On Fox News Sunday, Liasson called Armitage the "real leaker"
On the July 8 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, National Public Radio national correspondent Mara Liasson stated that "to the majority of Americans" the CIA leak investigation is "confusing" and then repeated the claim that deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was "the real leaker" of former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. However, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, while Armitage leaked Plame's identity to syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who later revealed that information in a column, according to evidence and testimony at former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's trial, Libby was a source of the information about Plame's CIA employment for at least two other journalists -- The New York Times' Judith Miller and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper.
As journalist Murray Waas noted in his book The United States v. I. Lewis Libby (Union Square Press, June 2007), during Libby's trial on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements, Miller testified on January 30 that Libby had disclosed Plame's CIA employment to her at a July 8, 2003, breakfast meeting at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C., well before Novak publicly revealed it in his July 14, 2003, column. Cooper, in his first-person account of his testimony before the grand jury in the leak investigation, identified White House senior adviser Karl Rove as his original source for Plame's identity and Libby as his corroborating source. As Media Matters has noted, there is no requirement that the identity of a covert agent actually have been published for there to have been an illegal leak under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Liasson described Armitage as "the real leaker" while arguing that President Bush's commutation of Libby's 30-month prison sentence -- and the ensuing controversy -- were "pure base politics." She said: "I think for the president, it was an important thing to do for his base. ... [F]or the Democrats, this is something that fierce partisans care about."
Additionally, earlier on the program, guest host and Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume did not challenge Rep. Peter Hoekstra's (R-MI) false claim that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald had "found out relatively early in the process that there probably was not an underlying crime," because he had learned that Plame "was not a covert agent." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, in a May 25 sentencing memorandum, Fitzgerald wrote that "[a]t the time of the leaks, Ms. Wilson in fact qualified as a 'covert agent' within the meaning of the IIPA." To support this claim, Fitzgerald included an "unclassified summary" of Plame's employment at the CIA -- which had been given to Libby's defense team in June 2006 -- stating that the CIA "declassified and now publicly acknowledges the previously classified fact that Ms. Wilson was a CIA employee from 1 January 2002 forward and the previously classified fact that she was a covert CIA employee during this period." The "unclassified summary" established that she had headed a counterproliferation operation focused on Iraq and had traveled overseas in an undercover capacity in the five years prior to the disclosure of her identity.
From the July 8 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
HUME: Let me turn to the issue, or something related to the issue we talked about in the first segment, and that is this CIA leak investigation, which ended up prosecuting no one for the leak itself. What is your take on all of that? What is your view of how that came out? Do you think that investigation was properly handled, that it went in the wrong directions, in the right direction? What's your view of it?
HOEKSTRA: I think you can make a very compelling case that it went in the wrong direction. You know, Fitzgerald found out relatively early in the process that there probably was not an underlying crime, you know, that what they were -- that revealing of this name was not a covert agent and -- but pursued the investigation anyway.
[...]
HUME: The issue has shown some legs. It was a slow week in Washington, with the holiday and all. But we were still talking about it on this program, and I'm sure on others today. Democrats jumping all over it, believing it's a winning issue. Mara, is this a winning issue for Democrats?
LIASSON: I think for the very short term it's a winning issue. I think this is fleeting; I think it did fill a vacuum and a void. But I think, over time, it's not going to be some kind of major issue. I think that it's pure base politics. I think for the president, it was an important thing to do for his base. He has very low approval ratings; I think it would have hurt him if he didn't. I don't know how much lower he can go. But I think that that's one of the political benefits he got. I think for the Democrats, this is something that fierce partisans care about. I think to the majority of Americans, it's confusing, I mean what exactly happened, and the fact that the real leaker, Richard Armitage, was never prosecuted. It's very, very complicated. But I think for the moment, good politics for the Democrats, good base politics for the Democrats. Over time, I think this is going to just disappear.
I think to the majority of Americans, it's confusing...
Pity us, Mara: us poor, poor, confused little lambs, simply over our sweet little heads in understanding that lying to a prosecutor and a grand jury is a crime.
Yes, Mara, we'll never quite "get" it the way you do - how silly we are in believing that the leaking of Plame's name, not the publishing, was the offense, and lying about it was the crime.
Thank goodness we have such talented, intelligent journalists like you to sort out these troubling matters. We just can't trust ourselves - just like the jury couldn't be trusted to come up with the correct verdict. After all, they didn't "get" that Scooter Libby is one of the privileged Beltway class, which includes Fox "News" contributors.
And members of that class need not bother with the laws - or journalistic ethics - that govern the rest of America. See you at the next cocktail party, dahling...
I'll say about Liasson what I said about Taranto (see MM story immediately preceding this one).
The idea that Armitage was the "real" leaker is ridiculous. First, it's clear that Libby talked to Judith Miller on the 8th of July, 2003. Robert Novak's column revealing Valerie Wilson's identity ran on 14 July. If the question was "who leaked first," the answer would be Libby, not Armitage. Even so, the leak ISN'T when the information is revealed in print -- the leak is when the information is revealed to ANYONE, such as Judith Miller or Matt Cooper, who has no reason to know it. For that Matter, LIBBY didn't have a need to know. That's why he lied and obstructed the investigation -- to keep from revealing who gave him classified information, because THAT person would have been as culpable as Libby.
In addition, who decided there can only be one leaker, Armitage OR Libby? ANYONE who reveals classified information to someone who doesn't have a need to know it is wrong. Suppose you know that John Smith is a CIA operative. Further suppose that you get a phone call from a reporter who says "I heard from 5 people that John Smith is a covert CIA operative. Can you confirm that?" Even though several other people might have revealed that information, YOU are STILL obligated to keep it secret, as was each of the other 5 people who revealed it. They're ALL wrong. The fact that classified information gets revealed doesn't mean it gets declassified.
Liasson is simply part of a long line of Bush administration supporters in the media who minimize and explain away every lie, needless war, unconstitutional power grab, weakening of America's national security, coarsening of the national political dialogue, no bid contract to a crony, and bribe or federal appointment to an unqualified and incompetent administration friend or relative. She has to know she's lying, yet she does it anyway, apparently deciding that her partisan political views are more important than the truth. She'd be ashamed of herself if she knew how to feel shame.
