Novak's Meet the Press interview marked by further inaccuracy and obfuscation
SUMMARY: Meet the Press host Tim Russert did little to challenge Bob Novak's misleading statements on some of the key aspects of the Valerie Plame affair. Instead, both focused on the irrelevant issue of whether Novak's sources disclosed her actual name -- which as Novak himself noted, was easily located -- rather than on his sources' motivations in disclosing her identity as a CIA operative.
Appearing on the July 16 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press to discuss his role in the federal investigation into the leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, nationally syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak continued his pattern of making false and misleading statements regarding the Plame affair. Host Tim Russert did little to challenge Novak's misleading statements on some of the key aspects of the Plame affair. Instead, both focused on the irrelevant issue of whether Novak's sources disclosed her actual name -- which as Novak himself noted, was easily located -- rather than on his sources' motivations in disclosing her identity as a CIA operative.
In 2002, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was sent to Niger by the CIA to answer questions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office regarding purported attempts on the part of Iraq to purchase Nigerien yellowcake uranium. Wilson's investigation turned up no evidence that any sale had taken place and found that "it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq." After President Bush referred to Iraq's purported attempt to obtain uranium from Africa in his 2003 State of the Union address as justification for invading Iraq (the now-infamous "16 words"), Wilson detailed the findings of his trip in a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed. Eight days later, in his July 14, 2003, column, Novak identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction," and wrote: "Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger." In September 2003, it was reported that the Justice Department had launched an investigation into the public disclosure of Plame's identity. In October 2005, special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the head of the investigation, announced that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's then-chief of staff, had been indicted for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to the FBI regarding the Plame inquiry. In a July 12 column, Novak purported to reveal his "role in the investigation" after three years of near-silence on the Plame affair. On July 13, Wilson and Plame filed suit against Cheney, Libby, and White House senior adviser Karl Rove, claiming they "embarked on anonymous 'whispering campaign'" that blew Plame's cover as a CIA employee and "was designed to discredit and injure" Wilson and Plame.
Plame's name versus her identity
During the interview, Russert and Novak placed heavy significance on when and where Novak first learned Plame's name. But in the context of the leak investigation, Plame's name is insignificant. The public disclosure of Plame's identity as a CIA employee and the potential damage caused by that disclosure were the basis for the CIA's referral of the matter to the Justice Department to begin with, and the basis for the lawsuit Wilson and Plame filed against Cheney, Libby, and Rove. Media Matters for America found that even at the time Novak wrote his column disclosing her identity, Plame's name could have been obtained through a quick Google search, as it was listed on Wilson's biography on the Corporate & Public Strategy Advisory Group's website in July 2003. Novak himself said that he came across Plame's name simply by checking Wilson's Who's Who in America listing, a fact that he cited in his July 12 column and in subsequent appearances to exculpate his sources -- they didn't actually provide her name -- when by his own account, their intent in identifying Wilson's wife at all was to suggest (falsely, according to the CIA) that by virtue of her job with the CIA , she was in a position to recommend him for the trip to Niger. Whether she went by "Mrs. Wilson" or something else was presumably not relevant to their purported goal of raising questions about Wilson's credibility and qualifications for the assignment. Whether or not her actual name was used was also not relevant to the question of whether outing "Wilson's wife" as a CIA employee compromised the operations of the CIA. Even Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, and attorney Victoria Toensing, a vocal defender and friend of Novak's, have acknowledged that public disclosure of Plame's name had no bearing on whether the leakers had violated the law.
Nonetheless, Novak suggested repeatedly that the issue of whether his sources provided Plame's name was relevant to their culpability in disclosing her identity, and Russert did nothing to counter his assertions. Russert quoted the July 22, 2003, Newsday article in which Novak was quoted saying that his sources thought Plame's identity was "significant" -- a statement that appears to conflict with Novak's later claims that his source disclosed the information in an "offhanded" and "inadvertent" manner. Novak responded not by addressing the apparent inconsistency -- saying that, first, his sources thought Plame's identity was significant and, later, that they disclosed it offhandedly -- but by stating, irrelevantly, that administration officials did not tell him Plame's name: "I was wrong when I said they came to me. ... I mean, when I said that they gave me the name, because I got the name from, from Who's Who in America." By focusing on Plame's name, Novak completely sidestepped the question of whether the disclosure of Plame's identity was deliberate or inadvertent. Russert asked five follow-up questions on the issue of when and where Novak learned her name.
