Redstate

This is what the GOP has accomplished. Was there not one person in the WH who had brains enough to just let this guy go. Joe Wilson should have been 'Cindyed'.

I wish the conduct of the CIA would get at least some attention from the MSM. Should we as citizens not be alarmed when the CIA works at cross purposes with the sitting administration? Sending someone with no intelligence gathering experience on an important intelligence gathering mission? In an agency crowded with experienced employees, this puffed-up egomaniac is the best they can do?

And they all seem too happy to forget that an Iraqi deligation did travel to Niger, a country whose only major export is uranium. Does anyone in the MSM care that Hussein was interested in uranium? Guess not.

And all this over sixteen lines that merely reference a British report that the Brits still stand by?

I don't know. Weighing the wrongdoing of Scooter Libby against the wrongdoing of CIA, it's hard to determine who the bad guy is. Libby sounds like a whistleblower to me.

I've been lurking here for a few months now and I've never before been compelled enough to actually respond.  I come here because I feel I can get more of the truth than from the news.  It has seemed that way, most times, anyway.

I've tried so hard to stay true to my conservative values and STILL be able to support my president and his administration, but this past month has pushed me to my limit.

I canNOT, in good conscience, support THIS president if he's to not take responsibility for what's clearly been a horrible call on the part of his aides.  

Reagan had the guts to admit he was wrong (although he still felt in his heart he was right), but at least he said THAT to us.  It seems none of you (or those who support Bush, STILL) can be that courageous.  No one wants to admit to the obvious extent of the damage that's been done as a result of this leak, it seems, and it simply makes me question this community's sensibilities.

I won't compromise my own conservative ideals for the sake of "politics."  I love my country, but I will NOT support those who are unethical in their dealings, nor will I support the president who keeps them in those positions of power where they will ultimately do harm to conservative goals.

Wake up and demand better from our leaders.  They work for US!  Do you really want Libby and Rove to represent how we get things done?  

If that's so, then that's just sad on our part.  

We deserve better.  AMERICA deserves better.

60 Minutes hasn't been around this long by getting thier facts wrong.  When THEY make a mistake, THEY admit it and move on.  I'm waiting and hoping Bush does the same otherwise it just looks like he's supporting liars.

Okay, enough said about that.  Otherwise, I'm grateful to what I've gotten out of this site for the past few months.  THIS week, however, in light of what's been revealed, has been the tipping point for me.

I don't think that was about a grievance against the Bush administration was it?

60 Minutes hasn't been around this long by getting thier facts wrong.  When THEY make a mistake, THEY admit it and move on.

A little hint for Democrat shills: they should always leave this part out, so as not to blow their cover on the very first post. Have a nice evening.

now I'm a democrat if I watch 60 Minutes?

Is that a rule?  

Wow, how closed-minded.

Someone presents a well-reasoned opposing viewpoint, doesn't even hint at supporting Democrats or liberal values, and you still play go on a witchhunt.

forgetting about Rathergate sort of exposes you.

No self respecting conservative, even one who watches 60 minutes would make the claim you did about 60 minutes admitting their mistakes.

When 60 Minutes gets caught using phony documents to try to bring down the President of the United States, they set up an erzatz commission to whitewash the whole affair and try to convince the public that there was no political intent to help the Democratic ticket win the 2004 election.

Just how stupid do you think we are here?

Maybe you should try one of the SCOTUS handicapping threads, instead. Perhaps you could convince us on the merits of Consuelo Callahan or AGAG.....

I feel like part of the reason hardly anyone's expressing this view is because we fear it could be used as fodder by one the liberal sites, as I've seen happen here (where someone summarizes posts from another site and pretty much uses it to ridicule extreme points of view).  

But when are we going to stop playing sides and simply demand real leadership regardless of what party we're affiliated with?  Are we the party of who by-any-means-necessary?  Or are we the party of ethical values?  Or maybe I'm just stupid and don't realize we don't live in a world where ethics are relevant when it comes to governing this great nation?

Let's be real and let's expect that of the other side, too.  Why not?  Dems can't take the high road on this, either.  Their leaders are just as screwed up!

I hate that we just go on and justify, stepping around all the crap other's have laid and have left for us to defend in the name of our own values and ideals.  

I hate that we're having to pick up the pieces.  I'm through with that.  That's all I'm saying and I wish others would stop lying to themselves, blaming those who maybe are just as morally corrupt but who are NOT the leaders we've chosen!

I think Jeffrey Weigand would find you amusing.

I honestly don't know too much about Rathergate, except that Rather apologized for using a bad source when doing a story about Bush's military background.  

So that's the litmus test for being a self-respecting Republican?  

Um.  Wow.  That's kind of shallow and sad.  

And a SELF-respecting Republican will support a president who won't listen to his own base?

Hmmm...maybe I DO have my priorities mixed up.  

Then again, maybe not.

No one wants to admit to the obvious extent of the damage that's been done as a result of this leak, it seems, and it simply makes me question this community's sensibilities.

What on EARTH are you talking about?

What "damage" has been done by this leak?

Well, I can think of a lot of damage that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have done to the image of the CIA. And to their own credibility--that is, outside of MoveOn.org meetings.  

If you mean to say that this incident has forever cowed publicity hounds within our intelligence community who were considering their own showboating episodes for the press, you may have a point.

And, I'll bet the reputations of Nick Kristof and Walter Pincus, two well-known reporters who are now widely regarded as having been taken to the cleaners by this anti-James Bond and his Ms. Moneypenny, didn't fare well, either.

So, I take it back.  There HAS been some damage resulting from this.  To Democrats and their shills.

Is THAT really why you're so upset?

Crime requires intent. No intent, then no crime for someone like Rove, and maybe others who didn't know that Plame was an "undercover" type of desk jockey as opposed to a "regular" type of desk jockey. And so, no indictments for "outing" Plame after two years of investigation.

Libby's crime was just the arrogance of thinking that he could make this farce go away, by lying, and expecting the reporters involved to keep their secrets. If Bill Clinton couldn't get away with lying to the grand jury (even though he sort of did get away with it,) Scooter Libby sure as heck isn't going to get away with it. I imagine he'll take a plea, lose his career as a lawyer, and then spend a couple of years in the slammer. Then, like John Dean, he'll write a book about it.

of CAPS in your COMMENT is another INDICATOR, and such use may lead one to BELIEVE you've spent CONSIDERABLE time on some of the more LIBERAL sites.

...not touching the 60 Minutes thing (don't know, don't care), but I think the author of the top post is tossing morals out the window with the "this wouldn't have happened if.." line. As if the internal squabbles of the CIA and the administration can justify a leak.

And I also believe it was a leak, plain and simple. It's called situational knowledge. Guys at the top of government like Libby didn't get there by being dumb. Libby leaked, and he knew he leaked. He did it in a tough-to-prove way, and he knew that too. And that's why he's indicted on perjury rather than the leak. Who else leaked? I don't know, we'll see.

Thanks so much for the warm welcome, all.

You're obviously so much "righter" than I am.

If someone's got a different view, they're just discounted here, is that it?  

I guess I've seen it before so I shouldn't really be surprised.  

Well, since I've so obviously been "outed," I'll just be on my merry way and you can live there inside your own little heads where everything you believe is correct and everyone else is just simply a leftie, eh?

Thanks so much for setting me straight.  Really.  Thanks.

Holy cow!

WHERE is this rule book I'm supposed to be following?  

I am not a blog-meister, as some of you may be.  I'm fairly new to all of this and currently, I'm not finding it very satisfying, as you may understand why.

My use of caps, the shows I watch...Heck, maybe I'm a flaming liberal and I didn't even know it.

I eat sushi, too.  Will that pretty much cinch it?

Are you all REALLY that paranoid?  My god.  

How about addressing the message?  Am I wrong?  Why?  NO ONE ELSE feels this way?

Geesh, there are those pesky liberal caps again.  It must be in my blood.  Maybe Grandma was closeted leftie.

I don't have the context to understand half of this.

I'm a teacher (rest easy- I don't teach civics...), and so I'm humble about what I know and what I don't know.  

Is this too long of a story for you to tell me what you mean by Wilson and Plame making the CIA look bad.  What did they do?  How did they take those reporters to the cleaners?  

The reader's digest condensed version, please?

(I'm hoping Reader's Digest isn't on the liberal list)

Thanks

specifically calling you a liberal, and I appologize if my comment came off that way.

Excessive CAPS use is just one of many liberal trade marks.  It seems that level of capitalization increases proportionally to the amount of rage they are trying to convey.

What "damage" has been done by this leak?

It's fair to assume that some of Valerie Wilson's contacts have been compromised, although I have no idea how many or to what effect.  (I understand that Wilson was likely compromised to the Russians by Aimes, but that doesn't mean that she was compromised to everyone.)  Was her idenity a state secret?  Probably not.  Was her outing the worst thing ever to occur to the CIA that month?  Also, probably not.  But outing Plame was not costless, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.  

..."RatherGate" involved an overzealous reporting staff and a decently faked memo. In these days of 24-hour news programs, I can't blame them too much for wanting to break the report to the public quickly, even if they should have verified it more.

..."Yellowcake Documents" involved years of buildup for a war. The documents were incredibly easy to discredit, the source of the information ("Curveball") was notoriously unwiley, and to this day the White House has not denounced this decision to the public.

I don't see the relevant comparison between CBS and the White House. On all levels, the Yellowcake Documents are a much, much greater deal, but you're suggesting that CBS deserved to be demonized for their meaningless actions (they HELPED Republicans) while the White House shouldn't be demonized for rushing out false information that built a case for war?

I can't stand behind that opinion.

Please disregard everything that followed your original claim. I was struck by your use of 60 minutes as a standard for corretive acknowledgment. Without offering any comment on that yet, and probably not afterwards, I will honestly and openly ask a question which acts as a source date for some folks. It's fairly simple, and is essentially your reaction to one word. Here is the word:

Alar.

Any reaction?

Please disregard everything that followed your original claim. I was struck by your use of 60 minutes as a standard for corretive acknowledgment. Without offering any comment on that yet, and probably not afterwards, I will honestly and openly ask a question which acts as a source date for some folks. It's fairly simple, and is essentially your reaction to one word. Here is the word:

Alar.

Any reaction?

Thanks.

could someone suggest some places to go, publications and such, that are considered respectable and balanced?  

I want the truth- views from across the political spectrum so that I can be sure I'm getting all sides to the story, but fact-based.  

Another teacher suggested RedState a few months ago and I've been visiting daily, just reading the diaries that make a little sense to me.  I have very little time, but I wanted to be informed enough to be able to talk to others about government (not so much politics).  

In the past, I've read the New York Times (I know that's viewed as having a liberal slant) but I honestly don't know where else to go for more information about current and world events.

