Skip to main content

Anne Marie Squeo writes in Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2006, that Fitzgerald Aims to Show An Organized Plan Led to Leak of CIA Agent's Name.

How do you spell C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y? New evidence suggests the scope of the White Houses "leaks" of NIE and CIA intelligence was more extensive than previously suspected.

WASHINGTON -- The special prosecutor trying the case against former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis Libby will try to show that the leaking of a CIA agent's name grew out of a highly organized administration effort that commanded high-level attention, a court filing this week shows.

Scooter Libby's "Too Busy" Defense

Scooter Libby's defense seems to be he was so busy following President Bush's instructions to leak other NIE intelligence that Valerie Plame's name slipped out as an oversignt and then he forgot about it. So he never actually intended to deceive the Prosecutor.

Pretrial filings by Mr. Libby's defense team indicate they intend to argue that any misstatements made in Mr. Libby's testimony to investigators and a grand jury were innocent mistakes because of his focus on more pressing national-security issues. They are seeking a wide array of classified and sensitive information they say is necessary for trial, including secret daily intelligence briefings given to the president.

...the prosecutor...attacked Mr. Libby's bad-memory defense by introducing new information about the attention -- including by President Bush -- placed on responding to Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador and critic of the Iraq war.

Thank goodness for these pretrial motions that are disclosing much new evidence. I was afraid that the January trial date would suppress all the details until after the elections.

But, as it turns out, this daily water torture of new revelations is highlighting information that might otherwise get ignored. Machevelli recommended getting bad news out fast and all at once. So why is the Bush Administration sticking to this painful stonewalling approach?

Pretrial Motions Part Of PR Campaign?

Lawyers say in a high-profile legal battle like this, where the judge already has warned both sides not to try their case in public, pretrial motions become a critical element in the public-relations campaign.

"Mr. Libby's defense, as we understand it, is that because of his 24-7 national-security responsibilities, he just forgot his conversations with reporters," says Scott Fredericksen, a Washington defense attorney and former prosecutor. "And what Mr. Fitzgerald is telling the judge here is that Mr. Libby was expressly authorized to go have these conversations with reporters by the vice president and authorized to release classified information by the president. That is a unique situation and not very forgettable."

It looks like Fitzgerald got the better of this exchange.

White House Does Not Deny Declassification Was Intended To Counter War Critics

One of the most disturbing aspects of these leaks has been allegations they were conducted for political purposes. To discredit Joe Wilson for his challenges to President Bush's rationale for war. Bush claimed his reason for the war was to prevent an urgent threat that Saddham Hussein was on the verge of acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction.

But after Wilson's challenges to Bush's WMD claims became more public, both Karl Rove and Stephen Hadley became concerned about the possible negative impact that public disclosure of their their numerous deceptions might on the 2004 re-elections campaign.

So critics have charged that the Bush administration wanted to discredit Joe Wilson by making it seem that his Niger trip was only a personal junket due to an innappropriate suggestion by his wife, Valerie Plame. This would imply that Bush declassified NIE intelligence to empower a political hit job. In the White House press conferences of the last two days, Scott McClellan has not denied these allegations, but focused instead on clumsy attempts to distinquish between others "leaking" intelligence and the President "selectively" declassifying" intelligence for the public good.

On Friday, the White House didn't challenge the assertion that Mr. Bush declassified intelligence information to counter war critics. White House spokesman Scott McClellan spent nearly an hour drawing a distinction between the leaking of information judged to be "in the public interest" and the willful disclosure of information that could endanger national security.

Comparing and Contrasting the WSJ Report With Prior Jason Leopold Report

Late yestersday, Jason Leopold published a much more extensive and detailed analysis of the same sections of the Fitzgerald court documents. In the past, new revelations would often take weeks to wind their way from avant garde investigative reporters such as Waas, Leopold, Larrisa into their subsequent report in the MSM

Now, revelations about the Fitzgerald investigation are jumping from the fringe blogs to the MSM within hours.

Yesterday, HoundDog, advanced a theory that this reduction of delays in information flow might be evidence that this investigation has passed a "tipping point," and we have moved into a new phase. And he predicts this acceleration will continue.

And as further evidence of the exponential growth in information surrounding these charges, HoundDog's diary built around this Leopold piece has grown so rapidly, that he asked me if I would take it so he could focus more on resignations. So thank you HoundDog.

George Bush and Dick Cheney Must Resign: New Evidence Suggests White House Conspiracy.

Jason Leopold Reports Evidence of Conspiracy May Be Surfacing In Fitzgerald Court Papers,

Jason reports in Truth Out Evidence Suggests White House Conspiracy

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald stated in a court filing late Wednesday in the CIA leak case that his investigators have obtained evidence during the course of the two-year-old probe that proves "multiple" White House officials conspired to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence.

This is the first time the special counsel has acknowledged that White House officials are alleged to have engaged in a coordinated effort to undercut the former ambassador's credibility by disseminating classified intelligence information that would have contradicted Wilson's public statements.

Fitzgerald's court filing was made in response to attorneys representing I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, who was indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators related to his role in the leak. The attorneys are desperately trying to obtain evidence from the government that will prove Libby did not intentionally lie to the grand jury when he was asked how he found out about Plame Wilson and whether he shared that information with the media.

Furthermore, Libby's attorneys have argued that they are entitled to the evidence in order to prove Libby was not engaged in a "plot" to discredit Wilson. However, Fitzgerald says the evidence he has obtained proves there was a coordinated effort by White House officials to discredit Wilson.

Notice that when looking at the same sources, Jason, includes Fitzgerald use of the word conspired, which the WSJ more abstractly describes as "coordination."

Evidence of a "Coordinated" Effort By White House Officials.

Fitzgerald wrote in the filing, "There exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and after July 14, 2003."

Although Fitzgerald makes it abundantly clear that Libby is not charged with conspiracy, he argues that Libby's suggestion that there was no White House plot to discredit Wilson is ludicrous, given the amount of evidence Fitzgerald has in his possession that suggests otherwise.

"Once again, defendant ignores the fact that he is not charged with participating in any conspiracy, much less one defined as a 'White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson,'" the filing states. "Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July 14, 2003, discussed Wilson's wife's employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 - which evidence has been shared with defendant - it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson."

In HoundDog's narrative of this he notes:

Now we seeing Fitzgerald in action. And is he not one tough cookie? I wish I could see video of this.  Is he raising his voice here, or calmly reading of off?  Which would be more devastating?

Leopold Say Sources Suggest Karl Rove and Stephen Hadley Are Involved

Fitzgerald did not name the other White House officials who were involved in the effort to undercut Wilson, but sources close to the case said that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley are the officials who were involved in the alleged plot.

A footnote in the court filing states that Hadley was involved in conversations and meetings at Cheney's office in which White House officials discussed how to respond to Wilson's statement that the administration used bogus intelligence to make a case for war.

Hadley suggested declassifying a portion of the highly sensitive National Intelligence Estimate and leaking it to reporters as a way of responding to Wilson's statements.

"The government is producing to defendant Mr. Hadley's notes of meetings and conversations in which both defendant and Mr. Hadley participated, and in which the potential declassification of the NIE was discussed," the court filing says.

New Evidence Of Libby Move To Have WH Exonerate Him Via McClellan

And another new piece shows that Scotter Libby was trying to get Scott McClellan to exhonerate him.

Moreover, Wednesday's court filing lays out for the first time how White House press secretary Scott McClellan came to publicly exonerate Libby and Rove during a press briefing in October 2003, three months after Plame Wilson's identity was unmasked.

The filing suggests that Libby lied about his role in the leak when McClellan asked him about it in October 2003. Libby, with Vice President Cheney's backing, persuaded the press secretary to clear his name during one of his morning press briefings, and prepared notes for him to use.

"Though defendant knew that another White House official had spoken to Novak in advance of Novak's column and that official had learned in advance that Novak would be publishing information about Wilson's wife, defendant did not disclose that fact to other White House officials (including the Vice President) but instead prepared a handwritten statement of what he wished White House Press Secretary McClellan would say to exonerate him:

People have made too much of the difference in
How I described Karl and Libby
I've talked to Libby.
I said it was ridiculous about Karl.
And it is ridiculous about Libby.
Libby was not the source of the Novak story.
And he did not leak classified information."

"As a result of defendant's request, on October 4, 2003, White House Press Secretary McClellan stated that he had spoken to Mr. Libby (as well as Mr. Rove and Elliot Abrams) and "those individuals assured me that they were not involved in this."

McClellan's public statement and the fact that President Bush vowed to fire anyone in his office involved in the leak were motivating factors that led Libby to lie during an interview with FBI investigators in November 2003, Fitzgerald states in the court filing: "Thus, as defendant approached his first FBI interview he knew that the White House had publicly staked its credibility on there being no White House involvement in the leaking of information about Ms. Wilson and that, at defendant's specific request through the Vice President, the White House had publicly proclaimed that defendant was 'not involved in this"

Conclusion And Next Steps

I agree with HoundDog's note that the Bush administration's credibility in this matter is degenerating quickly. And I second HoundDog's call for Bush and Cheney resign. But, I do not believe they will do so. If they had that much of a conscience they wouldn't have committed half of these this transgressions in the first place.

So we need to refocus public attention on the John Conyers Articles of Inquiry. HRC 635, 636, and 637.

I will put up links from the House Judiciary Committe and we can think up some useful actions steps to try and identify two GOP HJC memeber to turn from the dark side to the forces of good. LOL

Cheers

:-)

Originally posted to Lolligolli on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:57 PM PDT.

Poll

Do you believe this news foreshadows Conspiracy Indictments from Patrick Fitzgerald?

68%677 votes
7%72 votes
24%246 votes

| 995 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  No THANK YOU (25+ / 0-)

      That this was published in the Wall Street Journal - the Official Apologist© for all that is Conservative and Wealthy© - could end up being damning evidence that GWB may be outliving his welcome.  The massive deficit will come back to bite many of the old school conservative elite through monetary devaluation.

      "Well, besides all that, jeez, what a jerk this Bush guy is - thumbing his nose at the world. Why, some day, the world may actually take offence and not allow we wealthy poltroons* to plunder as we wish," one could imagine William F. Buckley sniffing.....

      _________________________________________
      ` * pol·troon  —  An ignoble, uncourageous person

      [French poltron, from Old Italian poltrone, coward, idler, perhaps augmentative of poltro, unbroken colt (from Vulgar Latin *pulliter, from Latin pullus, young animal) or from poltro, bed, lazy.]

      The noun poltroon has one meaning:

      Meaning #1: an abject coward
       Synonyms: craven, recreant

      The adjective poltroon has one meaning:

      Meaning #1: characterized by complete cowardlines

      •  WSJ vs. WSJ editorial page (18+ / 0-)

        The "Official Apologist© for all that is Conservative and Wealthy©" status belongs to the WSJ Editorial Page, not the WSJ itself.  They're really two separate things.  The WSJ itself has some stellar reporters who do good work.

        •  The reporter do good work, agreed. (4+ / 0-)

          But if the publisher doesn't agree, it doesn't get printed. Editors pull stuff all the time that publishers don't like.

          Can you find very many articles (in the WSJ) that factually dispute positions taken by the WSJ Editorial Board on the Editorial Page? It's an interesting game...

          •  The WSJ and NYT are my two favorite newspapers. (4+ / 0-)

            I think you are both right to some extent.  WSJ has outstanding journalist and some off the best writers around.  But thbe editors do exert an influence.

            And I think it would be difficult for a writer not to lean slightly in the direction of the chain of command and philophy of the publishers.

            •  I was always partial to the NYT (8+ / 0-)

              After the whole Judith Miller affair, though, I've had a hard time contributing in any way to their revenue stream.  They also have other fine reporters.

              Since they changed their modus operandi from "All the News that's Fit to Print" to "All the News we Want to Shill for Our Masters" I've never looked at the NYT quite the same way.

              A pessimist sees a glass half empty. I see a paper cup with holes punched in it.

              by Paper Cup on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:32:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The NYT has gone WAY downhill since Pinch (13+ / 0-)

                took over some 10-15 years ago. I first started noticing it way before 2000, with glaring spelling and grammar mistakes in nearly every issue, and writing styles that wouldn't have been fit for an Ivy League college freshman 30 years ago. And then there's the content, or lack thereof. I probably wrote better pieces when I wrote for my college paper.

                I wouldn't blame the reporters, per se, although of course it is their research, analysis and writing that's published, so much as their editors, who allow this crap to make in into the paper. They really should be ashamed of themselves. Even when the spelling and grammar are fine, and the style ok, the content is often scarily amateurish. No serious analysis, no questioning of assumptions, no real attempt to do proper research beyond transcribing the "he said/she said" talking points.

                Just terrible. I pity people who get their news only from traditional sources, especially the big corporate ones. Not all of it is bad. Some of it continues to be outstanding. But the bread and butter stuff has really headed south under Pinch (and his counterparts at other major papers and the 3 networks and CNN--Fox isn't news so it doesn't count).

                "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

                by kovie on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:52:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hi kovie. I just went back and cleaned up (5+ / 0-)

                  spelling, grammer, punctuation, and other sloppiness at the request of paper cut.
                  y
                  I went to an Ivy Leaque University but was an engineer.  

                  I haven't even got to the serious analsis, questioning of assumptions etc.  If I have any defense, here, it's cause that darned Houndog called at 1130pm asking if I would let him offload, the Conspiracy piece if I wasn't using my diary today.

                  I wasn't but do want to do one tomorrow.  He wasn't ready to give the Leopold stuff so I went out and grabbed the WSJ thing and wrote up the entire first draft in the last 15 minutes left before midnight.  Actually posted at 11:58 EST I think.  

                  By the time I got back from getting the Leopold piece I had 50 comments to respond to.  Which is my favorite part.

                •  The irony (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  3goldens, HoundDog

                  is that, at this point, the WSJ's hard news is better on fact-grounded content than the Times', albeit somewhat narrow in perspective, being a business paper. If only we could somehow graft the Times' editorial page onto the Journal's news operation, we'd have one very good newspaper.

                  I've been reading the Times for almost 50 years, and it breaks my heart to see what it has descended to, not only in content, usage and (often) style, but most often in news-editing decisions. I mean things like Adam Nagourney opining on the Democratic Party's lack of ideas, without one single hard-news fact in the entire piece, running as a news article, not a feature, front-page and above the fold. Or you get sensationalistic bad taste like the text of a Sept. 11 911 call in oversized type on the front page.

                  I still read the Times every day (and truth be told, I have a hard time reading the WSJ), but it's a ghost of itself.