From the July 16 Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Did he [Novak's primary source] give you the -- her name?
NOVAK: No, he did not.
RUSSERT: Now, Newsday interviewed you a few weeks after your column ran, back in 2003, and quotes you as saying this: "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
NOVAK: That was a misstatement on my part. I -- I'm -- I've found I'm much better -- I hope I'm not screwing up on this interview because I'm much better interviewing than I am giving interviews. They didn't give me the name. And of course it was not a "they," it was one person, which I later checked out with Mr. Rove. They, they -- the Newsday article also paraphrased me as saying they came to me. I never said they came to me, because obviously I initiated the interview.
RUSSERT: Newsday stands by that story. And you know if a politician said that, which you said, and contrasted it with what you're saying now, people would say, "Wait a minute. Something's wrong here."
NOVAK: Well, I was wrong when I said they came to me.
RUSSERT: You --
NOVAK: I mean, when I said that they gave me the name, because I got the name from -- from Who's Who in America.
[...]
RUSSERT: When you were on Meet the Press October of '03, I asked you about the Newsday piece, and you did repeat, you said, quote, "What I meant was that the senior official had given me her name."
NOVAK: Well, that, that was just -- that's just a misstatement on my part. He -- he -- what he said exactly was his wife, his wife had done it. I got the name -- because I realized I didn't have the name, and I figured out, how am I going to get this name to put in the -- in the column? So I said, "Maybe it's in Who's Who." And I looked it up, and there it was.
RUSSERT: In fact, you wrote, "I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in 'Who's Who in America.' " And here is the Who's Who from 2003: Wilson, Joseph Charles IV, ambassador, married to Valerie Elise Plame August 3, 1998." Was that the very first time you had seen or heard the name Valerie Plame?
NOVAK: Yes.
RUSSERT: No one told you?
NOVAK: No.
RUSSERT: But they did tell you "his wife."
NOVAK: He told me his wife worked in the counterproliferation division of the -- they did not say she was a covert operative, didn't say she was a covered operative. A lot of people say, "Well, why'd you call her an operative in the column?" I call all kinds of politicians operatives. It's maybe a bad habit, I -- but I still do it. I see somebody's running a congressional campaign in Wyoming, I'd call them an operative.
RUSSERT: But having said twice before that you got the name from a senior official --
NOVAK: Oh, a mistake.
RUSSERT: -- you can understand why people are --
NOVAK: I understand, I understand, but it was -- it's just not -- it's just not factually correct, and I have -- I have testified under oath about this.
RUSSERT: You have?
NOVAK: Yes.
RUSSERT: That they did not give you the name?
NOVAK: Yes.
The Senate Intelligence Committee report
On the same program, Novak initially repeated the false claim that the Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq concluded that it was Plame who had "initiate[d]" Wilson's trip to Niger. Novak said: "I then called the CIA, and the spokesman told me that she [Plame] didn't initiate it, she facilitated it. That -- that happened to be wrong, because the Senate Intelligence Committee has said that she did initiate the trip and they have a document to prove it." Russert challenged Novak, noting that the bipartisan report did not conclude that Plame had initiated the trip. Novak then acknowledged that it was actually "the Republican majority" that came to that conclusion, but then misleadingly claimed that the committee Democrats "didn't dissent" from the Republicans, and again claimed there is a document that proves the Republicans right:
RUSSERT: Well, the Senate Intelligence Committee indicated that, but they did not conclude it.
NOVAK: The -- I believe that the -- that the Republican majority concluded it.
RUSSERT: The Republican majority did, but the Democrats did not.
