no, make that stupid. Or maybe some prefer to mime an ostrich. Don't think they don't communicate with each other at both a personal as well as professional level.

Now, since you have exaggerated that LCJohnson is "the whole CIA", then a review of that CIA is in order. It seems a bit comical that the traditionally philosophical "Left" is coming to the rescue of the CIA. What strange and convenient times we live in. Black is white. So while you might want to place Johnson on a pedestal because he supports your worldview, I'm for a review of the entire institution if necessary. That would include Plame. However, I don't need to hear every little tidbit that is discovered though it would be interesting. I have some faith that the SP will release that which it can, safely, and conceal that which it cannot. Let the chips fall where they may.


Fitzgerald has to know that if they're willing to burn a CIA asset merely for a little domestic political advantage, then they won't hesitate in trying to smear a federal prosecutor when it's their ass on the line. So, it's clear— they're not bluffing. They really are preparing to discredit the prosecution with the public. If that doesn't work, then they'll go after the judges, then the Supreme Court if necessary.

Oh please. What we in the VRWC (or other waterheads?) want is for the normal investigation to occur and to let the SP do his work. Let LAW dictate events and not the moonbat bloodlust for Karl "Evil Genius" Rove. Present data to support your position since what we are privy to is rather limited and secondhand. But this meme that Rove should be frog-marched in "Federal Issue Orange" because you would like him to be is one tired act. Maybe you and others could turn the page and find new material.


No one has immunity.

On this I agree. Wilson and Plame should not have immunity from having their backgrounds closely scrutinized. Neither should Johnson who, as a terrorism expert, has proclaimed his disdain for the perpetuation that "...[Americans] almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism." What the heck was he looking at when he was in the agency? It would seem to me that his mindset of the approach to terrorism contributed the the morass in which we live. Certainly most agreed with him at the time and boy are we regretting it now. I reiterate, I have reason to question his judgement. But I'll let whoever wants carry his standard and blow their bugle while charging into the fraud that our fears of terrorism are misplaced. I'll stand back, reload my musket, and wait for the "insurgents" marching over his smoldering carcass.

Hi BR. I'm still wiping the... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Hi BR. I'm still wiping the sweat off my brow from earlier. That's some heavy, um, reading. My stamina is getting tested.

Hee hee, reminds me of this... (Below threshold)
BR:

Hee hee, reminds me of this golden oldie at wizbang:

ABC NEWS: Republicans have better sex:

"...When asked whether they had ever faked an orgasm, more Democrats (33 percent) than Republicans (26 percent) said they had."

Must be true, if ABC said it :)

Then again, we know these polls are always screwed up - "33" must have been a typo for "69".

More sexy links, the plot t... (Below threshold)
BR:

More sexy links, the plot thickens, France involved:

Forged Niger docs exposed as la grande trappola:
UK Telegraph 9/5/04 and UK Telegraph 9/19/04.


Forged Niger docs – originating from anti-Bush faction of CIA: New Yorker 10/27/03 and VIPS data at JustOneMinute - great sleuthing there - here's a taste:

"Fox News March 17, 2003

The 25-member group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, composed mostly of former CIA analysts along with a few operational agents, is urging employees inside the intelligence agency to break the law and leak any information they have that could show the Bush administration is engineering the release of evidence to match its penchant for war".

The JustOneMinute post also ties in the INR memo - wow, they already realized that two years ago! Wonder if J-O-M remembers what gems exist in its archives.

For our friends who like to... (Below threshold)
BR:

For our friends who like to fake it, here's the relevant text of the Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker 10/27/03:

"… [a former senior C.I.A. officer]. He had begun talking to me about the Niger papers in March, when I first wrote about the forgery, and said, “Somebody deliberately let something false get in there.” He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents themselves.

“The agency guys were so pissed at Cheney,” the former officer said. “They said, ‘O.K, we’re going to put the bite on these guys.’ ” My source said that he was first told of the fabrication late last year, at one of the many holiday gatherings in the Washington area of past and present C.I.A. officials. “Everyone was bragging about it—‘Here’s what we did. It was cool, cool, cool.’ ” These retirees, he said, had superb contacts among current officers in the agency and were informed in detail of the sismi intelligence.

… “They thought it’d be bought at lower levels—a big bluff.” The thinking, he said, was that the documents would be endorsed by Iraq hawks at the top of the Bush Administration, who would be unable to resist flaunting them at a press conference or an interagency government meeting. They would then look foolish when intelligence officials pointed out that they were obvious fakes. But the tactic backfired, he said, when the papers won widespread acceptance within the Administration. “It got out of control.”

****

Hoist by their own petard (those medieval guys sure had a way with words). When I was a little girl, I thought "petard" meant "turd."

Triple-cross poker :)... (Below threshold)
BR:

Triple-cross poker :)

I wouldn't be surprised if both Bush and Blair were aware that some Niger docs were forgeries and set a trap for the culprits in the French govt / Plame/Wilson / INR / UN's IAEA / MSM by vaguely referring to uranium and Africa in their speeches. Rove's e-mail to a security official in the WH after a reporter's call (Cooper, I think it was), saying he [Rove] didn't take the bait, is a hint the WH knew of the cabal all along. How wonderful that the screams for investigation came from the left. I hope Fitzgerald goes all the way with his counter-intelligence experts' investigation into the CIA.

