A CIA-Did-It Defense for Scooter in the Plame Leak Case?

posted by David Corn on 09/30/2005 @ 2:05pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (111)

Subscribe Now

When you already have a fall guy, use him--especially if he's a dead man.

Could that be the legal strategy of I. Lewis Libby (a.k.a. Scooter), Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, in the Plame/CIA leak case?

The news of the day in this scandal is that New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who was imprisoned for refusing to cooperate with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, is free. She and the Times cut a deal with Fitzgerald, after Miller had served 12 weeks for being in contempt of court. Under this arrangement, Miller agreed to testify before Fitzgerald's grand jury and to hand over edited version of her notes.

This is not much of a noble denouement to Miller's crusade for the First Amendment. Throughout this episode, she and her paper took what appeared to be an absolutist position against cooperating with subpoena-wielding prosecutors who yearn to poke around newsrooms--while other reporters accommodated Fitzgerald. Now Miller and the Times have also elected to cooperate. But what distinguishes her case is that it seems she went to jail because of a mistake.

Upon her release, Miller declared she had been imprisoned because "a journalist must respect a promise not to reveal the identity of a confidential source." She added, "I am leaving jail today because my source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding our conversations relating to the Wilson-Plame matter." This source was Libby. But a lawyer for Libby, Joseph Tate, told The Washington Post on Friday that a year ago he had informed Floyd Abrams, an attorney for Miller, that Libby had waived confidentiality and that Miller was free to discuss her chats with Libby. (The New York Times account of this--which presumably was heavily lawyered--is rather convoluted; if you want to avoid a headache, stick to the Post piece.) Only a few weeks ago, Tate said, he was contacted by Robert Bennett, another Miller attorney, and was told that Miller had not accepted Libby's waiver and was in jail protecting Libby. Tate claimed he and Libby were "surprised to learn we had anything to do with her incarceration." The lawyers for Libby and Miller arranged a phone call between the two, in which Libby apparently assured Miller his year-old wavier was voluntary. Then she and the Times negotiated a deal with Fitzgerald.

This suggests that Miller ended up going to jail due to a miscommunication. Could she had avoided jail had the lawyers done a better job? Was she a martyr because of a mistake? Her position now is the same as the other reporters who are known to have cooperated with Fitzgerald: if the source waives protection, then a reporter can talk. Her crusade is over.

But back to the fall guy. The end of this sub-plot has caused Libby's team to leak his defense to the media. The Post quotes "a source familiar with Libby's account of his conversations with Miller." The odds are that source is Libby or his attorney. This super-secret source says that on July 8, 2003, Miller and Libby talked. This was six days before columnist Bob Novak disclosed the CIA identity of Valerie Wilson and two days after former Ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote an explosive Times op-ed disclosing that his trip to Niger in February 2002 had led him to conclude that President Bush had falsely claimed that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium in Africa. In this conversation, Miller asked Libby why Wilson had been sent on this mission by the CIA. (Miller, whose prewar reporting had promoted the administration's case that Iraq was loaded with WMDs, had a personal, as well as professional, interest in Wilson's tale.) Libby, according to this source, told Miller that the White House was, as the Post puts it, "working with the CIA to find out more about Wilson's trip and how he was selected." Libby noted he had heard that Wilson's wife had something to do with it but he did not know where she worked.

Four or five days later, according to the Libby-friendly source, Libby and Miller spoke again. Now Libby knew more. He told Miller that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had a role in sending Wilson to Niger. This source tells the Post that Libby did not know her name or that she was an undercover officer at the CIA. That latter point is crucial, for, under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Fitzgerald can only prosecute Libby if Libby disclosed information about a CIA officer whom he knew was a covert employee.

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Howard Dean and the Roberts vote, politics-by-demonstration, Bill Frist, a rightwing cat fight, Bush's photo-opping and other in-the-news matters.

*******

There's no telling whether this source is being truthful. Karl Rove's attorney put out facts that crumbled as more information became public. But you don't have to look too far between the lines to discern Libby's cover story. It goes something like this: Wilson wrote his Times article. All hell broke loose. The White House asked, "Who authorized this trip?" Someone called the CIA for information. The CIA reported back that Wilson was contacted by the counter-proliferation office, where his wife Valerie was working. But--and here's the crucial "but"--the CIA did not tell the White House that Valerie was undercover. Thus, if any White House officials--say, Rove or Libby--repeated this information to reporters, then they may have been engaged in leaking classified and sensitive information to discredit a critic but they were not committing a crime. And who was at fault? George Tenet, the CIA director at the time.

How convenient. Tenet has already taken the fall for Bush's decision to launch the war in Iraq. He reportedly told Bush that the WMD case was a "slam-dunk." And subsequent investigations--from the Republican-controlled Senate intelligence committee and an independent commission that only looked at the intelligence community, not the White House--have excoriated Tenet's CIA for botching the WMD job. (Still, Bush saw fit to give Tenet a nice medal.)

Tenet is finished in Washington. (Paul Wolfowitz got a medal and was given the top job at the World Bank.) Is Libby looking to point to the dead body in the room and say, "It was him!"? If Libby or any other top White House aide wanted to know what had happened at the CIA regarding Wilson's trip to Niger, what would he or she have done? The obvious answer is that he or she would have called Tenet and demanded answers. And if Tenet--when he or an aide reported back--did not tell the White House Valerie Wilson was undercover, that would not be the White House's fault, right? In this scenario, the CIA outed Valerie Wilson.

Can such a defense fly? It will depend on what facts--or purported facts--Libby and the White House present to the prosecutor (or, if indictments ever come, to a jury). But a CIA-did-it defense might be in the making. And that has worked for this White House before.

All this speculation aside, the public record does show that both Rove and Libby spoke to several reporters (Novak, Miller and Time's Matt Cooper-- about Valerie Wilson and her CIA job. Wittingly or not, they disclosed classified information that derailed her career and that undermined her past and present work to thwart the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These leaks might have imperiled her contacts, previous operations, and one or more front groups used by her and her colleagues in their efforts to stop the spread of WMDs. (No damage assessment of the Plame leak has been made public.) At the least, contrition is warranted. But there has been none from the WHite House. And Bush's previous vow to dismiss anyone caught leaking classified information has been tossed into the waste bin, now that it is undeniable that Rove and Libby leaked classified information.

When Fitzgerald first pursued Miller and Cooper, it was easy to dismiss him as an overzealous prosecutor interested more in a vendetta than in making a case. But as the Cooper portion of this episode demonstrated, Fitzgerald was after information crucial to his investigation. From Cooper he obtained material that showed Rove had discussed the CIA identity of Wilson's wife with a reporter. Though Fitzgerald and Miller have clashed on non-Plame business previously, perhaps he has been seeking information just as critical from her.

For anyone following the matter, it's impossible not to guess about what's going on and what Fitzgerald will do. His grand jury expires at the end of October. He could impanel a new one and keep investigating. But all indications suggest he's close to done. One person who recently had contact with Fitzgerald and his attorneys says that they seem confident about whatever it is they are pursuing. The Miller matter was something of a sideshow that at times drew more attention than the central issue. Now that Miller has decided to follow the course of the other reporters, perhaps Fitzgerald will be ready to end his inquiry and render decisions about indictment. Throughout Washington, those who have closely observed this investigation express different hunches about whether there will be indictments, about whom will be indicted if there are indictments, about what laws will be invoked if there are indictments. There have been no leaks making one guess more probable than another. Those who care are all waiting for Fitzgerald.

Comments (111)

I find it incomprehensible that Libby and his attorney were not aware that Miller's incarceration was linked to his waiver, or that they expect the public to believe that excuse. I'm feeling angry that he has negotiated with her about limiting what else he can question her about, but as has been suggested elsewhere, he's likely getting more than just Libby in any case. David, I'd be very interested to know your thoughts about who, if anyone, from the Democratic Party can/should/might move into this soon to express the outrage we feel at this waterfall of criminal activity. Pelosi is giving us one-liners, but the Dems must effectively and appropriately address this for moderate conservatives who are moving away from the republican agenda.

Posted by zennurse at 09/30/2005 @ 12:57pm
I read that Rove and Libby are pinning their information about Valerie from journalists! hm

Posted by AshtonP at 09/30/2005 @ 1:18pm
I think ole Scooter may be in for a surprise when Rove / Bush / Cheney inform him they elected him to be the fall guy.

Posted by BlueTexan at 09/30/2005 @ 1:32pm
Scooter just needed the summer to line up his next job. Now that it is set, he can offer his resignation, closing the Plame case behind him. Of course, there is no evidence to support this, but is there much doubt that he will land not only on his feet, but wearing a pretty chic pair of Italian shoes as a parting gift? As we see over and over, a shady past leads only to promotions within the republican structure.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/30/2005 @ 1:42pm
But if, as has been discussed on some of these boards, if Scooter truly believes vs using the Christian faith to get elected, then Scooter may see himself as the sacrificial lamb and he will rewarded in heaven.