NOVAK: They didn't -- they didn't take it up and they didn't dissent from it, either.
RUSSERT: It's not an official conclusion, but it is in the report as an indication.
NOVAK: And the -- and there's a document that -- that confirms it.
Russert failed to challenge Novak to expand upon his claim of a single "document" that "confirms" Plame "initiate[d]" Wilson's trip to Niger. But as Media Matters for America has noted, unnamed intelligence officials have been quoted in the media claiming that it was the CIA -- not Plame -- that selected Wilson for the trip. Also, CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of a State Department intelligence document that reportedly indicates Plame "suggested" Wilson for the trip. Committee chairman Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), in his addendum to the report, noted that "my Democrat colleagues refused to allow the following conclusion[] to appear in the report: Conclusion: The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."
So "his wife" isn't the same as "Valerie Plame"? If Joe Wilson had TEN wives, I'd agree. But he has ONE, whose name is Valerie Plame Wilson, so any reference to Joe Wilson's wife equals Valerie Plame. Clinton was SLAUGHTERED for this sort of language dissection over BJs received from an intern. Won't someone PLEASE grow a pair and put Novak through the same scrutiny for OUTING a CIA AGENT.
he lied about something that wasn't even a crime. Herein lies the difference.
...He didn't out Plame. She had already been outed by Alldridge Ames.
That was news to me.
Novak demonstrates the problem with lying. Once you start down the road, you have to resort to tortured rationalizations claiming misunderstandings, errors, and misspeaking because the LIE is exposed by your previous UNGUARDED testimony and words.
Once the LIE is decided upon, all previous statements are inoperative, just "mistakes" and "misunderstandings". Yeah, she was a CIA operative, but he calls ALL people "operatives" ... it's a generic term, you see. Has no clear meaning, and as a "reporter" this guy is great with building the reputation of being inaccurate as hell.
But he has no choice: the LIE must be preserved, even if it means claiming his entire career of "reporting facts" has been a fraud. Geez!
The lies will be maintained as long as those involved in the leadership decisions on the right over the past five years are alive, because any admission to error, or deceit would make them guilty of war crimes, undermining the Constitution, arbitrary acts of lawlessness, and taking actions to destroy democracy at every opportunity. If ever there was an enemy within seeking to destroy America the current administration is it.
I fail to see what difference it makes whether Wilson's wife or someone else "sent" him to Niger. The conclusion at which he arrived after talking to officials in Niger and studying the poorly-forged document was that there was no plausible attempt to buy yellowcake by Iraq. That conclusion has since been proven to be correct. The matter of significance is that Iraq did not attempt to purchase yellowcake from Niger and that this particular president should have been cognizant enough of that to not say in his address.
on the difference between operatives and agents. he knew the difference. and he knew that when you are discussing an employee of the cia, that "operative" is a specific term for someone whose identity is classified. and the guys like rove and libby who confirmed her identity and cia job were obligated to make sure it was not classified information. at the very minimum, they were reckless with that information. they should have been fired the minute that became known. instead mr. george w. "he's keeping us safe" bush praised the pair of them.
... was going to launch a NUKE? Well, NUKE is slang for microwaving something. Like, "I'm gonna NUKE a Hot Pocket for dinner." So, it wasn't NUKE like a nuclear weapon, or anything like that. OF COURSE Saddam didn't have that, and I'd never say he did.
But Saddam, he DID have Hot Pockets, and that's what I meant when I said "NUKE". OK? Glad we straightened that out ....
And by mushroom cloud, he was referring to the cloud of steam that would pour out from a plate of freshly microwaved mushrooms.
Duh!
and the news media knew exactly what they were doing. They were blackmailing intelligence agents, across the board by implying that if they crossed this administration they could count on being exposed. They ruined Valerie Plame's career, and if they were lucky someone might kill her for them.
There is no reason to give the treasonous criminals who committed this act any quarter, they are traitors for what they did and they know it; everything else the members of the administration have to say on this matter is an attempt to escape prosecution.