BR writes: Oh ple... (Below threshold)
s9:

BR writes: Oh please. What we in the VRWC (or other waterheads?) want is for the normal investigation to occur and to let the SP do his work.

Uh huh. I'm sure you are all on the same page that if any senior administration officials are found to have been involved in the leaking of national security information to the press for domestic political advantage, and convicted of a crime associated with it, and sentenced to a sufficiently serious length of prison time, and the appeals process runs it course all the way to the Supreme Court without relief, then— and, only then— will it be clear to you that somebody will have to be fired from the White House.

Why are you people carrying a torch for these guys? They are clearly implicated in a conspiracy to burn a CIA non-official cover operative merely for domestic political advantage. What Rove and Libby have already admitted should be enough for you to demand their resignations. Yet, here you are spinning wild conspiracy theories to rationalize their possible innocence. Why is it so important for you to do that?

My apologies for the misatt... (Below threshold)
s9:

My apologies for the misattribution. My previous post inaccurately attributed a statement to BR when it should have been correctly attributed to AnonymousDrivel. I was responding to the post by AnonymousDrivel. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Apology accepted, S9. Unli... (Below threshold)
BR:

Apology accepted, S9. Unlike Chris, you have the decency to admit it. But maybe Chris will realize his mistake too.

RE: s9's post (July 24, 200... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: s9's post (July 24, 2005 02:04 PM)

Regarding the first paragraph and [w]hy are you people carrying a torch for these guys? They are clearly implicated in a conspiracy to burn a CIA non-official cover operative merely for domestic political advantage. What Rove and Libby have already admitted should be enough for you to demand their resignations.

s9 - I have written extensively and repeatedly at Wizbang what my position is. I'm not going to resummarize it again. I've provided links and discussion as to the rationale for my position. Others have too. Feel free to act like it is all new to you but don't expect me to give a Cliff's Notes version at every point. I tire of typing it and I'm sure others tire of reading it.


Yet, here you are spinning wild conspiracy theories to rationalize their possible innocence. Why is it so important for you to do that?

The theories are speculation and judgements as to motivations of the actors. We have disclosed as much and provided what documentation we have (or are inclined to research and present) to support those positions. Take it or leave it; but when you present the conflicting view that Wilson/Plame are innocent dupes, it insults our intelligence. This is an intertwined event that is actively promoted to lede by the Left and is utterly political itself. It is not because of a concern for "national security". If it was, we'd have heard a hell of a lot more whining from these concerned Democrats about Sandy Burglar. The importance, for the umpteenth time, is to reveal the entire story and not one snippet of it. Moral relativism is in play, as I have said. Law is the equalizer that we rely on to quantify it in our society. Repeated declarations of "Liar, liar, pants on fire" doesn't hold up in criminal court and it barely holds up here.

Looks like the strategy her... (Below threshold)
Petey Wheaty:

Looks like the strategy here was to blame the whole thing on a couple of reporters, safe in the knowledge that those reporters would never do something as unethical as revealing the names of their sources, let alone what was discussed with them. How ingeniously evil!

Too bad it didn't work.

My thoughts on Karl Rove:</... (Below threshold)
Petey Wheaty:

My thoughts on Karl Rove:

Karl Rove is a slug. A big, fat slug that leaves a trail of slime wherever he goes. I'm a republican, and I admit this.

But you wanna know the thing about slugs? You wanna know their one true amazing power?

They can crawl across the edge of a razor without cutting themselves.

That's what Karl does. That's ALL he does. And while the left-wing media and the Democrat party's got its panties in a twist over this, I'm sure Karl's having the time of his life.

Living on the edge. And not getting cut.

Why should a genius have to obey laws written by morons?


You said it... "written by ... (Below threshold)
ROFWL:

You said it... "written by morons" :)

AnonymousDrivel writ... (Below threshold)
s9:

AnonymousDrivel writes: It is not because of a concern for "national security". If it was, we'd have heard a hell of a lot more whining from these concerned Democrats about Sandy Burglar.

Did Sandy Berger burn a non-official cover operative? Did an expensive CIA operation to run a front company— for the purposes of recruiting foreign agents to help America further its efforts in nuclear non-proliferation— go up in smoke because Sandy Berger and his corrupt circle of toadies repeatedly and deliberately leaked the contents of the documents in his control to the press?

I'm sorry if you don't think the distinction here is important, but I'm a lot less worried about the message the case of Sandy Berger sends to the people we have asked to risk their lives— and the lives of their families— than I am about what it says to them that Rove and Libby can be permitted to get away clean with what they have clearly done.

Again, I ask the question to which nobody here seems to want to answer: why should any sane and rational person volunteer to work under non-official cover for a U.S. intelligence agency when senior administration officials will not be held accountable for burning them over nothing more important than a chance to get a little domestic political advantage?

It's nice to see that all these pro-War™ types are so obviously unconcerned about that. It reveals the essential character of their arguments: they thank their lucky stars each and every day that somebody is stupid enough to "hear the call" and take the big risks that they're just too, too, too precious to take themselves. I'm quite serious. If you're not willing to condemn Rove and Libby for doing what they have already admitted they did, then you are implying that the answer to my question above is basically the same as Jay Tea's answer in the comment I linked above. "Either you 'hear the call' or you don't."

