In court today, as Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked the judge to give Scooter Libby the maximum sentence, a document was made public for the first time that proves once and for all that Valerie Plame was a agent when outed:
An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employmenthistory at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in acourt filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates thatPlame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.
In 2004, President Bush promised to fire anyone in his Administration that was involved in the leak. We know for a fact that Karl Rove was one of the columnist Robert Novak used when he Plame's identity. Bush has yet to follow through and fire Rove.
What a surprise, Secretary of State Rice is going to takeadvantage of , and will answer any questions in writing, Rice said I have "" referring to what she knew about thegovernments claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger, which waslater proven to be false. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted and approved the subpoena 21 to 10.
The subpoena for Rice, committee led byCalifornia Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman, was part of a flurry of action in thestepped-up congressional oversight of how the Bush administration operates.
Rice said she had answered questions about the matter in three letters overthe last month and cited a legal doctrine that can shield a president and hisaides from having to answer questions from Congress.
When are theconservative "hold-outs" going to stop complaining about theinvestigations, and realize that something is very wrong with thisadministration. Stop sticking up and making excuses for this crap.
I don't know if this guy is telling the truth or not, and I am sure he hassome terrorist ties, but that isn't what this post is about. It's about our intelligence,or lack thereof.
"" - In September 2006, advocating legislation for a Guantánamo war court,President Bush described Abu Zubaydah as ''a senior terrorist leader and atrusted associate of Osama bin Laden'' who survived wounds suffered duringhis capture because of CIA-orchestrated medical treatment.
He resisted interrogations, Bush said -- until the CIA employed ''analternative set of procedures'' and he spilled a series of al Qaeda plots.
If "an alternative set of procedures" gets information, how do youknow its the truth? It seems to me that throughout history people have"spilled their beans" because something "bad" was happening orabout to happen to them.
I don't have any answers to securing factual information from the enemy or a suspectedenemy, but somebody in the government better come up with some answers becauseour nations intelligence has a low IQ.
David Shuster of MSNBC described Patrick Fitzgerald's testimony today, which revealed the extent of Cheney's involvement in the intentional outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame:
Scooter Libby even destroyed a note that proved Cheney's role in the leak. Libby was definitely out to protect his boss.
Interestingly, Libby's lawyers in their opening statement -- an effort to make Libby look like a victim:
Attorney Theodore Wells said Libby went toCheney in 2003 and complained that the White House was subtly blaminghim for leaking Plame’s identity to columnist Robert Novak.
“They’retrying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb,†Wellssaid, recalling the alleged conversation between Libby and Cheney. “Iwill not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected.â€
Sorry, but that is not a good defense. Fitzgerald obviously had the upper hand today.
I have to hand it to Bob Woodward. He comes to school prepared. He knew that releasing his book would make him an instant smear target. So yesterday when Condoleezza Rice challenged Woodward's assertion that she had been about a possible terrorist attack, in her own State Department proving that such a meeting did indeed take place:
A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet,then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Riceand other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat fromAl Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft were also briefed a week later.
The account by the spokesman, Sean McCormack, came hours after Ms.Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane thatshe did not recall the specific meeting on July 10, noting that she hadmet repeatedly with Mr. Tenet that summer about terrorist threats. Ms.Rice, the national security adviser at the time, said it was"incomprehensible" to suggest she had ignored dire terrorist threatstwo months before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Mr. McCormack also saidrecords showed that the Sept. 11 commission had been informed about themeeting, a fact that former intelligence officials and members of thecommission confirmed on Monday.
When details of the meeting emerged last week in a new book by BobWoodward of The Washington Post, Bush administration officialsquestioned Mr. Woodward's reporting.
Now, after several days, both current and former Bush administration officials have confirmed parts of Mr. Woodward's account.
Check-mate: another lie about the Administration's missteps before 9/11 has been exposed.
The 2006 National Intelligence Estimate shows that President Bush's adventure in Iraq, which has resulted in the deaths of nearly 2,700 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis, has increased the threat of terrorism to America.
Most of us who have filtered out Fox News and most of the infotainment on the other networks have known this for a long time. The Administration has tried its best to send the message that removing Saddam Hussein has made America safer from terrorism -- and sadly, a large chunk of the country still agrees with that subjective assessment.
But the latest , a summary of terrorism-related intelligence from 16 different agencies, concludes that the Iraq war has increased terrorist recruitment throughout the world:
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a moredirect role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presentedeither in recent White House documents or in a report releasedWednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to severalofficials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or whohave read the final document.
