Libby Trial: Fleischer Tags Libby and Confesses Leaking

Taking the witness stand in the Scooter Libby trial on Monday, Ari Fleischer, President George W. Bush's former press secretary, could not rely on his old friends, spin and deny. Instead, he shared an account that harmed Libby's defense, that spared the White House a new embarrassment, and that created a riddle.

Testifying as a prosecution witness, Fleischer--who cooperated with special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald only after pleading the Fifth Amendment and obtaining immunity--told the jurors of a lunch he had with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on July 7, 2003. This was one day after former Ambassador Joseph Wilson published an op-ed piece asserting he had inside information showing the White House had twisted the prewar intelligence and a week before the leak outing his wife as a CIA officer appeared in rightwing journalist Robert Novak's column. At the lunch, Libby, according to Fleischer, passed along what Fleischer considered an intriguing "nugget" of information: that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had sent her husband on the fact-finding trip to Niger during which Wilson concluded that the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium there was highly dubious. Libby was even specific about where Wilson's wife worked within the CIA: the Counterproliferation Division, a unit in the agency's clandestine operations directorate. Fleischer said that Libby mentioned the name of Wilson's wife and told him, "This is hush-hush, this is on the QT, not very many people know about this." Fleischer had not heard anything previously about Valerie Wilson.

The conversation was "odd," Fleischer testified. He noted that this was the first time he ever had lunch with Libby and that the vice president's chief of staff was not someone whom Fleischer considered a "source"--that is, a fellow White House official who would regularly tell Fleischer what was happening within 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Usually when Fleischer asked Libby questions about White House policies or actions, the "typical response," he said, was that Libby would tell him to check with Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser. After receiving the information from Libby on Valerie Wilson, Fleischer testified, he concluded that the Wilson mission to Niger was the result of "nepotism at the CIA." (Though a classified State Department memorandum written at the request of Libby weeks earlier had noted that Valerie Wilson had organized her husband's trip to Niger, the memo--due to a series of bureaucratic slips--had overstated her involvement in the trip. For a complete account of the misleading memo episode, see the book I co-wrote with Michael Isikoff: HUBRIS: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War.)

Fleischer's appearance was not so good for Libby, but not so bad for the White House. Once again, Fitzpatrick had a witness testifying that Libby had obtained information on Valerie Wilson and had passed it along. This undermined Libby's sworn statements to the FBI and a grand jury that days after this lunch--when he spoke to Tim Russert of Meet the Press--he knew nothing certain about Wilson's wife and her CIA employment. Fleischer testified confidently, as a fellow accustomed to fielding tough questions could be expected to do. He also admitted that he, too, had leaked information about Valerie Wilson to reporters.

This is what happened, Fleischer said: A day or so after his lunch with Libby, he was on Air Force One in a staff cabin. The president was touring Africa, and the Wilson controversy was raging, as reporters continued to hurl questions at the White House about Bush's use of the Niger charge in his prewar State of the Union. Fleischer was reading a classified CIA account of Wilson's trip that had been handed to him to by Rice. (He and other White House officials thought this document contained information that undermined Joe Wilson's criticism of the administration.) Sitting nearby was White House communications director Dan Bartlett (now counselor to the president). Bartlett was reading another document on the Wilson matter--probably a version of the State Department memo mentioned above. Bartlett, Fleischer said, exclaimed, "I can't believe he or they are saying the vice president sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger....His wife sent him. She works at the CIA." Bartlett wasn't speaking specifically to Fleischer, according to Fleischer; he was just "venting." Fleischer said nothing to Bartlett and kept on reading his own document. But he now had two sources--Libby and Bartlett--on Valerie Wilson's CIA connection.

Then on July 11, when Bush was in Uganda and visiting with children with AIDS, Fleischer sidled up to two reporters traveling with the president: David Gregory of NBC News and John Dickerson, then of Time, now of Slate. The night before, CBS News had reported that the White House had known the uranium-in-Africa charge was false at the time it was placed in Bush's speech, and Fleischer was looking to rebut this damaging charge. He told Gregory and Dickerson about Wilson's wife, hoping this would reinforce the White House claim that it had known nothing about the origins of the Wilson trip or Wilson's findings. But, according to Fleischer, the two reporters didn't react. They didn't take out their notebooks. They didn't ask follow-up questions. "Like a lot of things I said to the press," Fleischer testified, "it had no impact....This said to me that nobody really cares who sent Ambassador Wilson." Neither Gregory nor Dickerson (who was in the courtroom as Fleischer testified) broke the news about Valerie Wilson.

Fleischer's account of the leak-that-went-nowhere left Bartlett in a safe position. Bartlett, in this telling, had merely blurted out his reaction to a classified document. He had not passed the information to Fleischer with the intention of leaking it. Fitzgerald's opening argument made it seem that Bartlett was involved in a leak orchestrated by Fleischer. But Bartlett's participation in the affair--if Fleischer was speaking accurately--was accidental. Libby's, though, was not, according to Fleischer.

There was one big wrinkle in the Fleischer account. Call it the Dickerson Doubt. Dickerson has written that Fleischer did not tell him anything about Valerie Wilson. Describing his conversation with Fleischer, Dickerson in 2006 noted in Slate,

Some low-level person at the CIA was responsible for the mission. I was told I should go ask the CIA who sent Wilson.

In this article, Dickerson did not identify this official as Fleischer, but Hubris reported that Fleischer was his source. Dickerson also noted that an hour after this conversation another senior administration official--in this instance, Bartlett--told him essentially the same thing:

This official also pointed out a few times that Wilson had been sent by a low-level CIA employee and encouraged me to follow that angle. I thought I got the point: He'd been sent by someone around the rank of deputy assistant undersecretary or janitor.

Dickerson's account flat-out contradicts Fleischer's confession. (Gregory has not commented on this episode.) What does that mean?

The defense could have used this contradiction to try to impeach Fleischer's credibility. If Fleischer falsely remembers leaking, then maybe he's also wrong about what happened during his lunch with Libby. But Libby's lawyers want Fleischer to be right about the supposed leak to Dickerson and Gregory. They are building a case--or the innuendo--that Tim Russert was wrong when he told Fitzgerald's grand jury that he knew nothing about Valerie Wilson when he spoke to Libby (and could not have, as Libby has claimed, told Libby anything about Wilson's wife). Libby's attorneys have said that Russert may have had knowledge about Valerie Wilson and her CIA position because he may had heard about it from colleagues at NBC News, such as David Gregory.

It's complicated, but the argument goes like this: Fleischer leaked to Gregory and Dickerson; Gregory told Russert; and Russert told Libby that reporters were hearing that Wilson's wife was CIA. (There's a side benefit to this theory: Dickerson worked with Matt Cooper at Time. Perhaps Dickerson told Cooper about Valerie Wilson, and then Cooper, rather than receiving information on her from Libby, actually passed information to Libby.) But there's at least one problem for the defense. In the indictment of Libby, Fitzgerald noted that the Russert-Libby phone call happened on July 10, 2003. Yet Fleischer's (real or not) leak to Gregory (and Dickerson) occurred on July 11, 2003. To make this part of the defense work, Libby's lawyers have to show--or suggest--the Libby-Russert call occurred at a later time than Fitzgerald has placed it.

