I was looking forward to posting on the 'Valerie Plame,outed' topic but much to my disappointment it was closed. It is a shame that the most prominent subject in the MSM is not represented in a topic at AD.

I would like to start a new topic(concerning the Plame case) from another angle, if I may. I am usually leery of starting a new topic, since my expertise in
this area is sorely lacking.

I am quoting the majority of this subject from:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...rWEsAk&refer=us



My questions are short and simple:

1. Are the reporters telling the truth?

2. Are Rove and Libby telling the truth?

3. Is anyone telling the truth (to show I have a sense of humor)?

1. Are the reporters telling the truth?

They have no reason to tell anything other than what they recall as the truth.

2. Are Rove and Libby telling the truth?

It would seem that they have far more reason to be untruthful but the prosecutor will have to prove they are lying and that is difficult.

3. Is anyone telling the truth (to show I have a sense of humor)?

Telling the truth relates to how well the subject remembers the incident and, therefore, can sometimes be difficult to establish. In this case, however, I would think all parties would be very aware of when and how they acquire Plame name.

The larger issue in these events is the context of the administration's defense of the general misuse of intelligence product in which the leak occurred. That, however, seems difficult to discuss on AD.

The problem with this story at this point is that there is not significant information available to answer these questions. Since the only access to grand jury testimony is through (appropriately) leaked pieces we do not know what everyone has said under oath.

It seems like the most likely crime committed here (if any) is going to be perjury. Bloomberg has been inf front by continue to feed this story. The National Review's Media Blog wrote about it ealier today.

Well, if what has been leaked is true then Rove and Libby are in real trouble because there is absolutely no reason for the reporters to lie and every reason for Rove/Libby to lie. Particularly if there is corroborating evidence of the White House meeting chaired by Libby to discuss the Wilson/Plame issue before the public disclosure.

What I think will be the real casualty if/when there are charges is President Bush's credibility with the rest of America. If he were smart he would have suspended Rove pending the outcome of the investigation instead of making his "if a crime has been committed" statement. Given the fact that most Americans think something is fishy here, he is lacking in common sense in trying to cover for someone who, in my view, will likely be indicted on SOME charge soon and if you believe the polls, most of America believes it, too. If Rove is guilty there are only two options in regards to the President: 1) he tried to get a man he knew was guilty off the hook, or 2) a man that most Americans thought was guilty duped the leader of the free world. Neither is an especially endearing prospect.

I got the link below in an e-mail from FactCheck.org this afternoon. FactCheck presents a rather thorough timeline on the case--a nice recap on what we know so far.

http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html

Another item of interest is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5072201261.html



And before you jump to conclusions.


I listened to their testimony on cspan-3 today and several of the former intelligence agents were classmates of Valerie Plame during her indoctrination in becoming a covert agent.

They also refuted the false news from the Republican Talking Points that Valerie Plame was not undercover agent at the time Robert Novak mentioned her name in his column back in 2003.

1. Are the reporters telling the truth? Which reporters? There is a reporter in jail from the NY Times (Ms. Miller) who hasn't told anyone anything. She wasn't in a position to talk to Mr. Rove or Libby. Yet, she was certainly in a position to know of, to know, and to talk to Ms. Plame-Wilson since she was on the "WMD beat". There are also other reporters who were involved in this story who aren't being talked about endlessly. What is she hiding and who is she protecting? Is it possible that Plame talked to her and that Smith then went and blabbed her identity to a boatload of people? That's entirely possible. The other people involved then picked up on this and ran with it.

2. There is no reason to believe that they're not. Rove said he was told about Wilson's wife by a "journalist". It seems that Plame's identify was light years away from a "state secret". It seems that most everyone inside of I-495 knew who this woman was; her friends, her neighbors, journalists, the beltway cocktail party crowd who Wilson hung with, the democrats, the republicans, foreign governments... everyone. If Plame is the way the CIA keeps secrets, it's no wonder they are a bureaucratic joke these days.

This issue is yet ANOTHER example of a manufactured scandal that the democrats have been desperately trying to create since January of 2000. It sticks in their craw that "their" president was besieged by scandal after scandal after scandal (by his own doing) and their sense of moral relativism will not be fulfilled until they manage to put a scandal on George W. Bush that "sticks". So far, they have failed.

This is all about political payback. Nothing more, nothing less.

