[mr. natural]

OMG!

Did the poor little satellites have names?











But if you want a serious answer, spacefreak, go start your own thread about this. I won't be debating this here. This thread has more than enough sideshow bluster as it is.

[mr. natural]

With all the recent leaks in Leakgate we have a lot more to go on...

Here's what we know so far:

May 6, 2003, NYTimes columnist Nicholas Kristof writes about the uranium claim and mentions an "envoy" who was sent to look into this claim.

June 12, 2003, The Washington Post publishes a more complete account of the trip and findings.

By this time, "officials in the White House, Cheney's office, the CIA and the State Department are familiar with Wilson and his trip." Link "The Post article generated little public response. But behind the scene, Bush officials were concerned. 'After the June story, a lot of people in government were scurrying around asking who is this envoy and why is he saying these things,' a senior administration official said."

Which is also when they started trying to play down Wilson and his mission.

July 6, 2003, Wilson's op-ed is published.

The sh*t hits the fan.

July 7, 2003, the White House announces: "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union."

July 11, 2003, CIA Director George Tenet takes the blame for not excluding this sentence from the SOTU speech.

July 14, 2003, Novak's column outing Valerie Plame is published.

Rove is reported to have told the grand jury he learned of Valerie Plame's identity from Novak's column.

Novak's original story named "two senior administration officials." And right after this story broke, before he clammed up, in a July 22, 2003 Newsday story, Novak said in an interview: "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." But, of course, CNN reports that "A lawyer familiar with grand jury testimony in the case said Friday [July 17, 2005] that Novak told Rove that Plame was a CIA agent, not the other way around."



It is also worth noting that when Rove worked on GHW Bush's presidential campaign he was fired for suspicions that he had leaked information to - guess who - Novak.

Rove is also reported to have said that when Cooper called he asked first about welfare reform.

Cooper has testified that he called about this story and welfare reform was not part of the conversation. Furthermore, Rove spoke to Cooper before Novak's column and (according to Cooper's email to his editor) mentioned that "it was Wilson's wife, who apparently works on wmd issues who authorized the trip."

Rove told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that Wilson's wife was "fair game," although Chris Matthews has since clammed up too by refusing to comment further on this.

"Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, we now know worked the angles on this whole issue with Rove before it became a published scandal.

Libby supposedly told the grand jury that it was another journalist, NBC's Tim Russert, who told him about Plame's identity. Tim Russert denies this was the case.

Cooper also spoke with Libby, and when he asked "Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger, Libby replied, 'Yeah, I've heard that too,' or words to that effect."

And there is the State Dept. June 10, 2003 "classified" memo, re-prepared and delivered to Air Force One on July 7th, 2003. It has been reported to have been seen in Colin Powell's hands. A memo btw that apparently mentions "Valerie" - but not her covert name Plame - as "Wilson's wife" in the second paragraph, marked with a big fat S in brackets indicating this is SECRET info. Link

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer apparently told prosecutors that he never saw this memo, but this story reports otherwise, "according to a former administration official who was also on the trip."

Colin Powell: F*ck me? F*ck you.



It sure does seem like the scurrying WH rats don't know who to turn on.

Fleischer's WH phone records show a call to him by - guess who - Novak, on July 7th, although it is not clear if he returned the call; some accounts say he didn't.

We do know that Karen Hughes, Bush's Communication Aide at the time, and Stephan Hadley, the WH's number 2 man for the National Security Council, have also been called before the grand jury.

Beyond this there is scuttlebutt that Condi Rice, before returning home from curious George's African safari, was sent a Top Secret briefing book about all this in preparation for her wag-the-tail TV talk show appearances. You don't suppose it contained anything about Valerie do you? The NSC does have it's own collection of CIA boys on it's staff.

Maybe Fitzgerald should just subpoena the whole White House staff -- right on down to the janitors.



Heck, even John R. Bolton, Bush's nominee for the UN who was then under secretary of state for arms control and international security, has been mentioned as someone else who might get dragged into this.

