Squiggler

Plame-Wilson: Novak slams Corn & Isikoff & Hubris

In Robert Novak's September 27, 2006 column,  he takes on David Corn with a bit of a slam at Michael Isikoff as well. Note that he puts to rest the 1x2x6 nonsense the left has tried to sell from the beginning.

CIA Leak: I must remark on the publication of Hubris, the newly released book by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Nation magazine editor David Corn, since it glosses over or ignores many relevant questions regarding the Valerie Plame affair, and distorts the facts surrounding my own involvement. The book seems commonplace for a polemicist like Corn but not a careful investigative reporter like Isikoff.

1. Corn, the Washington editor of the left-wing Nation magazine, helped create the Plame "scandal" in the wake of my column that revealed that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson had been sent to investigate Iraqi uranium shopping in Niger at the behest of his wife, Plame, a CIA employee. Now, even though his book has had the effect of killing the story, Corn insists that a parallel conspiracy must have existed, entirely separate from my column, to punish Wilson by revealing his wife's employment.
        
    
2. Isikoff, a skilled investigative reporter, definitively revealed in the book that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was my source for the Niger column. But because Armitage, an internal critic of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, did not fit the left's conspiracy theory, Corn has been frantic to depict an alternative conspiracy theory in which Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Vice President Dick Cheney attempted independently to do what Armitage purportedly accomplished accidentally. This desperate attempt to resuscitate their story line falls flat, undermining what seems to be the real reason for writing Hubris.
        
    
3. The book not only fails to use what I have written in my columns as my account of the Valerie Plame case but also distorts my position. I faced a dilemma in December 2003 because, in seeking the identity of my source, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was going to confront me with waivers from every official who conceivably could have told me about Valerie Wilson. "I did not believe blanket wavers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect [my sources]," I wrote last July 11. But the dilemma was resolved when Fitzgerald showed up to interview me with waivers from only my three sources. The prosecutor had learned their names on his own, so there was no use in not testifying about them. Corn and Isikoff sloppily misrepresent me by saying that my dilemma came after Fitzgerald appeared with the three waivers ("crunch time for Novak") and that I gave up their names under pressure from the special prosecutor.
        
    
4. Likewise, Corn never comes to grips with the fact that Armitage could not be prosecuted under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act because Plame was not a covert operative under terms of the law. This 463-page book that is endlessly discursive does not acknowledge this distinction, nor does it seriously consider that she was no longer assigned to foreign missions because her cover already had been broken. It never even mentions the report that Mrs. Wilson had been outed long ago by the traitor Aldrich Ames.
        
    
5. The book's effort to cleanse Wilson stoops to deception, including the omission of Wilson's political activism such as his giving and his campaign activities as an advisor to Al Gore in 2000. This surely was known to the authors, who chose to ignore it. And this kind of omission is typical. Also missing is the July 2004 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee's Republicans, unchallenged by the Democratic minority, which undermined Wilson's conclusions from his African mission and undercut his insistence that his wife did not suggest him to the CIA for that mission. After that report, Wilson disappeared from the Kerry-for-President campaign -- something that also goes unmentioned in this book.
        
    
6. At least the book rejects the canard reported by the Washington Post that the White House had been peddling the Valerie Plame story all over town (to at least six journalists) before it got to me. It also reveals the anonymous source of that bogus Post story – falsely described as a "senior administration official" -- as Adam Levine, an obscure mid-level communications aide who soon left the White House.

Bush-Karzai: What a press conference!

At a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Bush said political opponents had disclosed only select parts of the National Intelligence Estimate, a U.S. global report on terrorism, and he decided to make the document public so "you read it for yourself." Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes," Bush said.

Did you catch the press conference this morning with President Bush and Afghani President Hamid Karzai? It was great.

At one point, Bush kind of went off about intelligence leaks and the latest leak of the April NIE. Check out the video:

Partial Transcript:

KARZAI: Thank you very much, Mr. President.

It's a great honor to be in your very beautiful country once again, especially during fall, with all the lovely leaves around.

And thank you very much for the great hospitality that you and the first lady are always giving to a guest, especially to me.

And thanks also for your visit to Afghanistan and for seeing us in our country, and for seeing from close as to who we are and how we make it to a better future.

I'm very grateful, Mr. President, to you and the American people for all that you have done for Afghanistan for the last four-and-a-half years, from roads to education to democracy to parliament to good governance effort to health and to all other good things that are happening in Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I was the day before yesterday in the Walter Reed hospital. There I met wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. And there also I met a woman surgeon with six boys, from 7 to 21, that she had left behind in America in order to build us a road in the mountainous part of the country in Afghanistan.

KARZAI: There's nothing more that any nation can do for another country _ to send a woman with children to Afghanistan to help. We are very grateful. I'm glad I came to know that story. And I'll be repeating it to the Afghan people once I go back to Afghanistan.

We discussed today all matters that concern the two countries: the question of the reconstruction of Afghanistan, improvement for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, the equipping of the Afghan army, the training of the Afghan army, the police in Afghanistan, in all other aspects of reconstruction.

We also discussed the region around us; discussed our relations with Pakistan and the question of the joint fight that we have together against terrorism.

And I'm glad that, Mr. President, that you are, tomorrow, hosting a dinner for me and President Musharraf. And I'm sure we will come out of that meeting with a lot more to talk about to our nations in a very positive way for a better future.

Mr. President, we, the Afghan people, are grateful to you and the American people for all that you have done.

I had things in mind to speak about, and you did that. So I will stop short and let the questions come to us.

BUSH: We'll have two questions a side.

Q: Thank you, sir.

Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the national intelligence estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?

And to President Karzai, if I might: What do you think of President Musharraf's comments, that you need to get to know your own country better when you're talking about where terror threats and the Taliban threat is coming from?

BUSH: You want to start?

KARZAI: Go ahead, please.

BUSH: I, of course, read the key judgments on the NIE. I agree with their conclusion that, because of our successes against the leadership of al-Qaida, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent.

I'm not surprised the enemy is exploiting the situation in Iraq and using it as a propaganda tool to try to recruit more people to their murderous ways.

Some people have, you know, guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe.

The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason; they want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they're trying to fight this young democracy in Afghanistan.

And they use it as a recruitment tool because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq.

You know, to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq we would see a rosier scenario, with fewer extremists joining the radical movement, requires us to ignore 20 years of experience.

We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren't in Iraq and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993.

KARZAI: Yes, sir.

BUSH: We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole.

KARZAI: Yes, sir.

BUSH: We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.

You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement.

In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement.

They've used all kinds of excuses.

This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We're not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense.

The best way to protect America is to defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home.

We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war.

Now, you know what's interesting about the NIE? It was an intelligence report done last April. As I understand, the conclusions _ the evidence on the conclusions reached was stopped being gathered on February _ at the end of February.

And here we are coming down the stretch in an election campaign and it's on the front page of your newspapers. Isn't that interesting? Somebody's taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.

I talked to John Negroponte today, the DNI. You know, I think it's a bad habit for our government to declassify every time there's a leak, because it means it's going to be hard to get good product out of our analysts. Those of you who've been around here long enough know what I'm talking about.

But once again there's a leak out of our government, coming right down the stretch in this campaign in order to create confusion in the minds of the American people.

In my judgment, that's why they leaked it.

And so we're going to _ I told the DNI to declassify this document. You can read it for yourself. It will stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq; you know, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy.

And so John Negroponte, the DNI, is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible _ declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself.

And he'll do so in such a way that we'll be able to protect sources and methods of _ that our intelligence community uses.

And then everybody can draw their own conclusions about what the report says.

Thank you.

Q: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Why _ why is declass _ what was that question?

