You know, there comes a point in some verbal dead horse beatings when the observer just decides to walk away because his head hurts, what with all the speculation and convoluted hypothesizing.
I've stopped paying attention to the "news" on this matter, because it seems mostly pointless. When all is said and done, we can read about it years from now in post mortum analyses; that is, if turns out to be interesting enough. I don't think it will. In fact, I fear that many of us will wonder, "why was it again that this was getting so much attention?"
Posted by Terry Ott at April 11, 2006 09:17 PMI gotta admit my eyes glazed over on my first reading. After your explanation, I get it... but I think most of the country won't fine-tooth this stuff and will just await the final outcomes.
I'm not suggesting it's too complicated to understand. I'm just echoing what a very astute friend pointed out last weekend. Most of the country is just too busy working and has no time to delve into details.
But the majority know Plame's name now and well understand that what was done to her is wrong. When Fitzgerald's done, I think they'll understand "guilty, Guilty, GUILTY!"
Posted by Kevin Hayden at April 11, 2006 09:27 PMI have known that Bush Misled the people since way back when...Curveball Was Debunked as Well Before the War Started. The Forgeries were Known to be faked quite a While Back as Well....Yet Another Frozen Scandal thawed as Needed for Public Comsumption, then Refreeze.
What good comes of this mess? People have learned that Media Pundits are tools of the Politicians. Give them some 'Classified' Faux info and off they go. "The SKY IS FALLING!!"
Mushroom Clouds! Then Every Pundit Repeats that, and Waa Laa, Bush has Got what he wanted. The Public Opinion, Not Fact, but Opinion created by Misleading Pundits and Politicians.
WTFU
I'd say this is Fitz highlighting the point that the WH uranium propaganda was something like "extremely misleading."
It seems he's trying to keep public pressure on the WH, trying to get someone to cooperate? Saying he knows the real (secret) story?
Trying to get Libby to cooperate - probably for the next big step by the prosecution.
Posted by jerry at April 11, 2006 10:14 PMOuch, looks like I set off a fire that Fitzgerald had to put out, and all of you suckers got burned.
Oh, and eriposte, does it really matter what Libby leaked to Miller? She never wrote anything about it. For all we know, Libby was just ensuring his friend Miller that Wilson was telling a warped tale, which everyone would find a few days later.
Let's not also forget that it was only INR that thought the claim Iraq was seeking uranium was dubious. All the other what, 5, intelligence agencies assessed it was credible. But I'm guessing you guys wanted the Bush administration to cherry-pick the one agency that was against it, while leaving out the majority opinion.
Yep, we see who really likes cherry-picking.
Posted by Seixon at April 12, 2006 04:10 AMI have never believed that Libby restricted himself to showing Miller the Key Judgements. I think he selectively shared with Miller portions of the NIE that continue to this day to be classified.
Libby and the White House have consistently tried to conflate both the content and the act of the Libby leaks with the later declassification and public release (which we know occurred on the very same day, 18 July 2003) of portions of the NIE. I think that is why Libby has kept referring to the Key Judgements -- because they were later declassified and released to the public. Among other things, this makes it seem at worst that this was information that was going to be declassified anyway; better, it allows the WH to insinuate and suggest (without actually outright saying so) that the NIE had been declassified prior to (and for the purpose of) Libby's leaking it to select reporters.
Pay attention to the comments from Bush and the White House. As far as I know -- and I'd welcome correction from anyone who knows better -- nobody has ever explicitly claimed that Bush declassified the material that Libby leaked, prior to him leaking it. If one reads Bush's public statements carefully, one quickly notices that although it seems he is speaking about the Libby leaks (when he says "I declassified X", "public interest", etc.), he's almost certainly in fact talking about the 18 July declassification and public release of the NIE. Look also at Scott McClellan's various statements in this leak uproar -- he routinely fudges his references, seeming to be talking about the Libby leaks when in fact he's almost certainly talking about the later declassification. He will, for instance, routinely take a question that is explicitly about the Libby leaks and respond by talking about the later public declassification; the average listener will never notice the shift. This is a classic technique of deception from this Administration and it should instantly send alarm bells ringing. Note also, as I've pointed out earlier, McClellan's adamant refusal to talk about the specific dates ("timeline") of declassification.
