« Is Andrew Heyward The Fall Guy In Mary Mapes New Book? | Main | Sign Of The Times - Back To The Future Edition »

PlameGate - Jumping To Conclusions

Way over there on the far left they're reporting a novel scoop on Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame that you're not going to believe... Indictiments for violating Joseph Wilson's civil rights

Although most press accounts emphasized that Fitzgerald was likely to concentrate on attempts by Libby Rove and others to cover-up wrongdoing by means of perjury before the grand jury, lying to federal officials, conspiring to obstruct justice, etc. But federal law enforcement officials told this reporter that Fitzgerald was likely to charge the people indicted with violating Joe Wilson's civil rights, smearing his name in an attempt to destroy his ability to earn a living in Washington as a consultant.

The civil rights charge is said to include "the conspiracy was committed using U.S. government offices, buildings, personnel and funds," one federal law enforcement official said.

I kid you not...

Update: Tom Maguire and Jeralyn Merritt, covering the story from differing ends of the political spectrum, look at how Karl Rove could walk. Of course we'll just have to keep on waiting, since nothing is going to happen today...


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference PlameGate - Jumping To Conclusions:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Report: Cheney Told Top Aide (Libby) About Exposed CIA Officer

» Conservative Outpost linked with Media "Christmas" delayed

» Kuru Lounge linked with The upside of possible indictments

» Don Surber linked with "There are gradations of perjury"

» NIF linked with Gonna be a long day!

Comments (40)

Makes sense to me. When pr... (Below threshold)

Makes sense to me. When prosecutions don't end the way liberals like, they violate double jepeordy and retry them on civil rights.

Which right, the right not ... (Below threshold)

Which right, the right not to be embarrased in public by your lying attempt to affect a campaign and become a coctail-circuit darling?

It's ironic that so much of... (Below threshold)

It's ironic that so much of the details of this case emanate from a Grand Jury, whose procedings are supposedly secret. That hispanic guy, Senor Administration-Official, sure does talk a bunch. When do we convene another Grand Jury to investigate the leaks in this story?

I'm frankly amazed that Bush doesn't just call a press conference and remind our frothing media that even if Rovediddit, no law has been broken. You can't out a CIA desk analyst. She wasn't acting as an operative, she wasn't abroad, she certainly wasn't undercover, and hadn't been for the past five years. You also have to prove it was done maliciously.

Here's what I'm wondering about: How much of this is legitimate prosecution and how much of it was hatched in the twisted minds at the DNC? "One concocted controversy after another" is the phrase that Teddy Kennedy used in another context. At what point does dirty politics cross the line and become treason?

not a very good scoop, in m... (Below threshold)

not a very good scoop, in my opinion. civil rights violations, that crazy. joe wilson lied, and cheney and whoever has the right to expose him as a liar. no law against calling a liar a liar. i may be wrong, but i gotta go with lopez at nro, "no indictments."

"Civil rights"? Wow, a fart... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

"Civil rights"? Wow, a fart in the wind has a better chance of survival than that claim.

Cool... when did we get the... (Below threshold)

Cool... when did we get the "Right to Lie" without being called on it ? Someone get Dan Rather on the phone ASAP! He's gonna want to hear this!

Besides, wouldn't what they're presenting be considered libel and isn't libel typically handled as a civil suit ?

- MikeB

I don’t really care much et... (Below threshold)

I don’t really care much ether way about this whole topic. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Wilson himself ends up facing charges at some point.

I was amazed at the speed with witch the Kerry campaign dropped him when this story started getting hot. Something made him taboo.

These "people" are so wacke... (Below threshold)

These "people" are so wacked. Let's see what Fitzgerald say's tomorrow or Friday if not watching Israel bomb Iran first on CNN that is.

MikeB nailed it.Ci... (Below threshold)

MikeB nailed it.

Civil rights violations and defamation issues would not be handled by a criminal prosecutor or grand jury. This is nonsense.

Well Mark I'm sure that you... (Below threshold)

Well Mark I'm sure that your assertion about the handling of civil rights matters will greatly interest Stacy Koon et al, since that is what they were prosecuted for. Police officers are charge with criminal viloations of civil rights all the time. They are investigated by the FBI / DoJ and prosecuted accordingly.