Q: Why is that declassification not a political act?

BUSH: Because I want you to read the document so you don't speculate about what it says.

You asked me a question based upon what you thought was in the document _ or at least somebody told you was in the document. And so I think you'll be able to ask a more profound question when you get to look at it yourself ... as opposed to relying upon gossip and somebody, you know, who may or may not have seen the document trying to classify the war in Iraq one way or the other.

It's a _ just I guess it's just Washington _ isn't it? _ where, you know, we, kind of _ there's no such thing as classification anymore, hardly.

But, anyway, you all take a look at it, and then you'll get to see.

KARZAI: Ma'am...

BUSH: Why don't you ask them _ yeah, you got the two-part question.

KARZAI: Ma'am, before I go to the remarks by my brother, President Musharraf, terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11. The president mentioned some examples of it.

These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.

They came to America on September 11, but they were attacking you before September 11 in other parts of the world.

We are a witness in Afghanistan as to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York.

Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high?

Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?

That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated. Extremism, their allies, terrorists and the likes of them.

On the remarks of my brother, President Musharraf, Afghanistan is a country that is emerging out of so many years of war and destruction and occupation by terrorism and misery that they brought to us.

We lost almost two generations to the lack of education. And those who were educated before that are now older.

We know our problems. We have difficulties. But Afghanistan also knows where the problem is, in extremism, in madrassas preaching hatred, places by the name of madrassas preaching hatred. That's what we should do together, to stop.

The United States, as an ally, is helping both countries. And I think it is very important that we have more dedication and more intense work, with sincerity, all of us, to get rid of the problems that we have around the world.

Q: Mr. President, what is your new strategy to fight against terrorism and also to deal with narcotics in Afghanistan?

Thank you.

KARZAI: All right.

This was to me or to President Bush?

OK.

Ma'am, there is no new strategy on the fight against terrorism. We are continuing the strategy that we have. We are implementing the strategy. We are moving further in that strategy. We are getting more of them. We're trying to clean the country of these elements and the region of these elements by doing more reconstruction, by doing more search for the terrorist elements hiding around there.

So the fight against terrorism will continue the way we started it, on all...

Q: (OFF-MIKE) think it's working now the way it's going?

KARZAI: It is absolutely working.

We come across difficulties as we are moving forward, and that's bound to happen. And we get over those difficulties. We resolve them, and we go the next stage of this fight against terrorism for all the allies.

At one stage, four years ago we had a war against them to dislodge them from Afghanistan, to remove them from being the government of Afghanistan. And then there were major operations against them to arrest them or to chase them out.

And then we began to rebuild the country, to have roads, to have schools, to have health clinics, to have education, to have all other things that people need all over the world.

And now we are at a stage of bringing more stability and trying to get rid of them forever.

The desire is to do that sooner. But a desire is not always what you get. So it will take time. And we must have the patience to have the time spent on getting rid of them for good.

On narcotics, it is a problem. It is an embarrassment to Afghanistan. And I told President Bush earlier in my conversation with him we feel very much embarrassed for having narcotics growing in our country.

But again, it has come to Afghanistan because of years of our desperation and lack of hope for tomorrow.

I know Afghan families, ma'am, who destroyed their pomegranate orchards or vineyards to replace them with poppies because they did not know if they were going to have their children the next day, if they were going to be there in their own country the next day, if they were going to be having their homes standing the next day.

It has become a reality because of droughts and years of misery.

We have worked on the problem. In some areas of the country we have succeeded. In other areas of the country we have failed because of the circumstances and because of our own failures.

We have discussed that, and we will continue to be very steadfast. It is Afghanistan's problem, so Afghanistan is responsible for it and Afghanistan should act on it, with the help of our friends in the United States and the rest of the world.

Q: Former President Clinton says that your administration had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after he left office. Is that factually accurate? And how do you respond to his charges?

BUSH: You know, look, I've watched all this, you know, fingerpointing and, you know, namings of names and all that stuff.

Our objective is to secure the country.

BUSH: And we've had investigations, we had the 9/11 Commission, we had the look-back this, we've had the look-back that.

The American people need to know that we spend all our time doing everything we can to protect them.

And I'm not going to comment on, you know, other comments. But I will comment on this; that we're on the offense against an enemy who wants to do us harm, and we must have the tools necessary to protect our country.

On the one hand, if al-Qaida or al-Qaida affiliates are calling somebody in the country, we need to know why. That's why Congress needs to pass that piece of legislation.

If somebody's got information about a potential attack, we need to be able to ask that person some questions. And so Congress has got to pass the piece of legislation.

You can't protect America unless we give those people on the front lines of protecting this country the tools necessary to do so within the Constitution.

And that's what the debate is here in the United States. There are some decent people who don't believe _ evidently don't believe we're at war and, therefore, shouldn't give the administration what is necessary to protect us.

And that goes back to her question: Does being on the offense mean we create terrorists?

My judgment is: The only way to defend the country is to stay on the offense. It is preposterous to think, if we were to withdraw, and hope for the best, things would turn out fine, against this enemy.

That was my point about, you know, before we were in Iraq, there was thousands being trained in Afghanistan to strike America and other places.

The only way to protect this country is to stay on the offense, is to deal with threats before they fully materialize and, in the long term, help democracy succeed, like Afghanistan and Iraq and Lebanon and a Palestinian state.

But there's a difference of opinion. It will become clear during this campaign, where people will say: Get out; leave before the job is done. And those are good, decent, patriotic people who believe that way. I just happen to believe they're absolutely wrong.

And so I'm going to continue to work to protect this country. And we'll let history judge all the different fingerpointing and all that business.

I don't have enough time to fingerpoint. I've got to stay _ I've got to do my job, which comes home everyday in the Oval Office, and that is to protect the American people from further attack.

Now there are some who say: Well, maybe it's not going to happen, you know? Well, they don't see what I see.

All I ask is that they look at that terror plot that, along with the Brits, we helped to help stop: people who were going to get on an airplane and blow up innocent lives in order to achieve political objectives.

They're out there. They're mean. And they need to be brought to justice.

And how impressive was Karzai? Very, if you ask me, and very committed. Perhaps far more committed than most of those who were in the room asking the questions.

I would remind you that the very last thing either the NYT or Democrats want is to have the April NIE declassified. It defeats their partisan political leaking purposes to have more than some out of context statements being touted as final conclusions or completed facts.

Related:

More of What You Won't Read in the NYT from In from the Cold:

Thankfully, the actual NIE is not the harbinger of disaster that the Times and WaPo would have us believe. According to members of the intel community who have seen the document, the NIE is actually fair and balanced (to coin a phrase), noting both successes and failures in the War on Terror--and identifying potential points of failure for the jihadists. The quotes printed below--taken directly from the document and provided to this blogger--provide "the other side" of the estimate, and its more balanced assessment of where we stand in the War on Terror (comments in italics are mine).

Plame/Wilson: Letter to DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility

Clarice Feldman, the heart and soul of the Just One Minute comment section (arguably the best and most reliable source for all things Plame/Wilson on the Web), a regular contributor to the excellent American Thinker, and is currently published in this week's Weekly Standard, has had it with Patrick Fitzgerald and the 3 year bogus investigation of the Plame so-called leak case. Clarice, as a Washington attorney who has extensive experience dealing with government issues, has written a letter demanding the Justice Department start looking into some of the very glaring errors, missteps and misrepresentations (I would call them outright lies) of the Special Prosecutor. Here is her excellent letter reproduced in its entirety with Clarice's permission:

Letter to DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility
September 19th, 2006

Clarice Feldman has mailed today (9/19/06) the following letter to the Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility regarding the conduct of Patrick Fitzgerald, in the matter of the prosecution Lewis “Scooter” Libby. With her permission, we reproduce it in its entirety.