Personally, I think there are more conservatives like ME than there are of you (who know a lot more and who watch the game of politics as closely as you do).  There are lots of us who WANT to know more but don't know who to trust to get the FACTS.

I know, I know, I'm still using caps, but I don't know html enough to use italics.  Sorry.

Thanks in advance

Did Iraq under Saddam seek to import uranium ore/yellowcake/nuclear materials/whatever from Niger or not?

If yes, did Iraq succeed in importing such materials?

This is exactly what I was referring to.

but I do not think your a troll...cause after all, what would be the point in him pretending to be conservative if he is not?

For starters, go to Realclearpolitics.com and read the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post editorials on the affair. You should also check out Instapundit.

And, if you are a troll, I recommend you go to the Enlisted Soldiers' Club on Hunter Army Airfield or Fort Benning, and tell them how much you agreed with Ted Rall's memorial to Pat Tillman.

60 Minutes did a story in 1989 about how it was a cancer agent.

The hit titles suggested the report was wrong.  

I'm going to walk my talk.  I'm going to say "I was wrong."  Okay?

60 Minutes has been wrong.  I thought, in my heart, that I was right about 60 Minutes, but I was wrong.  

Ah, that felt good.  

Now, if only we could hear something like that from the President, who we so heartily have supported and defended all these years as someone who has honorably represented us (until now).

RS has a perfectly useful blog roll - front page, right hand column, scroll down and you'll find it.

Surf away - but be sure to come back!

Also, don't be deterred by the commentary - it waxes and wanes, and the "profanity is not tolerated" policy keeps the heat civil, bearable, and fairly coherent.

All that said, it may take some effort, but you really need to branch out from relying on the NYT for much of anything beyond excellent crossword puzzles.

Cheers!

he's a her.

even liberals agree that the news section of the wall street journal is better than the news section of the NY times.

that, regardless of whether Plame had an active network that was compromised, simply the idea that classified information about CIA operatives (and whether or not Plame was covert, the indictment leaves absolutely no doubt that her employment status with the CIA was classified) may be bandied about as a political football will have a chilling effect on intelligence operations.

In a sense, by discussing the fact that he feels that the Espionage Act is difficult to use as a charging instrument and philosophically flawed, I think Fitzgerald may be contributing to the damage.  A swift charge under the Espionage Act might help restore the sense that classified information is sacrosanct from the political world.  Failure to use it must have people in the intelligence community wondering what good a classified status is.

I think most of the folks here doubt that there's much of a match between the credibility records of CBS and W. Is he stubborn? Absolutely. Wrong? Occassionally. Head bangingly stuck in a policy rut for the past 35-40 years? Not really.

Didn't you read the rules!?!?!?

This is starting to get weird.*  At what point does Lawrence Fishburn offer me a blue pill and Elrond start chasing me in a black suit with a skinny tie?  

*I have no idea whether Edunut is bein' straight with us or not.  But I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt at least once.  (Admittedly, I don't always succeed.)

But, let's keep this in some perspective.

I believe the poster needs to rethink this perspective.  

Any front company Plame worked for overseas is now potentially exposed and other agents who were or still are undercover may be exposed as well.  We'll never know, but it's possible one or more covert agents have been killed as a result of Plame's outing.  I don't think that risking the exposure and lives of agents who had nothing to do with Plame's and Wilson's political views is an at all appropriate way of handling this allegedly CIA-provoked war with the Bush Administration.

Are all the blogs on the blog roll conservative?

I did go to the DailyKos blog (mentioned here often as the "other side") but I'm looking more for centrist views, conservative and Democrat.  It seems RedState is not so far right as the DailyKos is far left.  

What is the ONE place where there's a good mix. Or a Democratic blog that's more to the middle in terms of foreign and domestic policy?

Sorry if I'm going off-topic with these requests. This will be my last.

Thanks, again, in advance.

I wanna play too!

Did Iraq after 1991 succeed in importing such materials? (Our relationship with Iraq was somewhat different in the 1980s, as you no doubt are aware.)

Did Iraq under Saddam after 1991 already possess known significant quantities of yellowcake?

What was the status of the mines suggested as the source of the yellowcake?

Did Iraq have the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade quality?

"Excessive CAPS use is just one of many liberal trade marks."

That has to be one of the most shallow, petty, downright batty things I have read in 8 years of surfing the net. I mean, go back and read what you just wrote. You are labeling the use of CAPS as a liberal trademark!?  Do you ever worry that you give liberals a little bit too much thought?

Here's one for your file: Liberals like ice-cream.

all the democratic blogs will be pretty liberal.

Huffington post sort of claims to be moderate...but i dont think it really is???

what do you teach?

Surrounds Tim Russert's testimony in all this.  He never appeared before the Grand Jury; he made his statements to the GJ in the form of a deposition back in 2004.  Since the buzz this afternoon is that Fitzgerald wants Cheney to testify in open court, and Libby's defense team is looking at trying to defeat the perjury charges, what's the probability that Russert will be called himself as a witness, and if he is a potential witness, why is he discussing the case with anyone on Meet The Press?

sorry :)

by Stephen Hayes in 'The Weekly Standard' will help get you started.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=6281&
amp;R=C756347A2

those talking points.  By CBS' own admission, Mary Mapes had been working on the Bush-TANG story approximately 5 years.  Also, "decently faked memo"?  Please!  I guess that's why web meisters (I believe it was LGF) were able to question it's authenticity in about an hour using MS Word -- some forgery!

I agree with you and applaud you for being very civil in your comments.

For a left of center blog.  Otherwise, most on the left are pretty far left.  The center right includes instapundit and us among others.  The farther right has Free Republic and others.

There are centrist sites such as the Centrist Coalition if you look for them.  But most activists are not "centrist" because it's not really a governing philosophy.

you're exposed.  By saying 60 minutes and in essence CBS admits mistakes and moves on shows a terrrible lack of knowledge or bias.  How many times do they have to lie about conservatives and/or Republicans before you Libs realize you make northeast moderates like me think you're all liars?  We can start with Dan Rather attending and speaking at a Dem fundraiser in TX (very unbiased in your opinion I'm sure), to the tons and tons of weapons unaccounted for a few days before '04 elections (which never happened and were promptly forgotten the day after), to Rathergate (which Rather says is still true), not reporting the successes in Iraq (oops, I forgot- there are none) ad infinitum.  

Perhaps Scooter Libby lied, perhaps he didn't.  Those would be HIS mistakes, not the Pres.  And if he did, I leave it to you to determine whether he should get more time or less than Sandy "hide em in your underpants" Berger did.  I know he's not Osama Bin Laden (who Howard Dean says deserves a fair trial- I agree, then hang him) but even a Republican deserves his day in court still.

when you say move on, didn't you forget your org?

Do an inquiry and produce a report concerning the impact of the "outing" of Valerie Plame and conclude that the effect was minimal?  I heard Tucker Carlson say that in reference to commentary by Andrea Mitchell two days ago.  It seems that some kind of internal invesigation was done by the CIA to determine what, if any, damage to the agency's operations resulted from Plame's identity becoming fodder for the global newscasts, but that report and its findings haven't been mentioned very much.  The only oblique reference I can find to it today, in fact, is in this Washington Post article -- and it doesn't discuss the responses to the "11-question form."

Out of view of the public, the CIA took the first steps towards a formal investigation. On July 30, it reported to the Justice Department a possible offense "concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." In August the agency completed an 11-question form detailing the potential damage done. In September, Tenet followed up with a memo raising questions about whether the leakers had violated federal law.

I'm not debating the seriousness of the charges against Libby, but I keep hearing this argument that grievous damage was done to national security, and it all seems to be coming from one direction, and this front company gets mentioned repeatedly -- by everyone except the principles in the case.

Language Arts and Literature for gifted students at the middle level

I referred to the "excessive" use of capitalization.

hilarious, but in all fairness the lady did admit the error of her ways in her selection of 60 Minutes as a model of journalistic integrity (see below).

Save your powder for the true lefties!

No one with any amount of fairness in them can think anymore that CBS is an unbiased journalistic outfit.  It takes intellectual contortions that this fellow with an MS in Physics from Stony Brook can't do.  I guess I'm just not smart enough.  I'll apologize now becuase that is very important to you.

(I like to brag about Stony Brook Physics cuz 2 Nobel Prize winners were my teachers- not that I'm close)

There is something really crazy about all this deal with Libby. Fitz in one of the indictment counts stated that Libby told he learn Plame ID from Russert. But Russert stated he never heard Plame's name before Novak's peace. How stupid Libby with all his degrees from Columbia and law from Yell commit straight forward perjury.

Presumably who hasn't visited either of these blogs before; I take that as a compliment, by the way.  I would have to agree with Adam C:  if you want to start someplace in the blogosphere that's left-of-center but that has more than its share of smart commentators who know how to write well and not just and parrot talking points and follow the herd or spew profanity, TPMCafe is (eponymous irony notwithstanding) probably the best place to start.

Despite the best efforts of some to insinuate that no crime took place, the reality is quite different. When Robert Novak took information from a White House source and printed the name of a CIA operative (for whatever motivation) he also printed the name of a CIA front company, Brewster-Jennings. It had taken a great deal of time and money for our government to create this fake firm. When Novak printed this name in his column, embassies and government (and probably terrorist organizations) invariably started the process of rolling up anyone associated with this firm. The investigation into the damage from this leak has not been published, but anybody with any experience or imagination should probably be able to figure out what happened. We are in a state of war; a war that myself and most of the people on  this blog supported. We are trying to fight a war against an enemy, terrorism, that can only be won if we win the intelligence battle. And our leaders knowingly and willingly exposed people who risked their lives to provide us information in this war! Can any of the rest of you put aside your partisan blinders long enough to see this for what it really is? In a word, my fellow patriots, it's called treason. Back in the day it would have been punished by execution. Today, I am hearing it exonerated as no crime at all. Dwight Eisenhower would be ashamed of y'all.

Actually, more like delighted.  

Stony Brook rocks!

I lived not too far from there- in Patchogue. Used to go sleigh riding on campus whenever it snowed.  

I went to Oswego State, though for my undergrad work and even though I didn't know too much about Dan Rather's missteps, I, too, have a Master's (in Education).  

Speaking of the characters from Act I.  Down what memory hole did Novak go?  He was Faust (or the other guy) in the opening scene.  I haven't seen him on this since they flashed the lights for the second Act.

Valerie Plame did have an active network: a company called Brewster-Jennings (do a google search and you can find out quite a bit more). The CIA "blowback" report about the impact of the printing of the name of the company by Novak is still classified. Larry Johnson, a Republican and a former CIA agent, has all but come out and admitted that people were killed as a result of the leak (his words: "post mortem would be appropriate").

specifying a misdeed by the CIA that wasn't reported by the MSM?