                  -8.25,-8.36 The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

                  by sidnora on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:22:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree, sidnora. How sad to watch these two (0+ / 0-)

                    amazing news organization dwindle rather than improve.  

                    How much fun it is to find a group of folks who like to speculate on combining the WSJ news operations, with the old time NYT editorial board!  LOL

                    I've always envied my sports friends who generate instant rapturiouis attention at the drop of a hat at parties, when they get starry eyed and wonder how wonderful the world would have been if the Red Soxs had kept Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle.  :=)

                    Can you imagine how different the world would be today if we all hadn't had to suffer those many tragic decades of Yankee dominance?

                    Could you image what it must have been like for our grandparent?  Metaphorically, equivelent to five decades of GOP control of the House, Senate, and White HOuse.

                    I took my son to see Godsmack and Metalicca at the Tweeter Center last year.  As tens of thousands of fans lined up and proceeded into the Stadium the crowd spontaneously broke out into collective chants of "Yankees Suck! Yankee!" suck.  

                    My son thought it was the most wonderful thing in the world.  

                    He asked, "Dad, is this what it was like in the 60's at rock concerts?"

                    Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

                    by HoundDog on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:52:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm confessing (0+ / 0-)

                      to profound ignorance - but where is Tweeter Center? Is it in Boston?

                      To tell the truth, I always had great fun hating the Yankees when I was a kid, growing up in Brooklyn. It was an art here, and it was kinda like being a Democrat in a college town in a red state - you had plenty of support close at hand, but you were aware that your little patch of National League fandom was isolated in a sea of Yankees-loving bullies. And I was a true oddball, because I was a Giants fan (my dad lived in Manhattan as a kid). Dodger fans and Giant fans had their own rivalry (cf. The Shot Heard 'Round the World), but once the pennant race was over we always closed ranks against the despised Yankees.

                      LOL re your son's comment - I don't remember ever expressing any sentiment about sports at any rock concert in the 60's - too stoned, I guess!

                      And I wish the Times/WSJ thing didn't matter so much more than the Giants (or the Sox) vs. the Yankees.

                      -8.25,-8.36 The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

                      by sidnora on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 07:41:20 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  speaking of the NYT (0+ / 0-)

                did anyone see Judith Miller's atty on last night...I think it was w/Wolf... all he seemed to want to talk about was how this affects any possibility of a pardon for Libby!

              •  Entertainment is one of the missions of the NYTco (0+ / 0-)

                So educating the public for the betterment of a civil society is trumped by distrative inforamation.

                All the king's horses and all the king's men...package and sell it to win it again...

                by MP Three on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:26:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  the NYT response to the 'leak' has been abysmal (0+ / 0-)

                Has anyone else noticed that they don't seem to get the point - that WHY the leak took place matters (thank you frameshop)
                 and that selective declassification is not the issue either
                 - the president lying is one issue and the federal crime of outing a CIA agent for purposes of revenge and political gain is the other issue.

                Lte's and Dowd get both those points but the paper doesn't - I guess they are too embedded to see the obvious.

                You don't get to keep democracy unless you fight for it.

                by artebella on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:29:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Nah. I stopped subscribing because I got tired (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HoundDog

            of the non-stop neocon editorials, but I've seen the publishers lambast global warming, while a global warming article was running on the inside front page, so it isn't quite as monolithic an effort as you may imagine.

          •  Yes... (6+ / 0-)

            WSJ OpED has regularly printed opinions directly contradicted by articles elsewhere in it's paper, going back well into Clinton's presidency.  WSJ OpED has been in realm of the absurd for quite some years now.  

            Call in the Gigot era.

            I would mention, as an example of their pull w/the conservative-neo con "true believers": Thursday they published a main feature opinion "suggesting" the repubs aggresively re-frame public discourse to head off dem congressional takeover in upcoming midterms.  Topic: Bush has cut (list 'em) taxes, dems have fought every one.  

            So yesterday, Rove is making speaches (covered by C-SPAN) to the Repub faithful saying just that (most of his narrative very deceptive).

            I subscribed to WSJ for 25+ years.  Even throught Clinton years, I held my nose and continued reading for value delivered in non-OpED sections.  Finally I dropped it last year.  I'll mention, when I failed to renew I recieved multiple calls from their marketing people to whom I explained my reason: I could not stomach their OpED any longer.  When I asked if they often heard this, each and every one said a very stong... yes.  A couple indicated their has been considerable loss of subscribers for same reasons I stated.

            "My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted." -- Steven Wright

            by jdmckay on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:30:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  NYT & WSJ (0+ / 0-)
              There is still enough value in both papers that we coninte to get them.  Beyond the news articles, however, we are plenty sick of all the life style crap.  Poorly reported (if we dare use that word in this context) and tabloid in tone.  There are plenty of places to get that stuff. Why the NYT & WSJ?
              •  The WashingtonPost online has made great strides (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                HoundDog

                in linking to blogged stories and providing additional background information on stories such as the Plame issue.  

                Their mission statement is more worthy of the name journalism and they do seek to find the truth.

                All the king's horses and all the king's men...package and sell it to win it again...

                by MP Three on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:29:07 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, Sadly the quality of writing of both the NYT (0+ / 0-)

                  and WSJ seems to have declined (on average) over the decades, but sufficient brillian exceptions still pop up that I try to scan both everyday when I can get access.

                  And even the worst day of writing in the NYT and WSJ exceeds the best in many other Newspapers. Both NTY and WSJ still attract and develop many outstanding and gifted writers.  

                  I admire and try to learn as much as I can from many and would volunteer to be the coffee person in either place if they'd let me hang out their to absorb the culture and maybe a little of the talent.

                  I still fondly remember my first WSJ. I had dropped out of Cornell and sought refuge as a special student at MIT and the Harvard University Extension night school.  

                  My many friends in both places would let me hang out there. This was back in the days, that even some of the students in the better universities would sometime experiment with altered state of consciousness as part of personal research programs.

                  (As I tell my son, we pretty much exhausted this line of scientific exploration so I don't recommend folks waste their time retread worn out lines of esxperimentation.  So many more promising and safer avenues of experimentation are avaiable now. (Like reading the NYT and WSJ straight!))

                  But anyway, back to the story, one of our friends  rushed in "stoned out of his mind" and tremendously excited waving his first copy of the Wall Street Journal. A bunch of us were playing really early versions of self made souped up video games the course six students hooked up (EE).  

                  We passed around this new found WSJ, as if it were a newly discovered ancient Egyption artifact containing long lost mytical secrets.

                  We all toked up and spent the whole afternoon reading and re-reading this one astonishingly vivid front page article figuring out the tricks the writer had used to capture our attention and tell the story so well.  

                  Our attention focused on this one really long front page article that poured out onto a later page.  Never before had we witness such an amazing newspaper story.

                  We kept reading it outloud over and over.  From the very first word our attention was captivated, seduced and pulled into the second.  And the third.  

                  And we all agreed the whole first sentence was exactly the kind of opening jewel this brutal English teacher had been demanding that his   tortured students produce to pass the mandatory English writing course required for graduation.  Prior to this many were so desparate with confusion and dispair that we were keeping an eye on them least they end it all.  

                  But out of the some 300,000 possible first, second, and third words, this master bard author had somehow known how to select the exact perfect words and combine them in the right order to get an opening sentence that was irresistable.

                  Even after reading it many times, and knowing full well where it would go. If you read this first sentence, one could not resist the overwhelming urge to read the second and third and so on.

                  Then paragraph after paragraph.  And before we knew it we had all finished to the bottom of an embedded page and actually read every word of our first whole Newspaper article.

                  The key insight, I think, was the author appearred to let the story line choose the words, rather than the other way around.  (I don't remember exactly, but it worked well enough our friend managed to pass the course.)

                  We were so amazed we did experiments with some others in the house and even most of them were instantly seduced and read the whole article even when there were no plausibe purpose for doing so!

                  This was like a miracle and I can assure you that this article saved many of these young engineers who had been struggling to figure out the "formulas" for passing their mandatory English class.

                  This story was written so well, it like transported all of us to these different places like a time machine.  

                  Decades later when I saw Ted and Steves Most Excellent Adventure (?), where George Carlin gives them a time t ravelling telephone booth and they go back in time and collect up "ancient historical dudes" such as Socrates, Lincoln, and Napoleon to pass their High School History class semester project, it was like Deju Vu all over again.

                  What nostolgia. How I wish I could travel back in time and relive those experiences.

                  The most counter-intuitive insight of my whole life has been the realization that if I ever do achieve the dream of experiencing such time travel, it  will be more probably enabled through the magic writing of an English major rather than as I expected back then of the mathematics of an engineer.    

                  I wish I could remember who the author was and what that article was but it was the turning point in my life where I gained my first deep and sincere respect and appreciation for English Majors.  

                  Prior to that I had mistakenly assumed that was the sad fate of last resort for those whom bombed their Math SATs.

                  Sorry about this liberal arts friends. I since have double majors in social science and passed the PhD general exams in both math, social science, and anthropology.  Please don't troll rate me.  I'm only confessing arrogance of the past.

                  As I said, form that moment on, I've been a changed person! And some of my best friends are liberal arts majors!

                  I've tried many times to go back and find that wonderful article without success. But like the old antropoligist who tries to inspire a discouraged student, whenever, I encounter a student struggling with Freshmen Enlish, I desribe the exotic jungles of the Wall Street Jungles, and say, I can't tell them exactly where it will be, but I know for sure there are ancient undiscovered archeological finds in there someplace.

                  And if they just go exploring, I'm sure they will discover something that will help them get a passing grade.  

                  Sorry for the nostalgic reverie.  I'm trying to get warmed up to write a serious diary on whatever the latest Bush Outrage is.  

                  But I overslept the whole day and am having trouble getting sufficiently outraged to wade through the about 4 dozen latest articles on the developing Plame-Gate scandal.

                  Ha!  I guess this must be how the discouraged students must feel about my advice.  Like, wow, yes, maybe there are some treasure hidden deep within that jungle, but it looks like an awefully dense  and inpeneratabhle thicket from the outside.  

                  But I wish to extend my appreciation to this whole gang of NYT and WSJ enthusiasts.

                  It's so cool to discover fellow travelers.  

                  Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

                  by HoundDog on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:53:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Wouldn't it be cool if the WSJ and NYT decided to (0+ / 0-)

              hire some progressive bloggers?

              We should all send in our resumes.   LOL

              Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

              by HoundDog on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:54:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I agree YucatanMan and think your suspicion that (18+ / 0-)

        the world's financial powers that be, are rapidly decided that Bush and Cheney have outlived their usefulness.  And are pulling the plug or protective cover.

        They have too much to loose by further destabilizing world order and a potential collapse of the US economy and dollar.

        Someone published exerpts this morning from her intelligence gathering on the redstate and conservative blogs, and reported that many of them are seem shell shocked and uncertain as to what to do.

        Like  what can the say really?  

        Also, I keep the TV on in the background while writing, and have noticed a number of usually gungho Bush apologists sort of passing or keeping a distance from trying to defend either Bush or Scott McClellans gymnastic spasms this morning.

        Instead of marshalling partison swords they instead seem to shift over to the stance of a non-partison jounalist observer raising questioins about whether McClellans efforts will be successful.

        This are clues that we are indeed passing through a "tipping point" where the accumulated momentum and combined affect of all the scandals now seems likely to end in the implosion of the Bush Administration.  

        So the balance of power has shifted and the minions are running for cover.  Looking for new masters to serve or hoping at least not to go down with Bush.

        •  Wealth (6+ / 0-)

          There have to be some corporate and financial types who realize that the opportunities and the markets they have been given with which to succeed all flow from our liberties and freedoms here at home.  This country represented all that was good in the world in the 20th century.  Not perfectly, but pretty well.

          It's becoming a backwater of warmongering greedheads now that have put their lust for power and wealth ahead of liberty and freedom on their priority list.  When freedom takes a back seat to profit then there's nothing but trouble ahead.

          A pessimist sees a glass half empty. I see a paper cup with holes punched in it.

          by Paper Cup on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:38:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  YucatanMan (3+ / 0-)

        in response to this from your reply to Lolligolli's :
        Fitzgerald Aims To Show High Level Organized Plan Led To Leak CIA Agents Name (Poll)

        ""could end up being damning evidence that GWB may be outliving his welcome.  The massive deficit will come back to bite many of the old school conservative elite through monetary devaluation.""

        That is the contention that Karl Phillips made inherently clear throughout many of his interviews recently of his new published book : "American Theocracy" but I told them and knew the secret of the money was connected to the Price of Gold and have in here even stated that once Gold went beyond the $448- $453 range the the International Banks were only marking space and time and per se only going through the motions for the eyes of the youth in the business world that aspire to be the CEO's and Fed Chairperson someday.

        As far as this investigation I started defining it yesterday and its a simple device that involves the Constitution (as a Wall of Protections), Oaths of and to the Constitution and Citizens as digits and then the old double negative standard applies and Ms Plame was cast outside the Wall of Protection by actions of conspiracy and that being the conspiracy became the negative behind the Wall of Protection and then to make it positive in the scales of justice the negative of the conspiracy must be exchanged with Ms Plame outside the Wall of constitutional Protection and the "conspirators (in total) must stay outside the Wall of Protection of the Constitution because in placing Ms Plame in jeopardy outside the Walls it placed all citizrns at greater risk. Now in all this the timimg factor is not of consequence because when the choice to set her outside this Protective Constitutional Wall of Protection they then exposed and endangered millions and one, two,three!; either way you flip the omelet! Why because warning and protetion was never afforded Ms Plame professionally in one sense through declassification and that jeopardized millions behind the Wall of Protection and if they cry baby that away from the Republican controlled Tom De Lay Fox News Network Christian Mrs. Goodie Two Women (which they can't in even the Supreme Court) then there is the civilian side of Ms Plame and that endangers 1 Her 2 Her Husband and 3 THEIR DAUGHTER!!! plus furthermore links back to other agents past and present placed at risk along with loved ones and if an agent in the field is at a key point of investigation and her exposure X's him out to be his demise then back to the old verifiable 1st and "THERE ARE MILLIONS OF UNKNOWING AND SLEEPING BEHIND THE WALLS OF THE CONSTITUTION AS WE NO THE CIA IS A CLANDESTINE OPERATION AS WE PAY THEIR SALARIES AND FEES"---

        Last evening here I said in a rambling around that Scott Mc Clellan should resign. And he should and turn "states eveidence so to say"! If not his book is a no-brainer no buy from realistic people but of course his mom's style friends like Kay Baikey Hutchison will make it a big seller and he needs to understand that TV is only a privilege in prison and can be taken away without notice. In fact a judge could order that his privileges be denied and only his rights secured.