I'm not saying that Scooter is this person who believes. I don't know anything about the man. But it is interesting to note that we, here in America, scoff at the thought of a man dying for the reward of 70 virgins in the afterlife, but yet somehow, it makes sense to believing Christians that a "sacrificial lamb" is a martyr, and is rewarded in heaven. I don't know about you, but to me it seems that if our "Christian" men were deprived of sex with women, a heaven with 70 virigins would be a heaven to them.

Strike the "deprived of sex;" 70 virgins in the afterlife would probably be heaven to most men. LOL

Posted by woplock at 09/30/2005 @ 3:29pm
There is one area where Judy's testimony will almost certainly differ from Libby's.

The NYT provided some explanation to Fitzgerald et al about why they didn't own Judy's notes on Wilson/Plame. Apparently, it was convincing whereas the Time's excuse was not. As a result, Time got named in the contempt charge, NYT did not.

I have speculated that the NYT explained that Judy was being disciplined throughout the period where the Plame case developed. She could only write with buddies who would attest to her sourcing, and she could only write on a few narrow topics: WMD stories she had already started, like the mobile trailers rot, stuff on the Anthrax case, and stuff on David Kelly.

Libby said his and Judy's first conversation was on WMDs. That's implausible to begin with, since such a conversation wouldn't require a face to face meeting. More importantly, if Libby and Judy were meeting about WMDs, it would mean NYT owned her notes, not Judy. And that the NYT had lied to the judge.

I doubt Sulzberger would let that detail slip.

So I suspect it's HIGHLY likely that Judy described the meeting as being exclusively about Joe Wilson. (Which would be almost the same thing that happened with Cooper; Rove said the meeting was welfare reform, Cooper shot that lie down.)

Posted by emptywheel at 09/30/2005 @ 3:50pm
I know it is off topic, but I am passionate about this issue:

The US Senate has found a new "expert witness" to defend the on-again-off-again Bush administration theory that global warming is junk science: "Jurassic Park" author Michael Crichton. Meanwhile, the countdown towards polar bear extinction is speeding up.

This week, the United States Senate -- once a hallowed legislative institution known for its gravitas and intellectual debates -- stooped to a new low by inviting best-selling novelist Michael Crichton to provide expert testimony on climate change. Crichton's latest novel, "State of Fear" casts doubt on the science of global warming and the author has called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." As the New York Times points out, centrist think tanks and scientists alike have given Crichton's own junk science scathing reviews. "More silly than scary," wrote the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Notable mainly for its nuttiness," wrote the Brookings Institution. "Does not reflect scientific fact," wrote the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Read more at

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,377270,00.html

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/30/2005 @ 3:58pm
PLAIN BRUCE:

As the Guardian points out, a 2004 survey of 900 peer-reviewed studies on climate change failed to produce a single report that didn't conclude that man-made activity is, indeed, causing climate change.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/30/2005 @ 3:59pm
Fact check.org has an interesting timelime of the events, Cheney, Rove, Libby and the rest of GW's crew had more than a brief glimpse of what was going on and they also knew it was marked secret so to say they didn't disclose confidential information because they didn't know it was classified is just not true.

Here are a few excerpts from factchecks time line http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html

February 12, 2002 – The Defense Intelligence Agency writes a report concluding "Iraq is probably searching abroad for natural uranium to assist in its nuclear weapons program." Vice President Cheney reads this report and asks for the CIA's analysis. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 38-39, July 2004).

Responding to inquiries from Cheney's office, the State Department, and the Defense Department, the CIA's Directorate of Operations' Counterproliferation Division (CPD) look for more information.(Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 39, July 2004).

June 2003 – State Department intelligence officials reportedly prepare a memo on the Niger affair mentioning Wilson 's trip to Niger and Valerie Wilson's role in selecting her husband for the mission. The exact date is uncertain. The memo identifies Valerie Wilson but not her status as a covert agent, and it does not use her maiden name Valerie Plame. According to one account, the memo was classified and the paragraph containing information about Valerie Wilson was marked with "(S)" to indicate that the information was classified at the "secret" level. The CIA applies this level of classification to the identities of covert officers, according to the Washington Post. (" State Dept. memo gets scrutiny… ," New York Times, July 16, 2005; " Probe Centers on Rove, Memo, Phone Calls, " Bloomberg.com, July 18, 2005; " Plame's Identity Marked as Secret, " Washington Post, July 21, 2005).

July 8, 2003 – Columnist Robert Novak calls senior White House adviser Karl Rove, according to subsequent media accounts. Novak tells Rove he had heard that Joseph Wilson's wife, who worked for the CIA, played a role in Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger. Rove confirms the story to Novak without mentioning Valerie Wilson's name or covert status, saying "I heard that, too." ( Rove ... Talk on C.I.A. Officer, NY Times, July 2003). Novak will later write that he originally acquired the information from an official who is "no partisan gunslinger." Novak says, "When I called another official for confirmation, he said: ‘Oh, you know about it.'" (Novak, " CIA Leak" Chicago Sun-Times, Oct 2003).

ILP great update on global warming

Posted by dycel8r at 09/30/2005 @ 4:13pm
ZERO, I think it has to be someone with academic credentials, like Dr. Phil...

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/30/2005 @ 4:53pm
Maybe Nelson DeMille is available to give his thoughts on the war.

Posted by Hman23 at 09/30/2005 @ 4:58pm
ILP,

This "Crichton" phenomena is not new. I'm sure you've heard of the "Left Behind" series of books targeted at evangelicals. Those books are "junk" theology. They are hype, but the way the evenagelicals take to those books, you would think they treated them as important (or more) than the Bible.

I guess Crichton's apperance is another mark in the treand of conservatives trying to create a reality that doesn't exist. When the facts don't fit your case, don't dispare, make it up!!

Posted by BlueTexan at 09/30/2005 @ 5:09pm
FLEITZ, BOLTON, PLAME:

The WINPAC analysts, however, were even more credulous toward Niger claims. While one WINPAC analyst's comments on the NIE have been redacted (SSCI 54), leaving the possibility that he challenged the assertions on Niger made in the NIE, most other WINPAC analysts have been important supporters of Iraq Niger claims. One unnamed WINPAC analyst judged that the results of Wilson's trip would not be "believable under most scenarios" (I have often wondered if this analyst is Fleitz himself; SSCI 41) Later, rather than reporting the results of Wilson's trip directly to Cheney, the DO alerted WINPAC analysts of the result of the trip (they had put together Cheney Cheney's Niger brief a few days earlier; SSCI 43); if Cheney didn't learn the results of that trip, it's because WINPAC didn't tell him. Finally, WINPAC (the organization that Fleitz insists has to be the lead on vetting questions involving proliferation) mysteriously did not pick up its copies of the Niger forgeries in October, when INR distributed them; they only requested and received these documents in January 2003 (SSCI 62). And once they had received them, WINPAC analysts did not alter intelligent assessments based on the Niger forgeries even though they had already noticed inconsistencies in the documents (SSCI 62)!

And then there are the three egregious misjudgments that follow-up studies have pinned on WINPAC. A WINPAC analyst was the guy who convinced the CIA to trust intelligence from Curveball, in spite of all their misgivings about him. And the Robb-Silberman report (Bush's whitewash of pre-war intelligence) declared that WINPAC

"was at the heart of many of the errors . . . from the mobile BW [biological warfare] case to the aluminum tubes," the commission reported, saying it feared "a culture of enforced consensus has infected WINPAC as an organization."

So in matters specifically related to intelligence on Niger and on Iraq intelligence more generally, WINPAC was central to sustaining unreliable claims that, ultimately led us to war. But what does this mean for Bolton, Fleitz, and Plame?

It means two things. First, by working with Fleitz and through him WINPAC, Bolton was able to effectively supplant a very credible intelligence service with one that--either for cultural reasons or in response to explicit pressure--made many of the egregious intelligence errors that got us into the Iraq war. Marginalizing INR made it possible to make the Niger (and other faulty Iraq claims) in the first place.

Second, the claim that a CIA guy would never out one of his own doesn't account for the fact that this CIA guy (and, ironically, Plame herself) was working in an area of the CIA that seemed to be doing all it could to sustain the Iraq war fictions. I have no idea whether Plame played along, as many other WINPAC analysts seem to have. But we have solid evidence that Fleitz not only played along, but was a central figure in making sure WINPAC supported these claims about the war. I made the argument in my Judy series that Judy's demonstrable participation in hyping WMD claims makes it more likely that she would willingly participate in smearing the person who undermined that hype. The same could be said of Fleitz.

http:// thenexthurrah.typepad.com..._lear.html#more

Posted by plunger at 09/30/2005 @ 6:10pm
My WAG:

Fleitz is the "Source" of the Plame Leak.

Fleitz is the creator of the Niger Documents

Fleitz was the one with the motive to defend the Niger Document's role in the selling of the war.

Miller is the conduit to the publicizing of the sources revelation.

Miller got Novak to carry her water.

She knew it was dangerous information, which explains why she wrote no story on the subject.

The name of "Libby" being tied so closely to Miller's release from prison is pure misdirection. They've obviously ensured that Libby is safe.

Cheney and Bolton are co-conspirators, and approved Fleitz' actions.

