Libby Trial Opens With Simple Tales and Complex Plots

It's simple, said special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald during his opening argument at the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby: Vice President Dick Cheney's onetime chief of staff lied to the FBI and a grand jury to cover up his and Cheney's involvement in the leak that outed Valerie (Plame) Wilson as a CIA official.

This is a twisted, complicated and dark tale, said Ted Wells, a lead lawyer for Libby: one of conspiracies, bureaucratic infighting, turf wars, backroom deals, terrorist plots (involving nuclear weapons and anthrax) against the United States, and assorted memory lapses, convenient and accidental. Libby merely engaged in no-harm-intended forgetfulness, Wells insisted, and, moreover, he was "set up" by Karl Rove as a "sacrificial lamb" in a White House melodrama starring Cheney, who supposedly was defending Libby from a White House effort designed to protect Rove at all costs.

Both lawyers told the jury that the case--in which Libby faces five charges of obstructing justice, perjury and making false statements to government investigators--is not about the war in Iraq or the administration's use of false information to sell the public on the war.

And as the two legal teams began their courtroom battle, new information was disclosed about the leak affair, including the revelation that Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary at the time of the leak, had identified Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer to NBC News reporter David Gregory a week before the leak appeared in Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column, and that Fleischer, during the subsequent criminal investigation, took the Fifth Amendment and demanded (and received) immunity before testifying to Fitzgerald's' grand jury. Fleischer told the grand jury that he had learned about Valerie Wilson's CIA affiliation first from Libby and then from Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director. (This directly implicated yet two more White House officials in the scandal.) Gregory, though, did not report the information, and he later declined to talk to Fitzgerald about his conversation with Fleischer. Fitzgerald never subpoenaed him. (In a response to an email from a colleague asking about today's disclosure, Gregory emailed, "I can't help you, sorry.") The first day of the trial also brought the news that after the Justice Department opened an investigation of the CIA leak in fall 2003, Cheney pressured the White House press office to make a statement clearing Libby of any wrongdoing.

Libby, Fitzgerald argued, committed a straightforward crime: lying to the FBI and the grand jury, as each was investigating the leak. The case, Fitzgerald acknowledged, has been playing against a large backdrop: the war in Iraq and the controversy regarding the Bush administration's selling of the war. He also conceded that it grew out of the leak scandal and the question of who in the Bush administration had outed Valerie Wilson to reporters after Joseph Wilson publicly accused the White House of having twisted and misrepresented the prewar intelligence. But Fitzgerald attempted to focus the jury on a limited matter: several statements Libby made to the FBI and the grand jury about his role in the leak affair.

In those statements--made during two FBI interviews and two grand jury appearances--Libby said that though he had once possessed official information about Valerie Wilson's CIA employment, he had forgotten all about that, that he then heard about her CIA connection from reporters (mainly, Tim Russert of Meet the Press), and that he subsequently discussed this gossip (not official information) with other reporters. His explanation was essentially this: I forgot to remember what I had once known but had forgotten.

Fitzgerald vowed that he would demonstrate this was a pack of lies. He previewed evidence and testimony cited in the indictment and pretrial submissions that (according to Fitzgerald) shows that Libby in June and early July 2003 was an active gatherer of official (and classified) information on Joseph Wilson and his wife. Fitzgerald pointed to several witnesses who will testify that Libby requested information on the Wilsons from them when they were government officials: Marc Grossman, the No. 3 at the State Department, Robert Grenier, a CIA official, Craig Schmall, a CIA briefer, and Cathie Martin, a spokesperson for Cheney. (Fitzgerald said that Libby called Grenier out of meeting to receive information on the Wilsons from him.) He also noted that Libby, according to Libby's own notes, had learned from Cheney that Valerie Wilson worked at the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA. (This is a unit within the agency's clandestine operations directorate.)

And then Fitzgerald said that he would produce several witnesses to prove that Libby, after obtaining official information on the Wilsons, conveyed some of it to two reporters (Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matt Cooper of Time) and to the White House press secretary at the time, Ari Fleischer (with the warning the material was "hush-hush").