In any event, the defense was in a curious position. If it cited Dickerson's account to raise questions about Fleischer's memory, including his recollection of the lunch with Libby, it would have lost the (fanciful) Libby-to-Fleischer-to-Gregory-to-Russert-to-Libby daisy chain. As for what really happened in Uganda, Dickerson has the edge in credibility. First, he's not a former White House press secretary. More important, it's hard to imagine that both Dickerson and Gregory would not have reported new information about the Wilson trip, which was a piping hot story that week. As Dickerson has noted previously, when he subsequently learned that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer, he considered that noteworthy. (He heard this from Cooper, who had gotten a leak from White House aide Karl Rove.) Both he and Cooper then tried to get this information into Time's cover story on the scandal. Their editors, though, left this fact out--which led Cooper and Dickerson to file a story on the newsmagazine's website a few days later.

Dickerson is an inconvenient witness for both sides. The prosecution doesn't want him on the stand. He could impeach the credibility of its best witness so far. And the defense wants him out of the picture. He could undercut its attempt to rattle Russert. He appears to have a get-out-of-the-witness-box-free card. And the mystery of Fleischer's purported leak remains.

Why would Fleischer make up a leak that didn't happen? Did he seek immunity to cover an act that he didn't commit? What's a reporter covering this case--or a reader of the coverage--to make of this? A cascade of theories, no doubt, will pour forth. But this case has had memory issues. And Libby's lawyers will certainly be hammering that larger point--ad nauseum--in the weeks to come.

Other developments? Yes, there were some. When Ted Wells, a Libby attorney, cross-examined Cathie Martin, Cheney's former public affairs chief, he noted that none of the four sets of talking points created by Cheney's office regarding Wilson's charges mentioned Wilson's wife. Wells' point: this was not a matter of much concern for Cheney or Libby. But under questioning from Fitzgerald, Martin conceded that while Libby was in her loop, she was not in his--and that she was unaware of all of Libby's activities regarding the effort to counter Wilson. At the end of her testimony, she looked disappointed.

Later in the day, after Fleischer was done, David Addington, Cheney's current chief of staff, was called as a witness by the prosecution. He testified that sometime during the week after Wilson published his op-ed, Libby and he had a conversation in Libby's small office outside Cheney's West Wing suite. Libby, according to Addington, asked Addington, who used to work at the CIA, what paperwork would exist if a CIA officer sent a spouse on a mission. No names were mentioned, but Addington figured the query was related to the Wilson trip, and he explained to Libby how records are kept at the CIA. Addington told him that there ought to be paperwork documenting such a trip. He also testified that at one point in this conversation Libby "extended his hands out and pushed them down" to indicate that Addington should keep his voice low. Here was yet another indication that Libby had Joe and Valerie Wilson on his mind.

At the end of the day, the prosecution had fared better than the defense. Fleischer presented a puzzle. But he also was a straightforward witness regarding the lunch. Cathie Martin, who testified last week that she had told Libby and Cheney about Valerie Wilson, acknowledged that there was anti-Wilson activity going on in Cheney-land above her paygrade and that Libby was involved in this. And Addington's brief account depicted a Libby who was gathering information on Valerie Wilson in a suspiciously quiet manner. But the witnesses did provide plenty of information that Libby's legal team can use to support a variety of competing narratives, with the aim of confusing jurors. There remains a lot for the jury to sort out--and the prosecution's presentation is only half finished. Then comes the defense.

*****

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 (96)

1. David, what about the phone calls from Air Force One by Fleischer and Bartlett on July 12th? Both legal teams touched on these calls, but aside from Ari denying that he leaked to Walter Pincus, neither side seemed to want to delve into whether any leaking occurred during these calls.

   If leaking did occur, and the calls were overheard, wouldn't that be a far more plausible explanation for the Washington Post's "1x2x6" story than the account in Hubris?

   This is a point I've been trying to make for some time [needlenose.com] -- and in fact, I predicted before the trial [needlenose.com] that we'd hear about calls from Air Force One.

   The good news is, I'll be in DC next week subbing for Marcy Wheeler, so maybe we'll have a chance to talk about it in person! ("See you in court," one might say.)

   Posted by Swopa at 01/29/2007 @ 8:58pm

2. Key line at the end...

   "But the witnesses did provide plenty of information that Libby's legal team can use to support a variety of competing narratives, with the aim of confusing jurors. There remains a lot for the jury to sort out--and the prosecution's presentation is only half finished. Then comes the defense."

   Confusion. Which "daisy chain" you get the jury to believe is key. Plus you've got "Is Wilson's wife somehow involved in him getting the Niger trip?"....to "I heard Wilson's wife is CIA"...or is it "I think Wilson's wife is named Valerie"...or is it "Wilson's wife is CIA and her name is Valerie Plame"?

   And that's not even what Libby is charged with (the outing)...but perjury.

   And in the back of his mind is has still got to be..."If I keep quiet, Bush will pardon me Christmas 2008".

   Posted by Mask at 01/29/2007 @ 9:10pm

3. LIBBY walks as there is nothing there and....

   "FLASH!!! CORN BOOK SALES STILL DO NOT APPEAR ABOVE "BUY 1 GET 2 FREE"....Hollywood passes on screen play rights, but Mad Magazine express interest, but only if Corn pays in cash...developing..

   Posted by john maasch at 01/29/2007 @ 9:27pm

4. "If I keep quiet, Bush will pardon me Christmas 2008".

   Posted by MASK 01/29/2007 @ 9:10pm

   Accepting a presidential pardon is an admission of guilt.

   If libby really didn't lie about the things he is accused of, he won't accept it.

   If bush really thinks libby didn't lie about the things he is accused of, he won't issue it.

   If bush issues that pardon he is saying to the world that libby is guilty, which means bush didn't live up to his word and get to the bottom of who leaked classified information in the white house.

   I love it

   Posted by Will C. at 01/29/2007 @ 10:13pm

5. "FLASH!!! CORN BOOK SALES STILL DO NOT APPEAR ABOVE "BUY 1 GET 2 FREE"....Hollywood passes on screen play rights, but Mad Magazine express interest, but only if Corn pays in cash...developing..

   Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/29/2007 @ 9:27pm

   what is it with you hamsters and lying? You seem to be inseparable

   Posted by Will C. at 01/29/2007 @ 10:14pm

6. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/29/2007 @ 10:52pm

   rio, if harry reid ad done anything wrong hamster conservatives would have persued him relentlessly.

   they didn't

   so he didn't

   Posted by Will C. at 01/29/2007 @ 10:54pm

7. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/29/2007 @ 10:52pm

   Off Topic.

   Posted by NeilSagan at 01/30/2007 @ 01:37am

8. There was one big wrinkle in the Fleischer account. Call it the Dickerson Doubt. Dickerson has written that Fleischer did not tell him anything about Valerie Wilson. Describing his conversation with Fleischer, Dickerson in 2006 noted in Slate,

   Some low-level person at the CIA was responsible for the mission. I was told I should go ask the CIA who sent Wilson.

   In this article, Dickerson did not identify this official as Fleischer, but Hubris reported that Fleischer was his source. Dickerson also noted that an hour after this conversation another senior administration official--in this instance, Bartlett--told him essentially the same thing:

   This official also pointed out a few times that Wilson had been sent by a low-level CIA employee and encouraged me to follow that angle. I thought I got the point: He'd been sent by someone around the rank of deputy assistant undersecretary or janitor.

   Dickerson's account flat-out contradicts Fleischer's confession. (Gregory has not commented on this episode.) What does that mean?

   The defense could have used this contradiction to try to impeach Fleischer's credibility.

   I don't follow your thinking here at all. You claim Fleischer falsely remembers leaking to Dickerson and Gregory because Dickerson doesn't identify Fleischer as the leaker but you do in Hubris?