Standard Disclaimer: This post in no way implies approval of the beating of Rodney King by Stacy Koon and associates. Anyone who takes it that way is wrong.

Once again this whole debac... (Below threshold)
Radical centrist:

Once again this whole debacle is the administrations fault.
1) After the CIA made the referal for an investigation into the alleged leaking of a CIA agent, the administration should have required the SP to see if any statute had been violated before going foward with the investigation into the leak. Clearly if you read the stipulations in the Identity Act of 82' no provisions can be met.
Was the CIA actively trying to conceal her identity? NO! Was she out of the country on assignment within the last five years?NO! Her name was not even mentioned by Libby or Rove, so the maliciosness part of the statute can't be met.
2) The espionage act can't be used as the basis of the crime because it mostly releates to war time activities regarding thing like posts, stations and military equipment.
3) Joe Wilson is effectively responsible for outing his wife. There was in effect a covert operation conducted by the CIA against the Bush Administration. The woman who wrote the 1982 Identitys Act was on Hannity and her speculation made so much sense that it boils the blood.
In normal situations the person sent to investigate on the part of the CIA would have had to sign a confidentiality agreement in order to protect the info he aquired, Wilson was never asked to sign such an agreement. He wrote no official report, and the info he relayed to the CIA debriefers contradicted the story he wrote about in the Times. Why was Wilson chosen to go to Niger, he was an ex-diplomat with no background in WMD research or investigation and was a Democrat that who worked in the Clinton Administration. Why would he be the one to be sent to collect data? Because his wife recommended him, even George Tenent didn't know who sent him. Rouge elements in the CIA selected him to be the hatchet man.
4) In his later Times article and subsiquent interviews in the press, Wilson claimed that he was sent to Niger at the request of VP Cheney, why would Wilson be suprised that the administration would seek to find out who sent him and why. Shouldn't Wilson and his wife have realized that sooner or later the trail would lead back to Plame. According to beltway reporter Andrea Mitchell, it was common knowledge on the cocktail circuit that Plame worked at the CIA. This proves that she, her husband and the CIA were not actively trying to conceal her identity.
What we are going to see are indictments handed down where no underlying crime was committed.
As Byron York has said so precisely is that there was no crime committed until there was an investigation.

Wow. Perjury's a technical... (Below threshold)

Wow. Perjury's a technicality. Civil right's violations are a joke. Interesting to watch how the so called "moral" party implodes at the first sign of self-reflection. Laws are laws. I guess when Fitzgerald brings out the indictments (which WILL happen unless you're completely ignorant of the case), you all will find some other way to rationalize corruption.

I guess it never occured to any of you the unwillingness of this administration retrieve All the available intel before sending us to war. That's what real issue here.

"Go ahead Mr. President, tell us about Iraq and Uranium" "Go ahead Mr. Vice President, tell us about mushroom clouds" "We believe you" "I'm sure anyone against you are surely BAD People" "Cause we're the MORAL party!"

truly pathetic

Civil rights violations are... (Below threshold)

Civil rights violations are not libel. They're two different things. Federal prosecutors often use civil rights violations as a way to bring Federal charges when the state won't prosecute, or when someone gets off on another charge (hey, everyone thought it was pretty clever when they got Al Capone on tax evasion.)

And by the way, if Fitzgerald does bring civil rights charges, how is this in any way "liberals" bringing charges? Talk about a knee jerk response.

And Radical centrist, congratulations. You managed to bring up every innacurate and discredited theory in the history of this case. It's pretty impressive when you see them all gathered in one place like that.

Houston:No underly... (Below threshold)
Radical Centrist:


No underlying crime has been committed prior to the investigation. There should never have been an investigation. It appears we are going to see indictments handed down because Rove/Libby couldn't recolect who said what to whom when about something that is not a crime that happened 3 years ago.

Chris:Please descr... (Below threshold)
Radical Centrist:


Please describe any innacuracies in what I wrote.

Given the burden of proof r... (Below threshold)

Given the burden of proof requirement, there's plenty of room to my view, as to this issue, to establish Wilson's "employability" and otherwise, "ability to earn a living" before the wife/NYT issues emerged. As in, there is Wilson himself and it seems to my view that there's ample suggestion there that he-had-issues long before he-had-issues.