Libby's story to the FBI and the grand jury was that on July 10, 2003--four days after Joe Wilson had published an op-ed article noting he had inside information proving the administration had misrepresented the case for war--he had called Russert, that Russert had told him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and that he (Libby) had believed that he was learning about her for the first time. (Libby testified that he was "taken aback" when he heard from Russert that Wilson's wife was a CIA official.) Yet, according to Fitzgerald, Libby had already discussed Valerie Wilson and her CIA affiliation with Fleischer on July 7 and with Miller on July 8. "You cannot learn something startling on Thursday that you were giving out on Monday and Tuesday," Fitzgerald declared. He charged that Libby had concocted the Russert tale to "wipe out" the fact that Libby had earlier been told about Valerie Wilson by Cheney. "This is not a case about bad memory," he maintained. Libby, he said, had been caught in a cover-up.

A diagram of Fitzgerald's case would be a straight line: Libby sought official information, he shared this classified material with reporters, he then made up a story to hide all this from investigators. To get a graphic representation of Well's argument, take a large pot of spaghetti--with plenty of sauce--and hurl it against the wall. Then look at the wall.

In his opening statement, Wells said the case was about forgetting--and about White House payback, Karl Rove's manipulations, dueling between the CIA and 1600 Pennsylvania, conspiring between NBC News and the prosecutors, and much more. Libby, he declared, "is totally innocent." He argued that Libby had done nothing wrong, that he had not "pushed" any reporters to write about Valerie Wilson, that that he had no reason to lie, that he was not concerned about losing his job, but that he was "concerned about being set up...about being the scapegoat for this entire Valerie Wilson controversy." Wells claimed that after the criminal investigation had begun, Libby met with Cheney and complained that "people in the White House" were "trying to sacrifice me...and trying to protect Karl Rove." (At that point, White House press secretary Scott McClellan, who had replaced Flesicher, had publicly declared that Rove was not involved in the leak--even though Rove, as would later become public, had been the primary source for the Novak column.) Responding to Libby's gripe, Cheney wrote a note that said, "Not going to protect one staff [and] sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others."

The "meat grinder," according to Wells, was the White House's fierce effort to rebut criticisms from Joe Wilson. Libby, he claimed, had indeed talked to reporters about Joe Wilson, but only to challenge Wilson's charges on the merits, not to discuss Wilson's wife. And this had taken place during the intense firestorm that Wilson had set off with his op-ed article. Because the CIA had screwed up the prewar intelligence, Wells suggested, Libby, acting on orders from Cheney and Bush, was trying to combat the popular perception--fueled by Wilson--that the White House had cooked the books on the way to war. After the criminal investigation began, Wells continued, the White House was willing to toss Libby to the wolves because Rove, the mastermind of the GOP, was too valuable to lose.

It was a bit fuzzy. How did Rove set up Libby to make false statements--honestly or not--to the FBI and the grand jury? Wells did not explain that. But his defense had much more to it. While trying to depict Libby as a pawn in a big-picture nightmare, he also characterized the case as even more narrow than did Fitzgerald. He argued that Fitzgerald's prosecution rested on "snippets"of three conversations Libby had with reporters that lasted no longer than 20 or 30 seconds. (Those reporters would be Russert, Cooper and Miller.) These journalists, he said, each did not have the clearest recollections of the calls, and none had good notes of the exchanges. He even noted that Russert--who has testified he did not know anything about Wilson's wife when he spoke with Libby--might be wrong and that it is possible that Russert had heard about Wilson's wife from David Gregory, his colleague at NBC News. But, Wells added, Russert was never asked about this possibility because he cut a deal with Fitzgerald to talk only about his phone call with Libby. What was going on here? Wells wondered, hinting at improper government-media collusion.

