But what does Valerie Plame being listed as Joe Wilson's wife in Who's Who... have to do with naming her as a covert operative? I just read the entry in WW, and it does not say married to CIA Spy, so someone want to explain?

This week in the blogosphere has been an all out Plame-apalooza. For those who have not been on the internet all week, or those too busy following the war in the Middle East to pay attention to the story, I have prepared a quick catch-up here.

I wrote a couple of days ago that Wizbang has had the best coverage in the blogosphere of the recent developments in the Wilson-Plame-Novak story. I stand by that and refer readers who haven't been following it to read this week's posts regarding the recent Novak revelations here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Granddaddy Long Legs has a good roundup of links on the Novak story, along with some good background, here.

"The Squiggler" has the best roundup I have found on the subject of the Plame lawsuit. Actually, it may be the best roundup post I have seen on any subject. She has tons of links, quotes and pictures (many of them quite funny). I have already bookmarked this one for future reference. Jim Hoft has a couple of good roundups here and here, too.

***
I can't wait to see this play out. This will be going to court, with NORMAL Americans judging the merits of the case, not, partisan bloggers, or Republican employees. I am passing no judgments at this point. But it will be super interesting seeing what comes out in a real court, instead of a Star Chamber.

I am... I mean who didn't know it was Rove. Who didn't know he would get off scott free? The whole of the Right Blogsphere has spent the last three years making Joe Wilson the bad guy. None of Novak's revealations surprises me one bit...

Almost three years ago exactly - on July 14, 2003 - Bob “Douchebag of Liberty” Novak revealed the identity of a secret CIA agent named Valerie Plame, effectively shutting down her undercover operation tracking the black market for WMD in Europe. Novak claimed that Bush Administration officials had revealed Plame’s identity to him.

We have believed from the getgo that within hours of learning that Novak was going to publish Plame’s name, President Bush knew exactly who in his administration had done the leaking and that statements he made thereafter were carefully parsed to protect himself and the leaker from future liability.

Now that Novak has confirmed that it was Karl Rove who revealed the name to him of secret CIA agent Valerie Plame, it is a good time to look back at the two key statements made by President Bush in the wake of the revelation. The president’s strategically nuanced wording makes President Clinton’s widely derided statement, “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is,” look like incisive explication.

On September 30, 2003, at a brief Q&A with reporters, President Bush offered a carefully memorized non-statement about the consequences the purportedly unknown leaker would suffer...

And as usual, despite the obvious scumbaggery involved in this whole affair, opinions are split down party lines.

Associated Press, Public Eye, Villainous Company, Shakespeare's Sister, Confederate Yankee, FishBowlDC, The All Spin Zone, PostWatch and The Strata-SphereThink Progress, David Corn, The Next Hurrah, Crooks and Liars, TalkLeft, The Huffington Post, The Raw Story, Needlenose, Macsmind, Decision '08 and The Volokh Conspiracy

When did we stop being Americans. When did we get so jaded that it was a High Crime to get a blow job in the White House, and yet NOTHING to out a CIA agent?

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the special prosecutor was unavailable for comment. In the past, Samborn said he could not comment on the case.

I seem to recall my buddy Jay Tea saying that this would not happen. Looks like the Perp Walk is coming real soon....

You know, I have said several times that History would be the judge of this administration. And I stand by that statement. The accellerating pace of errossion of Bush support, even by key supporters over the last two years, is a testament to the fact that the ship if not sinking, is listing badly. And regardless of the final outcome, I will take pride in having stayed at my post. I salute the Special Prosecutor. He IS doing his job. And while I know that the usual suspects will soon begin a smear campaign against him, I am confident that he will stand on the law... Unlike the people who we elected who supervised the building of this corrupt house of cards...

Breaking News from Raw Story:

On Chris Matthews' Hardball Monday evening, just moments ago, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster confirmed what RAW STORY first reported in February: that outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was working on Iran at the time she was outed.

RAW STORY's Larisa Alexandrovna broke the story earlier this year, which went unnoticed by the mainstream media.

Link to full Story

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

Reaction from Baloon Juice:

If confirmed, I look forward to the remaining Bush defenders explaining this bit of info that David Shuster released just now on Hardball (I have changed the transcript from all-caps to normal text):

"Intelligence sources say Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson's cover was blown, the administration's ability to track Iran's nuclear ambitions was damaged as well."

There is only one certainty here.... The Bush defenders WILL try to explain it. Jeff at Protien Wisdom is probably already deep into a post... Wizbang will claim that there is "nothing new here," and that Plame was nothing more than a backroom analyst, Michelle Malkin will rage against the traitorous leakers, Liberal Media and Bush Haters.

One question comes to mind... What is treason? If it is not defined by the absolute destruction of our democratic principles... To be honest, I am not as offended by what Bush is doing (He is just another wanna be dictator on a power rush). What he has done and is doing, is to exploit opportunity... What I find offensive are the people who defend this crap,intelligent people who I KNOW see throught it...and then have the nerve to question the sincerity of others.

Grand Jury Hears Evidence Against Rove

The grand jury session in federal court in Washington, DC, sources close to the case said, was the first time this year that Fitzgerald told the jurors that he would soon present them with a list of criminal charges he intends to file against Rove in hopes of having the grand jury return a multi-count indictment against Rove.

In an interview Wednesday, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove remains a "subject" of Fitzgerald's two-year-old probe.

Like I said, Libby aint going to take the fall alone.

Hat Tip Billmon

The time may be fast approaching, where the chickens will come home to roost. And I kid you not when I say, it can't be soon enough...

Kevin Drum on Bush's Leak of Classified Info:
From Wapo:

A senior administration official, speaking on background because White House policy prohibits comment on an active investigation, said Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. The official said Bush authorized the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny.

