Revisiting the Alleged Leak

[quote]vroom wrote:

First, from a legal sense, you know darn well it is immaterial whether or not Wilson might have suspected his actions may or may not eventually lead to an increased chance of his wife being discovered. Such a consideration has no bearing on the issue legally, which I’m sure you are aware.

[/quote]

It goes to whether a reasonable person would think her identity needed to be protected. If her husband was thrusting himself into the spotlight, a reasonable person could assume there must not be a need to protect her identity.

Doogie, of course I am going to disagree, but at least you presented something that can be discussed reasonably.

Strangely, his government asked him to go investigate something, which he did as part of his job. I don’t think it is appropriate to castigate someone for doing their job and serving their country.

However, along a different line, I don’t think the issue has any legal bearing the way you have presented it. It’s not about whether you can find reasons to assume it would be okay, it’s about whether it is reasonable to expect one to understand not to out agents, especially given their position of power and their obvious ability to know whether ot not she was an active agent due to their government responsibilities.

Well, that’s my take anyway.

So Boston, what are you trying to prove (I mean this as a serious question no dickhead intentions). That it doesn’t matter that she was outed because she was still undercover? Or that it is unlikely that indictements will be handed down because of her status?

The conception that most folks have, including myself, is that she was CIA agent who’s job was to seek WMD. Upon her husband’s speaking out against teh war, mysteriously her name appears. Especially interesting is that Joseph Wilson was actually well like by Republicans previously. I haven’t had time to actually read about all the details yet, but taht is my impression. Its awful coincidental that she her name begins getting thrown around after her husband has a spat with the administration. And I don’t believe in coincidences.

This is an article I found about it. Interested me.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=823

This is a nice tidbit from the piece you linked to fightin…

[i]Wilson was a good pick for the job. He had been a State Department officer there in the mid-1970s. He was ambassador to Gabon in the early 1990s. And in 1997 and 1998, he was the senior director for Africa at the National Security Council and in that capacity spent a lot of time dealing with the Niger government.

Wilson was also the last acting US ambassador in Iraq before the Gulf War, a military action he supported. In that post, he helped evacuate thousands of foreigners from Kuwait, worked to get over 120 American hostages out Iraq, and sheltered about 800 Americans in the embassy compound. At the time, Novak’s then-partner, Rowland Evans, wrote that Wilson displayed “the stuff of heroism.”

And President George H. W. Bush commended Wilson: “Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq…The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job.”[/i]

Obviously, he is purely a political partisan hack spending his entire career finding a way to sink GW.

More interesting stuff…

[i]Soon after Wilson disclosed his trip in the media and made the White House look bad. the payback came. Novak’s July 14, 2003, column presented the back-story on Wilson’s mission and contained the following sentences: “Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate” the allegation.

Wilson caused problems for the White House, and his wife was outed as an undercover CIA officer. Wilson says, “I will not answer questions about my wife. This is not about me and less so about my wife. It has always been about the facts underpinning the President’s statement in the state of the union speech.”

So he will neither confirm nor deny that his wife–who is the mother of three-year-old twins–works for the CIA. But let’s assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson or to send a message to others who might challenge it. [/i]

This is just par for the course. It’s similar in style to ignoring reporters that dare to ask tricky questions and put the president on the spot during press events.

In the following, it looks like it is just plain bad, wrong, immoral or whatever you like, no matter what, assuming Novak himself wasn’t lying about getting his information from two senior sources…

[i]The sources for Novak’s assertion about Wilson’s wife appear to be “two senior administration officials.” If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what’s known as “nonofficial cover” and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material.

If Wilson’s wife is such a person–and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her–her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career.

This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames." If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.[/i]

Shame. Somebody needs a lesson in ethics. Funny how a supposedly christian administration is pissing all over any concepts of morality that should dictate their actions. Doesn’t that strike anybody else as strange?

I guess you have to wait until morning for a reply Vroom. These Republicans are no fun…no late nights for them…

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I guess you have to wait until morning for a reply Vroom. These Republicans are no fun…no late nights for them…[/quote]

Or maybe, just maybe, we don’t sit on the computer on a Saturday night mentally masturbating over politics on a weightlifting site. :wink:

You Freepers crack me up.

By outing Plame the Bush administration outed Brewster-Jennings.

Big oops.