H. Marshall Jarrett, Counsel

Office of Professional Responsibility

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 3266

Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: Patrick Fitzgerald’s handling of the Plame Case

Dear Mr. Jarrett:

I am writing to suggest that if one is not underway yet, it is long past due to undertake an investigation into the circumstances of the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald and the way in which he has conducted this matter.

As a general overview of the inappropriate way in which he handled this matter, I reference this article in the Weekly Standard.

As to more specific references to inappropriate conduct not outlined there, I draw your attention to his statements in the press conference announcing the indictment and particularly ask that you read those statements in light of recent developments: It is now apparent that Mr. Fitzgerald knew from the outset of his appointment that the source of the “leak” to Robert Novak was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.  In spite of this, Mr. Fitzgerald appears to have never fully explored with Armitage whether Armitage had spoken to other reporters in addition to Novak—although it is now known that Armitage spoke about Plame to at least one other reporter, Bob Woodward, and quite possibly other reporters who have testified before the Grand Jury. That conversation happened a full month before the Novak article was published.

Mr. Woodward has volunteered that he himself told other people during the month in question, but it seems that Mr. Fitzgerald was uninterested in whether this provided an alternate path for information to spread through the Washington press corps, including quite possibly other reporters who have testified before the Grand Jury.  Nor did Mr. Fitzgerald seek waivers of confidentiality for any reporters with whom Armitage spoke with regard to Plame (with the possible exception of Novak himself).  The “good leakers” “bad leakers” and “whistleblower” distinctions made by the prosecution are a frank prescription for criminalizing politics and were unprofessional. And the suggestion in those statements that the defendant had deliberately disclosed the identity of  an undercover agent and harmed national security in so doing, prejudiced the defendant, slandered him in the public eye, and far exceeded the evidence in the prosecution’s possession and the indictment itself.

Further, the affidavit he filed in the Miller appeal was a model of misdirection and disingenuousness clearly designed to mislead the Court. Taken as a whole, the affidavit conflates the Armitage leak to Novak with Libby’s quite apparently innocent conversations with other reporters, presenting a materially false impression of the facts the prosecution already had determined. Whether Libby’s recollections of those conversations were accurate, or his conversational partners’ recollections were more accurate, both sides to each conversation recall something entirely benign.

I ask you to focus attention in particular on paragraphs 9-17 and 81 of that affidavit and read them in light of recently revealed facts: that Armitage told Novak and Woodward earlier and in far greater detail about Plame’s role and identity than did Lewis Libby or Karl Rove who were pilloried for three years for innocent, passing comments to reporters who asked THEM about information, reporters who already  seem to have  known  about Plame’s identity due to the indiscretions of Plame and Wilson. From these facts alone it is readily apparent that these reporters already knew about Plame’s employment and her relationship to Wilson.  These obvious facts should have lead an unbiased investigator or prosecutor to examine the source of that knowledge—whether it was due to the well documented indiscretions of Plame and Wilson themselves or whether, like the leak to Novak, their knowledge derived from conversations with Richard Armitage.   Significantly, Mr. Fitzgerald’s reference to a Newsday article suggesting that Plame fell within the IIPA failed to note that the source(s) for those claims were Wilson allies in the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group which ironically was urging intelligence officers to leak classified information. Even more ironically some of them reportedly are connected through interlinked organizational ties with Mr. Agee, whose own deliberate revelations of undercover CIA agents was the very impetus for the Statute. At no time in the unredacted portions of the affidavit did Fitzgerald directly say that Plame met the test of the IIPA - which she clearly does not -but in various ways he deliberately left the Court with that impression in order to effect the rare contempt order and jailing of a reporter. Further, while portions of the affidavit remain redacted, it doesn’t appear that the Prosecution was adequately forthcoming to the Court in revealing that the disclosure to Novak was by someone who did not get that information from Libby or Judith Miller. Indeed, Miller herself may have received it from Armitage as well. Her notes reflect other sources, prior to the June 23 meeting with Libby and she had in the recent past written interviews with Armitage. Fitzgerald’s grand jury interrogation of her respecting those sources, moreover, seems to conflict with the agreement he’d reached with her not to ask about sources other than Libby.

Footnote 15, p. 28 of this filing was markedly misleading.

“If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame’s status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, USC Sec. 793 if the information is considered information respecting the national defense. In order to establish a violation of Title 50, USCSec.421, it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed Wilson’s wife was engaged in covert work.”

That it is so is clear from this portion of Judge Tatel’s opinion in that case.

“Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years -representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. [Emphasis added].” 

There is no indication on the record that the Prosecutor informed the Court that this was a misreading of the affidavit he submitted.

Finally, I think it important to investigate the circumstances surrounding the extra-statutory appointment of Fitzgerald as Special Prosecutor by Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey.  In view of the now well-known fact that the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald took place 2-3 months after the true source of the leak was known, I believe it is of great importance to determine

1) whether the appointment was made by arrangement with any members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,

2) whether any members of that Committee were informed by anyone in the Department of Justice or the Special Prosecutor’s office of Armitage’s admission that he had been Novak’s source and,

3) if so, when such disclosure was made and by whom.

I recognize that the special prosecutor is acting in a unique capacity. On the other hand, since the appointment of a Department of Justice employee as Special Prosecutor created a special circumstance that was not contemplated by the Statute, it seems logical that Mr. Fitzgerald should be covered by the operations of your office. In support of that position, I draw your attention to the fact that both Mr. Comey and Mr. Fitzgerald provided affidavits to the Court in support of their own contention that the operations of the Special Prosecutor are under Department of Justice supervision.  If you feel that this is not the case, I would appreciate your disclosing that to me even though I appreciate that non-jurisdictional issues are and should remain non-public during any investigation. Because I am convinced that the above described conduct imperatively demands investigation, I will seek it in another forum if this matter is beyond your jurisdiction.

Sincerely yours,

Clarice Feldman

Saturday Reading Recommendations

Some weekend recommended reading:

How Bad Is the Senate Intelligence Report? by Stephen Hayes

Yes it is pretty darn bad.

Saddam's Man in Niger 
What was the Iraqi regime's nuclear expert doing in Africa? by Christopher Hitchens in the Weekly Standard.

They Liked It When It Was McCain's Idea by Powerline

 

For Plameholics:

The Case of the Missing Crime by Clarice Feldman in the Weekly Standard

and this piece that first appeared as a comment and then moved to be a stand-alone post:

Plame Review by Elendil via Strata-Sphere.

I found this article to be especially interesting with some eye-openers contained within.

Quote of the Day!

OK, I think I have this right...

By Jay Tea on War On Terror

With the recent furor over Pope Benedict XVI's statements about Islam, coupled with the reactions to President Bush's use of the term "Islamic Fascists" and the hysteria over the Danish newspaper's Mohammed cartoons, just to cite three examples, I think I have the fundamental message of Islam figured out:

"Islam is a peaceful, accepting, tolerant, loving religion, and we will kill anyone who says differently."

That about sum it up?

A little something for everyone's tastes, the following list comes from an article in the Washington Post:

Think Tank Town

FROM THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: U.S. Trade Dilemma: Free or Fair?

U.S. trade policy is at a crossroads between pursuing freer trade or fairer trade.