Sane and rational people are supposed to volunteer for extremely dangerous work as non-official cover operatives because they "hear the call?" And when they and their families are put at risk merely for domestic political advantage, this is supposed to make them proud to have served a grateful nation?

You have got to be kidding me. How can anybody really think like that?

"Apology accepted, S9. Unli... (Below threshold)
Chris:

"Apology accepted, S9. Unlike Chris, you have the decency to admit it. But maybe Chris will realize his mistake too."

Huh? Perthaps if I knew what you were talking about I would apologize, if I thought I was wrong. There's so many posts containing quotes from other posts that perhaps I misattributed something to somebody, but it's a little hard for me to know what you're talking about if that's all you give me to work with.

Chris - kindly link to the ... (Below threshold)
BR:

Chris - kindly link to the copies of the two State Dept. memos you appear to have seen since you are so familiar with their details. If they're not on the internet, can you type them out here for us? Where does your first- or second- or third-hand knowledge come from? Did you help in drafting them yourself? Are you in the INR?

To S9 - have you read the t... (Below threshold)
BR:

To S9 - have you read the two UK Telegraph articles linked in an earlier post above? Does it not make you think something may be amiss regarding the attacks on Bush and Blair based on deliberately forged - then planted by a French agent - Niger uranium docs?

Hey BRIt seems you... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Hey BR

It seems you really don't process information well. First of all, you seemed to indicate that I had somehow misattributed one poster's comments for another's. When I asked what you were talking about, you responded by challenging me to provide evidence of the two memos I had written about. There's some kind of total disconnect there. But since you asked, if you go to http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf and check out page 40 of the report,(which is also page 50 of the pdf) you'll see in section U that an INR analyst present at the CIA meeting was the source of the report that Valerie Plame had first suggested sending her husband to Niger. I've since read quotes from her supervisor at CIA who disputed that report and was angry that he wasn't asked about the issue (and no, I'm not going to search the web for you to find the quote. You asked about the memos so I'm answering you.)

The second memo, the one that was allegedly on Air Force One, is supposed to be the memo that revealed Plame's identity. And if you read my post (here's the part where you don't process so well) you would see that I said:
"The existence of the second memo, its contents and who actually read it are all speculation, although as far as I know no administration leaker has tried to deny its existence.

To sum up: first memo: factual, referenced in Senate report. Second memo: pure speculation."

Please tell me how that implies that I am claiming to have seen the second memo?

I clearly draw a different conclusion from the evidence and speculation that's all over the net, than that drawn by most of the posters on this board. However, I do take pains to only claim as fact what seems to have been established as fact.
Now back to the question at hand. When one poster apologized for attributing a quote to you that was actually from another poster, you said

"Apology accepted, S9. Unlike Chris, you have the decency to admit it. But maybe Chris will realize his mistake too."

Now what the hell were you talking about? The reason I harp on this is because I've noticed that whenever I post something factual on this board, it just goes into the ether, and people start up all of the suppositions and ad hominem remarks. So instead of changing the subject every time you're called on to support your staements, why don't you just answer the question? You know, kind of like the way I answered your misguided question about the memos.

BR writes: have y... (Below threshold)
s9:

BR writes: have you read the two UK Telegraph articles linked in an earlier post above?

Not until now. The UK Telegraph is a Murdoch paper, i.e. it's published by Telegraph Group Ltd., and as such, I tend to discount its content until I see confirmation in other sources.

BR continues: Does it not make you think something may be amiss regarding the attacks on Bush and Blair based on deliberately forged - then planted by a French agent - Niger uranium docs?

I don't see how any of it would be relevant to the matter under discussion. Yes, the memoranda that drove the Vice President's office to ask the CIA to send somebody to Niger to check into the yellowcake story were obvious forgeries. Yes, there is rampant speculation about who made the forgeries and what their motivations might have been to introduce them into circulation. I'm aware of several competing theories, including the one Seymour Hersh reported about a cabal of disgruntled ex-CIA officers getting ticked off enough to set a trap.

But here's the point: what possible excuse can the White House offer for falling into this supposed trap? By what reasonable justification can you excuse burning a non-official cover operative here? Were Karl and Scooter really just doing their patriotic duty until those evil traitors at State and the Agency put them into the kind of terrible squeeze where burning an operative was the least damaging thing they could do to national security? How would that be a reasonable thing to say?

Please, this is just a silly diversion. Let me know when you want to take the matter seriously.

BROK, I couldn't hel... (Below threshold)
Chris:

BR
OK, I couldn't help myself. Here's a link to the same Washington Post story that you speculated means Fitzgerald is looking into a RICO-style anti-Bush cabal at the CIA. Of course, the article says nothing of the kind. But if you read down further (instead of just stopping at the parts you like) you'll see it all spelled out about the INR memo about the meeting at the CIA, and the CIA's alleged objections to it. So you challenge me to produce information for you, and it turns out the information is in an article you linked to in this same goddamned thread. Jesus, get your head in the game.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A30842-2003Dec25¬Found=true

S9 and Chris, I gave you a ... (Below threshold)
BR:

S9 and Chris, I gave you a chance, but you have both showed yourself to be insincere by pushing false data. Look through the fog and ask yourself why are you even posting at this site. And will you come back to apologize for assisting the treasonous attack on the US President and his staff once the indictments on its sources are issued. Food for thought, here, American Hiroshima.