Fitz has been waiting for more right wingnuts to turn state witness and apparently it has been working.

Can you Freepers explain to me why Rove’s lawyer has been stabing Libby in the back?

The best part is no one really knows anything except the defense lawyers and that is piece meal at best.

Listening to the excuses of the right wingnuts is worse then listening to the Yankee fans in my office after their post season choke. At least the Yankee fans can be honest with themselves and everyone else.

Nothing good will come out of this grand jury. This will damage the GOP for a long time to come and I dreadfully anticipate Democrats gaining control of 1 if not all of the branches of the federal government over the next 3 years.

Right wingnuttery put us where we are.

So, keep up your right wingnuttery even though we have seen it has been our country and the GOP’s undoing in just 11 years.

Flame me all you want but you are on the wrong side of history.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
So Boston, what are you trying to prove (I mean this as a serious question no dickhead intentions). That it doesn’t matter that she was outed because she was still undercover? Or that it is unlikely that indictements will be handed down because of her status?[/quote]

No. The point would be that she could NOT have been “outed” if she were not technically undercover. So if she weren’t there could be no indictments because there would be no crime.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

The conception that most folks have, including myself, is that she was CIA agent who’s job was to seek WMD. [/quote]

My understanding is that she had previously been an undercover operative, but hadn’t been used as such in a long time – long enough that she couldn’t satisfy the definition of “undercover” in the law relating to revealing agent identities, which has a requirement of having been undercover in the previous 5 years. To my understanding, she had been working as an analyst at Langley.

Also, there seems to be information that the CIA inadvertently made her name known to the Cubans years previously in a classic agency SNAFU, which would also negate the concept that her identity was a secret national-security treasure. In fact, I believe that reason is why she wasn’t used as an undercover operative any more.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Upon her husband’s speaking out against teh war, mysteriously her name appears. Especially interesting is that Joseph Wilson was actually well like by Republicans previously. I haven’t had time to actually read about all the details yet, but taht is my impression. Its awful coincidental that she her name begins getting thrown around after her husband has a spat with the administration. And I don’t believe in coincidences.[/quote]

It’s not a matter of whether it’s coincidental. It might – and probably was – a political leak by the Vice President’s office in response to Joseph Wilson’s lying concerning his mission to Nigeria and Cheney’s involvment therewith. From all I can piece together, her name was given as a reference for correcting his misstatements concerning how he was picked for the Nigeria job.

The question is whether there was any crime committed by doing so – and whether a reasonable person with the information a political operative would have would have believed he was “outting” an undercover operative.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Doogie, of course I am going to disagree, but at least you presented something that can be discussed reasonably.

Strangely, his government asked him to go investigate something, which he did as part of his job. I don’t think it is appropriate to castigate someone for doing their job and serving their country.[/quote]

First note is that he was castigated for what he lied about afterward, not that he did his job.

And in this case it is being implicated that his drawing attention to himself after he went and did his job - when he had given his report and was in the process of turning himself into a fixture on the Kerry campaign bandwagon - was a fact that wouldn’t lend one to think that he valued the “secret” identity of his wife.

[quote]vroom wrote:

However, along a different line, I don’t think the issue has any legal bearing the way you have presented it. It’s not about whether you can find reasons to assume it would be okay, it’s about whether it is reasonable to expect one to understand not to out agents, especially given their position of power and their obvious ability to know whether ot not she was an active agent due to their government responsibilities.

Well, that’s my take anyway.[/quote]

This particular piece of minutia is related exactly because of what Doogie said. Karl Rove/Scooter Libby are political operatives, and would not be expected to know the details of CIA clearance or undercover agents – I don’t even think they would have the clearance to know if they wanted to know, but I’m unsure of that. Suffice to to say that from what I read, it would be uncommon for a political operative like Libby or Rove to have that kind of clearance.

Thus, would a reasonable person, who did not otherwise have concrete information concerning the status of a person who is employed as an analyst at Langley, assume that Joseph Wilson’s calling nation- and world-wide attention to himself make it less likely that his wife’s identity or job was a matter of national security?

I think the answer to that is obvious.