So Bush did know about the leak, and he did authorize it. What's more, his excuse is a simple one: he wanted to defend himself against attacks on his war policy, so it was OK.

That's exactly what happened, but it's remarkable that he's willing to admit it. Basically, Bush is saying that it's all right for him to selectively leak classified information whenever he feels it would help him politically.

Yep, that about says it... But I would take it a bit further. This President seems to feel he can do WHATEVER he likes if it suits his political agenda.

Any commentary is necessary on this one:

"Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff has testified that President Bush authorized him to disclose the contents of a highly classified intelligence assessment to the media to defend the Bush administration's decision to go to war with Iraq, according to papers filed in federal court on Wednesday by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case...read on"

I mean, most of us "rational thinkers," suspected this from the begining. The "We just don't KNOW," defense is already cropping up on Right Wing sites. About the only thing we, "dont know," at this point, is why Bush did not admit this a long time ago. I am just sitting here scratching my head, wondering why these people simply dont get it.

Time Reporter Says He Learned Agent's Identity From Rove.... And "Turdblossom," may soon have some 'splainin' to do as well!

While even rational right wing bloggers continue to beat the dead Wilson horse, trying desperately to make this about Wilson, instead of about members of the sitting administration outting a Covert CIA agent, the story is slowly starting to come out, and I wager that a whole lot of people are going to be eating crow pretty soon, or looking like the partisan hacks that they are...

Ah, memo to the Rightspere... "The only people who are buying the Wilson as bad guy crap anymore, are those drinking from the same Kool Aide cup.

Robert Novak should never be allowed to write another column or appear on any TV show ever-unless he's doing an interview that explains why he is Karl Rove's messenger boy. He is a national disgrace.

Her status as a NOC should have been enough to keep her protected by the people she worked for. When these apologists run around and try to muddy up the waters with debates about whether she was an undercover agent or not is very disappointing. They should all be hauled away in handcuffs and sent to a North Korean prison to spend a few nights in one of their comfy cells. Then we'll see how brave they are. If she had been caught on foreign soil she would have been hung out to dry.

Quote: "We're not being undermined by the North Koreans, we're not being undermined by the Russians--we're being undermined by officials in our own government."

It is mind boggling to think that so many of these apologists still try to question her status.

From Crooks and Liars... They have the video, watch it...

I was waiting to see The Commissar's take on today's indictment.

Though this line is probably one of the least hypocritical I have seen today from the Right:

"Undoubtedly worse than a sex scandal, but about twenty stories shy of a Watergate."

The Moonbat line is somewhat dissapointing from someone whom I have come to respect as at least rational, if partisan.

Has there been some gloating,yeah I would say that is fairly accurate, but today's news was hardly much to celebrate. The indictment makes it pretty clear for any rational person, that the coversations about Plame were politically motivated. No amount of spin from the Right is going to change that. While the Special prosecuter did make an effort to depoliticize the indictment, he also pointed out the seriousness of outting a CIA operative, something all but ignored in most coverage from the Right. So if there is any "Muted Gloating," going on, it would seem to me that it is coming from the Right, who seem to be celebrating the fact that Karl and Dick are not doing the perp walk as well...

And welcome to New York Times readers...

Looks like a deliberate smear campaign to me.... And the clearest evidence is the weakness of the spin coming from the Right.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Holding a Criminal Term
Grand Jury Sworn in on October 31, 2003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
) Criminal No.
) GRAND JURY ORIGINAL
v.
) Count 1: Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503)
)
) Counts 2-3: False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2))
I. LEWIS LIBBY,
)
also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY"
) Counts 4-5: Perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1623)
INDICTMENT
COUNT ONE
(Obstruction of Justice)
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:
1.
At times material to this indictment:
Defendant's Employment and Responsibilities
a.
Beginning on or about January 20, 2001, and continuing through the date of
this indictment, defendant I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY," was employed
as Assistant to the President of the United States, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United
States, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. In the course of his work,
LIBBY had frequent access to classified information and frequently spoke with officials of the U.S.
intelligence community, as well as other government officials, regarding sensitive national security
matters.
b.
In connection with his role as a senior government official with
responsibilities for national security matters, LIBBY held security clearances entitling him to access
2
to classified information. As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable
laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order
12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not
authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified
information against unauthorized disclosure. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a
written "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," stating in part that "I understand and
accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be
placed in me by the United States Government," and that "I have been advised that the unauthorized
disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause
damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation."
The Central Intelligence Agency
c.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was an agency of the United States
whose mission was to collect, produce, and disseminate intelligence and counterintelligence
information to officers and departments of the United States government, including the President,
the National Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
d.
The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association
with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was
classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential
to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those
individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and
endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.
3
Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson
e.
Joseph Wilson ("Wilson") was a former career State Department official who
had held a variety of posts, including United States Ambassador. In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA
by the Vice President concerning certain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative
to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi efforts to acquire
uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the
CIA upon his return.
f.
Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson ("Valerie Wilson"). At
all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the
CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation
with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.
Events Leading up to July 2003
2.
On or about January 28, 2003, President George W. Bush delivered his State of the
Union address which included sixteen words asserting that "The British government has learned that
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
3.
On May 6, 2003, the New York Times published a column by Nicholas Kristof which
disputed the accuracy of the "sixteen words" in the State of the Union address. The column reported
that, following a request from the Vice President's office for an investigation of allegations that Iraq
sought to buy uranium from Niger, an unnamed former ambassador was sent on a trip to Niger in
2002 to investigate the allegations. According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the
CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based
on forged documents.
4
4.
On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary
of State ("Under Secretary") for information concerning the unnamed ambassador's travel to Niger
to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary
thereafter directed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report
concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral
reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador
who took the trip.
5.
On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed
to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the
Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed,
among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After
receiving these documents, LIBBY and one or more other persons in the Office of the Vice President
handwrote the names "Wilson" and "Joe Wilson" on the documents.
6.
On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY
in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that State
Department personnel were saying that Wilson's wife was involved in the planning of his trip.
7.
On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask
about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.
8.
Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office
of the Vice President in connection with a story he was writing about Wilson's trip. LIBBY
participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus.
5
9.
On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United
States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation
Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