It was one of the lowest acts I've ever witnessed by government officials; meanwhile bought scumbags run around and attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Really, what the hell is going on here? You have to be suffering from severe brain damage to think for a moment that it matters at all whether someone said "Joe Wilson's wife" or "Valerie Plame".
Let's put Bobbie's credentials on the table, and then sanitize the table.
He is a "Lying Rat B_stard" that outed his own source from the start, making him "a Weak Blattered Lying Rat B_stard" that thinks he knows all and anyone who argues with him is a traitor.
Ok; this is getting complicated, He's a "Stupid-Weak Blattered-Lying Rat B-stard" and that's that.
Ok, so why does anyone listen this creature??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Of course he's lying. Of course he's being handled with kid gloves by Russert. We're talking about novak here. The prince of frickin' darkness, for Christ sake.
None of these people have souls or cast reflections when they walk past a mirror. They have no interest in the truth or the public's right to know in a a free and open society. Perish the thought. Like cheney, they think that the running of the most powerful nation in the free world is none of our damned business.
with their blood to keep them mobile.
Brilliant observation.
Our founding fathers invested in THE PEOPLE the awesome responsibility of SELF RULE. EVERYTHING the government did was OUR business. WE are in charge, and the government is our SERVANTS, fully accountable to US.
Cheney indeed has taken the stance that running this country is none of our damn business.
By taking this arrogant and secretive totalitarian tact, Cheney is a traitor to our founders, and a traitor to our nation.
This is a terrific example of how brilliantly the right has manipulated our national conversation over the past 30 years or so.
The name "Valerie Plame" is completely irrelevant to this case: Novak knows it, and Russert, if he doesn't know it, should. Yet Russert allows Novak to frame the issue away from the salient facts to a matter of less than trivial importance.
This interview should have concentrated on the contradictions in Novak's statements, on the role of Karl Rove in this affair, on Rove's lies when denying any part of this, and on Novak's clear conflicts of interest that come from his attempt to define himself as a journalist while clearly basking in the role of ideologue.
Instead, Russert allowed himself to be sidetracked. Just like the story of Bush's AWOL status got sidetracked into whether Dan Rather consulted enough experts on kerning. Just like the 2004 election got sidetracked into whether John Kerry crossed into Cambodia, or just went up to the border.
They are really, really good at this. We've got to get better at swatting away their straw men.
That's a good point. The Democrats do need to do that better.
They also need to then 'fill the void' left when the strawmen arguments are discarded with the real arguments.
Like
Not only was Valerie Wilson's potential to again be an active covert agent (she had 'retired' to a desk job in Washington) totally sabotaged, but in addition, anyone who had ever worked with her, and had worked for the front company that she was associated with, was compromised. How much damage was done to our human intelligence worldwide by the exposure of Valerie Wilson and her business contacts?
While democrats have shrieked for heads to roll...Fitzgerald has found nothing...zero...nada...no convictions.
Ken Starr didn't find anything either...
14...let me repeat...14 convictions by Judge Starr.
'ol fitz...nada.
credibility...deeznuts...nada
First, Fitzgerald has an indictment, and an upcoming TRIAL. To follow proceedure, we will wait for the trial verdict, and THEN Fitzgerald will have his conviction.
As for Starr, he DID get some convictions ... of Arkansas Savings & Loan bandits that SHOULD have been prosecuted by local DAs. Instead, Starr decided instead of continuing looking for Clinton wrongdoing, he wanted some ACTION. Tired of wasting his time, perhaps.
Anyway, to cite STARR's 'convictions' without naming who they were and what for, and noting they had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH BILL CLINTON (which was Starr's special charge), you set up a false impression that Starr actually accomplished something, maybe even what he was directed to FIND. Instead, he took a time-out to shoulder an Arkansas DA aside and take over some of his trials.
Good on Starr, for using the taxpayer's money to help out Arkansas in bringing their local corrupt financial guy to justice. Unfortunately, that wasn't what he was being paid to do.