BTW, if you check what I wrote above and previously, you’ll see I’ve never discounted the possibility that there would be an indictment concerning obstruction of justice or some other such charge. Those would be crimes relating to the investigation itself, but not to any sort of underlying wrongdoing by anyone. I would find it a little problematic – much like I did with Martha Stewart – if someone were indicted for “obstruction of justice” for lying (or misremembering - I don’t care) to the investigator when there was no underlying crime (I take a completely different stand on perjury to the grand jury, if such a crime is indicted and proved – lying under oath is much more problematic).

But essentially what I glean from your posts is that you hope there is some secret information that we don’t know about, that will be shortly set forth, that will show all sorts of malfeasance and problems with national security by Rove, Libby, or whomever. I’m saying that if such info exists, we certainly don’t know about it, and the analysis of the underlying laws makes it less likely, rather than more likely, that indictments will be forthcoming under those laws – because they are narrowly written and hard to violate.

There’s only one thing I’ve seen that would lead me to believe that the prosecutor is moving forward on a national-security type issue, and it certainly isn’t anything Marmadogg pointed to, but given it’s just a guess I think I’ll wait to see what comes out at the end of the week.

“NATO sources have confirmed to United Press International that Fitzgerald’s team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation on the forgeries from the Italian government.”

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
blah blah blah blah
[/quote]

Two words:

Brewster-Jennings

Valerie Plame worked for Brewster-Jennings and when she was outed so was Brewster-Jennings.

Please show me where Brewster-Jennings was not a CIA front?

You can’t.

Your partisan hackery is truely pathetic.

Once a Freeptard always a Freeptard.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
blah blah blah blah

Two words:

Brewster-Jennings

Valerie Plame worked for Brewster-Jennings and when she was outed so was Brewster-Jennings.

Please show me where Brewster-Jennings was not a CIA front?

You can’t.

Your partisan hackery is truely pathetic.

Once a Freeptard always a Freeptard.[/quote]

What precisely don’t you understand about the “knowledge” and “intent” standards that are applicable here?

Unless you’re arguing that there is some reason to believe that whomever you’re implicating knowingly and purposefully exposed Brewster-Jennings?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
blah blah blah blah

Two words:

Brewster-Jennings

Valerie Plame worked for Brewster-Jennings and when she was outed so was Brewster-Jennings.

Please show me where Brewster-Jennings was not a CIA front?

You can’t.

Your partisan hackery is truely pathetic.

Once a Freeptard always a Freeptard.

What precisely don’t you understand about the “knowledge” and “intent” standards that are applicable here?

Unless you’re arguing that there is some reason to believe that whomever you’re implicating knowingly and purposefully exposed Brewster-Jennings?[/quote]

They signed confidentiality agreements to get security clearances.

I don’t expect you to be honest about that.

Brewster-Jennings.

You don’t have to knowingly release secret information.

If they had nothing to hide then why did they?

That is all right wingnuts could hang on Clinton…but that was ‘the rule of law’ and it does not apply to anyone but Clinton or Democrats?

mmmmkay…

Marmadogg has finally snapped. I thought he was on the verge for a while now. Now all that is left are the incoherent ramblings of an ABBer that couldn’t make it to November '08.

There are counselors that have grpup sessions to deal with you problem. Personally I would rather you stay the raving looney you have turned into - but there is help out there for the hapless disillusioned ABB loser if you want it. Just look in a South Florida phone book. They even have a name for your condition.

You have my sympathies - but pardon me if I laugh my ass off at your little tyrades.

It must be really hard to know that you have lost and that you continue to lose, and you will for the forseeable future - regardless of the snazzy little names you come up for those that have kicked you ass in election after election.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

What precisely don’t you understand about the “knowledge” and “intent” standards that are applicable here?

Unless you’re arguing that there is some reason to believe that whomever you’re implicating knowingly and purposefully exposed Brewster-Jennings?

Marmadogg wrote:

They signed confidentiality agreements to get security clearances.

I don’t expect you to be honest about that.

Brewster-Jennings.

You don’t have to knowingly release secret information.

If they had nothing to hide then why did they?

That is all right wingnuts could hang on Clinton…but that was ‘the rule of law’ and it does not apply to anyone but Clinton or Democrats?

mmmmkay…[/quote]

Actually, I don’t know what their security clearances are. I assume that as political operatives they didn’t have high clearance, and definitely weren’t given updates on projects by the CIA.