Your analysis of the revelation of classified information is spot on. Seems like you have experience with govt. clearances.
That said, I doubt anyone who could really use your lesson will heed it or even comprehend it. Recent history has demonstrated such.
The only reason that Armitage knew Plame's identity was because of the operation being run out of the Vice President's office to discredit Wilson and defend the administration. Plame's identity was contained in a classified memo drafted at Libby's request as part of this damage-control operation. Clearly there were other leaks independent of Armitage, pointing to a vindictive campaign of pay-back that ignored the sanctity of national security secrets. No wonder Cheney doesn't want to be subject to executive branch controls over handling secret information so he's declared himself not to be part of the executive branch of government.
"The only reason that Armitage knew Plame's identity was because of the operation being run out of the Vice President's office to discredit Wilson and defend the administration. "
No operation needed by the VP office. The Senate report pretty much discredited Wilson and his lying wife.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
*"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."
*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.
*Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."
WRONG, this has been dealt with before. First while the memo itself was not in our hands we knew about it and HAD A COPY. So scuttlebutt about it could have been heard by Wilson and even if he did mix up the dates that doesnt discredit him at ALL. Cough up a single Valerie Plame lie. I think YOU are lying.
First it doesnt matter if she had presented him to go but that is NOT what they CIA said the Senate comittee relied on her memo to make that claim but the CIA says they ASKED her if Joe Wilson would be a good choice to go and when she said she thought he was her superior TOLD HER to write that memo. The CIA had Bush take that claim OUT of his Cincinatti speech BEFORE the SOTU AND told him not to put it into the SOTU, they only relented when the adminstration told them they would attribute it to British intelligence. So it is pure BUNK to say the CIA had not told the White House they had reservations about the claim before the speech.
All of this has been long ago debunked. You guys just slink away and try them again the next time in the vain hope if you repeat them often enough they will magically become true. They wont.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/03ricecnd.html?ex=1184126400&en=0964ef8814019681&ei=5070
In fact, the C.I.A. had told the White House months before that the Niger intelligence was bogus and had managed to keep the claim out of an October 2002 speech that President Bush gave in Cincinnati.
Ghrino: Why do you quote my statement about the operation being run out of the VP's office and then try to refute the statement by changing the subject? You do not dispute the fact that Armitage learned of Plame's identity bby virtue of the smear campaign being run out of the VP's office. Instead, you seem to be asserting (contrary to known facts) that the smear campaign was unnecessary therefore "no harm, no foul." But there was harm, there was a foul. If not a crime, at least self-ionflicted wound on our national security. Shame on you for not recognizing that fact. Whatever intelligence assets were compromised by the disclosure of Plame's identity and her front-company employer, Brewster Jennings, will probably not be made public for decades.
liasson was not as blatant as fred barnes and, of course, bill kristol. but the general theme was this was an out of control investigation in which poor little scooter had a memory problem. juan williams said it correctly, though: to believe that, you had to believe that fitgerald, appointed by bush's own attorney general, and a judge appointed by bush himself, and a 12 member jury all conspired to bring down libby for no reason.
as for the "she wasn't covert" lie, the following is from "exhibit a", filed with the clerk of the u.s. district court on 5-25-07, and accepted as so by the libby trial judge: "while assigned to cpd, ms. wilson engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business. she traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. when traveling overseas, ms. wilson always traveled under a cover identity--sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias--but always using cover--whether official or non-official cover [noc]--with no ostensible relationship to the cia."
"at the time of time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of ms. wilson's employment with the cia on 14 july 2003, ms. wilson was a covert employee for whom the cia was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the united states."
Don't hold your breath that the "facts" will ever be brought out by any of the "Faux Noise" political analysts. The convoluted reasoning they use is just an attempt to hide the truth anyway.
The more they cry foul, the better.
Let me help your incomplete research: This is the CIA affidavit you are quoting.
I am pleased you noticed the CIA identified the specific leak, the leak to NOVAK, that "blew" Plames cover.
Notice the CIA did not identify any other leak.
Now, FIRST, why did Patrick Fitzgerald not prosecute anyone for disclosing Valerie Plame's employment as an undercover agent? If what was done was truly a violation of statute, this prosecution should have been a slam-dunk. That it did not occur can only mean one of two things: Either Fitzgerald was not doing due diligence in carrying out his charter or the case was not winnable, implying Fitzgerald knew he could not prove a violation of statute. This makes the whole Libby proseution smack of a political witch hunt.
Of cousre, the liberal twits of MMFA are much more clever than Patrick Fitzgerald and they have all the answers.
hey rocket scientist, they did not identify the "leak to novak", or make any speculation as to who gave the information to novak. they identified the leak as occuring in novak's column on july 14, 2003. read the affadavit, genius.
And that informtion was provided to Novak by Richard Armitage. Armitage has admitted this as has Novak.
So, rockect boy, why was Armitage not prosecuted if disclosure of Plame's relationship with the CIA was an actual violation of statute? By induction, if Armitage's disclosure was not a violation, then neither could anyone else's disclosure if it took place after Armitage's.
Moreover, why was there this long, drawn out investigation at all, if Patrick Fitzgerald had Armitage's confession in hand when he started his investigation? He already knew who caused the Novak disclosure.
And last but not least, How could anything Lewis Libby had to sat before a grand jury or otheriwse have impeded Fitzgerald in any way if he already knew who leaked to Novak? -- "Though Fitzgerald knew that, he chose to keep it secret."
You have no answers to any of these questions. The answers are obvious, but since YOU don't like them because they diverge from your pre-concieved notions of the world. So you reject them rather han face the reality they represent.
So, rockect boy, why was Armitage not prosecuted if disclosure of Plame's relationship with the CIA was an actual violation of statute?
As Fitzgerald himself said, he couldn't hope to ascertain whether a crime was committed if actors in this case (Libby) wouldn't tell the truth. Because Libby committed perjury, Fitzgerald couldn't conduct his investigation.
This isn't that complicated.
By induction, if Armitage's disclosure was not a violation, then neither could anyone else's disclosure if it took place after Armitage's.