I wish the conduct of the CIA would get at least some attention from the MSM.

I'm certain that CIA conduct has gotten "some attention from the MSM."

Larry Johnson, a former CIA operative with Republican ties, has stongly hinted that people were killed as a result of Novak publishing the name of the company, Brewster-Jennings.

to conclusions, perhaps as a result of an over-active "imagination."  How, exactly, did you determine that "our leaders knowingly and willingly exposed people who risked their lives to provide us information in this war!"  Perhaps you should put a call into the Office of the Special Prosecutor, given that after 22 months of investigation Mr Fitzgerald has been unable to even allege any such thing.

Speaking, on the other hand, from experience, let me offer you my less-exciting, though I believe quite rational, interpretation of what occurred.  The Bush administration, and particularly the VP's office, was frustrated by the degree to which the MSM were providing a microphone and a level of legitimacy for Mr Wilson's allegations.  In attempting to refute Wilson's meme, they not only exposed his talking points but they (Libby) publicly called into question his expertise, by pointing out that he wouldn't have even been chosen for the trip if his wife didn't work for the CIA.  In so doing, Libby inadvertently, and perhaps unknowingly, revealed classified information.  When confronted with this revelation, Libby attempted to mitigate his error (but, in fact, compounded it) by sourcing the information to other reporters in his GJ testimony.

Not as sexy as the MSM version, but I think (hope?) you will agree that it is certainly plausible.  Furthermore, it squares with the existing indictments, which is the extent to which I'm prepared to even speculate on the criminality of anyone, inside or outside the Bush administration.

And they say that liberals are the angry one.

One sniff of something you disagree with and your fuse is lit.

I agree. I think there's too much pointing to the other party (from both sides) and saying, "but they do it too!" The fact is, corruption in both parties is far too common. Politicians are servants of U.S. citizens, whose salaries we pay. They all should be held to a high standard, regardless of party affiliation.

Just because liberals bash Bush doesn't mean that he can do no wrong. Is the idea to just defend your guys no matter what? Should Bush never admit making mistakes, ever? I'm not a fan of the Dems, by the way, and I think they should all be taken to task when they do wrong. Same goes for the GOP, of course.

Should lying under oath be made legal? Is it OK for officials of any administration to commit perjury and obstruction of justice? Or should we hold all politicians accountable, Dems and Repbulicans?

Talking points?

How is calling a document that led to war a bigger deal than one that led to a reporter going down in flames a talking point?

You must love America so much that it hurts. :-*

He testified to the Grand Jury.  It was easy to miss that, though, because unlike a certain New York Times reporter, he chose not to obstruct the investigation.

share some responsibility? Was it OK that he published Plame's name and that she was an agent?

Fitzgerald hasn't indicted anybody for 'outing' Plame.

There was no crime.

of numerous "powder-seeking" posters around these parts lately.

LibbyLiar is a patriot

By the way, the documents were acquired by CBS in 2004. Nobody was working on this story for five years (what a ridiculously long amount of time anyway).

And Jackal4444, I disagree with hypocrisy on either side; the left or the right. It doesn't help anyone's cause to be partisan, and hypocrisy is a quite common symptom of partisanship both here and on liberal blogs.

Libby inadvertantly identified her? Right. Why then, did they also publicly identify the company for whom she worked? And did Libby do this on his own, or in concert with Rove and with the full knowledge and cooperation of Cheney. To attempt to discredit Wilson is one theory, but why would they expose an entire CIA front to do so? Can you at least accept the premise that all individuals who had ever associated with Brewster-Jennings were put in danger by this leak? If so, what do you call it when people working for our government in the field of covert operations and national security are exposed in a leak, as were all those people who ever worked for or associated with Brewster-Jennings. Sounds treasonous to me, but that might be my patriotism and respect for people of service getting in the way.

led to a war?

I realize that you guys have repeated the mantra of "It was all about WMD" so often that you've come to believe it, but that don't make it so.  Whatever happened to liberals, anyway?  There was a time when you would champion the liberation (note the similarity of these two words: liberal and liberation) of 50 million oppressed persons as a good in and of itself.  Apparently those days no longer exist -- not as long as a Republican occupies the White House.

As for my love of country?  Not so much that it hurts, but rather enough that I don't seek to hurt it.

If the names, faces and party affiliations were different, we would not see a story in the MSM about this CIA that did not include the words "renegade", "paramilitary", "clandestine", "shadow government", etc., etc.


The way our system is set up, the CIA is accountable to the president, and . . . well, that's about it. Congressional oversight? C'mon.


I'll turn your question around:  President Eisenhower warned us of the buildup of the "military-industrial complex". How do you think he might have reacted to a CIA clearly perceived to be "at war" with the Chief Executive?

patently stupid generalization.  I doubt very much that excessive use of caps "outs" someone as a liberal

So it's OK to print the name of covert operatives and the company for whom they work in the paper during a time of war? Why not print troop movements too! Just because the powers that be have so far managed to thwart the investigation through lying and deceit, don't link that to exoneration of guilt. Someone DID leak the name of a covert agent - that IS a crime.

As for the bashing, people should understand that that comes along with the game of politics.

I spent the '90's bashing Clinton.  Some people take it seriously.  Personally, it always seemed similar to how fans of rival football teams rag each other.  People should watch more coverage of British Parliament - there just might not be anything funnier or more enjoyable on tv.

But I couldn't agree with earthling more - both parties need to be held accountable to their actions.

Fitzgerald did not say there was no crime committed.  He only discussed what was within "the four corners" of the indictment.  But he did stress that the revelation of Valerie Plame's classified status with the CIA harmed our national security.

And he made it very clear that he was unable to determine if there had been a crime committed because Libby "kicked sand" in his face.

Please re-read the transcript of his press conference.

Libby committed crimes, according to Fitzgerald's indictment. Fitzgerald accused Libby of throwing sand in the umpire's eyes; in other words, he may not get to the truth because Libby and possibly others have not been forthright about how Plame was revealed.

Also, even if outing Plame was technically not against the law, or at least can't be proven, is it not highly unethical and potentially harmful? Fitzgerald said so.

for "people of service" -- I happen to be one of them.  I believe that, at least in your eyes, will answer any outstanding quetions regarding my patriotism.

And I'll re-state my position.  I'm more than willing to engage in speculation regarding the allegations (as presented in the indictments) against Libby, though I would caution deference, implicit in any speculation, that he is "innocent until proven guilty."  On the other hand, I personally draw the line there, and refuse to speculate the criminality of persons whom a professional prosecutor after 22 months of investigation and the full authority and resources of the DoJ at this disposal has been unable to even allege.  To me, that doesn't seem like too high a bar to set, but apparently others will disagree.  So be it.  But please, do not presume facts not in evidence.  And there is NO evidence that "our leaders" (amongst whom I do not include Mr Libby, a staff appointee) countenanced any criminal actions.  With that, I will take offense.

WMDs were the major selling point for people on the Iraq War, both from the Bush administration and as represented by polling from them and now.

The illegitimate documents in question were used as justification for the war and justification for the WMDs. Frankly, I'd like to believe what an administration tells me about why we should go to war, but apparently I can't, and apparently it's no big deal that I can't.

I'm a moderate, leaning to the left on social issues and the right on economic, but I'm fed up with the conduct of the Bush administration; quite frankly, if the world was told that we were invading Iraq to liberate, and not lied to as we all were, I don't believe so many people would be as vitriolically anti-Iraq as they are now. I don't have faith in the administration when they change their rationale for going to war, if only because that's not what our country was sold on, and ample proof is now out that the administration's post-war planning was very lacking. Does everything that's happened add up to the Bush administration suddenly deciding to liberate this country?

And the source had a story that defied belief.

"Lucy Ramirez" and a document that looked EXACTLY like the default settings of Microsoft Word, including proportional fonts, purporting to be from the typewriter of a now dead Commanding officer in Bush's ANG unit in the early seventies. Not to mention Bill Burkett's long rep as a crank, and Rather's conflict of interest (his daughter is a Texas Democratic Party Staffer).

Rather STILL stands by the story, and so does CBS and Sixty Minutes.

Fitz could not charge a crime in "outing" Valerie Plame and refused point blank to identify the leaker but says he knows who it was. Which means likely the leaker is either Wilson or Plame.

I think you took a few extra logical steps here. It was argued that Libby may have inadvertantly revealed classified info. He clearly identified her - either by name, position, relation or whatever. Just a quibble, but a mighty important one for prosecution purposes, which is how Fitzgerald described it.

That, and your also getting into troubling territory with the treason allegations. There are several people on this site who could make similarly strong arguments against any number of pieces published or aired by well known news organizations. The treason accusation works any number of ways, but again, the legal hurdle is fairly high, and considering that John Walker Lindh didn't meet it, I doubt anyone involved in this case will come remotely close.

FWIW.

giving this post top billing. it has seemed to me in the month or so I've been reading this blog that posts printed on the front page have some stamp of merit from the folks that run the site. this post seems low on facts and news and high on partisan content, which I don't like or expect to see on the front page.

sorry to heckle from the peanut gallery, but perhaps I'm not the only one wondering about this.

on the TANG angle for almost five years (this same line of attack preceeded the 2000 election).  The fraudulent documents were introduced into the mix just before the 2004 election.  CBS was confident that this scandal would finally derail President Bush's reelection chances and help elect John Kerry.  The only real difference between CBS's actions in 2000, and then again in 2004, were the fradulent documents.  Both efforts by CBS to manufacture a scandal failed miserably.

Rather STILL stands by the story, and so does CBS and Sixty Minutes.

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret." - CBS News

"...if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question." - Dan Rather

Supposedly, after years of investigation, only Libby lied to investigators and the Grand Jury. Which will go to trial and good luck with that one.

I doubt Libby will be convicted, given the dubious nature of the witnesses against him and the defense that Plame/Wilson bragged/leaked to the reporters and Libby was right when he asserted he was told about Plame from them.

The Whitehouse did not obstruct, conduct a public relations campaign against Fitz, or raise a legal defense fund. The White House mandated co-operation and full disclosure with Fitzgerald, and everyone from the President on down co-operated. Contrast that to Clinton's ongoing eternal investigation involving almost EVERY member of his cabinet and the First LAdy.

Just means:  "Most recent story."  Call it an op-ed. piece, a hypo., or a thought experiment, call it what you want.  I think raises some good questions, and people have been interested enough to respond, and just because it's high on "partisan content" isn't an inherent flaw.  Editor's prerogative.

I was replying to the 60 minutes comment, and Alar was a fairly notorious episode from quite a while ago. Ask any apple producer. Heck, to go farther back, Silent Spring is undergoing reconsideration, and the use of DDT is being reconsidered in many areas.