FROM THE RAND CORPORATION: 'No Child' Leaves Too Much Behind (By Brian Stecher, September 13, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Evaluating Our Partners and Allies Five Years Later (By Julianne Smith and Thomas Sanderson, September 11, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: End Open-Ended Litigation (By Ted Frank, September 7, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE URBAN INSTITUTE: Provide Protections From Retirement's Pitfalls (By Richard W. Johnson, September 5, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: Mixed Messages Inhibit Escape From Welfare (By Rourke O'Brien, August 31, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: U.S. Patent Imperialism Hurts American Interests (By Ben Klemens, August 25, 2006; 12:00 PM)

Bill Clinton Was Right (By Robert Rector, August 23, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE CATO INSTITUTE: Bankruptcy Reform Gave Creditors Too Much (By Michelle J. White, August 21, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Open Markets Start at Home (Douglas Holtz-Eakin, August 17, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE RAND CORPORATION: Regulatory Reform on Both Sides of the Atlantic (By John Graham, August 15, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Creating Equitable Public Education in the U.S. (By Elena Rocha, August 11, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Make Federal Spending Transparent (By Roger Bate, August 9, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE URBAN INSTITUTE: The Right Way to Sell Off Public Assets (By Olga Kaganova and Marilee A. Utter, August 7, 2006; 11:46 AM)

FROM THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Monumental Hope and Grinding Despair (By Jon B. Alterman, August 3, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: Will Your Vote Count in 2006? (By Steven Hill, August 1, 2006; 11:56 AM)

FROM THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: U.S. Shares Blame for Trade Talk Collapse (By Lael Brainard, July 28, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE HERITAGE INSTITUTE: Missing the Real Missile Threat (By James Jay Carafano, July 26, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE CATO INSTITUTE: An Elixir for the Military's Health Care Woes (By Cindy Williams, July 23, 2006; 6:13 PM)

FROM THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Cliffhanger: Mexican Elections and Their Aftermath (Julia E. Sweig, July 20, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE RAND CORPORATION: Protecting U.S. Interests In the Middle East (By Robert E. Hunter, July 19, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Today's Activism: The Art of the Possible (By Adam Jentleson and Elana Berkowitz , July 14, 2006; 12:25 PM)

FROM THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Summer Vacation of Our Discontent (By Frederick M. Hess, July 12, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE URBAN INSTITUTE: It's a Crime What We Don't Know About Crime (By John Roman, July 10, 2006; 12:00 AM)

FROM THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Deterrence is Not a Dirty Word (By Jon B. Wolfsthal, July 7, 2006; 12:41 PM)

Armitage finally comes clean and apologizes ... too little, too late

Well, I guess pigs can fly today. Richard Armitage, the true and first leaker, the ultimate snake in the grass, finally comes clean.

New York Times:

Armitage Says He Was the Source in C.I.A. Leak

By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: September 7, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — Expressing regret for his actions and apologies to his administration colleagues, Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, confirmed today that he was the source who first told a columnist about the intelligence officer at the center of the C.I.A. leak case.

“It was a terrible error on my part,” Mr. Armitage said in an interview. He added, “There wasn’t a day when I didn’t feel like I had let down the President, the Secretary of State, my colleagues, my family and the Wilsons. I value my ability to keep state secrets. This was bad and I really felt badly about this.”

Mr. Armitage also confirmed that he was the anonymous government official who talked to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in June 2003 about Valerie Plame Wilson, the C.I.A. officer, in what is the first known conversation between an administration official and a journalist concerning her.

Mr. Armitage, who has been criticized for keeping his silence for nearly three years, said he had wanted to disclose his role as soon as he realized that he was the main source for Robert D. Novak’s column, published on July 14, 2003, which identified Ms. Wilson as a C.I.A. intelligence officer.

But he said held back at the request of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. “He requested that I remain silent,” Mr. Armitage, said.

Expressing irritation over assertions in some newspaper editorials and on some Internet blogs that, by his silence, he had been disloyal to the Bush administration, Mr. Armitage said that he had followed Mr. Bush’s repeated instruction to administration officials to cooperate with the Fitzgerald inquiry.

“I felt like I was doing exactly what he wanted,” he said...

Mr. Armitage said he did not tell prosecutors about his conversation with Mr. Woodward until the fall of 2005 because he had forgotten about it. Mr. Armitage said he did not recall the June 2003 conversation until Mr. Woodward called to remind him about it following Mr. Fitzgerald’s news conference announcing of Mr. Libby’s indictment.

I'm sorry but I feel not one whit of care for Mr. Armitage. He has been a liar by omission for 3 years with lots of help from his #1 enabler, Patrick Fitzgerald, who should be disbarred. It is time for the call to:
FREE SCOOTER NOW!

The fat lady sings the final refrain for Plamegate ... (includes link round up)

Although they do not take responsibility for their own part in the Wilson/Plame scandal nor detail the genesis of the whole scandal as one cooked up by the Kerry Campaign using Wilson as their willing front man, the Washington Post does sing the final refrain for Plamegate. In the words of Tom Maguire the WaPo Whacks Wilson:

The editors of the Washington Post have had enough of the Joe Wilson saga.  Writing on the denouement - Richard Armitage provided the first leak to Bob Novak - they deliver this broadside:

...it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Wilson's ego and Kerry's perfidiousness and inability to admit that the people just didn't want him as president has cost the Bush administration and the American taxpayers 3 years of grief and millions of dollars. They have distracted our leaders during a time of war and terrible national disaster and the damage is incalculable. If Judge Walton and Patrick Fitzgerald have any class and any common sense, they will quickly dismiss the charges against Lewis "Scooter" Libby and put a swift end to the witch hunt. The Wilson/Plame civil suit never belonged in a court of law in the first place, so let's hope that it will be laughed out of court as fast as the judge can bang his gavel.

Related:

Roger Simon:  Why it all happened

Of course Mr. Wilson's narcissistic drivel was bought hook, line and sinker by that bastion of reactionary liberalism the New York Times and parroted by its myriad followers. Wouldn't it be interesting to be a fly on the wall of their editorial offices at this moment? In a loose-lipped moment, Bill Keller once called blogs a 'circle jerk,' one of the most classic uses of projection since Freud. What will they do now? Their onetime employee Judith Miller went to jail over this farce (and speaking of hooks and lines - we at the burgeoning PJ Media bought into the whole charade, inviting Ms. Miller to our debut).

But what interests me is how the Plame Affair fits into the whole framework.  It may be opera bouffe, but it is far from unrelated to the way the press has conducted itself in recent years. Is it so different from Pallywood and the Mohammed Al Doura case, the Reuters photographs, the Jenin "massacre" and so forth - all lies swallowed whole by a gullible Western media? At first glance they would seem far apart, but in this small world one concept draws them all together - narrative. The truth is less important than the weltanschauung of the publication.  But we knew that, didn't we?

So next step - why this phenomenon? Why the acceptance of this narrative whose result is so negative to world history and seems in continuous aid of the destruction of the Enlightenment itself? Is it just Bush Derangement Syndrome? Well, I think that's a large part of it. But the term (BDS) is too narrow to encompass the phenomenon. A variety of psychological forces are in the mix, but most notable to me is a sense of deprivation. 9/11 stripped the left of its self-perceived idealism that was the mainstay of its "personality." Forces (like Bush) that lefties once dismissed as reactionary were taking the lead in the preservation of the West instead of supporting dictators as they once did. Furthermore, in the old days the left could take concilation that the enemy (communism) had at least a theoretical rationale - economic fairness to all. The new enemy was more troublesome - on the one hand poor (only seemingly, of course, considering the oil rich) and on the other hand medieval, anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-modern... essentially anti-liberal. What to do.... what to do?

 

An Exclamation Point On The Plame Denouement (Captain Ed):

It's more than unfortunate -- it was deliberate. Wilson and Plame set up this trip for the purpose of discrediting the elected officials of the American government in an attempt to keep them from exercising their policies on intelligence and foreign affairs. Wilson lied and deceived people, first by leaking his disinformation anonymously to the Post and the New York Times, and then in an editorial that relied on his diplomatic reputation to bolster the credibility of his false accusations.