They were working at cross purposes to the US Intelligence Community.

Thus the need to create their own internal faux-intelligence agency, the OSP.

Meanwhile, over at AIPAC:

Rosen will be shown to have been enabling cover for Mossad operations In the United States.

Rosen will be tied to the "Israeli Art Students" case and the "Dancing Israelis" (Google each).

Chertoff's role will become apparent once the Mossad Spies story breaks wide open in the context of the AIPAC / Franklin spy Scandal.

Chertoff was directly responsible for quietly deporting over 200 Mossad agents in the aftermath of 9/11, without ever filing charges.

Chertoff was likely also behind arranging for the hasty exit of the Bin Laden Family from the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Chertoff was put in charge of "Operation Greenquest" in order to coverup the financing of 9/11, just as he had covered up matters pertaining to the financing of the earlier bombing of the World Trade Center.

* In 1995, A New Jersey neurologist, Magdy Elamir (a 20 year Egyptian national resident of the U.S.) started an HMO in New Jersey which ultimately failed three years later.

* In 1998, Congressman Ben Gilman was given a foreign intelligence report suggesting that money was being skimmed from the HMO and funneled to Osama bin-Laden's terrorist network.

* The State of New Jersey ultimately bailed out the HMO and found that $16.7 million was illegally diverted, about $5.7 million of which is unaccounted for and diverted to offshore banks (in other words, impossible to trace).

* In late 1998, Elamir retained Michael Chertoff (then in private practice) as his attorney to represent him in litigation with the State of New Jersey and HMO creditors seeking reimbursement.

* Elamir's brother Mohamed was apparently up to his hips in smuggling weapons for use by terrorist networks; in fact, both Magdy and Mohamed fess up to funding at least one arms smuggler with Al Qaida connections.

* Both Elamir's (also spelled 'el Amir') figured prominently in Operation Diamondback, a well-buried precursor to 9/11 that was discussed in (apparently) some depth during the congressional 9/11 investigation, but much testimony remains classified.

Mossad, Israel's military intelligence agency, infiltrated the most sensitive computer networks in the United States through a little start-up company known as Ptech, in Quincy, Massachusetts.

Most notably, it was this infiltration that allowed the events of September 11, 2001 to occur.

If the crimes of 9/11 had been properly investigated, these people would have been investigated and booked long ago. The Mossad connection is obvious

http://www.apfn.net/ messageboard...ion.cgi.68.html |

Posted by plunger at 09/30/2005 @ 6:11pm
I think David's analysis misses some key points, which I wrote about earlier today at Needlenose [needlenose.com].

First, it requires us to believe that a bureaucracy whose business is secrecy had a complete mental lapse in responding to a White House request for information. Second, an "alibi" that begins with Libby asking the CIA for information and ends with him relaying it to a reporter may get him off the hook in terms of the IIPA, but still seems to leave him in substantial legal jeopardy for revealing classified information; it's just a matter of what law Fitzgerald wishes to apply.

More importantly, though, I think we may may be focusing too much on what's illegal and not enough on what's just plain wrong. Even people who don't pay attention to politics have a gut sense that if you're in the White House and the CIA tells you somebody works for them, you don't go run and tell that to the press. Regardless of whether it's technically legal or illegal, it sure sounds a lot like treason -- enough so that they'll agree anyone who did that shouldn't be in the government. So why is it that Democrats and progressive blogs can't simply work to get that point across?

Posted by Swopa at 09/30/2005 @ 7:38pm
I hereby nominate "PLUNGER" as the person with the best user name.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/30/2005 @ 8:20pm
I nominate me...

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/30/2005 @ 9:21pm
When the facts don't fit your case, don't dispare, make it up!!

Posted by BLUETEXAN 09/30/2005 @ 5:09pm

Finally! An explanation of Ann Coulter. Thanks...

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/30/2005 @ 9:22pm
Oh my God, you didn't read his posts, did you? That was total double super secret background, Corn's eyes only. Now we'll have to kill you.

Posted by MyParadigm at 09/30/2005 @ 9:22pm
ILP: A close second.

Stick around. If PLUNGER doesn't show, you win by default.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/30/2005 @ 9:32pm
Mr. Corn:

It seems you are not getting a very good response to your posts lately. This one has been up for over 8 hours and you've had some 24 posts. This should be a concern to you.

Maybe that long assed vacation you took recently didn't help.

I don't know. Just seems you don't garner the interest of your fellow mates like a guy in your position should.

Can you carry a tune?

Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/30/2005 @ 10:22pm
David Corn, David Corn, a smarter guy was never born. Handsome, cultured, debonair, floating on the Nation's air.

Swirling mists at CIA, some White House whisper heard today, or fine bicameral subterfuge, he breaks the story, and it's huge.

We're lowly bloggers, me and you. He does these things on deadline, too! But one day after, so forlorn: Let's not forget, his name is Corn.

Posted by MyParadigm at 09/30/2005 @ 10:53pm
To try to claim ignorance in this matter should be viewed as a ridiculous claim. Is not their (Rove/Libby) signatures on the disclosure act not a binding contract stating that they read and understood the contents therin ? It was solely their responsibility under the law to personally investigate and obtain the pertinent information regarding V. Plames current status within the CIA before sharing anything with anyone about her, indeed, even her name. Therefore, and it is only my opinion, George Tenet's (possible) omission of V. Plames current status at that time is not a valid or reasonable defense.

Posted by m8rix69 at 09/30/2005 @ 10:59pm
Very nice, MYPARADIGM!

It's a tough thing when I realize that I'm joining the AADD epidemic that is sweeping the country. Hopefully when the Asian flu sweeps in soon I'll be able to focus and learn.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 09/30/2005 @ 11:01pm
Dave, good news - MYPARADIGM has an 8" x 10" of you around his/her neck.

Life is good.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/30/2005 @ 11:03pm
TJB,

Bird flu? Personally, I'm against it.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/30/2005 @ 11:19pm
ILOVE

Then why all the controversy, in much of the scientific community, if global warming is universally a scientific a FACT?

The assumption by the FAR left who claimed the Hurricanes were a direct result of global warming and Bush was debunked by that climatalogist. Which I think hurt your cause.

Posted by CPT at 09/30/2005 @ 11:19pm
Global Warming is listed just after toe-jam on my to-do list.

can we move on now...

Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/01/2005 @ 12:27am
I think that we should have more faith in the special prosecutor. All the accounts I heard is that the guy is a real pit bull and quite fair. Ken Starr jaded a lot of people about this type of role, but at this point I don't see why we should not trust Fitzgerald to do a good job. If you know of some time he has done a poor job I would like to know but it would be the first I have heard of it.

Posted by Eggplant at 10/01/2005 @ 12:42am
EGGPLANT:

I know someone who worked in Fitzgerald's office for several years when he was in NY on the 1993 WTC case. From my friend, he is a pit-bull, very thorough, a workaholic, an ideal prosecutor very serious about the law, and not politically motivated.

Posted by Hman23 at 10/01/2005 @ 12:49am
Wouldn't it be ironic if one of the only administration appointees to show any true competence in his job was the prosecutor that prosecutes top white house aides for disclosing the identity of an undercover CIA agent, or obstruction of justice, or perjury. Poetic justice!

Meanwhile, I read yesterday that when Bush Sr. sent our forces into Kuwait to drive the Iraqi army out, they went in with 660,000 troops. Here's what Bush Sr. had to say about why they did not pursue Saddam to Baghdad (from Wikipedia): In their cowritten 1998 book, "A World Transformed" George Bush the Elder and Brent Scowcroft discussed regime change in Iraq:

Trying to eliminate Saddam [in 1991], extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guidelines about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep', and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... Would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles... Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome." (quoted in Losing America, pg 154)

This sounds frighteningly prophetic, very much like what we have now! Bush Jr. should have known better; if he'd listened to his daddy, a man who had actually experienced war, he would have known better.

Posted by Ann in AZ at 10/01/2005 @ 03:12am
I am sure Rove is behind the vendictive outing of Mrs. Wilson. I would love to see Rove kicked out of the White House to join Delay in pergatory.

Posted by philbq at 10/01/2005 @ 09:18am
Ann:

Obviously, all of the Administration's brain trust had this knowledge regarding the "perils" of occupying Iraq in advance of invading.

The obvious conclusion to draw is that there was no "exit strategy" because there was not - and is not any intent to exit. What other plausible explanation could their be for the absence of an "exit strategy?" Just look at any business plan that might go to a venture capital firm seeking financing. No business plan would ever be funded without the articulation of a coherent and thoughtful exit strategy - as no investor wants to leave their assets tied up in perpetuity. These people aren't stupid...

The number of troops chosen for this mission was clearly intended to result in "Quagmire By Design" and a diminishment of "assets."

According to an inside source...we are "on plan."

So apparently the plan was a depopulation of US troops and weaponry - and Iraqi civilians, plus a long term occupation of Iraq through the new bases being constructed there, plus the overthrow of Iran and Syria, all for the interests supporting a "Greater Israel" and BIG OIL.