It's rare that any individu... (Below threshold)

It's rare that any individual gets a grand jury involved with access to the CIA and White House and all sorts of super secret things on a civil rights violations complaint. Most federal employees will snicker and ridicule the very notion of such a complaint, in my experience, if not most citizens at large. It's just not a meat&taters force of nature, and as many here, this thread, point out, it's assumed to be moreorless a "slip and fall" type cover complaint by those with otherwise predetermined bad intentions.

Not actually, individually (sometimes the complaint applies) but that it's assumed today to be so. And complaints like Wilson's are the reasons why.

I hope Fitzgergald does not spring this on the world tomorrow or so, because it seems such a catch-all butterfly net affront, as if they were compelled to allege SOMEthing, so, hey, civil rights' violations.

S:Huh? What?... (Below threshold)
Radical Centrist:

Huh? What?

TYPO, sorry...my first comm... (Below threshold)

TYPO, sorry...my first comments, this thread, I omitted a key term:

There's plenty of room to establish PROBLEMS WITH Joe Wilson's "employability" and otherwise, "ability to earn a living" before the wife/NYT issues emerged.

Meaning, to my view, Wilson seems to be someone who indicated he was having credibilty problems BEFORE this issue as to Plame/NYT/Kovak column and all the rest appeared.

IN FACT, the issue itself (Plame, et al.) seems to be a product of Wilson's credibility, from whence his specific difficulties afterward arose. He IS suggestive of a person just ripe for the pose of victimization, as in, someone was going to be found who would be held accountable, it was just a matter of time and opportunity for Wilson, an opportunist-of-political-sorts.

Radical Centrist: What abo... (Below threshold)

Radical Centrist: What about what? As in, "Huh, Two."

Radical Centrist: We, us ... (Below threshold)

Radical Centrist: We, us people, comment in Wizbang very often and I don't think any of us has ever stopped to consider what Radical Centrist has opined previously or might in the future...meaning, what I wrote here bears absolutely no reference to anything you've written, but to the thread itself...written by Kevin Aylward, about an issue that isn't entitled "Radical Centrist."

I hope that helps you settle with your "huh" issue here. If not, I don't have the faintest idea what you've asked me earlier.

S:Duely noted. But... (Below threshold)
Radical Centrist:


Duely noted. But you should really consider what I might write in the future.

S:And the civil ri... (Below threshold)
Radical Centrist:


And the civil rights angle should, to any outside observer, be seen as so asinine, as to be a non starter for any serious inquery into the Plame investigation debacle.

That would be a gross perve... (Below threshold)

That would be a gross perversion of what civil rights are all about. Sickening.

Chris and Chad:You... (Below threshold)

Chris and Chad:

You're right. My statement was much broader than I meant it to be. Standing alone, it is horribly wrong. Thanks for calling me on that.

However, in the context of my private thoughts when I posted it, it is completely accurate and I'll defend it to my death. Meanwhile, you'll just have to read my mind, I guess.


Not a problem from my point... (Below threshold)

Not a problem from my point of view. I have often written something and had the meaning completely misconstrued. If you don't think civil rights violations would be applied in this case your perogative.

Latest rumor. It's a three... (Below threshold)

Latest rumor. It's a three parter.

Thursday - Fitzgerald announces there are no indictments

Friday - Miers declares her intention to ask the president to withdraw her nomination

Monday - President announces Fitzgerald as new SC nominee. Simultaneously, DU ceases to exist as all of their heads explode at once.

I think it was Bob Beckel o... (Below threshold)

I think it was Bob Beckel on either Neil Cavuto or John Gibson this afternoon who said that (paraphrase) this whole thing isn't about Valerie Plame, or Joe Wilson, or Judy Miller, or Karl Rove - it's about the fact that we got into a war that we had no business getting into.

That really shows the Dem response to this.

**I agree with NONE of what Beckel said.

As far as the appropriatene... (Below threshold)

As far as the appropriateness of a civil rights charge, I haven't heard the argument supporting it so I can't really form an opinion. Speaking simply theoretically, I think one could argue that having the full power of the White House devoted to ruining one individual could be construed as a violation of his civil rights.