Great points, Tex. And remember, the Starr investigation cost more than the one into the Lockerbie explosion (which involved specialized scientific work, extensive material analysis and testing, foreign travel, and all kinds of other legitimately expensive research).
First, Fitzgerald has an indictment, and an upcoming TRIAL.
But it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the outing of Valerie Plame. Fact is, Fitzgerald has spent two and a half years investigating this and has apparently NOT found any evidence of the administration outing of Plame, which of course, is the issue at hand, isn't it?
the reason we know plame's name, the reason that her intelligence network was blown apart, the reason we are less safe is because administration officials leaked her name. there's no dispute on that. if you feel better, call it inadvertent, [i don't], but this is an administration that can't be trusted not to reveal the identity of an undercover operative.
Raed all of Fitgerald's comments and place them in the proper context. Yes, he said that he could not develop evidence of criminal activity against specific individuals in the outing of Valerie Plame. But he also said that witnesses lying to a grand jury inhibit the prosecution from exposing evidence of a cime. Those who lie to a grand jury obstruct justice.
Exactly right; if the principals are LYING to the prosecutor, this obstructs getting the EVIDENCE of the underlying crime.
Prosecutors EXPECT criminals to lie to the, as Libby has done trying to conceal the truth about the Valarie Plame outing.
So, Fitzgerald is taking it one step at a time. FIRST, prosecute for the lying and obstruction of justice. Once Libby is facing 30 YEARS or so in prison, one of two things will happen. Like Ken Lay, he will have an unexpected and fatal "heart attack".
OR, he will turn "state's evidence", and in exchange for cooperation, will FINALLY tell the truth, and implicate himself and others in the crime of revealing classified information, and the motivations behind that illegal action.
Criminals will not tell the truth until they HAVE to. But once it sinks in that they are not involnerable and omnipotent, they start squealing like Aunt Bessie's prize pig. Unless they have a mysterious heart attack, that is.
Tex, don't you think Bush will pardon Scooter Libby after the Fall elections?
Easier to arrange a mysterious death. And safer ... dead men tell no tales.
Some folks are too ignorant to understand the difference between "indictment" and "conviction," or to understand that a prosecutor choosing not to indict does not mean he "found nothing."
that administration officials exposed an intelligence agent; an intelligence agent who happened to be working on catching attempts to procure or move weapons of mass destruction. Hell, we didn't need anyone doing that for the C.I.A., did we?
The only interviews Novak should be giving are from the inside of a prison cell.
Can the other, separated at birth, half be none other than...Dick "Blunderbuss" Cheney? Both of these vermin share that "I'm from the dark side" countenance as well as a somnambulistic regard for honesty. They flee from Truth in a most diarrheic manner: They go somewhere else very quickly or...they just can't take Truth's aroma. They prefer their own brand of stench.
As much as I think Novak damaged the country by outing Plame, as much as I dislike everything he stands for, I cannot agree with those calling for prosecution of him. Look, if the NY Times is not guilty of treason (a charge I find ridiculous) for revealing classified info, then Novak isn't either. Freedom of the press rules. The person who broke the law is the person who revealed it to novak, even if inadvertantly.
Security clearances should be revoked.
Ken, I agree that the the press should be afforded latitude in publishing any materials that enlighten the public and do not endanger the lives of people or otherwise legitimately compromise national security. But the problem I have with Novak is that he is simply an administration shill whose story about the outing of Valerie Plame continues to evolve in a way that is increasingly favorable to the administration officials who leaked Valerie Plame's identity for no good reason other than retribution. At least that's what the evidence thus far suggests to me. Novak should crawl back in his hole IMO.
There's a huge, glaring difference between the two cases. The NYT story was a case of whistleblowing, where the allegations of governmental wrongdoing trump the classified argument. The revelation of Plame's identity in order to "correct the story" does not fall under the same category. That "correction" was not important enough to the story to warrant revealing the identity of a covert agent. Even if Cheney sent Wilson directly or Plame begged for him to get the assignment, that does not carry the same relevance to the public. The public needs to know about government abuse because we ultimately hold them accountable;Plame had superiors within the CIA for any needed disciplinary actions.