The Times On Armitage - BS

By Tom Maguire

The NY Times finally covers the news that Richard Armitage was "the initial and primary source" for Robert Novak's column outing Valerie Plame.  However, they get some details wrong and present a bit of rubbish.  Attack!

Plame Game - We can stick a fork in Wilson, but the Story will Continue (MacRanger) "You know when the Washington Post bails on you, you’re fifteen minutes is up. Wilson’s debunked boondoggle actually got fourteen minutes more than it deserved."

"Flying Pigs, Satan's Frostbite" (Media Blog)

"IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT SO MANY PEOPLE TOOK HIM SERIOUSLY" [Byron York]

How should one react to this?  The Washington Post has now declared the CIA leak "scandal" a non-story — and has come to the realization that is was pretty much a non-story all along.  Its editorial criticizes Richard Armitage for remaining silent while other administration officials were pilloried publicly, and it lays much of the final blame for the mess on the man who styled himself the victim:

I want to recommend AJ's post as a starting point to get up to speed. It is this writer's opinion that the true story of Joseph C Wilson IV and Valerie Plame Wilson has yet to be told and that story centers around Wilson's failures in his 1999 trip. A trip where he was to ascertain what AQ Khan was doing in Africa. AQ Khan, as you may remember, was the father of Pakistan's nuclear program and ran the network that eventually transferred nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya and possibly Iraq. He was doing his business in Niger at the same time Wilson was sent there to find out about that business. So Wilson's failure to find anything in 2002 was preceded by a similar finding in 1999 and again in early 2000. The question is why was he so blind and deaf? Just who was Wilson carrying water for anyway?

AQ Kahn And Joe Wilson

By AJStrata on All General Discussions

I have posted extensively on Joe Wilson’s 1999 trip to Niger (and his less known return in 2000) and was able to determine that Joe Wilson was in Niger AFTER the coupe d’etat that removed the government talking to Iraq (and apparently AQ Kahn) from power. My first post is here with an update of information here. To summarize, 1999 was a very eventful year in Niger. The long running dictatorship was overthrown in April of 1999. Prior to that critical event Iraq sent its emissary from Rome to meet with key people were it is believed yellow-cake uranium was discussed. Also prior to the overthrow, in February, AQ Khan visited Niger - if not at the same time near the time of the Iraqi visit. This must have been a huge warning sign to the West, and in fact MacRanger had been posting on this for a while (mine here, his here). The warning signs were not trivial. Much has been reported on how abondoned mines could produce plenty of uranium yellow cake for fledgling efforts, and there were ways to ship the material to Libya by adding a ‘little bit’ to each shipment. Recall, Libya was an AQ Kahn site and working on nuclear weapons.

Also, as I posted way back when, it has been reported the French - who run and monitor the Niger Uranium business - where very concerned and had indications something was up.

And Michelle Malkin tells it in pictures:

PlameOut: An Emily Litella moment

By Michelle Malkin   ·   September 01, 2006 11:35 AM

Neeever mind!

Allah says WaPo should prepare for a brutal nutroots backlash. Tom Maguire weighs in. AJ Strata has more on AQ Khan, Wilson, and the CIA. Glenn Reynolds: "They should have been reading InstaPundit. Though I remember some people at the Harvard blogger conference in 2003 reacting with incredulity at my view that the Wilson narrative was extremely dubious, so I guess reading InstaPundit isn't enough..."

Moi?media

By The American Thinker

Looking at today's Washington Post editorial and seeing that David Corn, who invented and promoted the cock and bull story that Wilson was a whistleblower whose wife was outed in revenge for Wilson’s truth telling, now denies he had anything to do with the conspiracy to out meme.

THE PLAME AFFAIR: LIES. DAMNED LIES AND POLITICS (Reliapundit) "Wilson and Plame should be charged with treason: for partisan and personal gain they slandered the POTUS during war-time. Armitage should be charged with aiding and abetting. Fitzgerald should be disbarred."

Media Crawlback (Curiouser and Curiouser)

In The Media

For the past three years, the MSM has been in full "outrage voice" over the "outing" of Valerie Plame as some sort of conspiracy on the part of the Bush administration in retaliation for the heroic deeds of her husband, Joe Wilson, to debunk the claim of the White House that Iraq was seeking to purchase "yellowcake" Uranium from Niger. There were screams for an investigation - which happened. There were whispers of indictments against people like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. There was the veiled hope of charges of impeachment for the evil President who presided over this affair.

The only problem was, as we all know now, there was no conspiracy. The biggest liar in this whole affair was one Joe Wilson, who claimed there was no evidence of Iraq attempting to acquire the materials needed to construct nuclear weapons even though he found the exact opposite on his wife-inspired trip to Niger.

It further appears that the special prosecutor in this case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, knew the identity of the "leaker" - Richard Armitage - very early on in the investigation but chose to keep it a secret. In retrospect, it looks like Fitzgerald's handling of the whole job of conducting this investigation was at best incompetent and at worse a total sham.

One of the biggest of the MSM outlets that banged loudly on the drums of "cover-up" and "conspiracy" was the Washington Post. Now, realizing they were dead wrong not only in what they inferred in their reporting but that being so wrong about such a big deal will negatively impact what little credibility they have left, they've decided to respond. And that response continues to show their own hubris - their own lack of "fessing-up" to their own mistakes - all the while trying to get on the right side of the story.

The End Is In Sight (Flopping Aces)

Posted by Curt on September 1, 2006 at 09:18

...... And believe me this is not the end of it. The nutroots are already talking about a campaign to DEMAND attribution of the editorial….and you just know whats going to happen after they find out who wrote it.

They have been unhinged for years, and this case has shown a huge spotlight on their dementia. Just like their hatred for Bush, they cannot be proved wrong. They would rather we lose in Iraq, we lose the war on terror, rather then admit Bush is right and doing a good job. Oh no, they would rather commit hara-kari then that.

When do you think the suddenly silent NYT’s will finally announce that they were wrong?

When hell freezes over would be my guest. They were the absolute worst in all of this. They breathlessly announced their outrage and disgust that Bushitler and team would do such a thing, all the while ignoring the growing evidence that the “reclusive” media whore was actually setting them up for the fall…unwittingly of course. Don’t think he is bright enough to have seen how this would play out. But we were….

….and I’m laughing it up right about now.

[NOTE: I do not link to the looney nutroot sites, but the link above for Flopping Aces has lots of their stupid quotes so you can get the flavor of their responses.]

The Editorial Joseph Wilson Should’ve Written…  (Texas Rainmaker with H/T: Sister Toldjah)

September 1st, 2006 2:48 pm

In light of the end of the Plame affair, I did some digging and came across Joe Wilson’s first draft of the editorial that started it all….

What I Didn’t Find in Africa a Bogus Investigation
By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th

Did the Bush administration I manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs facts about my wife being outed to justify an invasion of Iraq a bogus investigation of a President’s administration?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war bogus investigation, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence all of my claims related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program my trip to Niger and my wife’s alleged outing as payback was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat lie. [...CONTINUED]

Final Curtain Call (Barking Moonbat Early Warning System) "The whole purpose of this sordid affair was to hurt the Bush Administration. It was never about a “spy who was outed”. That was all just propaganda from the Left and Wilson/Plame were willing accomplices in this trumped-up drama. At least the Washington Post is now admitting they were had. We must be thankful any time the LameStreamMedia admits their mistakes ..."