LH



Would I be asking too much if you could bring some substance to this topic.

It would seem like the only word you are obsessed with is the the word THEIR.

I don't remember Mr.Clinton being mentioned in any of the questions. I guess the typical Republican defense is going on the offense.

Pray tell what Clinton has to do with the Plame case.



Just in case you are serious, the reporters (Russert,Novak) were mentioned in the original post for this topic.

But, I believe you already knew that.

Excuse me? On what fricken planet? Cooper has been on every talking head show on TV and is published in a huge spread in time. That's an absurd comment to make.

Novak hasn't been out much but has made his claims how he got the name from officials. So, are Cooper and Novak lying and the White House is telling the truth? Please answer that question please.


Sources please. I've heard those comments and I've heard them disproved. It's funny how all her neighbors never knew she worked for the CIA, but everyone with a passing knowledge did. The point is, these claims have been made and found to be false.

I mean, it's only our national security. What's the big deal?

Hmmm, right wing talking point #174... which happens to also be completely false. Since you can't supply any sort of source to back this up other than some pundit that said it I'll provide the links which prove you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I posted this in the previous Rove/Plame thread but you might not have read it. Please read this article from the Washington Post:


Or perhaps you should check out this blog that contains the senate testimony of Larry Johnson - No Quarter. Who is Larry Johnson? I'm glad you asked. Johnson is a former cia agent and has frequently done commentary on shows that run on Fox News. He certainly couldn't be described as a "leftist" as you like to put it. The following is from Johnson's testimony to the senate.

You really should take the opportunity to read all of his testimony, but the last two paragraphs are particularly important.


Regarding this statement, what proof do you have of that besides Rove's word? If you have something I'd really like to see it. According to a peice that appeared in Bloomberg it looks like the grand jury may be unraveling this lie too, there are inconsistencies between Novak and Rove's stories - Source (Bloomberg article on Think Progress)


The more likely explanation is that Rove and Novak (who go way back together and in fact Rove was fired by Bush Sr. for leaking information to Novak) got their stories straight before making public statements and one of them screwed it up. I'm fairly certain that is the conclusion the grand jury will come to.

So, with your unsourced talking points thoroughly debunked, what do you have to say for yourself now?

You want a source, CJ - look at BoF's Factcheck link up there.

Within it provides plenty of sources for the majority of Lordhelmet's statements. As was said in another thread - get off your high horse.

Duh, it seems the reporters are Tim Russert, Matthew Cooper and Robert Novak.

There were stories about what’s going on with the grand jury on both Hardball and Countdown last night. The transcripts for the two shows will not be out until Monday, so I got this from Countdown host Keith Olbermann’s page.

It seems the reporters in question are Tim Russert, Matthew Cooper and Robert Novak. According grand jury sources all three have contradicted testimony given by Rove or Libby. Several guests have said that Mr. Fitzgerald may be looking into perjury or obstruction of justice charges.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8085423/#050722a

I will provide links to last nights Hardball and Countdown when they become available Monday.

1. Are the reporters telling the truth?

I would give the benefit of the doubt to all, but particularly Cooper and Russert. Russert is well known, has a sterling reputation and as a lawyer knows well the consequences of lying to a grand jury. Walter Cronkite used to wear the title, “the most trusted man in America” if anyone fits that bill today, it has got to be Russert. My only doubt about Novak is his longtime relationship with Rove.

2. Are Rove and Libby telling the truth?

If it is a question of whether Rove and Libby vs. Russert, Cooper and Novak are lying, I’d say Rove and Libby are the one’s spinning truth.

3. Is anyone telling the truth (to show I have a sense of humor)?

I think this story is going to be around a long time despite the Roberts nomination. One only has to watch the hostility toward Scott McClellan to realize that news people are angry about a couple of things:

1. One of their own, Judy Miller, is sitting in jail.

2. McClellan’s lying to the press or being duped into believing that Karl Rove had NOTHING to do with the leak.

Despite the fact that many in the media are angry, much of the grand jury testimony came before Judy Miller went to jail. My guess is that many in the news media are angry but not lying.

Why is Miller protecting "the" source? If the media is so angry with the Bush administration (they have been angry long before nadagate) why is Miller protecting the source? Like I have said before if this investigation hands out indictments it is likely due to grand jury testimony or some side issue that was outside the bounds of the initial investigation. That being said, who is the source Miller is protecting? No one ever discusses who it might be. Rove defenders pick on Wilson, and Rove haters focus their attention on Rove (who else?).