My point being that CBS's credibility has been in the tank for quite a while. For me it started with Watergate and the lesson that it is wise to be careful of what you wish for.

I've read conflicting reports as to whether or not the CIA has, in fact, conducted an official damage assessment.  If they have, it has not been made public as of yet.

Bob Woodward claimed to have inside information of that report, but I think that's highly dubious.

But I think it's naive to think that some damage was not caused by this.  At the worst, people's lives were unnecessarily and wrongly endangered or harmed;  at the least, the work being conducted by Plame and the agents of Brewster-Jennings has been compromised.

It's not a good thing.  Common sense can tell you that.  And I'm a little troubled by the number of Republicans who would like to simply dismiss this matter.

I voted for Bush 41, and though he's no favorite of conservatives, I have always held a deep admiration for him and his years of service to our country.  In his opinion, this is one of the most treasonous things that can be done.

I also expect the CIA to keep any specifics of the damage assessment close to the vest.  Their not about to broadcast to the world how they were damaged.

Why does it matter that Larry Johnson is "a Republican"?

I think Fitzgerald would be being irresponsible if he made a case he did not think he could prove.  As he said, charge something or keep quiet.

Having said that, I do not feel we have reached the end of this affair or seen the last of indictments I'm afraid.

Well Eisenhower certainly had a different CIA to work with, I'll grant you that. Having two brothers (Allen and John Foster Dulles)head the Department of State and the CIA certainly smoothed the lines of communication for him. That was back in the good old days when the CIA could effectively orchstrate coups (both Iran and Guatemala saw democratically elected governments toppled) and then effectively lie to the world (see UN Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge's speeches) about the actions. But would Eisenhower, with his warning of the dangers of the industrial-military complex not have seen through the naked ambitions of this war? Eight billion dollars in cash went missing in Iraq and nobody so much as investigated where it went? No-bid contracts in the billions of dollars to companies aligned with White House insiders and connected lobbyists? Record profits for oil companies? And our exalted military hero, Colin Powell, marching in front of the United Nations with a presentation of facts for justification of war that the rest of the world saw as a charade? Eisenhower would've resorted to war on this evidence, and tolerated such blatant incompetence and corruption since then? I beg to differ.  

RedState isn't just a blog:  RedState is a political committee as well as a 527 organization.  Partisan content is perfectly in keeping with that part of RedState's identity.  

That he did what Libby did all the time; knock down stories he felt were inaccurate and portrayed President Clinton in an unfavorable light. Begala and Carville have said essentially the same thing.

The fallout from this is that NO Republican official will say ANYTHING to the Press at all. The Press will look (at trial) like a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic National Comittee. The CIA will look like a DNC think-tank. Dems will look like they have no plan for National Security other than legalistic "global tests" etc while Iran drifts towards a "final solution" for Israel (making good on their threats) and probably us as well. At worst they'll look like Copperheads.

isn't he a high-ranking member of the White House?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

There's a lot in there about WMD's, but not everything. Also, much of it is stated in ways that reflect the past more so than current conditions.

It just might help to refocus on the source documents.

I think the phrase "White House" in this sense is collective - not limited to a single staffer, regardless of rank.

Well thanks for responding without calling me a liberal or a quack, at least. :-)

with facts not in evidence, or perhaps just sloppy terminology based on MSM reporting.  One might speculate that Ms Plame was a "covert agent" at the time of the Novak report, but no evidence in the public record supports such a conclusion.  If you must, it would be closer to the existing evidence to speculate that someone (presumably Mr Libby) "revealed classified information" -- that, too, would be a stretch, but one requiring less elasticity.

There's a whole lot there to gnaw on.

Here is Fitzgerald's website: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

Here's the single indictment issued out of Fitzgerald's entire investigation:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

Here's the Press Release:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_pr_28102005.pdf

If you read them, you'll notice that Fitzgerald did not indict anyone, including Scooter, for "outing" Valerie Wilson.  While disclosing the name of a "covert agent," as that term is defined in 50 USC Section 426(4), can be a crime under 50 USC Section 421, or, possibly, under the Espionage Act, Fitzgerald did not issue any such indictments under the facts in this situation.

Besides, Mrs. Wilson had already been outed by the Russians and by the CIA (don't have the cite handy, but those incidents are discussed in further detail in the Amicus Brief filed on behalf of the media in the Judy Miller/Matt Cooper subpoenae).   She was possibly also outed by Aldrich Ames.

Tom Maguire (justoneminute.typepad.com) has been great on PlameGate.  Unfortunately, I don't think he's yet put together a Plame Primer.  You'll have to read a number of his posts (don't forget the comments) to figure out just what's going on there.

He's right about Powell, at least. Even Colin has come out strongly against his speech and calls it the darkest moment of his career.

you might have penetrated the shell, something I've been unable to do in 5+ hours of posting.

You're right that Libby was indicted for crimes that should be taken serously, but that's not what I was talking about.  The poster I was replying to was implying that Novak committed a crime.  I was denying that.

As for the rest, I really don't care what Fitzgerald's opinions are of what is ethical.  His personal opinions aren't interesting or relevant.  All that matters are what opinions he has that are backed up with enough facts that he can convince a Grand Jury that those opinions might be true.

If Fitzgerald had anything else on anyone else, he would have issued indictments.  He doesn't have a grand jury empaneled anymore.  It doesn't appear that there will be any more indictments issued in this matter.

I don't remember (seriously, I'm not being facetious here)--did someone in the White House obstruct an investigation of Clinton? And if so, is it OK when Libby obstructs, but not OK when Clinton's Admin. does it?

But you will find that the "excessive" use of caps is a very good indicator of left-leaning ideology.

Looking over your comment history, I'm inclined to believe your ideology lies left-of-center.  That particular determination is made without consideration of additional indicators.

Sorry, try again.

Neither quote denys the accuracy of the story.  It's that dodge (believing the story while disbelieving the docs) where the line "fake but accurate" came from.

And what was the result of this "planted" evidence? The sound machine went to work spinning away about evil Dan Rather, and what else went away? The actual story about Bush's guard service, or lack thereof. This would pave the way for one of most impressives coups in recent memory: supporters of a president and vice-president who evaded service smearing the service of someone who actually did serve? Did anybody bother to ask the important question: Who was behind the forged and planted document and what was their motivation? Sounds like standard operating procedure for "turd-blossom" - absolutely brilliant! Disinformation at it's finest - Orwell must be smirking indeed.

Fitzgerald's personal opinions and a quarter will buy me a gumball at the supermarket.

If after all this time he couldn't indict anybody on the actual release of information, then I'm not inclined to believe that there was a crime committed.

Barlow said: "..."RatherGate" involved an overzealous reporting staff and a decently faked memo."

Those documents were not decent fakes. It took BucketHead less than an hour to determine that they were fakes.  In fact, they were such poor fakes that, for awhile, there was a theory floating around that Rove was responsible for them & they were supposed to be easily identified as fakes.  Read Appendix 4 to the Thornburgh Report.

CBS ran with the documents & the story despite the fact that they document examiners they had did not & could not verify the authenticity of the documents.  It doesn't appear that CBS was "overzealous" at all.  They ignored issues raised by the document examiners they hired & ignored examiners who provided information CBS didn't like.

More indictments are implied. Fitzgerald's reasoning for not issuing them now is that he was not allowed a clear picture of the situation due to Libby's perjury.

This was simply a great time to lay his cards down and continue work on the rest of the investigation.

Yeah, I definately made a mistake about the legitimacy -- going back and reviewing them again, it's fairly obvious that they aren't legitimate.

I still don't think it's a liberal conspiracy like a lot of other posters have seemingly implied; I'd buy the "Rove plant" before I'd buy that. Unless these are the stupidest people on Earth, you would think that a calculated effort to discredit Bush would at least involve a calculated effort to get the main part (the documents) right.

seeing that the story had other evidence besides the

forged documents, why is the notion of "fake but accurate" so crazy?

related to the CIA and the MSM.

First is the near perfect historical record of the CIA for producing bad or no intel.  I'm not authoring a book, but we could pick the issues of Chinese military readiness, Saddam's progress on nukes in the early 90's, Libyan nukes since the war, etc.  For this Tenet gets a Medal of Freedom.  The agency has done zip to develop humanint as opposed to the techie stuff for decades.  We would be better off contracting with the Israelis and arggghhhh the French.

Second, the CIA is an insular, inbred bureauracry that spends more time and effort protecting themselves from accountability that protecting you and I from foreign enemies.  In that vein, the consistent leaking of anti-administration information to the MSM by agency insiders.  I really hope the new director takes out about four levels of management and just starts over.  They couldn't do much worse.

Third, the MSM is slobbering for any tidbits to feed their animosity toward the Bush Administration.  They do not publish anything resembling a hit piece on the agency because they would lose their source of tidbits (Joe Wilson is a prime example).  

With respect to unreported misdeeds, there is the whole Wilson/Plame thing.  The intel aspect of the info Wilson came home with has been completely ignored.  The government of Niger thought that the Iraqis were trying to buy yellowcake.  Wilson came home and reported that, along with the cannard that he could find no proof that they were able to acquire it.  Acquisition was always a secondary issue.  The primary issue was whether they were trying to buy it.  It only has one use, and Betty Crocker has nothing to do with it.  Analysts at the CIA reportedly agreed that Iraq was attempting to acquire yellowcake.  The MSM spins Wilson's version of the story, ignores the real issue of attempted acquisition, ignores the fact that the CIA believes they were attempting to acquire and ignores the fact that British intel thinks they were attempting to acquire.  Just doesn't fit their agenda.

As a matter determined by a court of law, Libby stands accused, while Pres. Clinton accepted (note - I didn't look for the precise holding or wording) a perjury finding against himself.

As a matter of impression, I think a lot of folks here at RS could swamp the server with links to somewhat independent reports of obstruction under whatever guise it's called from the Clinton WH. Most of the accusations against the present administration seem to run from wild-eyed conspiracy speculation to somewhat uninformed speculation.

Again, w/o researching it, I think the Clinton WH pretty well set a lot of standards for various ways to get into and out of trouble.

Finally, of course, one adminstration's guilt neither exonerates nor excuses anothers.

The required threshold to prosecute under IIPA or US18, Sec793 is purposely set very high.  Nothing in this case comes even close to reaching that required threshold.  

Therefore, Fitzgerald chose the only available options (obstruction, perjury and making false statements).