The "Joe Wilson scandal" revisited (Red State)

This "scandal" turns out to be almost the exact fraud we have asserted for years. Armitage leaked to the press; Dick Armitage and Colin Powell (and State Department legal guru William Howard Taft IV, though he can claim attorney-client) covered this up; Joe Wilson was exposed as a partisan dunce, so Joe Wilson lashed out. The media saw a possibility that they could live their fantasies of being Bob Woodward/Robert Redford tracking Watergate, so they blindly latched on and printed whatever garbage was fed to them. (Meanwhile, the real Bob Woodward yawned.)

Wilson knew that his scandal was a lie, but he's a natural liar. What do we say of Armitage, Powell, Taft, et al.? They knew and said nothing. The kick, folks, is that Patrick Fitzgerald knew this whole thing was another red balloon pumped with media-supplied hot gas, but he let the media pump the wind through his hair as he took a brave stand against… nothing.

The Joe Wilson scandal™ was a partisan lie. Who concocted it? I doubt Wilson himself is smart enough, but Val is evidently a superlatively intelligent woman. Did she hook up with some lefty ops and create this little drama for them? That's idle speculation, but it would be interesting to learn that Joe was the mouthpiece for the Dem ops, who in turn were blowing Valerie Plame's wind. This would then be the Valerie Plame scandal™. For what it's worth anymore.

NYT: New Questions About Inquiry in CIA Full of holes, like totally ignoring Armitages's conversation with Bob Woodward before he ever talked to Bob Novak, but at least it is something. The part about how Fitzgerald told Armitage to keep it to himself about being the real "first leaker" is ... well for now, let's say interesting.

Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles.

Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, first told the authorities in October 2003 that he had been the primary source for the July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak that identified Valerie Wilson as a C.I.A. operative and set off the leak investigation.

Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision to prolong the inquiry once he took over as special prosecutor in December 2003 had significant political and legal consequences. The inquiry seriously embarrassed and distracted the Bush White House for nearly two years and resulted in five felony charges against Mr. Libby, even as Mr. Fitzgerald decided not to charge Mr. Armitage or anyone else with crimes related to the leak itself.

And here is AJ again on his take of the New York Times article, note the links he includes, they are well worth a read on how Fitzgerald lied to the Courts and the American people:

NY Times Turns On Fitzgerald

By AJStrata on Plame Game

I posted on the deceptions in Fitzgeralds press conference, where he announced the indictments of Scooter Libby, his falsehoods in his submission to the United States Supreme Court, and those in his submission to the District Court of Appeals where he forced the testimony of reporters under the threat of jail and actual jail time for the NY Times Judith Miller. So is Fitzgerald now in trouble because he not only did not deliver on Fitzmas, he duped the media and forced them to give up too much for his lame investigation? The NY Times does not seem to be impressed with what they bought for the price of losing some media perks.

AJ goes on to say:

Yes, the NY Times spent a lot of money and allowed their reporter to be jailed for absolutely nothing. Is reality finally becoming clear to the NY Times. Do they now understand that they put all their hopes and aspirations into one Joe Wilson who was nothing but a blowhard fraud? Maybe. But it seems the NY Times is realizing Fitzgerald milked this for all it was worth:

Mr. Armitage cooperated voluntarily in the case, never hired a lawyer and testified several times to the grand jury, according to people who are familiar with his role and actions in the case. He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife’s computer in the course of the inquiry, those associates said. But Mr. Armitage kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the prosecutor asked him not to divulge it, the people said.

So now it was Fitzgerald that kept a muzzle on Armitage? Not likely. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Armitage alibi doesn’t hold up even to casual scutiny. The problem? All of Armitage’s excuses do not address how he knew about Plame nearly a month earlier when he divulged the same “gossip” to Bob Woodward: 

A case of mistaken identity (SFGate) Now this is a surprise.

The irony is that as Joe Wilson charged that the White House was pursuing him as an act of revenge, he emerges as a partisan bent on punishing those with whom he disagreed. Wilson, after all, once bragged that he wanted to see Rove "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." The Wilsons filed a silly lawsuit suit against Libby, Cheney and Rove.

Armitage was not an Iraq war hawk, so it should come as no surprise that Wilson's attorney has given Armitage a pass. "Mr. Armitage's conduct does not change the facts of what Libby, Cheney and Rove did," Melanie Sloan told CNN. "The case is about the abuse of government power."

Yes, it is about the abuse of government power. The victims are the innocent staffers and journalists who had to face the threat of jail over three years while Armitage was too ashamed to come forward and admit what he had begun.

And from the Wall Street Journal Opinion page:

There is more to be said at a future date about the specific case against Mr. Libby. But for now the Armitage news should concern one man in particular, and that's the President of the United States. How much differently would he have behaved had he known about Mr. Armitage's role in 2003? Would he have kept echoing the media-liberal spin that there was some nefarious White House leaker to discover, and continue to let the aides who most believed in his policies--Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove--be hounded by a special counsel? And why has he tolerated so much insubordination to his policies?

Someday we hope Mr. Bush will tell us. Meantime, as he absorbs the partisan and ultimately trivial truth of this case, why shouldn't he pardon Mr. Libby and put the entire sorry saga to rest?  

. Good analysis

Probe more Damaging then the Leak  (Ventura County Star)

"So why was the investigation not halted there, saving millions of taxpayer dollars in actual expenses and much more in the man hours spent by top-ranking government officials defending themselves and their reputations?

Apparently, because the CIA pressed the matter as a diversion from the mounting furor over its own inadequacies in counterintelligence, ranging from the 9/11 terrorist attacks to its assessment of Iraq's nuclear and biochemical capabilities.

The agency clearly was under siege and had sent Plame's husband, a self-promoting former minor ambassador, Joseph Wilson, off to Africa to discover whether British reports of Iraqi nuclear activities there were accurate in that country. Wilson came back convinced they weren't, and immediately began trumpeting his conclusions to the embarrassment of the White House." (H/T: Bob, commenter at JOM)

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard

What's left to do? Fitzgerald, in decency, should terminate his probe immediately. And he should abandon the perjury prosecution of Libby, the former Cheney aide. Libby's foggy memory was no worse than that of Armitage, who forgot for two years to tell Fitzgerald he'd talked to the Post's Woodward but isn't being prosecuted. Last but not least, a few apologies are called for, notably by Powell and Armitage, but also by the press. A correction--perhaps the longest and most overdue in the history of journalism--is in order.

--Fred Barnes, for the Editors (H/T: Bob, commenter at JOM)

Joe Wilson's Last Act (GOP.com)

Friday, September 01, 2006

The Angry Partisan Gunslinger Goes From
Great Dem Hope To Discredited Media Joke

Media Acknowledges Joe Wilson Has Lost All Credibility; "Unfortunate That So Many People Took Him Seriously":

The Washington Post: "[I]t now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming - falsely, as it turned out - that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials." (Editorial, "End Of An Affair," The Washington Post, 9/1/06)

• The Washington Post: "He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously." (Editorial, "End Of An Affair," The Washington Post, 9/1/06)

Slate's Christopher Hitchens: "[T]here was always another layer to the Joseph Wilson fantasy. ... [t]here remained the charge that his nonreport on a real threat had led to a government-sponsored vendetta against him and his wife, Valerie Plame." (Christopher Hitchens, "Plame Out," Slate, 8/29/06)

Mort Kondracke, Executive Editor Of Roll Call: "[T]his whole conspiracy theory of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney masterminding this entire plot to out Valerie Plame ... and violate the intelligence agent's identity's act and all this stuff ... it's empty." (Fox News' "Special Report," 8/28/06)

