[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Yup, people are stupid.
Al Gore actually championed the cause of the internet, but he takes a lot of heat for something I don’t think he said quite like he is quoted.
[/quote]
I think it was one of those things where a vague feeling the media had been playing with (Gore might be a bit of a bullshitter) smacked right up against The Perfect Quote, where he said on Wolf Blitzer’s program, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”
Now, anyone with one of those fancy 3-digit IQ’s knows he was just on a committee, or helped pass some funding. He is a notrious techie, afterall. But the when the line met the image the media had decided upon…it was over.
Kinda like Dean. The word on him was that he was a loose cannon. So, to refute those charges, he went to Michigan, and Indiana, and Pennsylvania, and OHIO AND FLORIDA!! AND THEN WE’RE GOING TO THE WHITE HOUSE!! EEYARGHHHH!!!
Yeah, he worked hard to convert it into a public network. I remember the “day” it was decided it could be used for commercial purposes… it was big news! He got an award for his efforts, in an attempt to help set the record straight.
Poor guy.
Hate him for his politics if you want, but with respect to the Internet, he’s one of the reasons we can bitch at each other online…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It stuns me how many people don’t know that Wilson was wrong. It shows that this administration has horrble communication skills and the MSM has no real interest in presenting the truth.[/quote]
The WH admitted they were wrong the day after Wilson’s Op-Ed appeared in print.
Are you accusing the WH of being wrong about admitting their mistake?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It stuns me how many people don’t know that Wilson was wrong. It shows that this administration has horrble communication skills and the MSM has no real interest in presenting the truth.
The WH admitted they were wrong the day after Wilson’s Op-Ed appeared in print.
Are you accusing the WH of being wrong about admitting their mistake?
[/quote]
Marmadogg,
While they may have retracted the “16 words,”, they subsequently retracted the retraction.
Not that that gives an impression of an administration in command of all the facts at its fingertips from the get-go, but there you have it.
Honestly, people say this administration never admits its mistakes, but they seem to have the most problems seemingly admitting to non-mistakes. They should be OK with not giving any response while they investigate the claims that reporters shout at them.
Second Time reporter to testify http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051127/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc
[i]
Viveca Novak, who covered the inquiry into the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s cover for Time, has been asked to testify under oath about her conversations starting in May 2004 with Robert Luskin, attorney for White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, Time said.
…
Time said Robert Novak and Viveca Novak are not related.
[/i]
That’s interesting, but it doesn’t seem to add anything to the picture yet – at least not from what we know. Overall, it’s very unclear why Ms. Novak is being subpoenaed at all, particularly when Fitzgerald knows who her source is. Presumably the source would be a better person to subpoena (and in fact, I think was already subpoenaed).
Two possibilities seem likely at this stage: 1) Fitzgerald wants to ask Ms. Novak about what SHE might have told the source or someone else; and/or 2) Fitzgerald is looking to explore a perjury charge against the source or against Rove (BTW, I think the source is Robert Luskin, Karl Rove’s lawyer).
I wonder if this is coming up due to the Woodward issue or not. If not, perhaps he is digging a bit deeper into the Rove allegations and seeing if there are disparities anywhere between the parties involved.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Also, given that the CIA apparently authorized Joe Wilson to write his op-ed, not a highly guarded secret at least as of that time.[/quote]
I hadn’t been aware Wilson mentioned his wife in his op-ed piece.
You’re assuming your conclusion here with “in violation of federal law.” Which law? If she didn’t meet the definition of “covert agent,” then not the law guarding the identities of covert agents.ly given the context of the bill itself.
[/quote]
I have yet to hear any factual basis to dispute her covert status.
What’s your theory here? Fitz overlooked something completely elementary and is now engaged in a fishing expedition?
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
3) Wilson made some statements that cast doubt on the bona fides of one of the administration’s key justifications for the invasion of Iraq.
No he didn’t. Though he claimed he did. His report actually lent weight to the actual claim, though not the straw-man he claimed was the claim. Recall the claim: [my paraphrase] The British have let us know that they have info indicating Iraq attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger.[/quote]
It’s his claims I’m talking about, the op-ed piece. You’re really locked in on those 16 words. I don’t actually think the administration had the command of such fine analysis in their reaction. So Wilson didn’t have the story straight. Regardless, from their point of view he was taking the focus precisely where it wasn’t wanted. Wilson wouldn’t have been a problem in court, but he was definitely a problem in the court of public opinion. And there was some fairly negative reaction to Wilson’s little op-ed piece. In other words, the public’s interpretation was not your interpretation.