Try Clinton himself!  You might recall the Legal Defense fund he put together to throw up every barricade imaginable (and when I say imaginable, I'm talking from a very vivid imagination) -- Presidential privilege, Protective Service privilege, etc., etc., etc. -- all of which were eventually tossed out by the Supreme Court but had the desired effect of slow-rolling the prosecution and driving up the cost to the American people to the tune of $40M.  And when none of that worked, Clinton had the audacity to order Reno's DoJ to initiate an meritless investigation of Starr himself, solely for the point of having another talking point at hand with which to attack the independent counsel.  All the while, Clinton KNEW that the allegations from Starr were absolutely true.

Contrast that with the Bush administration's response outlined by Jim Rockford above -- I think you'll see the difference.

I have to pace myself - if I'm not careful I'll end up referring to the Northwest Ordinance. Once I pass that, it's a short trip to the Magna Carta, and then we're really talking policymaking cabals!

No, Fitz is trying to make Scooter's alleged perjury sound material.  Fitz was able to find out what happened.  He has testimony from other witnesses.  He has documents.  Listen to the prosecutors, not the partisan hacks.  If Fitz had it, he would've used it.  But he didn't.

There's nothing in this indictment that involves conspiracy.  There's not a count in this indictment for outing Valerie Pflame (by any name).

". . . other evidence . . ."?

Such as what?

It is not a crime to know the name of a CIA enployee; it is not a crime to tell someone else the name; it is not a crime to reveal inadvertently the name of a CIA NOC; it is not a crime if the CIA NOC has not been posted overseas within five years; it is not a crime to reveal the name of the CIA NOC if you did not intend harm to the NOC.

Summary: Plame's name was not a crime under the 1982 law.  And Fitzgerald does not name what other law makes knowing or revealing her name to the media into a crime.  1982 law does not apply.  And so what ciminal motive does Libby have to conceal the facts of a non-crime from members of the media?

Below find the relevant sections of the 1982 law that clearly determine that US citizen Plame, in the United States at Langley from 1997, was not a covert agent, or NOC, at the time of the revelation, June 2003.

(4) The term "covert agent" means--

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency--

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and--

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

Am waiting for the details of her service to establish that she was not a NOC at time of revelation.

Am waiting for explanation from the 1982 law writers whether Plame was ever an example of what they sought to protect.

this grid square, mods. Happily, it looks like the myth of Rove as evil supergenius is still going strong.

I wasn't being facetious; I wasn't following the news too closely during Clinton's presidency.

I'm against obstruction of justice, period. I don't think it's OK for Clinton to obstruct justice, and I don't think it's OK for Libby to obstruct either. The Bush Admin. has been less than forthright and honest about the Plame business. Libby lied to protect Cheney and/or Rove, or someone, right? Fitzgerald said that he's had trouble getting to the bottom of this because of sand thrown in his eyes by Libby (the umpire analogy).

Why didn't the leaker(s) just step forward and identify themselves, and explain their reason for revealing Plame to Novak? Then perhaps we wouldn't have had this investigation.

What do you mean my MSM? I've read lots about the CIA and their failures in newspapers I would call MSM. If you're talking about nightly network news, you might be right, but they're worthless anyway.

that IIPA does not apply to Valerie Plame.  The only other alternative would be US18,Sec793 regarding the dissemination or unauthorized release of classified information.

Unfortunately for Fitzgerald, and those on the left that wish to discredit the Bush administration, the required threshold to prosecute under US18,Sec793 can not be met given Fitzgerald's original mandate.

Yes - The pinnacle, the acme, the ne plus ultra, the source from whom all blessings flow, and so on.

into FantasyLand again.

After 5+ hours of trying to convince various lefties not to jump to unsupportable accusations, I've come to the conclusion that allegations, when separated from any degree of personal responsibility for their accuracy, are far too easily assumed (i.e., talk is cheap).  With that in mind, and with the full population of the RS community as witnesses, I proffer the following wager to any and all comers (but especially Barlow, Clembo, and Glic): I'll wager $50 that no member of the Bush administration will ever be indicted (much less successfully prosecuted) for a violation of the Espionage Act with regards to the "outing" (as you like to call it) of Valerie Plame Wilson prior to Mr Fitzgerald's termination of the investigation; and a further $100 that no member of the Bush administration will ever be indicted for a violation of IIPA with regard to the same action and the same determinative time frame.

Okay, gents -- step right up and put your money where your mouth is.  Where are my takers?

1) that Libby lied (presumption of innocence, remember?), and 2) that if he did so, he did it to protect anyone other than himself from the embarrassment of his own ineptitude.  So please don't assume otherwise (facts not in evidence).

I'm not going to have to add you to my Leftie Alert List, am I?

Was it perfectly ethical to out Plame, who, according to Fitzgerald, was a "classified" agent? If the Clinton Admin. named an undercover agent who had criticized him, would that be OK?

it sure ain't unethical.  If you have proof (proof, mind you, not mere speculation) of intent, I'm sure Mr Fitzgerald would like to hear about it.  You can reach him during normal business hours at the following address:

Bond Federal Building

1400 New York Avenue, NW, Ninth Floor

Washington D.C.  20530

Furthermore, you might consider contacting the Attorney General to let him know that, despite not having the full authority and resources of the DoJ that were at the disposal of Mr Fitzgerald, you've been able to definitively conclude, all by yourself and with nothing more than a computer and web access, that violations of the Espionage and Intelligence Identities Protection Acts indeed occurred.  I'm sure he'll be mightily impressed.

Before you head out to your new job at the DoJ, however, perhaps you'd be interested in taking me up on the following offer:

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/10/30/195852/20/133#133

Otherwise, I seriously doubt your convictions.

You keep moving the goal post around and creating hypotheticals.  Besides, Clinton used the FBI and IRS to do his dirty work for him.

Jackal4444 has a friendly wager posted up-thread.  If you think Fitzgerald has anything else to add to this case, you may wish to consider taking him up on that wager.

Ha. I am forced to laugh at your argument.

...you've been able to definitively conclude, all by yourself and with nothing more than a computer and web access, that violations of the Espionage and Intelligence Identities Protection Acts indeed occurred.

I've never said anything like that. I have no idea if laws were broken in the outing of Plame. I was asking about the ethics of outing her. Novak said that two senior Bush Admin. officials told him about her. Fitzgerald said she was "classified."

I've heard a lot of hair splitting here about whether Plame was covert or classified and whether a law was broken or not. To me it seems clear that there was wrongdoing, whether or not the espionage act was violated. And Fitzgerald has said as much.

which outlets you consider MSM, because I've read a lot about the stuff you mentioned in papers I consider MSM. From your apparent sarcasm in the above post I'm not sure if you think NYT is MSM.

I didn't mean to say we know for sure Libby lied and if so to cover up. I meant to say that's what the indictment alleges. Sorry.

to this thread is exactly what?

Looking over your comment history, as limited as it may be, does not lend credibility to any point you may be trying to make.

Please clarify.

"Novak said that two senior Bush Admin. officials told him about her."  Yes, as in "Joe Wilson's no intelligence expert, and he wouldn't have even been on the trip if his wife didn't work for the CIA, so the MSM should stop treating him as one."

And it's not called hair-splitting or a technicality -- it's called proving an essential element of the crime.  You can't, hence your fallback to the moral/ethical argument.

Lastly, your definition of "wrongdoing" appears to suffer from a lack of consistency.  I seem to recall that publicly accusing someone of criminal actions without supporting evidence is itself a form of wrongdoing -- I believe it's called slander and/or defamation of character.

is definitely MSM.

Listen, I've re-read a number of your posts, and I don't believe that you're truly a closet leftie, just someone (unfortunately) who has been woefully misinformed by an over-reliance on the MSM.  If that's even close to the truth, then let me 1) apologize for any and all previous snark directed your way, and 2) recommend you take steps to expand and balance your news sources.  The Blog Roll at the bottom-right of the RS home page would be a great place to start.

With that, good night and God bless.

I'm pointing out that the question of law shouldn't be the only one. Just because no one is found guilty of outing Plame, doesn't mean it's right.

When I say wrongdoing, I'm going on what Fitzgerald said. He knows more about the facts of this case than we do, and he seems to have a very solid reputation. Are you saying that there was no wrongdoing by the Bush Admin. in all of this?

Does anyone in the MSM care that Hussein was interested in uranium? Guess not.

I've read a lot about this in the MSM. Here's a link to over 400 articles that come up when searching for "Hussein" and "uranium:"

http://tinyurl.com/9j3d5

If I recall correctly, I also read a lot about Iraq's alleged interest in uranium in the Chicago Tribune, Wapo, and others.

you have no evidence of wrongdoing, either.  Forget about separating the ethical and criminal arguments -- the underlying requirement is the same: intent.  So, in that sense, the ethics are built into the statute.  If you can prove intent, then you've got a crime.  If you can't, then you have no wrongdoing, criminally or ethically.  And, at least at this point in time, there is NO evidence in the public record to support a conclusion of intent, so please stop pretending that there is.

Hey, if Libby is found to have intentionally revealed the identity of Ms Plame with the goal of harming national security, I'll be the first one with the rope.  But until such time, I won't presume he did, much less presume the criminal activity of other administration officials who have not even been indicted.

Now, truly, GOOD NIGHT.

though Ariana has tried to paint herself as an independent progressive.

where I said this:

And, at least at this point in time, there is NO evidence in the public record to support a conclusion of intent, so please stop pretending that there is.

Where did I say there is evidence in the public record to support intent? I don't recall saying anything like that.

You're right that I have no evidence of wrongdoing. I'm just saying that Fitzgerald seems to think there was a serious ethics breach by Libby (in obstruction if nothing else), and it seems that way to me too. I have hard evidence of nothing, however.

From Fitzgerald's press conference:

If you're going to have a grand jury investigation into the improper disclosure of national security information and you're going to have someone in the position Mr. Libby is lying to the FBI on two occasions and going before a grand jury on two occasions and telling false testimony and obstructing the investigation, that, to me, defines a serious breach of the public trust.

Good night.

did Larry Johnson come out and admit that people were killed as a result of the leak?

what's important is not so much whether the site is left or right, but are there open minded, intelligent people involved who try to be fair. I think on both the left and the right there's too much preaching to the choir, and too much agreeing with people just because they're a liberal and you're a liberal, or they're a conservative and you're a conservative; or discounting anything the "other" group says.

I think we need more independent-minded critical thinkers.

And yet, no one asked me...

seem to trust Democrats less than Republicans.

You said there was no crime.    I see it as Fitzgerald can't prove the crime.  Someone obviously committed a crime because we now all know who Valerie Plame is and what she use to do for a living, and none of us have any need to know it.   And neither do our enemies.

Over estimated the Soviet Strength during the Cold War.  

Reported on Red army unites that did not exist.  Planes that did not exist.

Even a Atomic Power Bomber that was just a mockup was reported as ready to fly.

Mostly because they had no one on the ground.