   And furthermore, that Wells could have used this knowledge you have about Dickerson's account to impeach Fliescher's testimony?

   Why would Fleischer lie? He can't be charged with leaking classified information but he sure as hell can be charged with bearing false testimony on the stand under oath.

   I may be missing something here but what you're arguing doesn't make sense to me.

   Posted by NeilSagan at 01/30/2007 @ 01:49am

9. I was missing something, I see now after a closer read. Dickenson says Fleischer did not leak the name "Plame" but did leak all the other stuff. Fleischer said he leaked the name "Plame."

   I can't imagine Fleischer risking criminal charges for perjury by prevaricating that he "remembered" leaking the name Plame when he didn't. He remembered that when he gave his GJ testomony for sure.

   Posted by NeilSagan at 01/30/2007 @ 01:57am

10. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/30/2007 @ 01:50am

    This thread is about the Libby trial, and Ari Fleischer's testimony. Right-wing smear talk is over at REDSTATE.COM

    Posted by NeilSagan at 01/30/2007 @ 02:00am

11. LIBBY walks as there is nothing there and....

    "FLASH!!! CORN BOOK SALES STILL DO NOT APPEAR ABOVE "BUY 1 GET 2 FREE"....Hollywood passes on screen play rights, but Mad Magazine express interest, but only if Corn pays in cash...developing..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/29/2007 @ 9:27pm

    MAASCH FOR BRAINS finally figured out that the "Democrats are now a permanent minority party" story is stale-dated. So he passes on this Republican fairy tale painting Republicans as loyal to their country when everyone in America knows they're traitors who revealed the identity of an American CIA agent for personal political gain.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/30/2007 @ 03:13am

12. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/29/2007 @ 10:52pm

    Hey, Blotter Acid By The River, why don't you ever leave a link so we can see where you get your dopey fantasy tidbits? We'd all like to see the website that uploads the puppet-talk of the day to you pinheaded quackers.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/30/2007 @ 03:17am

13. Jesus, you liberals are still talking about all this Plame stuff? Seriously, folks...get a job, or a life, or both.

    Or better yet, why don't we discuss what it was that Sandy Berger stole and destroyed from the National Archives - now there's something the moonbats are eager to forget.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 04:44am

14. Hey, by the way, today is now day 392 of the 'imminent indictment of Karl Rove' watch. That's how long the left wing fantasphere has been all atwitter about the "Plame in a teapot". Well, at least it keeps you folks busy, I guess.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 04:48am

15. Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 10:13pm

    Keep lovin' it, my young friend....but no it doesn't.

    Weeks before you pardon Libbby, Tony Snow goes out starts talking about how Patrick Fitzgerald was an "out of control prosecutor" (a la Ken Starr).

    or...you just bury the pardon during the Transition, with a story about how "Bush White House people and Hillary White House in-coming people have had squabbles reminescent of the 2000 stories of 'vandalized key boards'." MSNBC would run with that for a week while Libby gets out and then moves into his new office at Halliburton.

    Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 07:06am

16. Plame worked in "counter-proliferation". Now she doesn't. who else doesn't work uncovering weapons of mass destruction programs due to connections to Plame? Connections made public my this admin.

    Sure Ponty, lets talk about Berger. He has been sentenced. He admitted his guilt. Please, tell me the harm he did to our national security.

    then we can talk about the memo that started this whole thing, the one that was "childishly" forged, but still managed to get into the SOTU speech so you could be even more frightened of the Boogeyman.

    "Our ability to correctly assess the political, economic and security situation in Iraq has been lacking."-Admiral Fallon. Understatement of the week.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/30/2007 @ 09:36am

17. Has anybody seen the indictment that was never unveiled? My money says it was directed at Rove.

    Has anybody seen the wmd's that were in Iraq, now in Syria? You know, the reason we HAD to go to war, we could not wait for the Army we wanted. 23,000 liters of anthrax is still missing, where has Maliki hidden it?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/30/2007 @ 09:40am

18. Posted by MASK 01/30/2007 @ 07:06am

    ah my friend...hindsight is so almost 20/20 so we shall see. your analysis is topnotch and i can definately see it going this way. you are probably right...

    but...

    while the dems are holding those impeachment papers under the table and ramming through watered down progressive legislation at some point decent investigations will be starting up and at some point truly vile actions will be brought to light that pandering grandstand politicos of both machines will be hard pressed by the angry voting public to ignore...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/30/2007 @ 09:56am

19. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/30/2007 @ 09:56am

    Well, IBBLE, they're not holding them "under the table"....according to Speaker Nancy, they're OFF the table.

    The "blackmail Bush into signing legislation with the threat of impeachment" thing might work....but I wonder if Dems are going to be able to hold off the HSUBFOOLS Crowd with "Well, we get health care for kids, even though Bush will finish out his 2nd term!"

    Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 10:27am

20. Posted by MASK 01/30/2007 @ 10:27am

    ah politics..."off the table"

    sure...

    on the floor right next to the table?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/30/2007 @ 10:43am

21. Jesus, you liberals are still talking about all this Plame stuff? Seriously, folks...get a job, or a life, or both.

    Or better yet, why don't we discuss what it was that Sandy Berger stole and destroyed from the National Archives - now there's something the moonbats are eager to forget.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 04:44am

    What pitiful reprobates. RECTIFICUS and the rest of the Republican whining brigade are complaining because someone wrote an article about a trial in progress wherein the evidence revolves around the exposure of the identity of an American CIA WMD counter-proliferation agent and her human assets by the Republican administration for personal political gain. RECTIFICUS insists it reveals that we have a character flaw.

    On the other hand, he thinks we should be going back through memory lane to talk about Sandy Berger. He did something that was vanishingly insignificant when compared to the Republican administration's exposure of an American CIA agent, placing the lives of her foreign contacts in danger. It's also done long-term damage to our ability to gather such information in the future. Why would a potential intelligence asset in a foreign country even consider placing their life in the hands of a possible future Republican administration that would surely turn them over? All for the personal political gain of the Republican Party.

    Then, of course, we also have to listen to their unending Monica Lewinsky chorus. They have yet to explain, though, how that harmed our national security or why, for such well-adjusted political commentators, they're so compulsively interested in someone else's personal sexual activity of nine years ago while their Republican President is busy tearing down America's intelligence apparatus and encouraging WMD proliferstion.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/30/2007 @ 10:47am

22. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/30/2007 @ 10:43am

    As I've said before, the Dems have two options...."short and stupid" or "long and smart".

    "long and smart" is pushing Bush to sign popular Dem legislation, especially if it has some Republican support. OR veto it and let it be used as an issue in 2008 and create "We need (insert Dem here) in the White House in 2008 so we can get **** for the American people".

    or "short and stupid"....go for impeachment in the next nine-ten months as HSUBFOOLS and the Blogosphere want. WASTE 2007 and probably a lot of 2008. Go into 2008 with little accomplished and paint themselves as "extremists listening to their fringe".

    And McCain and the Repubs can come back and retake everything.

    Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 10:49am

23. BTW, as I've mentioned before....

    David Corn is a "long and smart" supporter.

    Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 10:51am

24. Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007

    Off-topic, but also on the calendar, it's 589 days since Dead-eye Dick proclaimed that Iraq is in the last throes of the insurgency.