Obviously this is a political matter, but the piece of information that I would like to know is who is Miller’s source. Especially since this source what all the uproar is about.

I'd like to know who her source was as much as anyone else Nemov, and I'm sure Fitzgerald will get it out of her eventually. But let's keep our facts straight, Miller didn't publish a story about Plame - Novak did.

Regardless of who Miller's source is, Rove has already violated the conditions of his non disclosure agreement and therefore should be terminated from his position. But in this politicized world, I doubt that'll happen unless he is charged with something.

Speaking of getting facts straight did I say Miller published a story? It makes it even more peculiar since she didn't publish a story and she is sitting behind bars protecting this source. Who could this source be? It seems fair game to speculate whether or not Rove is going to be fired, but not to speculate on who this source is? Highly politicized indeed!

Now who is reading things into a post? Miller is in jail because she defied a judge's order during the grand jury hearings. We don't know whether she is protecting someone or whether she is just trying to uphold journalistic principles.

My objection to your post has to do with the fact that you (and others) seem to want to find any excuse to talk about something other than Rove/Libby and you further trivialize the whole thing by continuously referring to it straight out of the right wing talking points book as "nadagate". Judith Miller is in jail so clearly her source exonerates Rove is what you seem to be implying with your post(s). However, the opposite very well might be true - that she is in fact protecting a source higher on the food chain. Or it could be none of the above and perhaps she won't add any new information and she would rather go to jail than violate journalistic integrity.

You can speculate as you like, but it would be nice if you brought something to the debate which supported the speculation, or at least a reasoned argument.

And the "Rove haters" as you put it focus on Rove because the evidence we have points to Rove as the guilty party (and Libby for that matter too). The "Rove Defenders" as you put it are focusing on Wilson because they love character assassination and are trying to do anything they can to avoid talking about the real issues - that national security was violated to suit political purposes.

I imagine that if the evidence proves that Rove is not guilty then the people you label as "Rove haters" will instead focus on the guitly party. Provided the guilty party is a member of the Republican party or associated with them I'm sure we'll see people leap to their defense just because they are a Republican.

And as far as this whole thing being politicized, what do you expect? Of course it is. Let's not forget how the Republicans repeatedly went after Clinton in the 90's in the exact same way. There are some people that want to politicize this because it suits their agenda and it is in fact a smart tactical move. There are also those of us that actually care about finding the truth here and protecting national security.

I think it is very clear that the Bush administration outed her as revenge for her husband not playing ball and declaring Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger. Rove and company have made careers out of smear and fear politics. This is no different. Want to bet they get away with this as well? At worst Rove will get a pardon on his way to the high priced speaking circuit.

CJ when did you become the judge of reasoned arguments? It is obvious you cannot see through the partisan nature of this story. "Nadagate" came from a Op-Ed NY Time piece. I am sorry if it does not fit into your perception of events. You are indeed correct that Miller's source could be in the food chain. Discussing the reasons why Miller is in jain hardly implies Rove's innocence, you have clearly misread that point (among others).




I thought it was the Rove defenders that brought up the very off topic and pointless comparisons to Clinton. I applauded you for your stanch defense of national security, it should be recognized. This has less to do with truth than it does with scoring political points. That’s the way things work in politics. For someone upset about talking points you seem to be “on message.”

He may not be a leftist. However, he may be the worst CIA analyst ever.
here is what he wrote in July of 2001.


He made similar claims here after the embassy bombings in Africa.

If we are going to convince ourselves that 3. Is anyone telling the truth (to show I have a sense of humor)? we need to find better experts than Mr. Wilson and Mr. Johnson. Perhaps the CIA is in such trouble today because it seeks out messengers based on what message (no threat, nothing to see here) rather than competent analysts to evaluate what threat may indeed be out there and how to best deal with it.

I'm sorry Carlito but I don't see how that is at all relevant. I know you are attempting a bit of character assassination here, but no one thought something like 9/11 could happen and no one thought terrorism was a domestic problem. Even those like Condi Rice who read reports about an imminent threat didn't think it could happen - remember the August PDB stuff? If you aren't going to hold her and the administration responsible then you can't hang this on Larry.