"The CIA has consistently provided flawed intelligence to the White House..."

In particular when flawed intel is what the administration demanded.

I'd like to continue posting on Red States since there are several important topics I am at issue with the Lefties on, but the disconnect with reality exhibited in "Liars, Liars, and CBS" is probably more than I can hope to bridge. The spin makes me quite dizzy. So perhaps you should just block me. But good luck with your site. It seems very well run.

John West

There may never be another indictment in this case,but it might be best for america if it never goes to trial.

I do not believe that fitz is vindictive or out of control, but he or the defense may have to call the vp or rove to the stand, which could cause embarresment to the administration.

Also, Wilson has threatened to file a civil lawsuit.

Thanks to the supreme court, in the case of Jones v. Clinton, we now can see those in the executive sued while still in office. This is a danger, and was a bad decision then and still is now.  

that both sides will agree on as being unbiased.

(Except perhaps CSPAN)

The problem is, the most centrist news sources in the country right now are ridiculed as bastions of the "Liberal Main Stream Media" by Republicans, but decried as the propaganda organs of the "Corporate Owned Media" by Democrats.

Just like I'm considered a moonbat here, and sometimes called a wingnut at DKos.

My personal opinion is that the major media outlets in the US are mostly motivated by whatever will increase the stock price of their parent companies. Although this often aligns with the Republican Party, they are willing to rip into Republicans if the issue is juicy enough that it will help ratings/circulation.

On most issues, I read DKos and follow up references, then read RedState and follow up with their references. Sort out the stuff that is obvious talking points or just plain nutty, and see what's left.

On the Plame/CIA/Libby stuff, I currently believe the more substantive information is coming from the liberal side of the isle. Much of the Right seems to be obsessed with deflecting blame, or minimizing the importance of the issue, with little focus on the real facts. On the other hand, the Left has their share of far-out nutcases.

Ultimately, in the current media environment, dishonesty and hidden agendas have become so prevalent that it's hard to find anyone to trust.

One site that I like is http://mediamatters.org/ because they (usually) stick to straightforward debunking of spin, and provide extensive authoritative sources for any claims they make. But the site has a definite liberal agenda. They don't debunk Democratic spin, only Republican spin. I haven't found an equivalent site for the right. (There are many sites that claim to debunk liberal media bias, but I haven't found one that provides extensive sourcing, and is willing to admit when they have made a mistake)

. . .the indomitable moonbat belief that proof that GWB did coke, molested underage cheerleaders. and did unspeakable things to the original copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will most definitely be revealed someday!  My God--didn't you read the memo?

but do you have any media outlets that you believe will stand up to the level of scrutiny you apply to CBS News?

Because a noc has been outed. To do that would be suicide.

So to use the cia's words as evidence of anything is worthless.

No matter what was occuring between the executive and the cia, what occured was indefensible.

Outing agents must never occur under any administration.

are not necessarily fact.

Saying "I am inclined to believe no crime was committed" is different from parroting the talking point that "No crime was committed."

The cover company was setup after Plame was brought back to the US after her cover had been compromised.  It would be idiotic to have Plame associated with a CIA cover that actually had overseas contacts at risk.

And if it was the case, the CIA should have ensured that Plame drew no undue attention to herself or be involved in any political shenanigans.

What law was violated?

Over the course of decades, the CIA built up the fake firm of Brewster-Jennings & Associates so covert agents could keep track of the illegal movement of weapons of mass destruction.  When I. Lewis Libby blew the cover of Valerie Plame, he blew the cover of every covert agent using that firm as a cover. As a result, several agents are now dead [the exact number is classified]; and the hunt for the illegal sales of WMD has been totally destroyed.  The charges against Libby are no legal technicality; people died because her cover was blown. Libby must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and he must be forced to tell the truth about who gave him the thumbs-up to expose Valerie Plame covert status to the public.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out how I knew the yellow-cake uranium tale from the White House was a lie. In 1991 it was discovered that Iraq had 500 metric tons of yellow-cake uranium. Because Iraq had no facilities to enrich it, it was not considered a security risk; so Bush 41 left it in Iraq. You need to ask yourself: Why would Iraq buy yellow-cake uranium from Niger when they already had 500 tons?  Why did Bush 43 say Saddam was trying to develop a nuclear weapon when he knew they did not have the facilities to enrich the uranium the already had?  If people watched less television and read more alternate press, they never would have been fooled by this lie.

still be abed so I'll bite. Ms. Plame works for Brewster Jennings, a CIA front set up to track WMD. Is it fair to assume that she must have known about this 500 metric tons of yellow cake stored in Iraq? Unless she was living in an alternate universe, the answer must be yes. But then she arranges to send her husband on an at best redundant mission to Niger...curiouser and curiouser.  

Unless these are the stupidest people on Earth...

Well, you said it.

BTW, are you serious about believing it's a Rove plant?  

Their source was an obviously, blatantly, well-known, biased activist who just happened to stumble onto "The Smoking Gun".  Their excitement at finally having proof for what they had long believed overcame them, and any doubts about the source's credibility were tossed out the window.  They ran with it like they had stole it, thinking that they could finally prove that GWB was a &##@$&&% and could ice this election once and for all.

In years gone by, it would have worked.  It's too bad for Rather & Co. that the internet exists.  It has really messed up their monopoly on content.

... people died because her cover was blown.

This is a blatant lie. What? You think your silly name impresses anybody here?

very many people. This bozo is gone.

Can we at least admit to a severe lapse in ethics?  Even if we take the

hypothesis that little if any damage was suffered as true, what about the

next time?  

Personally I disagree strongly with the 'it really didn't matter' crowd. Do you

honestly think that Libby (or Rove) did so much research before leaking the name

and area she worked to determine she or any of her assets would not be at risk? Or

that other NOCs were not using the same front company?  Was it even in their

portfolio to make a decision that discrediting Wilson outweighed any potential

losses of assets abroad?

IMHO too many have a hard time seperating the garbage of Joe Wilson from the

ethical and near criminal actions to discredit him.  He should have been taken

down but this was not the way to do it.  And now you end up with the reverse

of the effect where people hold him up as a hero.  

Larry Johnson is a tool and has been shilling against the administration for about 4 years. Don't you think it pretty strange that he, someone without an affiliation with the CIA, would know this?

But most haven't had quite the history of issues which CBS seems to have run into. Goes with the territory to some extent, since the more you do, the greater the chance of error, but they've had some doozies which most everyone else, print and TV, have avoided.

"Also, Wilson has threatened to file a civil lawsuit."

Wouldn't that be fantastic?  I can't believe a lawyer agreed to take that on a contigency fee basis.

Will Valerie Pflame be a co-plaintiff?  Can she testify?  Will the CIA clear any of her testimony?  Will she testify from behind a partition, her voice disguised?  Or will she testify from a Jaguar, in sunglases & a scarf, as she appeared in Vanity Fair?

Won't a jury want to ask how concerned about her identity and her career she could have been (& the CIA, too, for that matter) to have breakfast with Joe & Kristof, to let Joe write that false Op-Ed piece for the NY Times?

we should have government agencies working against a sitting President,unless that President is a Democrat who does funny things with cigars and solicits foreign bribes.  It is especially important that this activity be done by our intelligence services, as the Dept. of Agriculture doesn't matter as much.  No scandal there.  However it is a scandal if the Administration fights back being too stupid to realize that they're supposed to cooperate in their own destruction. They might even be so stupid as to think a special prosecutor should have been named to investigate a rogue CIA but not so stupid as to have called for it, considerations of witchhunt and the cry of partisanship being on their minds.  They would not be in this quandry if they had ethics as disposeable as Kleenex, outrage turned on and off like a light bulb,and the personality of a weasel.  But that's life.  This could help lead to Democratic election victories and then all our problems can be solved.  So cheer up.

"Any front company Plame worked for overseas is now potentially exposed and other agents who were or still are undercover may be exposed as well.  We'll never know, but it's possible one or more covert agents have been killed as a result of Plame's outing."

How many died as a result of THIS outing?

http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/010921.html  

of the universe.

What you read about in the Times are isolated stories that go nowhere.  I see further down,

I've read a lot about this in the MSM. Here's a link to over 400 articles that come up when searching for "Hussein" and "uranium:"

My questions are these, if the NYT and the other papers you mention have done such a good job of connecting the dots why did we see no editorial rebuttal from the Times when Wilson published his screed?  Why has the Times consistently pooh poohed the WMD threat from Iraq?  

Additionally, why would the Times not point out that the CIA has a record of ineptness and show their historical failures.  They might also point out that any chance the agency had to be effective was killed by the Church Commission and Jimmy Carter.  Not that they've done anything with the support of administrations since.

does not speak to the issue of further indictments one way or another.  There are several grand juries empanelled right now that could bring indictments based on the work already done.  Of course, that doesn't mean they will, just that they could.

Arguing against further indictments is the fact that Fitzgerald could have issued them on Friday.  Arguing for further indictments is the fact that he clearly stated the investigation is not yet over -- since there's no final report to issue, the continued existence of the investigation means at least the possibility of further indictments.

Bush or Cheney "evaded" service.  Bill Clinton did that.  Bush served in the TANG, volunteered to go to Vietnam and was turned down because at the time he did not have enough flight hours.  There is absolutely no evidence, none, nada, zip, zilch that Bush did not fulfill his guard requirements honorably.  People who no nothing about the way the guard worked, and works, whine about him deferring some of his service to work on a campaign.  Guard rules allow the type of thing he requested and was granted.

Cheney took advantage of a marriage deferment.  Like about a zillion other guys at the time.

With respect to your comment ...smearing the service of someone who actually did serve?  I assume you are talking about John Kerry.  Bush nor Cheney ever said a discouraging word about Senator Kerry's service other than to honor it.  There are people, millions of us, who will never forget John Kerry's Senate testimony about war crimes committed on a routine basis by US soldiers.  Nor will we forget him going to Paris to "negotiate" with the NVA and VC WHILE HE WAS STILL A RESERVE NAVAL OFFICER.  

Kerry was lucky that Nixon and Ford had other things on their minds and that Carter was our most anti-American president.  He should have been charged and tried for treason.

With respect to the conspiracy theory you hold out, Rove may be good, but even he's not that clever.  Rather and Mapes just let their agenda get in the way of their facts.  They became crusaders trying to bring down a President, as opposed to the "journalists" they purported to be.

. . . were never so roundly denounced by the Left. These traitors did real damage to the CIA and to the country's foreign interests.

Back in the good old days, the CIA were the "bad guys". Remember?

Just a few guys on horseback were able to dislodge the Taliban, you know. They are pretty efficient at what they do, when they set their minds to it.

I'll ask the question again: Is having a rogue CIA "at war" with the duly elected President a good idea in our democracy?