The intelligence estimate,completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorismby United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, andrepresents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services insidegovernment. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for theUnited States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than beingin retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
Anopening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the GlobalJihadist Movement,†cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion ofjihad ideology.
The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,†said one American intelligence official.
As long as we remain in Iraq, we will continue to fuel terrorism -- the very danger that our government agencies are working around the clock to counter. Imagine being a CIA operative or high-level customs agent. Think of what it would be like to put your heart and soul each day into protecting this country, only to know that all your work is being made tougher because of the war we are fighting in Iraq.
And President Bush calls this being tough on terrorism? Will the Democrats ever learn how to challenge him on his flawed approach? We have six weeks to do it.
President Bush got the better end of the interrogation bill, and its consequences will put our troops in greater danger.
John McCain is not really a Maverick at all. In an effort to try and look like a moderating force, Arizona Senator John McCain got the losing end of the deal on the interrogation bill, giving President Bush almost everything he wanted. This was not a compromise. It was as if Republicans agreed to look the other way.
As the wrote on Saturday, the bill contradicts itself. On one hand, it gives major offenders complete rights, while giving low-level detainees no rights at all:
It would guarantee terrorist masterminds charged with war crimes anarray of procedural protections. But it would bar hundreds of minorfigures and people who say they are innocent bystanders from access tothe courts to challenge their potentially lifelong detentions.
The said that because of this new law, Bush will go down as the President that endorsed torture:
Mr. Bush wanted Congress to formally approve these practices and todeclare them consistent with the Geneva Conventions. It will not. Butit will not stop him either, if the legislation is passed in the formagreed on yesterday. Mr. Bush will go down in history for his embraceof torture and bear responsibility for the enormous damage that hascaused.
In our anarchic international system, one thing is certain: precedent often impacts how power can be used legitimately. When we, the beacon of democracy, set a precedent of interpreting the Geneva Conventions in any way that we want, we then give the green light to other countries to do the same. It means that when our soldiers find themselves captured by another state in the world, this bill will have put them in greater danger -- all this from the party that says they are pro-military.
The judge is giving Patrick Fitzgerald a way out of the case (even though the case should be a slam dunk).
Think of it this way: no matter what, Scooter Libby will not be going to jail. If wins the perjury case against Scooter Libby, then President Bush is expected to pardon Libby. Or, Mr. Fitzgerald could just wimp out. This week, the judge gave the prosecutor that option, allowing him to dismiss the case if it :
The judge in the CIA leak case ruled Thursdaythat if Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald feels that admitting certainclassified documents at the upcoming trial of I Lewis "Scooter" Libbycan jeopardize national security, Fitzgerald can then move to dismissthe perjury charges against Libby.
JudgeReggie Walton cannot automatically allow classified materials to beadmitted at trial. He first must go through a series of closed hearingsunder CIPA regulations. CIPA, the Classified Information ProceduresAct, protects and restricts the discovery of classified information ina way that does not impair the defendant's right to a fair trial. Italso allows the government to propose a redacted version of aclassified document as a substitution for the original, having deletedonly non-relevant classified information.
Fine then. Give the grand jury a "redacted version" of the classified information. Either way, this trial shouldn't end, otherwise it sets a lawless precedent. Any charged public official whose case deals with classified information would be deemed too "nationally sensitive" and could "jeopardize national security." Is that a good precedent to set?
In other words, the judge is saying that protecting all classified information -- even though some is less important than others -- is more important than fully prosecuting those who misuse an institution of trust.
In political science, we are taught that realism has to do with the study of what is practical and actual, not what is desired or ideal. Realists believe that countries are part of what is an anarchic international system -- anarchic in a sense that countries, not higher powers, determine the rules of interaction between governments. In other words, when the most powerful and most democratic country sets the precedent of lowering the ethical bar by easing interrogation rules, other countries will justifiably lower their standards.
Three Republican realists are standing with the Democrats on the issue of torture because they acknowledge that easing interrogation rules for prisoners in U.S. custody means that in the near future our soldiers will be subjected to worse treatment than before while in the custody of other sovereign countries. this morning outlines the two sides:
On one side are the Republican veterans of the uniformed services,arguing that the president’s proposal would effectively gut the nearly60-year-old Geneva Conventions, sending a dark signal to the rest ofthe world and leaving United States military without adequateprotection against torture and mistreatment.
On the other arethe Bush administration and Republican leaders of both the House andSenate who say new tools are urgently needed to pursue and interrogateterror suspects and to protect the covert operatives who play anincreasingly important role in chasing them.