        But the AMMO OF THE DAY and the thing that needs to be shown to womens church auxilaries around the nation and prayer groups as well as to the Women on the Supreme Court and the Wives of the Supreme Court men members especially Mrs Roberts and Mrs Alituto (<---is it alito) is from The Huffington Post in this link!</p>

        click on here to play at the tom de lay picture-video

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

        And to think the Republican spoiled brat sissies in their 3 piece suits use the word "despicable" and their type women whatever that is they just gasp in shrike utter fear---they couldn't lift a Pair of their Son's Marine Boots compared to the Women that make America the great country it is"
        Forgive the typos please!

        Coming to your town soon! The Social Security Adminstartion Electric and Power Company. "Omen Tuffy" 1918-1992

        by generic on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 03:34:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How about obsequious to describe..... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson

        the congressional response requiring accountability from BushCo?

        obsequious: toadying, submissive, fawning (Antonym-assertive)

        BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

        by Habanero on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:06:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I've just had a chance to do a significant (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NeuroticBlonde

      rewrite and clean up.  Hope you think it is an improvement.  Sorry if I took out some of the material some of you commented on.  

      If you just arriving, and notice some comment about material not in the diary, it's due to this rewrite.  

      I rushed to get the first draft in before midnight so I would still have my Saturday diary for another topic.

      Thanks for feedback and suggestions.

      :-)

    •  Wish your poll had ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoundDog

      "Boy, I surely hope so" or such as one of the choices ... I just hope that we get this sort of FITZmas ...

      Excellent diary ... thank you ...

      9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

      by besieged by bush on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:10:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you thank you (12+ / 0-)

    I was just about to write a diary on this, and saw yours.  You've done much better than I ever could.

    The frickin' WSJ!!!  This is pretty big, huh??


    Meet the New Pharisees, same as the Old Pharisees.

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:09:14 PM PDT

    •  Thanks you AlyoshaKaramazov. But now I feel a (7+ / 0-)

      little guilty.  Like some who ate all the cake at ta birthday party.  And I took HoundDog's piece as well.

      Yes, the WSJ is a big deal.

      Please feel free to pull all the stops and editorialize, comments, or rant and rave to your hearts desire.  

      I declare you a symbollic "co-author" with all the rights and privelages thereby implied and confered.

      Have fun.

      This is sort of exciting don't you think.  Yes, I know it's been a tradegy for so many hurt by the Bush policies.  

      But after a long dark six year nightmare, I began to worry might never end, it seems as if the tides are turning in more hopeful directions.

      But we need to somehow get formal Congressional like investigation going.  If not formall in the HJC some other Blue ribbon group.

      Do I remember Senator Reid suggesting something like this last week?  

      •  Thank you Lolligolli for posting the link to WSJ (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HoundDog

        and a great analysis of where we're at today. I would have missed the WSJ article as it's not on my daily news stop.

        I read your diary and, without reading any comments, had to fire off an email to my sister, who is attending to an out-of-town guest and can't spend much time attending to Fitz news this weekend. Wrote, "We may be at the tipping point!" I think that news is just as significant as the possible conspiracy charges.

        It's been a long time coming and I thought it may never come, but the MSM is finally noticing some of the news.

        BTW, did you notice the lag of the MSM after the news broke about Libby's claims that the WH authorized the leak? The reporters at the first press conference with Press Secretary Scott McLellan didn't ask him about it. But on the next day they did.

        And now everybody's got something to say.

        YAY!!!!!!

        •  Thanks Raze for these insightful and encouraging (0+ / 0-)

          remarks. I agree.  Lolligolli has written great analysis.  

          And I like the way you highlighted this "Tipping Point" idea.

          I agree.  The Meta-Headline Of The Day yesterday was "Bush-Gate Scandals Pass Tipping Point!"

          The reienforcing (positive) feedback loops driving the exponential growth in the awareness and reports of the Bush Administrations criminal behavior are now strong enough to easily overcome the balanceing (negative) feedback loops of excess caution, lack of awareness, lack of recognition of their criticality, and fear of retaliation or error that appears to have been holding the MSM back.

          From my viewpoint, I believe history will show the most poignant "event" symbollizing the passing of this "tipping point" was the couragious questions Helen Thomas peristed in asking President Bush at the famous WH press conference that Lolligolli covered so well here in her first diary to hit the "big time" recomended list here at dkos.

          "Why did you really take America To War Mr President!"  

          This was President Bush's "The Emporer Has No Cloths Moment!"

          And when he rambled like a confused and bumbling fool about the Taliband, and 9/11 Helen reduced him to a limp puddle of stale jello by saying "I'm talking about Iraq"  and Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11.

          At that moment, our much loved Helen Thomas demonstated the latent and sadly underused power of the forth estate, and finally held President Bush accountable to a minimal standard of intelligent and direct response to a simple question.

          For six years, other lazy reporters, or through rigid control of all Q and A, Bush has escaped his inability and unwillingness to answer simple and direct questions.

          Lying, kicking up dust and changing the subject had become such common fare, that we all were hypnotized into believing that as sad as it was, this was now the new tolerable deception that he could get away with.

          But once Helen Thomas revealed his nakedness, his cynacle disingenuity, bumbling incompetence, and total contempt for truth and the intelligenced of the American People, we passed a tipping point.

          As if a light form above suddenly illuminated the dangerous and tragic depths to which Bush's criminal administration had taken us.

          But our wonderful "apparently" frail 85 old Helen Thomas demonstrated the awesome power of truth, courage, and insistent and persistent focus on reality.

          And the power of "expectation of a response based on reality and truth."

          The extent to which Helen Thomas held true to her conviction and committment to truth and classic journalistic independence suddenly woke up the country.

          For the first time as a collective people we had that "moment of clarity."  

          The viels of denial were punctured.  And the unbeleivable image of our President Bush standing their in his nakedness, berift of any shred of presidential dignity, honor, competence, or credibility can not be "spun away" by Rovian GOP spinmeisters.

          Which is why yesterday I launched a campaign to call for his resignation and for the House Judiciary Committee to vote on the Articles of Inquiry advanced by Representative John Conyers in HRC 635, 636, and 637,

          Many have responded by saying they support the call but believe I am niave to think Bush would ever voluntarily resign.

          I grant this, which is why we must also launche the impeachment process.

          But, I remind you, that the same things were said of Nixon.  And even a year ago, those of us, saying the exact same things for the exact same reasons as today were derided as tin foil hat goofballs.

          The MSM has only reported in a fraction of the data so far that is contained in the court releases of the Fitzgerald data.

          But none of the these revelations so far is really new.  Only more credibly supported by evidence on the record.  

          But many subsequent chapters of this unseemly scandal are already well known and published widely in diverse and often credible places.

          We have just not been able to get the MSM to focus on it.

          But my expectation is that now that we've passed this tipping point the full extent of the White House Iraq Groups 3 year conspiracy to mislead the public, the Congress, the UN, and the FISA courts in this unprecident attempt to subvert our tri-cameral consitutional based government will soon be seen as such an atrociouis abrogation and abuse of the integrity of the Office of the Presidency that even the GOP will  have no choice to join our calls for impeachment.

          And once a greater recognition of the inevitable outcome becomes clear, no responsible American, with the possible except of Bush and Cheney will be willing to put our country through pain and damage of the full impeachment process.

          And like with President Nixon, a somber group of senior most GOP figures probably including Howard Baker, and maybe even George Bush (41) will repeat the somber march from Capital Hill to the White House we saw with Nixon.

          And George Bush will be informed that it is time to resign for the good of our country.

          And that if he doesn't the GOP will unite with the Democrats and quickly impeach him in an unneccessary and disgraceful way.

          And if they don't, as long as the Democrats remain as couragious and as committed to the truth and expectation of integrity and competence from the President as the proper functioning of our Constitutional Government requires, the voters in November will sweep in so many Democrats to the HOuse and Senate just for the purpose of restoring our prescious Constitution that we will quicly impeach this criminal president and vice president.

          But I believe the GOP is too clever and attached to power to let this happen.

          They are delighted to still be able to intimadate the Democratic leadership into the old submission.

          But as some as more Democratic leaders shirk off the chains of their clueless consultant advisors and recognize the mathematical implications of the Helen Thomas Tipping Point things will change fast.

          I stake my reputation on it.

          Cheers,

          :-)

          Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

          by HoundDog on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:43:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Go for it AlyoshaKaramazov. So many implications, (0+ / 0-)

      insights, consequences, questions, action steps, links to other clues, and unsolved mysteries remain for exploration I believe most here would support a minor stretch of the no multiple diaries "guidelines."

      So go for it.  

      And you can always use the change the headline trick.

      Like "MSB Miss Key Fitzgerald Revelation! Bush Even More Dastardly Than Thought!"

      Then you can reference the same journal article as a supporting reference to your original new thoughts.

      And, just drop me an email when you do it and I'll rush over and support your bravery, and acute discrimination to have discovered even more jewels of insight buried deep in this fast breaking scandal.

      And in all honesty AlyoshaKaramazov, I've been reading and writing on this about 18 hours a day.

      And have read so many articles in the last 72 hours they are all sort of blurring togather.

      So I found it useful to read other folks impressions just to know what has bubbled up in their minds as the big picture.  Or most interesting detail.

      This is so rich, much room remains for diverse interpretations.

      So please go ahead and share with us your thoughts.

      Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

      by HoundDog on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:04:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Guess we can park (4+ / 0-)

    the  "Jason Leopold is an inaccurate muckraker" meme, at least for this topic.

    •  why exactly? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      catfish, subtropolis, Sanuk

      I can see some echoes of Waas' reporting, but I don't see what the WSJ piece owes to Leopold's claims.

    •  what smintheus said (n/t) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      catfish, Sanuk

      -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

      by subtropolis on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:32:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What is with the Leopold groupies? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      curtadams, Sanuk, Lolligolli
      He's gotten some stuff right and some wrong.

      There seems to be a blogosphere movement to rally behind this guy.

      •  My impression is that its a counter rally. (5+ / 0-)

        And perhaps I've contributed to help swinging it back too far in the opposite direction.

        Last fall any mention of Jason's name would brings out hoardes of anti-jason pack dogs.  

        For an example, see HoundDog column of Dec 21, 2005 for example.  

        HoundDog did some straght forward quoting of a Leopold article with atrribution.  And if I remember correctly most of it was historical background that was already confirmed.

        And all new stuff was clearly labeled as "sources say, or " whatever.

        But there must have been three dozen comments blasting Leopold and even I think implying HoundDog was trying to pull a fast one on the dkos community by quoting such a scounderal.

        I'm a friend of HoundDog.  I hope he doesn't mind me saying so, but he was so depressed about it he didn't write another diary here for about a month and a half.  

        But I also, know my dear freind is really sensitive to criticism, and I didn't really look carefully enough at the column to be able to say with confidence if the criticism were excessive or if HoundDog was just overwhelmed by some of the more agressive and snippy type folks that seem to be more common back then.

        I thought he ought to be pleased because it was one of his first reccomended diaries and he got hundreds of comments and reccomdations.

        He's the one the encouraged me to come to dkos and I'm glad he did.  But he warned me that this was could be one of the most brutal places imaginable.

        He's sensitive but also feels a lot of responsibililty for anything that happens in his diaries.  So that's why he felt obligated to stand up and ask for evidence for the really nasty things said about Jason.  

        Apparently, Jason was involved in some "murky" stuff but HoundDog beleives in forgiveness and redemption.

        I don't have any special allegience, but know it's a dicey subject. Which is why I like to stick to the WSJ, NYT, WaPo etc.  

        And was hesitent to take this Leopold piece.  But I owe HoundDog so many favor's I really couldn't say no.

        But I have to admit when you compare the depth of analysis, coverage, and timing.  In this case, one has to praise Jason for superior and excellent coverage.

        And HoundDog has told me privately, that the vast majority of the predictions he reported Jason made in his Dec 21 2005 were proven true in the next two months, (and like all the stuff we've been so excited about.)

        And HoundDog point out to me, that not a single one of the people that blasted either Jason or him for trying to be objective about Jason have come forward to apoligize or admit error.

        I sure hope I haven't stirred up trouble here or violated HoudDog's privacy.  If so, sorry HoundDog.  

        But it is indeed a curiousity I've never understood.

        But my main interest here, is not stirrin this up, but instead, focusing on what the vast amount of evidence that has come out means.

        And one of the intersting things that is pertinent, is that because of the competing motions for discovery and other Libby has to refute, he is submiting long court briefs with lots of new information and even grand jury testimony described with in.

        But neither Fitzgerald or anyone is making press releases.

        So this become a real gold mine for folks like us here.

        We are some of the first public people to gaze upon this.

        Looke what just 39 pages from last week has done.  
        But Waas, of Leopold or Squeo scans it over, picks out a few choice paragraphs and has an article.

        But much of this stuff remains unseen, or even this unanalyzed.

        I love that fresh exciting feel of fresh evidence.

        Where a whole bunch of us can look at clues and try to put it all together.

        Like one gigantic global came of Clue over the internet.  Or an Agatha Christie or Sherlock Holmes Mystery.

        But a real life one, we are living in.

        Wheres the next clue?

        Is it the TV, this dairy, your unlce Joe who heard something from his friend at work.

        And loaded with real life consequences.

        Politicas rarely get better than this for me folks.  

        Except of course winning elections.

        But I am hoping all this will help.

      •  I agree with you (0+ / 0-)

        Sometimes he's right and sometimes he's wrong.  What frustrates me is that everytime somebody posts something based on one of his articles we seem to get a huge thread arguing the merits and demerits of Jason Leopold.  Often the diarist is citing his piece as authoritative, which isn't usually reasonable and often overstates Leopold's own claim, so I'm not sure if it's avoidable.  But it's still frustrating.

        •  If he's sometimes wrong... (0+ / 0-)

          then he is, by definition, innacurate.

          He is talented and wrote a gripping memoir, I recommend you read it.

        •  Leopold's Inaccuracy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          curtadams, HoundDog

          is a product of his wishful thinking and inability to read critically, not good for one who wants to be a journalist. His heart is in the liberal cause(s), but some of the time, he can't read correctly. If you want to know what Fitzgerald said, go to Fitzgerald's words; then, you can't go wrong.