Radical centrist: I (and others) have posted at length about this. I'm tempted to just link to those posts, but let me just say in brief:

3) Victoria Toensing is a rabid Republican partisan who helped draft the law as a staffer. Her opinion is just that, a very one-sided opinion, and hardly the final answer as to whether the law applies. She has repeatedly lied on talk shows.

Also, Wilson was highly qualified, having been an Ambassador to two African countries, was Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council under Clinton, and spoke French. How many qualifications do you need? It appears his only disqualification is that he's a Democrat. He was also given special clearance for the trip by the CIA. Oh, and his wife didn't recommend him.

4) Wilson never said Cheney sent him to Africa. It wasn't "common knowledge on the cocktail circuit that Plame worked at the CIA." Find me one quote of someone who actually heard that at a cocktail party. Not someone who heard that it was common knowledge, but someone who actually claims to have heard it at a party. Isn't it a little strange that not one person has come forward to support that claim?

Now here's a couple of new ones for me:
1)"After the CIA made the referal for an investigation into the alleged leaking of a CIA agent, the administration should have required the SP to see if any statute had been violated before going foward with the investigation into the leak." So Fitzgerald should have told them what the results of his investigation would be, then it could be decided if he would conduct an investigation. I gotta admit, you're covering new ground with that one.

2)"The espionage act can't be used as the basis of the crime because it mostly releates to war time activities regarding thing like posts, stations and military equipment."

Wow, I bet the Rosenbergs are pissed that they didn't know that before they were executed for violating that law. The stuff you mentioned is only the first section of the law. It also has provisions for conspiracy.

"A civil right is an enforc... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

"A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a persons race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin and in some instances sexual preference."

That is from an overview of civil rights law,


I am having a real hard time seeing how a rich, well-connected, white, best-selling author fits into that.

So Chris the e-mail she sen... (Below threshold)

So Chris the e-mail she sent indicating that he had extensive knowledge of the area, spoke excellent french and had good relations with pronciples would be what damning with faint praise. Of course she recommended him, what Wilson has disputed is whether or not she authorized the trip. I will concede she probably didn't do that. While Wilson himslef has never charged that the VP personally sent him, he has said he was sent at the VPs instigation. To which Cheney has responded, in effect, I asked a question. I didnt get what I considered a satisfactory answer.
Regarding the cocktail party quote;

1. it's irrelevant because the IIPA requires that the covert status be known and that she actually be covert. at least one of those criteria wasn't met. It doesn't require that everyone know she worked at the CIA in order to waive the coverage.

2. From what I have read at least some of her neighbors have said that they knew she worked for the CIA. I don't know if that counts as common knowledge but it puts it in the public arena.

Radical Centrist:I... (Below threshold)

Radical Centrist:

I don't think anyone really knows for sure if a crime has been committed, except Fitzgerald (or he believes). There's too much BS/propaganda on both sides to truly determine if Plame was actually covert.

There certainly has been a fair assumption that she was since why in the hell would the investigation even have begun. I suppose that premise could be proven incorrect. Even still, it becomes seriously suspicious when Mcclellen denies white house involvement when clearly there was - (and quite possibly all the way to the top). Doesn't sound like truthful people to me.

So here we are for over 2 years Bush and Cheney have acted as if they had no clue about the whole thing. I just seems like we're dealing with a bunch of criminal like a law and order episode.

One has to ask why. I suppose one could answer that they were simply trying to cover up dirty politics and they got themselves in too deep. But if we're going to use the same standard as we did with Clinton (rightly so), than perjury and conspiracy are VERY big deals.

This beings said, I still believe initial laws were broken and laws in the coverup were also broken. Furthermore, since I think these people are generally lying, disgusting people, its pretty easy to believe that this has more to do with a dishonest representation of the pre-war intel. How you people can not question this same notion is beyond me considering all we know now.

When did the CIA become abo... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

When did the CIA become above suspicion to the left?

