On Fox News Sunday, Editor of the Weekly Standard that Scooter Libby should be pardoned because it would cause a discussion that would divert attention away from the issues that voters are concerned about in this election season:
Bush should pardon Libby. He should do it now. It would be fantastic.The democrats would go crazy. We could have a debate for two monthsabout whether one should criminalize what was a totally innocentattempt to respond to, as Juan said, a mendacious critic of theadministration.
William Kristol is apparently the leading voice of the neoconservative movement. It's interesting how someone in a political movement that has proclaimed itself to be strong on national security would advocate pardoning someone who lied to a grand jury about his role in the leak of a CIA operative whose job it is to protect this country. Neoconservatives also believe the Wilsonian idea that liberalizing and democratizing the world automatically leads to peace. If that is so, then why would a neoconservative like Kristol want U.S. voters to be diverted and preoccupied during an election season? That is intriguing, especially from a man who has said to love democracy. ------------------------------------------------ Other sites blogging about this story: , , , , , , .
Reporter Robert Novak indicated on Meet the Press that he is upset with his source (who might be Richard Armitage) for choosing to remain anonymous. And I think that I just figured out the motivation for Isikoff's Newsweek article.
This weekend, a by Michael Isikoff indicated that Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, might have been the one that leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to reporter Robert Novak. The blogosphere has been buzzing all weekend about it.
So on the NBC Sunday program Meet the Press, host Tim Russert tried to get guest Robert Novak to confirm that Richard Armitage was indeed the source he used in his that led to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Novak refused to answer the question, saying that his source would have to "identify himself." However, without revealing his source, Novak did suggest that he was growing rather frustrated that his source has waited so long without saying anything.
After you watch the video, read what I wrote at the bottom -- because I have a theory about why the Isikoff article about his new book was written in the first place.
(YouTube)
--- Partial Transcript ---
RUSSERT: "Are you now prepared to say, confirm Newsweek, that Richard Armitage was one of your sources?"
NOVAK: "I told Mr. Isikoff, the very good investigative reporter by the way, I told him that I do not identify my sources on any subject if they are on a confidential basis until they identity themselves. I don't say somebody was or wasn't. 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."
It's interesting how Robert Novak referred to Isikoff, who wrote the Newsweek article about Armitage, as a "very good investigative reporter." By phrasing it that way, Novak is giving us plausible reason to suggest that he even encouraged Isikoff to write the Newsweek article as a method of getting Armitage to hurry up and talk. Novak wants this leak story over with ASAP so that he can get on with his career. Armitage, or whoever Novak's source is, has been sitting on the sidelines for so long. By saying that he has no beef with Isikoff, who wrote a very detailed column and about the CIA leak story, Novak is sending the message to Armitage that the former CNN reporter has ways of getting him to talk -- such as getting reporters like Isikoff to write columns about Armitage. Putting it simply, Novak is pissed at Armitage. If I were putting money on it, I would expect Novak's source, assuming that it is Armitage, to out himself within the next few days or so. --------------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about the CIA leak scandal: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
The book , which is now for sale, gives a detailed inside look at the Bush Administration's outing of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent who at the time was listed under covert status. Author Michael Isikoff writes in the book about how former Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell played a central, yet accidental role in revealing Plame's identity to the press.
The , Isikoff previews the book and explains how Armitage realized that he outed Plame:
In the early morning of Oct. 1, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powellreceived an urgent phone call from his No. 2 at the State Department.Richard Armitage was clearly agitated. As recounted in a new book, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War," Armitage had been at home reading the newspaper and had come across acolumn by journalist Robert Novak. Months earlier, Novak had caused ahuge stir when he revealed that Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq-war criticJoseph Wilson, was a CIA officer. Ever since, Washington had beentrying to find out who leaked the information to Novak. The columnisthimself had kept quiet. But now, in a second column, Novak provided atantalizing clue: his primary source, he wrote, was a "senioradministration official" who was "not a partisan gunslinger." Armitagewas shaken. After reading the column, he knew immediately who theleaker was. On the phone with Powell that morning, Armitage was "indeep distress," says a source directly familiar with the conversationwho asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities. "I'msure he's talking about me."
()
So apparently Armitage was used by the Administration to pass along information about Plame without knowing the implications of it. Simply fascinating. This comes just a few days after it was revealed that show Armitage met with Bob Woodward right before the reporter testified to the grand jury that an Administration official spoke to him about Valerie Plame.