    Posted by nathanhale at 01/30/2007 @ 11:38am

25. Posted by MASK 01/30/2007 @ 10:51am

    i understand...it just seems that a "heads on pikes" mentality is developing - outside the blogosphere...the zeitgeist may move into a hsubfools direction, out of the control of either political machine...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/30/2007 @ 11:55am

26. Posted by MASK 01/30/2007 @ 10:51am

    i understand...it just seems that a "heads on pikes" mentality is developing - outside the blogosphere...the zeitgeist may move into a hsubfools direction, out of the control of either political machine...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/30/2007 @ 12:01pm

27. whats amazing and refreshing to me is the way decent republican voting types are turning. there is a feeling across the nation of betrayal...the shame at being fooled is melting away, replaced with righteous indignation and rage. the mob may have a say in this after all.

    but ram as much legislation through as possible in the time allowed. maybe no impeachment but maybe no choice but impeachment.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/30/2007 @ 12:22pm

28. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/30/2007 @ 12:01am

    IBBLE, as I noted on Ari Berman's latest on the Senate....

    if they can't even get enough votes for a NON-binding resolution opposing the war.....what "threat" is there that they could get 2/3rd majority to remove Bush from office?

    Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 1:05pm

29. Posted by MASK 01/30/2007 @ 1:05pm

    again point taken, but i never thought i would see chuck hagel talking the way he is talking these days. sure, talk is talk and walk is walk, but...

    pubs who want to get reelected/dont want their party destroyed may feel cutting a chunk of cancerous flesh out and dumping it in the biohazard bin is preferable to going down with the ship. and with the growing unspinnable righteous rage in the country, even the sycophantic ratings driven corporate owned msm will jump on the bandwagon and feed the frenzy. because nothing has damaged conservatism in this country as much as these neocon morons... stupidity revealed is not good for business...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/30/2007 @ 1:12pm

30. Go into 2008 with little accomplished and paint themselves as "extremists listening to their fringe".

    And McCain and the Repubs can come back and retake everything.

    Posted by MASK 01/30/2007 @ 10:49am

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! MASK is worried the Democrats will flub it if they give Americans what they want! So helpful with the advice.

    . . according to the latest NEWSWEEK Poll. The president's approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll's history--30 percent--and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over, a sentiment that is almost unanimous among Democrats (86 percent), and is shared by a clear majority (59 percent) of independents and even one in five (21 percent) Republicans. Half (49 percent) of all registered voters would rather see a Democrat elected president in 2008, compared to just 28 percent who'd prefer the GOP to remain in the White House.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16840614/site/newsweek/

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/30/2007 @ 1:40pm

31. Off-topic, but also on the calendar, it's 589 days since Dead-eye Dick proclaimed that Iraq is in the last throes of the insurgency.

    Posted by NATHANHALE 01/30/2007 @ 11:38am

    I don't think we should stop calling him Baghdad Dick - no matter how many other Republicans he mistakes for Tweetybird.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/30/2007 @ 1:44pm

32. When the whole story broke about Valerie Plame being outed as a CIA agent, one of the main 'spin points' being parroted by the wingnuts was that 'everyone knew' Ms. Plame worked for the CIA...that it was common knowledge. Can we finally drive a stake through the heart of that lame assertion with White House Press Secretary Ari Fliescher, testifying under oath, that Libby told him that...

    "[H]e was sent by his wife. . . . [S]he works in . . . the Counterproliferation area of the CIA." (II-545-47.) Describing the lunch as "kind of weird" (II-590-91), and noting that Libby typically "operated in a very closed-lip fashion" (II-592), Fleischer recalled that Libby "added something along the lines of, you know, this is hush-hush, nobody knows about this. This is on the q.t."

    Posted by Lillian at 01/30/2007 @ 3:37pm

33. It's been proven to you moonbats many times that all this Plame piffle is much ado about nothing. I don't blame you all for ignoring the part about Sandy Berger destroying records from the National Archives which pertain to the Clintons' handling of Osama pre-911. That certainly punctures the narrative you want to purvey. Politics first, truth second in the fever swamps of the left.

    More information for you chowderheads to ignore here:

    Fitzgerald has proved himself the most clichéd of Washington types -- the out-of-control special prosecutor. Such is human nature that almost no one has the strength to resist losing all sense of proportion once he has been loosed on the world as a special prosecutor, free to pursue any supposed violation of the law -- no matter how peripheral -- to the ends of the earth. Two events have highlighted the injustice of Fitzgerald's prosecution.

    The first event blew out of the water the theory that initially drove the case. That theory held that war-mongering, Bush-administration neocons were so furious that Joseph Wilson had written a July 2003 New York Times op-ed retrospectively criticizing their case for war that they embarked on a campaign of vengeance. Out of spite, they exposed that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA, violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in the process. Hence, Fitzgerald's appointment.

    Unfortunately for this theory, the original leaker of Plame's identity was former Secretary of State Colin Powell's aide Richard Armitage. He was an internal enemy of the neocons, and he told columnist Bob Novak about Plame for innocent reasons. After Wilson's op-ed, everyone wondered why he, of all people, had been sent on a prewar mission to Niger in 2002 to investigate claims that Saddam had recently sought to purchase uranium there. The answer: Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and recommended him for the mission.

    This information spread quickly throughout Washington -- with officials and reporters trading it among themselves -- before Novak put it in print. None of this violated the law. Plame wasn't covered under the narrowly crafted Intelligence Identities Protection Act. All that had been taking place was politics, as the administration and its critics jousted over the war via the Plame flap.

    A wiser man than Fitzgerald -- who knew from the beginning that there was no underlying crime and that Armitage had been the first leaker -- would have folded up his tent and decamped back to Chicago where his day job is fighting real crime as a U.S. attorney. Alas, he didn't, and his case has been made to look even more foolish by a second event.

    That is former Clinton national-security adviser Sandy Berger's theft and destruction of classified documents from the National Archives related to the Clinton administration's anti-terror efforts. Berger initially lied about it, and thus behaved with more blatant dishonesty and more disregard for classified material than Libby. Yet Libby faces jail time, and Berger got off with a wrist-slap. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make the subject of a special-counsel investigation.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 4:02pm

34. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/30/2007 @ 1:40pm

    FRB, again..."two weeks" up so soon?!??!...hehe.

    Yeah, I saw that poll data too. Seems like pretty telling evidence that the American people want the Bush Presidency over.

    Now a question...with such strong numbers like that....why didn't Newsweek ask "Would you like to see President Bush impeached?"!??!?!?!

    Seems that would have been a SLAM-DUNK for those who are for it. Newsweek gets some 50+% saying "Yep, impeach da bum!" and then Pelosi doesn't need to hide under her "off-the" table anymore.

    But....odd?!?!!?....they didn't ask that?!??!?!?!

    Hmmmmm?...wonder why?

    Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 4:13pm

35. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/30/2007 @ 1:12pm

    IBBLE, you don't win by giving the enemy what it wants.

    Think Democrats are going to go into 2008 with Repubs voting for impeachment (both House and Senate...a Senate by the way that may not even pass the NON-binding resolution) and say...

    "You know, we may have our differences with them Repubs...but they stood up and got rid of their President, so we'll cut them some slack!"

    or would it be "With the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, even Republicans admit that their party is criminal!"

    Reminds me of the talk on Limbaugh after the 1994 Midterms, where El Rushbo "hinted" that "Maybe the Dems will dump Clinton in 1996 given the unprecedented damage he's done to them"....or later his "hints" that "Dems may HAVE to go along on impeaching Clinton...otherwise they risk losing in 2000!"

    It's all wishful thinking....1993,1999 was on the Right....2007-2008 on the Left.

    Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 4:17pm

36. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/30/2007 @ 03:13am

    MAASCH FOR BRAINS finally figured out that the "Democrats are now a permanent minority party" story is stale-dated. So he passes on this Republican fairy tale painting Republicans as loyal to their country when everyone in America knows they're traitors who revealed the identity of an American CIA agent for personal political gain.

    Wow, I see one of the resident raving specialists has backed off the 'Karl Rove broke the law, his indictment is imminent, he should be shot for treason blah blah blah...." line. Now, it's just some unidentified (Armitage) Republican who revealed (what, not 'exposed an undercover agent'?) a CIA agent's identity for 'personal political gain'. Boy, even with FRB saying it, it sure sounds like mighty thin gruel indeed (thus proving that truth does eventually, come to us all). Perhaps sustenance enough for the slavering rabid, demented hounds of the left-wing blogosphere, but surely the sane segment of society is by now wondering what all the fuss is about.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 4:20pm

37. Hey, just for kicks and grins, anybody want to speculate on what the lefties would be saying about Condoleeza Rice if she was caught stuffing untracked and unknown amounts of classified material from the National Archives regarding Bush Administration anti-terrorism activities into her bra and panties for 'her own personal convenience.'

    LOL! How anybody expects to get any enlightenment whatsoever from lunatics who excuse or ignore Berger's behavior passes rational understanding. But then again, lots of things about leftism pass rational understanding, so what the hell.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 4:28pm

38. "It's been proven to you moonbats many times that all this Plame piffle is much ado about nothing."

    yeah, right.hahahahaha

    and Seinfeld was a show about NOTHING. how long did that show run?

    this trial is a continuing disaster for the Bush mis-administration. every day brings new revelations of lying.and it is a continuing disaster for the right wing crowd here. there they are, gesticulating wildly, about how it's all about nothing, and how someone named Berger is really a much worse guy, and such rot. but why, pray tell is this still in the news every day? even on Fox? this trial is the orchestra on the Titanic, bravely playing on, as the ship sinks into the slow death of the Bush administration.those repubs who want to survive 2008 are heading for the lifeboats.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/30/2007 @ 4:36pm

39. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/30/2007 @ 4:36pm

    Yeah, JR, and as this whole charade fades into nothingness, it's only you and your ilk I see gesticulating madly and mumbling loudly to yourselves along the lines of 'this time we'll get'em, dammit, all of 'em, I tell ya, the whole cheatin' lyin filthy lot of em....'

    And all you've got is a questionable indictment for misstatements under oath (still unproven) of some peripheral player. We don't even have an underlying crime, a fact the prosecutor knew from the beginning. The whole charade would be slam-dunk prosecutorial misconduct except for the fundamental dishonesty of leftists like Schumer who will cover Fitzgerald's ass from disbarment and hope the rational Americans won't be paying attention when this whole thing ends with a whimper and not a bang.

    But rest assured, JR, I'll be here, laughing at morons like you who will simply forget about your foolishness and move on to the next 'issue'.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 4:43pm

40. as this whole charade fades into nothingness,

    hahahah, it will take about six months to fade, but the smell of death that emanates from the white house will linger.

    "But rest assured, JR, I'll be here"

    you haven't been here for months, it seems. no wonder, you and your ilk have been found wanting by the american people. as your tiny minority shrivels to oblivion I will rest assured, I assure you.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/30/2007 @ 5:02pm

41. blah blah blah piffle blah blah moonbats blah blah get a job get a life blah blah blah fantasphere blah blah blah plame in a teapot blah blah much ado about nothing blah blah blah truth second in the fever swamps of the left blah blah resident raving specialists blah blah blah slavering rabid, demented hounds of the left-wing blogosphere blah blah blah blah lunatics

    Never wonder why, Pontifitardicus, everyone here thinks you're either an asshole... or an asshole.

    Perhaps sustenance enough for the slavering rabid, demented hounds of the left-wing blogosphere, but surely the sane segment of society is by now wondering what all the fuss is about.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 4:20pm

    The sane segment of society (and the world at large) disapproves of your president, his party, and of perjury.

    The trial is ongoing - I'd suggest you slow down on your chicken-counting.

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 5:06pm

42. Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 10:54pm

    Hey Will, how are you and your boy OJ doing in the hunt to find the 'real' killers? Yeah, I know, it's not your job to do that, but I figure if you're really as convinced of OJ's innocence as you say you are, you might want to work on that a little since, you know, pretty much the entire country believes otherwise. You might start by telling OJ that if the 'real' killers were in any strip club or on any golf course in America, he would have found 'them' by now. Don't want to embarass you, Will, just, you know, trying to help.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 5:07pm

43. But then again, lots of things about me pass rational understanding, so what the hell.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 4:28pm | ignore this person

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/30/2007 @ 5:07pm

44. "I figure if you're really as convinced of Bush's innocence, you might want to work on that a little since, you know, pretty much the entire country believes otherwise.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 5:07pm | ignore this person

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/30/2007 @ 5:13pm

45. Posted by NEW DAWN 01/30/2007 @ 5:06pm

    The trial is ongoing - I'd suggest you slow down on your chicken-counting.

    DUUUUUDDDDEEEE!!! I've been counting chickens on this for YEARS!!! And I've always been right, every step of the way. This whole thing has come to nothing. And here you are, with your "It's not over yet! We can still get'em! You'll see!"

    Pardon me if I'm a little....skeptical.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 5:19pm

46. It's all wishful thinking....1993,1999 was on the Right....2007-2008 on the Left.

    Posted by MASK 01/30/2007 @ 4:17pm |

    i dont think its all wishful thinking...i am looking back at 1972-3, the mounting crescendo of revelation, shock and disgust at revelations, until BOOM! unstoppable inertia...no stopping it even if we want to. but no impeachment then even (resignation...impeachment...you know).

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/30/2007 @ 5:21pm

47. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/30/2007 @ 5:13pm

    That's one way to win an argument, JR. Debate yourself. Probably your best bet though, have at it my friend.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 5:21pm

48. thanks for allowing me to use your words, with small modifications, against you. it's a big time saver. you weren't making good use of them anyway, so I can understand your generosity.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/30/2007 @ 6:38pm

49. Posted by NEW DAWN 01/30/2007 @ 5:06pm

    The trial is ongoing - I'd suggest you slow down on your chicken-counting.

    DUUUUUDDDDEEEE!!! I've been counting chickens on this for YEARS!!! And I've always been right, every step of the way. This whole thing has come to nothing. And here you are, with your "It's not over yet! We can still get'em! You'll see!"

    Pardon me if I'm a little....skeptical.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 5:19pm

    Dear liar -

    Please point out where I ever said "It's not over yet! We can still get'em! You'll see!" Good luck with your fruitless search.

    You're clearly full of shit, Pontificus. Always have been, always will be.

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 6:52pm

50. Posted by NEW DAWN 01/30/2007 @ 6:52pm

    Please point out where I ever said "It's not over yet! We can still get'em! You'll see!" Good luck with your fruitless search.

    Snore. Retreating into ingenousness, how mediocre. I think I've represented your position pretty fairly. Deal with it.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 7:28pm

51. pontificus is just another pro treason republican. these guys will justify anything, from child molesting to treason, as long as they think it helps republicans.

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 8:04pm

52. Posted by NEW DAWN 01/30/2007 @ 6:52pm

    Please point out where I ever said "It's not over yet! We can still get'em! You'll see!" Good luck with your fruitless search.

    Snore. Retreating into ingenousness, how mediocre. I think I've represented your position pretty fairly. Deal with it.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 7:28pm

    Snore. Talking shit without being able to back it up.