Whew.

Well, I think that about brings us up to date. But if anyone wants to add to this list of facts/info or usual suspects, go right ahead. For such a little tempest in a teapot, it's getting mighty crowded in there.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by mr. natural

But if you want a serious answer, spacefreak, go start your own thread about this. I won't be debating this here. This thread has more than enough sideshow bluster as it is.

I wasn't asking for an answer, because I wasn't asking a question. I was stating the obvious.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The Senate report said that they were where not "reconstituting its nuclear program", likely because despite their attempts, they couldn't get any nuclear materials. It's pretty hard to have a nuclear program without nuclear materials. :lol Even Wilson's own report stated that nigerian officials had approached him telling him that Iraqis had been seeking what they believe was a uranium trade.

Conclusion 13 reports specifically on what we are debating: was the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium credible when Bush spoke his "sixteen words" that Wilson called a "lie". The British government, in it's inquiry found the same thing - that it was, which makes Wilson's claim that Bush's "sixteen words" in his State of the Union address was a "lie" false.
...
The CIA and the British Government still believe it's a credible claim, at this point. Again...while they've not got the best track record, I'll take their word for it.
...
Regarding the subject that's important to the Wilson matter, and whether he made false claims, it does state what I claim. Wilson claimed people knew, based on his report, that what Bush said in the SOTU was a "lie". Simply untrue.

I think we're getting closer to agreement. On the Senate report, here's the section on Niger/Wilson (pdf file). The first conclusion, which is Conclusion #12 in the full report, reads in full:

Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.

Note that the State of the Union in question was 3 months after October 2002. The report never, ever says that Iraq really was seeking uranium, and it says over and over that although at one point there was reason to believe it might have been true, at best the evidence was very questionable and was eventually discredited completely. They blame the CIA rather than the president. But it never says what you claim - that the president was right that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. The British report might say that, I don't know, but I doubt it. I bet it basically says the same thing this report says, that some people believed it at one point in time.

The 2nd conclusion, which is #13 in the full report, reads in full:

The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analyst's assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

OK, there I agree with you: Basically people ignored Wilson's report in favor of their own pre-existing opinions.

My reading of the totality of the Senate report is that: 1) there is no evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Africa, but 2) some intelligence people believe it at one time, 3) it was the CIA's fault that Bush thought it was true, and 4) Wilson's report played basically no role in changing anyone's opinion either way.

I don't agree with the conclusion that Bush couldn't have gotten his own administration to produce a better product, or that he was a "victim" of bad information. But that's essentially what it says.

[mr. natural]

Man, when you really delve into this case, and the more the stonewall crumbles, the more twisted it becomes. So, as an addendum, here are a few more facts to my last post above.

Sometime in late July or early August, 2003, the CIA files a "crime report" and inquiry to the FBI about the leak of Valerie Plame's identity.

Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2003, the CIA submits a standard 11 part questionnare used by the DOJ to determine whether an investigation is warranted (Milbank and Schmidt, "Justice Department Launches Criminal Probe of Leak," Wash. Post, Oct. 1, 2003). CIA Director George Tenet, and supposedly Attorney General John Ashcroft, send a memo to the FBI requesting an investigation.

Friday, Sept. 26, 2003, The Justice Department officially begins such an investigation.

Sunday, Sept. 28, 2003, The Washington Post reports that two senior administration officials contacted at least 6 reporters about the identity and occupation of Valerie Plame. (The administration source for this also stated: "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge." He stated that he was sharing the information because the disclosure was "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility." Allen and Priest, "Bush Administration is Focus of Inquiry," Wash. Post. Sept. 28, 2003)

NSC Director Condi Rice, on one of her usual (when the sh*t hits the fan) Sunday TV appearances, confirms that the Justice Dept. was asked to look into this matter.