In fact, if Libby only ever leaked the Key Judgements to Woodward and Miller, then we know, thanks to Scott McClellan on 18 July 2003, that it must have been classified information at the time, since the entirety of the Key Judgements were only declassified on 18 July. (And if he wasn't showing Miller the Key Judgements in full, then he simply wasn't leaking, of course, as eR points out here. But we know that can't be the case, by Libby's own admission among other things.) But, of course (and as eR has pointed out in various posts), it just doesn't make any sense that Libby would have been leaking the then-still-classified portions of the Key Judgements, which had nothing to do with uranium and which only consisted of the hitherto-concealed caveats and dissents. The alternative, then, which I consider infinitely more plausible, is that Libby leaked various choice portions from the body of the NIE to Miller in order to make his fraudulent case. That is, the content of what Libby leaked was not the same as the subsequently declassified/released portions of the NIE. Now it is not impossible that Bush (or someone else) had declassified whatever portions of the NIE Libby leaked prior to his leaking. It's just highly improbable. Among other things, if they'd already been declassified, why not include these portions, which after all would have been far more supportive of the Admin's case, along with the public release of the full Key Judgements on 18 July?
Again, I think (a) Libby was encouraged, and quite likely specifically directed, by Bush and Cheney to leak classified information; (b) the material that he leaked was not declassified by either superior at the time (and much of it may not have been declassified since); (c) the material that he leaked was not (or at least certainly not just) the Key Judgements; (d) Libby and Miller however have covered up the full extent of Libby's leaking; (e) now that the WH/OVP role in the leaks has been exposed, the WH has tried wherever possible to conflate and associate in the public mind the Libby leaks with the later public release of parts of the NIE (both in terms of their content, their classification status, and the timing of their declassification; (f) as with the earlier uproar over Cheney's role in authorising Libby's leaks, the WH defence has been to shift the debate to one over the right to declassify (which in Cheney's case is highly legally ambiguous, in Bush's quite indisputable), and to deflect attention from the simple question of whether in fact either Bush or Cheney had actually declassified the specific leaked material in question prior to the leaking; and so on.
An incisive reporter might demand answers to questions like the following: (1) Is the entire NIE currently declassified? (If so, when exactly was it declassified? And why has neither its classification status nor its contents been publicly released?) (2) If not, are there portions of the NIE that have been declassified that have not been publicly released? (If so, why not?)
Posted by KM at April 12, 2006 05:46 AMLet's not also forget that it was only INR that thought the claim Iraq was seeking uranium was dubious. All the other what, 5, intelligence agencies assessed it was credible. But I'm guessing you guys wanted the Bush administration to cherry-pick the one agency that was against it, while leaving out the majority opinion.
Yep, we see who really likes cherry-picking.
This is sophistry of the most pathetic sort, even by your double-talking standards. Though I'm loath to expend the effort, I think it's about time to start systematically shredding your shrill chicaneries.
Posted by KM at April 12, 2006 06:00 AMKM,
You hit the nail on the head. That is exactly the line of questioning that reporters need to follow here.
Here's another aspect to keep in mind. Did Bush really declassify the entire Key Judgements of the NIE before Libby spoke to Miller? The answer so far is no - the White House has been trying to deliberately mislead the press and the public so far, considering that Scott McClellan said that the Key Judgements were only declassified on July 18. But, as I mention in this post, if Bush had actually declassified the Key Judgements at the time of Libby's conversation with Miller, then clearly Libby was deliberately misleading Miller. If you read Miller's written report of her testimony, you'll notice that she says Libby was trying to bolster the Bush admin's claims - and he never cited the DOE and INR challenge to the tubes claim, or the CIA and INR challenge to the uranium claim. In contrast, he was making it appear as if the CIA supported what was in the NIE on uranium when the exact opposite was the case (WINPAC Director specifically objected to the NSC citing the CIA/NIE claim and supposedly - supposedly - "allowed" them only to refer to the British).