We don't know if it was a prosecutable crime or not - Libby's lies kept Fitzgerald from finding out. By the way, there is a difference between a "violation" and a crime that can be prosecuted.
This isn't that complicated.
Moreover, why was there this long, drawn out investigation at all, if Patrick Fitzgerald had Armitage's confession in hand when he started his investigation? He already knew who caused the Novak disclosure.
The Novak disclosure wasn't the only disclosure. Remember Judy Miller? Matt Cooper?
This isn't that complicated.
And last but not least, How could anything Lewis Libby had to sat before a grand jury or otheriwse have impeded Fitzgerald in any way if he already knew who leaked to Novak?
Maybe it went directly to whether Armitage acted as an independent or at the bequest of the Vice President and/or President. If there was a pattern of leaking by several of the VP's subordinates, that would indicate someone high up was directing the leaks, don't you think?
In any case, when a US Attorney asks you a question, you're supposed to tell the truth. If you don't, you go to trial, and a jury of your peers judges whether you lied or not.
You have no answers to any of these questions. The answers are obvious, but since YOU don't like them because they diverge from your pre-concieved notions of the world. So you reject them rather han face the reality they represent.
Uh-huh. Let me ask you two things:
Do you think it was fine for Libby to lie about this to Fitzgerald?
Do you trust our jury system to ascertain whether he was lying?
This isn't that complicated.
Wow NL just got pwnd!
Guess Libby should have just stayed silent and went to jail to cover for his superiors (and expected a pardon later) like Susan McDougal for Clinton, right???
Didn't hear you guys complaining then
You have repeated this crap many times. No one was fooled before and no one is fooled now.
Plame's identity was leaked multiple times before it was eventually made public. You would think you would get tired of lying about this. I am certainly tired of seeing you repeat it without anything new. You are simply in denial at this point as you have proven to be on many items.
We not only HAVE the answers we have posted them many, MANY times, apparantly you studiously avoided them and as usual you are completely wrong. First there are MORE elements to the crime under that satute than just disclosure. Armitage for the FIFTIETH TIME, convinced Fitz that HIS leak was inadvertant, since intent IS an element of the crime THAT leak wasnt prosecuted. Just because Armitages leak was inadvertant it does not follow by ASSOCIATIVE logic not inductive logic that Libby and/or Roves leak were also necessarily inadvertant. THEY could constitute a crime whether or not Armitages leak was a crime and the exposure to anyone not authorized to have classified information could be a crime whether or NOT it was publicized by the person it was leaked to. So ya got no point. The only thing you have shown is how little you know about this situation.
Brains, logic and any sense of legal proceedings will tell you that Fitzgerald was attempting to go after the WHOLE STORY! Not just Armitage but all the leakers, all the parties involved in this attempt to smear Joe Wilson. Libby deliberately lied, not ony to Fitzpatrick but to the FBI in attempting to impede justice in this case. He was found guilty. He was sentenced. He knew all along that by keeping silent, not revealing anything, he would be "taken care" of. As for the quarter million dollar fine, his supporters had already placed five million in the kitty for his use. So, he gets an "Get Out Of Jail Free" card and four and a quarter million dollars to maintain his silence. By ignoring all of that, you reveal yourself as a partisan, neo-con supporter. The Constitution, the Federal laws and the courts are meaningless to people like you. Go back and research how Hitler took over Germany. Comment on the amazing parallels to Bush/Cheyney.
coach777b
hey nl207, there is only one person who knows the true and whole story. that's novak. he claims that he got it first from armitage. but all we have is novak's word. and we know he was doing the bush administration's dirty work. so he was not going to incriminate himself or anyone in the bush white house. it's very simple. fitzgerald could not prove intent without firm evidence. what he did know is that rove and libby released classified material to reporters before novak's column, and then lied about it. you can ask the same question a thousand times. but you can't change the facts i've stated.
Hey Nick, thanks for the link. At least exhibit A show Valerie was covert.
If at this point after it has been explained a hundred times or so you dont know why Armitage wasnt prosecuted you are simply AVOIDING the truth. The leak that blew her cover because Novak published it doesnt make other leaks somehow legal. So if a law was ever violated then prosecution has to be a slam dunk? Makes me wonder why no one ever prosecuted Capone for the St Valentines Day massacre by your stupid definition it should have been a slam dunk. I mean the people were obviously murdered so the murder statute had to have been violated. Then again MAYBE if Libby hadnt committed perjury and obstructed justice someone WOULD have been prosecuted
Then again ignorant conservative morons like you couldnt care less about facts, the truth or reality. You only care what propaganda pushes your ideology. If the facts prove otherwise too bad for the facts. Its just fortunate that being so stupid isnt physically painful or YOU would be on a morphine drip.
so true...so many leakers, all of them drips.
On Fox News Sunday, Liasson called Armitage the "real leaker"
Maybe someone should tell him about Depends?
;-)
Would that make the rest of the leakers fictional or figments of someones imagination?
Didn't you get my joke Solon? Or am I not getting yours?
You know--Depends, the *adult diaper*
If Armitage is the "real leaker"...get it?
Jokes aren't funny if you have to explain them :-/
Anyway continuing along with my joke... someone named Scooter probably should be wearing a diaper ;-)
solon go for laugh, no get
Solon,
I am such a Duh :-/
I get your joke this morning [why it escaped me last night I'll never know...brain cells were sleepy?]
While I was playing off the word "leaker" [Depends], you were playing off the word "real" [fictional]
That was funny. Sorry I blew it. Too bad, we had such potential as a Political Comedy Team...
Go on to Vegas without me Solon. I'll join you in a few years when I get a better grip of our material ;-)
Just for fun, who made the following quote on February 6, 2003?
"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."
Keep in mind as you avoid the answer that this was over a week after Bush's claims made in his 2003 SOTU address. Then ask yourself if maybe, just maybe, you bought a pig in a poke?
2nd question of import: As of March 8, 2003 (when Joe Wilson suddenly decided that he knew all about the Nigerian forgeries), had Joe Wilson ever viewed the documents he then puported to know were fakes?
3rd question of import: How many reporters did Joe Wilson call to sell his version of the "truth"? Did he perchance mention his wife and her job?