However, signing a confidentiality agreement, and breaching it, in normal circumstances would NOT be a criminal offense, but rather a civil breach-of-contract matter. Without seeing any such contracts or knowing what was in them, or even who issued them, I wouldn’t know if any specifics were different than the norm. Have you seen them? I kind of doubt it.

As to your point about “you don’t have to knowingly release secret information,” you’re correct, as far as it goes. But you’re also making an irrelevant point, because the question isn’t whether secret information was released, but rather whether any laws pertaining to the release of secret information were violated. And that, my friend, is where the “knowingly” part comes in. The only two laws that have been discussed as applicable to this situation both have knowledge standards – in other words, the people who “released” secret info, to the extent is was actually released by them and not found out pursuant to information released (another darn legal qualification) needed to know it was secret info. So, yeah, the “knowingly” part is important.

As to the “nothing to hide” comment, I don’t know, and frankly don’t care – hiding stuff shouldn’t be a crime. Telling an investigator you don’t know or don’t remember or whatever, when you’re not under oath, shouldn’t be prosecutable – it’s not in a lot of countries, and I think in this case we should follow suit. See the privacy thread. I completely disagree with the Martha Stewart persecution/prosecution – though, as I said, perjury is another matter entirely. And that, of course, is the main difference with Mr. Clinton – kind of bad to have the chief executive, who is the one in charge of the Justice department and all federal law enforcement, lying under oath.

Andy McCarthy talks about Fitzgerald’s integrity on the National Review, which, according to Marmadogg, means it’s automatically untrue:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_23_corner-archive.asp#080587

FITZGERALD: TOOL OF THE LEFT [Andy McCarthy]
I?m too busy today to be monitoring the media, but Ive gotten a lot of questions about this from people who say some conservatives are hitting the airwaves with preemptive suggestions that my friend Pat Fitzgerald may not be as apolitical as his press clippings indicate. In particular, I am being pointed to favorable comments made by Senator Schumer about Pat?s competence and integrity.

Let me just say this. Pat is at least as apolitical as his press clippings suggest. And just because Senator Schumer says something doesn?t make it wrong.

Pat Fitzgerald is the best prosecutor I have ever seen. By a mile. He is also the straightest shooter I have ever seen ? by at least that much. And most importantly, he is a good man.

This investigation has gone on for 22 months. Most of the evidence was collected before autumn 2004 ? the last year of delay has mainly been caused by reporters challenging subpoenas in the federal courts.

If Pat were political ? or, worse, if he somehow had it in for the Bush administration ? it was fully within his power to return indictments in the weeks before the November elections, which would almost certainly have cinched things for Senator Kerry. It is something, I am quite certain, it would never even have occurred to him to do. The only thing the guy I know would do is bring charges or close the case without charges when the facts of the investigation warranted doing so.

Unlike his predecessor, President Bush has been a model of decorum throughout this investigation, regarding it as a serious matter and being respectful and complimentary in light of the professional way in which it?s been conducted. I don?t know what?s going to happen. But I think people would do well to follow the President?s lead. They will be far less likely then to look foolish later on.

The latest information on where Libby learned of Plame’s CIA employment indicates he learned it from Cheney. This doesn’t really change the “knowledge qualifier” I pointed out above w/r/t Libby, unless Cheney told Libby that her identity was a matter of national security. Obviously more details are going to come out, and they will affect the legal analysis – we’ll see how this goes.

October 24, 2005

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Notes Show
By DAVID JOHNSTON, RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.

The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson’s husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration’s handling of intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear program to justify the war.

Lawyers involved in the case, who described the notes to The New York Times, said they showed that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.

Mr. Libby’s notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, in response to questions from the vice president about Mr. Wilson. But they contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson’s undercover status or that her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent’s identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent’s undercover status.

It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government’s deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry.

White House officials did not respond to requests for comment, and Mr. Libby’s lawyer, Joseph Tate, would not comment on Mr. Libby’s legal status. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, declined to comment on the case.

Mr. Fitzgerald is expected to decide whether to bring charges in the case by Friday, when the term of the grand jury expires. Mr. Libby and Karl Rove, President Bush’s senior adviser, both face the possibility of indictment, lawyers involved in the case have said. It is not publicly known whether other officials also face indictment.

The notes help explain the legal difficulties facing Mr. Libby. Lawyers in the case said Mr. Libby testified to the grand jury that he had first heard from journalists that Ms. Wilson may have had a role in dispatching her husband on a C.I.A.-sponsored mission to Africa in 2002 in search of evidence that Iraq had acquired nuclear material there for its weapons program.