I suspect, as you have, that Bush not only did not declassify the Key Judgements of the NIE back in June, but only asked Cheney/Libby to leak portions of the body of the NIE without giving anyone information on any information that challenged those claims. I suspect that the decision to declassify the entirety of the Key Judgements was likely not made until after the Joseph Wilson op-ed and Tenet getting drawn in to try and provide cover for the White House.
Posted by eriposte at April 12, 2006 06:22 AMLibby's indictment has nothing to do with the leak. It is for lying to the FBI. Fitzgerald lied to a judge. Case dismissed
Posted by donsurber at April 12, 2006 07:10 AMCase dismissed
duh, okay
Posted by idiot troll at April 12, 2006 07:58 AMBottom line Fitzgerald is doing a good job so far as he is absorbing all the nonsense "scooters" lawyers are pulling seeing that they have millions in probably taxpayer funds although they say Republican donors- that guy who gave millions for Dubya's illegal election win..Hopefully Fitz can get many more Indictments including Rove who is of course Bush's brain!!! The more that go down and the longer the better for all of history...
Posted by Agent for Change at April 12, 2006 05:31 PMKM,
"This is sophistry of the most pathetic sort, even by your double-talking standards. Though I'm loath to expend the effort, I think it's about time to start systematically shredding your shrill chicaneries."
So basically everything I said was right, and you had to talk smack instead of admitting it. If it's time to start shredding me, why don't you go ahead and do it? Coward.
Posted by Seixon at April 12, 2006 06:43 PMI sympathize with those who feel like their heads may explode when trying to follow the ebb and flow of this case. The LeftCoaster, like Fitzgerald, is an honest person, unafraid to make more precise what needs to be understood.
I read Fitzgerald's latest filing (the one corrected) and it's a remarkable piece of intellectual work. Extremely lucid and comprehensive. Max Weber would have envied the complex sentence structure.
Here's a sentence of yours that's right on target IMHO: "If they were not declassifying or leaking the entirety of the NIE Key Judgements, then that would be proof that they were trying to hide all the information that showed the Bush administration in poor light." That can never be good now, can it. It's a set up for more charges, including the 'defrauding the federal government' approach Jaworski used so well in the Watergate prosecutions (which is the script for this scandal, btw).
It's Libby whose head is exploding, rightfully so. Libby tried to gut Fitzgeralds case and also throw a bone to the prosecutor by spilling the beans on the unbelievably disgusting behavior of the White House.
I have a surprise for "Scooter" and his three masters. This is a classic mob prosecution (and appropriately so). Fitz got the highest hood he could and he's turning him. He's a New Yorker after all. He's been hearing about this strategy for a long time. And it works.
Consider the target of a mob prosecutor--the boss of bosses. Unfortunately, he'll just have to settle for Bush and Cheney.
Excellenet article. Thank you.
Posted by MichaelCollins at April 13, 2006 12:33 AMIt seems apparent that Fitz is adept at rolling up guilty people, but hasn't a clue when it comes to innocent people with gumption.
*****************************************************
All the good TV shows have defense attempting to limit discovery and prosecution expanding it. Are you guys reading from the right script, here?
"All the good TV shows have defense attempting to limit discovery and prosecution expanding it. Are you guys reading from the right script, here?"
I'm glad you're living in the land of TV shows. We prefer reality here - which is quite a bit different.
Posted by eriposte at April 13, 2006 07:01 AMSo, in reality, is Fitz seeking to curtail discovery? Wussup wid dat?
=================================
Any reality-based criminal defense attorneys here?
==============================
RE my earlier comments above, I notice Libby's Team has signalled in their recent filing that they're still on the WH team (he wasn't asked to leak Plame's name).
Posted by jerry at April 13, 2006 09:57 AMYou're a shriek, Jerry.
=============