I'm getting a strong whiff of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Please stand down from the moral high ground that you have claimed.

All of this has gotten kinda sad....  We have really been put to shame and I don't think the Liberals are at fault anymore.  Here we are all screaming at eacheother and we have the executive office and both houses.  This is NOT how I expected the GOP to run the country after all our work getting to this point.  Im deeply saddened.  Our president is looking increasingly befuddled.  The fact is that someone in the WH leaked the name of a covert operative.  Thats not just stupid its treasoness and the GOP who has for so long been claiming be the party of national security is at fault.  That no charge for that crime has been issued does mean it didn't happen and that it can't still happen. It did and it can.  I thought Bush would be a conservative in the nature that his father was.... RATIONAL, but that hasn't happen.  We have all been talking about Liberals as if that is the opposite of Conservative but there is a better word than that and it is Radical.  The Bush team is looking in my mind increasingly radical and not at all conservative.  My very conservative parents would NEVER spend money that they don't have but GB is spending faster than Paris Hilton, instead of putting qualified people in his cabinet we get "Browny" and right after that debacle he gives us MYERS????? Was he JOKING? Im watching my individual rights widdled away by Christian radicals that are no better than the muslim radicals killing our boys overseas.  Im having an increasingly hard time defending my party because im an athiest conservative and don't want anything to do with the left or the christians.

Now after years of defending the president over Iraq I am out of gas.  We all know he knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq but went to war anyway and used a lot of money that the Government doesn't have to do while still reducing taxes and doing the most unconservative thing ever, knowingly increasing our national debt.  This is just retarded and we better come up with something a lot better than this next time around

Not that a single anecdote makes a case, but when you need only wait a few hours for an anecdote, it certainly raises suspicions.

Here's today's gem from CBS:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9i.htm

Is it small, petty, sharp, pointed, in-your-face, profane, scatalogical (who knew?)? Yeah. Does it amount to anything more than an old cup of coffee? Nah. Is it inconsequential? Sure. Yet - it's CBS, again, serving the public's right to know.

. . . gives this Moby away.

Any true conservative knows the word is "treasonous", not "treasoness".

"Treasoness" might be a clever new coinage to describe, for example, a clandestine female government employee who would conspire with her spouse to undermine administration's effort during wartime. Any names come to mind?

- - - he wasn't charged and tried for treason. He should be on "permanent assignment" at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, for his traitorous actions while in uniform.

My spelling may be suspect.  Oh hey I have an idea... instead of reproaching me for my spelling why don't you try to say something about the substance.... OH YEAH... you can't cause im RIGHT.

It's really just a matter of timing, isn't it?

I mean, you have the Wilsons at breakfast with Kristof telling him their story in April or early May 2003.  Kristof publishes his column on May 6, 2003.  The Wilsons were obviously making the rounds among journalists, because Pincus used Wilson as a source for his June 12, 2003, column.  Then, on July 6, 2003, Wilson went public and published his column, under his own name, in the New York Times.  Wilson also began making the rounds on the talk shows.

Novak didn't publish his column until July 14, 2005.

If anyone died or intelligence assets were compromised as a result of Novak's column, it's because either (1)the CIA decided that they were acceptable casualties in a war with the Bush administration, or (2)the Wilsons & CIA were too incompetent to realize that, with all of the hubub that the Wilsons & Kristof started in May, the circumstances surrounding the 2002 Niger trip, including Plame's role in recruiting Wilson for that trip (as well as prior trips?) would soon be declassified.  And, in fact, it was eventually declassified.  That was inevitable, given Wilson's PR tour.

Libby's error was primarily a matter of timing.  And yes, I do think Scooter should have waited until the details were declassified to mention Plame's name.

Bless your heart.

you do understand how investigative reporting is done, do you?  they don't just look for one piece of evidence, and build a whole story based on it.

You people do realize they had more than the document..they also had testimony from people who George Bush served under in the National Gaurd, confirming the content of the document was accurate.  

I don't wish to get into a discussion over this, I was merely asking why people always assume that the

notion that a document is "fake but accurate" is such a crazy idea?

i guess even the conservatives accept the notion of "fake but accurate" is possible, seeing that many of you realize that the even though the niger documents

were forgeries, doenst prove that Iraq was not trying to build a nuclear bomb.

so seeing that even the right except the idea of "fake but accurate" probably the right should stop using that as a talking point.

firmly in favor of making up the news. Incredible. I've never seen anyone actually defend this utterly bizarre proposition. I guess that you don't have any problem with counterfeiting either as the bills are fake but accurate.

gets an equivalent of MI-6 - any equivalent will do, by the way - to back their story about Bush vis-a-vis the TXANG, then you have a point.

They cannot, and you don't.

Which of these are reasonable:

False but true;

Right but wrong;

Good but evil.

It's a "crazy idea" because it's not sane. It makes no sense. It has no basis in logic. It's pining for the fjords. (Ooops, disregard that last notion - wrong analogy)

I was responding to a post further up that said that the MSM didn't care about Hussein and uranium. I'm not saying the NYT is good or bad, just pointing out that they have covered CIA intel failures and Hussein/uranium.

You managed to encapsulate in a couple of posts the very essence of what makes the Left so threatening to those of us who value honesty and integrity in the political realm.

The process goes like this: 1) Decide who you are against. 2) Talk to a bunch of batty people with fuzzy recollections who may have overheard conversations 30 years ago between people who are now dead. 3) Fabricate documents in support of your preconceived notions.

The Left needs to watch out for its own arrogance. The Left does not always care more, or know better.

For you to be still embracing the "process" of Rathergate a year after the fact should cause you to reflect on your own values.

that some people here seemto trust Dems less than the GOP?

That seems pretty fair to me; I wouldn't consider that a sweeping generalization.

firmly in favor of making up the news. Incredible. I've never seen anyone actually defend this utterly bizarre proposition. I guess that you don't have any problem with counterfeiting either as the bills are fake but accurate.

no, I am not in favor of making up news.

Lets use your three examples :)

Which of these are reasonable:

False but true;

Right but wrong;

Good but evil.

If you look these words up in a thesaurus, you will

find that they are pairs of Antonyms

False is antonym of true.

Right is antonym of wrong.

Good is antonym of evil.

Interestingly Fake is not an antonym of accurate.

the analogous statements would be.

Fake but real.

inaccurate but accurate.

believe it or not, most of the left, just like most of the right does value honestly and integrity.

You may believe otherwise, but I assure if you were on the left, you would claim that the right does not value honesty and integrity,

Obey the first rule of holes. There are better arguments you can make.

Obey the first rule of holes.

I am not familiar with the rule of holes? what are you referring too?

And in your post you embraced a lie.

That's why I perceive the Left to represent a threat to individual liberty: the ease at which truth is jettisoned whenever it gets in the way of the Left's neverending quest for power.

When you find yourself deep in a hole, stop digging.

what is the second rule of Holes?

"You do not talk about fight Holes"

did it ever occur to you, that I was not "embracing" the use of a fake document for story?

I'm not parroting anyone.  I'm looking at a multi-year investigation, and seeing precisely zero indictments for the alleged crime that was being investigated.

I'm also looking at the law involved, and numerous analyses of the facts that show that the law involved simply couldn't be broken in this case.

I thinking for myself when I say there was no crime committed.

may have been forgeries (were forgeries), but the government of Niger confirmed that Iraq was indeed attempting to purchase yellowcake.  The scientist who was in charge of the nuclear program for Saddam still had centrifuge parts (buried in his back yard) and the plans.  Those two things could be called by some "hard evidence", especially when combined with the IAEA's opinion that Saddam was less than five years from a working device in 1991 after the first Gulf War.

Compared to the TANG situation where all available evidence, hard evidence, not an occasional 30 year old recollection, shows that Bush served his commitment honorably and was honorably discharged.  He has made his detailed military records - ALL OF THEM - available to the press & anyone else who wants them.  Unlike a certain Senator from Massachusetts.

The difference is clear.  In the case of TANG, the documents were bad forgeries and the story is false.  The truth does not support the forged documents.  In the case of Saddam's WMD, the available evidence shows that he was attempting to acquire yellowcake to restart his nuclear program.

Apparently you missed the part where Fitz said the investigation is not over.  And simply because he has issued 1 indictment, does not preclude him from issuing more down the road.

I would respectfully ask you to re-read the indictment if you would like evidence that Fitz is aware of conspiracy to leak this information, particularly sections 22 - 24.

you need to look at Judge Hogan's response to some of this.  It was a very serious matter to him

This is some pretty sorry analysis of Fitz's press conference.

He made it very clear that during his investigation to determine if a crime had been committed, that investigation was compromised by what Fitzgerald laid out in the indictment - Libby's repeated lying.

I honestly don't know why the WH didn't just bone up to all of this 2 years ago.  They've brought this upon themselves.  And they have no one else to blame.

that's probably why you're not a federal prosecutor.

I hate when conservatives sound this dumb.  That's just a stupid, stupid thing to say.  People really embarass themselves when they make absurd correlations like this.  Liberals use a lot of "commas."  That's how stupid it really, truthfully, honestly sounds.

As for my ideology, you can assume what you want.  I'm a Republican and have been for nearly 20 years.  I like to think for myself, but I have voted with this party through every election since '84.  Do I agree with the conservatives on everything?  No.  I'm not a fan of idealogues of one persuasion or another.  In fact, I think they can be quite horrible.  I want good solutions to our country's problems - and good ideas have nothing to do with simply being liberal or conservative.

what if people don't have an established comment history.  Maybe people are starting out, trying to get involved in this dialogue because they want to be part of it.  Give people a chance.  I'm so sick of blogs - all of them - that dismiss people because someone does endlessly tow a specific ideaological bent.  Come off it.  People want to participate.  Too many liberal/conservative blogs are afraid of ppl who don't spin their "spin."

if he needs it.  Any jury currently empaneled could be used.  And Fitz himself said the investigation was not over.  

I'm afraid Republican jubilation over the end of this was premature.  All I want is our leaders to stop being so arrogant - sometimes you get caught.  I want Bush to be who he said he was and hold people's feet to the fire, especially for embarassing his White House over this.  I wish it were over.  I just don't think it is.  People like Gergen don't think it is.

But you should study up on Fitzgerald's history as a prosecutor.  It is not uncommon for him to do this.

According to this Newsweek article, Fitzpatrick found out who Novak's primary source is, and let them go free "apparently because the mystery leaker told the truth to the grand jury." !

So if this article is true, the person most responsible for outing Plame has been let go without any charges.