The [Manchester] Union Leader: "Wilson ... promoted the erroneous ideas that he was sent on behalf of Vice President Dick Cheney and that his trip was some sort of definitive investigation rather than a diplomatic courtesy call." (Editorial, "End Of The Affair: No Blame In Plame Game," The [Manchester, NH] Union Leader, 8/30/06)

• The [Manchester] Union Leader: "Those were intentional deceits. Wilson misled ... The facts are quite clear. There was no conspiracy to out an undercover CIA agent. None. Zero. Nada. It did not happen. End of story." (Editorial, "End Of The Affair: No Blame In Plame Game," The [Manchester, NH] Union Leader, 8/30/06)

The Chicago Tribune: "The facile saga of vengeful White House warmongers recruiting [Bob] Novak to help them destroy beleaguered Joe Wilson appears to be myth." (Editorial, "A Surprise In The Plame Case," The Chicago Tribune, 9/1/06)

National Review: "This revelation lays waste to the notion that Vice President Dick Cheney, former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby, and top White House aide Karl Rove conspired to 'out' Plame as a way of smearing her husband, the anti-Bush gadfly Joseph Wilson." (Editorial, "The Real Scandal," National Review, 8/30/06)

Fred Barnes, Executive Editor Of The Weekly Standard: "So, the Bush White House, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and others were hung out to dry and the charge grew and was widely proclaimed in the press and among Democrats and among critics of the White House, that the White House had smeared an innocent man, Joe Wilson, who merely told the truth. And it turns out that was wrong from the beginning." (Fox News' "Special Report," 8/28/06)

FLASHBACK: Wilson Claimed He Was The Victim Of An Organized Smear Campaign:

Joe Wilson: "[T]he smear campaign ... was being undertaken by the Republican National Committee and this administration's right wing allies." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 11/1/05)

• Wilson: "Obviously, there's been this orchestrated campaign, this smear campaign. I happen to think that it's because the RNC, the Republican National Committee's been involved in this in a big way ..." (CNN's "Late Edition," 7/18/04)

• Wilson: "[T]here have been a number of articles written attacking me. ... I've since learned from a couple of different reporters that White House sources have been telling [them] the story is Wilson and his wife... It's a breach of national security. My understanding is it may, in fact, be a violation of American law." (NBC's "Today Show," 7/22/03)

• Wilson: "It's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words." (Timothy Noah, "Did Rove Blow A Spook's Cover?" Slate, 9/16/03)

FLASHBACK: Democrats Have Hailed Wilson As A Hero Of The Left:

On The Eve Of His Lawsuit Announcement, Joe Wilson Attended Senate Democrats' Policy Luncheon. Fox News' Brit Hume: "Plame [was] seen ... with her husband Joe Wilson arriving for a policy luncheon with Senate Democrats today." (Fox News' "Special Report," 7/13/06)

• Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): "It was you [Nutroots] who defended Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson against Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove." (Sen. Harry Reid, Remarks At YearlyKos Convention, Las Vegas, NV, 6/10/06)

• Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "I am pleased to be here today with Ambassador Joe Wilson ... his wife, an undercover CIA employee, was exposed for what appeared to be political motivations. ... [Joe Wilson] has served his country, has - and his wife as well - have risked themselves in many ways for this country. And it was they who had politics played upon them, not the other way around." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Press Conference, 7/14/05)

• Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): "Joe Wilson is here my pal! ... [Joe] you deserve the thanks of a nation and instead of that they went after your family and it is despicable and cowardly and I'm so proud of you." (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Remarks At The Yearly Kos Convention, Las Vegas, NV, 6/9/06)

Joe Wilson Attended Fundraisers For Democrat Parties, Candidates, And Causes. "Joseph Wilson ... will headline two DFL Party fundraisers in the Twin Cities ... and has made numerous appearances in recent years on behalf of Democratic candidates and causes ..." (Conrad Defiebre "Lightning Rod On Iraq War To Headline Two DFL Fundraisers," [Minneapolis, MN] Star Tribune, 12/7/05)

The liar in Plamegate? Fitzgerald!

I am so livid today, I hardly know where to start this narrative. Yes, I'm talking about the confirmation that Richard Armitage and not someone from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) or the White House (WH) was responsible for the leak that started the entire Wilson/Plame (Plamegate) affair. It isn't that I didn't already know that Armitage was the one. I did and so did most of the posters and commenters at Just One Minute HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE, and a host of other sites that have continued to cover this story. What is new is finding out that Patrick Fitzgerald has known this information all along as well and yet he continued to pursue his investigation, made false filings with the higest courts in the land, publicly trashed a hardworking and honorable man in his famous press conference announcing the indictment of Scooter Libby for crimes he knew someone else had committed. Oh wait, let me correct that ... indicted Scooter for lying about not having committed an act that someone else had actually committed.

I was going to do a link roundup on this subject since so many seem to have so much to say about the nothingness that Plamegate has turned out to be, but instead I will refer you to Flopping Aces, who does have a nice list of links as well as pretty much covering the entire story in two posts HERE and HERE and to AJ Strata's posts HERE, HERE, HERE regarding Fitz's lies to the Courts and this little bombshell at Able Danger concerning an earlier Fitz case and al-Qaeda HERE .

The Jawa Report in its succinct summary gives you an idea of where my head is at this time:

Plamegate Wrap-up: Short 'n Sweet

So what have we learned from this escapade?

Fitzgerald's got nuttin'. Richard Armitage is a coward. Joe Wilson is a liar and a hack. Valerie Plame is a super-secret media whore. Rove is a non-factor. Novak was doing his job. Russert is silent. Mitchell is silent. Bush is vindicated. Cheney is off the non-hook. Keith Olbermann is a jackass. Chris Matthews is in catatonic depression. Mark Ash and Jason Leopold are on suicide watch. Larry Johnson is incredulous. Ray McGovern is speechless. Bill Keller is mute. The Democrats are in denial. David Corn is slinking away from his original zeal. Scooter Libby is paying for dishonesty over a crime that wasn’t committed. Judith Miller spent time in jail for nothing. The MSM are pretending they had nothing to do with it. The US taxpayer is furious. The left is hysterical. The right is chuckling. The average American doesn’t really care.

More Plame/Wilson ... argh!

I have seen others ask "where is Hugh Hewitt?" I lost him too for awhile after he went to Townhall. So if you missed that he did three separate interviews with constitutional law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, he has kindly posted the following links. Chemerinsky has signed on to the Wilson/Plame civil suit, although from the sound of things, he doesn't have a clue what the case is about. What a chump!

Transcript of the first conversation is here.  The second conversation is transcribed here, and the third is here.

And if you lost Hugh in your RSS feed reader after he made the switch, here is the current feed that I finally got to work: http://rss.townhall.com/blogs/hughhewitt in my Bloglines feed reader. Don't have a feed reader, just click ... and while you are at it, enter this one too:   http://squiggler.blogs.com/blog/rss.xml.

Related:

MacRanger has new news on the Libby case which, of course, is all about Plame/Wilson at: Plame Game - I said, they said, but I got the shaft!

 

Nothing funny about a death threat ...

Late last night I posted a link list to a day's worth of articles about Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Larry Johnson, Jason Leopold and others in their cabal. A good number of the links were discussing the ongoing Johnson/Leopold saga that Seixon has been involed in disclosing. This morning, Seixon has posted the following:

Browner Still

At approximately 7:00 AM Central European Time I received a phone call from a blocked number. The person on the phone told me I had written naughty things on my blog, and then laughed when I asked them who they were.

"You're a dead man."

