A memo for David Brooks

David Corn thinks David Brooks may be a little off in his op-eds.

He claimed his trip proved Iraq had made no such attempts, though his own report said nothing of the kind.

He did not claim his trip had "proved"--your word--the matter. He wrote that after speaking with past and present officials of Niger and "people associated with the country's uranium business," he had concluded that "it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." (We can forward you a copy of his op-ed.) And, as you know, columnists of the Times are not fact-checked. But we would point out that in his Times op-ed, Mr. Wilson did not claim, as you state, that "his trip proved Iraq had made no such attempts" to purchase uranium. He maintained that "there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired." And--not to belabor what might be a fact-checking issue--according to a Senate intelligence committee investigation, the report written by the CIA on Mr. Wilson's trip "described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to any rogue states."

Blast from the past

I was just cleaning up my saved emails, when I came across the following comment on my blog from last year.

I can't believe you pulled the Plame incident into this, seeing as how the original story has been completely discredited. Turns out that it was all a lie, Garrett. And, as folks you don't care to believe have said all along, Joe Wilson is a partisan-motivated liar.

Why don't you try a bit harder to seek the truth in matters rather than rely on partisan rhetoric? At least it'll make these discussions interesting rather than ... as usual ... having me bitch-slap you in the end.

So, Gonzo, have you finally acknowledged that she was a covert agent when she was outed, or are you relying on Toensing's insistence that she was not "covert under the meaning of the act"?

Saint Libby

I have just one word: Eeeeew.

Random author on Libby pardons

Ah, the professionals come up with the best rants...

I wished my ears deceived me. How is it that people are saying they hope Lewis "Scooter" Libby, recently convicted on four felony counts, including perjury, will be pardoned, after a lengthy and expensive trial (paid for by our tax dollars, thank you very much) which followed a lengthy and expensive grand jury hearing (also paid for by our tax dollars). He had pricey attorneys and the full attention of the media, so it's not like his trial was conducted in a dirty little corner where the prosecution, judge, and jury got away with all kinds of moneyshines. He got the very best the American judicial system has to offer, and he was duly convicted.

Yet people are either wishing for a pardon or saying he will get one. Has our legal system become this much of a laughing stock? Or do we think our president is this contemptuous of it?

For those who want him to get one: why? Didn't the Nuremberg trials teach the world that just because someone is given an illegal order, it doesn't mean that the person who follows it is absolved of blame? Libby is an attorney. He lied under oath; he knew better than the average citizen what the penalties of perjury are. It doesn't matter who he lied for. He is a grown man and he is responsible for his own conduct. If he is asked to do something illegal, he is bound by law and as an officer of the court not to do it. If he breaks that law, he goes to jail. He does not get a "get out of jail free" card.

And if our president pardons him, he shows once again that he--the person most responsible to the law in this country--doesn't feel he is answerable to the law. And there's only one way to cure a president like that. Impeach him.

Wilson hearing

Ok, are there any remaining questions about whether she was covert or not? That statement from the director of the CIA was pretty clear.

Fitz on slow boil?

Is he waiting until February 2009 to make sure his work isn't wasted?

Plame "Scandal"? Total Bullshit

Joe Wilson is a pathological liar.....

Here's a link to the final meltdown:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14458302/

There are others, and better. Just goes to show how stupid and willing you all were to believe a patent lie.

Federal courts on whether Wilson was covert or not.

Instructive reading.

On the record before us, there is at least sufficient allegation to warrant grand jury inquiry that one or both journalists received information concerning the identity of a covert operative of the United States from government employees acting in violation of the law by making the disclosure.

Valerie who?

BTW, does it tick anyone else off that she's consistently called "Valerie Plame", when she actually goes by "Valerie Wilson"?

Why Wilson had to be destroyed

From the Washington Monthly:

In Karl Rove's world, the base is sacred, and nukes were the key to their support. Joe Wilson threatened to open a crack in that support, and that's why he had to be destroyed.

Knifing Rove, whitewashing Wilson-Plame

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050718-092253-3802r.htm

Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?

The answer appears to be David Corn of The Nation who appears to have received the information from Joe Wilson himself.
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp

Valerie Wilson's memo

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/07/14/plame/print.html

[The CIA subsequently issued a statement, as reported by New York Newsday and CNN, that the Republican senators' conclusion about Plame's role was wholly inaccurate. But the Washington Post's Susan Schmidt reported only the Republican senators' version, writing that Wilson was "specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly," in a memo she wrote. Schmidt quoted a CIA official in the senators' account saying that Plame had "offered up" Wilson's name. Plame's memo, in fact, was written at the express directive of her superiors two days before Wilson was to come to Langley for his meeting to describe his qualifications in a standard protocol to receive "country clearance." Unfortunately, Schmidt's article did not reflect this understanding of routine CIA procedure. The CIA officer who wrote the memo that originally recommended Wilson for the mission -- who was cited anonymously by the senators as the only source who said that Plame was responsible -- was deeply upset at the twisting of his testimony, which was not public, and told Plame he had said no such thing.]

Josh Marshal on Repuglican talking points

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_10.php#006117

There's a point that's probably worth raising with our scofflaw Republican friends. All of their arguments now amount to excuses, like those of a small child caught stealing cookies: Joe Wilson's a liar. Plame's covert status wasn't protected well by the CIA. It was just a short phone call. Rove really wanted to speak about welfare reform. Wilson said Cheney sent him to Africa. Plame sent Wilson to Africa. Rove leaked Plame's identity in the interests of good journalism. Wilson went on too many TV shows. On and on and on.

The salient point is not that each of these claims is false. The point is that they're irrelevant. It's the mid-life version of 'He hit me first!' or 'He called me a name!' or other such foolery.

No presidential advisor should ever disclose the identity of a covert agent at the CIA. That doesn't require elaboration.

If it's done knowingly, it's a felony. Joe Wilson could be the biggest hack in the world. Plame could have cooked the whole trip idea up to damage the president -- as some GOP loopsters are now claiming -- and it wouldn't matter.

Rove (and, though we're not supposed to say it yet, several of his colleagues) did something obviously wrong and reckless. And they probably broke several laws by the time it was all done.

Pretty much every Republican in Washington today works for Karl Rove. So they can't deal with that fact. But fact it is.

And nothing was done amiss? If Rove et al. didn't do anything wrong, why have they spent two years lying about what they did? No law was broken? Then what is Fitzgerald looking at? Why is a grand jury investigating Rove? A prosecutor like Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, wouldn't be throwing journalists in jail unless he thought he was investigating a serious crime.

What's their answer to that? They have none. Rove runs the Washington Republican party, owns it. So it's anything but hold him accountable.

Faux News comes out in opposition to national security

Vid clip of the day:

FOX News anchor John Gibson just said onair that he thought Karl Rove deserves a medal if he outed Valerie Plame. Let me repeat: John Gibson, anchor at the FOX News Channel, says he believes that we ought to expose our covert government agents and harm national security… as long as it benefits Republicans.

Congress involves Plame special prosecutor in Gannon case

How did Gannon get access to classified documents about Valerie Plame, anyway?