They are talking about Novak's main source, not "official A" = Rove, who just confirmed what Novak had already heard from the main source.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9865842/site/newsweek/

Another lingering mystery: the role played by newspaper columnist Robert Novak and the original "senior administration official" who first leaked Valerie Plame's identity. Novak's July 14, 2003, column identifying Plame touched off the investigation in the first place. One lawyer involved in the case who declined to be identified because of the matter's confidentiality said Novak decided "early on" to cooperate with Fitzgerald's probe and ID his source--whom Fitzgerald never charged, apparently because the mystery leaker told the truth to the grand jury.

There are plenty of people to blame. However, the accountability and liability pretty much end at the WH.

That said, while many may wish the WH to do things differently, there is thankfully little behavior on their part which is worthy of condemnation. There is often great merit in patience, reservation, and deliberation.

Aside from Shakespeare, Lincoln, Churchill, and a scant few others, nobody is indispensible, and the POTUS clearly recognizes that.  Events arise, the world turns, and these troubles seem as inconsequential now as they did when they arose, and they likely won't get more serious.

What's vitally important to Lewis Libby and Joe Wilson may not be all that important to the rest of us.

http://www.slate.com/id/2128918/?nav=fix

This article is from a Democratic site, but is has a lot of good Novak links.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131258/

This is a Novak interview in 2003. In it, Novak talked about his contacts with the CIA and the risks of outing Plame.

Russert: In your most recent column on Wednesday you wrote this: "The CIA official asked me not to use her name, saying that she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause `difficulties' if she were to travel abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name." You have said that there was a "weak request" not to publish her name. What if the CIA had given you a strong request? What would they have said to you, and would you have obliged?

Novak: Just precisely what I said in the column, Tim. If they said that she was endangered, I would not have written the column. They never said she was endangered. If they really were strong about this and competent, they would have done at least that. I know George Tenet, the director. They would have put him on, and he would have said, "Novak, don't write this," and I would not if this woman is in danger. Now, let me add one other thing. This business about she'll never again have a foreign assignment, this was not made as a conditional question. This was said that she'll probably never have a foreign assignment, period. Had nothing to do with me or nothing to do, I presume, with her husband. But...

Russert: Did you tell them at the time you were going to write the name?

Novak: Ah, yes.

Russert: They knew it?

Novak: Oh, yes. And that's why they said--this is at the end of a fairly long conversation over the report by Ambassador Wilson, which you correctly summarized earlier in this program. But I would like to repeat that once again; that there was never a question of her life being in danger. And that was either because these people didn't think her life was in danger or they thought it and were not competent in conveying it to me.

Novak's explanation of the leak of Plame's role might be a mistake. The leaker gave him the name offhand, while discussing other topics.

This is the main leaker and it cannot be Rove for two reasons: first, Rove is the second leaker, the one who didn't do anything other than confirm; second, Rove clearly is a "partisan gunslinger".

It also can't be Libby, because as mentioned in #218 above, Fitzgerald apparently did not indict the main leaker, "because the mystery leaker told the truth to the grand jury". It is also possible that this mystery leaker accidentally let the secret slip, so Fitzgerald knew he couldn't win in court or decided there was no reason to punish him.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131258/

Robert Novak: ... So in interviewing a senior administration official on a number of other subjects, I asked him if he could explain why, and he said, "Well, his wife works in the counterproliferation section at the CIA and that she suggested his mission." And it was given to me as an offhand manner and by a person who is, as I wrote in the column, not a partisan gunslinger by any means.

dKos calls you a wingnut? really? in my opinion you are so incrediably reasonable.

It's also possible that the "leak" was intentional, but, for whatever reasons, Fitzgerald decided that he couldn't get a conviction under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act.

If what Novak said is true, it would be almost impossible to convict the leaker of anything. He could say, "Bob asked me the question, and the answer slipped out". Even if the leak was really deliberate, Fitzgerald couldn't prove otherwise.

The document you link to is on the White House web site, but it contains the text of a Congressional resolution. Since the topic was Bush's case for war, a more relevant document would be a transcript of his address to the nation in which he announced his decision to overthrow Saddam:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

The key passage:

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

Looks like our trolling lefties are all talk and no game; ever ready to allege and smear, as long as it doesn't cost them anything personally.

Well, you'll find that RedStaters don't take kindly to empty rhetoric, and we have ways of sniffing it out.  Next time you wish to deploy your troll talking points, have a care -- on this site, you will be challenged.

just as relevant:

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

As I've said before, the liberation of 50 million people at one time was considered a worthy cause, in and of itself, by people on the Left.  Apparently, that time will not return until a Republican no longer occupies the White Houses, oppressed masses be damned.

I think the odds are strongly in favor of Plame being a covert agent according to definition A:

(4) The term "covert agent" means--

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency--

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;

She is an employee of the CIA, and Fitzpatrick and other sources have said that her identity as such is classified.

So the only questionable part is (ii). Has she "within the last five years served outside the United States"?

A couple of articles mentioned that she does overseas travel as part of her job, but don't say how much. We have no indication that she actually moved outside the US during the last five years, that is actually moved all her belongings overseas.

So the question then is can "served" outside the United States refer to trips, rather than permanent relocation? I think it is pretty clear that service can include travel, not just relocation.

One reason for saying that is the language of the law itself (#127 above). Section A of the law talks about "serving" outside the US while section B talks about "resides and acts" outside. So serving is different from residing, and the Congress that passed this law in 1982 chose to say "serving" in the section for intelligence personnel.

Also CIA agents might only spend a few months abroad in one assignment, or travel for a few weeks at a time, and it wouldn't make sense for them to need to sell their house and change their residence just to get protection from the law. An agent who spends 50% of their time abroad still needs protection from having their cover blown, and from having their network of contacts put in danger.

Here is the law, which wasn't cut & pasted properly into #228 right above:

4) The term "covert agent" means--

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency--

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

1 - last time I checked congress has the power to declare war, so I'll stick with their source document; and

2 - there doesn't seem to be anything objectionable with the key passage you've cited. Replace the word "Iraq" with Iran or North Korea and it's an equally accurate description, although you need to revisit comment #1 to commence firing.

you clearly understand Plame to be covered by IIPA. But Fitzgerald, after two years and several million dollars, can't clearly come out and say that? We obviously had the wrong guy working the problem.

From: July 14, 2004

The Joseph Wilson / Valerie Plame Timeline

by Tom Maguire

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/footnotes/2004/07/the_joseph_wils.html

Oct 11, 2003: "Secrets of the Scandal <http://www.helenair.com/articles/2003/10/14/opinions/a04101403_02.txt>," The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof Kristof makes several revelations: Plame's identity may already have been compromised by Aldrich Ames in 1994; Plame was steadily moving from non-official cover to official cover from the State Department; it was somewhat known in Washington that Plame had CIA connections, but her exact position was a well-guarded secret.

According to Bill Gertz:

"The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation, U.S. officials say.

    Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

    In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana."

CIA officer named prior to column

By Bill Gertz

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040722-115439-4033r.htm

How many times can a "covert agent" be outed & still be "covert?"  Or, how many times can a "covert agent" be outed before it becomes impossible to prove that the CIA is taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her identity?

My guess is that, even if Pflame was a "covert agent" as that term is defined in 50 USC Subsection 426(4), under all of the circumstances here, Fitzgerald concluded that he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the CIA was taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her covert status, as is required for a conviction under 50 USC Section 421.  Hence no indictments at all under IIPA - even of Novak's original source.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000
-.html

Well then we're back to why carry on an investigation - the original assignment was for "an alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity". Aside from the investigation charges (obstruction/perjury/false statements) the only thing left is espionage.

Would have been very curious to see that prosecution.

And although I hold back a bit here, on DKos I frequently vent the full fury of my opinions.

The main thing that causes people to call me a wingnut there is when I disagree with claims that no-one ever spit on a vetran returning from the Vietnam war.

Some day, I'm going to get the time to do some research on it, and post a diary about the arguments for and against it.

According to this Washington Post article, Fitzgerald's investigation could be finished in two weeks.

Fitzgerald's original grand jury was released from service Friday, after its term expired. Courthouse officials said he is likely to "borrow" a grand jury already convened to investigate additional crimes if needed, and could wrap up his investigation in less than two weeks. It is not uncommon for a prosecutor to quickly present his case to a new grand jury and ask for an indictment, they said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR200510310
1494.html

...you can't think for yourself?  

The overriding concept behind you being banned, once you made the requisite effort, was that you stay banned. Not that you re-register and continue posting inane comments.

Now be a good boy and go away.

...and they'll come at you with their CAP GUNS BLAZING.

see Ronnie Earle.  This investigation is two years long, has crates of documentation and the WaPo thinks he's going to take a new GJ and get indictiments in two weeks?  Doubt it...

that is a bit absurd to expect a news organization to have resources equivalent to a national intelligence agency.

Let's say that the facts of the indictment were true, except that instead of lying to the investigators & grand jury Libby told them the truth. Could they have gotten him for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act?

The important test in the law is:

(b) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Most of this clearly seems to apply to Libby, based on what is stated in the indictment.

The penalty here is only five years. Part (a) of the law is 10 years. Given that Libby allegedly lied, Fitgerald could get the same thing and more much more easily with the perjury charges, so it isn't surprising he did it.

the case.

There are several tests that have to be met. All of them must be met to constitute a violation of the law. What you cite is one element of proof and by no means the "most important."

The law has three different tests. Meeting the requirements for a single test proves a violation of that law. That is true because each one has a different sentence, ranging from 3 to 10 years.

Why didn't Fitz indict anyone for IIPA or Espionage Act violations?

I submit that Fitz actually had all of the evidence he needed & his "sand in the face" comments are an attempt to hinder Libby's materiality defense. If you read the Press Release & the Indictment (links elsewhere in this thread), it's clear that Fitz had a lot of other evidence.  He had testimony from a number of other witnesses, as well as e-mails, notes & documents.

It appears that Fitz didn't need additional evidence to prove violations of IIPA or the Espionage Act, he needed a different case.

Wu Wei,

I can't tell whether you're puzzled that there were no IIPA or Espionage Act indictments, or dismayed that there were no such indictments.  In all liklihood, we'll probably never know why Fitz hasn't issued any other indictments.  As a Special Prosecutor he isn't required to issue a report or summarize his findings or conclusions.  The Libby indictment (& trial?) may be all we ever hear from Fitz on this topic.

As you've noted in other posts, it appears that Fitz is winding up & other indictments don't look likely.  For the most part, the rest of the world (other than, perhaps, Harry Reid) has moved on to the Alito nomination.  However, there are still a few threads on this investigation over at Tom Maguire's (justoneminute.typepad.com).  While there's little interest or activity on this topic over here, there are still some lively discussions over there.

I don't frequently comment; obviously I am not a toe-the-party-line Republican (I am in fact not registered with any party). I occasionally comment when I think there's something to say.