Larry's pre-9/11 position on global terrorism is completely irrelevant to this debate and completely irrelevant to judging his expertise. If that is your litmus test then you better just throw everyone in Washington, the CIA and th FBI except for the few that warned of this out on their tails.

So if we are done with attempted character assassination lets get back to the debate at hand. Larry Johnson is primarily speaking to us about two things:
1) He is setting the record straight about Plame's status as a covert operative and debunking all of the right wing talking points which state she was simply a "desk jockey". Regardless of his position on global terrorism he is in a much better position to know about such things than anyone in the press or anyone that posts on AD.

2) He is speaking out about compromising national security for political purposes. Again this is completely unrelated to his pre-9/11 position on global terrorism. It is clear as day to me that the administration burned Plame to get at Wilson because he was criticizing their position on Iraq. They did this with a wanton disregard for national security not only by compromising Plame but also her contacts and other agents that might be using her employer. This hasn't been proven yet but I'm fairly certain given the mounting evidence in support of it that it will.

Isn't it interesting that Rove supporters on this board have learned to emulate Rove's tactics.

There is another thread on Joe Wilson, but some seem intent on dragging him through the sewers on this one.

The Wilson diversion from the sins of Rove seem as if Rove is orchestrating his own defense. You know the old saying about someone acting as his "own lawyer has a fool for a client."

Ok, I'll bite on the smear tactic used here.

Assuming everyone who disagrees with Bush is either a partisan hack or idiot and Bush supporters are beyond reproach, let me ask this:

If Johnson is such a moron, why is he so famous? Why do we even know him? Out of all the former CIA spooks the networks could have gotten (including Fox news), did they all manage to pick the biggest idiot out of the lot and have him on the airwaves repeatedly letting us know what he knows?

Your attack is self-defeating. It makes as little sense as the notion that our Iraq intelligence was 100% accidentally wrong - versus the intelligence was mostly ok, but abused (as witnesses and documentation has shown).

The levels of implausibility that Bush apologists resort to in order to protect a White House republican (who is far more liberal than Clinton) is comical - and this is another example.

You can't separate Wilson or his wife from this story. Wilson is a proven liar with a political and financial agenda. His claims were discredited after a bipartisan investigation and in a report written by both republicans and democrats.

Only one journalist is in jail because she refused to give up her "source". This reporter covered WMD's, not the White House. Plame was working in the CIA on WMD's.

That should be raising eyebrows here.

Rove is the guy being dragged through the mud. There is NO evidence that has been published that indicates that he's guilty of anything. Of course, there is an investigation ongoing.

As I stated before, the party (via Howard Dean) that insists on "due process" for Bin Laden and the terrorists imprisoned at Gitmo are calling for the conviction, firing, and imprisonment of Rove before (1) any wrongdoing has been determined (2) any charges have been filed and (3) and convictions have been achieved.

The double standard is striking. Rove helped a Time reporter from making a huge mistake by swallowing, hook, line, and sinker, Wilson's fantasy version of the events around his trip to Niger.

As I've posted before, nearly everyone in the beltway knew that Wilson's wife was with the CIA. Her cover was blown long before Bush even came into the White House.

This is just a manufactured scandal created by a party who is heck-bent on "getting" Bush. Their prior attempts have all failed because they didn't have the facts on their side. I suspect this so-called "scandal" will meet the same exact fate. The people will get tired of the endless wailing about Rove just like they grew tired of the other manufactured Bush scandals revolving around the 2000 Florida election, Enron, Haliburton, and Bush's ANG service. At the end of the day, there just doesn't seem to be any "there" there.

Rove is innocent until proven guilty. Claiming otherwise is anti-American.

Paris Hilton is "famous". She is a moron.

Michael Moore is "famous". He is a moron.

Al Franken is "famous". The same.

Fame and wisdom do not always go hand-in-hand.

If you read the writings of Larry Johnson, you find a partisan democrat who has a very extreme point of view. In fact, he sounds exactly like moveon.org.

Is Johnson's organization funded by Soros as well? I'd be interested in knowing who butters that guy's bread.

1. Are the reporters telling the truth?

It's hard to tell at this point - it's a matter of "he said, she said". However, none of the reporters, to my knowledge, are known to have a history of lying.