Wells also had another explanation of the Russert-Libby meeting. Maybe Libby, when he testified about it, confused Russert with Novak. Wells said that Novak will testify that he did speak to Libby at the time of the Russert conversation and might have told Libby that he was about to publish a column about Wilson's wife. So perhaps Libby had indeed learned about Wilson's wife from a reporter (Novak) and simply had a good-faith memory slip, mistakenly attributing that call to Russert. After all, Wells asked the jurors, who can recall what phone conversations he or she had three months earlier? Libby, he added, "was known in the office for having a bad memory," and Libby was quite busy with national security issues "trying to connect the dots so we don't have another 9/11." (Wells introduced a schedule of the week of July 7, 2003, showing that Libby received briefings every morning that included information about possible terrorism attacks on the United States.)

"The case is far more complex than what you heard," Wells told the jurors, referring to Fitzgerald's opening presentation. He certainly made it seem more complex. He promised to raise critical questions about the credibility of key witnesses. He said he would show Libby had no motive to lie. His strategy is to litigate the controversy, create multiple and intricate narratives, cast doubt on the testimony of reporters and government officials. He's being a good defense attorney. He does not have to prove anything; he only has to sow confusion--so that at least one juror says, I can't sort all this out. Fitzgerald has some strong facts on his side. (How could Libby have testified he was "taken aback" when Russert supposedly told him about Valerie Wilson's CIA connection, if Cheney had already informed him about her CIA position?) But Libby's legal team has a lot of spaghetti to throw at the jury. This will not be an easy trial for either side.

******

DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (31)

1. I'm not surprised to hear of additional, unreported leaking by Ari Fleischer, since I've been posting about it on my blog for since at least mid-2005 [needlenose.com].

   I believe these leaks are what were reported in what is now known as the Washington Post's "1x2x6" story in Sept. 2003. I compared my theory of the leaks to the explanation put forth in Hubris a few months ago [needlenose.com], and I'd be very interested in Mr. Corn's thoughts on the subject.

   Posted by Swopa at 01/23/2007 @ 7:12pm

2. His explanation was essentially this: I forgot to remember what I had once known but had forgotten.

   Are you an idiot? This statement makes no sense. You just want Libby to appear ridiculous, but you make yourself look ridiculous instead.

   Posted by nerfff at 01/23/2007 @ 7:31pm

3. Posted by NERFFF 01/23/2007 @ 7:31pm

   No he doesn't, not by a long shot. You are exposing yourself to ridicule by making lame excuses for these traitors.

   In those statements--made during two FBI interviews and two grand jury appearances--Libby said that though he had once possessed official information about Valerie Wilson's CIA employment, he had forgotten all about that, that he then heard about her CIA connection from reporters (mainly, Tim Russert of Meet the Press), and that he subsequently discussed this gossip (not official information) with other reporters. His explanation was essentially this: I forgot to remember what I had once known but had forgotten.

   Libby had for weeks been monomaniacally digging up information on the Wilsons then conveniently "forgot" the national security information he knew when he spread it far and wide? The real question here is- are you Republicans bigger idiots than you are traitors or the other way around?

   Posted by fromredbird at 01/23/2007 @ 8:28pm

4. Why do Republicans think it's OK to expose the identity of an American CIA agent engaged in secret nuclear nonproliferation efforts just to advance their personal political self-interests? What, exactly, is the real makeup of this political party? Is it a foreign implant? What's the explanation for it's glib and nonchalant treason?

   Posted by fromredbird at 01/23/2007 @ 8:31pm

5. After all, Wells asked the jurors, who can recall what phone conversations he or she had three months earlier? Libby, he added, "was known in the office for having a bad memory," and Libby was quite busy with national security issues "trying to connect the dots so we don't have another 9/11."

   One thing is certain- they sure as hell forgot about Osama Bin Laden, the author of the 9/11 attack. Bush: "I don't even think about him." Why don't the Republicans want to apprehend the party actually responsible for 9/11? Why did they invade Iraq instead?

   Posted by fromredbird at 01/23/2007 @ 8:40pm

6. You lousy snake-in-the-grass Republicans.

   Posted by fromredbird at 01/23/2007 @ 8:41pm

7. iggy libby...no wonder he prefers "scooter"

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2007 @ 9:06pm

8. Who cares.....Fitz never bagged what he and Corn wanted when this whole this started. There is nothing there...I think Corn should give the money back since his white paper book turned into a fiction...bag and switch in the market..