RE: s9's post (July 24, 200... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: s9's post (July 24, 2005 05:30 PM)

Did Sandy Berger burn a non-official cover operative? Did an expensive CIA operation to run a front company— for the purposes of recruiting foreign agents to help America further its efforts in nuclear non-proliferation— go up in smoke because Sandy Berger and his corrupt circle of toadies repeatedly and deliberately leaked the contents of the documents in his control to the press?

No. Sandy Berger stole numerous top secret documents with lots of names, dates, places, and/or who knows what else which could have compromised any number of secret programs or people. That material could have been shared with any number of other people and not just one particular individual of which there is a record. If that deliberate act wasn't enough, he did it to interfere with an investigation regarding terrorism (the most immediate security issue of the day), the nation's policy toward it and the record of action taken against it. There may be more but that is not, as far as I know, public record.

How many people could have gotten burned (or were burned but we just don't know about it) for the intentional theft of top secret documents? Why would anyone ever do anything in government if it was known that their supposedly concealed plans etc. could be perused by partisans and either studied, discussed, copied, or disseminated to anyone on the planet? See, the extrapolation works wonders no matter where applied. Both have the potential to severely compromise national security. I don't hear you complain about Berger and his "corrupt circle of toadies" and his repeated and deliberate stealing of actual documents under his temporary control and doing who knows what with them.

But my argument is not whether what Rove has done (alleged at this point) is legal or not, ethical or not. My argument is to a) let the investigation complete to the fullest extent possible and catch all actors on all sides who have done things to compromise the security of our country, b) let the investigation complete to the fullest extent possible and catch all actors on all sides who have done things to compromise the security of our country, and c) let the investigation complete to the fullest extent possible and catch all actors on all sides who have done things to compromise the security of our country. Have I made myself clear?

Research Rove and follow the law. Research Libby and follow the law. Research Wilson and follow the law. Research Plame and follow the law. Research Miller and follow the law. Research Cooper and follow the law. Have I made myself clear?

See, the press is quite interested in placing the microscope on Karl Rove because of visions of Watergate dancing in their heads. I'm interested in the operatives leaking information, scheming to undermine a government, politicking in the most abhorrent ways, concealing a questionable agenda, and possibly profitting from illegal action domestically and abroad. But everyone is free to research that which they find more damning to their hearts delight. The feigned concern that only Rove's action, whatever it was, merits scrutiny is disingenous. Should Rove be indicted, arrested, and ultimately convicted, I'll accept the SP's work. My greater fear is that the investigation will not capture all of the actors and you already know which ones I believe to be the most dangerous. If Rove's disclosure does yield a "cabal" (to borrow BR's word), I'll consider his action patriotic. If it doesn't, then he'll be punished according to statute. He may still be punished even if that cabal is unearthed, but that won't tarnish his patriotism. I've presented this opinion before and I stand my ground.

If you cannot grasp my position at this point, then I give up. Your hearing may be fine but you just aren't listening.

Hi AD, I was just writing t... (Below threshold)
BR:

Hi AD, I was just writing to you and haven't read yours at 08:30 AM yet. Amazing synchronicity! So many worms, too little time!

I'll post, then read yours

To AD – I'm catching up with your great work (more like play, for us), and just saw your reference in regard to Johnson, linking to: Selective Security Outrage. (Sorry, I had missed that thread before, so it's become #9B" on my list of wizbang threads. Will go do some "heavy reading" there asap :) )

You are so right when you said before that many people on parallel lines of research are coming up with the same discoveries. Since CBSgate I had recognized there were a flock of ex-CIA whiners always running to Hersh with their anonymous sourced leaks. Three weeks ago I first read about the VIPS group of ex-CIA whiners – in an Oct 2003 thread at J-O-M, and more recently, here">http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/07/circling_back_t.html#comment-7525146">here and lower down in that thread, here - where the "Johnson" character was mentioned recently. It seems he is a member of the VIPS group.

When I first read Seymour Hersh's article of 10/20/03, I was skeptical, knowing the kind of slanted sources he had been quoting. That date of creation of the forgeries as "late summer" 02 didn't sit right. It didn't match the Feb 02 date of Wilson's descriptions of fake Niger docs. Then I realized: the article itself contained disinfo cloaked in truth. It was an attempt to distance Wilson/Plame and the rest of the fake doc cabal from the Feb 02 tea-sipping trip. (Trolls unwittingly assisted me) when I re-read Hersh's piece and saw that ex-CIA source told him "…were informed in detail of the SISMI intelligence" – that's back in 2002 – this is very telling. Because, it turns out a year later, SISMI had no part in the operation.

So the CIA-cabal forgers in 2002 must have planned to make it look as if the fake docs were sourced by SISMI, Italy's intell agency. Discredit 3 allies all with one stone – Italy, UK and US. They used an Italian-born go-between "Giacomo" aka Rocco Martino. BUT HE WAS EXPOSED in Sept. 04 by SISMI, as being a French agency asset… and Giacomo was reported to be in the US when the Telegraph reporters were looking to interview him for their 9/5/04 article.

So Giacomo may have direct connections to the CIA-cabal, or they used him via the French.

And if Johnson and the VIPS group is the group described to Hersh in that article, then we have the arsonists cheering on the fire right now.

AD, Bravo, Bravo, Bravo!</p... (Below threshold)
BR:

AD, Bravo, Bravo, Bravo!

I sense that both Samuel Berger and John W. Dean will yet surface in this play.