Carry on apace. I have no love lost for Libby, but to pretend/wish that there is some huge conspiracy behind the leaks between media and government in this matter is just not founded in the facts.
Wow, are you claiming that it was Wilson who outed Plame? That's a new one. Is that what is being floated around by the right-wingers now?
As for his quote, it seems a bit uninformed based on what the weapons inspectors were saying at the time, but it was merely about him using weapons against an invading force. That is a far cry from the mushroom cloud and the 45 minutes to an attack on the US crap that was floated out by the administration.
And please stop pretending that he didn't come to the correct conclusion about the Niger deal. He was right, remember? Or do you think there really was an attempted yellow cake sale like Hannity does?
And something else you could have added in your response to DWRIGHT was that the premise that Joe Wilson claimed the Niger documents were forgeries is false. Wilson claimed he didn't think think the documents could be true because of what he found in Niger, but never declared them forgeries.
I'm amazed at the level of ignorance to which these people aspire in order to legitimize their Bush.
You said Wilson never claimed to know the documents were forgeries.
You are incorrect. From the UK Independent: "The retired US ambassador said it was all but impossible that British intelligence had not received his report - drawn up by the CIA - which revealed that documents, purporting to show a deal between Iraq and the West African state of Niger, were forgeries." Or the Independent is lying about what Wilson said.
Kristof obviously uses Wilson for his source for his May 6 column. Of Wilson, Kristof says "that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged. The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade." Or maybe Kristof is lying about what Wilson said.
Finally, Pincus uses Wilson as a source for his June 12 article. "Among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong,' the former U.S. government official said." Or Pincus is lying about what Wilson said.
On July 6th, Wilson was the subject of a Pincus and Leiby story in the WaPo. He also appeared on Russert's show the same day. He also wrote his op-ed for the Times the same day. Pincus, Leiby, Russert and Kristof at this point almost certainly all know Plame is CIA. (Pincus and Leiby after all spent a relaxing day at the Wilson household, backyard picnicking. Kristof had breakfast with the two of them.) All of this before Novak prints the Armitage leak.
The Senate Intelligence committee said Wilson "misspoke." Maybe he just misremembered. Is that a crime? Oh, wait. Yeah it is. Only in court though. If you misremember in the NYT, then you're just a hero for the cause.
Wilson's a political hack and a liar. Once you can admit that, you and I can banter back and forth about what Libby's sentence should be. And I wouldn't really shed a tear if he did time.
While I usually avoid such statements, this is oneof the stupidest posts I have read on the subject. Is anyone going to believe that Pincus, Leiby, Russert and Kristof knew she was CIA becuase they had been to their house? Did she greet them at the door with a "Welocome to the house of a CIA operative" or maybe they saw her I AM A CIA COVERT AGENT plaque hanging on the wall. This is just moronic.
To your first point, if someone told me that they had a document that said you bought a fridge from the Sears down the street, but when I get there they have no records of selling you a fridge, and they still have the full records showing every fridge that they ever sold and your name ain't on it, do you know what I am going to conclude? That the document was forged! This is what Wilson did. He was told what information was on the document, otherwise how could he investigate? He found that there was no way the information contained in the document could be true, so thus the document was fake (forged). This is not rocket science. Well to most of us it isn't. To someone who believes a covert operative could not hide her identity from anyone who came to her house, it just might be.
Exactly. How dumb is it to keep saying we didnt have the document as if just because we didnt have the original document in his own den he couldnt possibly know anything about it. Of course he was right, the dates and names WERE WRONG. The CIA had a copy and the document had long been well known in the intelligence community.
I'm sorry, I must have missed something in your J. Wilson quote, or in what his op ed piece was about. Was there a part inthe quote where he said "and Hussien is getting the yellow cake to make those weapons from Niger"? Or maybe in his op ed pice he said "and not only is it a total lie that Niger sold saddam yellow cake, but I know for a fact that Saddam had no WMD". Was that in there? No, I didn't think so. In other words, HE WAS RIGHT THEN TOO. IF, Iraq had WMD, they would have used them. DUH!
Your second very blunted point is just as lame. Joe Wilson WENT TO NIGER and found that there was no way for them to sell yellow ckae to Saddam. He did not need to see the documents. He had all of the information there he needed to know that no sale took place. Again, I say DUH!
And the "Joe Wilson outted his own wife" BS is sadly not new. But again, why is that the lawyers for R Novak, J Miller, Matt Cooper, or Scooter Libby could not find one single person who would say they heard the info from Joe Wilson? BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED! Mr. Wilson did not need to bring his wife up at all. He was the one who took the trip to Niger, not his wife. He was asked to go by the CIA after the office of the VP asked them to investigate. He found the story to be false and said so. End of story.
You said, "Your second very blunted point is just as lame. Joe Wilson WENT TO NIGER and found that there was no way for them to sell yellow ckae to Saddam. He did not need to see the documents. He had all of the information there he needed to know that no sale took place. Again, I say DUH!"
Obviously, you are an expert on Niger and yellow cake. Unfortunately, the actual ambassador to Niger didn't share your 20/20 hindsight nor your conviction of how easy it was to assess the situation. The ambassador cabled the State Dept. to say that the original CIA report "provides sufficient details to warrant another hard look at Niger's uranium sales." Of course, that doesn't square with Wilson's account that the good Ambassador said that there was no way Niger was selling yellow cake. Because Wilson's a hack and a liar.
Well, at least you have conceded on the otehr 2 points. It's a start.
You dont have to be an expert to know how to read. Niger does not control their uranium industry not the mining, not the transportation not the international shipping. An international consortium controls the whole thing.
Just because a conviction is not possible doesn't mean that a crime didn't take place.
No one was convicted of killing Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but they're surely dead just the same.
I am livid that Fitzgerald did not prosecute Armitage for outing Plame. It has to be a conspiracy. I am sure the Democrats will hold hearings as to why Armitage was not arrested after he admitted his crime. We need to know from Fitzgerald why this has not happened. The CIA has to step up and defend Plame for what Armitage did also. We simply cant have people like Armitage running around talking about covert agents to the press without penalty. Democrats.....start the investigations on Fitzgerald and Armitage immediately.