   Libby walks.

   Posted by john maasch at 01/23/2007 @ 9:30pm

9. the republicans that still believe libby also think the iraq war is going well, and that bush delivered a strong SOTU. in other words, they are idiots.

   Posted by pretzel at 01/23/2007 @ 10:18pm

10. So, Libby is arguing....that David Corn was right and it was "all Rove"?!??!?

    hehe.

    That's got to be an interesting dilemma for Mr Corn. Does he say "Nope, Libby is guilty, he can't blame it on Rove" and eat half of "Hubris"....or say "Yep, Libby is right, it was all Rove's fault"...and Libby goes free?!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 01/23/2007 @ 10:49pm

11. figures that a republican would be giggling about treason.

    Posted by pretzel at 01/23/2007 @ 10:52pm

12. Posted by MASK 01/23/2007 @ 10:49pm

    i'd let an iggy fly in exchange for a fart blossom...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/23/2007 @ 10:59pm

13. I love how the personal responsiblity crowd is blaming the other guy.

    It's rather refreshing to see the true face of the conservative cult emerge at last.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/23/2007 @ 11:59pm

14. and has anyone noticed that conservatives can't defend the country

    Posted by Will C. at 01/24/2007 @ 12:00am

15. Who cares.....Fitz never bagged what he and Corn wanted when this whole this started. There is nothing there...I think Corn should give the money back since his white paper book turned into a fiction...bag and switch in the market..

    Libby walks.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Libby in a perp walk... you're wrong on all counts...also, for all you serious analyzers of this case: why wasn't David Gregory called by Fitz, and why the "sorry, I can't help you" to a Corn colleague? As Ricky use to say to Lucy, "you got a lot of 'splainin' to do!" Gregory may be lawyering up and realizing he's now in a hot spot, as he should be.

    Posted by MCE337 at 01/24/2007 @ 12:26am

16. Libby had for weeks been monomaniacally digging up information on the Wilsons then conveniently "forgot" the national security information he knew when he spread it far and wide? The real question here is- are you Republicans bigger idiots than you are traitors or the other way around?

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD

    I'd say the traitor/idiot label can be in tandem. Well deserved on both counts. I hope Fitz nails Libby's ass...he certainly warrants it. But the collusion of some reporters, such as Tim Russert and David Gregory needs to be exposed. And why would Ari Fleischer be granted immunity? I think he should be prosecuted with all those who participated in leak.

    Posted by MCE337 at 01/24/2007 @ 12:30am

17. great plan rio. Can we start with fox news?

    Can We Can We Can We

    Posted by Will C. at 01/24/2007 @ 12:41am

18. Isn't this all wasted talk? Libby's going to walk based on the way the judge allowed the jurors to be selected. The conehead Republicans here are going to be ecstatic about that because they haven't stopped to think that the people are watching and they vote. In 2008 they're going to fieldgoaled all the way down to Columbia and Chimi can give them directions for a Sunday drive right through the middle of FARCistan. That won't phase them, though, they're all war heroes you see.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/24/2007 @ 12:53am

19. Oh, where, oh, where is our LVLIBERTY1,

    Where, oh, where can he be?

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/24/2007 @ 12:55am

20. Who cares.....Fitz never bagged what he and Corn wanted when this whole this started. There is nothing there...I think Corn should give the money back since his white paper book turned into a fiction...bag and switch in the market..

    Libby walks.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Haven't figured out yet, have you MAASCH, why the American people fieldgoaled your catastrophe-mobile asses through the goal posts in November?

    I was on the balcony of the 10th floor of a building once. I looked up and saw a guy jump from the 20th floor. As he went by I said, "How's it going?"

    He said, "So far, so good."

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/24/2007 @ 01:01am

21. With every rationalization, spin-job, and obfuscation, the Republican faithful prove that they are so brainwashed they couldn't spot a fact contrary to their beliefs if it was a mile wide and written in neon pink letters! That's because their eyes are closed, their fingers are in their ears, and they're chanting "LALALALALALALALAL! I can't hear you! LALALALALALALALAL!"

