"You cannot say that it is unimportant and something you forgot."
Says Richard A. Sauber (lawyer for Time's Matthew Cooper), explaining the relationship between the new revelations (that Scooter Libby took part in authorized disclosures to controvert war critic Joe Wilson) and Libby's defense to perjury (that he forgot who said what about Wilson's wife Valerie Plame).
Meanwhile, Libby's lawyer, William Jeffress, says the special prosecutor's revelation "is a complete sidelight" to the charge against his client, that "It's got nothing to do with Wilson's wife."
Quite aside from the prosecution of Scooter Libby are the charges that President Bush was hypocritical for declassifying information to support the war when he has been critical of the unauthorized leaking of information:
Meanwhile, Libby's lawyer, William Jeffress, says the special prosecutor's revelation "is a complete sidelight" to the charge against his client, that "It's got nothing to do with Wilson's wife."
Fitzgerald's filing was meant specifically to undermine Libby's claim that the issue of the CIA's employment of Plame was of "peripheral" interest to Libby at the time. He said in the filing that leaks regarding Plame were meant to embarrass Wilson by suggesting his wife had organized a CIA-sponsored trip by Wilson to probe Iraq's alleged purchase of nuclear material -- in short, to suggest his trip resulted from nepotism.Even if the two subjects have something to do with each other, the question is how much weight this evidence has. How do you prove someone is lying when they say they forgot? One way is to prove this is the sort of thing you could not have forgotten because of its connection with something else you were paying intensely close attention to.
Fitzgerald argued, in essence, that the White House effort to rebut Wilson's criticism was so intense, and so preoccupying, that Libby could not have forgotten what he said about Plame. Fitzgerald also noted that Plame's employment was specifically raised as a relevant matter by Cheney, who had directed Libby to disclose information from the NIE.
Quite aside from the prosecution of Scooter Libby are the charges that President Bush was hypocritical for declassifying information to support the war when he has been critical of the unauthorized leaking of information:
[T]he report that the president was himself approving a leak may do serious political damage, said [historian Rick] Shenkman, who has a blog on presidential politics. "It does give the public such a powerful example of hypocrisy that I think it might linger for a while," he said.I hope people will be able to keep these stories straight, but they are complicated and likely to merge, which is, of course, what Bush's critics want.
Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman, disputed the charge of a double standard on leaks. "There is a difference between declassifying information in the national interest and the unauthorized disclosure" of national security information, Mr. McClellan said Friday. Of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, part of which Mr. Libby shared with Judith Miller, then a Times reporter, Mr. McClellan said, "There was nothing in there that would compromise national security."
Mr. McClellan's tone contrasted sharply with that of administration officials after the N.S.A. story broke in December. Mr. Bush told a news conference at the time: "My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."
Others picked up the theme, including Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director. On Feb. 2, Mr. Goss told a Senate committee, "It is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information."
Labels: Cheney, Gonzales, hypocrisy, Iraq, Libby, McClellan, nuclear war
posted by Ann Althouse at 7:50 AM
80 Comments:
There was a lot of gleeful discussion about this at work on Thursday. The Bush-haters were all over it... they don't even begin to understand the "fine print."
At the beginning,middle and end of all the crap, Plame was a Cia desk jockey at least 6 years out of secret service. She had no lawful protections. In fact several of her neighbors knew she worked for the agency by her own admission. Fitzgerald has leveled not one single claim regarding Ms Super Secret Agent (tm). I has all been alleging that Libby lied to him during the investigation. I expect this proceeding will disappoint the left even more than 'Fitzmas' did.
I hope people will be able to keep these stories straight, but they are complicated and likely to merge, which is, of course, what Bush's critics want.
Yawn. Jaysus, Althouse. You are so predictable. Casting dispersion on the character of the critics rather than evaluating the nature of the crticisms. If this is you're angle, then you have already missing the train. See ya!
What I don't understand is this: Since Libby is under indictment for perjury, why do we believe him when he says Leak Y was authorized by the president?
Anyway, I don't see the crime -- well, the serious crime -- but as for Bush authorzing th leaks . . . ROTFLMAO.
And yes, the prez surely has the authority to declassify information, which makes it obvious why he'd slip the info on the QT to Judith Miller instead of simply, um, declassifying it.
What I don't understand is why, at the end of the day, Fitzgerald is continuing this quixotic fight. He has to know that Libby will be pardoned no matter what. Why bother indicting Libby? Why waste money and time in this way?
When the Plame leak investigaton started, President Bush made a forceful statement about the seriousness of the leak and his support for getting to the bottom of it.
Now it turns out that he was the source of the leak, and this the public statement he made in October 2003 was an outright lie.
When Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman" and it turned out to be a bald-faced lie, he had very few defenders. Even partisans on the left decried his stupidity. Now we've caught Bush in a similarly high-profile bald-faced lie. The White House is not disputing the accuracy of Libby's claim. Bush's lie, in contrast to Clinton's, is related to national security and security policy, which I think makes it more significant. It will be interesting to see whether partisans on the right acknowledge that Bush behaved poorly in this matter, or whether they circle the wagons. So far it looks like there's a lot of wagon circling going on.