Of course if the whole thing wobbles out of control, Israel will enjoy the added benefit of theater-wide thermonuclear war.

Have a pleasant day.

Posted by plunger at 10/01/2005 @ 09:35am
It seems to me that Judith has done us all a very great service. This Libby guy is now publicly and irrefutably fingered as the person of interest to the grand jury (she was refusing to answer a question, right?). We seem to have very rapidly cut to the chase here. Thank you Ms. Miller. Obviously, whether this was deliberate is pure speculation at this point. Hapless or Hero? You get to decide.

Was she supposed to just take her lawyer's word that Libby released her from confidentiality? She had an eyeball-to-eyeball interview with a person. Until that living, breathing person actually contacts her and calls it off, she was entirely correct to just go to jail. Makes her point that way; things become clarified for us. I think we all owe Judith Miller a big Thank You.

As to the administration's dodge of the whole thing, seems like David's analysis is more than plausible, probably correct. Let's just give Scooter a medal and retire him. Bush said the leakers would be "...taken care of." right?

Posted by Ray Barto at 10/01/2005 @ 1:07pm
> And if Tenet--when he or an aide reported back--did not tell the White House Valerie Wilson was undercover, that would not be the White House's fault, right? In this scenario, the CIA outed Valerie Wilson.

I have no idea who knew or said what to whom in the Plame affair. However, having worked at CIA for 13 years and around it for another twelve, I find it completely believable that Ms. Wilson's cover status just never entered peoples' minds when they were communicating with representatives of the office of the Prez or Veep.

At the time, she was working in an office that had mixed cover/noncover employees, and I can well believe that nobody thought to mention her status when communicating with the Higher Powers. I can even believe that Tenet's own office was ignorant/uninformed of her former NOC activities.

Unfortunate, especially if any her former agents suffer because of her outing. But I've seen too many security lapses of the general sort to think that another one is unlikely.

Posted by Kukuruza at 10/01/2005 @ 3:31pm
Posted by CPT 09/30/2005 @ 11:19pm:

Then why all the controversy, in much of the scientific community, if global warming is universally a scientific a FACT?

My dear CPT, there isn't controversy in the scientific community that has expertise on climatology. Now, Dr. Crichton is undoubtedly trained in medical science, but I would no more consult him about global warming than I would consult a geophysicist about heart disease!

The assumption by the FAR left who claimed the Hurricanes were a direct result of global warming...was debunked by that climatalogist. Which I think hurt your cause.

Undoubtedly you are correct on that one. The FAR left can be just as wacky as the FAR right, much to my chagrin.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/01/2005 @ 3:37pm
ILOVEPHYSICS:

While the phenomenon of global warming was most likely not the cause of the hurricanes we have endured this season, the added warmth of the Gulf of Mexico arising from global warming arguably increased the intensity of those storms. But of course, you probably already said that somewhere else on this board. Sorry, haven't been around in a couple of days. Ah, the joys of work.

Posted by jorcheim at 10/01/2005 @ 3:55pm
Oil is a big culprit in global warming,right? Then would one of you nice people please tell me why we are not using alternatives.Last year on one of the major network shows I saw a man pouring used vegetable oil he had collected from restaurants and processed himself in his home(somehow--I don't remember the process)into his car which looked much like my own 1985 Pontiac.It was not a hybrid or anything fancy.Now I realize we all can't spend our time going around to restaurants and copying what he did but he got in the car after the interview and drove away.Why isn't some one developing this and other ideas of alternatives?I'm really not trying to be sarcastic.Something tells me there is a reason but so far no one I've asked has given one.Does anyone on this blog have any answers for me.?

Posted by BusyHands at 10/01/2005 @ 9:32pm
Maybe it's me, but this drooling over the prospect of "getting Rove"...like the drooling over getting Delay...seems to smack less of "justice" and more of "revenge on the guys who stole 'our' elections".

It's like, "Ok, sure Rove leaked Plame's name....but his 'real' crime was Florida-2000 and Ohio-2004 and the Swift Vets".

Just as Delay's 'real' crime, wasn't the money laundering, but using re-districting to turn Texas from semi-Blue to mostly Red.

So, I don't really see what Karl and Tom in orange jumpsuits does...except make SOME people "feel" better.

Posted by Mask at 10/01/2005 @ 10:04pm
MASK:

I think some of us also see it as poetic justice as well.

Posted by jorcheim at 10/01/2005 @ 10:09pm
Busyhands asks: "Oil is a big culprit in global warming,right? Then would one of you nice people please tell me why we are not using alternatives.Last year on one of the major network shows I saw a man pouring used vegetable oil he had collected from restaurants and processed himself in his home(somehow--I don't remember the process)into his car which looked much like my own 1985 Pontiac.It was not a hybrid or anything fancy.Now I realize we all can't spend our time going around to restaurants and copying what he did but he got in the car after the interview and drove away.Why isn't some one developing this and other ideas of alternatives?I'm really not trying to be sarcastic.Something tells me there is a reason but so far no one I've asked has given one.Does anyone on this blog have any answers for me.?"

I believe it's because vegatable oil costs more per gallon than gasoline.

Posted by Guiles at 10/01/2005 @ 10:11pm
GUILES:

I forget who said this, but at any rate, someone I read who was developing biodiesel said that it wouldn't be competitive until gas was $3 per gallon. And that was under current production capabilities... if we actually tried to switch over to a biodiesel economy, my guess would be that within a few years, we could be totally weened off of foreign oil supplies.

Posted by jorcheim at 10/01/2005 @ 10:20pm
GUILES,

The thing is, used vegetable oil from deep fryers can be used in vehicles. This costs nothing since restaurants generally toss this stuff anyway.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/01/2005 @ 10:32pm
It's totally unbelievable to me that Bush didn't know almost two years ago that Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby or both were involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity. He should be impeached for allowing this information to be kept secret and remain under wraps and for obstructing justice in the investigation which has easily cost the taxpayers millions so far.

Patrick Fitzgerald should empanel a new grand jury investigation at the end of this month if Bush and Cheney don't come clean and admit they covered this up all this time hoping it would all evaporate.

Bush may be confident that he has a solid phalanx of at least five (which is all he needs) judges on the U. S. Supreme Court, Roberts being he most recent, who will aid him in the whitewash of this heinous act of treason. That is the only reason other than contempt he has for laws that don't agree with his edicts and why he has stonewalled this for so long.

After all, isn't that what these right wing, partisan and activist judges are supposed to do -- offer cover for criminal behavior by those in the executive branch whose ideology you embrace and screw the laws of the U.S. Constitution? It seems to have worked out pretty well so far for the totally corrupt Bush mob of liars, swindlers and thieves who rely on their Federalist Society Star Chamber judges to allow them to lie, cheat and steal with impunity.

Posted by richard38 at 10/01/2005 @ 11:05pm
Busyhands,

I am an engineer. I worked on improving energy efficiency in the 1980s and pollution prevention in the 1990s. In my experience, there are several reasons why people delay environmental improvements. The biggest can be summarized as "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." American industry tends to be conservative, in the old-fashioned sense that it is afraid to make changes. The most conservative are the engineers who run the plants. They are responsible for getting an extraordinary amount of product out the door every day. They will resist any change that will lead to shut down, or, worse, an accident. The best change is one that has been proven in someone else's plant; the next best is a minor change that won't threaten productivity. Larger scale changes -- like what's required to heat-integrate a plant or reduce the amount of pollution it produces -- are met with skepticism, EVEN WHEN those changes will save the company money overall.

Posted by 9patch at 10/01/2005 @ 11:19pm
Let me clarify that last post -- I should have written

"They will resist any change , lest it lead to a shut down, or, worse, an accident."

Posted by 9patch at 10/01/2005 @ 11:20pm
To the 3 of you who did come up with some answers I thank you.And Jorcheim,the thought of being rid of our dependency on foreign oil is even better then the thought of being rid of DeLay.Just think of all those poor little rich oil giants going under.We need to get more letters to more representatives and more often.I found out recently(don't laugh please-I'm new at this)that you can write to any senator or congressman or woman.It doesn't have to be limited to only your own designated reps.As much as we all seem to like seeing our own thoughts on paper maybe we could get something going.Let them see how many people actually are concerned about oil and the enviornment.

Posted by BusyHands at 10/01/2005 @ 11:30pm
For what Richard38 is proposing it would take someone on the inside to blow the whistle.They most likely are all too afraid of Rove to even give it serious thought.It would topple their empire and men have been known to have fatal accidents or heart attacks when under stress.

Posted by BusyHands at 10/01/2005 @ 11:40pm
PB you missed my meaning but that's okay it was a silly thought anyway.Rove wouldn't cause an attack or accident.That's the CIA's job isn't it?

Posted by BusyHands at 10/02/2005 @ 01:02am
Global Warming is listed just after toe-jam on my to-do list.

can we move on now...

Posted by USAPRIDE 10/01/2005 @ 12:27am

Hey, you are the one who asked me to name a debate topic. If you don't like it, then you name one.

Sheesh, some people are never happy....

JORCHEIM,

Welcome back. If you were at a fight, let me know how ya did!