As has been explained ad naseam Armitage convinced Fitz that he leaked inadvertantly. The way the statute reads intenion is part of the crime, but you knew that and have no purpose here but to be an annoying troll. Go back to your bridge and let the adults have an actual conversation.
Because Fitzgerald did something we tend to ignore the possibility that as a good republican he may have minimized the charges and only brought the one that could not be ignored. A little plea to Fitzgerald to not muddy the election with a trial of a leaker that might be difficult to make beyond a reasonable doubt. We forget that he is republican and a democrat or independent might have charged Rove. Armitage, Libby and/or Cheney with an underlying crime.
I'm truly curious about something and I am wondering if I can get an honest answer from you or any of the other right wingers here:
Why do you think this matter is so trivial. Do you not believe the CIA that Plame was working on WMD proliferation. Do you not believe them that by uncovering the entire company Brewster Jennings, a huge volume of work, both past and present, was comprimised. That other agents were most certainly killed or jailed as a result? Do you think that the CIA is making this up? If so, why? Or do you think that this type of thing (undercover WMD work with rouge nations and terrorist groups) is not actually important to our national security? If so, why?
I am truly looking for honest answers because I really can't believe that so many people are acting like this is not a big deal. This event comprimised our national security and was undertaken as a calculated maneuver to discredit someone who was refuting lies intended to get us into the hugely profitable war in Iraq.
I would also like for you to honestly consider how you would react to the exact same circumstances if committed by the Clinton administration.
You said: "This event comprimised our national security and was undertaken as a calculated maneuver to discredit someone who was refuting lies intended to get us into the hugely profitable war in Iraq."
Joe Wilson did not refute anything until well after the invasion of Iraq. At that point he made numerous false statements, including that he had seen the "forged documents." Including his report had been unequivocal. Including he had taken an active role in refuting the forgeries. The Senate Committee on Intelligence decided he had mispoken in regards to those points. Which is polite Washington speak for what we call "lyin."
Of course, before making spouting those lies, he had asserted Saddam Hussein had WMDs and would use them on us if we invaded Iraq (after Bush had made the supposed lies in the SOTU). So, if you're following along on the home game, after Bush's SOTU, Wilson agrees that Hussein has WMDs and will use them. Then after no WMDs turn up in Iraq and Wilson signs on with Kerry '04, presto-changeo, "I knew they were forgeries and I took an active and unequivocal role to prove these documents which I saw were forgeries." Except none of that is true. He leaked that anonymously for a while without any real traction so he had to go public with his story, hence his NYT op-ed.
So, yes, the Bush administration needed to discredit him. But if anyone was really paying attention, good ol' Joe did almost all the discrediting of himself that needed to be done. None of which will slow you down.
First of all thinking he had WMDs does NOT mean Wilson thought he had a nuclear program. Second you dont know that he wasnt shown copies of that memo since that would be classified he was going to Niger to check this claim out and the CIA DID have copies. The forgeries were weak it was signed with the name of a guy who hadnt had that office in a decade so its not like a copy wouldnt be good enough to know it was the copy of a forgery. So you have made a lot of noise but no real compelling point. Lots of people thought Iraq had WMDs but hardly anyone thought he had a nuclear program and lets remember Wilson was right and Bush was WRONG. The Niger deal almost certainly never took place. The Congo offered to sell Iraq uranium and Iraq turned them down. Niger couldnt sell anyone substantial amounts of uranium since they dont control their uranium an international consortium controls it from mining through shipping. You are spinning but Wilson isnt the villian here. It sure looks like the Bush administration exposed Valerie Wilson out of pure political pique and NO Wilson didnt discredit himself. HE WAS RIGHT.
LIE OF THE DAY: "NO Wilson didnt discredit himself. HE WAS RIGHT."
Lie #1: 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.
Lie #2: 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.
Lie #3: Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.----->a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts)
Lie #4: 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.
Yea..good to see Solon is up to his old tricks.
The LIES are YOURS as usual. It isnt suprising you are up to your old propaganda tricks NOR that you dont know what you are talking about. You NEVER do.
1) He was right, what the comittee was talking about was a claim by the Niger foriegn minister that Iraq wanted trade talks with Niger and he ASSUMED it was about uranium. What it left OUT was they HAD those talks and the same guy said uranium NEVER came up. Also that Niger doesnt control its uranim an international agency does from mining to shipping. Nor that we FOUND a document where the Congo OFFERED to sell uranium to them and they refused or that Iraq HAD 500 tons of yellowcake uranium. What would Iraq have done if they could have bought it? Smuggled 500 tons of it, which they already had, across the Sahara desert, built a secret facility somehow gotten the equipment even while being watched so closely....Its too ludicrous for an Austin Powers movie only those DESPERATE for any saving propaganda hook to hang on could possibly take it seriously. WILSON WAS RIGHT
2 An outright lie they told Bush to take the SAME CLAIM out of his Cincinatti speech months BEFORE the SOTU
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/03ricecnd.html?ex=1184126400&en=0964ef8814019681&ei=5070
In fact, the C.I.A. had told the White House months before that the Niger intelligence was bogus and had managed to keep the claim out of an October 2002 speech that President Bush gave in Cincinnati.
3) Media matters already covered this. The committee based that on the fact the archivist showed them the memo she wrote. The CIA says her superior asked her if Joe would be a good choice and when she said yes he INSTRUCTED her to WRITE THAT MEMO.
4) Been over ad naseum. We didnt have the original document but we had a COPY. He could have known about it and its doubts and shouldnt have admitted as much or he could have mistaken the dates. I will give you this one it still doesnt change the FACT WILSON WAS RIGHT. YOU are spewing the useful propaganda that you can ONLY do by LYING like in #2 and ignoring all the relevant facts.
You said: "Smuggled 500 tons of it, which they already had"
So the Bush administration was right, Iraq was pursuing yellow cake. You can't say that Wilson may have lied about the details but in the end was right that the documents were fake (even though he was only right after we searched Iraq for the WMDs), and then in the next breath denigrate the Bush administration claim that Iraq was seeking yellow cake when the HAD IT. You do realize that it's not so much about WHERE they got it, but that they HAD it? No? Bueller?