There is nothing funny about those words. Some want to write off this crazy group as BDS sufferers and think that designation explains all. I agree that they all suffer from BDS, but BDS is not what is driving this story. Like I said yesterday, keep your eye on the ball. This is a rogue CIA cabal of ex and active CIA agents working all around the world. It is unraveling, in large measure because Joe Wilson has a big mouth and an even bigger problem with the truth. A few years ago, it was much easier for a rogue group to operate under the radar, but the advent of the blogosphere, with its Army of Davids, has made this much more difficult. The leaks to the NYTs and the WaPo were pounced on by the blogging world and even with limited amounts of public information, a picture has begun to emerge and there are many in and out of government who should be quaking in their boots about now.

Related:

The Saga Of The Digital Brownshirts "(I did a little bit of humor about it here). But I don't think George is laughing right now."

Another Lefty Melts Down "This has gone from amusing to creepy."

Protein Wisdom in his Brave New Worlds post speaks to the larger issue:

But as I noted on Hoist the Black Flag yesterday, there is more at work here than simple playground bickering.  To wit:  beyond a particular individual’s pathology, what the Frisch incident revealed—to me, at least—was the lengths some in press will go to to turn a clear case of boorish behavior into a story about the “cycle of violence” between political opponents; what the Greenwald (alleged) sockpuppetry episode reveals is that many of those being cited as “experts” on issues that will shape public opinion and could, in theory, manifestly impact public policy and law, are in fact puffed up creations of an organized message machine whose goal it is to shape the official public narrative—even if doing so requires behind the scenes machinations.  Because to adherents of such a worldview, anything is acceptable once you’ve decided that it is up to you to fight for the “greater good”—an impulse that I imagine grows even stronger once it joins forces with others who share that same tinpot Machiavellian’s sense of social pragmatism.

And now, with this new story, what we have is several reporters and a former CIA agent using base intimidation that has escalated into a potentially actionable—and quite serious—offense.

And then nails it with You know…

...for a supposedly peaceable, “reality-based” community, they sure do have a thing for online puppet shows and overt thuggery, don’t they?

Of course, in their defense, I suppose one can begin to get a bit cocky when one has had the intelligence bureaucracy and the press on one’s side for so very long.  Or, you know—so they think.

Patterico has been covering the sock puppet/blog war shenanigans and sees them as all connected too.

MacRanger asks: Is Larry Johnson harrassing Seixon? and gives some good advice.

I would suggest keeping a copy of the email and forwarding to the FBI. Interstate communication of a threat is a Felony and as such Johnson could be in a jam if in fact he sent the email. To wit:

"Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Again, finding out if it is Johnson isn't hard and it would seem to be his MO. So don't let it go by, report it.

Mac has been on the entire "big picture" case that goes way beyond the small minds of Larry Johnson, Jason Leopold or even Joe Wilson. See:  The Coming Storm - Rep. William Jefferson -  Jefferson, Wilson, Clinton and the tenacles of corruption and his whole Rockefeller did you "teller?" series.

And Confederate Yankee asks:

So tell me now Mr Greenwald: does Jason Leopold constitute "a known opinion maker," as a "regular contributor" to CNBC and National Public Radio? Is he "representative of the 'Left'" as a writer for Alternet, CounterPunch, Common Dreams, Raw Story, and Truthout?

What of Larry Johnson, who gave the weekly radio address on July 23, 2005 for the Democratic Party, and wrote a July, 2001 NY Times editorial claiming a declining terrorist threat, and has appeared on many of the major news channels? I think he qualifies as well.

Leftist Hate Campaign Against Blogger Gets Deadly Serious

Byron York stays on the Wilson/Plame story.

Can the Left Fall Any Lower?

You probably haven't heard of former CIA employee Larry Johnson, but he has a certain cachet on the left. He has given the Democratic Party's weekly radio address, is a big favorite among liberal bloggers, and has appeared as an "expert" on terrorism on PBS and other mainstream outlets. So you might assume he isn't a complete moron.

Think again. The Larry Johnson paper trail starts in July 2001--two months before September 11--when he wrote in the New York Times that the terrorist threat was "declining," and that Americans, despite being "bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism," have "little to fear" from such attacks. An interesting window into the mindset of the CIA, or at least a portion thereof, pre-September 11, but hardly a qualification to be considered an "expert" on the subject.

 

Liars, those they lie to, and lie about

Aaaah, come on, admit it, you love a mystery, a good cat fight, and taking sides in blogger wars. Lots of people have been busy in the last day or so, while I've been snowed under and under the weather. Have fun!

Clarice Feldman's piece over at American Thinker

...... it is quite probable that the bribery iGate’s owner has acknowledged is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the dubious business associations of Representative Jefferson.

Many other figures, some of them quite prominent, are likely to turn up as players in the temporarily suspended probe. Independent citizen-investigators, posting at such websites as Just One Minute, Macsmind, and Free Republic, have been poring over publicly-available documents and reports, in search of clues as to the identities of those as yet unnamed in the Jefferson investigation.

Few people outside these internet circles realize that one of those names may be Joseph C. Wilson IV.

The Jefferson-Joe Wilson Connection

Macsmind first mentioned this in May. I have been thinking about this possibility and reviewing the detailed and well-documented research published at Free Republic by a poster known as “Fedora,” who has examined public domain information and connected some very interesting dots. Joe Wilson, it turns out, left the State Department and became a business promoter with some rather intriguing connections before he went on his infamous mission to Niger.

Today's article at Slate from Christopher Hitchens

This means that both pillars of the biggest scandal-mongering effort yet mounted by the "anti-war" movement—the twin allegations of a false story exposed by Wilson and then of a state-run vendetta undertaken against him and the lady wife who dispatched him on the mission—are in irretrievable ruins. The truth is the exact polar opposite. The original Niger connection was both authentic and important, and Wilson's utter failure to grasp it or even examine it was not enough to make Karl Rove even turn over in bed. All the work of the supposed "outing" was inadvertently performed by Wilson's admirer Robert Novak. Of course, one defends the Bush administration at one's own peril. Thanks largely to Stephen Hadley, assistant to the president for national security affairs, our incompetent and divided government grew so nervous as to disown the words that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union address. But the facts are still the facts, and it is high time that they received one-millionth of the attention that the "Plamegate" farce has garnered.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1450846/posts

The Digital Brown Shirts

When it comes to finding examples of the mythical digital Brown Shirt, I think I have come close to identifying a small network of such unethical and intimidating creatures. While investigating the genesis of why my identity and personal details were divulged at Think Progress a few weeks ago, which included a phone call to the home of my family, I came upon quite an interesting set of facts that I now want to reveal. Unlike the goons Gore envisioned targeting journalists, the group of people I came upon is quite the opposite – they use threatening, intimidating, and unethical tactics to protect their own stories. If you couldn’t read between the lines already, this story centers around the most infamous journalist of recent times, Jason Leopold, and those who so foolishly choose to associate with him. This includes terrorism commentator Larry Johnson, the most visible and outspoken member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Short Summary of Leopold Story

The Shirts Get Browner

And More Crazy: Someone Posts Jason Leopold's Information

The Glenn Greenwald Sock Puppet Story, From Start To (Almost) Finish

Some Jackass Posted Seixon's Personal Info

The Truth Regarding Iraq’s Yellowcake Connection

George, We Hardly Knew Ye

With Hitch On Our Side

I'm With AllahPundit

Did The CIA Block NSA Leads To FISA?

Liberal Lies And Slander

More Embarrassing Than $90,000 In The Freezer?

Verrücktenfreude Part Zwei

And you thought the DU and Kossacks were nutcases

Leftist Reporter Forges Emails, Smears Blogger Who Dares to Question 'Truth'

The problem with all of this is that Larry Johnson is one of the national media's "go to" guys and he's up to his eyeballs in all that is nefarious. Cornered animals can be very dangerous when they strike out. The CIA cabal is unraveling, keep your eye on the ball.