Republicans concede that the fight among themselves is a majorpolitical distraction, particularly given the credentials of theRepublican opposition, led by Mr. McCain, the former prisoner of war inVietnam who was tortured in captivity.
I hate to beat the old drum, but I will. When most people in an Administration are detached from the realities that real soldiers face on a daily basis, they simply don't weigh into the equation how our interrogation policies might our soldiers in the long-run. In fact, they may not care anyway. Notice that Colin Powell, John McCain and the rest of the civilian military authority opposes the Administration's interrogation techniques -- for a good reason. First, they apply realism. Second, they come out of the GOP closet and stand on principle this one time. Better than never.
Robert Novak now has Richard Armitage by the leash. I'll explain how this happened, and why Novak has every reason to be furious with the former Deputy Secretary of State.
Something really intriguing is taking place right now in the CIA leak case. Before you surf over to some traditional media site, I have an alternative take on what this all means. But first, bare with me as I go over what has transpired.
To review, a few weeks ago former Deputy Secretary of State that he was indeed the 2003 source that told columnist Robert Novak about the classified identity of Valerie Plame, then a CIA operative. This puts a wrap on a three-year-long mystery about who that source was. Yesterday, Valerie Plame and her husband Joseph Wilson announced that they will against a number of other Administration officials, which charges the White House with exposing her true identity in order to pay back Joseph Wilson for his that disputed Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein had purchased "" from the country of Niger.
Back to Richard Armitage. Knowing that this new revelation puts him in hot water, the former State Department official went on the defensive and telling Novak the CIA operative's real name, and did not intend to put her life in jeopardy.
Now this was when things got interesting. In a surprising move yesterday, columnist Robert Novak disputed Armitage's claim that Plame's name was leaked only by accident, concluding instead that he has reason to believe Armitage leaked the name on purpose. In other words, Novak is alleging that Armitage wanted to get back at Joe Wilson for the column that the former U.S. Ambassador wrote. Here was part of what :
When Richard Armitagefinally acknowledged last week he was my source three years ago inrevealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputysecretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did. I want toset the record straight based on firsthand knowledge.
First, Armitage didnot, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard andthat he ''thought'' might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIAdivision where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommendedthe mission to Niger by her husband, former Ambasador Joseph Wilson.
Second, Armitage didnot slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. Hemade clear he considered it especially suited for my column.
So the question that needs to be answered is why does Robert Novak want to screw over his original source? Why would Novak want to drag this case out even more so that Armitage could possibly be charged with some sort of crime? Novak is out for revenge -- but why?
Think about it. Imagine you are Robert Novak. You show up at the State Department to talk to a high-ranking Administration official who wants to give you a bunch of inside information. What reporter is going to say no to that? Little did Novak know that he was being used by Armitage to act as a messenger in collaborative White House attempt to get back at Joe Wilson. Once Robert Novak used the name "Valerie Plame" in his article, he was immediately blamed for outing the CIA operative. Instead of being able to reveal who told him the name, Novak was bound by a confidentiality agreement with his source, Richard Armitage, not to say anything.
So Novak, like him or hate him, sat there for three years and took a beating from the traditional media and the blogosphere while his source watched from a hilltop and said nothing. What kind of a person would leave a journalist for the wolves like that? To answer the question, either Armitage said nothing because he was paranoid about his legal safety, or he was instructed by the Administration to keep his lips shut. Either way, Robert Novak has every right to be ticked off at his source for not revealing himself.
Just days before Armitage revealed that he was the source, about the situation while appearing on Meet the Press:
"I'm going to say one thing though I haven't said before, and that is I believe time is way past for my source to identify himself."
I must say that for the first time since I began covering politics, I really sympathize with Robert Novak. When you are a journalist and you are bound by a confidentiality agreement not to reveal your source, that source is in complete control. If what the source tells you turns out either not to be true or it causes rhetorical commotion, then it is your problem not the source's problem.
Columnist Jason Leopold of the web site learned that lesson after he was by a confidential source that Karl Rove was about to be indicted by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Even though it was the source who lied, Leopold took the blame for being wrong and was made into an idiot by the traditional media. That event tarnished Leopold's reputation, even though he is considered by many, including myself, as a top-notch journalist. Like the saying goes, sometimes you shouldn't listen to strangers.
Whether Novak is telling the truth about Armitage's intent to leak Valerie Plame's identity is a whole other story. But all in all, the conservative columnist has been through hell and back. He wants finality; and like any other human being would, Novak wants to get back at the man that set him up. I don't know about the rest of you, but I really sympathize with the veteran Washington reporter.
-----------------------------------------
Other sites blogging about this issue: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
Recent Comments