          I'm sorry to carry on this Leopold "meme," but it is important to know that Fitz did NOT say that a conspiracy existed in the White House; he did say that multiple people wanted to discredit Wilson. In this case, the WSJ's use of "organized administration effort" is much more accurate. Fitzgerald is being very careful to avoid the word "conspired" because it has legal implications that he is not making. He is not making them because that is not what Libby is indicted for and, so far, no one else has been indicted in this matter. Per Fitzgerald:

          Defendant is not charged with knowingly disclosing classified information, nor is he charged with any conspiracy offense.  Moreover, as a practical matter, there are no documents showing an absence of a plot, and it is unclear how any document custodian would set out to find documents showing an “absence of a plot.”  Indeed, there exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant, and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and after July 14, 2003.

          The entire argument, restated in various ways, asked the court to refuse Libby's attorneys the documents that they claimed they needed for discovery on the grounds that they don't need them to defend him against charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Over and over again, Fitzgerald said there is NO evidence of a conspiracy, and Libby is not charged with conspiracy. Nor is he charged with leaking classified information, so the Libby testimony that Cheney and Bush directed him to reveal information from the NIE document, while interesting because he discussed it in the same conversations in which he disclosed information about Wilson's wife to reporters, has no bearing on the charges of perjury and obstruction.

          Leopold glossed over the importance of the Steven Hadley matter as well. A point that Fitzgerald was making was that at the time Libby revealed information from the NIE, only the president, the vice-president, and Libby knew that it was okay to discuss it. Most of the other WH officials were out of the loop at that point. It was way AFTER that when Hadley was still arguing that the NIE should be declassified to use it in the administration's defense by leaking it to the press. Libby had already checked with Addington (vice-president's counsel) and received his opinion that the president's authorization to discuss the NIE amounted to de facto declassification. This is important in Fitzgerald's prosecution because it shows that the effort to leak was so secretive and so important that Libby, rather than the usual press spokesperson for the vice-president, was asked to speak to the press on the record, on background, and on deep background, and Cheney told him what to say. Moreover, Cheney instructed Libby on what to say to Judith Miller at their private meeting. The question then arises as to how Libby could accurately remember everything about the NIE and the process of leaking it but could misremember everything about Wilson's wife and how he learned of her CIA employment, even dreaming up that Tim Russert told him that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

          Please read the 39-page document linked above, although it is long, and I think you will see why some people prefer to read the original instead of Leopold's version.  I think Jason's heart is in the right place, but perhaps some legal training might benefit him. One thing is clear: Fitz is a damned careful attorney, and we should be grateful for that.

          IMPEACH

          "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on."--Dorothy Parker

          by martyc35 on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:14:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Excellent, astute, + carefully thouht out points (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            curtadams

            martyc35.  You appear to be another damned careful attorney and I am grateful we have both you and Fitzgerald working for the forces of goodness.

            I will indeed reread the 39 page court filing, as well as the many other additional data sources we are collecting.

            Your comments are so focused, well-defined, and directly linked to specific evidence and a line of thinking that I will need to reread them more carefully, before responding to them directly.

            But, if you will allow me to respond as a non-lawyer, "lay" citizen but interested reader on this topic I would like to share a few off the top of my head reactions now.  In no particular order so I'll just number them for clarity in case you wish to respond.

            1. I appreciate the positive, compassion, and understanding tone with which you call our attention to this apparent "sloppiness" or error that Leopold may have committed here.  

            Although you pull no punches with regard to you charactorizations of it, and I need to reread the court filing and think about it more before I make up my own mind, I am encouraged by the way you have articulated you points.

            And the way you leave room for Jason, and others whom may have followed him in an error, to correct their error in good faith and remain in the process and dialog as members in good faith in our community.

            If errors have been made here, I agree with you that they were probably made in good faith, trying to cover a story of immense complexity.  

            Having unintentionally made unintentional similar errors of concentration, I appreciate it when exceptionally intelligent, professional legal analysts like yourself "upgrade" the quality of our thinking in a way that allows all parties to save face.  

            IMO, this is a better strategy to build a stonger community, as well as model higher standards of analysis some of my not have seen before, and raise our collective level of discourse.

            I contrast this with other "corrections" from other parties not yourself, which have sometimes been so hostile and derisive as to leave the "beneficiary" no room for response.  Assassintions of charactor rather than focusing on errant behavior also intimidate others into silence for fear they cannot live up to such high standards.

            I believe your approach is not only kinder, but more appropriate given that the purpose of dkos is to empower all citizen to participate in a democratic dialoge of our political process, not just to be an acedemic forum for legal scholars.

            Is this clear? What I'm trying to say is that if we require the standards of tenured faculty critique a peer reviewed potential publication as a prerequisite to avoid humuliating slam down if we make a mistake, we risk losing some of the legitimacy of egalitarian participation in the political process.  Even for the folks that  may make errors.

            So I am congratulating you in the generousity of your granting of the benefit of the doubt to those whom may have committed or participated in an error if one has occurred here.

            1. I agree that your analysis conforms better to the rules of evidence and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards of evidence US Prosecutor Fitzgerald and a jury needs to adhere to in the obstruction of justice and other charges Scooter Libby is charged with.

            However, I'm concerned that we may all need to concentrate more on this excellent question you raise.  What is the purpose and most valid purpose of our discussion here?

            While I agree that we all need to be more careful to raise the standard for any comments we make that are supposed to reflect statements about the court proceeding, I need to think more about whether we risk incumbering our discussion here about the higher level issues with regard to President Bush, Cheney, Rove, Hadley, the WHIGs and even Libby possible involvment in a conspiracy to mislead the American Public, Congress, and the UN about the reasons for going to War in Iraq.

            And the many possible other potential crimes in the process.

            What is the appropriate standard of evidence, and expectation of care a private citizen should use before representing an opinion or call for their political leaders to support Senator Feingolds' Motion of Censure or John Conyer Resolution of Inquirty?

            And what is the appropriate standard of evidence political leaders should aspire to before supporting an exploration of the evidence?

            I would argue that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is too high.

            That with regard to the public debate a "preponderance of the evidence" standard is more appropriate.

            Otherwise, we get locked in an impossible Catch 22.
            We can not reach a "beyond a reasonable doubt standard of evidence and logic" without formal public hearings, subpoena power, debate, and professional analysis that are the purpose of a preliminary "evidenciary" hearing by a sub-committee of the house, prior to making a presentaiton to the full House Judiciary
            Committee who then decides by majority vote (by whatever standard Represenatives wish to hold themesleves too) in order to refer an motion of impeachment suggesting hearing in the full house.)

            The House then needs a majority vote to refer an "indictment" to the Senate.

            Who then needs a 2/3 majority of Senators to convict and remove a president.  And here, I would agree, they need to use a "beyond reasonable doubt standard.

            But for our purposes of average citizens here on a dkos blog, I beleive all citizens have the right to use whatever standard of logic and evidence that like in order to make up their minds to send a letter to the editor, a senator, or even write a diary calling for Democratic leaders to impeach the president.

            Again, martyc35, I acknowledge that you've made no comment at all on any of these matters.  These are just questions that your provocative comments inspired.

            1. So in this spirit, I would like to return to your point, which I think I agree with but would like to reread,  that Fitzgerald explicitly denied he was raising conspiracy charges against Libby.

            This part is of course true.  But how should we interpret these remarks in terms of what they may imply about Fitzgerald current thinking about whether this is annoucing a signal to us that he does not believe evidence exist of any conspiracy i the White House.

            This is a critical question in terms of my interest.  As I have been accusing the WHIGs, and Vice President Cheney and Bush of a number of conspiracies for almost a year now.

            Am I guilty of the same sloppiness of thinking and careless reading of evidence?  

            If so, I would apoligize of course and be regretful.

            But I am not ready to admit this because I think other evidence is sufficiently suggestive to justicy the HJC to form a subcommittee to investigate this.  To gather evidence, organize it, think of these questions and make a professional and legal decision to the standards you raise here on whether the full HJC should then formally debate and further investigate this, to again ask the same questions again before referring the same question to even higher standards to the full House for the first phase of an impeachment indictment.

            1. The specific charge I have raised was inspired first by Representative Mauric Hinchey, and Henry Waxman in their September letter to Fitgerald that was called to my attention by our own Sherlock Google.  Who certainly merits his name.

            I believe that Bush, supported by Hadley, Cheney, Rove, Tenent and perhaps others including Rice violated USC 18 Sections 1001 and 371 (Conspiracy) in Bush's Presentation of the Niger Yellow Cake claims and possible also his alumunum tubes claim in the 2003 SOTU address.  

            The law states that knowingly and willfully making a false statement to Congress in the execution of their oversight function of the executive branch is a felony.

            Hinchey establishes the law that places the SOTU address as part of congressional oversight function, and makes a strong assertion that Bush's misrepresentations were material.

            And it's clear they were false.

            But can we prove intentionality to beyond reasonable doubt standards.

            Until these latest revelations I have been trying to support Hichey and Waxman in their attempt to pass a Resolution of Inquirty subpoenat of the mutliple drafts of the SOTU speech.

            Reports have indicated Hadley, Tenent and other went back and forth through several drafts before settling on the wording of the 16 words of "the British learned."

            Hinchey, Waxman, and 40 House Reps have argued to Fitzgerald and before the House Committee on Government Reform, and the Judiciary committee, that these multiple drafts costitute a smoking gun proving they were purposefully searching for a way to mislead congress "without actually lying."

            But Hinchey points to Section 1001 which asserts the deceptions to not have to be false to be intentionally misleading.

            The big breakthrough that just occurred last week, Martyc35, is that Fitzgerald's court filings (or perhaps it was Libby lawyer a little earlier) refer to an email by Stephen Hadley to President Bush refering to an October 2002 NIE daily breifing of the president, wherein, Hadley alerts the President to the contrary opinions within our own intelligence agency with regard to the validity of the claims of the false Uranium claims as well as to the purpose of the aluminum tubes being for WMD (uranium gas centrafuge) rather than conventional rocketry as later concluded.

            My point being, I believe these claims reach a sufficient "preponderance of the evidence" thresh hold sufficient for volunteer citizen like myself to write diary here at dkos demanding that the House Judiciary Committee give John Conyers Resolution of Inquirty just to start a formal eviddence collection process.

            1. So when Fitzgerald is reported by Leopold to have written in the court filings that he states to the court that he has not charged Libby with conspiracy, my interpretation was that was because he is a clever prosecutor.

            He, himself, explained in his fall indictment press conference of Libby, that Libby's apparent false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice hid the evidence making it impossible for him to see if the underlying crimes had been committed.

            1. Libby's lawyers, and well as the GOP apologist have tried numerous trick to try to redefine the issues in diversionary ways. As Leveymg makes a good case for in his diary yesterday or the day before.

            Now the Newspapers are full of accounts where McClellan is saying the President has the power to declassify NIE intelligence at will, so therefore, there were really never any leaks so when Bush and presumable Libby denied participating in them they werent' "actually lying."

            Remenescent of what does "is" mean?

            1. The way I interpreted Fitzgerald comments that you refer to was that these diversionary statements as well as the denials of conspiracy are irrelenvent to the obstruction of justice and false statement charges Fitzgerald has actually charge Libby with, (So far.)

            I didn't interpret them to mean Fitz was giving the entire Administration a clearence on additioinal conspiracy charges.

            1. In fact, guite the opposite.  The use of high level cooridination of senior White House Executives, as well as dropping the word conspire in another context seemed like tantalizing clues and perhaps harbingers of future idictments.
            1. My reading of Section 371 Conspiracy at least as what it means with regard to the Section 1001 of the USC is that when conspiracy charges can be supported, it is not neccessary to prove beyond a shawdow of a doubt that every member of the conspiracy participated in every felony that was part of the conspiracy.

            That once you successful convict one, the others are guilty by association, if you can meet the requirements of the Conspiracy charge.

            1. In this regard, we have so many emerging felonies this gang of scounderals appears to be guilty of (I say this in the context of my role as a citizen voluteer not a legal scholor LOL)  we have an embrarrassment of riches.

            My hope and expectation is that if Fitzgerald can idict and convict Libby and hopefully Rove on obstruction of justice, we may then have a foundation stone to pursue conspiracy to obstruct justice, before building up to USC 18 Section 1001,. violations of the Geneva Conventions, NSA FISA court vioations etc.

            1. Did the Fitzgerald court filing confirm that President Bush and VP Cheney denied knowledge or involvement in this in his interview with Fitz.

            If so, is not Bush guilty of OOJ.

            1. Yes, I acknowledge on my own part at least, a bit of wishful thinking here.  But I assure you its sincere and well intentioned.  And I am not a GOP troll trying to send folks astray here.

            Just you ordinary average Joe on the street hoping to see justice and integrity return the to White House and Government of the US.

            As I said, I will need to reread you critque again.  However, I am encouraged that you seem to be a professional lawyer, more skilled and knowlegable than the rest of us.

            And apparently motivated by the same Impeachment goals.

            So I say, welcome and thanks fellow traveler.

            I look forward to any additional help you can provide us with, in improving our critical thinking skills, care in interpretation of evidence, upgrading of our standards of discussion, and help in being more effective and credible in our efforts to bring these "suspects" to justice, if the evidence should bear out that our intuitive suspicions are valid.

            :-)

            Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

            by HoundDog on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:11:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  When you say (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              curtadams

              "I didn't interpret them to mean Fitz was giving the entire Administration a clearence on additioinal conspiracy charges," I have to agree that I did not interpret Fitzgerald's statements that way, either. The narrowness of Fitz's arguments confines what he will discuss only to the charges against Libby. He has to show the judge that Libby's requests for thousands of classified documents are spurious and unnecessary.

              When you read the document, note what Fitz is carefully setting up near the end: the judge loosely stated earlier that Fitz's office is "aligned" with the White House because of the flow of documents back and forth and the WH declaration of cooperation with the investigation. Fitz strongly rebuffs any alignment of his office with the WH. I'd say that he is reserving the option of issuing further indictments by asking the judge to reverse that opinion. I don't think he has said one way or another whether he intends to bring further charges against Libby or any charges against anyone else. He's not there yet, and we are not mind readers.

              It's Libby's lawyers who are trying to kill the case by seeking to pursue questions in the trial that are totally unrelated to the charges and based on classified information that the administration is not willing to release. This is a ploy, made by one of Libby's current attorneys, that got Ollie North off during the Iran-Contra investigation. They are hoping it will work again, but I am betting it won't.  

              BTW, I favor the Feingold censure measure, and I support Conyers. This stuff has to be in the Congressional Record to pave the way for impeachment, should we regain control of Congress. Thanks for your kind words, and have fun sorting out the niceties in Fitzgerald's arguments.  