    Don't ever change, Pussyficus.

    It will be highly amusing if Libby is convicted. I never said he would be, one way or the other. I advised you not to count your chickens before they hatched and challenged you to point out ANYTHING I HAVE EVER SAID HERE even remotely approaching "It's not over yet! We can still get'em! You'll see!"

    You proved yourself a moron and spineless on both counts. You couldn't do it, because it never happened. And you were just talking shit without being able to back it up.

    Same old Pontifipussy.

    Deal with it.

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 8:05pm

53. they pretend to worry about sandy berger sneaking out some copies, so they can distract from the real treason, exposing valerie plame which gutted our anti wmd work.

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 8:07pm

54. pontificus is just another pro treason republican. these guys will justify anything, from child molesting to treason, as long as they think it helps republicans.

    Posted by PRETZEL 01/30/2007 @ 8:04pm

    No, Rio Chickenshit Coward is a pro treason republican.

    Pontifitwit is just a good old-fashioned idiot.

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 8:08pm

55. well, i guess he just could be an idiot. but i think the willful denial propels him into the treason supporting class of republican.

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 8:11pm

56. Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 4:02pm

    Say, Ponti...

    How about a link to the actual article (which is long on ill-informed opinion and short on facts - hey, just like you!).

    We'd like to know which rabidly right-wing frothing-at-the-mouth outlet you got this little gem from.

    It would explain a great deal about you, you know.

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 8:12pm

57. well, i guess he just could be an idiot. but i think the willful denial propels him into the treason supporting class of republican.

    Posted by PRETZEL 01/30/2007 @ 8:11pm

    The Republicans I know wouldn't have him. ;)

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 8:12pm

58. the republicans wouldnt have him??? blecchh, theyll take anybody.

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 8:17pm

59. And here we come to the tawdry end of this sleazy little witch-hunt: a prosecution over misstatements in an episode in which there was nothing to cover-up, no crime. But the leftists in and out of the Senate demand a scalp, regardless of the underlying merits of the case, and in a city that's almost 100 percent Democratic (since all the inhabitants are either government employees or wards of the state), they just might get one. But is it justice? Hardly.

    Libby says that he misremembered how he had learned that Plame worked at the CIA. He said under oath -- erroneously -- that he had heard it from NBC's Tim Russert. But the case has been a festival of poor memories and conflicting accounts from nearly everyone involved, which is inevitable when dealing with minutiae that happened long ago. Bob Woodward has even said that it is conceivable that he told Libby about Plame. As legal analyst David Rivkin put it, that means Libby might have "confused a prominent middle-age television journalist for a prominent middle-age newspaperman."

    Libby's fate is now a crapshoot. If he has a fair-minded jury, he probably will get acquitted. But if not (and he is being tried in heavily Democratic Washington, D.C.), he won't. Patrick Fitzgerald surely would consider that vindication, but it would only add to his shame.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 8:18pm

60. http://tinyurl.com/39gv8d

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 8:22pm

61. I don't care if Libby is convicted. the damage to the white house is real and lasting. this is their dirty linen, and it is aired. smells like defeat to me.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/30/2007 @ 8:23pm

62. Posted by PRETZEL 01/30/2007 @ 8:07pm

    they pretend to worry about sandy berger sneaking out some copies, so they can distract from the real treason, exposing valerie plame which gutted our anti wmd work.

    God, you're hilarious. I actually laughed out loud at that one. Tell me, do you actually believe that?

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 8:24pm

63. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/30/2007 @ 8:23pm

    Admit it JR, you couldn't give a shit if Libby is innocent as the driven snow. Your only interest is damaging Bush. Do you have enough honesty to admit that? I'm curious.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 8:26pm

64. Pont, I cannot damage Bush, he's doing a fine job of that himself. I had nothing to do with the lying and the sliming and the outing. those were all done by nasty little repubs. but don't take my word for it, look at Bush's appro ratings and Cheney's. that's all you need to know.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/30/2007 @ 8:30pm

65. ponti forgot to provide a link, cause he doesn't want us to know which right wing propaganda site he is getting this crap from. see, he is sneaky in a stupid, half clever way--this is why he looks more like a treason supporter. the really dumb ones dont try to be clever.

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 8:31pm

66. Posted by NEW DAWN 01/30/2007 @ 8:12pm

    How about a link to the actual article (which is long on ill-informed opinion and short on facts - hey, just like you!).

    We'd like to know which rabidly right-wing frothing-at-the-mouth outlet you got this little gem from.

    It would explain a great deal about you, you know.

    I suspect that anything that doesn't confirm your preconceived notions falls into the category of 'ill-informed'. Just like for most leftists, simple economics is a worldwide conspiracy against socialism. Har har.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 8:32pm

67. but he is stupid too, trying to peddle that sandy berger crap in here.

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 8:33pm

68. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/30/2007 @ 8:30pm

    So I take it in your refusal to respond that, in fact, you do not have the honesty to admit that your only interest is in damaging Bush.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 8:34pm

69. Posted by PRETZEL 01/30/2007 @ 8:31pm

    Hey Brainiac, check the posts above. You don't expect me to read for you too, do you, I mean in additiona to attempting to educate you?

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 8:35pm

70. i dont expect anything from you but stupidity and right wing propaganda, both of which you shower on the thread.

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 8:39pm

71. Posted by PRETZEL 01/30/2007 @ 8:33pm

    but he is stupid too, trying to peddle that sandy berger crap in here.

    Yes, God forbid that any of you should see anything wrong with stealing classified original documents from the National Archives pertaining to Clinton's dealings with Bin Laden pre-911, lying to Archives staff about taking them (while being caught on camera doing just that), smuggling them out in your clothes, hiding them in dead drops outside, then coming back later, picking them up, and shredding them in your office. Then later pleading out to a misdemeanor and a $50,000 fine, because after all, we all know there's nothing wrong with that!

    Yes, God forbid anyone should try to tell you good people that there is anything wrong with that! Why, you're just too smart for that!

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 8:42pm

72. Posted by PRETZEL 01/30/2007 @ 8:39pm

    Gee Pretzel, even for a leftist, I'd have to say you're quite the shining beacon of a moron. And that's quite a distinction amongst your crowd.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 8:44pm

73. now the copies are classified original documents, heh heh. yeah, push that story line traitor. i bet you get off thinking about all those wmds iran will be able to develop thanks to the treason in the white house, and the enabling of anti american fools like you.

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 8:45pm

74. sadly, ponti, you are not exceptionally stupid for a republican. it is the party for stupid people.

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 8:46pm

75. I suspect that anything that doesn't confirm your preconceived notions falls into the category of 'ill-informed'. Just like for most leftists, simple economics is a worldwide conspiracy against socialism. Har har.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 8:32pm

    You "suspect", huh?

    With zero evidence from a single post I have ever posted, you suspect this, huh?

    Snore. Even more talking shit without being able to back it up.

    (deja vu alert???)

    Same old Pontifipussy.

    Deal with it.

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 8:50pm

76. i mean, im glad to see stupid people taking an interest in politics, but to see them flocking en masse to the republican party is telling.

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 8:51pm

77. Posted by PRETZEL 01/30/2007 @ 8:45pm

    now the copies are classified original documents, heh heh.