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/02/2005 @ 02:02am
GUILES,

The thing is, used vegetable oil from deep fryers can be used in vehicles. This costs nothing since restaurants generally toss this stuff anyway.

Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/01/2005 @ 10:32pm

Willie Nelson runs all his vehicles on vegetable oil, and his touring bus runs on ..oops...I think it was soy oil because he mentioned that the US farmers could grow it.

Technology is there. Big Corporations...OIL...don't want us to have it. Technology is also there for "chuck-hole" free roads, but it is claimed that to use it, would put highway workers out of work.

Posted by woplock at 10/02/2005 @ 11:05am
Alternative souces are fine. However, it's all about EIoER. (Energy Input over Energy Return) It takes energy to get energy into some useable form.

Who needs Freddie Kruger? Read "The Long Emergency" It should scare the Bejeez out of you.

Posted by Ray Barto at 10/02/2005 @ 11:58am
9Patch writes "there are several reasons why people delay environmental improvements. The biggest can be summarized as "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

The decision as to what is or an't broke of course, doesn't belong to the engineers but to the owners of the plants. While G. W. Bush was governor of Texas, for example, older industries or plants that produced x amount of pollutants were given waivers as long as they voluntarily agreed to upgrade scrubbers to cut down on toxics that would end up in the air or in the groundwater supplies. Also, "credits" are bought by the polluters who didn't comply with the pollution standards from other companies who actually did comply. It's a real comfy arrangeemnt for the polluters since in reality they don't have to comply with anything.

Posted by richard38 at 10/02/2005 @ 12:03pm
Well put Zero. Looking at the department of education we see a perfect example of how private lobbying intrests, working in concert with republicans in government at all levels, have beed defunding public education out of existence for years. It's called creeeping privatization which is nothing more than a code word for plunder of the public trust.

Posted by Ray Barto at 10/02/2005 @ 12:21pm
But of course this is still, in part, government assistance. Faith-based organizations don't get their revenues simply for generosity's sake. They attract donations, in part, because of their tax deductibility. In a sense, this lost tax revenue is going directly to the churches.

Bush and his gang are doing one thing very well: they are making it increasingly hard for those on the left to argue that the government is the proper entity for taking care of the country. When we are surrounded by glaring, shrugging incompetence in all facets of government, it does make it easy to say that the damn gummint better mind its own bi-ness. Depressing to have these knuckleheads destroy 200+ years of progress in such a short period of time.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/02/2005 @ 12:26pm
The reason the dang gummint is so bad is because it is intentionally designed that way. I do not think there is any argument today that the lobbying of vested interests pretty much controls the legislative process in this country. Republicans (at all levels of government) hire people to head agencies who have, as their lifelong ambitions, the destruction of those agencies. In fact, from the republican perspective, demonstrating this in their resume makes them uniquely qualified for the job. For just one quick and easy example, John Bolton. This government is intentionally dysfunctional. Creation of chaos creates opportunities to seize control. The closer the election, the easier it is to steal.

Posted by Ray Barto at 10/02/2005 @ 1:06pm
This is not just flakey government. This is insane government, totally insane government. What "Brownie" said is a nail in the coffin of the attempt to destroy government assistance to the poor, and replace it with whatever private church charities and missionary work arise to fill the vacuum left behind.

Posted by ZERO 10/02/2005 @ 12:08am

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you - Kurt Cobain

Question this: If the poor are left to the churches, what does that do for evanglizing? Does it now throw a bunch of hungry, desperate people who will do anything for a meal, shelter, etc, [Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs] into their hands? After all, a controlled mind is a terrible thing to waste. As is a religious body who believes that they are doing good (I sincerely mean that), but all the while Big Brother is ready to scoop up the evanglized.

Posted by woplock at 10/02/2005 @ 1:13pm
The problem basically is this: The future of this country should be managed by people who actually believe that there is a future. Not a bunch of flakey rapturists teamed up with corporate pirates who have no problem with the cynical manipulation of people's spiritual beliefs.

And your basic Machiavelli demonstrates that any government relying on mercenary forces is toast.

Posted by Ray Barto at 10/02/2005 @ 1:13pm
This is not flakey government nor is it insane government. This is crime on such a huge scale that we can't see it for it's vastness. Like trying to see an elephant with our nose touching its side. All this is hidden in plain sight. We could cut the headlines from the newspapers of the last couple of years and simply paste them together into the complete story. Paranoia and conspiracy thories are not necessary. Just connect the dots.

The problem here is that we have to take any public statement by bush or anyone in this administration, reach inside it and turn it inside out in order to have the truth.

Posted by Ray Barto at 10/02/2005 @ 1:26pm
RAY BARTO,

This administration won on Machiavellian principles, such as, (I paraphrase) keep them in fear, never let them know that you don't know what you are doing, make them think that you are acting in their best interests, keep you police/military strong & at your side, etc. etc. etc.

It's just a good thing they couldn't keep it going.

Posted by woplock at 10/02/2005 @ 1:26pm
WOPLOCK,

..."Keep your military and police strong..." is exactly what they have not done. America is weaker now than at any point in the 20th century.

Posted by Ray Barto at 10/02/2005 @ 1:30pm
The point about mercenaries is that a nation having an army composed of citizens protecting something they love and believe in and willingly die for is far stronger than a nation relying upon the greed of an "army" run like a business. This is Nicollo's point.

Posted by Ray Barto at 10/02/2005 @ 1:38pm
Yes, I agree with you.

I just didn't want it missed that they tried to use Machiavelli to steal this country from us ...and until now, had almost succeeded. They also used propaganda (something most associate with the Nazis only), churches, people's faith, etc etc.

Posted by woplock at 10/02/2005 @ 1:43pm
WOPLOCK,

..."Keep your military and police strong..." is exactly what they have not done. America is weaker now than at any point in the 20th century.

Posted by RAY BARTO 10/02/2005 @ 1:30pm

But had it not been for Katrina...they may have succeeded. If their propaganda machine kept working, and unemployment rates continued to fall, many young people would have turned to the military as a way of life when no other options were availiable. But, of course, this is just opinion; I'm glad I will never have to find out if I was correct or not.

Posted by woplock at 10/02/2005 @ 1:51pm
Woplock "the technology is there for pot hole free roads".I haven't heard of this.What does it involve? Usually when one industry is put out of work another is given work.Example:oil industry workers replaced by farmers and refiners of soy,wheat or corn.So tell me,what is the process for having pot hole free roads?

Posted by BusyHands at 10/02/2005 @ 2:02pm
Posted by BUSYHANDS 10/02/2005 @ 2:02pm

I have to find the info. I only know because brother works for the highway department. I believe he told me that the process was used in Sweden. If I don't find the answers, I will state so.

Posted by woplock at 10/02/2005 @ 2:10pm
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4274882.html

You can peruse this for now. As I understand the process from my brother, this is the closest I have found so far to the technology that he described to me.

I will try to find a direct link to the Scandinavians' product.

Posted by woplock at 10/02/2005 @ 2:23pm
Not finding what I want. Doesn't mean that it isn't "out" there. I probably have the country wrong; it has been a few years.

But, I can't prove it beyond a doubt, so I pull it, "There is no such technology that prevents chuckholes."

Better?

Posted by woplock at 10/02/2005 @ 2:57pm
The decision as to what is or an't broke of course, doesn't belong to the engineers but to the owners of the plants.

It did seem that real change required a push from upper management. Besides, if the change required a large capital investment, the engineers in the plants wouldn't be able to make it anyway. I think the sentiment that "if it aint broke.." also holds at upper levels too. It takes vision, guts, and strength to make a change without external pressure to do so.

Posted by 9patch at 10/02/2005 @ 3:06pm
BARTO: I am impressed how you are able to make such statements.

"America is weaker now than any point in the 20th century"

I'm even more amazed when your fellow loons chime in and agree. These are the guys who keep harping on me about facts? Laughable!

Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/02/2005 @ 3:10pm
USAPRIDE

I proved this point several boards back.

You go hunt for the facts that prove that you are right.

Then perhaps you can answer for me why our "weekend warriors" have comprised close to half of the fighting in Iraq, and where in the hell is our full time military? Is Iraq not an important enough war for the full time military to be there?

I was married to the military. I have friends in the military. I know how they feel about our war, and our strength. Do you?

Posted by woplock at 10/02/2005 @ 3:16pm
WOPLOCK: Please clarify.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/02/2005 @ 3:35pm
Ray Barto, you are correct when you state, "This is crime on such a huge scale that we can't see it for it's vastness."

It isn't just Bush who wants to gut the government agencies, it's the entire Republican Party which has for years advocated "starve the beast" as they call it, by underfunding agencies and departments, weakening and eliminating enforcement of regulations.

Nothing of what is going on now is mere coincidence. The Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation are all in the forefront in advancing the GOP agenda for gutting of government programs.

Government Scientists researching global warming, for example, must now adhere to strict conservative dogma which downplays any of the warming process that may be caused by greenhouse emissions. Any deviation from this mindset is dismissed as "junk science."