              "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on."--Dorothy Parker

              by martyc35 on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:59:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  HI Curtadams, what does 'meme' mean? n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  seems to me the admin's (9+ / 0-)

    big degense is that the court filing doesn't mention that Bush authorized the Plame leak, but that info was divulged along with other stuff, to Judy Miller ten days before it was officially released.

    All news accounts I've heard make this point very clear, but nonetheless, they are headlinging with this story, and it is damaging.  

    All the quotes from Bush about leaks being reprehensible is gonna bite him HARD in the ass.  Especially this one:

    “But it is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly. . . . We’re at war, and we must protect America’s secrets. “

       – George W. Bush, December 19, 2005.


    Meet the New Pharisees, same as the Old Pharisees.

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:26:47 PM PDT

    •  From Fitz's filing (11+ / 0-)

      This paragraph, to me, in Fitzgerald's filing (pdf), on page 24 is the most significant part relating to trying to separate the leak of Plame's CIA employment and the leak of the "key judgements" of the NIE"

      Defendant understood that the Vice President specifically selected him to talk to the press
      about the NIE and Mr. Wilson on July 12, 2003, in place of then-Assistant to the President for Public
      Affairs, Cathie Martin, the usual press contact person from OVP. This is relevant to show the
      importance that defendant and his boss placed on the conversation concerning which he later
      testified. During his conversations with the press that day, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s CIA
      employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time).
      Thus, there is no way to present the relevant events concerning defendant’s discussions with
      reporters about Ms. Wilson without discussing defendant’s role in disseminating the key judgments
      of the NIE in those same conversations
      .

      (my emphasis)

      "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." -Gandhi

      by midvalley on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:55:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Bushies can't claim this is legit (18+ / 0-)

      Everybody from Olbermann to CNN has been playing old footage of Bush denouncing the leaks, and threatening to deal with any leakers.

      There is no point of consistency that includes him saying that then, and positing that it was perfectly OK now.  It leads to one question:

      Were you lying then, George, or are you lying now?  

      Sorry, two:  Or both?

      -4.50, -5.85 In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. --Orwell

      by Dallasdoc on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:02:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let's not overlook Booman23's diary (14+ / 0-)

      Here (also on Rec List)

      Judith Miller had the classified info from the NIE in September 2002 and wrote articles about it.

      "The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807.

      by PatsBard on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:09:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Several TV news report including Blitzer I think (0+ / 0-)

      made this same point.

    •  It all boils down to this... (7+ / 0-)

      WHEN was the NIE officially declassified?

      If it was declassified AFTER Judy Miller received the briefing, then it is not just a political disaster -- it is a LEGAL disaster for Bushco.

      That said, I can't believe that they would be stupid enough to not declassify it before leaking it.  But, as one reporter argued in the WH press briefing yesterday, it appears that that is what, in fact, happened.

      Scotty was babbling like a moron when that question was asked.  Clearly she hit a nerve.

      The possibility of this becoming a LEGAL problem for Bush seems quite high from what I can see.

      Someone needs to pin dates on when the NIE was officially declassified and when Miller received this "classified" info.

      Can we wait even a SECOND longer? SEE GRAPHIC...

      by STOP George on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:51:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Corporate Media take... (7+ / 0-)

        Here's the Boston Globe take on this piece of information.  I'm sure we will find out very soon about this "discrepancy" -- and it might be VERY damning, indeed.

        White House press secretary Scott McClellan, whose office had refused to comment on the matter for a day, found himself at the center of the questions of whether Bush had followed accepted procedures in declassifying the report. At a July 18, 2003, press briefing -- at least 10 days after Bush had authorized the leak -- McClellan announced that the report was ''just, as of today, officially declassified."

        Asked by reporters yesterday about the discrepancy, McClellan said he would ''have to go back and look at the specific comments, but I'm not changing anything that was said previously." He added that he believed he had been referring to when it was ''declassified for the public."

        McClellan then sought to turn the tables on Democrats, saying the opposition party was wrong to equate Bush's approval of the leak with past instances of government officials releasing classified information that harms national security.

        Can we wait even a SECOND longer? SEE GRAPHIC...

        by STOP George on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:19:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for bringing this to us STOP George (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boofdah, leo joad, imabluemerkin

          Gosh they are in deep on this one now!

          Even their discrepancies have discrepancies.

          How can this end for them?

          I like to try to imagine I am the other parties and think of what their strategies would be.

          Rove must know they have to break this downward collapse somehow.

          The more they try to clear this up, the worse it gets.  

          My prediction?  

          Major Resignations.  If Rove were not in a conflict of interest and so eager to stay he and Hadley would have been gone long ago.

          But I do not think even Rove and Hadley resingations will be enough to stem this tide.

          I think they are going to have to advance the timetable and try to get Dick Cheney take one for the team.  

          And fall on his Sword.

          But I am not sure he's going to be willing to do this?

          What do you think?

          •  Short answer: (5+ / 0-)

            I do not know.

            From the looks of how this is playing in the corporate media, I don't think that this one is going to be spun away -- that much is fairly certain.

            I very concerned that these madmen, when pushed into the corner like this, are going to do something drastic for a diversion.  

            And let's just say my concern is not that someone is going to resign.

            Can we wait even a SECOND longer? SEE GRAPHIC...

            by STOP George on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:12:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I suspect (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cotterperson, imabluemerkin

              that things are already being done on a fairly small scale

            •  It's time we all report any suspicious packages, (0+ / 0-)

              especially the ones in human form in powers of position in Washington.

              Expect another terrorist attack any time now.

              9-11 deja vu.

              This administration's plan of action is to do whatever to advance its political ambitions. Now the public is learning about the leak for political purposes. Wonder if they will ever consider what else this group has done for its political ambitions.

              Wonder if Fitz will ever get any info on who really was behind 9-11.

          •  Cheney can't fall on his sword because (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            imabluemerkin

            he's the one who's actually running the entire country.  Bu$hCo is busy making speeches to his base and making jokes when a serious petitioner like Harry Taylor asks him if he's ashamed.  Dark Lord Cheney is busy calling all the shots, literally, in Iraq and Iran and is the Emporer behind Bu$hCo, plotting and planning how to keep the world at bay while he pilfers all the coffers for his personal gain.  Cheney and Halliburton are in it for the long haul and they'll do whatever it takes to keep it, even if it means launching nukes on Iran to change the subject.  Doubt seriously he'll stage a terrorist attack on these shores because that flies in the face of "we're fighting 'em over there, etc."  as well as Bu$hCo "is keeping us safer" (choke, gasp, gag).

        •  Yeah. I love that excuse. (0+ / 0-)

          Scottie got it exactly backwards.

    •  What about the SOTU lie about yellowcake? (5+ / 0-)

      I know this is several steps away from the "Bush authorized leak" story, but why isn't the MSM discussing the fact that the Bush-authorized leak to "discredit" and "counter" Joe Wilson was misleading/dishonest in itself?

      What I mean is: the MSM story is all about the propriety/legality of Bush leaking (I know this is the WH spin), but where is the highlighting of the fact the Joe Wilson was right?! That Iraq never did try to get yellowcake from Niger. Is that story too old? Is that already widely known? What about the fact that this leak was intended to extened the dishonesty of the SOTU?

      I'm probably just missing something...

  •  Amazing thing is, (27+ / 0-)

    Moronic David Brooks said tonight that "the Plame affair" hasn't found any political "traction" meaning, I guess, that people are too busy talking about The Debacle Formerly Named Iraq.

    Political traction has exactly nothing to do with it. This is a legal proceeding. If Clinton's problems had remained about Whitewater and not become about sex, no one would have paid attention and the prosecution would have gone off into oblivion where it belonged.

    Political traction comes with the next round of super-indictments, except "traction" isn't the word. I think "disaster" is.

    "With great power comes great responsibility." -- Stan Lee

    by N0MAN1968 on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:27:39 PM PDT

    •  you just made me laugh like (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leolabeth, Lolligolli, N0MAN1968

      Snidely Whiplash!!

      Moronic David Brooks said tonight that "the Plame affair" hasn't found any political "traction" meaning, I guess, that people are too busy talking about The Debacle Formerly Named Iraq.


      Meet the New Pharisees, same as the Old Pharisees.

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:26:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Brooks is whistling past the graveyard (17+ / 0-)

      This Congress and Administration have given Dems the ammunition to bury the Republicans for a generation if they play their cards right.

      "Where's Osama?  Wait, that's right, you guys let him escape."
      "Why does Iran have nukes?  Could it be because the operation was outed by Bush/Cheney?"
      "Why is gas so expensive?  Once upon a time, before the Middle East was ablaze, there were oil wells."
      "Why are interest rates high?  Well, the Bush deficit is sucking up all the money."
      "Why is New Orleans still under water?  Because loyalty was more important to Bush than doing the job."

      You get the idea.  Tie EVERY damn bit of incompetence, mismanagement, pandering to extremists, crookedness, and venality to these sumbitches like a tin can to a dog's tail.  Sure, it isn't nicey-nicey like the wimp arm of the Democratic Party might wish we play (I'm looking at YOU, Biden and Lieberman), but it's about bloody time there's some accountability for running the country into the ground.

      I want to see Dems punching the Republican Party's teeth down its collective throat.  Presented right it could look like the last minutes of an action movie where the underdog gets up off the ground and lays out the bad guys once and for all.  

    •  Fitz: Outing a serious breach of nat'l security (12+ / 0-)

      Remember how grim Fitzgerald was at the press conference after Libby was indicted?  

      FITZGERALD: The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

      snip

      FITZGERALD: I can say that for the people who work at the CIA and work at other places, they have to expect that when they do their jobs that classified information will be protected. And they have to expect that when they do their jobs, that information about whether or not they are affiliated with the CIA will be protected.

      And they run a risk when they work for the CIA that something bad could happen to them, but they have to make sure that they don't run the risk that something bad is going to happen to them from something done by their own fellow government employees.

      I'd like to see video of this played in response to these excuses by the White House that Bush declassified and leaked her name "in the public interest."

      "Guilty or not guilty?" "What else have you got?" ~Carl Sandburg, The People Yes

      by Bugsby on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 02:26:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you for posting. That finish's Brooks for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      N0MAN1968

      me.
      Not a mention of how this amounted to obstruction of justice so that the case wouldn't hit the fan for the 2004 elections.

      Brooks also said he got the NIE shortly after Miller and it was filled with 'scary stuff'.
      Yeah, that excuses you Brooks - my ass it does. You now move ahead of George Will on my shit list - not an easy thing to do but you made it. Well you know what - the best part is that you will continue to eat your liver every night you appear on the Newshour, because the boy you made king is yours, all yours. Got the stomach for it Bushevik? No? Well just chew every mouthful 25 times like oilman John D Rockfeller.

      Charisma does not save republics, Courage does. (adigal)

      by Carbide Bit on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:20:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Smearing Joe Wilson... (33+ / 0-)
    was apparently much more of a organized effort than just Scooter dissing him to a pliant stenographer/reporter with juicy details about his private life.  How much more organized??  Well, Fitz is on the case.  The selective leaking-prior-to-declassification of the NIE details could be merely the tip of the iceberg leading to more evidence on the Italian-based forgeries and the Niger connection.

    All of which constituted the Bushies lying us into a disastrous never-ending war on false pretenses, destroying our fiscal position, diminishing our military and ruining our world credibility.  Hopefully, we'll find out the details about one of the most appalling fiascoes in world history.

    Let justice reign though the heavens tremble

    by Viceroy on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:30:44 PM PDT

  •  Awesome (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah

    We need to be able to pass this information on to others as well.  Maybe Fitz should draft the conspiracy to look like the map from "Lost."  That'd probably get their attention.

  •  I hope this diary gets traction (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, concerned, kovie, Lolligolli

    The Christian Right is neither Witness Every Day

    by TXsharon on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:45:23 PM PDT

  •  Everybody sing (7+ / 0-)

    Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye.


    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

    by Zackpunk on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:45:35 PM PDT

  •  Chinese water torture (22+ / 0-)

    Drip, drip, drip.

    If there was an overriding reason to expose CIA operations re: Iran, it was to disable the CIA as a source of intelligence so the administration could drum up a case for war against Iran anytime they wanted.

    They blew the Brewster Jennings operations so there would be no other source saying Iran will not really have nuclear weapons for, say 5 years.  That would get in the way of attacking Iran in 2006.  Getting back at Joe Wilson was icing on the cake, not the primary goal.

  •  This is what happens... (22+ / 0-)

    ...when all else becomes subservient to power and party (in the case of Bush, mainly power).

    This is a man who has never felt the rules applied to him.  He surrounded himself with others who felt the same way, and was put in a position to break some pretty important rules.

    Bush is now claiming that everything was hunky dory, as the President can unilaterally declassify information.  And he's right, for the most part: classification power derives from the President.

    Of course, that's not the point, is it?

    The point is, this is a President who 1) can't be trusted to put the good of the country before himself, and worse: 2) can't be trusted to even consider the good of the country, when his own good is concerned, 3) can't be trusted to tell the truth about it anyway.

    He is utterly incompetent, possessed of utterly wrong priorities, and utterly lacking in the intellect or integrity necessary to redeem those first two flaws.  And for the first time in my life, the presence of that man and his cronies in government have made me genuinely fear for the survival of my country.

    •  This pisses me in half!! (19+ / 0-)

      Anyone who has held a security clearance has been indoctrinated with the deadly seriousness of classified information.  You not only do not talk about these things, you do not even reveal them to people unless you have verified they have a need to know.  That is Security Briefing Bullet #1.  You let this stuff out, you get fired/court martialed, then you get thrown under the jail.
      But if you are President or one of his high-ranking hoodlums, no problem. It's just politics, right?
      Only, when someone just hauls off and declassifies a person (like Valerie Plame) suddenly all her sources, contacts & networks are forfeit. So America loses immediate assets and also the credibility to recruit future assets. It does not matter if the perpetrator was a peon or a big politico - except the peon will be punished if caught.
      It pisses me in half.

      •  King Nixon (8+ / 0-)

        Remember if the Pres. does it , it's not against the law. They made a huge mistake letting Nixon reisgn instead of trying him. Whoever did the followup about restraining Pres. powers after this really screwed the pooch. This isn't going to be battleground for Constitution freaks for the next 20 yrs, at least. I hope we get right this time around.

        -8.63 -7.28 Vote+$.01 I will vote Dem., but in protest and support.

        by OneCrankyDom on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:43:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Big Time Pooch Screw (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boofdah

          The folks in Crackerstan want a king, however.  It's good to have a leader to rally 'round, they say.  When Reagan got elected the Cult of the GOP Teflon President got into high gear.

