Armitage Confesses--and Prompts a Question for Rove

On Thursday, Richard Armitage went on CBS News and confessed: he was the original source for the Robert Novak column that outed Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer. He apologized to Valerie and Joseph Wilson. In an interview with The New York Times, Armitage said, "It was a terrible error on my part. 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."

Armitage is coming forward now because the book I co-wrote with Michael Isikoff of Newsweek, HUBRIS: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, disclosed Armitage's role and quoted named sources at the State Department confirming Armitage's role as the leaker. Armitage says that he kept his silence all these years because special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had asked him not to say anything. But after our book triggered a splash of news reports, Armitage asked Fitzgerald if he could go public, and he obtained Fitzgerald's consent.

Which brings me to a rather simple question: When will Karl Rove do the same?

He is no longer under investigation. But he did play a critical role in the leak case by confirming Armitage's information for Novak and then (before the Novak column appeared) leaking the same classified information to Matt Cooper of Time, as part of a campaign to discredit Joseph Wilson. (Hubris--which chronicles the behind-the-scenes battles in the CIA, the White House and Congress in the run-up to the war--has new details on Rove and Scooter Libby's efforts to undermine Wilson.) So will Rove now explain precisely what he did and why he did it, as Armitage has? Is he willing to admit he mishandled state secrets? Is he also sorry? Will he apologize to anyone?

Once upon a time, President Bush said he wanted the truth about the leak to come out. Libby, who is facing indictment for having allegedly lied to FBI agents and a grand jury about his involvement in the leak episode, may feel he is in no position to emulate Armitage. But Rove is not so encumbered.

What reason might Rove have for not following Armitage's lead?

Comments (62)

1. corn's a pro. his intensity on this scandal is admirable, and HE is the one who deserves a damn medal.....

   Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2006 @ 12:05am

2. "So will Rove now explain precisely what he did and why he did it, as Armitage has?"

   I'm not sure why Armitage did it. Maybe being out of touch makes me out of my senses, but this egghead apologized to the president? What am I missing? Are we to suppose that Armitage, in a fit of blabbermouthery, suddenly went all gossipy about a mullet-bearing ex-ambassador and his ultra-hot CIA wife, without the consent of anyone more significant in the administration. I just don't believe a sword exists that is large enough for a man of Armitage's girth to fall upon.

   By the way, David, thanks for plugging your book.

   God, I hate politics. I have enjoyed reading The Nation in the solitude of my home without electronic equipment. Why oh why do I punish myself with the nuttiness of the online crowd? These and many other questions are now the crux of my re-evaluation of every portion of my (mid)life self-questionaire. Here's hoping this post is just getting one last urge out of my system.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/08/2006 @ 12:08am

3. Mr. David Corn does deserve a medal of truth for his substantial contribution to the truthiness of the issue!

   I, for one cannot wait to read what else is in the book. I wager there is more on many issues.

   capt

   Posted by CaptainKirk at 09/08/2006 @ 12:13am

4. "Will he apologize to anyone?"

   Will you?

   Posted by john maasch at 09/08/2006 @ 12:42am

5. Wait. I heard there was a book titled HUBRIS: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War. Does anybody know the author of this book?

   Posted by WingaDing at 09/08/2006 @ 03:01am

6. (Speaking of apologies...does Mr Corn have any response to this "vicious right-wing Bush lover"?)

   By David S. Broder Thursday, September 7, 2006; A27

   Conspiracy theories flourish in politics, and most of them have no more basis than spring training hopes for the Chicago Cubs.

   Whenever things turn dicey for Republicans, they complain about the "liberal media" sabotaging them. And when Democrats get in a jam, they take up Hillary Clinton's warnings about a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

   For much of the past five years, dark suspicions have been voiced about the Bush White House undermining its critics, and Karl Rove has been fingered as the chief culprit in this supposed plot to suppress the opposition.

   Now at least one count in that indictment has been substantially weakened -- the charge that Rove masterminded a conspiracy to discredit Iraq intelligence critic Joseph Wilson by "outing" his CIA-operative wife, Valerie Plame.

   I have written almost nothing about the Wilson-Plame case, because it seemed overblown to me from the start. Wilson's claim in a New York Times op-ed about his memo on the supposed Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger; the Robert D. Novak column naming Plame as the person who had recommended Wilson to check up on the reported sale; the call for a special prosecutor and the lengthy interrogation that led to the jailing of Judith Miller of the New York Times and the deposition of several other reporters; and, finally, the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff -- all of this struck me as being a tempest in a teapot.

   No one behaved well in the whole mess -- not Wilson, not Libby, not special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and not the reporters involved.

   The only time I commented on the case was to caution reporters who offered bold First Amendment defenses for keeping their sources' names secret that they had better examine the motivations of the people leaking the information to be sure they deserve protection.

   But caution has been notably lacking in some of the press treatment of this subject -- especially when it comes to Karl Rove. And it behooves us in the media to examine that behavior, not just sweep it under the rug.

   Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and now a columnist for several publications, has just published a book titled, "How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime." It is a collection of his columns for Salon, including one originally published on July 14, 2005, titled "Rove's War."

   It was occasioned by the disclosure of a memo from Time magazine's Matt Cooper, saying that Rove had confirmed to him the identity of Valerie Plame. To Blumenthal, that was proof that this "was political payback against Wilson by a White House that wanted to shift the public focus from the Iraq War to Wilson's motives."

   Then Blumenthal went off on a rant: "While the White House stonewalls, Rove has license to run his own damage control operation. His surrogates argue that if Rove did anything, it wasn't a crime. . . . Rove is fighting his war as though it will be settled in a court of Washington pundits. Brandishing his formidable political weapons, he seeks to demonstrate his prowess once again. His corps of agents raises a din in which their voices drown out individual dissidents. His frantic massing of forces dominates the capital by winning the communications battle. Indeed, Rove may succeed momentarily in quelling the storm. But the stillness may be illusory. Before the prosecutor, Rove's arsenal is useless."

   In fact, the prosecutor concluded that there was no crime; hence, no indictment. And we now know that the original "leak," in casual conversations with reporters Novak and Bob Woodward, came not from the conspiracy theorists' target in the White House but from the deputy secretary of state at the time, Richard Armitage, an esteemed member of the Washington establishment and no pal of Rove or President Bush.

   Blumenthal's example is far from unique. Newsweek, in a July 25, 2005, cover story on Rove, after dutifully noting that Rove's lawyer said the prosecutor had told him that Rove was not a target of the investigation, added: "But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: That he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil."

   And in the American Prospect's cover story for August 2005, Joe Conason wrote that Rove "is a powerful bully. Fear of retribution has stifled those who might have revealed his secrets. He has enjoyed the impunity of a malefactor who could always claim, however implausibly, deniability -- until now."

   These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.

   Posted by Mask at 09/08/2006 @ 07:00am

7. BTW, ya'll....had to check....and sure enough, RESE posting that Armitage is scum.

   Interesting that on a David Corn thread on what a great guy Armitage is....RESE (who ALWAYS shows up on Mr Corn's threads to post this "9/11 Truth" Cut&Pastes)...is refuting Mr Corn's premise.

   Posted by Mask at 09/08/2006 @ 07:11am

8. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 09/08/2006 @ 12:08am |

   take a few days off, and a seperate vacation. hey! paris hilton got arrested for dui! lindsy lohan got her million dollar purse stolen! OMG!!! whats this crazy world comeing to!!!!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/08/2006 @ 07:13am

9. FYI:

   Both Bush 41 AND Israel had a vested interest in compromising Clinton. Remember Hillary's VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY comment? It referred to Bush 41 and Israel - the Conspirators behind the California Energy Crisis that cleared the path for the CHENEY ADMINISTRATION, 9/11, and the INVASION OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

   As long as we're setting the record straight, Lewinsky was a "Swallow" (spy) for Mossad.

   Israel set-up both Clinton and Gary Condit (with Chandra Levy) and others in order to compromise them and effectively blackmail them.

   Why is Lieberman's name attached to these to "Swallows" - the term used to describe women in the employ of Israel whose job is to compromise US Officials) for Israel's Mossad?

   Note that his article dated less than TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO 9/11.

   Police to return to parks in Levy case Experts: Condit damaged own reputation

   July 22, 2001 Posted: 6:07 PM EDT (2207 GMT)

   Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, said it wouldn't be productive to focus on Condit's conduct. In 1998, Lieberman was the first prominent Democrat to criticize Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

   Lieberman said the two matters are different and he declined to say whether Condit should resign, as two Republican lawmakers have said.

   http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/21/missing.intern/index.html

   Falwell Confirms Lewinsky Affair Linked to Israeli Lobby Intrigue

   By Michael Collins Piper

   Television evangelist Jerry Falwell couldn't resist bragging and finally admitting the truth: he and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu did conspire--at a critical time--to trip up President Bill Clinton and specifically use the pressure of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to force Clinton to abandon pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupied West Bank.

   http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_MichaelCollinsPiper3.htm

   FYI:

   It appears that Chandra Levy had uncovered the planning within the government for 9/11 in the spring of 2001 - as she had access to Classified material through her boss, Gary Condit, who was on the Intelligence Committee.

   Is it just supposed to be a MASSIVE COINCIDENCE that Condit's alibi as to the disappearance of Levy is that he was with Dick Cheney at the very moment she logged off her computer for the last time? You might say that Condit is Cheney's alibi too.

   Did Cheney order the HIT on Levy in order to keep HIS 9/11 plan from being compromised?

   It sure looks that way.

   The fact that Mossad agents were caught red handed on 9/11 implies that Cheney outsourced the oversight of the ARAB PATSIES to Mossad. It may be that these Mossad Explosives Experts were additionally responsible for planting the Thermite in the WTC as well.

   Here is ABC 20/20 on this subject in the aftermath of 9/11:

   http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israel is_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm

   Why isn't ABC doing a Documentary about THESE FACTS?