2. Are Rove and Libby telling the truth?

It's hard to tell at this point - it's a matter of "he said, she said". However, Karl Rove, at least, has already been demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt, to be a liar about leaking information to the press - and is nothing if not a master of obfuscation, misinformation, and spin.

3. Is anyone telling the truth (to show I have a sense of humor)?

If anyone is telling the truth, I think it is most likely to be Robert Novak. He is a partisan Bush administration supporter and has the most to lose by contradicting the great and powerful Rove. If it's a question of believing Novak's testimony over Rove's, I'm afraid there would be no question in my mind: Rove is lying and Novak is telling the truth. As Cooper and Russert seem tobe corroborating at least part of what Novak is saying - and also contradicting Rove and Libby - it follows that the reporters, in this case, are most likely the more credible.


Now on to some of the sideshow:
First, as CJ mentioned, it has not been established that Miller is protecting any source, never mind, "the" source. But, as you invited speculation about Miller's silence, how's this: Miller is a CIA asset and is maintaining silence to protect the Agency itself.

Or, far more likely, given what we know of Ms. Miller, she's a Bush administration operative and is maintaining silence to protect the White House. Foundation? We already know that she was chiefly responsible for disseminating all of the misinformation relating to WMD and Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda that originated with Ahmed Chalabi (good friend of Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the PNAC) and "Curveball" (Chalabi's lying lieutenant). It has been argued that the illegal invasion of Iraq might not have been possible without Miller's reports - or, at the very least, it would've been a much harder sell. She was previously the subject of controversy in 1986 when she contributed to a massive disinformation campaign on Muammar al-Qaddafi which was coordinated by Admiral John Poindexter (who has "served" under both Bush presidents). She also co-authored Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf with Laurie Mylroie, which as long ago as 1991, was pushing Saddam Hussein as an "imminent threat" to the US.

Ms. Mylroie is a member of the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative thinktank that wields great influence on people like Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld. Mylroie believes that Saddam Hussein was not only behind the 1993 World Trade Center attack, but also every anti-American terrorist incident of the past decade, from the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to the leveling of the federal building in Oklahoma City and, of course, the September 11 attack itself. To go by Mylroie (and Miller), with the capture of Saddam Hussein, all terrorist activity in the known universe should have simly evaporated, leaving all to live happily ever after. In short, she is what lordhelmet would no doubt describe as a consummate moron. Her association with Miller suggests that either Miller is someone's asset or that she is a total dupe for neocon conspiracy theorists.

Whatever the case, Miller is clearly not your typical "left-wing New York Times reporter". Contrary to believing that Miller is maintaining silence in order to help condemn Rove, I think it is far more likely that she is maintaining silence in order to help protect Rove.


Next:
If we're just desperate to play "smear the messenger" here, all I have to say to Johnson's pre-9/11 mindset is "So what?" Because he agreed with what most people in the intelligence services were saying does that make him any less an agent of the CIA? Does it mean Plame wasn't a classmate? Does it mean she wasn't a non-official cover officer? Does it mean her cover wasn't blown by Robert Novak and whoever fed him his information? Does it mean Karl Rove wasn't passing confidential information to Matt Cooper? Of course not. But it sure muddies the water, doesn't it? Maybe you should try addressing what he said on July 22, 2005, rather than what he said on July 10, 2001.

You remind me very much of Gary Schmitt, one of the chief proponents of this talking point. Here's what Schmitt wrote yesterday:
Sound familiar? But... here's what Schmitt wrote in November, 2000:
It's a pity America's Debate wasn't around then, carlito - maybe we could look back and see what your opinion looked like pre-9/11. Whatever it was, would it totally discredit what you might have to say, based on your own experience, about a completely unrelated issue today?

And, for what it's worth, I would tend to argue that both Schmitt in November 2000 and Johnson in July 2001 were more right than not - but that's the stuff of another debate...


Last and, as arguments go, probably least:

I have never found name-calling to be as staggeringly brilliant an argument as you seem to find it, but I guess we should ask the question that is prompted by just about every one of your posts, helmet: What's your foundation? Please bear in mind that "moron" is defined as "a mildly retarded individual with an IQ between 50 and 75 and a mental age roughly of that of a seven- to twelve-year-old." It is not defined as "anyone of whom some guy calling himself lordhelmet personally disapproves." Do you have access to the IQ test results of Al Franken, Michael Moore, and Paris Hilton? Intelligence tests of any kind? SAT scores, maybe? College transcripts? What about Larry Johnson? If so, please post them and give yourself a bit of credibility. Otherwise, you might do well to leave gratuitous mudslinging to a less civil forum. At a discussion board like America's Debate, "Fame and wisdom do not always go hand-in-hand" would have amply covered the point you were trying to make.