One of the biggest proponents of gutting government agencies is Grover Norquist, practically a household name among Bush lobbyists, who is on record as stating that his goal is to shrink the Federal Government so he could "drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

All of these political hacks and profiteers want to privatize every single function of the government and eliminate programs that are in the interests of our country, many of which help the neediest of our citizens.

Their selfishness, greed and corruption have been elevated as paragons of virtue under the Bush administration. It's as Dick Cheney told former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill when O'Neill had the audacity to question Cheney on the mammoth size of the $1.35 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest 1% of the population, Cheney answered, "it's our due." I think they got their due and quite a bit more. But all that has done is encourage them to come back for more and more.

Ray Barto is correct, this is criminal but the problem is, the criminals are now running the whole show.

Posted by richard38 at 10/02/2005 @ 3:36pm
Woplock I believe you without "proof" of the road construction subject.I was just curious.And to comment on your knowledge of military families I totally agree with you.Their men (and now women too) are used for political greedy puroses and then discarded like yesterdays newspapers.We don't hear the stories of the neglect of returning troops because of the censorship.We are only allowed to hear the select stories.I was married to a man who for 34 years after Nam had nightmares of it and he only flew in and out with the bodies of the dead and wounded.That was his total connection to that horror and it haunted him 'till the day he died.That is one of the reasons I believe the American public should be allowed to SEE the reality of war through pictures.And let me repeat myself and say the pictures should be WITHOUT faces or names portrayed.The silent majority needs to have their heads pulled out of the sand!

Posted by BusyHands at 10/02/2005 @ 3:37pm
RICHARD38

Thank you for being such a fine "speaker". I have to actually sit down and "write" as for a paper to get things that clearly stated.

Bravo!

:-)

Posted by woplock at 10/02/2005 @ 4:01pm
BUSYHANDS

I apologize. I was on the defensive...I'm haven't gotten a thick enough skin yet for the attacks on this board and I literally read you wrong.

Posted by woplock at 10/02/2005 @ 4:03pm
MARYBRETBRAD--

I at least would agree, and I it wouldn't be rank hypocrisy. On the other hand, my priorities are not so warped that I would consider perjury under oath, and about a matter of sex, to be a worse offense than dishonesty in the name of taking the country to war.

Why do you even ask this question--do you imagine that anyone left of center in this country must necessarily defend Clinton's failings? It seems that you are trying to cover up the more egregious misdeeds of the current administration by pointing out that the last one wasn't perfect either. This is a worthless comparison.

Matthew

Posted by matthewg at 10/02/2005 @ 6:34pm
How could anyone compare a sexual transgression with the slaughter of thousands of people for nothing more then GREED?

Posted by BusyHands at 10/02/2005 @ 6:57pm
Bush didn't lie. He had bad intelligence. I remember reading an article in Newsweek before the invasion that had a big chart listing the thousands of pounds (or gallons) of half-a-dozen different nerve agents that Saddam had. Everyone believed it. Not even the Germans and the French attempted to argue that he didn't have WMDs. Well, we made a mistake, but we got rid of Saddam and self-rule is growing in the region. That's what you call a fortuitous mistake.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/02/2005 @ 8:05pm

IT'S a pity he believed that intelligence and not the intelligence on the towers. Tis a shame....

Posted by woplock at 10/02/2005 @ 8:09pm
Marybretbrad - No, Bush did not have bad intelligence. He had intelligence that indicated significant doubts and uncertainty about the WMDs. This was NOT a clear cut case and even so, Bush and his guys ignored all these doubts. They were completely caught up in their own version of reality so anything that contradicted their views was ignored or marginalized.

Do you seriously believe that the Iraq war and what we're experiencing now is a "fortuitous mistake"? Unbelievable.

Posted by Fishbite at 10/02/2005 @ 8:27pm
Marybretbrad, I applaud you for adding the link to the Science article regarding the ongoing debate over possible reasons for global warming. Like all scientific analyses and theories the causes of global warming are still in the recipe cookbooks of the scientific community. At this point, nobody that I know of has the conclusive answers, but one thing that is incontrovertible is that global warming is occurring and it is having devastating effects.

In the same article there is also a link to a related story that essentially says what most of those studying long term climatic changes would agree with, myself included:

"A third study in the journal this week, tackling a related aspect of all this, finds that Earth has reflected more sunlight back into space from 2000 to 2004 than in years prior. However, a similar investigation last year found just the opposite. A lack of data suggests it's impossible to know which study is right.

The bottom line, according to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity on climate change."

I spent four years in the Air Weather Service in the U.S. Air Force and 36 years as a weather forecaster with my final seven years as a data acquisition program manager so I think I can speak somewhat intelligently on the subject.

Having said that, Marybretbrad, to your credit you started off quite well, but ended up off the grid with the inane statement about some people accusing G. W. Bush of causing 10% to 30% of global warming. As a matter of fact, I would think any single person who has that kind of omnipotence does indeed possess the divine powers that so many in the Republican Party have conferred upon him. And if so, that is a person to be feared mightily.

Posted by richard38 at 10/02/2005 @ 8:37pm
MARYBRETBRAD--

A few points:

1) I assume that your Al Capone theory of law enforcement works as well for those on the left as those on the right, so you should have no problem with, say, Tom DeLay being indicted on conpsiracy charges or an ongoing investigation centered around Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, if not higher into the current administration (or Bill Frist with his own troubles, though I personally don't feel the same level of antipathy toward him). Also, I feel that you slightly misuse the "Al Capone Standard." It seems that this really applies to a person known to have committed major crimes, but who was smart enough to keep from being directly implicated, so the prosecutors nail him for something comparatively minor. If we accept this as the standard (historically more accurate than the one you propose), what crimes do you know Clinton to have committed besides perjury? If you response with allegations about sexual harrassment, please note that the cases I've listed targeting prominent conservatives have at least support.

2) I trust you won't mind if, the next time I see someone supportive of the Iraq war citing "personal responsibility" as a cure-all for society's ills, I quote a few lines from your post. Something like "Bush didn't lie. He had bad intelligence." I hope that personal responsibility isn't a cornerstone of your worldview, at least to the extent that you would write about it on one of these threads, because that might be a little awkward.

3) Your claims that Bush is only guilty of having been given bad intelligence (instead of lying) and that "everyone" thought that Hussein had WMD's, are false.

On the second point, the group people who were skeptical of the existence of WMD's isn't limited to ignorant leftists like myself (who was more than a little confused as to why, if the knowledge of their existence was such an established fact, Bush had to rely on forged documents in his state of the union address to back up his claim). Also skeptical, as FISHBITE pointed out, were members of our own intelligence community, not to mention British intelligence (I understand that this is one of the lessons we are to take from the so-called "Downing Street Memos"), and also the heads of the inspection teams who were actually on the ground. Just because the statements of of Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei were ignored by those in favor of war does not mean that they did not exist.

On the first point (sorry for the inverted order), while Bush may have been smart enough to avoid uttering an out and out lie (at least one that wasn't deniable, like "the intelligence shows..."), I think there can be no question that he was fundamentally dishonest in his statements to the American people (to borrow a favored line of the right, I guess it depends on what the definition of "lie" is). For example, take his repeated implicit allegation that Iraq had something to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. I consider the fact that 9/11 would ever be mentioned in the context of attacking Iraq a not-so-subtle way of conveying some connection to the general public, without having taken the indefensible step of actually saying one existed. Or his statements that "all options were on the table" and "war is a last resort" (paraphrasing here) I think are more direct examples of direct lies, though admittedly not said while under oath. If you think there is any sense in which these statements are not completely false, and you choose to ignore statements from Bush administration insiders who assert that war was indeed a foregone conclusion (I mean for example reports that immediately after 9/11 the adminstration immediately sought a way to tie this in to Iraq), then try to justify why UN weapons inspectors, who were on the ground looking for WMD, had to be pulled out of Iraq instead of finishing their work.

4) Your statement "Well, we made a mistake, but we got rid of Saddam and self-rule is growing in the region. That's what you call a fortuitous mistake." is at best debatable after the getting rid of Hussein bit. But liberation for Iraq was not how the war was sold to the American people. This is simply what proponents for the war (with a few notable exceptions, eg Tom Friedman) have been forced to defend after all the other justifications turned out to be false. Do you honestly think we would have even invaded, in that there would have been sufficient support in America for a war, if the rallying cry had been "spreading democracy beyond our borders" (since "nation building" was a phrase that Bush had already derided in his debates with Al Gore)?

Enough out of me.

Matthew

Posted by matthewg at 10/02/2005 @ 9:33pm
One last thing: I lack words to express how disgusting I find such a statement as "well, we made a mistake" and what I see as the mindset behind it. I believe that the decision to go to war is the most solemn and serious act a nation can take, and should be treated as such. When your response to the discovery that the reasons for going to war were false is a flippant "shit happens (but look on the bright side...)", understand how profoundly insulting you are being.