   Now can you help me out with a plausible explanation for this:

   http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

   And this official DEA report:

   http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/deareportisraelispying.html

   The TRUTH about 9/11 is that CHENEY RAN THE ENTIRE OPERATION in concert with ISRAEL.

   If ABC cared about the TRUTH, the title of their documentary would be:

   "CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER" .

   Posted by plunger at 09/08/2006 @ 09:07am

10. These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.

    Posted by MASK 09/08/2006 @ 07:00am

    Rove brought up plame first in a conversation with matt cooper that wasn't about welfare reform and then lied saying the conversation was about welfare reform and that cooper had brought up plame first

    There's a fact.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/08/2006 @ 09:13am

11. scooter is under indictment for lying to fitzgerald about his role in the leak.

    There's a fact

    Posted by Will C. at 09/08/2006 @ 09:14am

12. cheney lied about WMD

    There's a fact

    Posted by Will C. at 09/08/2006 @ 09:16am

13. Posted by WILL C. 09/08/2006 @ 09:13am

    Sorry, WILL....except for asking what Mr Corn thought of the article...

    ALL of that was written by David Broder of the Washington Post.

    Take it up with him....I'm sure you'll "win" the debate! (hehe)

    Posted by Mask at 09/08/2006 @ 09:17am

14. And yet, for all the "tempest in a teapot" and crowing over some "confession" it still remains a truth, years after the fact, that the commander in chief has not, in fact, fired anybody involved in leaking classified information, as he loudly and boastfully proclaimed when the feces hit the quickly spinning air movement device. Oh, sure, he later nuanced his statements by qualifying that he would fire anybody convicted of a crime (does that make him a waffler or flip-flopper?), but that doesn't change the fact that, yet again, this administration has manipulated the facts and history to make themselves look good (or at least absolve themselves of blame). At that, at least, they are very proficient. Oh, and all the "patriots" crowing about this mess, glad you can look beyond partisanship to condemn the leaking of...never mind. I forgot, Bushco leads the league in leaking whatever makes their case appear better, with no regard for the consequences.

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/08/2006 @ 09:19am

15. Take it up with him....I'm sure you'll "win" the debate! (hehe)

    Posted by MASK 09/08/2006 @ 09:17am

    I will

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 09/08/2006 @ 09:19am

16. I will :)

    Posted by WILL C. 09/08/2006 @ 09:19am

    Oh, I'm sure....

    after all, what does a 40 year veteran of Washington politics, the widely-acknowledged "Dean of Washington reporters", a Pulitzer Prize winner, and a professor at the University of Maryland have....

    against "WILL"! ...LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 09/08/2006 @ 09:28am

17. Will was not there,never met any participants, was part of no conversations regarding Rove, Plame, or anybody,investigated nothing, is an expert at nothing other than kook theorys on conspiracys that never existed and is a mind numb robot(ala Rush Limbaugh type only on the kook section)..with a blog trail of posts for actual proof.

    Theres a fact.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/08/2006 @ 09:36am

18. But then, facts get in the way of the kook section constantly.

    Posted by john maasch at 09/08/2006 @ 09:36am

19. But it IS a fact that Rove leaked the info to Matt Cooper.

    Posted by brunowe at 09/08/2006 @ 10:06am

20. How many years after the fact, and you're still serving dead horse here??

    Posted by Sliver at 09/08/2006 @ 10:07am

21. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/08/2006 @ 09:36am

    Oh, no, JOHN...you're dead wrong.

    In a debate between "WILL" and David Broder...Broder may lay out the hyperbole of "Plame-gate", the collapse of the Fitzgerald prosecution, and Armitage as instigator of the "outing" Valerie...

    but WILL would call Broder a "hamster"....and win decisively!

    Posted by Mask at 09/08/2006 @ 10:08am

22. But it IS a fact that Rove leaked the info to Matt Cooper.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 09/08/2006 @ 10:06am

    Better tell Fitz....maybe Will can..he a pro..

    Posted by john maasch at 09/08/2006 @ 10:24am

23. You neo-cons are funny in your blind allegiance to Chimpy.

    Yes, he promised to fire ANYBODY that leaked. He did not do this.

    Armitage, a bush appointee, in a weak minded moment let slip the name of a woman that was trying to save you from your greatest fear, Saddam with a nuke. Rove confirmed this info to a NYT reporter(you know the NYT, an untrustworthy liberral media outlet). Libby evidently followed up with this confirmation. Then Libby did the same. Both "men" could have refused to confirm anything.

    The only defense you have is that Armitage was not full bore behind chimpy, therefore he is a traitor and a liberal. But he was Asst. Sec of State for George W. Bush. So somebody in bushes council leaked the name of a CIA agent. Not Sandy Berger of Albright. But you act like he was an outsider in this mess.

    Armitage feels terrible. Rove danced five times around Fitz. Libby lied. they feel no such anguish about ruining a search for WMD's and a womans career. You guys actually seem happy that a CIA investigation into wmd proliferation was destroyed! Then you lambast anybody that believes in the rule of law.