This probably explains why so many members of the administration wound up having conversations about Wilson and his wife with Washington reporters.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
W/r/t what might be “prompting,” what we know would seem to require adding some facts to your statement. Libby was talking about the fact Plame suggested Wilson only because Wilson specifically said he was sent by the VP - that was the specific claim they wanted to countermand, not Wilson’s weakly-reasoned attempts at “discrediting” the administration by attacking something that wasn’t claimed.[/quote]
How odd. I heard in fact he was sent in direct response to Cheney’s request for information. Seems like we’re splitting hairs here.
Perhaps they just wanted to say that Wilson’s story was wrong in every detail that they could.
So why not do it on the record?
And what made the detail of Wilson’s selection relevant? They could have merely said, no, he was selected by the CIA.
Your reading of the facts doesn’t hang together, BB.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
7) Fitzgerald believes he has a good case that Libby lied and perjured himself, and obstructed justice. He has convened a new grand jury to get at the focal question of how 2) came about.
First sentence true. Second is speculation as to the reason to reconvene. Especially as Woodward’s subsequent revelations throw off the timeline that Fitzgerald was going to use to prove the item in your first sentence. If Woodward and others were already discussing Plame in early June, Fitzgerald’s perjury case against Libby looks much shakier than it would if Libby were the original source, which is what he believed earlier.[/quote]
Actually, I don’t see how Bernstein’s revelations throw off the timeline involved in the perjury, since those events had to do with Libby. The case that would be weakened, it seems to me, would be the case on the original question of the investigation, for which indictments have not (yet) been made.
Please say how Fitzgerald’s case against Libby depends on whether or not Libby was the original source of the leak. I don’t see it. Libby could easily be covering for someone else.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Let’s just say I disagree. Iraq and al Queda did have a connection, though that is different from saying Iraq helped to plan 9/11.[/quote]
Stop hedging like a lawyer and tell us exactly what the nature of the connection was.
There was indeed a connection, by the way: espionage. Saddam needed to keep an eye on them.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
10) Outside the beltway are the rest of us, many of whom are beginning to get the clue that we’ve been swindled and stampeded, and who are getting very, very pissed.
I’d imagine you’d be pissed if you were hoping this investigation would turn into some sort of proof that the administration lied about its pre-war intelligence. Or even that Libby’s trial would focus on that. That frustration looks to continue.
But I think you’re going a tad far with “the rest of us,” at least unless you define “us” with precision to be those who are already convinced of all your assumptions.[/quote]
Check the polls, my dear BB, check the polls. I speak for the majority of Americans. As to what I’d hoped for from this investigation, not much. Who needs? We are up to our hips in evidence at this point, from so many other sources. We see exactly how the intelligence picture was prettified.
This particular scandal really only shows that when it comes to its critics, the administration has other ways to respond than open and aboveboard. Like whispering campaigns under ‘not for attribution’. Even when a press conference would have been more effective. Only somebody goofed and triggered an investigation. Ha ha! It is just a peek at Washington follies for us little folks at the end of the chain of lies. A peek inside the heart of darkness.
Where’s all the secret evidence on the national security claims? It wouldn’t appear that it’s in the now-infamous “8 redacted pages.” Fitzgerald doesn’t seem to have any of it. I wonder where it could be? Perhaps it only exists in the ether of the internet on the Daily Kos…
Anyway, more on the “8 Redacted Pages”:
Sometimes Nothing Is A Real Cool Hand
Sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime, especially when the underlying crime is not really there. Put another way, Lewis Libby is an idiot (but we knew that).
And what, we all had wondered, was in those redacted pages that was of such significance that it could convince three judges to threaten reporters with jail? Surely this was where Fitzgerald had noted the highly classified information detailing the dire national security implications of the Plame outing, yes?
[i]"After being served with the instant motion,the Special Counsel arranged for the classification review of the redacted portions of this Court?s February 15, 2005 opinion by the relevant agency. Based on that review, it has been determined that the redacted pages contain no references to information that is classified as of November 30, 2005. Thus, the presence of classified information no longer provides a reason for maintaining the secrecy of the redacted pages."[/i]
In fact, the redacted pages detailed (secret) grand jury testimony pointing to possible perjury/obstruction charges, and were cited by Judge Tatel to buttress the point that the testimony of Matt Cooper and Judy Miller was critical to advancing the case.
[i] I?ll be surprised if all four of those elements of the crime [outing a covert agent under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act] line up perfectly for a Rove indictment. Surprised, not shocked. There is one very good reason to think they might. It is buried in one of the handful of federal court opinions that have come down in the last year ordering Matt Cooper and Judy Miller to testify or go to jail.
...Judge Tatel?s opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get. The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to ?[h]aving carefully scrutinized [the prosecutor?s] voluminous classified filings.?
...Tatel?s colleagues are at least as impressed with the prosecutor?s secret filings as he is. One simply said ?Special Counsel?s showing decides the case.?