You said "matters already covered this. The committee based that on the fact the archivist showed them the memo she wrote. The CIA says her superior asked her if Joe would be a good choice and when she said yes he INSTRUCTED her to WRITE THAT MEMO."
Blah, blah, blah. Plame said she never recommended him for the job. Wilson claimed he was sent by Cheney. Neither was true.
You said "He could have known about it and its doubts and shouldnt have admitted as much or he could have mistaken the dates. I will give you this one it still doesnt change the FACT WILSON WAS RIGHT."
We'll give you that Wilson was able with the benefits of 20/20 hindsight to say that the documents were forgeries (once everyone else said they were forgeries). He did not say any such thing before it was already an international story. And you can admit that the Bush administration was right about Iraq pursuing yellow cake.l
I suggest you go read some actual info onthis subject. You are clealry good at finding all of the right wing sites but try and look at the FACTS and not just opinion pieces. Hell, you even threw out the Wilson said the VP sent him BS which is so easy to disprove. Just go look at the actual transcript of what he said and what the right claims he said.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004878.php
Also if you look up the actual memo she sent, she does not suggest him for the job, she does go over his qualifications (becuase he was incredibly qualified fr the job) for the job.
She even states that someone in the agency came to her about the Niger stuff and asked her to pass her husbands info on in the memo. More lies that mean nothing to the actual point anyway. Plame was covert, Libby Rove Armitage and Fleisher all told reporters her identity. There may be others but we will never know because Libby committed purjory and abstruction of justice. This case was about national security and those you are defending are the ones on the wrong side of that. Why doesn;t national security matter to you?
Man, you dont know anything about this at ALL do you? Yes Iraq HAD uranium. They have had since the 80's. It was being monitered by the IAEA. So YES I CAN say it doesnt make much sense that they were pursuing yellowcake which they already possessed SINCE THE 80's. This is so simple. Bush was claiming they were looking for yellowcake in 2000 but they already HAD 500 tons of the stuff. I hope you know your post made absolutly NO sense at all. You can keep pretending that since he didnt HAVE the documents he couldnt have known anything about them but its a bogus claim. He easily could have, the CIA had copies and his wife worked in THAT AREA of the CIA. So he shouldnt have let ON he had access to classified information about them but that doesnt mean he didnt.
Again it is easy to understand she said she didnt recommend him the CIA says they ASKED HER if he would be a good choice and she said he would. In the context of what was being claimed it is correct she didnt go to anyone and say send my husband. Your next claim is an outright lie. Wilson NEVER said Cheney sent him he said the VP's office told the CIA to check it out and they sent him which is EXACTLY what happened. If you really want to discuss this beyond rehashing long ago debunked talking points I suggest you study up and have at least some dim idea what you are talking about.
"she didnt recommend him the CIA says they ASKED HER if he would be a good choice and she said he would. "
So that's not a recommendation??
Random Person: Hey Bob, I'm thinking about using this particular building company to do the addition to my house, you know anything about them, are they good?
Bob: Yea, they're pretty good, I've used them before, they know what they're doing.
You're trying to tell us that the above dialogue isn't a recommendation?? This is a new level of semantics for MMFA. Sure, it wasn't an "unsolicited recommendation". But most people would agree that her "presentation as worthy of confidence, acceptance or use" of her husband after being asked would fit the definition of a recommendation.
Except you Solon. Because you are incapable of ever ceding or admitting any point to Republicans despite overwhelming evidence.
Um, no that is not a recommendation.
"Who should go" asks person a. "My husband" says person B. Person B recommends her husband.
"I was thinking of sending X." says person A. "Oh no, my husband is a much better choice" says person B. Perosn B recommends her husband.
"I was thinking of sending your husnad" says person A. "I think he would be a good choice" says person B. Person B did not recommend her husband. She AGREED to what person A said. Not the same thing at all.
Or maybe that's jsut me.
Yes, I think it is just you (and maybe Solon perhaps).
Seeing as how the actual textbook definition says "presentation as worthy of confidence, acceptance or use" it would seem to me that when Valerie Plame/Wilson says her husband is qualified and has these contacts, etc... that she is presenting him as worthy of acceptance or use, i.e. recommending him. Nowhere in the definition does it say that for a recommendation, a thing must not have been brought up or mentioned previously by someone else (i.e. that it must be mentioned first by the person doing the recommending). So I guess that is our difference. Conservatives (at least myself) think of recommending in normal, straightforward, definition kind of way and you liberals don't.
She was being accused of making the original recommendation for sending him to Niger. She didnt. That was what she was saying. THAT is true according to the CIA. Parse the words all you want we both know what was being said and what she meant. Was she tecnically incorrect maybe I dont know the exact question or the exact words she used. She correctly refuted the smear allegation against her if you are pretending that it is true you are pathetic. And when I happen to BE wrong I will be happy to admit it. I have done so before in this forum but I do encourage you to hold your breath.
So when you heard that Wilson's CIA wife recommended him for the trip, you thought that someone else PRESENTED her with his name and then she said it sounded like a good idea? Please! You know perfectly well what was being said. Good thing that people weren't changing the wording a bit and saying things like "She got him he job". Oh wait, they were. No, the right never tried to paint a picture of her getting him the job all on her own. Never happened. You are a joke.
P.S. Still waiting for you to address the fact that Wilson admitted he "misspoke" during his testimony in front of the Senate
So what its such a minor point. Either he admitted to knowlege he shouldnt have had OR he mixed up the timeframe and mispoke. So what? He was right. Bush was misleading the country with a claim the CIA had already TOLD him was unsupported, and there isnt the slightest evidence Iraq tried to get uranium from Niger. The Bush administration in what looks like a political temper tantrum exposed his wifes identity because of it and YOU are concerned that he mispoke? Take a reality pill.
You said: Again it is easy to understand she said she didnt recommend him the CIA says they ASKED HER if he would be a good choice and she said he would. In the context of what was being claimed it is correct she didnt go to anyone and say send my husband.
Nevermind the fact that no real evidence exists to back up your twisted semantics and interpretation. Well, except for Joe and Val's solemn word. CIA analysts even testified that she had recommended him. Did that excape you?