    Sick. Twisted logic.

    Apparently chimpy mcflightsuit has remembered who Usama is just in time for the mid-terms. Hmm. Dirty politics. Nah, couldn't be. He just wants us to be safe. Except in our papers and persons.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2006 @ 10:58am

24. So how does Bob Woodward fit into all of this?

    Posted by The Fly-man at 09/08/2006 @ 11:04am

25. How bad do you think Turd Blossoms' gas was in the Grand Jury room?

    Pew! I bet those poor jurors had to wear chemical suits left over from ODS.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2006 @ 11:13am

26. Posted by CRABWALK 09/08/2006 @ 10:58am

    "Armitage, a bush appointee, in a weak minded moment let slip"?!?!?

    And the "Bush lovers" are twisting and spinning in an effort at defense?!?!?

    So apart from reading Karl Rove's mind and reading Richard Armitage's mind....what was the difference between their two "slips"?

    Posted by Mask at 09/08/2006 @ 12:07pm

27. BTW, CRAB.....you and WILL need to get ONE story down.

    HE says Armitage is just as guilty as Rove and Libby!

    Posted by Mask at 09/08/2006 @ 12:08pm

28. So how do you fire Armitage who no longer works for the Administration?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/08/2006 @ 11:40am

    I think armitage continued to work for Chimpy for a while after Chimpy made his statement. I could have my dates wrong, though.

    Armitage was punished, by himself. He fell on hi sword and went to work in the private sector, probably doing better than Maasch! I do hold him responsible for outing Plame. But he did admit his mistake, unlike the paragons of virtue Libby and Rove.

    think about this for a moment, what does it take to indict the Vp's chief of staff? Rumor? innuendo? Methinks it takes some good evidence.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2006 @ 1:32pm

29. Whats this?

    Polling Company Owner Pleads Guilty to Fraud, Clients Included Bush and Lieberman Campaigns The Associated Press

    Thursday 07 September 2006

    Bridgeport, Connecticut - The owner of DataUSA Inc., a company that conducted political polls for the campaigns of President George W. Bush, US Sen. Joe Lieberman and other candidates, pleaded guilty to fraud for making up survey and poll results.

    Tracy Costin pleaded guilty Wednesday to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Costin, 46, faces a maximum of five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 when she is sentenced Nov. 30.

    As part of her plea agreement, Costin agreed to repay $82,732 to the unidentified clients for 11 jobs between June 2002 and May 2004. DataUSA is now known as Viewpoint USA.

    According to a federal indictment, Costin told employees to alter poll data, and managers at the company told employees to "talk to cats and dogs" when instructing them to fabricate the surveys.

    An FBI affidavit from 2004 quotes a supervisor of the company estimating that 50 percent of the data sent to Bush's campaign was falsified. FBI Special Agent Jeff Rovelli, who wrote the affidavit, said Thursday that investigators were not able to verify the claim related to Bush because that data was not located and analyzed.

    Assistant US Attorney Edward Chang said on several occasions when the company was running up against a deadline to complete a job, results were falsified. Sometimes, the respondent's gender or political affiliation were changed to meet a quota, other times all survey answers were fabricated.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2006 @ 1:34pm

30. Posted by CRABWALK 09/08/2006 @ 1:34pm

    It'd be a good attack blurb, CRAB.....

    except they also worked for Democrats!

    Posted by Mask at 09/08/2006 @ 2:19pm

31. Bridgeport, Connecticut - The owner of DataUSA Inc., a company that conducted political polls for the campaigns of President George W. Bush, US Sen. Joe Lieberman and other candidates, pleaded guilty to fraud for making up survey and poll results.

    crabwalk...

    A company that conducted polls for politicians in both parties, didn't do the job they were supposed to and thus made up their numbers. So the victims here are the politicians that paid for the surveys, as they did not get what they paid for.

    Or are you trying to suggest something else?

    Posted by John B at 09/08/2006 @ 2:19pm

32. Oh, I'm sure....

    after all, what does a 40 year veteran of Washington politics, the widely-acknowledged "Dean of Washington reporters", a Pulitzer Prize winner, and a professor at the University of Maryland have....

    against "WILL"! ...LOL!

    Posted by MASK 09/08/2006 @ 09:28am

    You're right. He'd chicken out.

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 09/08/2006 @ 8:01pm

33. Just trying to point out our system is way flawed, down to fake poll numbers. An equal opportunity company. I made no endictment of any particular party, did I?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/08/2006 @ 11:03pm

34. Posted by CRABWALK 09/08/2006 @ 11:03pm

    Well, that's fine, CRAB....just remember, if you believe that...

    not to quote any polls that are good for Democrats or the Left anymore.

    Posted by Mask at 09/09/2006 @ 10:37am

35. Posted by WILL C. 09/08/2006 @ 8:01pm

    WILL, sorry but your first fight isn't with David Broder....it's with CRABWALK (Posted by CRABWALK 09/08/2006 @ 10:58am).