Monday, Sept. 29, 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan says the WH has no firsthand knowledge of a Justice Department investigation (CNN link). White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, is notified at 8:30 p.m., that the Justice Dept. has opened an investigation into this leak of a covert agent's identity.

Gonzales requests and is granted a 12 hour delay before transmitting this official notification to the White House; a notification that henceforth requires all materials pertinent to the investigation to be preserved.

Tuesday, Sept. 30th, the Justice Dept. publicly announces its formal investigation, at the request of the CIA, and notification to the White House.


Let's see, that's a two month + delay between the outing and the actual opening/notification of an investigation? Perhaps they were just being thorough that a criminal act had taken place. But then you have a highly irregular - if you're a prosecutor, as was the DOJ in this case - 12 hour delay (wink, wink) of official notification (wink, wink) to the very same alleged criminals involved.

Ok, maybe nothing criminal (like document revision) actually happened here, but this whole timeline and lackadaisical response doesn't look good. In fact, it's down right key stone cop comical. Condi knew the DOJ was looking into this, but McClellan says the WH didn't know.

Then there is the following:

October 2, 2003, "Attorney General Is Closely Linked to Inquiry Figures" reports the NYTimes, in which it is revealed that Rove worked on three of Ashcroft's campaigns in the 80's & 90's.

October 7, 2003, President Bush says that he is not sure if the Justice Department will determine source of leak. ("Bush Unsure if Leaker Will Be Caught," AP, Oct. 7, 2003).


Well golly gee whiz, I wonder why in the world he would ever believe that.

Can anyone spell cronyism?


October 15, 2003, The New York Times reports that senior criminal prosecutors and FBI officials criticized the Attorney General's failure to recuse himself or appoint a special counsel. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that whether the Attorney General should step aside has been discussed in the department and by his own senior advisors. They "fear Mr. Ashcroft could be damaged by continuing accusations that as an attorney general with a long career in Republican partisan politics, he could not credibly lead a criminal investigation that centered on the aides to a Republican president." (Johnston and Lichtblau, "Senior Federal Prosecutors and FBI Officials Fault Ashcroft Over Leak Inquiry," NYT, October 16, 2003)

October 21, 2003, Associate Deputy Attorney general Christopher Wray testifies before the Senate judiciary Committee that he regularly briefs the Attorney general about the progress of the investigation. this includes the names of the people being interviewed, and enough detail "for him to understand meaningfully what's going on in the investigation." (Lichtblau, NYT, Oct. 22, 2003)

Finally, on December 30, 2003, Attorney General Ashcroft recuses himself and Patrick Fitzgerald is appointed as special prosecutor.


Jeez Louise. Talk about taking your sweet time.



Maybe they thought they could contain this in-house until sometime after the 2008 elections and January 2009, when Bush could pardon the whole damn bunch, just as they waltz off into the sunset.



ah well, given all the twisted rope that these arrogant folks were playing with, and they were bound to hang themselves.

[tie]

Originally Posted by mr. natural

July 6, 2003, Wilson's op-ed is published.
...
July 7, 2003, the White House announces: "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union."

I think this is also why Wilson called those 16 words a "lie." The White House tried to maintain a fiction even well after it had been discredited. It was an ongoing lie that was only ended with Wilson's op-ed.

I just bumped the old thread about Rove passing the word on to Drudge that a certain ABC journalist was gay (a week after he exposed the CIA agent). McClellan of course denied it.

[mr. natural]

Wouldn't you know it. Another shoe drops.

Gonzales told Bush's Chief of Staff, Andrew Card right after learning about the DOJ investigation.



So, is this where we start getting down to the "when & what did the President know" line of questions?

If only...

[bewebste]

Originally Posted by mr. natural

Wouldn't you know it. Another shoe drops.

Gonzales told Bush's Chief of Staff, Andrew Card right after learning about the DOJ investigation.



So, is this where we start getting down to the "when & what did the President know" line of questions?

If only...