I am sure that by the time Bush leaves office, thanks to books like this and many others, we will know the full extent of the White House's effort to discredit Joe Wilson. --------------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about this issue: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
Several months after it had been proven that Joseph Wilson's 2003 New York Times article "," for his role in smearing her family for discovering the truth about Iraq's virtually nonexistent nuclear weapons program. Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are the targets of the lawsuit as well:
The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued VicePresident Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviserKarl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials ofconspiring to destroy her career.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and herhusband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Roveand I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of revealing Plame's CIA identity inseeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bushadministration's motives in Iraq.
Now that special prosecutor that his leak investigation is over, the Wilson family had no choice but to hold Cheney, Rove and Libby accountable in court.
Let me guess: Cheney's lawyers will ask the judge to throw out the case because they think the jury should not have access to classified information. Mark my words that is what will be requested!
Nonetheless, the Administration should have fun dealing with yet another legal battle as we inch closer to the midterm elections this November. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Other blogs writing about this issue: , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
The New York Times is revealing Tuesday morning that the Alec Station CIA unit, which for a decade had been hunting Osama bin Laden, was disbanded late last year. And according to one official, the move to mellow down the hunt for the world's number one terrorist reflected the opinion within the Administration that he is not as much of a danger as he once was.
Even still, the Administration is spinning the idea that the effort to find Osama is "as strong as ever?" :
Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputiesremained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit wasnot a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said,it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-levelthreats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specificorganizations or individuals.
"The efforts to find Osama binLaden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A.spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made toensure greater reach and focus."
The decision to close the unit was first reported Monday by National Public Radio.
MichaelScheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official who was the first head of theunit, said the move reflected a view within the agency that Mr. binLaden was no longer the threat he once was.
Mr. Scheuer said that view was mistaken.
"This will clearly denigrate our operations against Al Qaeda," he said."These days at the agency, bin Laden and Al Qaeda appear to be treatedmerely as first among equals."
In recent years, the war in Iraqhas stretched the resources of the intelligence agencies and thePentagon, generating new priorities for American officials.
These so-called "new priorities" are the kind that are currently bogging down our troops in Iraq. No person can say with a straight face that Iraq would have been a terrorist breading ground regardless of whether or not we had invaded them. Before the war, Iraq was not even among the top-45 most dangerous states. Even the oil aspect has not worked out to the liking of Dick Cheney. Iraq is producing less oil than it did before the war began, .
So yes, it was our priority during the 1990s and up until 2003 to kill Osama bin Laden. But by going to war in Iraq, we created a new priority. We are now more geopolitically worse off as a result. It's time to focus more on the Al Qaeda leadership, which includes Osama bin Laden. They need to be hunted down, and taken out. The resources we are currently using in Iraq could and should be used in that effort. --------------------------------------------------------------- Other blogs writing about this issue: , , , , , , , , , , .
The reports that Scooter Libby is so far on the defensive that his best defense is that he had a serious memory problem:
The defense team for former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff I. LewisLibby said it is considering calling a memory expert to testify at histrial early next year.
Libby is charged with five counts of lying to federal investigatorsand the grand jury and obstructing an investigation into whether Bushadministration officials wrongfully disclosed the identity of a CIAagent. He has pleaded not guilty.
Attorneys representing Libbyhave said in court filings that any erroneous statements made toFederal Bureau of Investigation agents or the grand jury were theresult of a faulty memory, and not intentional lies. It isn’t clear ifthe federal judge hearing the case would allow such testimony. At astatus hearing Monday, Libby’s attorneys said they would notify thejudge by July 17 if they plan to call such a witness, and thegovernment could then object.
Remember what this is about though. Scooter Libby told Patrick Fitzgerald and the grand jury that he learned the identity of Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson's wife, from the media -- although he could not recall who in the media told him. Fitzgerald took him at his word until two CIA agents came forward and explained to the prosecutor that they told Libby the identity of Plame months before Libby talked to the media about her. In other words, Libby lied to Fitzgerald and the grand jury, which is a crime. So it will come down to whether Libby knowingly lied, or whether Libby simply did not remember.
My guess is that Libby probably would have remembered, especially since he was dealing with sensitive information about a CIA operative that he , Dick Cheney, to investigate. I mean, how do you treat that kind of an issue lightly? So, the "I can't remember" argument does not really fly.
to call those two CIA agents in to testify against Libby.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald can celebrate a huge victory. In court on Friday, the judge in the CIA leak case ruled in favor of Patrick Fitzgerald, saying that Scooter Libby's attorney can only have limited access to classified classified documents pertaining to the damage that the CIA leak caused.