10.
On June 12, 2003, the Washington Post published an article by reporter Walter Pincus
about Wilson's trip to Niger, which described Wilson as a retired ambassador but not by name, and
reported that the CIA had sent him to Niger after an aide to the Vice President raised questions about
purported Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. Pincus's article questioned the accuracy of the "sixteen
words," and stated that the retired ambassador had reported to the CIA that the uranium purchase
story was false.
11.
On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their
conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical
of the Vice President's office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, "Joe Wilson" and
his wife "Valerie Wilson," in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger.
12.
On or about June 19, 2003, an article appeared in The New Republic magazine online
entitled "The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War." Among other things, the article
questioned the "sixteen words" and stated that following a request for information from the Vice
President, the CIA had asked an unnamed ambassador to travel to Niger to investigate allegations
that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The article included a quotation attributed to the unnamed
ambassador alleging that administration officials "knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie." The
article also was critical of how the administration, including the Office of the Vice President,
portrayed intelligence concerning Iraqi capabilities with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and
accused the administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence agencies on this topic.
6
13.
Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by
telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY
whether information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that
the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA
in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure
telephone line.
14.
On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed "selective
leaking" by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA's handling of Wilson's
trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.
The July 6 "Op Ed" Article by Wilson
15.
On July 6, 2003, the New York Times published an Op-Ed article by Wilson entitled
"What I Didn't Find in Africa." Also on July 6, 2003, the Washington Post published an article
about Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, which article was based in part upon an interview of Wilson.
Also on July 6, Wilson appeared as a guest on the television interview show "Meet the Press." In
his Op-Ed article and interviews in print and on television, Wilson asserted, among other things, that
he had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that
Iraq had sought or obtained uranium yellowcake from Niger, and that he doubted Iraq had obtained
uranium from Niger recently, for a number of reasons. Wilson stated that he believed, based on his
understanding of government procedures, that the Office of the Vice President was advised of the
results of his trip.
7
LIBBY's Actions Following Wilson's July 6 "Op Ed" Column
16.
On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY had lunch with the then White House Press
Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and noted that such
information was not widely known.
17.
On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter
Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the
information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a "former Hill staffer" rather
than to a "senior administration official," as had been the understanding with respect to other
information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with
Miller Wilson's trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson's trip. During this
discussion, LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
18.
Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President
in an anteroom outside the Vice President's Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked
the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA
if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip.
19.
Not earlier than June 2003, but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice
President for Public Affairs learned from another government official that Wilson's wife worked at
the CIA, and advised LIBBY of this information.
20.
On or about July 10, 2003, LIBBY spoke to NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim
Russert to complain about press coverage of LIBBY by an MSNBC reporter. LIBBY did not discuss
Wilson's wife with Russert.
8
21.
On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White
House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with
columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in
Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about
Wilson's wife.
22.
On or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY flew with the Vice President and others to and
from Norfolk, Virginia, on Air Force Two. On his return trip, LIBBY discussed with other officials
aboard the plane what LIBBY should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including
questions from Time reporter Matthew Cooper.
23.
On or about July 12, 2003, in the afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone to Cooper,
who asked whether LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip
to Niger. LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification, that he had heard this
information too.
24.
On or about July 12, 2003, in the late afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone with
Judith Miller of the New York Times and discussed Wilson's wife, and that she worked at the CIA.
The Criminal Investigation
25.
On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the Federal
Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") to commence a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized
disclosure of classified information regarding the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the
CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003.
9
26.
As part of the criminal investigation, LIBBY was interviewed by Special Agents of
the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel.
During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:
a.
During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11,
2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked
for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and
Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this
statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that
he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice
President.
b.
During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about
July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the
administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but that LIBBY did
not know if this was true; and
c.
LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with New York Times reporter Judith
Miller during a meeting with Miller on or about July 8, 2003.
27.
Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment,
Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation ("the Grand Jury
Investigation") into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States
Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false
statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).
10
28.
A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government
officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of
Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well
as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie
Wilson by the CIA was classified information.
29.
During the course of the Grand Jury Investigation, the following matters, among
others, were material to the Grand Jury Investigation:
i.
When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned
that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;
ii.
Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that
Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;
iii.
The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to
the media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information
he may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information;
iv.
LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was
classified at the time he disclosed it; and
v.
Whether LIBBY was candid with Special Agents of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation in describing his conversations with the other government officials and the
media relating to Valerie Wilson.
11
LIBBY's Grand Jury Testimony
30.
On or about March 5 and March 24, 2004, LIBBY testified before Grand Jury 03-3.
On each occasion of LIBBY's testimony, the foreperson of the Grand Jury administered the oath to
LIBBY and LIBBY swore to tell the truth in the testimony he was about to give.
31.
In or about March 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,
also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"
defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due
administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving
the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently
disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.
32.
It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant
LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and
representations, in substance, under oath:
a.
When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10,
2003:
i.
Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for
the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
ii.
At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
12
b.
LIBBY advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003,
that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and further
advised him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; and
c.
LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12,
2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but
LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.
33.
It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made
each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and
representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:
a.
When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10,
2003:
i.
Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife
worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew
it; and
ii.
At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in
multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the
following occasions:
·
In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice
President that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in the
Counterproliferation Division;
·
On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior
CIA officer that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA and
that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her;
13
·
On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the
Under Secretary of State that Wilson's wife worked for the
CIA;
·
On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY discussed "Joe Wilson"
and "Valerie Wilson" with his CIA briefer, in the context of
Wilson's trip to Niger;
·
On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith
Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;
·
On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY advised the White House
Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
·
In or about June or July 2003, and in no case later than on or
about July 8, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Assistant to
the Vice President for Public Affairs that Wilson's wife
worked for the CIA;
·
On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith
Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and
·
On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY had a discussion with the
Counsel to the Office of the Vice President concerning the
paperwork that would exist if a person who was sent on an
overseas trip by the CIA had a spouse who worked at the
CIA;
b.
LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that
LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did
LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, LIBBY
confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the
CIA; and
14
c.
LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY
had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise
her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.
15
COUNT TWO
(False Statement)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1.
The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-26 of Count One as though fully set forth
herein.
2.
During the course of the criminal investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Department of Justice, the following matters, among others, were material to
that investigation:
a.
When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that
Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;
b.
Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that Wilson's
wife was employed by the CIA;
c.
The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to the
media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information he
may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information; and
d.
LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was
classified at the time he disclosed it.
3.
On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,
also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"
defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent
statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of
16
Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in
response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:
During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003,
Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all
the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while
speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about
Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.
4.
As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that
when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003:
a.
Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for
the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b.
At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife
worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
17
COUNT THREE
(False Statement)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1.
The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Count Two as though fully set forth
herein.
2.
On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,
also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"
defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent
statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in
response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:
During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003,
LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife
worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.
3.
As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that:
LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the
administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did
not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that
LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
18
COUNT FOUR
(Perjury)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1.
The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-30 of Count One as though fully set forth
herein.
2.
On or about March 5, 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,
also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"
defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the
United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony
regarding a conversation that he represented he had with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July
10, 2003 (underlined portions alleged as false):
. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this ­ excuse me, did you know
that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by
that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said ­ he may have said a little more
but that was ­ he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't
know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in
any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that
I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was
first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful
not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.
Now, I had said earlier in the conversation, which I omitted to tell you, that
this ­ you know, as always, Tim, our discussion is off-the-record if that's okay with
you, and he said, that's fine.
So then he said ­ I said ­ he said, sorry ­ he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you
know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no,
I don't know that. And then he said, yeah ­ yes, all the reporters know it. And I said,
again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything
for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he
thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him anymore about it because I
19
didn't want to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the
conversation, something like that.
3.
In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in
that:
a.
Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for
the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b.
At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife
worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.
20
COUNT FIVE
(Perjury)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1.
The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-30 of Count One as though fully set forth
herein.
2.
On or about March 5, 2004 and March 24, 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,
also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"
defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the
United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony
regarding his conversations with reporters concerning the employment of Joseph Wilson's wife by
the CIA (underlined portions alleged as false):
a.
Testimony Given on or about March 5, 2004 Regarding a Conversation
With Matthew Cooper on or About July 12, 2003:
Q.
And it's your specific recollection that when you told Cooper about
Wilson's wife working at the CIA, you attributed that fact to what
reporters ­
A.
Yes.
Q.
­ plural, were saying. Correct?
A.
I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind
I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was ­ all I had was this
information that was coming in from the reporters.
. . . .
Q.
And at the same time you have a specific recollection of telling him,
you don't know whether it's true or not, you're just telling him what
reporters are saying?
21
A.
Yes, that's correct, sir. And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don't
know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things,
I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know ­ I think
I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing.
b.
Testimony Given on or about March 24, 2004 Regarding Conversations
With Reporters:
Q.
And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that you knew that the
law could turn, the law as to whether a crime was committed, could
turn on where you learned the information from, affect your account
for the FBI when you told them that you were telling reporters
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather
than the Vice-President?
A.
No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters.
Q.
And you're, you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you
told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to
other reporters?
A.
Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because
it was ­ that's what ­ that's how I did it.
. . . .
Q.
The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are ­ concern this fact.
If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have
been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr.
Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you
told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as
something you knew?
A.
I want ­ I didn't want to ­ I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want
people ­ I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said
it. I ­ all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I
wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it
might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes,
or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they
didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted
them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them
know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr.
Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report.
22
Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out
in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife.
That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's
married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I
didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought
at the time, was what reporters are telling us.
. . . .
Well, talking to the other reporters about it, I don't see as a crime. What I
said to the other reporters is what, you know ­ I told a couple reporters what
other reporters had told us, and I don't see that as a crime.
3.
In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in
that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters
were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters
that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.
A TRUE BILL:

FOREPERSON

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
Special Counsel
Document Outline

"That spin wont fly!"

Special Prosecuter Patrick Fitzgerald, answering Republican spin on the indictment of Scooter Libby. Rove may get off, but the question remains if major damage has already been done to the credibility of the Administration.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, was indicted Friday by a federal grand jury investigating the public unmasking of an undercover CIA operative.

Charges included making false statements, obstruction of justice, and perjury, court documents show.

Indictments in the case were the first in a nearly two-year investigation into the public unmasking of an undercover CIA operative. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has scheduled a 2 p.m. ET news conference.

Quote of the Day:

David Gergen, a former adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, told CNN's "Larry King Live" that indictments in the case could have an enormous impact on the Iraq war.

"Because if there are indictments, it will not only be people close to the president, the vice president of the United States, but they will raise questions about whether criminal acts were perpetrated to help get the country into war."

Some people have been raising those same questions for a VERY long time. We are either on a course to see some indictments for lying on the part of some major players in this administration, or the beginnings of a conspiracy that could rival Watergate in it's implications. Whatever happens, even the most hardcore Bush supporters are going to find this one difficult to successfully spin.

Rove is not out of the water yet.

Rove's attorney Robert Luskin issued a statement Friday that Fitzgerald "has advised Mr. Rove that he has made no decision about whether or not to bring charges."

And this case along with the DeLay Case and other investigations into prominent Republicans, does not bode well for the Republican Party at this point. At a moment when the Republican Party needs him the most, Spinmiester Karl Rove may be too busy trying to save his own hide, to spin his party out of trouble...

There will likely be a lot of commentary on the issue from both sides. I found this interesting:

Perjury by the President of the United States: No big deal. Everyone lies. Perjury by an assistant to the Vice-President who until last month almost no one had ever heard of: A serious challenge to our democracy and he should be executed.

Special Prosecutor expanding an original investigation to cover perjury by the President of the United States: A partisan tool, out of control prosecutor , hell-bent on destroying our country.
Special Prosecutor expanding an original investigation to cover perjury by an assistant to the Vice-President who until last month almost no one had ever heard of: An absolute requirement for the sake of our country. Democracy would crumble without it.

So let me see... Perjury to cover up personal misconduct vs. Perjury to cover up the outting of a CIA agent...

Choice seems simple to me.... What about you....

And I must have missed something here:

Where in any of these documents does it say Plame was a CIA agent?

This news....

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is focusing his investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity on whether White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove committed perjury, two lawyers involved in the case told CNN.

Fitzgerald is expected to announce Friday the results of his investigation and whether he has come up with indictments, a source said.

The source said Fitzgerald summarized his case before the grand jury Wednesday and met with the U.S. District Court's chief justice afterward for about 45 minutes.

will be the biggest non-surprise in U.S. political history.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Karl Rove testified to a grand jury for the fourth and final time Friday, smiling as he emerged from hours of questioning about his possible role in the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that statements in the summer that Rove retained the president's confidence remained true. However, McClellan declined repeatedly to utter words of confidence outright.

Prosecutors had warned Rove before his latest grand jury appearance that there was no guarantee he would not be indicted. The grand jury's term is due to expire October 28.

"Karl continues to do his duties as deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to the president," McClellan said. "What I said previously still stands."

Rove spent about four-and-a-half hours inside the federal courthouse, and left without commenting to reporters.

His lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, said Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald "has not advised Mr. Rove that he is a target of the investigation and affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges. The special counsel has indicated that he does not anticipate the need for Mr. Rove's further cooperation."

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Since I have been so busy with the project in Guatemala, I have not had time to focus much on news or politics. The continued interest in Rove, does not bode well for the White House.

That is what we all want to know now that this news is out:

(CNN) -- After spending 12 weeks in jail for refusing to name a source, The New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified Friday before a federal grand jury looking into a CIA leak case after her source gave her permission.

Miller appeared before the grand jury after her attorneys reached an agreement with prosecutors on the scope of her testimony, "which satisfied my obligation as a reporter to keep faith with my sources," she said in a statement.

"It's good to be free," Miller said after her release Thursday. "I am leaving jail today because my source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding our conversations."

She did not identify the source.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, called Miller in prison September 19 to personally free her from the pledge of confidentiality, a move that apparently contributed to her release, Libby's attorney, Joseph Tate of Philadelphia, told CNN.

New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. said the newspaper supported Miller's decision to testify.

It will be interesting to see if Bush now honors his pledge to fire anyone responsible for this leak, AND perhaps more importantly, if there are prosecutions in the case.

The other question that will be asked is what Cheney knew about the leak, especially in light of accusations that Cheney pressured the CIA to provide WMD evidence to justify the Iraq War. This is another stinker...

In the meantime, I am sure Miller will get a nice fat book deal out of it...

Great Op/Ed piece on Boston.com:

SOME WHITE House sympathizers have attempted to portray Karl Rove's role in the Valerie Plame scandal as that of a statesman, seeking to provide President Bush with the best information possible on Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions so that Bush could set policy based on facts. This has been met with deserved skepticism. Rove's career, even before he became Bush's deputy chief of staff, is rich with reasons to think his motives in helping to identify Plame as a CIA agent were far darker.

After all, Plame's identity was revealed in a Robert Novak column on July 14, 2003, just eight days after her husband, Joseph Wilson, had embarrassed Bush over his Iraq war rationale. And Rove had talked with Novak on July 9.

As John Roberts, the Supreme Court nominee and federal appeals court judge, wrote last month in another context, the fact that ''sometimes dogs do eat homework" is no reason to ignore more-logical explanations.

Rove's record has been consistent. Over 35 years, he has been a master of dirty tricks, divisiveness, innuendo, manipulation, character assassination, and roiling partisanship.

He started early. In 1970, when he was 19 and active as a college Republican -- though he didn't graduate from college -- Rove pretended to volunteer for a Democratic candidate in Illinois, stole some campaign stationery, and used it to disrupt a campaign event. Later, in Texas, he gave testimony in court that was embarrassing to an opponent of one of Rove's clients, even though it was not true, according to the book ''Bush's Brain," by two veteran Texas newsmen, James Moore and Wayne Slater.

Negative attacks have often been the center of Rove's strategies. In a race between Texas Governor Mark White and his Republican opponent, Bill Clements, Rove wrote in a memo: ''Anti-White messages are more important than positive Clements messages."

Often Rove has skated on the edge of being identified with certainty as the author of dirty tricks. In 1986, the discovery of a planted listening device in Rove's own office was widely publicized, damaging the Democrats. Many suspect that the source was Rove himself. This was never proven, but Moore and Slater say, ''Karl Rove remains a prime suspect." In 1989, Texas populist Jim Hightower was damaged by grand jury leaks for which, Moore and Slater say, ''Rove remains the most likely source."