Well, the WH press corps was at least asking about the 12 hour gap today

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000991278

Y'know, sometimes I almost feel sorry for poor Scottie.... but then I don't.

[TheMosco]

You guys should listen to the al fraken post cast. Wilson responds to some of claims made by people trying to smear him.

[budster101]

You mean Al Franken? and Podcast right? Forgettaboudit... he's boring to tears....

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by budster101

You mean Al Franken? and Podcast right? Forgettaboudit... he's boring to tears....

ok, don't listen to it.

[spauldingg]

I heard that one, and it was indeed boring, especially compared to the interview posted in parts here:

http://www.wegoted.com/dailyAudio/index.asp

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

I heard that one, and it was indeed boring, especially compared to the interview posted in parts here:

http://www.wegoted.com/dailyAudio/index.asp

thanks for the link.

[pman68]

karl rove = turd blossom

turd blossom

[budster101]

It's a flower that grows int he desert...

Awesome list... "Bushie" & "Pootie Poot"....

[tie]

Any connection here? The administration is admitting that Bolton lied to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March about his involvement in the Iraq-Niger investigation.

Bush is planning on making a recess appointment; honesty is obviously no prerequisite for serving in his administration.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by tie

Any connection here? The administration is admitting that Bolton lied to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March about his involvement in the Iraq-Niger investigation.

Jeez. It's like everything shady about the Bush administration is somehow involved. Next we'll hear about Enron's role in the scandal.

That reminds me of this piece in WaPo entitled Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net:

In doing so, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked not only about how CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was leaked but also how the administration went about shifting responsibility from the White House to the CIA for having included 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union address about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Africa, an assertion that was later disputed.

I have very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'd love to see an investigation into how this administration distorted intelligence to start a war - it's one of the worst scandals in American history, IMO. On the other hand, we Democrats have some experience with special prosecutors casting "wide-nets." I don't think his role should be to take on that larger issue. Congress should do it, even though we all know they won't since Republicans control it and we have a pussy in Rockefeller on the Intelligence Committee.

[TheMosco]

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/topsto...ist=topstories

Rove offered in July to return to the grand jury, and Fitzgerald accepted that offer last Friday after taking grand jury testimony from the formerly jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller, the people said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy.

The U.S. attorney's manual doesn't allow prosecutors to bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless the witnesses are notified in advance that their testimony can be used against them in a later indictment.

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before Rove's three earlier grand jury appearances.

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, said that it was unusual for a witness to be called back to the grand jury four times and that the prosecutor's legally required warning to Rove before this next appearance is "an ominous sign" for the presidential adviser.

Its still going... Things don't look that great for rove right now.

[mr. natural]

Ok, while the rest of the peanut gallery works up a lather over Dead Eye Dick's responsibility or not over his gun slinging ways, when the man finally comes out of his duck blind to fess up, he drops this IED (Improvised Explosive Device) on another long festering self-inflicted administration wound.

In his interview with Brit Hume, White House transcript here, Cheney lets it be known that he has executive order authority to declassify information. (Scroll down to end of interview.)

Taken by itself, this may not seem like much - apart from wondering if and how this could be true - but in the context which this was revealed it raises a slew of questions.

Brit Hume started by asking about I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who is charged with perjury relating to the investigation of Valarie Plame's outing. It was reported on Feb 9th, that Libby claims he was "authorized" by his "superiors" to leak classified information, specifically from the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which the WH declassified on July 18th.

Unfortunately, the NIE was still classified at the time that he was talking with various reporters about it in the concerted WH effort to counter Wilson's claims. But Libby was just following orders of his "superiors." And when you are Cheney's former Chief of Staff, that makes Cheney your prime "superior" suspect.

How all this plays out in Fitzgerald's investigation to nail the WH person who outed Valarie is anyone's guess, but this dog still has legs; along with all the other intelligence and constitutional manipulating scandals Dubya has overseen that keep cropping up and biting them back.