    Posted by Turk33 at 01/24/2007 @ 08:52am

22. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/23/2007 @ 10:59pm \

    I'm sure Mr Corn would too, IBBLE. 2006 was a really bad year for him, regardless of the November midterms.

    He'd hoped for the Rove indictment and "Fitzmas" brought him coal in his stocking.

    Odd thing (PRETZEL and others) is that for such a clear cut case of "treason"....the ONLY thing that Patrick Fitzgerald can get even ONE indictment on is....Libby committing perjury?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 01/24/2007 @ 09:00am

23. Just imagine if Sandy Berger had done what Libby, cheney, Rove, Armitage and Novak did? I can hear the howls of outrage now. the neo's would be calling for a public hangin, including the head poppin'.

    Is Ms. wilson still helping her country uncover Irans weapons capabilities? No, she is not. It is a blow to national security. brought to yo by the same people that have made us less safe in iraq. Almost everything they touch they screw up. That is what happens when you don't believe in guvt but you run the guvt.

    funny how no one that admits to not trusting the Playahs isn't allowed a seat in the jury box.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/24/2007 @ 10:18am

24. McCain Says Major Financiers Will Back His 2008 Bid December 15, 2006

    One of the most prominent on the list of finance committee co-chairmen is the head of the New York Stock Exchange, John Thain. Mr. Thain, whose title is CEO of NYSE Group, Inc., previously served as president and CEO of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

    A New Jersey-based investment banker deeply involved in fund-raising efforts for the 2004 Republican convention, Lewis Eisenberg, is signing on with Mr. McCain. Mr. Eisenberg is a former Goldman Sachs partner who served as chairman of the Port Authority board at the time of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

    WHAT A COINCIDENCE!

    It was Eisenberg who passed the $15 billion Asbestos Liability represented by the Twin Towers onto Larry Silverstein, the man who confessed publicly to having Building 7 "PULLED" by explosives – despite the fact that no plane struck it:

    Rescuer 2: "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

    LISTEN to the firefighters and police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus

    Listen to the owner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYaUeGvYYxc

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0823-03.htm

    COLLEGE STUDENTS DYING FROM INHALED ASBESTOS: http://www.bupipedream.com/pipeline_web/display_article.php?id=3259

    ALL SO HALLIBURTON COULD REMOVE THE WTC ASBESTOS LIABILITY FROM ITS BOOKS - HALLIBURTON HAD ACQUIRED DRESSER TO SAVE THE BUSH FAMILY FROM THE LOSING POSITION IT WAS STUCK IN…all because of the pending Asbestos law suits

    Planning days in advance to bring down WTC7 by planting explosives inside it implies only ONE THING...FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTACK ON 9/11.

    Google: "Dancing Israelis"

    Posted by plunger at 01/24/2007 @ 10:19am

25. Lieberman and McCain were the featured guests at the AEI event McCain spoke at.

    They were also the featured guests at the recent JINSA Awards banquet held to honor McCain with their annual War Mongers Award (Scoop Jackson Award), given out annually to the American militarist who best serves the interests of Israel (last year it was General Peter Pace).

    McCain / Lieberman is your future - and this will NOT be determined by your votes. This is preordained.

    DO THE MATH

    Possible McCain-Lieberman Alliance

    Introducing McCain to a packed ball room of pro-Israel business executives, defense contractors, and Washington insiders, was Sen. Joseph Lieberman, fresh from being re-elected as an independent after losing the Democratic Party primary in Connecticut.

    Lieberman's glowing tribute to his Republican colleague did not go unnoticed. "McCain-Lieberman? There's something to that," JINSA board member Morris J. Amitay told the crowd.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/12/6/111221.shtml?s=lh

    "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

    Who do you think Libby, Feith, Wurmser, Chertoff, Rhode, Zakheim were REALLY working for?

    Posted by plunger at 01/24/2007 @ 10:21am

26. The financial links between those who lied, and those who benefited as a direct result of the lies (primarily in the oil and military industries - to say nothing of Israel) are clear. The evidence that the President's speech knowingly included a lie about the Niger Yellow Cake is proveable in a court of law under oath.