By the way, Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby are morons. I guess that settles this debate.

2 or 3 times a day,I take a peek at AD and some of my favorite topics.

I have seen some good evidence on both sides and have learned a lot about this topic that I didn't know. There are some very good debaters and very well informed individuals and I read something like this from

LH



Rove has a history of smearing his opponents. And we are to believe he is trying to help a reporter. PLEASE

Am I supposed to swallow this hook,link and sinker and call myself a moron, such as you mentioned earlier.





There have been numerous personal testimonies from Joe Wilson's neighbors, that none of them realized that she has a covert job at the CIA. I can provide evidence if needed.



What does this have to do with 2000 florida election,Enro,etc? This is a individual issue that is being investigated, so don't lump it with these other issues in the past.

I guess we are still using the old adage." If you repeat a lie long enough, people will believe it.

Or we can always use the old trick of smearing the messenger.

Just lump old Larry Johnson in with the rest of the old gang(Clarke,O'Neill,Wilson,etc.) that are trying to smear this present adminstration.

When will all of these misinformed peopleget a life and quit lying about this adminstration.

Maybe an amendment should be passed to take care of this situtation!

It's absolutely appalling how low the "Save Karl Rove" crew will go to smear and defame anyone who suggests that this White House has exploited the intelligence community and quite possibly committed an act of treason.

So Larry Anderson is a tool for the Bush-hating Left, huh? What about this guy?

Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear--politics in this country does in fact trump national security.

Each time a distinguished ambassador is ruthlessly attacked for the information he provided, a foreign asset will contemplate why he should risk his life when his information will not be taken seriously.

Each time there is a perceived political "success" in deflecting responsibility by debating or re-debating some minutia, such actions are equally effective in undermining the ability of this country to protect itself against its enemies, because the two are indeed related. Each time the political machine made up of prime-time patriots and partisan ninnies display their ignorance by deriding Valerie Plame as a mere "paper-pusher," or belittling the varying degrees of cover used to protect our officers, or continuing to play partisan politics with our national security, it is a disservice to this country. By ridiculing, for example, the "degree" of cover or the use of post office boxes, you lessen the level of confidence that foreign nationals place in our covert capabilities.

Those who would advocate the "I'm ok, you're ok" politics of non-responsibility, should probably think about the impact of those actions on our foreign agents. Non-responsibility means we don't care. Not caring means a loss of security. A loss of security means a loss of an agent. The loss of an agent means the loss of information. The loss of information means an increase in the risk to the people of the United States.

There is a very serious message here. Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people. Think about whether your partisan obfuscation is creating confidence in the United States in general and the CIA in particular. If not, a true patriot would shut up.


--- Testimony of James Marcinkowski, former CIA case officer and prosecutor, July 22, 2005 to the House Government Reform Committee.

I don't know whether Mr. Marcinkowski is a "partisan Democrat" or a red-state Republican. I do know that it doesn't make any difference. Mr. Marcinkowski is a true patriot and he deserves the respect he has earned as someone who has stood up and defended this nation.

Mr. Marcinkowski is a deputy city attorney in Royal Oak, Michigan. I just wrote him a letter thanking him for his honesty and candor. Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure he IS a personal friend of Valerie Plame.

Several months after her identity as a CIA operative was exposed in a newspaper column, Valerie Plame had dinner with five of her classmates from the agency's training academy.

Four had already left the CIA, and they spent the evening catching up on what they had done during their clandestine careers, as well as the jobs and moves that followed. But even though Plame's "cover" had been cracked wide open, her dinner companions didn't pry for details. Even in that tight circle, no one wanted to spill any more secrets.

"Cover is a mosaic, it's a puzzle," said James Marcinkowski, a former CIA case officer who attended the dinner. "Every piece is important [to protect] because you don't know which pieces the bad guys are missing."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...syndication=rss

It is sickening to watch how the lapdogs of the Republican Attack Machine have dragged Ms. Plame through the mud for petty partisan reasons and are engaged in the salvation of a political operative at the expense of compromising national security and the intelligence community.