The Force is with us.

BRYou're right, I ... (Below threshold)
Chris:

BR

You're right, I give up. The question isn't why am I posting at this site (I actually find some of the posters are interested in engaging in a dialogue, even though they don't agree with a single word I say. And I'm not sure what purpose is served by continually posting only to boards where everyone agrees with you.) The question is, why do I keep going back and forth with you? You keep asking me questions and challenging my facts, and I keep digging up sources to back up everything I say. And you're response is "I gave you a chance, but you have...showed yourself to be insincere by pushing false data." That's it? I have to believe that even the people on this board who share your views find that a little weak. You gave me a chance? WTF.

And AnonymousDrivel, all I can say is, nice try. You try to portray yourself as evenhanded, let's see what the investigation says about everyone involved, etc. There's just one problem. The investigation was convened to determine if anyone outed a covert agent. And try as the Republicans might to obfuscate and throw up smokescreens, there's absolutely no indication that it is any more than that. The only ones who seem to think that Wilson and Plame are being investigated for their truthfulness are Republican true believers. I'd be interested to see a single credible assertion that indicates that Fitzgerald is in any way investigationg Plame and Wilson. This is entirely a Republican fever dream. So this whole notion of "Research Rove and follow the law. Research Libby and follow the law. Research Wilson and follow the law. Research Plame and follow the law. Research Miller and follow the law. Research Cooper and follow the law." is just wishful thinking on the part of the Republicans. There is no indication whatsoever, either in established fact or rumor, that Wilson and Plame are being investigated. The Republicans are hoping mightily to make this whole thing about Wilson and Plame, but even Republican lapdogs like Russert aren't buying it.

"The investigation was conv... (Below threshold)
BR:

"The investigation was convened to determine if anyone outed a covert agent..."

Dream on. Schumer took the bait, hee hee.

RE Chris's post (July 25, 2... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE Chris's post (July 25, 2005 09:45 AM)

So this whole notion of "Research [various actors and] follow the law." is just wishful thinking on the part of the Republicans.

Then I take it that you aren't interested in getting the whole story but only seek that which convicts one man - the Democratic party's most revered nemesis - and coincides with your point of view. Fine, keep the blinders on and focus straight ahead. Hopefully, for everyone's sake, there won't be any missed turns along the way which, had we taken them, would have directed us to the proper conclusion and not kept us lost.


The investigation was convened to determine if anyone outed a covert agent. And try as the Republicans might to obfuscate and throw up smokescreens, there's absolutely no indication that it is any more than that.

Whatever the reason for its initiation, the SP is not restrained to conclude one preconceived notion, that of the Democrat's preconceived belief of and predetermind conclusion of "leaking" by Rove alone. He is given authority to investigate and expose what he finds. Have you forgotten Clinton's impeachment already? The souffle that came out was not of the ingredients initially put in. I support legal investigations where wrongs are righted... keyword "legal".

As of yet there has not been disclosure of other findings yet the search continues. I advocate the non-disclosure of information rather than perpetual dripping of select discoveries. I prefer the report be comprehensive, be released at the appropriate time, and be final. That the extent of any peripheral investigation has not yet been disclosed, or discovered, does not mean that it is non-existent. I don't mind being kept in the dark about it at this time though transparency mandates that the full investigation (the portions that do not compromise security) be disclosed to the public eventually.


The Republicans are hoping mightily to make this whole thing about Wilson and Plame, but even Republican lapdogs like Russert aren't buying it.

No doubt and just as strident as Democrats are in seeing that Rove get crucified, but I am not a Republican. Having said that, I'm of the opinion that pigs will grow wings before I vote Democratic again. The leadership of the party is taking it over the cliff and fewer of the middle are willing to follow lemming-like inclinations. That's a good sign that the species might be saved. Now, Tim Russert a "Republican lapdog"? How far over the cliff are you?

Hey ADYou can spin... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Hey AD

You can spin theories without end, but they remain nothing more than that. Saying portetously that we don't know where the investigation will lead doesn't mean there's a shred of evidence that Wilson and/or Plame are being investigated, or that they ever will be. What you're basically saying is that we haven't yet proved the negative, that until it's shown otherwise, we can assume that Wilson and Plame may be investigated. Well we can assume that Bush is having sex with monkeys, too, since there's been no indication that he's not. The fact remains, that try as I might, I can't get any of you guys to provide even a single credible source that says the investigation in any way -- any way-- focuses on Plame and Wilson. And when anyone points that out to you, you accuse them of not wanting to know the whole truth. How specious! This is so clearly an attempt by the Republicans to take the focus off of the White House by pretending that all of the actors are under investigation. Show me one source! Of course we all have to wait until the invetigation concludes, and of course the chips will fall where they may. But you keep throwing this completely unsupported blather against the wall to see what sticks, then wrap yourself in the mantle of the wise observer who only wants the truth. One source! Let's go.

And by the way, while I don't condone what Berger did, he was taking papers that he had already seen, based on his security clearance. There's no indication that he ever let anyone outside of intelligence circles have access to the information. I'm not defending him, but the fact is he didn't publish the information in a newspaper, or give it to a reporter. And if you can't see the difference, you're the one with the partisan blinders on.