    That the Vice President knew for a fact that the claim was based on a forgery in advance of the President's speech is a given (he ordered that the forgery be created and sent Ledeen to do it). That he instructed others to ensure that the sentence made it into the speech is also a given. What did the Vice President know, and when did he know it?

    Every time the Vice President knowingly lied to the American People to advance the cause of war, he committed a crime against the United States which both directly harmed other US citizens and directly enriched himself.

    Indict Dick Cheney for Fraud. Section 1031. Major fraud against the United States

    (a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent - (1) to defraud the United States; or (2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    (1) the gross loss to the Government or the gross gain to a defendant is $500,000 or greater; or

    (2) the offense involves a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury.

    The outing of Valarie Plame falls into precisely the same category, as it was specifically designed to ensure that the lead up to war continued apace...

    Consummate diplomats like Wilson typically do not speak of "lies." So outraged was Wilson, though, that this bogus story had been used to "justify" an unprovoked war, that he made a point to note that the already proven dishonesty begs the question regarding "what else they are lying about."

    It was a double whammy. And, as is now well known, the White House moved swiftly-if clumsily (and apparently illegally)-to retaliate.

    It was clear from the start that Vice President Dick Cheney and Kemosabe (Amer. Indian for "Scotter") Libby, as well as Karl Rove, were taking the lead in this operation to make an object lesson of Wilson and his wife.

    But there is abundant evidence that senior White House officials were aware of the CIA's doubts regarding the Niger story long before the State of the Union. Nearly a year earlier, in February 2002, the CIA had dispatched former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the claim about uranium purchases. When the CIA debriefed him in March, his findings were emphatic: As Wilson explained in a New York Times op-ed on July 6, "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." CIA Director George Tenet claimed on July 11 that Wilson was sent to Niger by junior nonproliferation experts at the CIA acting "on their own initiative" and that senior administration officials were unaware of his mission. But this is not true. Wilson was told by CIA officials that the mission had been specifically requested by the office of the vice president. Indeed, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told Time magazine that Cheney had "asked a question about the implication of the [uranium] report." And, as Wilson tells The New Republic, "When an executive agency is tasked to find something out and it gets an answer, it goes back to the person who requested it." For the White House to suggest that Cheney's office was unaware of the results of Wilson's inquiry strains credulity.

    Moreover, there is strong evidence that the CIA clearly conveyed its doubts about the Niger allegation to the White House on more than one occasion prior to the State of the Union. When Bush wanted to include the claim in an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Tenet personally intervened, imploring Condoleezza Rice's National Security Council (NSC) deputy, Stephen Hadley, to cut the allegation from the speech, which he did. The idea that no one involved with the State of the Union was aware of this earlier, emphatic intervention is implausible. And when the latter speech was being written, the CIA again raised questions about the Niger assertion. According to The New York Times, when NSC proliferation staffer Robert G. Joseph called his CIA counterpart, Alan Foley, to ask about including the allegation in the State of the Union, Foley told Joseph the CIA was not confident about the information.

    Indict Vice President Cheney. Put him under oath.

    Posted by plunger at 01/24/2007 @ 10:22am

27. Is Ms. wilson still helping her country uncover Irans weapons capabilities? No, she is not. It is a blow to national security. brought to yo by the same people that have made us less safe in iraq.

    Posted by CRABWALK 01/24/2007 @ 10:18am

    It also took down her whole network, probably dozens, if not more, foreign citizens who were in contact with her. What happened to them? If they didn't hang they at least are now thinking, "Why the hell did I ever think I could trust the United States of America not to stab me in the back?" Same with anyone who was even thinking about providing information to the US. Traitorous weasels like those common in the Republican Party cannot under an circumstances be trusted with national security.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/24/2007 @ 11:09am

28. Well, well well, look at this...

    GOP urges Berger lie test By Jerry Seper THE WASHINGTON TIMES January 24, 2007

    Eighteen House Republicans have urged the Justice Department to proceed with a polygraph test for Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser who agreed to take the test as part of a plea of guilty of stealing documents from the National Archives. "This may be the only way for anyone to know whether Mr. Berger denied the 9/11 commission and the public the complete account of the Clinton administration's actions or inactions during the lead-up to the terrorist attacks on the United States," the congressmen said in their letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

    ----Find a way to blame someone else, the RNC playbook. Ignore the memo chimpy got that said "Al Qaida detirmed to attack the US" and " Al Qaida wants to fly planes into buildings".