If someone leaked troop movements to Novak, would he be free of prosecution if he published them? No. There's no public interest at stake there, just as there is no public interest in correcting the supposedly devastating impression that Cheney sent Wilson on an assignment.
I believe it's illegal to classify illegal activity anyway. If the legality of the banking program is questionable, then the classification status is as well.
On the "CNN's King, Kagan echoed Republican falsehoods on Wilson's trip to Niger" thread, FOOL'S GOLD attempted to explain why Wilson and Plame are a danger to America:
I asked, "I don't get it. Can a rightwinger explain why, even if it was TRUE that Plame unilaterally "SENT" her husband, this constitutes a prima facie ATTACK on Bush? A predestination that the report would harm Bush?"
FOOL'S GOLD RESPONDS, NOT WITH ANY FACTS, BUT WITH A SERIES OF QUESTIONS:
1. "Because it BEGS the question, why??"
RESPONSE: Plame worked at the CIA. The Vice President's office asked the CIA to obtain clarification of the Niger/Yellowcake information. The CIA looked for a proper envoy to send on this mission, and Plame's husband Wilson had credentials of having worked in the area (as ambassador to African nations in question), having worked in the environment of WMDs in Iraq, and was available. The CIA asked his wife if there was any reason he SHOULD NOT go, and she said he was a good choice. So, the people that MAKE such assignments (NOT PLAME) sent him on the trip. It's pretty straightforward, the chronology.
2. "Why would she send him and risk having her cover blown?"
RESPONSE: There was no "RISK" of having her cover blown, unless people in possession of classified information in the White House decided to break the law and destroy national security and expose her. She could not have been expected to predict such a treacherous White House.
3. "Why would she go out of her way to recommend HIM for THIS trip, of all trips?"
RESPONSE: Asked and answered: He was QUALIFIED for the gig.
4. "It beckons one to reasonably ask, what is her political affiliation?"
RESPONSE: Only to partisan paranoids. The bottom line is, Wilson's report caused the White House to RETRACT the information Bush unwisely put in his SOTU speech. Plame's "affiliation" ... if any ... is wholly irrelevant.
5. "What other people has she recommended for trips?"
RESPONSE: Who gives a damn?
6. "Was it common for her to get involved in such things in her position?"
RESPONSE: Probably not. A question came up that her husband was uniquely qualified to seek the answer to.
7. "How did she know about the trip? Who told her?"
RESPONSE: Whoever handled the memo from the Vice President's office, asking for clarification, apparently sought a qualified person to send to ask the right questions of the right people. Wilson's name came up, as he had experience in the area.
8. "Is she privy to all trips or special assignments in her position."
RESPONSE: Who cares?
9. "What is her Agenda?"
RESPONSE: For YEARS, her agenda has been to protect the USA from threats of WMDs, by tracking their sales, and at a risk to her own life if her spying were to be exposed.
10. "These are ALL questions that need answers and there are scores more."
RESPONSE: IF you get an answer you like, does that mean Bush gets to put those 16 words BACK in his State of the Union address? Does it mean Bush was NOT warned that claim was unsubstantiated, and yet he used it anyway? Does it mean he was not embarrassed? Your "questioning" is simply a huge and desperate "fishing expedition", looking for something that does not exist: A rehabilitation of Bush's honesty and competence.
11."Certainly, it has the appearance of something potentially fishy and these questions need answers, reasonably so."
RESPONSE: Nothing "reasonable" about your approach ... it is desperation. And the old "where there's smoke, there's fire" doesn't fly here. Where there's smoke, there's usually a desperate rightwinger flinging smoke bombs for all he's worth.
Feel free to post any FACTS you want. A series of QUESTIONS does not provide any answers, rebuttal, reasoning, or enlightenment.
Particularly, explain why the White House RETRACTED the information Wilson confirmed was BOGUS. The one hurdle you can never overcome is that, whatever you might think of Wilson and/or Plame, the White House has confirmed that Bush screwed up royally.