You said: "So YES I CAN say it doesnt make much sense that they were pursuing yellowcake which they already possessed SINCE THE 80's. This is so simple. Bush was claiming they were looking for yellowcake in 2000 but they already HAD 500 tons of the stuff. "
Yeah, you're obviously a genius when it comes to IAEA monitoring. Iraq couldn't use the yellow cake that the IAEA knew they had BECAUSE IT WAS BEING MONITORED, Einstein. That's why they were pursuing yellow cake. A fact that has not been refuted (see Hitchen's reasoned and informed article on the subject).
First of all, regardless of what you claim of Joe Wilson, the administration outed Plame to try and discredit him and his pesky viewpoints. If you think there was some other reason, you are living in an alternate reality.
Secondly, thanks for not addressing any of my questions. Can I take it that by not answering any of them, you have no answers? Are you too uncomfortable thinking about the real world ramifications of your administration's political games?
You said: Can I take it that by not answering any of them, you have no answers?
No, I answered your questions with questions which go the heart of the debate. Not meaningless secondary questions. If Joe Wilson's statements (that he knew about Niger all along, that he knew the documents were forgeries, etc, etc) were lies or if his position that the Bush administration manufactured the Niger evidence to support a war that it wanted, if either is false (or both, quelle horreur), then your questions are really moot. Sure, throw the book at Libby. But take the conspiracy theories of great length but almost no substance to another buyer.
Proof that others were involved? You mean like Rove admitting he told Cooper? Or Rove being Novak's second source? Or Libby having a copy of the Wilson op ed piece with handwritten notes from Chaney asking about WIlson's wife who works for the CIA maybe sending him? Or Libby having told Judith Miller on 3 seperate occasions about V. Plame before Novak's column was printed? All facts, and all proof that others from this administration were involved. All backed by documents presented in court or by testimony before a grand jury. But just keep you eyes closed tight and cover your ears while going "NYA NYA NYA NYA!" and maybe it will all go away, but I doubt it.
You said: "Proof that others were involved? You mean like Rove admitting he told Cooper? Or Rove being Novak's second source?"
Or proof of Wilson shopping his blather with his wife's imprimatur to gain more credibility? Woodward remembers his conversation with Armitage thusly....
Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?Armitage: His wife works for the agency.Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret? Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.Woodward: Everyone knows?Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.Woodward: But why would they send him?Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.Woodward: It’s still weird.
Of course, Woodward is bought and paid for by the Bush administration, right? (snicker) Face the fact that Wilson is a hack who doesn't deserve all this holiness you heap upon him. He was looking for the limelight, the left saw an opportunity, facts be damned and wagons ho! Then, after exploiting Wilson to paint a picture of an imaginary event (Wilson fighting the administration's assertion that Niger was after yellow cake pre-war), the left becomes surprised that the Administration might fight this little dog and pony show with some facts and sanctimoniously call for an investigation.
Have you called for an investigation into who leaked the secret CIA prisons? Have you called for an investigation into who leaked the information on the SWIFT data from European banks? Of course not. Because they do not benefit your political persuasion. Do not pretend to be concerned about national security unless you can be consistent.
BTW, did Ms. Plame have a (C) next to her name in CIA documents and memos? Just curious and whatnot. Let it not give you pause in your quest for righteous judgment.
ARE you kidding? How weak can you get. A partisan republican like Armitage dissing Wilson means WHAT? So the only reason they sent Wilson is his wife was CIA? So the fact he had BEEN an ambassador for years in Central Africa and knew all the principles involved and had checked out this kind of thing for the CIA before had nothing to do with it? I am sure on Planet Wingnut it didnt but in the real world he was very qualified.
So you want in investigation on who leaked the story about the program to track terrorist finances. Investigation done BUSH DID, he mentioned it seven times in various speeches long before the Times article about it.
I am not sure what your point is about a c next to Plame’s name. She was covert her recently declassified job summary given in Congressional testimony PROVES that, she was a NOC agent who traveled under NOC cover several times in the year before her exposure. AND in the document talking about her being CIA that was on Air Force One the information WAS marked secret.
Wow. So my proof was grand jury testimony by those involved and documents presented before the court, and you offer as your proof.... a conversation between a reporter and one of the leakers. Brilliant. No reason for Armitage to lie to Woodward, right? I mean, Libby Rove and Fliesher were already pushing the info out there so why whould he lie? You logic is so flawed my head hurts. I fear people are getting dumber just by reading your posts.
And it is really hard to keep a program like SWIFT a secret when the governement had a website up about it. http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js4340.htm
Should I bother going into the difference between leaking information about illegal activities (secret prisons) and leaking information as political payback? No need, becuase we never had a conversation about if there should have been an investigation into those otehr situations. You just made up what you thought and posted it as fact, which is pretty much what you have done about everything else.
You said "No reason for Armitage to lie to Woodward, right?"
Um...what reason would Armitage have had to lie to Woodward? When did this conversation take place? You really are not interested in facts. I have sourced fact after fact. And then after quoting from Woodward's notes (no friend of Bush) of a conversation with Armitage (no friend of Bush), you conclude that they of course lied because it doesn't match up with your opinion of things.
Did the grand jury testimony deny that Wilson had approached reporters with information including his wife's place of employ? I didn't think so. So, I'm not sure how the grand jury testimony is relevant to debunking the idea that Wilson was the original leaker.
Welcome to Hell... I read Orwell's book and was fascnitated by it, and by 'This Perfect Day' by Levin... i personally cannot BELEIVE all the bs CONTINUALLY spouted by these morons... and all of those who do nothing to correct it...
I can see the motives of the administration (power, money, etc.) and the pundits (attention, money), but I cannot understand the rank and file who have bought into it. They have nothing to gain, but have much to lose like the rest of us.
Jawill - I have the same problem and when you try to break down what the apologist are saying by asking the questions you asked they never answer the questions. Like bush they cannot admit to you the reasons they want what they want and never clarify their position on critical issues. Most of them simply want the Iraq war and any scheme or connivance to get that war is the supreme good. If they could have executed Joe Wilson to insure that no further critics would come forth I think they would have favored that. Savage said that Kucinich was a traitor for arguing against the war when it was debated in Congress. Getting what they want is all that matters. Opposing their wishes makes you deserving of any punishment that might stop you.