    How about a lie detector for Chimpy and his crew? Or even an oath? The machine would explode and their hands would burn off.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/24/2007 @ 11:35am

29. Excellent coverage and analysis of the Libby treason trial from an anonymous blogger in attendance:

    http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/24/2007 @ 12:25pm

30. David Corn,

    Your posts from the real world on the 19th and 22nd were excellent. Regards to the family.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 01/24/2007 @ 1:03pm

31. CONGRESS: NEW KNESSET FOR ZIONISTS? By Harmony Grant

    Recent events leave me wondering which is the real Jewish state--Israel or the USA?

    If the midterm election was supposed to be a referendum against U.S. policy in the Mideast, it failed royally. In fact, the midterm election left things even rosier for Zionists and gloomier for those wanting an escape from the Jewish lobby's ruinous foreign policy.

    Don't take my word for it; that's analysis from the JTA, Global News Service of the Jewish People ("Division of congressional posts seems to favor Jewish issues," Jan. 9, 2007). JTA's Ron Kampeas notes that in the new Congress there are "more Jews in powerful positions than the [Jewish] community has seen in more than a decade--it also features more friendly faces across the board, Jewish leaders say."

    Although Jews comprise only 2 percent of the U.S. population, there are now 30 Jews in the House, an increase of 4 from the last Congress, and "a record 13 Jews in the Senate…20 percent of the Democratic presence." (JTA) Significantly, JTA says, both House and Senate have Jews in the top political position of caucus chair. Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) chairs the Senate and Rep. Rahm Emanual (D-Ill) chairs the House.

    Who now controls the International Relations Committee with jurisdiction over US foreign relations, border disputes, foreign loans, diplomacy, measures related to international commerce and economic policy, and over the American Red Cross and UN organizations? That would be Rep. Tom Lantos (D-California) who is "the sole Holocaust survivor in Congress and one of Israel's staunchest defenders in the House of Representatives" (JTA).

    Lantos' deputy at the committee is Rep. Howard Berman, also a Democrat from California and also Jewish. JTA's piece notes that "four of the committee's seven subcommittee chairmen are likely to be Jewish." These Jewish politicians are set up to chair the Mideast subcommittee, the International Terrorism and Nonproliferation subcommittee, the Western Hemisphere subcommittee, and the committee on Europe and Emerging Threats.

    JTA lists several other Jews assuming prominent positions and notes that the biggest gain for Israel is Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) as majority leader. Hoyer "is on a first-name basis with much of the board of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and has been to Israel multiple times…"

    Some people say there's no Jewish elite with a powerful political agenda and that to say so is anti-Semitic. But the power of American Zionists is confirmed by Jewish sources themselves, like JTA. It is these Jewish organizations themselves which insist that there are unified Jewish interests (the foremost being unconditional support of Israel) and that all Jews should rejoice if more of their Zionist brethren are in government. Jewish Americans like Norman Finkelstein who think independently and resist the herding of organized Jewry are a minority.

    All of this is pretty bad news for Americans--Jewish and gentile--who are concerned about the geopolitical consequences of our reckless, dangerous and imbalanced support of Israel. If Americans are fed up with the Bush administration's military actions in Iraq, they're going to have to wise up to the hands that are really pulling the strings.

    Our foreign policy in the Mideast will grow only more destructive unless the Zionist lobby and Zionist politicians are recognized as primarily loyal to a foreign power, Israel – not to American interests and our troops, dying for Israel in Iraq.

    Posted by plunger at 01/25/2007 @ 08:00am