Nothing will change that.
Feel free to post any FACTS you want.
First fact is, THEY will have to answer these and hundreds more questions without the freedom to merely state, "asked and answered" at will, or "who gives a ......." to questions they don't like. Second fact is that Fitzgerald has investigated this for 2 1/2 years and found no "outing" as they suggest. Third fact is, most of Wilson's report has been exposed as nonsense and his and his wife's actions are clearly partisan. (Wasn't that them pictured entering a Democratic Senate meeting recently.....oops!) Fourth fact is, the person that started the whole thing, Novak, has repeatedly said that not only did he not sense a "conspiracy" to out Plame, but that he NEVER heard anyone say anything critical of either. Fifth fact is, if you guys don't get this anger thing under control and get real, you're going to find yourselves further in the minority, this is a circus already!
Wilsons report has been TOTALLY vindicated it is almost certain at this point no attempt by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger EVER occured. It is clear the government of Niger couldnt produce any significant amounts of uranium even if they wanted to as the entire industry is under international control. It is also clear that Iraq turned DOWN an offer to sell them uranium from the Congo, also that there is nothing they could have done with the uranim if they had it and that they ALREADY HAD 500TONS of yellowcake anyway. If you ever return to the reality based universe you will find that these things are all well known and that your desperate attempts to pretend otherwise only make you look foolish. Desperation is the worlds worst cologne ( line from a movie) and you REEK of it.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name.
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
That's plenty ugly!!
"And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."
Was this panel mostly Republican? And how is it that that either the CIA says they had qualms or the administration admits so, but the panel finds otherwise? Based on what?
"Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA."
An administration official says he's partisan, and that proves to you that he is actually partisan? Or that Plame actually sent him? Is that really how your brain operates?
"The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."
It sounds like the quote is conflating two different items - one is a sales document and the other is a CIA report. Just because Wilson didn't see the CIA report doesn't mean he didn't see or hear about the original documents, especially since he surely has connections in both countries. The suggestion is that he couldn't have seen or heard about the documents before they were in U.S. possession, and that seems to be a bizarre conclusion. Besides, didn't the documents in question turn out to be forged, and poorly at that?
"Third fact is, most of Wilson's report has been exposed as nonsense and his and his wife's actions are clearly partisan. "
You are truly hopeless... Why do you come here?
"First fact is, THEY will have to answer these and hundreds more questions without the freedom to merely state, "asked and answered" at will, or "who gives a ......." to questions they don't like. "
Fine, so they'll answer them as Tex did. Then what? Your lack of follow-up on his answers doesn't really suggest that's a problem for them.
"Second fact is that Fitzgerald has investigated this for 2 1/2 years and found no "outing" as they suggest."
On the contrary, he said she was covert. Her name and status became public. The CIA turned it over to the DOJ. Need a calculator?
"Third fact is, most of Wilson's report has been exposed as nonsense and his and his wife's actions are clearly partisan. (Wasn't that them pictured entering a Democratic Senate meeting recently.....oops!)"
Show where this has been "exposed", please. And "recent" pictures, after the administration revealed her name to the public to discredit Wilson, who was just doing his job, doesn't prove a damn thing. Most people would probably not have a lot of loyalty to Bush after that, you have to admit.
"Fourth fact is, the person that started the whole thing, Novak, has repeatedly said that not only did he not sense a "conspiracy" to out Plame, but that he NEVER heard anyone say anything critical of either."
Is Novak an objective observer in all this? You don't think he's got a stake in what he says? Good God.
"Fifth fact is, if you guys don't get this anger thing under control and get real, you're going to find yourselves further in the minority, this is a circus already!"
Really? Why didn't that apply when conservatives were so angry about Clinton for eight years? Funny how that works.
can't answer the question: why do we know plame's identity? because then he would have to admit that we know it because members of the bush administration were discussing classified info with people not entitled to know it.
why do we know plame's identity?