    Those were copies with original annotations. In other words, people wrote notes on them in meetings. They were originals documents in that sense, and they were uncatalogued. Nobody knows exactly what Berger stole and destroyed, other than it was quite a bit and that whatever it was, it was worth risking jail for. But don't let me shake your illusions, you go on believing your little fairy tales.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

    Then there is Sandy Berger, the former Clinton national security adviser who pleaded guilty last year to knowingly taking and destroying classified documents from the National Archives while preparing for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. When archives officials caught Mr. Berger, they bizarrely first asked a friend of his, former Clinton White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, for an explanation, rather than contact the Justice Department. After initially lying to investigators, Mr. Berger finally admitted that he took the documents, but only for "personal convenience."

    Prosecutors accepted Mr. Berger's assurance that he had taken only five documents from the archives, even though on three of his four visits there he had access to original working papers of the National Security Council for which no adequate inventory exists. Nancy Smith, the archives official who provided the materials to Mr. Berger, said that she would "never know what if any original documents were missing." We have only Mr. Berger's word that he didn't take anything else. The Justice Department secured his agreement to take a polygraph on the matter, but never followed through and administered it.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 8:53pm

78. Hey Pontifidiot -

    I think that stealing classified original documents from the National Archives is a crime and that criminals like Sandy Berger who commit such a crime should be prosecuted and punished.

    Now, stop obfuscating and playing with Pretzel and Johannes and come back up your big mouth. Come back up a single one of your unsubstantiated accusations about me.

    You ignorant, mouthy bitch.

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 8:55pm

79. January 15, 2007 Sandy Berger: What Did He Take and Why Did He Take It? By Ronald A. Cass

    Some things cry out for explanation. Like finding $90,000 in marked bills in a Congressman's freezer. Or finding out that a blue-chip lawyer who held one of the most important jobs in the nation was willing to risk his career, his livelihood, and his liberty to steal, hide, and destroy classified documents.

    We all have a pretty good idea what the money was doing in Representative William Jefferson's freezer. But the questions about President William Jefferson Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, just keep piling up.

    It's time we got some answers. **********

    According to reports from the Inspector General of the National Archives and the staff of the House of Representatives' Government Operations Committee, Mr. Berger, while acting as former President Clinton's designated representative to the commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001, illegally took confidential documents from the Archives on more than one occasion. He folded documents in his clothes, snuck them out of the Archives building, and stashed them under a construction trailer nearby until he could return, retrieve them, and later cut them up. After he was caught, he lied to the investigators and tried to shift blame to Archive employees.

    Contrary to his initial denials and later excuses, Berger clearly intended from the outset to remove sensitive material from the Archives. He used the pretext of making and receiving private phone calls to get time alone with confidential material, although rules governing access dictated that someone from the Archives staff must be present. He took bathroom breaks every half-hour to provide further opportunity to remove and conceal documents.

    Before this information was released, the Justice Department, accepting his explanation of innocent and accidental removal of the documents, allowed Berger to enter a plea to the misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material - no prison time, no loss of his bar license. The series of actions that the Archives and House investigations detail, however, are entirely at odds with protestations of innocence. Nothing about his actions was accidental. Nothing was casual. And nothing was normal.

    What could have been important enough for Berger to take the risks he did? What could have been important enough for a lawyer of his distinction to risk disgrace, disbarment, and prison?

    To paraphrase the questions asked of Richard Nixon by members of his own Party, what did he take and why did he take it?

    **********

    The report released by Rep. Tom Davis last week makes plain that right now we cannot answer those questions. We cannot say what information in fact was lost through Mr. Berger's actions.

    At President Clinton's request, he reviewed highly confidential material during four visits to the Archives over four months. Only Mr. Berger knows what transpired on his first two visits, when he reviewed collections of confidential memos, e-mails, and handwritten notes, including materials taken from counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke's office - all of which were not catalogued at the individual item level.

    On Mr. Berger's third visit Archives employees became suspicious that he might be removing classified material. Rather than directly confront a former Cabinet-level official, Archives officials simply took steps to identify further theft on succeeding visits. That is how Mr. Berger's thefts on his fourth and last visit were documented.

    We don't know what Mr. Berger might have removed from the uncatalogued materials reviewed in his earlier visits, but we know his last visit focused on a memorandum called the Millennium Alert After Action Report (MAAAR). Copies of this report were made available to the 9/11 Commission, but the information in those copies undoubtedly is not what interested Berger most. Berger took five copies of the report and later destroyed three of them.

    What was on the copies he destroyed? Handwritten notes from Berger, the President, or some other official? Observations that would be embarrassing to them, evidence they missed an important threat or considered or recommended actions - or decisions not to act - they wouldn't want to defend in public? Evidence, perhaps, that would have supported the Bush Administration? We don't know, and no one who does is saying, but the evidence must have been terribly damning for Berger to take the risks he did.

    **********

    There are good reasons to protect sensitive communications within the government. Some discussions should be private if presidents are to have the best advice and the nation is to have the best decisions on sensitive matters. The President and top officials should be able to explore options and discuss threats - among themselves and with their key staff members - without fear that a remark taken out of context or poorly phrased will come back to haunt them.

    Laws that endeavor to strike the balance between salutary confidentiality and beneficial public disclosure at times tilt too far to disclosure. In public debate, advantages of disclosure are often easier to explain than advantages of secrecy. That, in part, follows from the nature of secrets - if you don't reveal them, you can't explain fully why they should have stayed secret.

    The Berger episode, however, strictly involves materials that are supposed to be turned over under the law, materials specifically covered by a presidential directive that authorized sharing the information with those investigating 9/11 intelligence-gathering and evaluation. Mr. Berger's willingness to risk everything to suppress the information goes well beyond ordinary concerns against excessive disclosure.

    Bill Clinton obviously has great sensitivity to his place in history and to accusations that he did too little to respond to al-Qaeda, that he is to some degree responsible for failing to prevent 9/11's tragedy. That is why he and his lieutenants made reckless and baseless accusations against the current Bush administration, attempting to portray them as having dropped the baton handed off by ever-vigilant Clintonistas (who, according to John Ashcroft's testimony, withheld the MAAAR and its warnings about al-Qaeda's operations in the US from the Bush transition team).

    But maybe there is more to the story. Maybe there is something far worse than we can imagine that is worth having his chief security aide risk his reputation, his career, and his liberty to cover up.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 8:57pm

80. yeah, first they were "originals" now they are "copies with original annotations". and how do we know they had original annotations? cause some wingnut said so. sure, absolutely ironclad evidence, linked together with flawless logic. idiot. but im sure that as soon as libby gets convicted, the terrible security threat represented by sandy berger will be dealt with.

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 8:57pm

81. wingnut logic -- hey i can imagine real bad things! that must make them true!

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 8:58pm

82. For the literacy challenged - aka Pretzel

    We don't know what Mr. Berger might have removed from the uncatalogued materials reviewed in his earlier visits, but we know his last visit focused on a memorandum called the Millennium Alert After Action Report (MAAAR). Copies of this report were made available to the 9/11 Commission, but the information in those copies undoubtedly is not what interested Berger most. Berger took five copies of the report and later destroyed three of them.

    What was on the copies he destroyed? Handwritten notes from Berger, the President, or some other official? Observations that would be embarrassing to them, evidence they missed an important threat or considered or recommended actions - or decisions not to act - they wouldn't want to defend in public? Evidence, perhaps, that would have supported the Bush Administration? We don't know, and no one who does is saying, but the evidence must have been terribly damning for Berger to take the risks he did.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 9:00pm

83. Posted by NEW DAWN 01/30/2007 @ 5:06pm

    The sane segment of society (and the world at large) disapproves of your president, his party, and of perjury.