    Posted by Mask at 09/09/2006 @ 10:38am

36. Posted by MASK 09/09/2006 @ 10:37am

    Actually, MASK... I kind of posted this for YOU!. You seem to deight in the latest poll results, particularly ones from CT. I don't know that I have ever brought up polls heree, except for chimpies ++- 35% approval from the cult side of the repubes.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/09/2006 @ 10:59am

37. Let's go to tape...

    "Given that there is evidence that ... White House officials ... discussed Wilson's wife's employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003, it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson," Fitzgerald wrote in an official court filing.

    The April 5 court filing says I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley were two of the key figures who were involved in conversations and meetings at Cheney's office in which White House officials discussed ways of striking back against Wilson's criticism of the administration's war effort. Karl Rove was also involved in the discussions.

    "As a result of defendant's request, on October 4, 2003, White House Press Secretary McClellan stated that he had spoken to Mr. Libby (as well as Mr. Rove and Elliot Abrams) and 'those individuals assured me that they were not involved in this,'" Fitzgerald said in the April 5 court filing.

    All qoutes taken from Jason Leopolds article of last night. Jason has had to dance some lately, but I believe he is more on track than the "liberal MSM" that really seems to have a bone to pick with Fitz for dragging reporters into court and sticking them in jail. These statments are the official record, not McClellan or Snow dancing on the head of a pin.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/09/2006 @ 11:10am

38. Has anybody been following "Boondocks " this week? I think Aaron is documenting Slivers childhood experience with African Americans.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/09/2006 @ 11:12am

39. Those of you ( right wing sycofants) who take solace in the Armitage admission should cling to that like a little teddy bear cause that is the only good news you are likely to get. Bush is in a free fall and all his international policies are a disaster! I can hardly wait until history asks the question; what the hell was he doing in Iraq when Korea and Iran were developing nuclear weapons! I just hope we don't wait until Alaska is a big hole in the ground.

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 09/09/2006 @ 11:13am

40. Readi it and weep is RIGHT!! Pay attention all, this in from Larry Johnson, giving his take on the Senate report that disproves just about EVERYTHING your boyz said about Saddam and Al-qaida. A war based on LIES! But you are all so proud, everybody else is full of it, lacks credibility and undermines our country. You people have zero shame! So Marybretbrad, Luvvy, Rio, Cpt Whats your story now? Move to the tenth reason to invade a soveriegn country in violation of our laws? And that reason is "WE supported the politicians that supported Saddam for years, but he was really a bad, bad man and someone elses kids really should go take him out. It will be a cakewalk". Now, where the fuck is Phase 2?

    Senate Intel Committee Bloodies Bush's Nose By Larry C. Johnson

    Friday 08 September 2006

    WOW! WOW! and Wow! Message to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney - read it and weep baby. Cheney's newly appointed biographer, Stephen Hayes, is blown out of the water. Bottomline, Saddam rebuffed cooperation with Bin Laden, tried to capture Zarqawi, and did NOT repeat NOT train foreign terrorists at Salman Pak. The Senate Intelligence committee today released Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments and The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress as part of its long awaited and long promised Phase II report about the accuracy of the intelligence and it is ugly for the Bushies.

    I will do more detailed analysis in the coming days. Here's the down and dirty on the questions about Iraq's links to terrorism:

    1. Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Aq'ida to provide material or operational support.

    2. Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa'ida and Saddam Hussein's regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments. Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative.

    3. Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provided two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000.... No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war.

    4. Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq.

    5. Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.

    6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.

    7. Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike...

    8. No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/09/2006 @ 11:21am

41. There used to be this toothpaste called Ultra-Brite. The commercials for it claimed, in so many words, that it would "give your mouth sex appeal." I am not making this up. We are talking about the swinging 60's here.

    Well, fast forward to the new millenium and we find that good old fashioned lie-to-'em advertising has not gone out of style. Except now we are selling bankrupting defense budgets instead of toothpaste. The toothpase had a lot in common with industrial borax. The budgets are no better.

    For a while, lots of people used Ultra-Brite. And for a while, lots of people thought we were doing the right thing in Iraq. The stakes are much higher in the second case, of course. But still, the product has been sold, and we can't afford to toss it out and go back to Clinton, or Colgate or some reasonable brand of toothpaste. We'll just scrub away until our God-given tooth enamel is gone.

    But in spite of that, lies are still lies, and liars are punished when they are found out.

    In case you're wondering what I'm talking about, I don't give a flying fuck about this Armitage problem. I want the heads of the filthy bastards who lied to us. And we know who they are. If we have to stoop to recycling gutted conspiracies to do it, I for one am willing to keep beating the dead horse.

    There. It felt good to say that. Gosh, I love having a sexy mouth.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 09/09/2006 @ 8:47pm

42. Posted by MYPARADIGM 09/09/2006 @ 8:47pm

    In case you're wondering what I'm talking about, I don't give a flying fuck about this Armitage problem.