Being Karl Rove means never having to say you've committed treason.

Wertz I have to give you credit. You can write some long stuff (makes me sleepy this time of the day). My drowsiness aside, you make some interesting points and at this stage of the game, you could even be right. Your theory of events is definitely the ideological outcome you would prefer, but that's politics. To clarify I do not believe and have not said Miller is a left winger. It just does not seem like she would be protecting Rove while Wilson is defending her in a press conference with a Democrat Senator. Stranger things have happened I guess.

If we are to believe Rove’s lawyer he is not the target of the investigation, which would lead me to believe that the Miller angle is where Fitzgerald is concentrating.

This is somewhat off topic, but Lord Helmet… I am sure I agree ideologically with you more so than with most liberals here at , but you continually take the discussions off topic. Almost every topic you post in becomes hijacked by the partisan vitriol of your posts. Once the blood is in the water the topic is doomed to be closed.

Apologies for the long-windedness - most people get used to it eventually.

Apparently, there is a rumor going around the NY Times itself (if Arianna Huffington's circle is to be trusted - and, in terms of Times gossip, it probably is) that Miller was Libby's source - and maybe Rove's. The current story goes that she was incensed over Wilson's op-ed piece and did her own investigating. Once she discovered that his wife was a CIA officer, she got on the horn to Libby. Who her source was is another question - unless she's a CIA asset herself and already knew of Plame.

I didn't mean to imply that you were claiming Miller was left-wing. It's just the usual New York Times journalist stereotype. People tend to forget that it's also the organ of William Safire and David Brooks and Elizabeth Bumiller and John Tierney...

Also, I wouldn't say this is the ideological outcome I would prefer. I'd like my president, his chief advisors, and every member of his Cabinet to be blameless individuals who practiced clean politics and were simply open and honest with the American people. It would be nice if they didn't pander to intolerant minorities or if they put the interests of ordinary citizens before their own (and their corporate sponsors) or if they made national security a higher priority than war profiteering, but this case doesn't specifically or directly address any of that ideologically. As I don't believe that they are blameless individuals who practice clean politics and are simply open and honest with the American people, though, this is certainly the political outcome I would prefer. Tarring the ideology with the same brush (while not entirely fair) would just be a sorta bonus.

In any event, this thing could get even more interesting before it's resolved - assuming it ever is.

This is exactly what I was getting at over here when I wrote
Not to go on quoting myself, but apparently my "worst analyst ever" comment (indeed over the top in retrospect) made it impossible for some of you to read the closing line of that post, so I'll try again.
(Some at) the CIA were against the war. They had an agenda. To investigate Iraq seeking uranium from Niger they sent a former Ambassador to sit by the pool and "drink sweet tea" for several days, chatting with former government officials. Doesn't anyone else have the concern that the CIA should have real spies who can investigate this sort of thing? Or have I watched too many movies?
---------
We need to know what, if anything, Miller says if she ever talks to know the answer to these 2 questions.

1. Are the reporters telling the truth?
2. Are Rove and Libby telling the truth?

Wow carlitoswhey, maybe we should fire Porter Goss and put you in charge. You're right, they should have sent a spy. Instead, they sent someone with tons of connections in Africa, someone who has past experience investigating sales of Nigerian uranium, someone who had gone to Niger to gather information about rumors of uranium sales to Iraq as late as 1999, someone who specialized in Africa the majority of his career, and who is gutsy enough to stand up to anyone - much like he did with Saddam Hussein when he worked for Bush 41.

I don't know what they were thinking when the CIA decided to send that unqualified <insert your favorite slanderous name here>. I wish you were in charge.

Edited to remove a completely over-the-top PG-13 rated word.

I am sure that Ambassador Wilson's expertise in Africa is compelling. It just seems to me that we ought to have more spies lurking in the nether-regions of Niger or wherever, vs. our current posture. If we have a bunch of spies AND we send Wilson, I'm OK with that, with the exception of his wife's obvious anti-Bush politics and how they may color the analysis.

Obviously anti-Bush?