But the notes, now in Mr. Fitzgerald’s possession, also indicate that Mr. Libby first heard about Ms. Wilson - who is also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame - from Mr. Cheney. That apparent discrepancy in his testimony suggests why prosecutors are weighing false statement charges against him in what they interpret as an effort by Mr. Libby to protect Mr. Cheney from scrutiny, the lawyers said.

It is not clear why Mr. Libby would have suggested to the grand jury that he might have learned about Ms. Wilson from journalists if he was aware that Mr. Fitzgerald had obtained the notes of the conversation with Mr. Cheney or might do so. At the beginning of the investigation, Mr. Bush pledged the White House’s full cooperation and instructed aides to provide Mr. Fitzgerald with any information he sought.

The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney knew the name of Mr. Wilson’s wife. But they do show that Mr. Cheney did know and told Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and that she may have helped arrange her husband’s trip.

Some lawyers in the case have said Mr. Fitzgerald may face obstacles in bringing a false-statement charge against Mr. Libby. They said it could be difficult to prove that he intentionally sought to mislead the grand jury.

Lawyers involved in the case said they had no indication that Mr. Fitzgerald was considering charging Mr. Cheney with wrongdoing. Mr. Cheney was interviewed under oath by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what the vice president told Mr. Fitzgerald about the conversation with Mr. Libby or when Mr. Fitzgerald first learned of it.

But the evidence of Mr. Cheney’s direct involvement in the effort to learn more about Mr. Wilson is sure to intensify the political pressure on the White House in a week of high anxiety among Republicans about the potential for the case to deal a sharp blow to Mr. Bush’s presidency.

Mr. Tenet was not available for comment Monday night. But another former senior intelligence official said Mr. Tenet had been interviewed by the special prosecutor and his staff in early 2004, and never appeared before the grand jury. Mr. Tenet has not talked since then to the prosecutors, the former official said.

The former official said he strongly doubted that the White House learned about Ms. Wilson from Mr. Tenet.

On Monday, Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby both attended a cabinet meeting with Mr. Bush as the White House continued trying to portray business as usual. But the assumption among White House officials is that anyone who is indicted will step aside.

On June 12, 2003, the day of the conversation between Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby, The Washington Post published a front-page article reporting that the C.I.A. had sent a retired American diplomat to Niger in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium there. The article did not name the diplomat, who turned out to be Mr. Wilson, but it reported that his mission had not corroborated a claim about Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear material that the White House had subsequently used in Mr. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address.

An earlier anonymous reference to Mr. Wilson and his mission to Africa had appeared in a column by Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York Times on May 6, 2003. Mr. Wilson went public with his conclusion that the White House had “twisted” the intelligence about Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear material on July 6, 2003, in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times.

The note written by Mr. Libby will be a crucial piece of evidence in a false-statement case against him if Mr. Fitzgerald decides to pursue it, lawyers in the case said. It also explains why Mr. Fitzgerald waged a long legal battle to obtain the testimony of reporters who were known to have talked to Mr. Libby.

The reporters involved have said that they did not supply Mr. Libby with details about Mr. Wilson and his wife. Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, in his account of a deposition on the subject, wrote that he asked Mr. Libby whether he had even heard that Ms. Wilson had a role in sending her husband to Africa. Mr. Cooper said that Mr. Libby did not use Ms. Wilson’s name but replied, “Yeah, I’ve heard that too.”

In her testimony to the grand jury, Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, said Mr. Libby sought from the start of her three conversations with him to “insulate his boss from Mr. Wilson’s charges.”

Mr. Fitzgerald asked questions about Mr. Cheney, Ms. Miller said. “He asked, for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had approved of his interview with me or was aware of them,” Ms. Miller said. “The answer was no.”

In addition to Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, Mr. Fitzgerald is known to have interviewed three other journalists who spoke to Mr. Libby during June and July 2003. They were Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post and Tim Russert of NBC News.

Mr. Pincus and Mr. Kessler have said that Mr. Libby did not discuss Mr. Wilson’s wife with them in their conversations during the period. Mr. Russert, in a statement, declined to say exactly what he discussed with Mr. Libby, but said he first learned the identity of Mr. Wilson’s wife in the column by Mr. Novak.