All the judges who have seen the prosecutor?s secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.[/i]
[i]Does Fitzgerald have the nads to prosecute Rove et. al. as terrorists? Hell if I know, but I can say that the guy is a serious as a heart attack about national security -- his specialty is prosecuting terrorists, and if the eight redacted pages of Judge Tatel's decision to throw Jailhouse Judy in the slammer are any indication, much of Fitzgerald's inquiry is concerned with the breach of national security that her exposure and that of her CIA front company, Brewster-Jennings, may have caused.[/i]
Well, it was reasonable speculation at the time (and I’m glad I had company). So, what charges might Libby have faced if he had told the truth and taken his lumps? It looks like he will never know.
[i]Floyd Abrams, who represented Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper before the appeals court, said Mr. Fitzgerald's filing was significant for the light it shed on the inquiry's progress.
"The revelation," Mr. Abrams said, "that Mr. Fitzgerald advised the court as early as the spring and fall of 2004 that his focus on Mr. Libby related not to potential threats to national security but to possible violations of perjury and related laws raises anew the question of whether the need for the testimony of Judy Miller and Matt Cooper was at all as critical as had been suggested." [/i]
And here’s a nice editorial from today’s WSJ carrying the point further:
Pieces of Eight
December 6, 2005; Page A20
Patrick Fitzgerald’s probe is in an interregnum just now – at least as far as its public activities are concerned. The special counsel’s investigation that led to the indictment of Scooter Libby continues under a new grand jury, which presumably is considering whether to bring charges against anyone else, including senior White House aide Karl Rove.
So it’s a good time to update our readers on the status of the legal motion filed last month by Dow Jones & Co., owner of this newspaper, requesting that a federal appeals court unseal eight pages of redacted information that Mr. Fitzgerald used to justify throwing Judith Miller of the New York Times into the slammer last summer.
The redactions were approved in a concurring opinion by Judge David Tatel, who said the eight pages showed that, with his “voluminous classified filings,” Mr. Fitzgerald “met the burden of demonstrating that the information [sought from Ms. Miller and Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper] is both critical and unobtainable from any other source.” In our court filing last month, we argued that now that Mr. Fitzgerald has indicted Mr. Libby and said that “the substantial bulk” of his probe is “completed,” there is no reason to keep those pages secret.
We’re happy to report that Mr. Fitzgerald agrees with us – at least in part. In a brief filed on Friday, the special counsel asks the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to unseal the portions of the redacted material referring to Mr. Libby. “Continued secrecy does not appear necessary,” he writes.
Even before we’ve seen the redacted pages, Mr. Fitzgerald’s filing is revealing about the limited nature of his prosecution. Most notably, he more or less concedes that the information in the eight redacted pages is all related to contradictory testimony (hence the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice), not to any deep government secrets. He even notes that none of the redacted material is still classified. So much for the media and partisan speculations that this scandal was about a great national security cover-up.
This also suggests that Mr. Fitzgerald very early in his probe concluded that there was no crime committed in leaking Valerie Plame’s name, or any other classified information, to the media. Instead, his investigation focused on nailing Mr. Libby or someone else for making false statements.
All this took place, by the way, long before Bob Woodward came forward after Mr. Libby’s arrest. The veteran Washington Post reporter said last month that a government source had told him about Ms. Plame’s identity a week or 10 days before Ms. Miller learned about it from Mr. Libby. Watch for Mr. Libby’s lawyers to use Mr. Woodward’s revelation to cast serious doubt on the timeline that Mr. Fitzgerald gave in his indictment of their client.
It’s now up to the court to decide whether to unseal all or part of the eight pages. In Friday’s filing, Mr. Fitzgerald also asks that the pages unrelated to Mr. Libby remain secret. He wants to hold the rest – “related to individuals who have not been charged with crimes.”
That presumably means Mr. Rove, who has been named in public statements by grand jury witnesses. That alone is reason enough to unseal the information, since Time reporter Mr. Cooper has already publicly disclosed the substance of his grand jury testimony concerning his conversations with Mr. Rove. All the more so in light of the intense public interest in a case involving one of the Administration’s most influential officials. Dow Jones plans to file a reply today making these points and asking the court to unseal the eight pages in full.
Whatever the court decides about those pages, Mr. Fitzgerald’s latest filing is one more reason for him to wrap his case up quickly, give Mr. Libby his day in court, and let the government get on with its business.
It’s just more argument that says it isn’t important anyway, so who cares. Either the law was broken or people were lying while questioned (or not).
Whether or not there was in any damage due to alleged activities is not the issue at hand… and should have no bearing.
It’s sort of like pointing a gun and firing, but missing your target. Attempting to kill someone is illegal, the fact you missed and no damage was done doesn’t make it excusable.
I am amazed that people would use that style of argument in this day and age…