    ND, you see here's the problem - you ask me to take you seriously - but at the same time you post bad faith arguments like this. I mean, come on - I'm talking about the moral idiocy that the Plame investigation has devolved into, and you try to redirect the argument to polls. And which perjury are you talking about? Libby's so-called perjury, which honestly looks like nothing more than misstatements under oath, and in any case has yet to be proven? And while we're on the subject of perjury, shall we even begin to discuss the hordes of programmed leftist morons who refuse to acknowledge Clinton's lying under oath, by trying to trivialize it as 'lying about sex'?

    Now Pretzel and JR don't even ask to be taken seriously - that's what makes them such fun, and so much fun to make fun of.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2007 @ 9:09pm

84. god ponti is such an idiot he can't even read his own cut and pastes. What was on the copies he destroyed? Handwritten notes from Berger, the President, or some other official? Observations that would be embarrassing to them, evidence they missed an important threat or considered or recommended actions - or decisions not to act - they wouldn't want to defend in public? Evidence, perhaps, that would have supported the Bush Administration? We don't know, and no one who does is saying, but the evidence must have been terribly damning for Berger to take the risks he did.

    ponti, if you can read, try to look at the first 3 words of the last sentence there. wingnut--i can imagine something that is terrible!! it must be true!

    really, really dumb.

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 9:55pm

85. woo hoo!! i can imagine it must have been evidence that supported bush!! it could even have been mrs. mcgillicuddy's super secret chocolate chip cookie recipe!! take that liberals!!

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 9:56pm

86. wow, maybe the location of the iraqi wmds were in those memos!! it could have been anything!!

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 9:59pm

87. So I take it in your refusal to respond that, in fact, you do not have the honesty to admit that your only interest is in damaging Bush.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 8:34pm | ignore this person

    are you retarded? I answered your question before you even asked it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/30/2007 @ 10:02pm

88. what a pathetic attempt to change the subject, Pont. Berger is not the topic here. he plead guilty. Libby could have made a deal, he likely still can. but the damage to Bush continues. and that's why you feel you must change the subject. because you have nothing.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/30/2007 @ 10:04pm

89. i dunno if libby will make a deal here. he would have to sell out the bush admin.

    Posted by pretzel at 01/30/2007 @ 10:35pm

90. Keep lovin' it, my young friend....but no it doesn't.

    Posted by MASK 01/30/2007 @ 07:06am

    you poor little guy. But yes it does. You must have missed all that discusion on this very issue (accepting a presidential pardon equals an admission of guilt) right after former president ford died.

    But that doesn't suprise me. You don't deal well with reality.

    tool

    Posted by Will C. at 01/31/2007 @ 12:30am

91. More information for you chowderheads to ignore here...

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 4:02pm

    Hey biggus dickus, an opinion piece from Rich Lowry that sites no facts or testimony from the trial cannot truthfully be called "information." If you listen only to O'Reilly and Limbaugh and read only the National Review, you'll get a lot of opinion but not much information.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 01/31/2007 @ 03:29am

92. Posted by NEW DAWN 01/30/2007 @ 6:52pm

    Please point out where I ever said "It's not over yet! We can still get'em! You'll see!" Good luck with your fruitless search.

    Snore. Retreating into ingenousness, how mediocre. I think I've represented your position pretty fairly. Deal with it. Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 7:28pm |

    -------- Shorter PONTIFICUS. I'm sleepy. You're boring. I'll invent a word that sounds sophisticated: "ingenousness". Now I turn to ad hominem: "You're mediocre." And finally to substance. "If you don't think the quote I invented and put in your post sufficiently represents your sentiments that's your problem.

    -------- Shorter NeilSagan: I just found the ignore this person button, buh-bye PONTIFICUS

    Posted by NeilSagan at 01/31/2007 @ 03:44am

93. Pontificus is an appropriate name for him, though. You'll have to admit that was inspired. Probably from what all his friends tell him. All two of them.

    Posted by brantl at 01/31/2007 @ 08:09am

94. i dunno if libby will make a deal here. he would have to sell out the bush admin.

    Posted by PRETZEL 01/30/2007 @ 10:35pm | ignore this person

    good posts Pret. as to selling pout Bush, in order to reduce or avoid jail, it's really a no brainer. what can Bush possibly have to offer Libby? that administration has a fast approaching expiration date. after that both Bush and Cheney will be shunned by the repubs.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/31/2007 @ 10:08am

95. Posted by NEW DAWN 01/30/2007 @ 5:06pm

    The sane segment of society (and the world at large) disapproves of your president, his party, and of perjury.

    ND, you see here's the problem - you ask me to take you seriously - but at the same time you post bad faith arguments like this. I mean, come on - I'm talking about the moral idiocy that the Plame investigation has devolved into, and you try to redirect the argument to polls. And which perjury are you talking about? Libby's so-called perjury, which honestly looks like nothing more than misstatements under oath, and in any case has yet to be proven? And while we're on the subject of perjury, shall we even begin to discuss the hordes of programmed leftist morons who refuse to acknowledge Clinton's lying under oath, by trying to trivialize it as 'lying about sex'?

    Now Pretzel and JR don't even ask to be taken seriously - that's what makes them such fun, and so much fun to make fun of.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 9:09pm

    Pontifitard -

    Here's your problem.

    The folks on this thread were discussing a subject.

    Here's how you enter the thread:

    Jesus, you liberals are still talking about all this Plame stuff? Seriously, folks...get a job, or a life, or both.

    Or better yet, why don't we discuss what it was that Sandy Berger stole and destroyed from the National Archives - now there's something the moonbats are eager to forget.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/30/2007 @ 04:44am | ignore this person

    Clue you in, Ponti - you were the one who redirected the conversation from Plame to Berger (apropos of nothing), a man who has already been prosecuted for his crime. And you accuse others of bad faith arguments?

    Newsflash for you, Ponti: 70% of the world does disagree with your president and and most of the beliefs you espouse here. That's why I brought it up - when you go pasting opinion pieces instead of facts to support your arguments, you are proving nothing. You come here with nothing but your smart mouth and someone else's opinion hit-piece to stand on.

    And you expect folks to take you seriously when you post your own venemous rhetoric:

    piffle moonbats get a job get a life fantasphere plame in a teapot much ado about nothing truth second in the fever swamps of the left resident raving specialists slavering rabid, demented hounds of the left-wing blogosphere lunatics

    And you expect anyone here to take you seriously?

    I thought long and hard abpout devolving all the way to schoolyard language with you and outting you as the mouthy bitch you are (and nothing more), but I've since come to the conclusion that that's the only level of language you really understand.

    Opinion sustains you, and facts clearly upset you - I still have yet to see you prove a single one of your unsubstantiated accusations about me.

    You mouthy bitch.

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/31/2007 @ 2:44pm

96. Oh, and Ponti -

    Just to deflate another of the stupid arguments with which you like to paint as many liberals as you can:

    Yes, it is a clearly established fact that Bill Clinton lied under oath, and I don't "excuse" him for doing so, for any reason. I do understand that lying is lying, period - however, I also know that lies to cover up sex are not the same as lies about imminent threats from other countries that bring us into wars. Anyone who argues differently is confusing the consequences to our country of telling said lies. One shames the dignified office of the presidency - the other shames the office AND includes the added bonus of wasting billions of dollars and American lives in the failing adventure that is Iraq.

    Now, with that entirely irrelevant point addressed, what else you got to distract from actually backing up your baseless accusations about me?

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/31/2007 @ 2:57pm