Should be interesting to see how many of these points get aired around here:

Posturing Begins Ahead
Of CIA-Leak Probe Deadline
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 25, 2005; Page A6

WASHINGTON – Even before the CIA leak investigation has ended, Democrats and Republicans are planning public-relations campaigns.

With a federal grand jury appearing close to indicting top White House officials this week, a draft set of talking points for Senate Democrats shows that some members of the party plan to use the charges as the basis for a broader assault on how the Bush administration handled the run-up to the Iraq war.

Republicans, meanwhile, have started complaining about prosecutorial overreach.

The Democrats’ talking points begin: “The White House leak case is about how the Bush administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for war in Iraq.”

Democrats will try to take the case up the line to President Bush. “We’re going to hold the president and his administration accountable,” said Karen Finney, communications director for the Democratic National Committee. “It’s important to remember that it’s about the run-up to the war and manipulating the intelligence.”

Democrats also plan to hammer away at the need for a thorough housecleaning by Mr. Bush, even if that means going beyond any aides who are indicted. And they probably will demand congressional hearings, in an effort to keep the controversy in the public eye and hold Republicans off balance.

With midterm elections a year away, one likely element of the Democrats’ attacks is to throw Mr. Bush’s oft-repeated claims of integrity back at him. "Bush told voters in October 2000, ‘We will ask not only what is legal but what is right, not what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves,’ " according to the Democrats’ talking points, which were circulating yesterday. “Americans call on Mr. Bush to keep his campaign promise of 2000. President Bush said he would change Washington; it looks like Washington has changed him.”

House and Senate Democrats developed their strategy over the past week, along with their counterparts at the Democratic National Committee.

Democrats, though, face a particular risk in using the investigation to attack Mr. Bush on Iraq, given the initial support for the war from some of their most influential members.

“It’s not in the Democrats’ interest to go nuts,” said Mark Corallo, a media consultant and former Justice Department official under Attorney General John Ashcroft. Their thinking, he says, should be: “Our enemy has set himself on fire. Instead of pouring gasoline that can blow up and burn us all, why don’t we just step away and let them burn.”

For their part, Republicans are trying to focus attention elsewhere – on coming elections and their legislative efforts, for example – while playing down the significance of any charges. They also are trying to train some fire on retired diplomat Joseph Wilson, the husband of Valerie Plame, the Central Intelligence Agency operative whose identity was disclosed. Mr. Wilson charged that the White House leaked the name of his wife to undercut his criticism of the administration’s war policy. The Republican National Committee distributed to some politicians talking points titled, “Joe Wilson’s Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies and Misstatements.”

During weekend television talk shows, some Republican lawmakers even floated the idea of perjury and obstruction of justice charges amounting to little more than legal foot faults.

That may be a tricky path to pursue, in part because of the Republicans’ record of attacking the Clinton administration for not being truthful. Democrats yesterday quickly circulated a recap of Republican outrage over President Clinton’s misleading comments about his relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky. “Republicans: Against Perjury and Obstruction Before They Were For It,” read the document’s headline. Republicans also may have to maneuver without their master strategist, White House political adviser Karl Rove, who is one of the likely targets of the investigation.

Write to John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com

Boston,

These turkeys, Rove and Libby, are not general citizens on the street. They are routinely involved in discussions involving sensitive material, and appropriately so. They certainly should be expected to know how to handle sensitive information if they are in fact authorized to deal with it.

Anyhow, I was nearly asleep listening to CNN when it was mentioned that it appears information points to the leak happening due to a discussion between Cheney and Libby. This is where Libby purportedly got the information (and again, this discussion is fine, as they are allowed to discuss issues related to current events at the time).

However, it appears that Libby then leaked the information from that point, knowing full well that he was outing Valerie Plame.

Hey, I’m just reporting what I had heard as of late, don’t blame me for it.

Anyhow, as something you quoted above has said, it is certainly a level on the administration and it’s handling of the runup to war if the actions being discussed actually did occur. It would fit in with cherry picking news, so that the facts supported a premade agenda, and generally support a lot of claims about the character of the administration in general.

If, and it is still a huge if, because of course the trail from here to proof, assuming something does come out of it, is a long one. I’m sure Bush will be out of office before the history books reflect the truth of this presidency… and it isn’t going to be good.