Again, most of the personal slurs against candidates who had the temerity to run against Rove's clients have not been pinned on Rove personally, but they follow a pattern. George W. Bush ousted Ann Richards from the Texas governor's office in 1994 after a whisper campaign focused on a small number of Richards appointees who were lesbians and even suggested that Richards was gay. Bush himself stoked the fire, saying some Richards appointees "had agendas that may have been personal in nature."

The Rove issue has been pushed off the front page by recent news and by Cindy Sheehan, but this commentary may be evidence that the issue may be out of sight, but not, "out of mind," for the mainstream media.

From Frank Rich's NY Times Column:

Hat Tip Dan Gillmor.

CINDY SHEEHAN couldn't have picked a more apt date to begin the vigil that ambushed a president: Aug. 6 was the fourth anniversary of that fateful 2001 Crawford vacation day when George W. Bush responded to an intelligence briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" by going fishing. On this Aug. 6 the president was no less determined to shrug off bad news. Though 14 marine reservists had been killed days earlier by a roadside bomb in Haditha, his national radio address that morning made no mention of Iraq. Once again Mr. Bush was in his bubble, ensuring that he wouldn't see Ms. Sheehan coming. So it goes with a president who hasn't foreseen any of the setbacks in the war he fabricated against an enemy who did not attack inside the United States in 2001.

When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Ms. Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam.

The most prominent smear victims have been Bush political opponents with heroic Vietnam resumes: John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry. But the list of past targets stretches from the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke to Specialist Thomas Wilson, the grunt who publicly challenged Donald Rumsfeld about inadequately armored vehicles last December. The assault on the whistle-blower Joseph Wilson - the diplomat described by the first President Bush as "courageous" and "a true American hero" for confronting Saddam to save American hostages in 1991 - was so toxic it may yet send its perpetrators to jail.

True to form, the attack on Cindy Sheehan surfaced early on Fox News, where she was immediately labeled a "crackpot" by Fred Barnes. The right-wing blogosphere quickly spread tales of her divorce, her angry Republican in-laws, her supposed political flip-flops, her incendiary sloganeering and her association with known ticket-stub-carrying attendees of "Fahrenheit 9/11." Rush Limbaugh went so far as to declare that Ms. Sheehan's "story is nothing more than forged documents, there's nothing about it that's real."

But this time the Swift Boating failed, utterly, and that failure is yet another revealing historical marker in this summer's collapse of political support for the Iraq war.

As usual Rich pulls no punches...

Read it all. It demonstrates an all to clear pattern of abuse on the part of this Administration, abuse of power, abuse of the truth, abuse of the trust of the American Public. It also demonstrates further the sense of invulnerability that this administration feels. And rightfully so. They have successfully used the same tactic again and again and again...

But as Rich says:

When the Bush mob attacks critics like Ms. Sheehan, its highest priority is to change the subject. If we talk about Richard Clarke's character, then we stop talking about the administration's pre-9/11 inattentiveness to terrorism. If Thomas Wilson is trashed as an insubordinate plant of the "liberal media," we forget the Pentagon's abysmal failure to give our troops adequate armor (a failure that persists today, eight months after he spoke up). If we focus on Joseph Wilson's wife, we lose the big picture of how the administration twisted intelligence to gin up the threat of Saddam's nonexistent W.M.D.'s.

The hope this time was that we'd change the subject to Cindy Sheehan's "wacko" rhetoric and the opportunistic left-wing groups that have attached themselves to her like barnacles. That way we would forget about her dead son. But if much of the 24/7 media has taken the bait, much of the public has not.

this time the vast majority of the American Public is NOT buying it. The very principle of repeating something often enough until it becomes truth, has backfired. The American Public has been hearing about Administration lies and manipulation for years now, and the idea is finaly starting to sink in...

The majority of Americans feel compassion for Cindy Sheehan. While her protractors are vocal, the majority see her as a Mother grieving over the loss of a son, who is entitled to her moment with the President. His fundraising, vacationing and grandstanding with Lance Armstrong have come across as callous and heartless, at the very moment when he needs to be explaining some things not only to Sheehan, but to the whole nation. Bush ran the first time as a Straight Talk candidate. Those of us who watched the campaign from the Left, never bought this in the first place, but a lot of people did. His failure to provide Americans with a straight answer on the debacle in Iraq has eroded American confidence in him, and his administration. It does not help his case when his Generals are saying one thing, His SecDef another and Vice President something entirely different altogether.

Recent poll numbers more than anything, demonstrate a lack of confidence on the part of the American Public in ANYTHING having to do with Iraq, and rightfully so...

The attacks on Sheehan have only made the matter worse. I predict that Bush will eventually meet with Sheehan, calls to do so from within his own party have made this a nearly forgone conclusion. The delays at this point are more than likely based on Karl Rove trying to determine the best way to spin a lose/lose situation for Bush.

Welcome to Daou Report readers. Please feel free to comment on the post that the Daou Report linked to, as well as anything else you find interesting on ISOU.

And if you want to read two more interesting viewpoints on the effects of the war in Iraq on Bush's legacy. Professor Bainbridge and Kevin Drum have two excellent pieces on the subject. It is heartening to see Conservatives like Bainbridge waking up to the reality of this folly.