You said: "Most of them simply want the Iraq war and any scheme or connivance to get that war is the supreme good."
I don't want or need the war in Iraq. Nor do I need some political partisan b-grade hack like Joe Wilson staging political theater on a grandiose stage and pretending to be a beacon of truth. If he knew that the claim in the SOTU was false, why not trumpet that to the rooftops before no WMDs were found in Iraq? Because there was no political vulnerability for Bush until then. Once you face that, you realize Wilson's a hack playing the same political games for profit and power that you accuse Bush of playing for profit and power.
Is that your problem? Then why not find OUT why he waited. The fact is Bush didnt SAY Iraq was trying to aquire uranium from Niger in his SOTU. He said from Africa. Now there are four countries that could have been and Wilson ONLY knew about Niger, now the Congo was a better alternative, in fact the OFFERED to sell Iraq uranium and Wilson had no way of knowing whether or not they did so at the time of the SOTU he didnt KNOW it was based on a lie that the White House had reason to KNOW was dubious at best. It was only after Powell said it was NIGER that Wilson knew they were cooking the intelligence. So perhaps if you knew more about the subject instead of taking a knee jerk attack dog position unchanged by factual reality then you wouldnt be embarassing yourself like this
I just reread the first half of the statement Mr. Fitzgerald read at his first press conference after the Libby indictments. It is amazing that many of the cases the right is trying to make on why Libby should be pardoned or not charged at all were addressed in it. He talked about why Armitage was not charged, why Libby was actually "the original leaker", and why he continued to investigate after knowing Armitage was the source for Novak. When people try to make these charges, I suggest you point them to this:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001392240
DWRIGHT- I find your last post hard to understand. Wilson began saying things in spring of 2003 and if I remember correctly the oped piece came out around july 03. Wilson in that piece was restrained and actually said he was concerned about nonnuclear weapons in Saddam's possession. It has always been hard to understand why this brought on the personal attack that you seem to continue. Wilson has been a republican and an ambassador and I cant see how he would have thought at that time that there was some percentage in bucking the administration. In other words I cant see much evidence or inherent logic in what you seem to be saying. Events seem to show that Wilson's assessment of the narrow issue he addressed was more accurate than the administrations.
Wilson didnt know when Bush said Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa he was talking about Niger so it wasnt until he heard Powell say Niger that he knew they had reason to know better and were pounding on evidence weak at best. After that he immediatly went public. DWright has no point.
Solon: Your suggestion makes sense to me. It does not make any sense to me that Joe Wilson, who is career diplomat and historically a republican would have decided in 2003 that he and his families' future would best be served by contriving some lie to discredit a republican administration at the outset of a war that was then popular. Boggles my mind that the right beleives this makes sense.
Wilson didnt know when Bush said Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa he was talking about Niger so it wasnt until he heard Powell say Niger that he knew they had reason to know better and were pounding on evidence weak at best.
Or he'd just signed on with the Kerry campaign as a consultant and had a raison d'etre. Either way. Complete coincidence, I'm sure.
Evidence which he knew was weak how? Because of his extensive report which he wrote (or told a dude)? No, that's not it. Because the ambassador to Niger said it was weak? Oh wait, no. How did he know it was weak evidence? (And we will allow "because it turned out his view fits my worldview more closely than that of the opposing view" as an answer, but at least be honest about it)
You said "Events seem to show that Wilson's assessment of the narrow issue he addressed was more accurate than the administrations. "
You mean it was more accurate after he decided what he wanted his assessment to be. His original report was deemed to have supported the assertion that Iraq was seeking yellow cake from Niger (you see, he wasn't really an intelligence analyst of any sort, and his outstanding contacts in the region really don't qualify anyone for analysis, so the analysts looked at his work and said, "well, Iraq could be trying to get yellow cake"). Only later did he decide that it didn't. Only later did he decide that he had taken an unequivocal active role in saying that there was no yellow cake being sought. Odd, I know. But that's the way it happened. And the report never reached anyone outside the CIA because it didn't resolve anything. So, yes, it's confusing. But it's only confusing because there's a consistent liar in the mix. Say it ain't so, Joe.
I'm learning a lot about this case on this comment blog as opposed to the above interview with Liasson that is just telling me it's too complicated for me. All the fowl mouthed right wingers here just sound like they watch too much Fox News to know what they're talking about. There's no doubt that Libby lied and deserved the conviction he earned regardless of his reasons, which we'll probably never get to know. I think the real crime to discuss here is the typical example of FOX News misinformation being spewed by that Liasson lady. It's like I stay better informed by not purchasing cable and just watching my PBS and BBC news, and of course reading this Internet, which makes all MSM spokespeople look like Gestapo liars. Maybe that explains why they are so sympathetic to Libby being a liar who obstructed Fitzgerald's investigation, and short of a Bush commutation, got what he deserved.
There's no doubt that Libby lied and deserved the conviction he earned regardless of his reasons, which we'll probably never get to know.
If you'd like to refute any actual facts, we would welcome the discussion. If you'll note in one of my posts, I pointed out that I don't have a problem with Libby being punished for obstruction/perjury. I do have a problem with people pretending that Joe Wilson is a beacon of truth and justice and that the Bush administration had a sinister motive of silencing criticism of the war in their discussions with the press about his relationship to the CIA and what actually happened on his trip to Niger.
I have demostrably proved several Media Matters talking points about this case false to which the liberals response is that "well, there were no WMDs in Iraq so him lying is ok as long as it promotes truth in the end, especially if it proves Bush and Turdblossom are the Devil and the Antichrist."
Mara is supposedly a liberal on the panel. I never hear her disagree with a substantive position from Hume or Krystol. She usually will respond with a horse race analysis of what effect this has on others. She often gives tacit agreement to underlying assumptions of the right. What you have is the following sequence: Hume will pontificate sonorously an extreme right wing view. Mara will analyse the horse race aspect often tacitly agreeing with a critical premise from Hume. Krystol will then reinforce the right's view point. Juan Williams will sit silently and then give the only liberal view but if he builds up some steam, Hume will talk over him and interrupt with something like a "PLEASE" and disrupt the point Juan is trying to make. Juan NEVER NEVER NEVER interrupts Hume. How often have you seen this fair and balanced pattern?