          In fact, I just noticed yesterday, the money appropriated by Congress last year was authorized in, get this, the "Ronald W. Reagan Defense Appropriations Act".  I shit you not.

          A pessimist sees a glass half empty. I see a paper cup with holes punched in it.

          by Paper Cup on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:51:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Righto Jonathan. Power Corrupts (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson

      Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.  

  •  Thanks for this. Rec'd (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    averybird, leo joad, Lolligolli

    I can only hope it leads to more...this is so sickening.

    "What noble cause did they die for, Mr. President?"

    by BlueInARedState on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:53:13 PM PDT

  •  I think the WSJ/GOP meme might be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, Lolligolli

    that Fitzgerald is a loose cannon along the lines of Jim Garrison, the JFK assassination prosecutor who pursued a bunch of conspiracy theories that,  legally speaking, came out fruitless.

  •  I'm Still More Curious About a Darker Motive (21+ / 0-)

    to get Plame and her work on WMD derailed so that there would be no source of information except the Admin's.

    Two birds with one stone? Or should we say two different conspiracies coming together?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:58:05 PM PDT

    •  convenience (5+ / 0-)

      I think they saw her as a convenient source for some Swift Boat-style damage-control. I'm sure Wilson had them very concerned. And they were clueless about what a stupid, clusterfuck-proportions, mistake they were making. And probably still are. "Secretary", indeed.

      Assholes.

      -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

      by subtropolis on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:21:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I totally agree. Wilson was too easy a target. (0+ / 0-)

      I realize my logic is faulty, but Rove is simply too efficient. The effect, regardless of the cause, was to stymy Plame. Wilson simply got louder and more press.

      In a quick Google, I can't find any reference for this anywhere but in the blogosphere. Have you seen any other reporting?

      In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher. Dalai Lama

      by leolabeth on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:35:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pastors, priests, rabbis? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, boofdah, Lolligolli

    I personally could care less whether they consult religious figures. They need to resign. The two have nothing to do with each other.

    I'm kind of stalling for time here...They told me what to say. George W Bush, 03-21-2006 10:00 EST Press Conference

    by Tamifah on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:14:35 PM PDT

  •  slow D O W N (7+ / 0-)

    Your title and the article you linked to describe two different things.

    You say:

    Fitzgerald Aims To Show High Level Organized Plan To Leak CIA Agents Name

    and

    Fitzgerald Aims to Show An Organized Plan Led to Leak of CIA Agent's Name

    (already an important difference in meaning here)

    The WSJ article finishes:

    Mr. Fitzgerald alleges Mr. Libby took the lead in disputing Mr. Wilson's claims, and in doing so disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to reporters. Thus, the government alleges, he sought to cover up his role in Ms. Plame's unveiling by lying under oath and trying to obstruct the investigation.

    In other words, the exposure of a covert official occured as a result of the effort to discredit Wilson. Not "was the reason for". I don't ascribe to the idea that she was the target, all along. I realise you didn't make this conclusion in your diary, but the title gives that impression.

    -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

    by subtropolis on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:17:13 PM PDT

    •  Sorry subtropolis I missed this distiction (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      subtropolis

      And quite honestly, I'm so tired I'm going to have to read it again to really understand it.

      Do you suggest a change to the title?  I was just about to go and clean up the many misspelling and other sloppiness as I have just now managed to get through a first pass to all the comments.

      Thanks everyone by the way.

      •  subtropolis, you are correct and I corrected the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ted Hitler, subtropolis, Sanuk

        title.  Thanks for the headup.  I can see from this and your other comments you are a keen and thoughtful reader.  

        Thanks.  I appreciate any and all suggestions as my aspiration is to be as accurate and helpful as I can.

        Sorry for this error.  

        Thanks

        :-)

        •  jeez - quit apologising! (0+ / 0-)

          I'm sorry if my tone was too harsh. I, too, was rushing it a bit, as there weren't too many comments, yet. I really wasn't sure which take on this you were suggesting, though it did seem more of a typo issue. In any case, i just wanted to bring it to your attention one way or another, as there seem to be 2 schools now, about the direction Fitzgerald is taking this.

          Thanks for your kind words. And thanks for the link!

          -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

          by subtropolis on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:09:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'm on it... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TaraIst, Lolligolli
    I started taking bets yesterday on whether Bush and/or Cheney are named as unindicted co-conspirators in forthcoming charges.

    :-)

  •  Since the cat is outta the bag (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leolabeth, leo joad, Lolligolli

    I'm placing my money on the coming Pardons. As arrogant as Bushco is, I predict that by June, Bush will go ahead and grant Scooter and Cheney a " Blanket  Pardon".

    -8.63 -7.28 Vote+$.01 I will vote Dem., but in protest and support.

    by OneCrankyDom on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:34:02 PM PDT

    •  Yep (4+ / 0-)

      And whereas if Nixon tried the same thing for the Watergate burglars, plumbers and fixers there would have been OUTRAGE on both sides of the aisle, when Bush does it the GOP congress will breathe a sigh of relief and say "it was the right thing to do."

      If Bush's radioactivity gets any higher, in inverse proportion to his poll numbers, we might see GOP congressmen and senators URGING him to issue the pardons ASAP to get it all out of the news by election day.

      A pessimist sees a glass half empty. I see a paper cup with holes punched in it.

      by Paper Cup on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:55:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm curious......... (5+ / 0-)

    what makes anyone here think they will resign in discrace? They haven't been shamed by all the other things that have come to light what's going to give them a change of heart? Even though I see all kinds scandals I don't really see this administrations goals change or thier plans being prevented.

    "Every deal has a patsy. If you don't know who it is, you're it."

    by MrFlesh on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:43:23 PM PDT

    •  I think HoundDog was being rhetorical or (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson, leo joad, RAZE

      maybe even sarcastic.  I don't think they will resign now.

      But very few thought Nixon would either.

      But once his approval feel into the 20s and even the GOP join the call he did.

      I think HoundDog is trying to jawbone a rally for resignation calls, to suppress Bush's approval and get a virtuous cycle going.

      My impression though is that we have still only seen the tip of the iceberg and that there are some really shocking revelations to still come out.

      Such bad stuff that a whole lot of very powerful stakeholder to not want to see surfaced.  

      Too much damage to personal interests, national interests. global interests. etc.

      That's sort of the idea implied with the tipping point concept.

      Once certain key stakeholders conclude that Bush will not be able to contain further leaks, scandal or accountability, then many have strong vested interests in seeing him depart ASAP, and as gracefully and quitely as possible.

      Does this make sense?  

      You know like the cat is out of the bag.  And having millions of people like us, starting to examine every detials, every leak, every possible curious thing, could lead to unwanted attention.

      I imagine we are already to the point where copyboys, cleaning people, taxi-drivers etc have their digital cameras in their pockets and purses so they can pick up an extra $50 from armies of Woodward and Berstein wanna bies.

      And beyond now, further damage to Bush means further damage to GOP and their election chances in November.

      Imagine a thought experiment where if incumbant GOP Senators, Reps, Goveners, local candidates could wave a magic wand and have Bush and Cheney resign tomorrow and be replaced by McCain and Giuliani, or
      Allen, or Condi, and immediately put all of the endless horrors of eigth more months of what we have now but getting worse each day.

      What would you want if you were them?

      •  Sigh (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leo joad, Lolligolli

        I imagine we are already to the point where copyboys, cleaning people, taxi-drivers etc have their digital cameras in their pockets and purses so they can pick up an extra $50 from armies of Woodward and Berstein wanna bies.

        You would think reporters would be falling all over themselves to get any new nugget of information on this case.

        Whadda we got?

        Leopold, Waas, Clemont, Alexandrova/Byrne & Sale (although haven't heard neither hide nor hair from him since Nov).  Knight-Ridder does the best job of placing the news in a neutral context.

        Oh, and yesterday, that NY Sun reporter ran with the Fitz motion.  But, I'm leery of their motives - you might as well call 'em the NeoCon Sun.

        So, that's what, five, six reporters currently doing actual investigative journalism on the Plame case.
        The WAPO and NYT clearly have other investigative priorities.  And when they did cover the case,both Time and WAPO relied on souces with agendas.  

        What we need if funding of the blogosphere investigative journalism, because while it's been incredibly impressive, there's a real need for real reporters who know how to develop sources other than Luskin.

        •  Good and sad points. From what I gather, a lot (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cotterperson

          of places are cutting out their journalists all together.  

          Talking heads to read the news.  And mass production translation of AP, Reuters and other feeds.

          Places like dkos and what we are doing here, might actually be one of the last pockets of thoughtful critiques and analysis of the news?

          I hope I am wrong, but it seems like it sometimes doesn't it.

          Hey, maybe thats an opportunity for folks like you and me 2lucky?  

          Maybe some of this work is actually useful?

          •  There is hope and I think (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            leo joad, RAZE, Lolligolli

            it's the blogosphere.

            I'm amazed at the quality of work in analysis by Emptywheel and Left Coaster - it's simply outstanding.

            As SusanG and company proved, (and the media neither never properly credited, nor took seriously) the power of motivated, smart, closet-sleuth citizens is mighty impressive.

            One of the reasons I hate to see the knee-jerk trashing of Leopold and Raw Story, is that I think they're the future.  We need more of them.

            To be sure, Raw Story, and specifically Larissa and Jason have done things to hurt their credibility, not the least of which is sometimes really sloppy reporting on basic facts (not enough staff for editing and fact checking).

            Raw also posted some absurd teasers that either fell flat, or in the case of Plame reporting, had no "credibility" attached by confirmation by the traditional media.

            Jason and Larissa both got into some either strange or heated spats here, at The Next Hurrah that didn't add to their reputations as dispassionate reporters.

            Jason has had some real-life problems that people have pounced on.

            Still, Jason's reporting has jibed with that of Sales, Clemons and Waas.  And the overheated reporting leading up to Libby's indictment was not limited to Jason and RS.  As Sales noted, circumstances were extremely fluid and as indictment day neared, his sources "went to ground."  

            I'm really hoping that Jason is vindicated by Fitz indictments.  I hope he gets the editorial and fact-check help he needs.  I absolutely give him credit for pursuing this (he was the only reporter, apparently, who purchased the transcripts of the Feb. 24 Libby hearing - can you believe that?!).

            I would rather encourage Leopold with constructive criticism than beat and smear him everytime he posts. Why do people assume that the people they attack won't react defensively, and even inappropriately.

            •  I didn't know all of this but it sounds like you (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ted Hitler, viral

              have a fair and generous viewpoint.

              I like the idea that people can recover from mistakes or unlucky patch.

              Did you know that Jason sent a copy of those transcripts to HoundDog with Jason's best wishes to everyone here.  Hounddog offered to give them to anyone who wanted them.

              His computer wouldn't open them but some voluteers helped out. But they didn't contain as much as they hoped.

              I think a small gang of super volunteers is going to write Jason to see how we can collectively get our hands on the 250 White House emails.  

              At first it seemed Jason had them but now HoundDog does not believe they have been released yet.

              I think the confusion was the transcript discusses their release to Libby's legal team which they are entitled to for their defense.

              But the have not been released publically as far as I know.

              But from what I understand from HoundDog, the Oct 2002 Stephen Hadley email to President Bush is potentially a smoking gun.

              If it can be proven that Bush read that or was informed of it then, it can be used to estehlish that Bush knew the alumunum tube and Niger yellowcakes claims in his 2003 SOTU speech were dubious.

              And the text was changed back and forth until they settled on the reference to the British "learned"

              They also knew at that time that what they had learned both the CIA and MI6 had also later learned was false.

              The reason this is significant is because USC 18 Sections 1001 and 371 make it a felony to knowingly and willfully mislead the congress in the execution of its oversight function.

              So if Hadley can be induced to testify that Bush knew all of this and was in on Hadley's knowledge Bush is impeachable.

              Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D=NY) wrote to Fitzgerald in September asking him to broaden the investigation to include the Bush administration motivation behind the Wilson smear, which it looks like Fitzgerald is doing.

              But since Fitzgerald can not indict the President Ihe may only be concentrating on the rest.

              But Leopold has reported his sources say he is drawing this all to a conclusion within a few weeks, and will seek indictments agaisnt either Rove or Hadley or both.

              Implying at least at that time, that Bush and Cheney may not be mentioned our only mentioned as un-indicted co-conspirators.

              Or possible left to a third phase of the investigation.

              But the second phase is purportedly going to be concluding within about 2 at most 3 weeks.

            •  What's funny is the government is trying (0+ / 0-)

              to eliminate that as well..http://www.dailykos.com/................

              "Every deal has a patsy. If you don't know who it is, you're it."

              by MrFlesh on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:44:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  But your opperating under the assumtion (0+ / 0-)

        that voting in this country is legit and the past 3 elections have shown it's not...in fact in almost every state the problem is getting worse...look at the laws passed in ohio...that's the problem with the bush will resign due to pressure from the upcomming election. You see the beginning of the end for bush. I see a few of the politicians getting nervouse about there upcomming election.

        "Every deal has a patsy. If you don't know who it is, you're it."

        by MrFlesh on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:58:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's amazing to me... (13+ / 0-)

    that in all of today's discussion by reporters at Scotty's press conference and by pundits later in the day, I didn't hear anyone ask, "How was it in the public interest to out Valerie Plame?"

    There was endless talk about how the president can declassify NIE estimates at will, as if NIE estimates were what this is all about.  And on the talk shows, several pundits breezily dismissed revealing Plame's identity as of no particular legal significance, so it's really nice to see that Fitzgerald hasn't lost his focus on what this is ALL ABOUT. Violating the Espionage Act is not something Bush can get around by "declassifying" Plame's undercover status, especially in order to punish her husband.  Crimes have been committed here; it's not just "political" and the talking heads can't seem to get this through their thick skulls.

    Now, if he would just indict...

    •  How was it in the public interest... (9+ / 0-)

      Exactly.  Why isn't anyone asking this question

      "How was it in the public interest to out Valerie Plame?"

      •  That should be Helen Thomas' new question (0+ / 0-)

        She can stop asking WHY DID YOU INVADE IRAQ and say that evertime shes called on

      •  Whatever is in GWBs interest = public interest (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RAZE

        after all, he's our Preznit, and he's trying to protect us from the terrarists. Obviously, exposing the identity of a covert CIA agent who was working for a CIA front firm still in operation, investigating WMDs, is certainly in the public interest. It allows Bush to get his war, and it warns those who won't march lock-step that they will feel the wrath of his anger.