I found these two comments, particularly compelling:

The trouble with Bush's justification for the war is that it uses American troops as fly paper. Send US troops over to Iraq, where they'll attract all the terrorists, who otherwise would have come here, and whom we'll then kill. This theory has proven fallacious. The first problem is that the American people are unwilling to let their soldiers be used as fly paper. If Iraq has proven anything, it has confirmed for me the validity of the Powell Doctrine.

and

The second problem is that the fly paper strategy
seems to be radicalizing our foes even more. For every fly that gets
caught, it seems as though 10 more spring up. This should hardly come
as a surprise to anybody who has watched Israel pursue military
solutions to its terrorist problems, after all. Does anybody really
think Israel's military actions have left Hezbollah or Hamas with fewer
foot soldiers? To the contrary, the London bombing suggests to me that
it is only a matter of time before the jihadists strike in the US
again, even though our troops remain hung out as fly paper in the
Augean Stables of Iraq. {Update: The news
that Scotland Yard foiled a gas attack on the House of Commons, for
which the Yard deserves mega-kudos, doesn't change my mind. As the
climax of Tom Clancy's novel Debt of Honor suggests (and I still wonder of that inspired 9/11), the terrorists only need to win once. Conversely, the latest news
about that rocket attack on a US Navy ship in Jordan seems to confirm
my concerns: "The Abdullah Azzam Brigades -- an al-Qaida-linked group
that claimed responsibility for the bombings which killed at least 64
people at Sharm el-Sheik in July and 34 people at two other Egyptian
resorts last October -- said in an Internet statement that its fighters
had fired the Katyushas, bolstering concerns that Islamic extremists
had opened a new front in the region." Indeed, the NYT reports
that: "The possible involvement of Iraqis and the military-style attack
have raised fears that militants linked to Iraq's insurgency may be
operating on Jordanian soil."}

I have to admit, I often wonder what some Conservatives out there are smoking, that they can't see the obvious. I am convinced that they do see it. If 2000 was a heady experience for Conservatives who had suffered through eight years of Bill Clinton, despite aggressive attempts to get rid of him at any cost, then 2004, after surviving numerous mini scandals and debunking Rathergate, must have been the greatest of highs.

That Republicans managed to take healthy majorities in both Houses, and seemed to dominate the U.S. political agenda, must have given Conservatives a sense of invulnerability. But the cracks have been showing in the armor for some time now, and it has taken "Rovian," measures to keep the fact of the Emperors Nakedness from the American Public. It must be painful in the extreme to see those cracks appearing, and know that not only did they make a monumental mistake, but that all they worked so hard for is based on a foundation of lies, deception and corruption.

Admittedly, the Downing Street Memos, in and of themselves might have been compelling to those who already suspected the truth, but they were not "smoking gun," enough to convince the majority of the faithful. This is especially true of those who invested so heavily in what they felt was a new Conservative Revolution. They have been rewarded by stark failures on the part of the Administration to propel that Revolution forward, and have instead seen it get bogged down in a morass of ineptitude. For a time, they were able to defend against this ineptitude by making the issue "Liberal Hate of Bush," rather than accepting the realities of consistent and repeated failure by the Administration to accomplish much of anything, except successfully defending itself against charge after charge. Now, with more and more Conservatives beginning to acknowledge the obvious, the spin begins to ring hollow, even for those who once believed it.

Even still, some refuse to acknowledge the obvious:

I honestly don't see anything "inappropriate" about it. Cindy accuses the President of "lying" about several of the reasons for war in Iraq, so maybe these television stations are worried about giving air time to somebody calling the President a liar when its clear to most of us with common sense that he didn't lie about Iraq. But that's just a guess.

Were it up to me, I'd have let the ad run. Most Americans don't agree with the idea that the President "lied" about the WMD's and know that Saddam had plenty of ties to al Qaeda, though not to the 9/11 attacks specifically. This is why Americans re-elected the President in the face of these accusations of lying. Putting Cindy Sheehan up to repeat these accusations again is only going to do more harm to her causes than it would to the cause of the President.

Rob's argument is deeply flawed... First off, recent polls indicate that as many as 51% of Americans feel the American Public was deceived about Iraq. With some polls nearing 60%. So the argument that "Most Americans believe that the President did not lie is intellectually and morally dishonest.

The Left has often made this spin easier, by failing to stay on message, and by failing to present a clear alternative. The Left has also been guilty of wimping out at key times. Those who have shown strength, have been attacked as members of the "Loony Left." Rove has been able to successfully exploit this time and time again by pointing out the inconsistency of the Left's message, while hammering away on the Administration's, even in those cases where it was obvious that the Administration message was a nefarious one. Rove and his Conservative Disciples have been Masters of hammering away on a message until it BECOMES truth, even when it is clear to any thinking person that the message lacks logic.

9/11 was a catharsis for America. Karl Rove and the Administration have shamelessly taken advantage of this to smear Liberals, out a CIA agent in an act of revenge, and execute a disastrous and unjustified war. This administration's legacy will be based on Post 9/11. With information coming to light almost daily on how badly they bungled the so called "War on Terror," and with little else to point to as accomplishments, Bush's legacy will likely suffer. More significantly, he may join Nixon as a President corrupted by his own sense of infallibility.

Reversing their earlier decision to keep the unburied corpse of Novak on the air, CNN executives have announced that the zombie propagandist's decaying flesh will be "temporarily" entombed in a lead-lined refrigerated crypt at the Hanford Nuclear Energy Reservation in Washington State.

Network executives acted Thursday after Novak's body staggered to its feet in the middle of a joint interview with the mummified remains of James Carville, and vomited a noxious heap of its own decomposed organs directly into the lap of CNN host Ed Henry. The reanimated corpse then lurched off the set, leaving a trail of wriggling maggots and liquified fecal matter behind it.

"It was just the usual stuff," said one CNN producer present in the studio at the time. "Henry's had all his shots, and the steam hoses were ready. But when the suits found out that Novak said 'bullshit' on camera, they totally lost it. The promotional contract specifically required him to call it 'high-grade organic fertilizer from a naturally abundant bovine source.' The ad department was furious."