    Ah, what a breath of fresh air! Who said you folks on the left weren't honest!

    I want the heads of the filthy bastards who lied to us.

    Let me guess - you mean Clinton? Naw, don't think so...who would it be?

    And we know who they are. If we have to stoop to recycling gutted conspiracies to do it, I for one am willing to keep beating the dead horse.

    You've come to the right place, my friend! You know the bastards are all guilty, you just have to find out what they are guilty of, exactly. Toil on!

    Posted by pontificus at 09/09/2006 @ 9:29pm

43. HMAN,

    Are you still expecting the 'imminent' indictment of Karl Rove?

    HMAN?...HMAN?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/09/2006 @ 9:42pm

44. WILL, sorry but your first fight isn't with David Broder....it's with CRABWALK (Posted by CRABWALK 09/08/2006 @ 10:58am).

    Posted by MASK 09/09/2006 @ 10:38am

    perhaps you haven't noticed this but... I'm a lover

    Posted by Will C. at 09/09/2006 @ 10:38pm

45. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/10/2006 @ 02:47am

    (Oh yeah, everyone on the left in the 90's)

    That's not fair, RB. You have to include everyone on the left in the 00's, too, because to them it never happened! Madeline Albright, kissing Kim Jong Il on the cheek? Never happened! Dancing with the dictator under the stars? (oohh Comrade Dictator you're so - stroonnng and reasonable! And look! Free health care for everybody! Ooooohhhh!).

    Posted by pontificus at 09/10/2006 @ 03:32am

46. I would also like to point out for everyone here, in case anyone missed it after reading David's column, that even though the whole Plamegate kerfuffle is now the deadest of horses that you could ever hope to beat, that David Corn's book is still incredibly relevant! So buy it already!

    Posted by pontificus at 09/10/2006 @ 03:41am

47. And don't come whining back here asking for any stinking refunds, either!

    Posted by pontificus at 09/10/2006 @ 03:44am

48. uh armitage worked at state until 2005. chimpy made his statement in what, 2003? nice factual research by loves treason.

    Posted by pretzel at 09/10/2006 @ 07:26am

49. now we know what the so called conservatives think about treason--it's a kerfuffle. no wonder they justify it so easily, since they take it so lightly.

    Posted by pretzel at 09/10/2006 @ 07:27am

50. I'm sorry, but could we get ONE VERSION of Richard Armitage here?

    Is it...

    1. CRABWALK, Mr Corn & Mr Isikoff, who say Armitage made a slight "slip of the tongue" and is totally innocent of any of the "smear" of Joe and Valerie Wilson?

    or 2. WILL, etc. who say Armitage was "in on it too" and should be sued by the Wilsons same as Rove, Cheney, and Libby?

    Posted by Mask at 09/10/2006 @ 09:48am

51. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/10/2006 @ 03:32am

    It's amazing what a kiss can get you... realtime video camera's in north korean nuclear labs.

    now lets compare that to what a slap gets you... north korean nuclear weapons both developed and pointed at your army.

    Death to the slap happy!

    Posted by Will C. at 09/10/2006 @ 11:15am

52. or 2. WILL, etc. who say Armitage was "in on it too" and should be sued by the Wilsons same as Rove, Cheney, and Libby?

    Posted by MASK 09/10/2006 @ 09:48am

    HA Ha ha Ha

    You truly are an idiot mask. Mindless babbler's like yourself and armitage are never in on it.

    You're just there to babble... mindlessly

    Posted by Will C. at 09/10/2006 @ 11:18am

53. Posted by WILL C. 09/10/2006 @ 11:15am

    It's amazing what a kiss can get you... realtime video camera's in north korean nuclear labs.

    Ooohhh yeah that turned out to be worth a lot wasn't it? There's one born like you every minute, Will, it's just too bad when they elect each other to responsible positions in government.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/10/2006 @ 11:24am

54. Posted by PRETZEL 09/10/2006 @ 07:27am

    now we know what the so called conservatives think about treason--it's a kerfuffle. no wonder they justify it so easily, since they take it so lightly.

    The problems with the moonbats in the fever swamps of the blogosphere really start when they demand that real people to be charged with crimes that exist only in their own imaginations.

    Please, until you start to recognize your own delusions, Pretzel, it would be better for your type to stay indoors.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/10/2006 @ 11:28am

55. Ooohhh yeah that turned out to be worth a lot wasn't it? There's one born like you every minute, Will, it's just too bad when they elect each other to responsible positions in government.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/10/2006 @ 11:24am

    it sure did... and i hope so. That kiss and the policies of the administration who hired the kisser, stopped north korean nuclear weapons development.

    I'd ask if it bothered you that kim jong il was more honest then you or chimpy, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/10/2006 @ 11:39am

56. Please, until you start to recognize your own delusions, Pretzel, it would be better for your type to stay indoors.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/10/2006 @ 11:28am

    bats don't live on the moon. Until you start to recognise your own delusions, it would be better for your type to get out and purchase a telescope.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/10/2006 @ 11:43am

57. "stopped north korean nuclear weapons development. "

    Really? Only leftys believe this...they hoodwinked Madeline not so Bright and made a joke out her State Dept....Sandy Burgalar included..