I agree that perjury and ob... (Below threshold)

I agree that perjury and obstruction of justice are a big deal, the difference being that in the Clinton case he charged and tried (impeached), he was also found in contempt of court and I believe he pleaded guilty to perjury in a civil court. For that he was disbarred for 5 years. All those crimes related to the ex-President personally. Here you have no charges yet, no convictions yet, not even an outlay of facts yet on an investigation that on the face of it doesn't involve a crime and you want to skip the charging skip the trial and convict / punish people who haven't even been mentioned as being involved in the potential criminal transaction. Vice President Cheney's supposed crime at this point questioning Joe Wilson's credibility and sharing some knowledge with his chief of staff. President Bush's getting mad at Karl Rove.

If Rove, Libby, VP Cheney or Pres. Bush are found to have commited perjury or obstructed justice then by all means get an indictment take them to trial nad if they are found guilty punish them, but lets at least give them the same courtesy we gave President Clinton when he was accused of Sexual Harrasment (Twice), Rape and Witness Intimidation, as well as perjury and fraud.

B MoeYou said, "When... (Below threshold)

B Moe
You said, "When did the CIA become above suspicion to the left?"

In this case, I don't see reason to be suspicious of the CIA. What I mean is it is clear the the White House was hawking the war, i.e. incorrect assumptions about aluminum tubes, believing the Niger document without skepticism (which by the way I wouldn't be surprise they were ultimately responsible for). I don't think anyone can question this fact. They wanted war. This whole Plame thing reveals their unwavering commitment - a very poor way of making critical decisions.

Houston,To my mind... (Below threshold)


To my mind the fault in your reasoning is this:

The CIA raised concerns about one matter, the Niger / Uranium connection.

When questioned by the President about the case for the war DCI Tenet responded "It's a slam dunk". (Tenet BTW was a holdover from the Clinton administration) That turned out not to be the case.

The agency with the primary responsibility for developing the intelligence that became case for the war was the CIA .

Logically if the reasoning for your questioning the administration's honesty in the Plame affair is the use of intelligence to justify the war, then you should be questioning the honesty of the CIA for the development and dissemination of that intelligence.

Since it is the CIA (as well as Amb. Wilson) that is saying Plame had no role in selecting her husband for this trip that comes into doubt.

It is the CIA that refered the matter to DoJ because the law (sorry the title escapes me at the moment) protecting covert agents was broken, but now that is in doubt.

It is the CIA that says they told Novak not to reference Valerie Plame because she was an agent. Wait no longer credible.

And what about Amd. Wilson who said based on the intelligence he believed Saddam to have WMD. Well that makes him a liar too, because he believed the intelligence. He started this whole thing and now his credibility is in question.

The intelligence used to justify this war turned out to be wrong and that is horrible, because it has cost an number of lives that may not have had to have been lost, however it was wrong because of a concerted effort by Saddam to deceive the world. He was a little too successful for his own good.

ChadYou make some ... (Below threshold)


You make some interesting points which I can't disagree with. Certainly, the CIA should be questioned just as much as this White House regarding intel. I didn't intend to make the implication that they deserve a pass. However, just because this Adm. says "it's all the CIA's fault" doesn't make it so. I do know that the President is elected, not CIA officials, so there is certainly room for suspicion when this Adm. passes the blame to them.

One has to ask why this Adm. was pushing so hard for war. Maybe I live in utopia, but it seems to me that when it comes to war, the Pres. ought to be honest with the people.

"We do know that there have been shipments going into Iraq of aluminum tubes, high quality aluminum tubes, that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs," Rice told CNN in 2002.

She did not reveal that there was serious debate internally whether this was true. However, she chose to say "only... suited" for nuclear weapons. It is clear to me hear her intentions to scare the American public through misleading representations. This was not a decision of the CIA. The White House decided this.

Additionally, I am surpised that the MSM has not made a bigger deal about WHIG (White House Iraqi Group). To me this is astonishing in its own right. Can you imagine during WWII efforts by our government to sell a war to us. I cannot. Notice that there was not WHAG (White House Afghanastan Group). Most people understood the need for war there. This Adm. however, was so hell bent on going to war in Iraq, they had to create a special unit to sell us on it. Does this sound like a White House concerned about how bad war is.

My point is that for you do believe or try to convince anyone that the problem lies soley in the CIA, without regard to White House's misrepresentations and blantant attempts to scare the American people, is a little narrow minded.

Secondly, I don't think I even need to assess CIA involvement for my premise to hold (whether it existed or not). The White House actions alone are incriminating.

Lastly, you said,

Since it is the CIA (as well as Amb. Wilson) that is saying Plame had no role in selecting her husband for this trip that comes into doubt.

It is the CIA that refered the matter to DoJ because the law (sorry the title escapes me at the moment) protecting covert agents was broken, but now that is in doubt.

It is the CIA that says they told Novak not to reference Valerie Plame because she was an agent. Wait no longer credible.

This Adm. has all along attempted to attack Wilson's credibility. Most of their arguments have been proven to be misrepretations. However, without getting into that, no one can argue that his message was untrue, as WMD was NOT found. Furthermore, no one can argue that he was attacked for opposing the Adm. Whether or not Plame recommended/sent Wilson or whatever doesn't change this fact. Any argument about it is simply a smokescreen to prevent one from looking at his basic findings.

Just because you speculate that the law protecting covert agents is in doubt doesn't make it so. Time will tell on this one. However, even if that law wasn't broken to the letter, the spirit of the CIA discontent was the release of secret info. The MSM has talked about this particular law, but if we take a step back, the CIA was pissed because someone who was valuable to them in a secret capacity has now been compromised, along with the program.

Lastly, most experts still contend she was an agent. Your comment she was is "no longer credible" has no fact behind it.

sorry about the long post</... (Below threshold)

sorry about the long post

As I recall the issue of th... (Below threshold)

As I recall the issue of the aluminum tubes came up earlier than during the run up to the war. During the previous administration possibly. As for the WHIG selling the war and that being unprecedented. That is precisely what happened in WWII prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor with lend lease, selected news releases, and the administration backing hollywood films that far exceed any propoganda that is in use today.

You don't support the war ok I can live with that but be honest did you feel the same way when Clinton was launching Tomahawks at Iraq in the 90's? I bet you didn't. I'll be honest until 9/11 I felt the best way to bring Iraq back into the international community was engagement, but when the WTC went down and Saddam celebrated my opinion changed. At that point I realized this guy hates us so much if he ever has a chance he will nuke us. That was my cutting point.

Regarding the administration attempting to undercut Wilson's credibility, well duh. He is a political opponent and that is the risk he accepted when he entered the political arena. On our side we have the Senate Intelligence Subcommittee unaminously (Republican and Democrat) stating that Wilson at the least was misleading in his version of events. On your side you have Joe Wilson and a bunch of newspapers parroting what he says.

Finally regaring the no longer credible remarks and is in doubt remarks:

1. If you call the people who used the intelligence liars, then the people who developed the intelligence must be liars. If they are liars their credibility is in doubt.
2. I don't think most experts contend she was an agent. I think Larry Johnston contends she was an agent, as well as some other retired agents. But their opinion has as much weight as mine does none. Especially when you look at Johnsons writings and realize that he is:
a) consistently wrong
b) has an axe to grind with this administration.

I don't know if Ms. Plame was in a covert status or not, given that her cover had been previously blown by Aldrich Ames I doubt it Again it doesn't matter though the law requires the leaker know she was in a covert status and so far there is no evidence of that.

I actually don't have a pro... (Below threshold)

I actually don't have a problem with the existence of WHIG in principle. Every administration has to rally the public to its side, and especially going into a war it's important that the public be as supportive as possible. To the extent that the WHIG was twisting or falsifying evidence, then I have a problem.

I am curious, chad, why you make this statement - "I don't think most experts contend she was an agent." If you want to believe that she wasn't an agent, fine. But who are these experts you're talking about? And the CIA asked for legal action because she was an agent. Don't they qualify as "experts?"

And by the way, we don't "have the Senate Intelligence Subcommittee unaminously (Republican and Democrat) stating that Wilson at the least was misleading in his version of events." If you look at the report, the Democrats signed off on the entire thing (largely as a negotiation because Pat Roberts lied about continuing the investigation.) However, the conclusions about Wilson lying and being sent to Niger by his wife are included in Pat Roberts' comments at the end of the report, specifically because the Democrats would not agree to have them incuded in the actual report. So the only reason they're even included is because Bush's bagman threw them in.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


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