Billmon

Novak woke up one morning, stretched, guzzled the blood of some innocents, scratched, got a cackling call from fellow-Sith Lord Karl Rove, transcribed the story, ignored CIA warnings to do no such thing, ate a sensible dinner, put on his jammies, and went to bed. All in a day's work. Then, a few weeks later, there's a heavy knock on the castle door, and Igor limps in talking about some prosecutor and subpoena papers. Now, suddenly, Novak's the story. All the world's political thinkers are poring over his utterances, waiting watching finding slip-ups and inconsistencies, malapropisms and missteps. Novak reports this sort of news, he doesn't make it. So when Carville goes at him, it's just the last straw.

Ezra

One of the things the General learned while working as a beertender was how to spot someone who's approaching their limit of 3.2 beer. It's an important skill to have in a small Utah town, because taverns rank somewhere between brothels and coffeehouses as the fastest routes to Hell in the minds of the local populace. The Beehive State's dramshop laws are among the toughest in the country. Woe be unto any rural beertender who allows a customer's blood alcohol content to reach 0.08%.

Mr. Novak looked liked he had reached that point long before he walked off CNN's Inside Politics, yesterday. All the signs are captured in this video. Watch it, and see for yourself. He's slurring his speech, stuttering, and moving his head in the same manner I've seen hundreds of drunks move theirs right before they announce that they could kill me with their bare hands (you'd be surprised how often small town Utah beertenders hear that).

Jesus General

In the meantime, Paul has taken over at Wizbang, to try and explain the whole Who's Who thing... He is not doing much better than Kevin did, but it must be reassuring for Kevin to have one of the Most Respected Voices in the Rightsphere backing his argument... Things that make me shake my nappy Cotton Pickin' Head.

Update: Looks like Lord Pablo of the Sith has deleted my trackback to his Wizbang Post. Oh I am so hurt. Eh, there is a little thing called Technorati Paul, and believe it or not, it gets more exposure than Wizbang, so not to worry, people will still read the post. Revisionist History does not work nearly as well as it used to.

Update to this post.

It's amazing... Truly amazing... Kevin at Wizbang, who has posted:

Update 2: More on Novak and Plame later, but perhaps the raging debate in the comment section can dissect what effect, if any, Novak's piece would have had if he used Valerie Wilson instead of Valerie Plame? Also do you think Novak, on hearing of the wife's involvement got her name from Who's Who and stuck with it OR found the Who's Who reference to backup his source(s)?

*** Evidently one cannot even make a snarky remark about the Plame affair without having to explain oneself ad nauseum. OK here goes...

I'm over generalizing here, but it seem like there wasn't an outing of an agent until two non-secret bits of information were combined.Joseph Wilson's wife's maiden name, most would now agree, was not a secret. That Wilson worked at the CIA was not widely known, but it was hardly a secret [See Cliff May at NRO and Just One Minute]. That Wilson's wife was (or had been) a covert operative was only known to (if reports are to be believed) the Cuban government and perhaps those receiving information form Aldrich Ames, but it was still a secret. Novak puts two pieces of non-secret information together and gets this flashpoint.

But how did that combination "out" a covert agent? I turns out the the Valerie Plame name (remember, according to many commenters her name's no big deal) was her cover. If her cover name was Valerie Jones how exactly would Novak's column as it was written have "outed" her? It's wouldn't have. As former federal prosecutor Joesph DiGenoa contends it sure looks like the CIA didn't exactly bust a nut to "take every conceivable step to protect this person's identity."

to his misguided latest attempt to defend the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, has had it blow up in his face. He is getting hammered in his comments by "The Reality Based Community," who has apparently just had enough and called "Bullshit!"

The Right Wing efforts to defend Rove, Novak and the other co-conspirators in the treasonous act of outing an undercover CIA agent have gotten so ridiculous, that they don't even pass the smell test for some on the Right. Novak cracking under the pressure is just another example of things starting to unravel in the disciplined Bush Spin apparatus. This all started a while back with the unraveling of the Armstrong Williams scandal, followed by countless others. The recent Downing Street revelations, The exposure of the ACVR as a disgusting front for Partisan GOP Politics, and countless other mini-scandals, have demonstrated to any RATIONAL thinking person, that this administration is rotten to the core, and that the Emperor Indeed has no clothes.

That Wizbang, (A blog that based on comments on this blog demonstrate), has been discredited even among rational members of the Right (See RINOS), continues to spin the unspinnable, is no surprise. That they would do so with such completely ridiculous arguments, (even for them), is....

Apparently Kool Aide rations are running low, because more and more Right Wing Blogs seem to be changing their tone these days, subtly acknowledging that their Party has been hijacked by an extreme element that wants to impose a dogmatism on them that they never expected and don't support.

Many people on the Right voted for Bush last year for one reason. They saw him being stronger on Terrorism. These one issue voters are seeing religious dogmatism shoved down their throat. They are watching in horror as, "The man who would bring honor back to the White House," does anything but. They are alarmed.

There are those on the Right who absolutely believe the garbage that is coming from the Administration. And there are others who shamefully just cant stomach the idea that they made such a monumental mistake. Perhaps out of embarrassment, perhaps out of a vain hope that they are right, they will continue to defend the indefensible.

As a side note, while he has gotten a lot fewer comments, Rob has gotten slammed too.

"And, if memory serves me correctly, the information in the Who's Who listings are provided (or at the very least approved) by those listed in the directory themselves. Meaning that Wilson likely "outed" his own wife at least a year before President Bush was even in office."

The Ever so Brilliant Rob from Say Anything....

Eh, what did he "out her" as... His wife?"

Really need to think these things through Robster before you let your desire to crawl up the arse of the Wizba