    Posted by john maasch at 09/10/2006 @ 2:03pm

58. Really? Only leftys believe this...they hoodwinked Madeline not so Bright and made a joke out her State Dept....Sandy Burgalar included..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/10/2006 @ 2:03pm

    yes maasch…really. The Clinton administration stopped North Korean nuclear weapons development

    Posted by Will C. at 09/10/2006 @ 4:40pm

59. The fact remains that Bill Clinton's legacy is an unstable world filled with hungry dictators and nuclear weapons. The result of the Clinton appeasement policy toward China is a new arms race.

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/10/2006 @ 4:56pm

    rio

    Unless you have any evidence that the North Koreans were continuing to develop nuclear weapons after the cameras were installed and the inspectors allowed access... then the Clinton administration stopped North Korean nuclear weapons development.

    The fact the chimpy flubbed the policy and North Korea then went on to develop nuclear weapons is not president Clinton's fault.

    It's Chimpy's

    Posted by Will C. at 09/10/2006 @ 5:10pm

60. Living in the past and excoriating Clinton for failures the Bush administration continues to this moment. What a shocker.

    In your opinion, Rio, what Bush administration policies towards North Korea do you agree with today?

    Posted by New Dawn at 09/10/2006 @ 5:20pm

61. FASCINATING commentary from Professor Cole. -------------------------------------------

    Think Again: 9/11

    By Juan Cole September/October 2006

    The attacks on the United States were neither a clash of civilizations nor an unqualified success for al Qaeda. They were, however, a clash of policy that continues to this day. As al Qaeda struggles to strike again, the United States wrestles with a confused war on terror that won't end until Americans are forced to choose between Medicare and missiles.

    "September 11 Changed Everything"

    No. The massive forces of international trade and globalization were largely unaffected by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. China's emergence as a new economic giant in East Asia continues, with all its economic, diplomatic, and military implications. Decades-old flash points remain. China and Taiwan still stare at each other suspiciously across the strait. The conflict between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan over Kashmir shows no signs of resolving itself. North Korea's cycle of provocation and retreat with the United States and Japan hasn't changed fundamentally since the Clinton administration.

    Even within the Middle East, there is more continuity than change. Al Qaeda's strike didn't answer the questions of Iranian influence in Syria and Lebanon and of the long-term impact of Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution on the region. The world's reliance on oil from the Persian Gulf is as strong as ever. The sclerotic but stubborn Saudi and Egyptian regimes linger on. Israel is still battling militants in southern Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. For all their visibility and drama, the 9/11 attacks left untouched many of the underlying forces and persistent tensions that shape international politics.

    "9/11 Was a Victory for Al Qaeda"

    Probably. Post-9/11 terrorism--from Bali to Madrid to London--has become the province of small, local groups who are emulating al Qaeda but not in direct contact with it. These cells can learn a few tricks on the Internet, and they can certainly inflict pain, but they cannot hope to accomplish much. At most, they can carry bombs onto trains.

    The economic and social disruption of these operations is limited, which is why al Qaeda itself would not bother with them. The core al Qaeda leadership prefers terrorism that has a powerful psychological and political impact. Attaining that level of impact has now become very difficult. The 9/11 hijackers exploited conceptual gaps in U.S. security procedures: American experts did not expect hijackers to be capable of piloting jetliners, and they did not expect them to commit suicide. It would be very difficult to accomplish such an advanced operation again. The organization's command and control has been severely disrupted, and security agencies around the world are watchful.

    But al Qaeda is not out of the game entirely. In February 2006, its operatives almost succeeded in bombing the Abqaiq oil refining facility in Saudi Arabia, which would have caused an enormous short-term spike in the price of petroleum and widespread fuel shortages. But the fact that a once porous Saudi security apparatus foiled the attack highlights al Qaeda's limited capabilities.

    "9/11 Was a Clash of Civilizations"

    False. The notion that Muslims hate the West for its way of life is simply wrong, and 9/11 hasn't changed that. The exhaustive World Values Survey found that more than 90 percent of respondents in much of the Muslim world endorsed democracy as the best form of government. Polling by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has found that about half of respondents in countries such as Turkey and Morocco believe that if a Muslim immigrated to the United States, his or her life would be better. The one area where Muslim publics admit to a value difference with the United States and Europe is standards of sexual conduct and, in particular, acceptance of homosexuality. In other words, Muslims reject what might be called Hollywood morality, just as do American conservatives and evangelicals. Those differences alone do not drive people to violence.