Well we can assume that Bus... (Below threshold)
Joe Mama:

Well we can assume that Bush is having sex with monkeys, too,

ROFLMAO

RE: Chris post (July 25, 20... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Chris post (July 25, 2005 03:32 PM)

You can spin theories without end, but they remain nothing more than that...

I've said they were speculations long ago. Perhaps you missed that. I've presented links and rationale to provide a basis for that speculation. Perhaps you missed them. Common sense dictates that more is going on than is being disclosed otherwise this "obvious" crime that Rove has "certainly" committed would have already terminated. Remember that this has been going on for well over a year.


Saying portetously that we don't know where the investigation will lead doesn't mean there's a shred of evidence that Wilson and/or Plame are being investigated, or that they ever will be.

I suggested it to be a possibility and that I hope the investigation is thorough and that it will include Wilson and Plame for the reasons I have previously disclosed. Perhaps you missed that.


What you're basically saying is that we haven't yet proved the negative, that until it's shown otherwise, we can assume that Wilson and Plame may be investigated.

You may interpret or misinterpret to your heart's delight, however, please don't misrepresent what I have said. I've asked for no proof of a negative. I've asked, repeatedly, that all actors be investigated and that would be the most helpful review of the entire episode. I just don't know how many times I must type this or its myriad permutations. Are you using unicode, iso-8859-1, or iso-8859-15 in your browser? Something is getting lost in the translation.


Well we can assume that Bush is having sex with monkeys, too, since there's been no indication that he's not.

Yes, the comparisons to what I have posted and your monkey-fetish are like two peas of the same pod. Good grief. I better put up the glass shield because I know the excrement will be flying shortly.


The fact remains, that try as I might, I can't get any of you guys to provide even a single credible source that says the investigation in any way -- any way-- focuses on Plame and Wilson.

I don't have any. Is that clear enough? I don't recall typing I had any. Perhaps you missed that. Common sense indicates that the investigation reaches further than the obvious. I applaud such an extension if it exists. I hope it does.


And when anyone points that out to you, you accuse them of not wanting to know the whole truth. How specious! This is so clearly an attempt by the Republicans to take the focus off of the White House by pretending that all of the actors are under investigation.

Do you not want to know if Wilson and Plame colluded? Or anyone else? Wilson is verifiably untrustworthy (recall the Senate report linked numerous times). The focus on Rove is so clearly an attempt by the Democrats to take the focus off of the Wilsons by pretending that all of Joe Wilson's involvement is honorable and straightforward.


And by the way, while I don't condone what Berger did, he was taking papers that he had already seen, based on his security clearance. There's no indication that he ever let anyone outside of intelligence circles have access to the information. I'm not defending him, but the fact is he didn't publish the information in a newspaper, or give it to a reporter. And if you can't see the difference, you're the one with the partisan blinders on.

Ah, yes. The man who stuffed papers in his socks! and pants! and then said he didn't mean to or that is was an accident. Yes, I trust him when he says he didn't let anyone outside of intelligence circles see them. Or that he cannot recall what he did with some of the ones that were not retrieved. I'm guessing that you still believe that Mr. Clinton did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, because he said he didn't. Incidently, Rove didn't print information in the newspaper. No matter. I'm obviously the blinded partisan trying to find my way.

Come to think of it, I do have information proving Wilson's conspiracy. Let me check my socks and shorts for the most damning. Drat. I seem to have misplaced them. Surely you trust me...

So you come home, and you'r... (Below threshold)
Chris:

So you come home, and you're front doors broken in and there's a stranger standing in your living room holding your television. You call the cops, who immediately start checking the guy out. Then your neighbor shows up. "Hey, AD borrowed my lawnmower two weeks ago and hasn't returned it. I think that makes him a thief, too."

"By Jove, you're right," the policeman says. "I think we need to investigate him, too."

"Wait a minute," you say. "I'm the victim here. The guy's holding my television. Why investigate me?"

"What, you've got something against us knowing the truth? What if you invited him in to your house, then put the TV in his hands to set him up?"

"Yeah, but why would I do that?"

"Hey, I admitted it's just speculation, but I still think we should treat you as just as much of a suspect as he is."

"That's crazy. You just made that up. There's absolutely no evidence to support anything you're saying!"

"Or what if he bought you that television as a present, and was just dropping it off? Gosh, there's so many credible possibilities."

"Then why would I be having him arrested?"

"Are you using unicode, iso-8859-1, or iso-8859-15 in your browser? I said it was speculation. Now turn around so I can cuff you."

"But I'm the victim here. Why are you treating me the same as him?"

"You really have no interest in us finding out the truth, do you? You must be a liberal."

The policeman turns to the thief.
"Although we haven't concluded our investigation, I'd like to thank you for helping us catch this possible thief. Clearly you're a whistleblower, and you deserve a medal. And by the way, you can keep the television."

Well, if that's the story y... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Well, if that's the story you'd like to present, by all means provide the links and any forensic documentation and I'll check 'em out. I may either support them, refute them, or reanalyze them based on new data.

But I hope you'll answer one of my questions that you dodged earlier since I addressed your points. Do you not want to know if Wilson (and/or Plame) colluded with anyone? Regardless of what happens to Rove, does this not interest you in the least? I would think that might concern you given Wilson's history.