Because she foolishly got herself involved in politics by going outside her area of responsibility and working to involve her husband. Because in this country, we have freedom of the press, just like we know about the NSA terrorist surveilance program, we know about Valerie Plame. Any third rate double ought spy would know that putting her husband in this position would only serve to draw attention to both of them. International spying: 101
"Because she foolishly got herself involved in politics by going outside her area of responsibility and working to involve her husband."
They asked her. She was supposed to expect that someone was going to reveal her name over that...why?
"Because in this country, we have freedom of the press, just like we know about the NSA terrorist surveilance program, we know about Valerie Plame."
We also have freedom of speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. There's no public interest in outing her identity over the aspect that the never-made suggestion that Cheney sent Wilson personally. There is no whistleblowing angle to this story, like there is with NSA, because the people don't need to hold Plame accountable for the supposed nepotism - she had superiors at the CIA who could have handled any such problem internally. If Dan Rather broadcast troop movements on the air, would you claim freedom of the press? Or would you argue that there is no public interest in needing to know that?
"Any third rate double ought spy would know that putting her husband in this position would only serve to draw attention to both of them."
Right, because anyone who goes on a fact-finding mission will automatically assumed to be married to a spy. There's no danger in Wilson drawing attention to himself since Plame, as far as anyone knows, is just his wife. Only if people reveal her status does it become a problem.
to why the White House responded to the "nonsense" in Wilson's report by retracting the statement. Also your entire argument seems to be based on the assumption that Novac is telling the truth. Perhaps the name "Fool'sGold" is only half accurate.
'ol fitz has it right
While democrats have shrieked for heads to roll...Fitzgerald has found nothing...zero...nada...no convictions.
- wesley / Monday July 17, 2006 09:36:18 PM EST - Reply to this comment /
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you wish, farm boy. It's all prayers and wishes with you wacks.
Scooter hasn't gone to trial, sport. How they hell could he be convicted!
As for rove, he's got to be a cooperating witness. Fitz has him dead to rights on the Martha Stewart charges - lying to investigators and obstruction of justice. If he's not indicted, he's singing like a canary.
Scooter
Yes, he does.........
First, Fitzgerald has an indictment, and an upcoming TRIAL.
But it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the outing of Valerie Plame. Fact is, Fitzgerald has spent two and a half years investigating this and has apparently NOT found any evidence of the administration outing of Plame, which of course, is the issue at hand, isn't it?
- fools_gold1967 / Tuesday July 18, 2006 06:12:19 AM EST - Reply to this comment /
You wacks still think if you repeat the same lie enough and click your heels together it'll make it come true. Not a prayer, pal.
Yeah, right, fitz mentioned nothing about Plame when he indicted the little schmuck on wheels. Christ, where do they dredge you wacks up and why do they bother? You loons still think if you repeat the same lie enough and click your heels together it'll make it come true.
The Wilson's Civil Suit can follow the Criminal Justice Process. Ask OJ how that works. These cretins are lower than him.
Oh my.
No he did not mention Plame by name but as he was appointed to that case I can only "speculate" that Scooter indictment was related to the case -- unlike Starr's witch hunt.
The Right defends this breach of national security while attacking Clinton about civil suits. This is the "party of national security"? Pitiful, the right cares less about our national security than terrorists -- at least they are monitoring it for weaknesses. As for Wesley "...nada..." comment that is exactly what the NeoCons have nada no domestic policy worth mentioning and an international policy that is coming apart at the seams and taking the Middle East with it. And you defend the Administration, their illegal policies -- useless the lot of you, the "shadow government" (boy that says volumes) and the un-Congress.
I automatically turned to NBC for up to the moment news. No longer do I do this. I no longer watch the TODAY show, because they rarely present both sides of an issue. They placate, with Biden, and attack others. As for Hardball, with Nora O'Donnell, what a joke, she attacks any Dem on the program and the last straw was her cutsey cackle session with Ann Coulter. What is the deal here? Can anyone, present the issues without editorializing the matters based on their political agenda?