    If it is not a clash of civilizations, what is it? It is a clash over policy. Bin Laden has expressed outrage at the "occupation of the three holy cities"--Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem--by the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia (now ended) and the Israeli possession of Jerusalem. Before the Iraq war, polling consistently showed that Muslims were most concerned about the United States' wholehearted support of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians. The bloody U.S. occupation of Iraq has now created another point of tension: The Muslim world does not believe that Iraq will be better off because of the U.S. intervention. Autonomy and national independence appear to be part of what Muslims mean by "democracy," and they consider Western interventions in Muslim affairs a betrayal of democratic ideals. September 11 and the American response to it have deepened the rift over policy, but they haven't created a clash of civilizations.

    "The War on Terror Has no End"

    That's the plan. The Bush administration has defined the struggle vaguely precisely so that it can't end; George W. Bush clearly enjoys the prerogatives of being a war president. So, the administration has expanded the goals and targets of this war from one group or geographical area to another. There is an ongoing counterterrorism effort against al Qaeda and, more broadly, the Salafist jihadi strain of Sunni radicalism. Then there is the struggle to empower the Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and to crush permanently the Pashtun-centered Taliban. In Iraq, the goal is to ensure the primacy of the Kurds and the Shiites over the Sunni Arabs. And then there is the effort to contain or overthrow the secular Baathist regime in Syria and the Shiite ayatollahs in Iran. Even North Korea sometimes gets included in this sprawling campaign. It is less a coherent war than a hawk's wish list.

    If the "war on terror" is indeed all these things, then it could drag on for decades. More likely, the American public will not tolerate such a costly grab bag of initiatives for much longer. If there is no major attack in the United States, pressure will build on Washington to stop fiddling with the politics of Kandahar and Ramadi, much less those of Damascus and Tehran. At some point, the American public will have to choose between paying for Bush's ongoing wars and Medicare. And that will be the true end of the war on terror.

    "9/11 Radically Changed U.S. Foreign Policy

    No. American policy has changed only at the margins. The attacks temporarily removed constraints on U.S. political elites, allowing them to pursue their policies more aggressively. As we now know, President Bush and his advisors wanted to undermine Saddam's regime well before September 11. Absent the attacks, the administration might have employed a limited bombing campaign, a covert operation, or a coup attempt. The attacks suddenly made a years-long land war in the Middle East politically palatable. But that energy has now dissipated, and it has left behind little fundamental change in U.S. policy.

    Despite talk of a "war on terror," Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, the Persian Gulf monarchies, Morocco, and Pakistan remain close U.S. allies. Relations with Libya were warming in the Clinton era, and the Iraq war didn't alter its trajectory. American support for Israel remains steadfast. And Iran and Syria were in Washington's sights well before 9/11.

    It is possible to imagine a response to 9/11 that would have been dramatically different. The United States might have allied with the Baathist secularists in Syria and Iraq, and with the Shiites in Iran, to counter the extremist Sunni threat. Instead, all Washington's old friends in the area (including the three regimes that had recognized the Taliban--Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) are still friends, and the old enemies are still enemies.

    The most dramatic changes, of course, are in Afghanistan and Iraq. But both countries have effectively been fighting civil wars for 25 years, with the United States backing the losing side (the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq). After 9/11, the Bush administration transformed the losers in those conflicts into winners. But the civil wars continue, with the unseated groups now playing the role of insurgents. The change is significant, but the transformation is far less complete than what was imagined in the spring of 2003. The administration's plan for liberalization and democratization in the Middle East has yielded little beyond a failed state in Iraq, an unstable Lebanon torn between Hezbollah and Israel, and polite but noncommittal noises from allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

    "The Next 9/11 Will Be Even Worse"

    It's anyone's guess. Al Qaeda's efforts to acquire nuclear material have been amateurish. In 2002, U.S. agents in Afghanistan seized canisters from Taliban and al Qaeda compounds, only to discover that al Qaeda operatives had likely been duped into purchasing phony nuclear materials. The organization has pursued other tools of mass destruction, but without much success. Al Qaeda agents were reportedly planning to use poison gas in New York's subway system, though it appears that Zawahiri mysteriously called off the operation. Perhaps the experience of the Aum Shinrikyo terrorist group in Tokyo deterred him; its 1995 attack killed 12 people rather than the thousands the terrorists had hoped to claim.

    Still, it would be irresponsible to minimize the threat. Technological advances are allowing small groups to wreak major damage, and al Qaeda has often attracted skilled engineers and scientists. Breakthroughs in DNA research, for example, could lead to designer viruses that would be a terrorist's dream. The Internet has created new vulnerabilities as major engineering infrastructure, from dams to nuclear plants, has come to rely on it. The world's financial systems are increasingly vulnerable as well. Governments, universities, and corporations must ensure that emerging technologies don't go astray. Al Qaeda may not have fundamentally changed the world on 9/11, but that is no reason to give it a second chance.

    Posted by New Dawn at 09/10/2006 @ 5:38pm

62. Hey, anybody catch the "Path to 9/11" tonight? Pretty good show, unless you're Sandy Berger or Bill Clinton. Well, at least now we know why Sandy is so busy stuffing memos into his pants at the National Archives and what all those late night fires in his house are all about.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/11/2006 @ 12:24am