According to opensecrets.com, here's what they've done:

WILSON, JOSEPH C
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
J. C. WILSON INTL. VENTURES/STRATEG
3/26/1999
$2,000
Gore, Al

WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
JCWILSON INTERNATIONAL VENTURE
5/20/1999
$1,000
Bush, George W


WILSON, VALERIE E MS
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
BREWSTER-JENNINGS & ASSOC.
4/22/1999
$1,000
Gore, Al

Valerie Plame was taking steps to remain under cover and used her "front" company. The $1,000 in her name was actually half of the $2000 Joe Wilson sent because he went over the $1000 limit. So in reality, she was pro-nothing and anti-nothing. It was only after the smear campaign started that they became anti-Bush. And why wouldn't they? I voted for Bush the first time and am as anti-Bush as anybody and he never even smeared me (yet).

You know, we might have spies in Africa. Valerie Plame could have been one of them and/or working with them. Not anymore.

Do you people even do your own research, or simply repeat RNC talking points?

In doing my own research (and responding to one of your posts), I actually posted HERE not only the contributions that you listed, but also this one.


Valerie Wilson is Joe wilson's wife. She donated money to an organization with the following stance. the following:

How is this phrase of mine not factual " his wife's obvious anti-Bush politics " ?

Deeper question - why would anyone give to both Bush and Gore in 1999?

What was that about talking points? She was living in the DC suburbs raising twins. No one is denying this.

carlitosway, your defense of the anti-Bush rhetoric is bordering on the absurd.

Before she was outed, the Wilson familiy donated to both parties. Why? That's none of our business! But maybe it's because of tax write-offs that have nothing to do with politics. In any case, these contributions were made before she was outed and before Joe Wilson was smeared. You've provided one $372 contribution just before the last election (and well after they were smeared) and tied it to the original subject.

So, please tie in this anti-Bush crap and how it could (using your own words), "color the analysis". The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. When Wilson was sent to Niger, there is nothing to indicate either of them hated or loved anybody. But you've just presented the "anti-Bush" argument as fact.

Please explain how a $372 contribution to Kerry after her outing colored the Niger analysis that happened before her outing. I'm dying to know.

1 - Political contributions are not tax deductible, according to the IRS. PDF link - see pg. 14
2 - It wasn't a contribution to Kerry. It was a contribution to a progressive activist organization that was much more ANTI BUSH than pro-Kerry.
3 - As to how it 'colored the analysis' I certainly can't prove anything. Ms. Plame / Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA for quite a while. I doubt that her anti-Bush stance magically appeared in October of 2004 but I could of course be wrong. My broader point was that individuals who were against the administrations policy were in charge of validating that policy. Perhaps they had a little bias. The State Department certainly is biased towards stability at all costs, supporting dictators and tyrants if need be. I'm just theorizing that the CIA may have some organizational bias as well. As noted, I could be wrong.

Lastly, I hate to ask, but how is correctly agreeing that, yes, she worked for the CIA, ("I heard that too") or correctly saying that she "offered him up" to take the trip a smear exactly? Wouldn't Wilson falsely claiming that Cheney sent him or falsely claiming to have seen fake documents be more of a 'smear'? She wasn't working covertly. Couldn't she could still be an analyst today if she wanted to? Did she lose her CIA job because of this "smear"? I haven't seen that alleged anywhere.

I do not have much to add to this brilliant debate going on here except to add..... Dayton, Carlito you both are not taking this any place new. Arguging about whether or not Wilson supports Bush/Kerry/Nader does not matter. I guess this is to be expected when the biggest news this week comes from the Huffington post.

Until something new comes along I suppose this topic it heading for "closed status."

How long will it take before this investigation ends?

I'll take all three of these comments by carlitoswhey together. Some of the important highlights from these arguments are just not factual.

What I Didn't Find in Africa



I can't find it right now but did read that there were 2 others besides Wilson and Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick from the State Department were also coming to the same conclusions. To say that Wilson's wife is anti-bush open is only up to interpretations cause we don't know anything about her till she got exposed, and like anyone else in the world if your job that you worked hard for so long was gone you would also be mad at the perpatraitors. As far as we know she still does work for the CIA but not in the same duties as before, which with keeping her covert status could have allowed to keep building up contacts and assests.

For who is telling the truth I would have to lean more to the reporters that have talked and what they say are inconsistencies of what the admin people have said on the record, or for that matter Rove's attorney speaking for Rove which might have ruined the ability for client/lawyer privilege.

Couple things I did find yesterday that might could end up putting more wrenches into the mix.

Rice Asked if Bolton Testified in Leak Case