In any event, I find within this one a feature worth considering.

First off, it appears as if it's perfectly Ok within the Bush WH to leak classified information when told to do so by your superiors; especially as it suits this administration (and their sycophants here) to cover its ass.

But it is always wrong to reveal any such information, precisely when it embarrasses this administration. Wouldn't this make the toadies croaking such a song - in this thread here and more recently - hypocrites?

I guess it just depends on the type of moral relativity one is working with. For liberals this is an inherently bad thing about us, but for conservatives, it's all a matter of straight-shooter principled practicality, right? Yeah, right.

So, now that we know that Cheney has executive power authority to declassify stuff, I'm just wondering who will be first in line among the chorus line of toads here to suggest that he's still in the clear, see, because, well, he probably authorized such declassification before it became official, and since they knew this, Libby is safe too, and all is perfectly right with Dubya world.

As George W. Bush, the chump-in-chief, explained:

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

(This message brought to you from the Trust Me™ gang of chumps.)

Alas, this administration and the chumps that hop to it defending it reminds me of the job search commercial I've seen on TV, with all the chimpanzees jumping around celebrating about a sales chart, in which the sane lone human points out it's upside down. No problem, you stupid man, the chimps respond by reversing the chart and continue their fool hardy celebrating.

Obviously this sort of chest thumping goes hand in hand with the We Write The Rules, We Make Reality™ division of the WH chumps response team.

Now that's Intelligent Design in operation for ya.

[Spliffdaddy]

Translated:

The story is dead because there was no proof. Nobody was convicted of anything.

see also; every other accusation made against the Bush administration.

Can you think of any that stuck?

Nope.

To the liberals, the seriousness of the accusation determines the guilt of the party involved.

Every week we have a new "serious accusation" to replace the one from last week that withered on the vine. Before long, the liberals start pointing fingers and saying "wow...this administration sure is full of scandal." Forgetting, naturally, that none of the accusations had merit - nobody was convicted, and it was all just wishful thinking on the part of liberal Democrats.

[tie]

Er, Spliffdaddy, how is Cheney/Rove going to be convicted of anything? Libby's clearly in trouble.

This other investigation, of the domestic spying leak, which Bush is pushing, is also confusing me. The NY Times claimed to have informed the adminstration of its story a full year before publishing the story, following an admistration request. So why wasn't the investigation started a year ago?

[Spliffdaddy]

Because it doesn't have merit.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Translated:

The story is dead because there was no proof. Nobody was convicted of anything.

see also; every other accusation made against the Bush administration.

Can you think of any that stuck?

Nope.

To the liberals, the seriousness of the accusation determines the guilt of the party involved.

Every week we have a new "serious accusation" to replace the one from last week that withered on the vine. Before long, the liberals start pointing fingers and saying "wow...this administration sure is full of scandal." Forgetting, naturally, that none of the accusations had merit - nobody was convicted, and it was all just wishful thinking on the part of liberal Democrats.

This pretty much sums up this whole part of the forum actually.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Because it doesn't have merit.

And you've determined that how?

[Spliffdaddy]

Based on the lack of facts.

It's all accusation and opinion.

There have been *dozens* of alleged scandals during Dubya's presidency - all with the same result. They all faded away due to lack of proof. Just like this one did.

Name one that stuck.

[gadster]

Anyone else notice Cheney's bombshell during his 'interview' by Britt Hume at Fox News? This gem was oddly tacked onto the end of a long discussion on the shooting incident. A total non sequitur.

"Q Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a Vice President has the authority to declassify information?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: There is an executive order to that effect.

Q There is.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Have you done it?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I've certainly advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions. The executive order --

Q You ever done it unilaterally?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't want to get into that."

This comes after Libby says he was authorised by his superiors to leak the information! So I guess, if it comes to Cheney being bought before the beak, the information wasn't even classified. Everyone's off the hook.

So you're right Spliff, nothing sticks. So what?