Matthew

Posted by matthewg at 10/02/2005 @ 9:58pm
People have already forgotten, Matthew, that we used to wait for a real reason before going to war. We've have had problems in this area in the past (The Maine, the Mexican War), but until recently we had waited for a conflict to exist before sending in troops. Makes me pine for the old fund-the-Contra activity that was wrong, but at least our guys weren't the ones dying and our budget wasn't the one getting destroyed.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/02/2005 @ 10:05pm
I may have posted this link before, but David Sirota and Christy Harvey wrote an excellent article last year that summarized the various aspects of apparently willful misuse of intelligence information by the Bush administration. I encourage folks to take a look, if you haven't already: They Knew

I can't resist pasting the concluding section from the article (from August 2004):

Conclusion: They knew they were misleading America.

In his March 17, 2003 address preparing America for the Iraq invasion, President Bush stated unequivocally that there was an Iraq-al Qaeda nexus and that there was "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

In the context of what we now know the White House knew at the time, Bush was deliberately dishonest. The intelligence community repeatedly told the White House there were many deep cracks in its case for war. The president's willingness to ignore such warnings and make these unequivocal statements proves the administration was intentionally painting a black-and-white picture when it knew the facts merited only gray at best.

That has meant severe consequences for all Americans. Financially, U.S. taxpayers have shelled out more than $166 billion for the Iraq war, and more will soon be needed. Geopolitically, our country is more isolated from allies than ever, with anti-Americanism on the rise throughout the globe.

And we are less secure. A recent U.S. Army War College report says "the invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the more narrow focus on defeating al Qaeda." U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi put it this way: "The war in Iraq was useless, it caused more problems than it solved, and it brought in terrorism."

These statements are borne out by the facts: The International Institute of Strategic Studies in London reports al Qaeda is now 18,000 strong, with many new recruits joining as a result of the war in Iraq. Not coincidentally, the White House recently said the American homeland faces an imminent threat of a terrorist attack from a still-active al Qaeda operation in Afghanistan. Yet, the administration actually moved special forces out of Afghanistan in 2002 to prepare for an invasion of Iraq. Because of this, we face the absurd situation whereby we have no more than 20,000 troops in Afghanistan hunting down those who directly threaten us, yet have 140,000 troops in Iraq--a country that was not a serious menace before invasion.

Of course, it is those troops who have it the worst. Our men and women in uniform are bogged down in a quagmire, forced to lay down life and limb for a lie.

To be sure, neoconservative pundits and Bush administration hawks will continue to blame anyone but the White House for these deceptions. They also will say intelligence gave a bit of credence to some of the pre-war claims, and that is certainly true.

But nothing can negate the clear proof that President Bush and other administration official officials vastly overstated the intelligence they were given. They engaged in a calculated and well-coordinated effort to turn a war of choice in Iraq into a perceived war of imminent necessity.

And we are all left paying the price.

Posted by Fishbite at 10/02/2005 @ 10:34pm
[darn - bad URL and posted in the wrong place. It's off to bed I go]

OK, I thought I'd gotten a long URL to work in my last post, but no such luck. You'll have to cut and paste the following to get to Sirota's article:

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=134880

Sorry about that. And 'The Nation' - what's up with this bogus constraint on the length of URLs?

Posted by Fishbite at 10/02/2005 @ 10:37pm
I personally find the Iran-Contra deal no less repellent because those who died because of our actions happened to have been born outside of America. Does this making me one of those detestable bleeding hearts I hear so much about? Perhaps. But I would addtionally add that: (1) Arms sales to Iran were illegal, as I understand it, and I'd like to think that breaking the law is somewhat of a bad thing. (2) This episode added to the perception that America, or at least its government, is hypocrtical, which I think is ultimately not in the best interests of the United States (if that's the deciding factor). What's worse than being perceived as hypocritical is actually holding a double standard, which seems to be what happened. I don't mean to start a discussion on Iran-Contra, since I don't feel particularly up to speed on it, and don't really have time to do the necessary research to speak more intelligently on it, but I think that the above points are basically accurate and, if so, are sufficient to warrant my opposition to it.

Matthew

Posted by matthewg at 10/02/2005 @ 10:44pm
FISHBITE--Thanks for the link.

Posted by matthewg at 10/02/2005 @ 10:50pm
Matthewg, if what you have stated accurately is said to be preaching to the choir then you have given a masterful sermon.

No question about it, this Bush mob has been successful in spreading their destructive propaganda, lies and deceit, one after another. They have their loyal allies in all the media, Judith Miller of the New York Times (you know, the "Librul media) for one.

You state, "I lack words to express how disgusting I find such a statement as "well, we made a mistake" and what I see as the mindset behind it." That is exactly why I cancelled my subscription to the New Republic after receiving it for over 15 years. The New Republican in spite of the lead editorials cheering on Bush's Iraq War, had (and still has) a few decent writers and reporters. But, following Bush's preemptive attack on that country with his pyrotechnic, made-for-media "shock and awe" bombing display which killed and maimed 100,000 men, women and children of that country, the New Republic issued their mild rebuke against the administration for not finding any WMD, calling it a "great embarrassment."

Shortly thereafter, they endorsed the "golly oh gee" Joe Lieberman for president. Enough is enough as far as I'm concerned and the mainstream media have absolutely fallen on their faces during a time when if we ever needed a watchdog and a beacon of truth from the Fourth Estate, it is now. But they continue to give the most secretive, most divisive, most deceitful, most corrupt and corrosive administration in our nation's history a free pass and whine that they are being unfairly pilloried for not coming right out and demanding that this Bush regime should be impeached -- immediately for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Posted by richard38 at 10/02/2005 @ 11:32pm
From above:

"The lawyers for Libby and Miller arranged a phone call between the two, in which Libby apparently assured Miller his year-old wavier was voluntary. Then she and the Times negotiated a deal with Fitzgerald."

Comment: The deal they cut included limiting her GJ testimony to questions about THAT ONE SOURCE . The fact that Fitzgerald agreed points to his having decided to let the whole thing slide rather than digging up the full extent the pro-war corruption the nation is entitled to look at. How can it be read any other way? Wonder why Corn didn't pick up on that.

"In this conversation, Miller asked Libby why Wilson had been sent on this mission by the CIA. (Miller, whose prewar reporting had promoted the administration's case that Iraq was loaded with WMDs, had a personal, as well as professional, interest in Wilson's tale.) Libby, according to this source, told Miller that the White House was, as the Post puts it, "working with the CIA to find out more about Wilson's trip and how he was selected." Libby noted he had heard that Wilson's wife had something to do with it but he did not know where she worked."

With the return of Chalabi and Allawi back on the scene of Iraq oil, guns and religio-secular politics, these behind-the-scenes "heavily lawyered" moves made by these public principles create a context already as rancid as undrained slime-mold in the lower 9th ward of New Orleans, underneath the 17th street levee on Lake Pontchartrain. Inter-agency, inter-governmental politics (read: neocon zionistas against the world) leaches over into the totally depraved New York Times queer-eyed ones, evoking by innuendo the unconscious group-fantasy initials "CIA", as if it were The Suicidal Iraqi Unabomber, Al Zuckoffanzufahrfahr, recently discovered residing in a dormitory in OshKosh Community College running all terror networks on the planet off one AA battery-powered piece of Batman really, really advanced technology connected to microchips secreted in Goss's, and every ex-director's, penile implants. You could check it out. Outta be a law.

Posted by jones at 10/03/2005 @ 12:32am
How's this for a "plan"...

Week 1- Bush nominates Janice Rogers Brown to USSC. Libs group re-organize for a new fight, go after Brown and threaten any Dem who supports her with a primary challenger. Senate Dems SWEAR they will "strongly look into Judge Brown's record...and filibuster if necessary."

Week 2- Hearings held Feingold, Leahy, et al go after Brown on her pro-corporate, anti-affirmative action judgements, warn the White House that "serious questions have been raised."

Week 3- Fitzgerald issues report, Libby indicted, "The Nation" and the blogs go nutty over it......and on the Hill, 15-20 Dems vote FOR Janice Brown and barely a peep is heard about it.

Week 24- Libby indictment thrown out (just like the Delay indictment was a few weeks earlier) and the whole "Plame-gate" thing collapses....meanwhile we have ANOTHER young (relatively) hard-line conservative on the Supreme Court, because SHORT-TERM political "justice" was sought out by the Left?

Posted by Mask at 10/03/2005 @ 06:51am
Obviously, I need to make a change.

But the only one is the name.....Harriet Miers.

Posted by Mask at 10/03/2005 @ 09:37am
Harriet Miers!!!!

GW Bush is insane. I mean it. Everyone knows he only knows about a dozen people. Everyone knows that there are rotting human bodies in the swamp that used to be New Orleans....because he appointed a crony to run FEMA. Despite all this he's now nominating his buddy and legal counsel who's never been a judge to be a judge on the highest court in the world! I'm telling you this man should be removed from the Presidency as he is clearly INFREAKINGSANE!

Posted by colmes at 10/03/2005 @ 09:50am
Get those engines started. It's time to freak out over the Mier's nomination.

How could Bush be such an idiot. She's out of the mainstream. She is not qualified. Another Bush buddy getting a handout.

Blah, blah, blah...

Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/03/2005 @ 10:03am
David, I always appreciate your thorough coverage of subjects you choose to write about. I keep wondering why Miller's close association with Ahmad Chalabi gets short shrift. I feel her real crime was to let him and other AEI members lead her down the path to this miserable war. The reason the spotlight should be shone on this matter is to enlighten the public on the careless gullibility top members of this administration (and various publications) have demonstrated in their choices of who to trust. Another example of strange bedfellows with similar agendas?

Posted by Condetector at 10/03/2005 @ 10:10am
Colmes,

I am also appalled by this nomination. I am disgusted by the media reporting too -- several times I have heard how her lack of judicial experience means that 'no one knows what position she will take on abortion, civil rights, etc..' and not a peep about whether she is qualified for the nomination in the first place, or any hint of doubts about the appropriatenesss of nominating "a longtime confidant" to such a critical position.

Posted by 9patch at 10/03/2005 @ 10:21am
Dear No Pride in the USA,

You probably will not recall but all through the Roberts thing I constantly blogged that the Senate should not oppose Roberts. My position was....he was qualified. The President gets to choose and the Senate has no right to save the country from their own democratic choice of Presidents.

However, in this case, I would strongly recommend that the Senate be very careful in it's confirmation as the question of QUALIFIED is hardly met by someone who hasn't even judged a parking ticket case.

Just because President Shrub says she's qualified does not mean she understands the US Constitution.....recall Bush said that Brownie was "doing a heck of a job."

If Harriet Miers does a Brown style "heck of a job" the court will be looking to that dolt Clarence Thomas or lazy David Souter for inspiration!

On the other hand, she may turn out to be the best judge on the court, but I'm getting a bit tired of having important nominations left to the luck of a coin toss. Brown and the other lackeys at FEMA is what has made me tired.

Posted by colmes at 10/03/2005 @ 10:29am
Breaking News:

President Bush has just nominated a Black Labrador bitch to the US Supreme court withdrawing his nomination of Harriet Miers. "I figured the lab was good on the black thing and I've known her for over seven years now and she is a very obedient dog (kinda lack Tony Blair - laughs)." Said the President in a press conference in the Rose Garden today.

The USA press is musing the nomination and concluding that it's a good choice since we don't know very much about the black larador that has been nominated.

The rest of the world is either scared shitless or laughing their ass off.

Posted by colmes at 10/03/2005 @ 11:21am
Colmes,

Have you seen this?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40512

Posted by 9patch at 10/03/2005 @ 11:35am
9Patch,

No I had not seen that Onion piece. It is certainly funnier than my effort.

What the hell has this country come to?

I'll be damned if my kids are going to learn anything anymore. The message is loud and clear.....network, ass kiss, brown nose, but don't learn anything or achieve anything.

After this President is gone do you think that Yale and other Ivy Leagues will stop with legacy admissions? Probably not since alumni contributions are such a massive part of the endowment. Once again cash rules over sensible policies.

Posted by colmes at 10/03/2005 @ 11:58am
COLMES: Did you happen to catch Brown's testimony regarding FEMA's response time? There's a lot more to the story that the general public has no clue about, thanks to the msm.

When Gov. Blanco testified she used the old, I don't want to talk about what went wrong, I want to talk about how we can help now.

She was given a pass. And the same thing goes for Nagan - pass.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/03/2005 @ 12:00pm
No Pride,

You and I have had this argument before. For the record I will repeat my position.

I pay federal taxes, NJ State taxes, and Clinton Township municipal taxes. I vote on a federal, state and local level.

I don't pay or vote in either New Orleans or Louisiana. I don't have time to worry about whether Louisiana state taxes have been mishandled / mis appropriated / stolen / embezzeled. If you have time / resources to devote to that investigation / solution set then thanks.

I do care though that my Federal taxes, a portion of which are supposed to be used to provide homeland security, have apparently been stolen / misappropriated / embezzeled as I am not feeling secure in the event of a biological attack if my federal government takes five days to mobilize to a city since in such a scenario a complete lockdown would be required within 48 hours to save this entire country from extinction.

Anyway, the point at hand is Harriet Miers and can there be any justification for cheapening the sanctity of the SUPREME court with a bullshit cronyistic pick?

Posted by colmes at 10/03/2005 @ 12:29pm
Colmes,

You have to wonder what is next -- Cheney steps down and Bush names his brother as VP?

Posted by 9patch at 10/03/2005 @ 12:37pm
No Pride,

There is one thing that everyone that reads this blog agrees...the MSM is worthless. The right has been brainwashed into thinking it is left leaning and thus does not trust it. The left is aware that it is all owned by the Corporatocracy and thus knows it is not to be trusted. Bottom line is we don't have a real media in this country which is why our leaders have become as decadent as to appoint personal friends that havn't been the judge of a speeding ticket to be a judge to the highest court in the country.

If we had a real media I doubt such decadence would be tolerated, do you?

Posted by colmes at 10/03/2005 @ 12:41pm
I had seen that Onion piece a few days ago. Unfortunately Bush found someone with fewer accomplishments than the nominee in the article. Bush said the word "integrity" so many times and I still wish he would provide us his definition to this word. Is integrity distinct from loyalty, and is loyalty to one's superior distinct from loyalty to one's specific duties? To what is she going to be loyal once entrenched on the bench: the family and party that brought her out of Texas to the big time, or the Constitution which she seems to be learning on the fly? Hell, I think Love Liberty has a deeper understanding and appreciation of the Constitution than Miers.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/03/2005 @ 12:47pm
Why are so few people unhappy that a few people have decided that the country is theirs to reshape. The President is not supposed to be the architect of the United States; he is more the custodian. How sad to have someone who cannot fulfill the duties of custodian.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/03/2005 @ 12:49pm
COLMES OVER:

You got that one right. If the msm would report on the facts and not on their liberal, bias belief system, we would have accountability. You would bitch that it's unfair, but whatcha gonna do?

Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/03/2005 @ 12:50pm
What a horrid first sentence that was. Let's try again;

Why are so few citizens concerned that a small clutch of people have decided that...

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/03/2005 @ 12:50pm
No Pride,

There you go! And aren't the possibilities of accountability just stunning from where we are today? Accountability would me no war on fallacious WMD information. Accountability would mean that we'd have an exit strategy by now from that failing war. Accountability would mean that we wouldn't be expecting our kids to pay for a war that our geneation's elected President chose to go into. Accountability would mean no Michael Brown. Accountability would mean no missing $8.8B in Iraq....and if it did go missing accountability would mean we'd be looking for it. Accountability would mean no people like Rove and Libby still in the Whitehouse and still on the payroll even though they care more about politics than our nation. Accountability would end the reign of terror of Tom Delay in both Texas and the Federal level. Accountability would have inside info trading, Terri Schiavo diagnosing, Frist retiring his Senate seat.

I long for accountability.

Posted by colmes at 10/03/2005 @ 1:06pm
COLMES OVER:

I'm at a lose. You are helplessly caught in a void which knows only that Bush and all republicans, and anything they associate with is forever damned.

For the millionth time. WMD was 1, one, juan, won - 1 reason for going into Iraq.

The exit strategy is talked about by the administration on a daily basis. See if this sounds familar. Train the Iraqi people to defend themselves, get the government and constitution set up, and help to rebuild infrastructure.

I'm certain nobody is looking into the $8.8bil. Nah, they just wrote it off and have decided to move on.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/03/2005 @ 1:39pm
No Pride,

Good for you. Keep drinking the Koolaid buddy!

WMD was the PRIMARY reason.....remember, something along the lines of Saddam Hussein is nuts and will arm terrorists with WMD's if we don't get them out of his hands before he has the chance. The USA people didn't believe Iraq was a terrorist haven. The USA people could give a toss that he was a naughty man that operated torture rooms. If you're not going to have the intellectual honesty to admit that the WMD argument was the reason we got into Iraq and without that argument we would never have gone then I'm taking my ball home and not playing with you any more!

That is not an exit strategy and if it is then how do we believe it as we were told we were waiting for the elections, we're waiting for the constitution et al. An exit strategy would be the following:

The USA is withdrawing from Iraq in a graduated manner not to exceed six months when the following condition has been met:

X number of Iraqi security forces have been trained to a level of Y.

Where the administration declares X and Y.

That's all I need from this administration for an exit strategy. Why can't I get it? Have we not been there long enough or lost enough US life for this level of honesty?

The $8.8 Billion were funds that Paul Bremmer was in charge of. To this date no congressional hearings or independent investigations have been permitted to find out where the money went. If you stop drinking the Koolaid you'll realize it is because the money largely ended up at Halibuton et al and the administration is not going to let us know about that. You're tax dollars and you don't seem to care.

Posted by colmes at 10/03/2005 @ 2:12pm

David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

A CIA-Did-It Defense for Scooter in the Plame Leak Case?

posted by David Corn on 09/30/2005 @ 2:05pm

David Corn

Archives

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Beat

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

A CIA-Did-It Defense for Scooter in the Plame Leak Case?

posted by David Corn on 09/30/2005 @ 2:05pm

Share this article

David Corn

Archives

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Beat

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!