Hi AD, I've been off loafin... (Below threshold)
BR:

Hi AD, I've been off loafing. I'm lazy tonight and wondered if you had the date of Wilson's testimony to the Senate handy anywhere? Haven't checked the July 04 Senate report yet, but I want to see the actual dates and text of Wilson's testimony. Something hot was going on around Sept. 03 that would prompt Josh Marshall to give Wilson that leading question in the 9/18/03 interview:

"TPM: And, just to be clear, at this time, you hadn't seen these documents that turned out to be forgeries?

WILSON: No, I hadn't. I had just been briefed on a memorandum of agreement covering the sale. Now, my understanding is that there are all sorts of other documents that have since come to light and Andrea Mitchell showed me some documents which I had not seen and frankly, I did not have my glasses, so I didn't even get a chance to read them, and I have not seen them since."

****

Berger's thefts occurred starting 9/2/03, just two weeks before the above interview.

What was the date(s) of Wilson's testimony to the Senate, do you know?

Deja vu all over again - Watergate's "third rate burglaries to get info on DNC" - which I believe were actually cover for a different search into Larry O'Brien's desk, possilby re Hughes, since O'Brien's firm used to have the Hughes account before the Mullen Co. took it over. (One of the Plumbers was CIA's Hunt, who was employed by the Mullen Co.)

Oh my, some great news!<... (Below threshold)
BR:

Oh my, some great news! It seems Republicans in both houses will have hearings related to the CIA. And the left is cheering">http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/valerie_plame_/2005/07/hearings_at_long_last.php">cheering, thinking it will focus on Rove :)

7/25/05 article: Congress Plans to Scrutinize Plame-related Issues":

"The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans hearings on potential national security threats posed by leaks, including leaks to the media, and will aim to toughen legislation barring the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

"[Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the panel's Republican chairman] said his committee would begin hearings as early as September that would include testimony from CIA, Pentagon and Justice Department witnesses. He said he would also hope to invite witnesses representing the news media."

Hmmm, and let it include all of Seymour Hersh's sources from the CIA Whiners-Failures Club too!

I hope the House and Senate do a better job than the mid-70s hearings, when CIA atrocities were swept under the rug thanks to Nelson Rockefeller. One of the tactics used by the corrupt faction of the CIA during those hearings were to throw out red herring stories of schoolboyish prankishness (like unsuccessfully trying to put something in Castro's toothpaste). Things the public would laugh at, while the serious stuff was heard behind closed doors (e.g., Terry Lenzner arranging for MKUltra proponent Sidney Gottlieb to testify secretly and under another name). No follow-up criminal prosecutions of note, just a little slap on the hand for Helms. (Described in the book "Acid Dreams, The CIA, LSD and the Sixties Rebellion.")

Good grief, I just realized... (Below threshold)
BR:

Good grief, I just realized - that same "we're just clowns" tactic was used in the 10/27/03 Hersh article, where his CIA source attempts to make the Niger docs forgery crime sound like a naughty prank.

Some serious "damage control" signs flashing in that Sept-Oct 03 period. Wonder why. AD, does your time line of that period shed any light on it? Did something happen shortly before September 03 to set off such acts of desperation as sending Berger (who then was or later became Kerry's Senior Foreign Policy Advisor) into the National Archives to commit a crime and having Kerry's other Foreign Policy Advisor (since May 03), Wilson, vehemently deny to the press that he had seen the forged docs?

****

Oh, irony of ironies from the past: Kerry Camp Accuses White House of Berger Leak (!!) The theft was in Sept. 03. The "leak" accusation in July 04. And Berger's conviction on April Fool's Day 2005.

It's the weirdest thing; tr... (Below threshold)
BR:

It's the weirdest thing; trying to ascertain when exactly Sandy Berger began working for the Kerry campaign, is not easy. Rush Limbaugh's page containing the transcript of his 7/21/04 show is blacked out. I don't know if that is usual, since I've never been to his site before. But I copied it into a doc and can now read it. None of the articles he linked gave an exact date for Berger's appointment to the Kerry campaign. The earliest is a Jan/Feb 04 link.

If that page was deliberately blacked out, it may be because of this paragraph:

"
And this is another area that people are interested in. Could it be that the documents that Berger took out were shared with Kerry? And that's what makes this relevant to the presidential campaign. It's one thing to take 'em out of there. It's another thing to start sharing them with people. Now, we know that Clinton knew what was in the documents. So Berger wasn't going in there to find out something for Clinton, and when he went in there he was "informal." We now know that's not true. He was a foreign policy advisor to Kerry, and he went ahead and testified before the 9/11 Commission knowing full well what he had done. So there are a lot of people wondering now if what was in the documents that Berger saw and in perhaps the documents that now cannot be found, if some of that information made its way to the Kerry campaign to give him some leg up on things. That would be another criminal violation. It's one thing to take it out of there. It's another thing to disseminate it. I think that's what's got Gordon Smith. Gordon Smith does not join these frays, but he did yesterday, along with Saxby Chambliss, the Republican senator from Georgia.
"

***

But I'm wondering with all the attention on Clinton-era docs in the National Archives, whether Berger did not also get access to 2002-03 docs. Would that be possible? Does the NA get current docs from the WH or only after a President leaves office? Wouldn't it be funny if the forged Niger docs had made their way to the WH and were sitting in the National Archives - BEFORE they supposedly "first" appeared in Italy in Oct. 02 ?