        Boy, this makes me feel queasy.

        I remember a time when our President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

        by land of the free on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:47:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If it was in the public interest (0+ / 0-)
        why wasn't Scotty announcing it?
        To me, that's the question.

        Judith Miller is not the public. It's Scotty's job to report matters of public interest to the public.

        Why this hasn't been confronted head on baffles the shit out of me.

        "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

        by Unduna on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:17:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  They've already made this argument (6+ / 0-)

      It makes no sense, unless you believe the propaganda line in toto.  But it goes something like this:

      Iraq was necessary and in our national interest because [fill in the blank.]   Joe Wilson directly attacked our brave president and his war on terror in Iraq, so it was necessary to answer this attack so as not to let the country lose its nerve for the great task ahead.

      We already hear the apologists talking around this argument.  I haven't heard it stated directly, and we probably won't outside the friendly environs of Fox News and the like.  

      It's patently ridiculous, of course, unless you're a True Believer.  But there will be allusions to it, and the Corporate Media will buy into it because it sounds like it makes sense to those in the know.

      -4.50, -5.85 In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. --Orwell

      by Dallasdoc on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:02:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Important vs trivial secrets (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson, leolabeth

      Excellent point.  Outing Valerie Plame and the organization Brewster Jennings was a major loss.

      On the other hand, letting out the conclusions that we did or didn't think Sadaam was actively pursuing nuclear weapons was no big thing.  What great use is it to Sadaam to hear what we think he's up to?  Anyone who remembers Dubya's "Axis of Evil" speech knew we were worried about it.  The same goes for the idea we'd try to tap Al Queda's phones -- any fool could guess as much.  For that matter, the same goes for the existence of a CIA program to limit nuclear proliferation; it's a no-brainer that we'd have one.  The important secrets are details like who the undercover folks are and the name of the front operation that's their cover.

      We're all pretty crazy some way or other; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is just a setting on my dryer.

      by david78209 on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:16:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And how was it in the public interest to (0+ / 0-)

      declassify only those parts of the NIE that supported the case for war, while (arguably) supressing those parts that did not? Wouldn't it have been in the public interest to educate the public with the contents of the entire document? Look, we've been told again and again - and during the '04 election especially - that we went to war over faulty intelligence, and that the prez can't be blamed for that. We now know that they had evidence that at a minimum cast doubt on the existence of WMD's, and they never bothered to share it with the rest of us.

      "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightening..." Frederick Douglass

      by WISCONSIDINK on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:48:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, Lolligolli

    Could you please try to proofread a little more?  It was a very difficult read.  Missing letters in words, repeated words, declarative sentences ending in question marks, etc. etc. etc.  Maybe you were in a rush but the whole thing could use an editor.

    Still a great diary.  I hope someday Fitzgerald's name will be in the history books with other REAL patriots even as the names Bush and Cheney go down as 2 of the biggest scumbags ever to grace the executive branch.

    A pessimist sees a glass half empty. I see a paper cup with holes punched in it.

    by Paper Cup on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:16:17 PM PDT

  •  This would make a great ad (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, NYC Sophia, david78209

    As much as I think political ads on TV should be banned completely, as long as we have to put up with them I think this one would be good:

    Shot of newspaper headline re. Plame outing back in 2003.

    Overlay Bush face with audio from this occasion...

    President Bush vowed to fire anyone in his office involved in the leak

    Shot of newspaper headline re. Libby's defense that "the president told me to do it".

    Finish with a big question mark and a voiceover saying

    Well, Mr. Bush?  We're waiting.

    ***

    Emphasis on "Mister Bush".  No way should he be called "Mister President".  He's a scumbag and a traitor.

    A pessimist sees a glass half empty. I see a paper cup with holes punched in it.

    by Paper Cup on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:24:14 PM PDT

  •  Diary needs re-write (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lolligolli

    Cutting and posting excerpts from a news article, and surrounding it with typos, misspellings, and non-sequiturs, should not rise to the level of recommended diary.  "First up" should not be rewarded above "well written."  But that is just my opinion.  

  •  Bush hasnt DENIED it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, leo joad

    Their normal plan of attack would be to get the message out. Scotty would be saying it was absurb, Chimpy would be craking wise getting on some plane, the noise machine would start blasting.  

    But no denial.

    The best they can come up with is spinning it, the president can declassify anything.

    Silence means they are strategizing.

    Bad week to bring on a new chief of staff huh?

  •  Outstanding diary-important+recommended-thanks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, Lolligolli
  •  To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, leo joad, RAZE, Lolligolli

    ...what the meaning of "leak" is.  

    That seems to be what BushCo's entire defense will be based on. But here's what interesting:  they are having to make a legal argument -- "if we leak it's not a leak" -- that absolutely undermines their political argument -- "straight-shootin' W hates the leaking leakers that leak."

    This thing is going to split apart at the seams.

  •  Leaktaker (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RAZE

    Can George Bush urinate on anyone he deems a threat to America?

    Questions...

  •  I ticked not sure on the poll (0+ / 0-)

    but ONLY because I think darling Fitz needs to get past this graymail point - then the indictments will flow. If the pdb's are allowed in the case is dead in the water and Fitz will have to find some other route.

    The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud. -Coco Chanel

    by Overseas on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 02:32:10 AM PDT

  •  Excellent diary but I believe you have a (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leo joad, martyc35, Lolligolli

    significant factual error.
    ." When Wilson return[ed] from Niger reporting that the Yellowcake documents were forgeries, both Karl Rove and Stephen Hadley became concerned about the possible negative impact on their 2004 re-elections campaign."
    My memory tells me that the Yellowcake documents were unknown at the time Wilson went to Africa and that they were not debunked until February or March 2003 by the U.N atomic energy control agency,

    " Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution." Sen Rob't. Byrd 10/11/02(R.I.P.)

    by LEP on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 02:41:11 AM PDT

  •  Hello and GM Ms Lolligolli (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bronte17, boofdah

    I just a moment ago gave this reply to YucatanMan and then scrolled to the bottom and saw what looked like a fresh post and I thought you might be awake but here is the confusion I replied to YucatanMan and would like for you to read it too. on't worry about making sense of it all as the startegist have to line up the talk crappsters for Sundays and today's mutterings of non-sense...

    here it is: YucatanMan

    in response to this from your reply to Lolligolli's :
    Fitzgerald Aims To Show High Level Organized Plan Led To Leak CIA Agents Name (Poll)

    ""could end up being damning evidence that GWB may be outliving his welcome.  The massive deficit will come back to bite many of the old school conservative elite through monetary devaluation.""

    That is the contention that Karl Phillips made inherently clear throughout many of his interviews recently of his new published book : "American Theocracy" but I told them and knew the secret of the money was connected to the Price of Gold and have in here even stated that once Gold went beyond the $448- $453 range the the International Banks were only marking space and time and per se only going through the motions for the eyes of the youth in the business world that aspire to be the CEO's and Fed Chairperson someday.

    As far as this investigation I started defining it yesterday and its a simple device that involves the Constitution (as a Wall of Protections), Oaths of and to the Constitution and Citizens as digits and then the old double negative standard applies and Ms Plame was cast outside the Wall of Protection by actions of conspiracy and that being the conspiracy became the negative behind the Wall of Protection and then to make it positive in the scales of justice the negative of the conspiracy must be exchanged with Ms Plame outside the Wall of constitutional Protection and the "conspirators (in total) must stay outside the Wall of Protection of the Constitution because in placing Ms Plame in jeopardy outside the Walls it placed all citizrns at greater risk. Now in all this the timimg factor is not of consequence because when the choice to set her outside this Protective Constitutional Wall of Protection they then exposed and endangered millions and one, two,three!; either way you flip the omelet! Why because warning and protetion was never afforded Ms Plame professionally in one sense through declassification and that jeopardized millions behind the Wall of Protection and if they cry baby that away from the Republican controlled Tom De Lay Fox News Network Christian Mrs. Goodie Two Women (which they can't in even the Supreme Court) then there is the civilian side of Ms Plame and that endangers 1 Her 2 Her Husband and 3 THEIR DAUGHTER!!! plus furthermore links back to other agents past and present placed at risk along with loved ones and if an agent in the field is at a key point of investigation and her exposure X's him out to be his demise then back to the old verifiable 1st and "THERE ARE MILLIONS OF UNKNOWING AND SLEEPING BEHIND THE WALLS OF THE CONSTITUTION AS WE NO THE CIA IS A CLANDESTINE OPERATION AS WE PAY THEIR SALARIES AND FEES"---

    Last evening here I said in a rambling around that Scott Mc Clellan should resign. And he should and turn "states eveidence so to say"! If not his book is a no-brainer no buy from realistic people but of course his mom's style friends like Kay Baikey Hutchison will make it a big seller and he needs to understand that TV is only a privilege in prison and can be taken away without notice. In fact a judge could order that his privileges be denied and only his rights secured.

    But the AMMO OF THE DAY and the thing that needs to be shown to womens church auxilaries around the nation and prayer groups as well as to the Women on the Supreme Court and the Wives of the Supreme Court men members especially Mrs Roberts and Mrs Alituto (<---is it alito) is from The Huffington Post in this link!</p>

    click on here to play at the tom de lay picture-video

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    And to think the Republican spoiled brat sissies in their 3 piece suits use the word "despicable" and their type women whatever that is they just gasp in shrike utter fear---they couldn't lift a Pair of their Son's Marine Boots compared to the Women that make America the great country it is"
    Forgive the typos please!

    Coming to your town soon! The Social Security Adminstartion Electric and Power Company. "Omen Tuffy" 1918-1992

    by generic on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 03:40:24 AM PDT

  •  Machevelli recommended getting bad news out fast (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson

    But despite rumors to the effect of the GWB administration being utterly Machiavellian, they seem to have either not read or not understood Machiavelli's writings. Machiavelli's single largest piece of advice which he repeated over and over in The Prince is that a ruler must be prepared for any eventuality. But the GWB administration has proven time and again that it has had singular plans (Katrina, being greeting in Iraq as liberators) with no preparation for when things go wrong.

    I think what is happening is that Machiavelli is most remembered for removing traditional morality from political discourse. Since there is a perception that the GWB administration is following down that path, they must be Machiavellian. But that is a very small portion of Machiavellian doctrine, and a relatively unimportant one.

    •  The Prince (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      imabluemerkin

      if I remember correctly...didn't he also discourage
      taking over other countries unless you know the language and said you must install your own government immediately. What these guys do is a bigboy version of green army men. They are crazy.

      Skull and Bones says... Audacity...always audacity!
      I do see that.

      I could have been Queen of Iraq by now. ;-)

      •  'L'audace, toujours l'audace!' (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NeuroticBlonde

        Supposedly it's a quote from Frederick the Great, although he's kind of the Yogi Berra of historical quotes - a lot of famous comments are attributed to him that are probably apocryphal.

        Perhaps some mighty victory is growing in you now. - Mike Finley

        by hrh on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:59:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not quite (0+ / 0-)

        Machiavelli had no quibble with invading other countries. He did say that the highest chance of success lie in the ruler moving to that country to establish a new seat of government. He contended starting a colony was second best and total ruination as third best.

  •  hee (6+ / 0-)

    Image hosting by Photobucket

    you make me lose my buttons oh yeah, you make me spit; I don't like my clothes anymore...

    by Jaffa on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:57:22 AM PDT

  •  I'm still waiting for Fitzgerald to.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, leolabeth, boofdah, leo joad

    start publically delineating where Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, to whom we paid millions for information, fit in to BushCo's little theatre show.

    Kabuki BushCo style?  What are the elements:
    soap opera, morality play, politics, religious pagentry.....?

    BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

    by Habanero on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:57:40 AM PDT

  •  difference in C-words (0+ / 0-)

    conspiracy vs. coordinated.
    (what were you thinking I meant? Shame on you!)

    Did Fitz ever use the word "conspiracy" anywhere in his filing? Or, is that Leopold's interpretation? I think that is very important. If Fitz used the "conspiracy" word, then the fat lady is singing her heart out.

    I remember a time when our President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

    by land of the free on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 06:57:19 AM PDT

    •  'conspired' (0+ / 0-)

      That was the word, which of course implies a conspiracy.  See my post below - I too wonder about the legal weight of this term.

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:32:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks, and comment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        imabluemerkin

        I agree with your comment: if Fitz used the word "conspired", it has to mean he has proof of a conspiracy. He has been very, very careful with the words he uses. I cannot imagine he'd allow that word in his documents if he didn't have evidence to support it.

        I remember a time when our President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

        by land of the free on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:58:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  the WSJ story is bogus (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuroticBlonde, MP Three

    With all due respect, Fitzgerald has no intention of getting into this with Libby. As i tried to show in a diary two  days ago, the entire force of Fitz's filing is that LIBBY IS NOT BEING CHARGED WITH A CONSPIRACY.

    Fitz is trying to defeat the graymail defense. In order to do that, he is avoiding the entire White House as much as possible. The only witness from the WH is Fleischer.

    FITZ IS NOT GOING FOR A CONSPIRACY. I don't know whether the author of this WSJ article is stupid, illiterate, a WH tool, or just hasn't bothered to read the filing.
    PLEASE EVERYONE READ THE DAMNED FILING IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE ALLEGEDLY INTELLIGENT COMMENTS.

    Don't expect that Fitzgerald is gonna take down the WH, because he can't. Period.

    If he nails Bush on a lie under USC 18, section 1001, that is something else. But trying to put together a conspiracy in the WH is not gonna happen. The Graymail Defense was made to order for such an ill advised undertaking.

    Bush gives pubic hair a bad name.

    by seesdifferent on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 07:20:38 AM PDT

    •  I don't think it's bogus (0+ / 0-)
      From p. 26 of the filing:
      Moreover, as a practical matter, there are no documents showing an absence of a plot, and it is unclear how any document custodian would set out to find documents showing an "absence of a plot."  Indeed, there exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant, and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and after July 14, 2003.

      Fitzgerald states this is part of the backdrop against which Libby "argues that he is entitled to rummage around in government files in an effort to find documents that would somehow help him to establish he had no reason to conceal his role in disseminating then-classified information" (p. 28).  

      In other words, there was an organized plan but Fitzgerald is not going there as part of a criminal investigation -- he only needs to describe it in order to counter Libby's bogus memory defense.

      Meanwhile I agree with what you have been saying -- the purpose of the filing is to deny Libby's requests for sensitive documents.  Libby sure makes some lame requests, seeking documents that show other people thought Plame's identity was not a secret.  Fitz reminds us "Though he might wish otherwise, this trial is not about the conduct or state of mind of persons other than defendant.  Indeed, the state of mind of other individuals is of negligible value in determining whether defendant lied to the FBI and grand jury."

      The WSJ article does make clear that Fitzgerald calls attention to VP and Prez in order to shoot down the memory defense, and "there is no suggestion by Mr. Fitzgerald that either President [sic] Bush or Vice President Cheney told Mr. Libby to leak her name."  On the other hand I don't see in the filing where Fitz will "try to show that the leaking of a CIA agent's name grew out of a highly organized administration effort."

      "No human race is superior; no religious faith is inferior.
      All collective judgments are wrong. Only racists make them."
      ---Elie Wiesel<

      by bleargh on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:54:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you both for your thoughtful (0+ / 0-)

        analysis. So, one could say that Fitzgerald's activities since the Libby indictment have been for two purposes only: preparing for the Libby trial, and determining if he should indict Rove and Hadley for purgery and/or obstruction of justice. Do you believe that is the entire scopt of his current activity?

        "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightening..." Frederick Douglass

        by WISCONSIDINK on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:06:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  GREAT synthesis, Lolli :) (0+ / 0-)

    Fitz, my main man, watch yer back. PLEASE.

  •  For those who haven't read Fitz's 'Response' (3+ / 0-)

    I highly recommend it. It is a remarkably clear straight forward document - I believe it is so composed to get the public's attention and intellectual involvement. AND I also think he wrote it for future historians that they may have an objective document to refer to because the media archives have been contaminated.

    One of the things this story shows is HOW the administration used the media to PERPETRATE a FRAUD. AND how this administration dealt with its enemies, the 'truth tellers'.

    Charisma does not save republics, Courage does. (adigal)

    by Carbide Bit on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:02:03 AM PDT

  •  Focus on BAD FAITH, not legalisms (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry, but focus on the conspiracy line,  while moving in the right direction, misses the HUGE political significance of the Libby testimony is that is shows BAD FAITH.

    Bush repeatdly has dodged accountability for spying,lying, mistakes, lawbreaking, and incompetence because he has claimed to be acting n good faith and motivated by a desire to protect the american people from terrorism and promote national security. The american people and the press have cut him slack becausee of this. Even Senators Arlen Specter and Lindsay Graham have said nothing will stick unless bad faith is shown.

    The Libby testimony shows that Bush is really motivated by attacks against political critics for politically self- serving reasons having nothing to do with national security.  

    This is what we need to emphasize, adn it puts us well beyond the Nixon threshold.

  •  Meme (0+ / 0-)

    Bush conspiracy to leak top secret intel for political counterattack.

    A suggestion.

  •  'Conspired' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MP Three, land of the free

    That word caught my eye as well.  I doubt a federal prosecutor would use it lightly - it seems pretty damn serious given where it's coming from.  I'd love to hear from some lawyers on here about the implications, if any, of the use of the term by Fitzgerald.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:29:53 AM PDT

  •  Could anything be more transparent at this point (0+ / 0-)

    than the adminstration's conspiracy to debunk Joe Wilson's findings at all costs? Bush's role is also becoming clearer. He can no longer be considered the boy idiot being manipulated by the sinister Dick Cheney and company. He is as much a part of the whole conspiracy as the usual White House thugs. Bush has a mean streak in him that belies his pretense of being Christian and  good-natured. He enjoys inflicting pain on his enemies and he also seems to take some sick, twisted form of pleasure from dealing with families of soldiers killed in Iraq or in "comforting" victims of Hurricane Katrina. His ever present smirk in these situations is a clear indication that he is seriously mentally unbalanced.

  •  what Im not getting is this... (0+ / 0-)

    If the President didnt break the law or if the leaking was done with declassified information, what was the point of beginning an investigation?  

    If the President knowingly went forward to play politics with sensitive national security intelligence, why didnt he speak up before wasting taxpayers dollars on yet another long, costly investigation?

    •  two possible answers (0+ / 0-)
      1. I'm guessing that just because the President's lawyer (the AG, who actually is supposed to be the Government's lawyer, not the President's) says that it was legal, it isn't necessarily so.

      Additionally, there is a contradiction as to when this information was actually declassified. Dates don't seem to line up. Judy Miller seemed to have the pro-Iraq war info from the NIE before the document was supposedly declassified. Finally, there is the ethical question of, "why leak parts of the information to the press that corroborate your goals, supress the information that invalidates your reasoning, all the while pretending the document is classified?"

      1. Because he thought he could get away with it.

      I remember a time when our President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

      by land of the free on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:53:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  NIE leak vs. Plame leak (0+ / 0-)

    Am I missing something?  I noticed that in speaking of 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' leaks of (formerly?) classified information, McClellan (and the linked NY TImes article above,) talk about how 'normal' or 'traditional' it is for White Houses to leak classified information to bolster their positions on various issues.  Scotty talked about 'leaks in the public interest' and seemed to reference the NIE leak.  

    What nobody then asked--though I screamed it at my TV--(and what the NYT article deftly sidesteps) is how it was OK and 'in the public interest'to out a NOC CIA agent and the company she worked for, i.e., Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings.  How can it be legal to out an undercover agent for political purposes?  Can the President, AT WILL, decide who can be outed and who can't?  I can't imagine that to be the case.

    -7.88, -6.72. I AM paying attention, and I am so fucking outraged I can't see straight. TORTURE and ILLEGAL SPYING ON AMERICANS are not family values!

    by caseynm on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:52:18 AM PDT

  •  I wish someone would (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hrh, ybruti, BlueInARedState

    do a diary, or news media would do an article (hello Newsweek, Time? 60 Minutes, anyone?) on just how damaging the leak of Plame's status as a NOC was to this country. I have a feeling the lack of genuine outrage is because she is a woman. had Plame been a man, there would be plenty of men outraged are the blown cover. But Valerie? C'mon, she couldn't possibly be as important as a man.
    I know some here might see that as being a whiny female's argument, or just that the media is in the right wing's pocket. But, to me, it doesn't matter that Plame wasz a woman - she was doing a vitally important job. And although top secret stuff is, well, top secret, I think there would be a way of telling the story so folks would undertand.
    What happened on the day the Novak article came out? How many folks scrambled to CIA HQ to jump on the phone and warn those in harm's way in other countries? What happened to folks at Brewster jenniings overseas offices? Were they scrambling to shred docs that day? Did they get caught as a result? Is there any evidence that people died as a direct result? [I can't remember his name, but a friend of Plame, who went to the CIA academy with her, said the very fact that they haven't made mention that the leak did no harm means that it very definitely did do harm.] What was Plame working on, and was her assignmnet another reason for outing her? In other words, if she was following the money trail of nuclear arms, or working on Iran, was shegetting too close to neo-con plans to start another war?
    For me, far too many questions that haven't been answered. I think that leaking Plame did far more damage than just to Joe Wilson's reputation. It is a matter of national security and how the Bush Administration has committed a treasonous act in the outing. Whether intentional (to disrupt Plame's assignment) or unintentional (their sexist attitude towards women) it is still a serious, serious matter.
    I still hear people on the right saying that Plame wasn't a NOC. They too act as though she was just a woman who worked at CIA, little more than a secretary. Bulls*it!
    I want answers! I want the truth!

    All Truth is non-partisan

    by MA Liberal on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:03:19 AM PDT

  •  Fitzgerald's Filings (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DaveV, hrh, ybruti, RAZE, imabluemerkin

    I really enjoy reading Fitzgerald's filings in this matter. Not only does he very effectively address everything brought up in the defense's request, but he does so in such a way that they can't spin it later. He seems to include just enough new (to us) information to remind the defense that he has the goods on them and their games aren't going to work.

    Plus, he adds a nice dose of dry humor. In response to the defense's claim that the Executive Office has cooperated with a steady stream of documentation being delivered to the Special Prosecutor, Fitzgerald wrote that was done in response to a steady stream of subpoenas requiring the release of that information!

    He is definitely the anti-Starr.

    •  dry humor (0+ / 0-)

      I enjoyed his little aside about how it's unclear how a document custodian could go about searching for documents that show "an absence of a plot".

      That made me laugh out loud.

      He really knows how to put the dig in.

      Perhaps some mighty victory is growing in you now. - Mike Finley

      by hrh on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:38:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Worse than Watergate. (0+ / 0-)

    this is bigger than Nixon's CREEP* dirty tricks. if Congress lets this one slide they are all guilty of Dereliction of Duty. (not just Lieberman)

    *any of you other old farts remember that? (Committee to ReElect the President  :-)

    "There are times in politics when you must be on the right side and lose." John Kenneth Galbraith

    by susanp on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:15:05 AM PDT

  •  Can anyone tell me who is (0+ / 0-)

    currently on the witness list to testify in the trial? I heard a talking head the other day advance the notion that anyone who may still be indicted would (typically) not be on the witness list. But Cheney IS on the witness list, which could mean he won't be indicted. Does anyone have anything to say on that point? Thanks.

    "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightening..." Frederick Douglass

    by WISCONSIDINK on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 11:56:15 AM PDT

  •  Meanwhile, right on cue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlueInARedState

    The right cowers, huddling for warmth at the bottom of a spider-hole.  

    I wonder if they'll come out and fight or if they'll stay down there and do the honorable thing, the difference being that they'll either end with a bang or a whimper.  
    .

  •  It is said that we should not be too predictable (0+ / 0-)

    so that our enemies cannot use our predictability against us.  I think Fitz must follow that to some extent.  I don't think any of us would have predicted that Libby would be indicted as all the paper messages were leading to Rove.  Now Fitz is trying Bushco as he releases documents in response to Libby's lawyers' various requests.  It matters not if he indicts Bush, the fact is Bush is on the hot seat and the stand in McClellan is clearly feeling the heat.

    Now if the blinking legislature would feel some heat maybe they would haul Bush up short before he nukes Iran.

  •  Question for Scott McClellen . . . did President (0+ / 0-)

    Bush enter into a conspiracy to blow Valarie Plame's CIA cover?

    THAT QUESTION SHOULD BE ON EVERYONE'S LIPS RIGHT NOW.

    Did Bush lead the conspiracy to out VP?

    Did Bush just follow orders from Chaney?

    Did Bush approve of the outing?

    Why's that important?

    Because outing a CIA agent is a federal crime.

    Moreover, if Bush lied to Fitz regarding his role in l'affaire Plame, he's toast.

  •  Why ignore Machiavelli? (0+ / 0-)

    Isn't it obvious? He's soooo old Europe.

    "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 02:01:55 PM PDT

  •  Bush fantasizes about Cheney (0+ / 0-)

    I didn't tell you this, so don't mention my name, but I have it on good authority that George Bush is gay. That's right, a lover of le boner. That's french. Bush recently confided in Rove that when he is on top of Laura that he fantasizes that dick is dick'n him. Oy!

    I hope George and Dick are able to find their own secret ****back mountain.

  •  Public Interest (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronInSanDiego

    Of course Bush tries to explain the leak by saying it was important to "public interest". By the admin's apparent political philosophy, Bush's political interest is equivalent to the public interest.  In the same he feels the law of the land is indistinguishable from his personal whim.

    It's not that Bush thinks his interest trumps the public's interest, or that his whim trumps the law-- it's just that he can't distinguish the difference in either case.

, skybluewater, zzyzx, cvcobb01, PLS, CJB, Trix, Mogolori, Jonathan, taylormattd, teacherken, GOTV, Subway Serenade, gogol, lipris, talex, TaraIst, ubikkibu, Pandora, Unstable Isotope, whataboutbob, saraswati, jjc4jre, chuco35, CleverNickName, cotterperson, SanJoseLady, meg, Mnemosyne, moira977, TX Unmuzzled, qw3rty, polecat, lobezno, kdub, x, frisco, dash888, marjo, voltayre, Matilda, dqw5644, grndrush, memberofthejury, kissfan, eyeswideopen, DaveV, km4, mlafleur, Disgusted in St Louis, EvieCZ, PaintyKat, bronte17, DickCheneyBeforeHeDicksYou, macdust, petercjack, understandinglife, rhp, twcollier, AlyoshaKaramazov, themank, Glic, buckhorn okie, khloemi, chechecule, amberglow, Ignacio Magaloni, peraspera, murphsurf, L0kI, Swordsmith, ryder92111, Thaxter, thingamabob, librarianman, arkdem, Cedwyn, quester45, Alna Dem, sidnora, malcolm, Mauimom, mayan, kharma, kredwyn, caseynm, Magatsu, BurnetO, WISCONSIDINK, sockpuppet, NYC Sophia, Dallasdoc, TXsharon, besieged by bush, hoolia, smash, Caldonia, Black Maned Pensator, bleargh, nika7k, snakelass, renaissance grrrl, btyarbro, STOP George, Earl, inclusiveheart, Anne from Vermont, walkshills, ChiGirl88, KateCrashes, parkslopper50, NapaJulie, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Mosquito Pilot, Steven D, Dr Seuss, HK, rebirtha, kd texan, rockmoonwater, pat208, Timroff, califdweller, gsbadj, Blueiz, Shapeshifter, curlbj, guyermo, kevsterwj, rapala, MichDeb, leolabeth, lcs, mediaprisoner, bloomer 101, ChemGeek, Tinfoil Hat, whodat527, SpecialEFX, stargrrl, hiredman, LarisaW, baccaruda, Russron, unclejohn, subtropolis, PBen, JohnB47, panicbean, clammyc, Simplify, ZappoDave, Northstar, station wagon, viral, RepublicanTaliban, YucatanMan, Bouwerie Boy, boofdah, Annalize5, curtadams, general tso, concerned, jorndorff, ajr2005, GreyHawk, Overseas, sheddhead, Skid, sunbro, demmefatale, foxglove, chasewho, janew2, dspivak, Habanero, Shotput8, wiscmass, serrano, zinger99, Unduna, Spathiphyllum, hiddengnostic, Alan Arizona, Land of Enchantment, Paper Cup, bently, kubla000, kovie, Sanuk, exarmy25, RabidBadger, neworleanslady, LeighAnn, tarheelblue, PatsBard, JimKansas, BlueInARedState, leo joad, Absit invidia, Yellow Canary, buhdydharma, compbear, Esjaydee, greenearth, blueoasis, Matt O, Ashaman, da5idfox, Rachel in Vista, N0MAN1968, CTLiberal, Demena, Andy30tx, doinaheckuvanutjob, LieDetector, Balzac, llbear, profh, Blue in VA, numinus, Dreaming of Better Days, Compostings, generic, Mash, richbitch, ms badger

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site