But the reasoning behind was what was interesting. Read this excerpt carefully:
Walton said Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald convinced him thatproviding Libby's lawyers with classified documents describing theconsequences, if any, of Plame's outing and her CIA employment history"could cause serious if not grave damage to the national security ofthe United States."
Key words: "cause..damage to the national security of the United States." Who does that rhetoric remind you of? In a nut-shell, the ironic part about this was that Fitzgerald was using President Bush's own rhetoric against one of his own men, Scooter Libby.
Months ago, the White House got mad at the New York Times for discussing the classified wiretap program. In this legal battle, Fitzgerald simply took a page out of Bush's own rhetorical handbook, saying that allowing Libby's attorney to view classified information would pose a national security danger to the United States. In other words, Fitzgerald is telling the former Administration official to eat his own words, and in the end it might help convict him.
Am I the only one who finds that hilarious? Libby's attorney thus far is proving to be absolutely no match for Mr. Fitzgerald. This latest court decision regarding classified information shows that Fitzgerald is just toying with the defense team. Libby is in way over his head on this one.
In his latest court filing, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald included a line or two about Cheney that is the ultimate teaser for progressives, especially those in the blogosphere.
Fitzgerald is arguing that Libby lied to federal officials and the grand jury about how he learned the identity of Joseph Wilson's wife Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent. Libby testified that reporters told him Libby's identity. But say they had a discussion with Libby about Valerie Plame long before Libby ever talked with reporters about Plame -- proving that Libby did not tell the truth about the whole ordeal.
The reason why this is a teaser is because Fitzgerald is suggesting that Cheney himself "directed" Libby to find a way to respond to Joseph Wilson's article in the New York Times. Here is :
"..the annotations corroborate the government's other evidence indicating that these issues were communicated to defendant by his immediate superior, who also directed defendant during the critical week after July 6 to get out into the public 'all' the facts in response to the Wilson Op Ed."
In other words, it looks like Fitzgerald is trying to say that Cheney was responsible ordering the leak, even though the leak itself might have come from Libby.
While that Karl Rove would have been cleared weeks ago had he been innocent, there is also fresh news on the Scooter Libby front. Word late yesterday that circulated throughout Washington faster than Jeff Gannon could interrupt a White House press conference. In a filing in court yesterday, special prosecutor are very important in determining whether Libby lied to federal officials:
Libby "shared the interests of his superior and was subject to hisdirection," the prosecutor wrote. "Therefore, the state of mind of thevice president as communicated to (the) defendant is directly relevantto the issue of whether (the) defendant knowingly made false statementsto federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learnedabout (Plame's) employment and what he said to reporters regarding thisissue."
In looking at this statement closely, what Fitzgerald wrote about Cheney was very significant. If Libby lied to federal agents and the grand jury partly because Libby was "subject to his (Cheney's) direction," then this really puts Cheney in a huge predicament. In other words, the Vice President will likely play a huge role in the trial.
But Cheney's situation is not even close to as stressful as what Libby is going through. because they have unmistakable proof that Scooter Libby did lie to both federal officials and the grand jury. Read this carefully:
Both CIA officials - including a top architect of the 2003 Iraqinvasion - discussed Plame with Libby a month before columnist RobertNovak blew her cover in July 2003, prosecutors charge.
Libby has said journalists told him about Plame - not Cheney or the six witnesses named so far by prosecutors.
In other words, Libby had already testified under oath before this year that reporters were the ones that told him the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. However, these two witnesses will testify that they talked to Libby about Plame before Libby talked with reporters, proving that Libby lied. Oops!
White House Adviser Karl Rove survived yet another week without being indicted. The web site Talk Left confirmed that nothing will happen today, thanks to what the web site's author was told in an e-mail by Karl Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo. :
"Nothing going on. I was told by several journalists who were down atthe courthouse that the Grand Jury was not meeting today. Of course,the GJ may be meeting at the undisclosed location (as VP Cheney is outof town and not using it today...)"
This development should make progressive blog readers consider the possibility that Jason Leopold of Truthout.org, that Karl Rove will be indicted, was lied to by his source. Either that, or Leopold has a lot of explaining to do, and should not trust that source ever again.
At the same token, this does not mean that Rove will not be indicted eventually. It just contradicts that the indictment was going to take place today.
Recent Comments