BR - No, I've not been able... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

BR - No, I've not been able to find any extended documentation of Wilson's testimony or an exact date. I don't have time at the moment to search more intently. One thing I ran across which is noteworthy, and not at all surprising, is the reference to leaks from some time ago:

JULY 11, 2003 - U.S. SSCoI
Senator Roberts' Statement on the Niger Documents

"So far, I am very disturbed by what appears to be extremely sloppy handling of the issue from the outset by the CIA."

"What now concerns me most, however, is what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the CIA in an effort to discredit the President."


Roberts long ago noticed the intentional leaking from the CIA. This provides support for the idea that some disgruntled CIA personnel had, at a minimum, political motives. Not surprising since everyone has a political bias of some sort. However, to leak with motive to undermine the government? Treason... isn't it?

For convenience I'm relinking to the SSCoI report:
Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq
Warning - Large PDF file

Also, to search the Congressional Record:
Congressional Record
108th Congress (2003-2004)

Use "Joseph Wilson" as the query terms.

Finally, the documentation from the SSCoI is rather limited (not surprising) since most of it is closed:
SSCoI Hearings: 108th Congress
I thought Wilson testified in front of them but I don't recall. At least there is a dateline of sessions to coordinate with other releases.

I know you probably use these already, BR. If anything, you are tenacious.


Yes, the new hearings on leaks is welcome news. I'm just surprised the action is so delayed considering this is in response to the sideshow of a "super-duper-double-secret-covert-operative".

You're precious, AD! Thank... (Below threshold)
BR:

You're precious, AD! Thanks for the links. I only had the big report and the smaller Niger section on my link list. (In that section Wilson's name is hidden – only referred to as "former ambassador." There might be dates of his testimony in it – I've just been too lazy to look :)

Re political and other motive$$$$: new film deal for Richard Clarke, wine-drinking buddy of Rand Beers. At least they sip Russian">http://wizbangblog.com/archives/006388.php#079182">Russian River Pinot Noir, not Timbuktu-tea.

Whee, what fun, now I've learned how to link single comments from past threads when the original MSM articles are no longer there :)

Three weeks ago, over at Ju... (Below threshold)
BR:

Three weeks ago, over at JustOneMinute, poster "Kim" aptly called Joe Wilson, Sandy Berger, Rand Beers, and Richard Clarke: The Four Hoarsemen of the Politiscape.

Now there's a movie deal for one of the gang of four former Kerry advisors: Richard Clarke (who along with Rand Beers left their Bush WH NSC positions in early 2003, then revealed their alliance with the Kerry camp). Reportedly, one of the Berger thefts was a 15-page terrorism-related doc written by Richard Clarke.

[7/26/05] [LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Sony Pictures is negotiating to acquire film rights to the first novel from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who accused the Bush administration of ignoring the terrorist threat before the Sept. 11 attacks.

His novel, "The Scorpion Gate," will be published in October by Putnam Adult. The studio hopes the film adaptation will be the first in a series of John Clancy-style political thrillers. The project will be produced by former studio chief John Calley.

The realistic geopolitical thriller is set five years in the future as oil-hungry forces in Washington are ready to reshape the map of the Middle East to further their own ends by launching a global nuclear war. The plot involves a fictional takeover of the House of Saud by extremists.

Clarke turned to fiction after writing his 2004 best-seller, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," which assessed the anti-terrorism efforts of the past four presidential administrations, all of which he worked in.

"Enemies" was at the center of a national debate about America's readiness to respond to terrorist threats before Sept. 11. Clarke, who was a counterterrorism expert in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, appeared before the 9/11 Commission in March 2004, coinciding with the publication of his book. During that hearing, he testified that the Bush White House didn't consider terrorism "an urgent issue" in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks.

*****

Another howling pot calling the kettle black.
But Scorpions sting themselves to death in failed attack.

Ah, but it's all fiction.

CONCLUSIONKilling…... (Below threshold)
BR:

CONCLUSION

Killing… a story - Hiding the Uranium-to-Terrorists Trail

When the pot calls the kettle black, investigate the pot.

When an MSM exec accuses US soldiers of deliberately killing journalists, I look to see if that exec (Eason Jordan) was involved with the killing of a journalist (Daniel Pearl).

When a CIA-cabal and Wilson, in collusion with key MSM points, accuse the US govt of outing an agent and falsifying intelligence, I look to see if that same crowd was involved with fatally outing Daniel Pearl (who was onto the Al Qaeda nuclear trail as a WSJ journalist) and falsifying Niger uranium transaction intelligence to hide the trail of uranium to terrorists and discredit any other valid intelligence.

Feb 02 – the beheading of Daniel Pearl
Feb 02 – Wilson's trip to Niger and the forged docs

Plugging "leaks" (i.e. valid information which threatens those in collusion with terrorists) at both ends of the uranium and technology transfer-to-terrorists trail.

"How Osama Bought Bomb" and my question was: who else helped him and how?

The best way to handle an operation is to expose it.

At a level higher than aesthetics, if one sees it clearly in all its details, one can prevent an American Hiroshima from happening, and still have a playing field left for better games.

***

Chris? Hello?Remem... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Chris? Hello?

Remember AnonymousDrivel's post (July 25, 2005 09:51 PM)?

But I hope you'll answer one of my questions that you dodged earlier since I addressed your points. Do you not want to know if Wilson (and/or Plame) colluded with anyone? Regardless of what happens to Rove, does this not interest you in the least?...

Any opinion?





Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy