Washington Post: WH not responsible for Plame leak. - page 3
In an 9/1/06 editorial, the Washington Post admits that since the leaker was a WH critic, Richard Armitage, that: "It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush... Read More
Sep 5, '06Quote from ZASHAGALKAWell, I knew you'd agree. :icon_hug:Of course!
Sep 5, '06What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA
Sep 7, '06Blaming Mr. Wilson:
Sep 8, '06thanks for posting those links spacenurse!! I've stayed out of this discussion...lol....just lurking around reading. Anything to do with the Bush adm is "smoke and mirrors" to me....I hear nothing that comes out of their mouths....my ears shut off and a big bubble pops up that reads....lies, spin and if you're caught....muddy the waters and blame the victim....hey....it works for them!!
Sep 8, '06Quote from rninmeTwo issues:thanks for posting those links spacenurse!! I've stayed out of this discussion...lol....just lurking around reading. Anything to do with the Bush adm is "smoke and mirrors" to me....I hear nothing that comes out of their mouths....my ears shut off and a big bubble pops up that reads....lies, spin and if you're caught....muddy the waters and blame the victim....hey....it works for them!!
1. the 'leak' came from the State Dept, and not the WH. It came from a state dept staffer critical of the war.
2. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, knew this from the start of his investigation and counseled Armitage to keep mum.
There WAS a political motivation at play here. But, it didn't come from the WH.
And Novak said this from the start: his original commentary that started this whole deal had him explicitely stating that the source was a 'non-partisan shooter'.
Feb 1, '07The story is very different under oath.
Journalists under fire in CIA leak case
Feb 1, '07Lots of testimony.
Miller testimony contradicts Libby story
Reporter Judith Miller testified Tuesday that former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby identified a CIA operative to her on two occasions on dates earlier than he has told investigators he first heard the information from another reporter.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/...cia_leak_trialFormer Time reporter said Libby, Rove told him of Plame
Former Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testified today that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told him he had "heard" that the wife of a Bush administration war critic had been involved in sending the critic on a CIA-backed trip to Africa.
Cooper said at Libby's perjury and obstruction trial that the conversation with the former vice presidential aide occurred on Saturday, July 12, 2003, two days before the identity of operative Valerie Plame was disclosed in a column by syndicated columnist Robert Novak.
Cooper also testified that the day before he spoke to Libby he talked to White House political strategist Karl Rove, asking questions about a column that war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, Plame's husband, had written a few days earlier in the New York Times....
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5486993.storyCooper Tells of Aide Unmasking Plame
...Matthew Cooper, the magazine's White House reporter in the summer of 2003, told jurors in Libby's perjury trial that President Bush's top political aide, Karl Rove, was the first administration official to privately tell him that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was married to a CIA officer. The next day, Cooper said, he asked Libby ...
...Under questioning by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald and cross-examination by defense attorney William Jeffress Jr., Cooper portrayed the revelations to him by Rove and Wilson as part of a strategy to disparage Wilson....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...013100900.htmlFormer Press Secretary Says Libby Told Him of Plame
Fleischer's Testimony On Timing Supports Prosecution's Case
...Fleischer, testifying under an immunity agreement with the prosecution, also made it clear that Libby had told him Wilson's wife held a position in the CIA's counterproliferation division, where most employees work in a covert capacity..
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...m_of_cia_link/Top White House officials tried to blame vice presidential aide "Scooter" Libby for the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity to protect President Bush's political strategist, Karl Rove, Libby's defense attorney said today as the aide's perjury trial began.
Feb 1, '07It's OK. The Libby trial proves one thing. It vindicates completely the Clinton Impeachment. After all, that whole impeachment came down to lying under oath.
I think it vindicates Ken Starr as well. IF Patrick Fitzgerald gets to be a respected bipartisan legal authority, then I think Starr also qualifies - for the same reason.
I had, as of late, been regretting my approval of the Impeachment. This little ordeal for Libby reminds me not to wax too much regret. It's not like the Republicans dealt some kind of low blow that the Dems could never sink to, or anything like that.
But, IMO, it's highly hypocritical to support this prosecution of Libby if you disagreed with the same tactics as used in the Impeachment of Clinton.
Even Michael Kinsley agrees with me on this, and face it: it's not very often we agree on anything:
"Libby is charged with perjury, not with the leak itself. But some might recall that perjury, and not illicit sex, was the charge in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton a few years ago. And many people—including me—felt that prosecutor Ken Starr had set Clinton up: perjury is not good, but there had been a fundamental unfairness in forcing Clinton to choose between committing perjury and revealing information he should never have been asked for. Libby ' s case is similar, isn't it? "
Timothy.Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Feb 1, '07
Feb 3, '07Two wrongs are wrongs.
A Failed Cover-Up
What the Libby Trial Is Revealing
...The truth began to emerge on July 11, 2003, when CIA Director George Tenet issued a public statement/ disclosing that the agency had tried to warn the White House off the Niger allegations: www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr07112003.html" target=""public statement
...What helped start the whole brouhaha was a 2003 op-ed article by former ambassador Joseph Wilson, disclosing that his fact-finding trip to Niger the previous year had yielded no evidence of Iraqi uranium purchases: http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/jan25/DX707B.pdf
...To understand the Libby case, it's important to look at the documentary evidence, which has been usefully compiled by washingtonpost.com: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092901976.html
,,,The bottom line? Grenier was asked in court last week to explain the White House's 2003 machinations. Here's what he said: "I think they were trying to avoid blame for not providing [the truth] about whether or not Iraq had attempted to buy uranium."
Let me say it again: This trial is about a cover-up that failed.
Mar 10, '07Look the republicans spent millions of dollars and countless national resources trying to destroy the office of the president because he got a sexual favor and lied about it. Libby destroyed the career of a CIA operative putting countless other Americans at risk in a cool and calculating move to punish someone who opposed the current administration and then lied about it. I feel, they are not parallel situations. Now if Bush was pictured snorting some cocaine, then lied about it on TV, and then the democrats tried to impeach him for that reason alone, now that would be a decent parallel.
The democrats would have had a far more substancial argument for impeaching Bush due to his scandalous pre- Iraq lies. Yet they didn't.Last edit by bluesky on Mar 10, '07
Mar 11, '07Quote from blueskylook the republicans spent millions of dollars and countless national resources trying to destroy the office of the president because he got a sexual favor and lied about it. libby destroyed the career of a cia operative putting countless other americans at risk in a cool and calculating move to punish someone who opposed the current administration and then lied about it. i feel, they are not parallel situations. now if bush was pictured snorting some cocaine, then lied about it on tv, and then the democrats tried to impeach him for that reason alone, now that would be a decent parallel.
the democrats would have had a far more substancial argument for impeaching bush due to his scandalous pre- iraq lies. yet they didn't.
libby was not convicted for "outing" anyone. he was convicted on four felonies for misstating when he first hear about the identity of valerie plame.
libby was not the person who supposedly "outed" valerie plame.
no one really "outed" her in the first place . . . . there is no evidence that she was "covert".
richard armitage is the one who told robert novak that joe wilson was recommended for the niger trip by his wife, who worked for the cia, (not in a covert capacity!).
richard armitage needs to step up and admit this.
president bush needs to pardon mr. libby.
kudos to the washington post, for finally seeing the truth and writing that joe wilson lied "“a bipartisan investigation by the senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false.” . . .. (see the word "bipartisan" in there?)
"on dec. 30, 2003, the day fitzgerald was appointed special counsel, he should have known (all he had to do was ask the cia) that plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there. the law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's identity requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status.
from fbi interviews conducted after oct. 1, 2003, fitzgerald also knew that then-deputy secretary of state richard l. armitage had identified plame as a cia officer to columnist robert d. novak, who first published plame's name on july 14, 2003.
this whole thing is a sad and sick and twisted event and i for one hope someone stands up and rectifies this mess.
like valerie for one - admit she was not covert and she did recommend her dh for a job.
joseph, number two - admit he lied about niger.
mr. armitage, number three.
patrick fitzgerald . . .actually, he should be number one - admit he was wrong to prosecute in the first place.
"yet patrick fitzgerald chose to make libby's misstatements about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information - mrs. wilson's identity - the great white whale of his multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut. why? because on his essentional charge as special prosecutor - find and punish the person who leaked valerie plame's name . . . he had nothing. no conspiracy, no felony, no crime, not even the claim that she was a covert agent covered by the nondisclosure law. fitzgerald knew the leak from the very beginning. it was not libby, but richard armitage. he also knew that the "leak" by the state department's no. 2 official - a fierce bureaucratic opponent of the white house and especially the vice president's office - was an innocent offhand disclosure made to explain how the cia had improbably chosen wilson for a wmd mission. (he was recommended by his cia wife). . . . .charles krauthammer's column at www.redding.com (emphasis mine).
libby did not destroy valerie plame's life . . .
Last edit by Spidey's mom on Mar 11, '07
Mar 11, '07It doesn't matter, let me tell you how this will pan out.
The appeals process will stretch out for a least a year, if not longer. The conviction stands a small chance of being outrighted overturned, but only a small chance because it misses the point of using the courts for political vindictiveness if you can't manage the process all the way towards jail time.
Libby, depending on when the appeal and sentencing is over, MIGHT spend a few months in jail. Maybe not. IN any case, within a week of the '08 election being concluded, Bush will pardon him.
And that will be that.
Libby will take to the conservative lecture circuit as a hero. He'll more than make up the money and inconvenience he lost. When he's done with that, a fat paying, low work think tank position will be his.
If Pres. Bush had guts, he'd pardon Libby right now. See, the liberals that are for prosecuting this already hate Bush; there's NOTHING he could do that would change their opinions anyway. The general public doesn't really care about this issue; polls have shown that they've never cared about this issue. Conservatives would rally to the President for the pardon.
It's a no-lose situation for the President that would stand up for his principles at the same time he just annoys those that hate him a bit more. It's a perfect 'needle'. I'd do it.
But, I'm sure he'll wait until after the election in the hopes that, in the meantime, Libby will get off on appeal.
One thing is for CERTAIN. President Bush will not leave office without making sure that Libby is exonerated or pardoned.
Mar 11, '07I know that President Bush was hoping that this FARCE would end with the jury making the right decision. And I know he is hoping the appeal will work.
This is so frustrating for me . . . . if any sane person looks at the facts in the case you can see that Mr. Libby was greatly wronged.
It drives me crazy when I hear people talking about how he was found guilty of "outing" Valerie Plame . . . . .that wasn't even what the trial was about.
The public may not care . . . because the public pays no attention to the facts of the case.
And this is rallying conservatives . . . . I hear it every day. And from some who sat home during the election to teach the President and Republicans in Congress a lesson about straying from conservative principles.
Maybe it will work to good in the end as you say Tim . . .but in the meantime, there is steam coming from my ears.