(Note: I don't believe that there's any question that Bush was authorizing a leak. Even if his declassification of the information was legitimate, the method by which it was released --- to one reporter and "not for attribution" mark it as a legal, not an above-board release to the public. But then, it's natural that partisan supporters of the President will try to finely parse out the meaning of the word "leak," just as President Clinton tried to define the word "sex" so as to exclude anything other than intercourse. Now, as then, such lawyerly distinctions won't convince the general public, which is not so stupid or easily misdirected.)
I guess to me if the president said release this info, as opposed to someone taking it upon themselves to release it, there's a difference.
I'm glad to see all this brouhaha because its reinforcing the image that certain folks will take anything and try to bash the target (these days Bush) without regard to a serious examination of the facts,
1) It looks like Libby has decided not to be a loyal soldier. He's not going to take one for the team.
Interesting. But not surprising.
2) Why does Karl Rove still have a job?
Here's my (predictable) response as I am a centrist to the Bush haters who see this equally predictably as some huge revelation: The President has the authority to declassify information; a leaker is breaking the law.
As for hypocrisy, that is kind of the pot calling the kettle black, isn'it it? The NYT just accepted an eight-page ad from Darfur while Kristol editorializes against Darfur all the time and criticizes the US for not doing anything about the genocide there.
The facts are these. Wilson wrote in a NYT opinion piece that he did not find any indication that Saddam tried to buy nuclear material from Nigeria.
This directly contradicted Wilson's own CIA report on the matter where he said that a Nigerian leader did tell him that he was contacted by Saddam who wanted nuclear material. Bush declassified Wilson's report to prove that Wilson had lied in public. This was the proper thing to do.
Later under oath before the 9/11 commission, Wilson admitted he had lied in public and that his CIA report was true.
Well, it didn't take gj long to prove your point, Ann. Already got two different things mixed.
Verification: kyfunax - So that's what they do for amusement in Kentucky.....
Just curious:
Do people think that Libby is innocent?
I can hardly wait until Libby goes to trial, and his lawyers start grilling the reporters, Mz. Undercover, Mr. Undercover Blabbermouth. In the end, I don't think anything will happen to anybody. This has mistrial written all over it.
Gaius, what two things did I confuse? The NIE was the source of Plame's name. The fact that Bush directed Libby to disclose elements of the NIE is directly relevent to the Plame case.
PatCA, whether information is classified is immaterial as to its status as a "leak." A leak involves selective disclosure of non-public information. Leaking often occurs, for example, by one or both sides during contract negotiations in an effort to spin press coverage. There's nothing illegal about that.
By discussing the portions of the NIE with one reporter, not-for-attribution, Libby was leaking the info. The fact that Bush may have declassified changes the legality of that action, but not whether it was a leak.
By contrast, if the White House wanted to release the information to the public (as they now describe Libby's action), they would have made it available publicly, to all reporters, on-the-record.
Geoduck2,
He's innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it's supposed to work.
He's innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it's supposed to work.
I didn't ask about a legal standard. I asked about your personal opinion.
Or, in other words, do you think Fitzgerald was wrong to have indicted Libby?
What I don't understand is why, at the end of the day, Fitzgerald is continuing this quixotic fight. He has to know that Libby will be pardoned no matter what. Why bother indicting Libby? Why waste money and time in this way?
Why did the President allow the leak investigation go forward when he already knew where the source of the lead came from, namely, himself the office of the Vice President?
Bush is goint to have to nuke a country or something to divert attention from this. Oh, right, there's Iran...
Is the first issue whether a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Scooter Libby knew he had disclosed the Wilson/Plame connection while testifying he had no such knowledge? If so, my first sense is that he must have known, no matter how busy a person he must be. Wouldn't anybody so important paper his file? But why would he lie?
Is the second issue whether the President is blameworthy for directing Scooter Libby to rebut Wilson's accusations? I don't see how. To me, it seems the President did nothing more than impeach Wilson in the forum of Wilson's own choosing (and the President did so in furtherance of U.S. policy). Doubtless the President had his practical reasons for exercising restraint. But we can easily imagine a nation where Wilson would simply have disappeared. Civilization and the rule of law is a good thing.
P.S. This is my first comment, although I've been a long admirer. Hope I've committed no breach of etiquette
It sounds like Libby's defense is going to finger the President and Vice President.
The big question: Will Libby's defense blame either the President or VP? Will his lawyer argue that they ordered him to leak Plame's name and status?
From what I can figure out - I guess Libby isn't going to "fall on his sword."
I agree with quxxo that the White House wants this to merge with the NSA stuff, since the public is overwhelmingly on their side on that one.
I don't see where it's so hard to believe Libby doesn't remember who mentioned Mrs Wilson first if it was common knowledge in DC that she worked for the CIA. The idea that she was a covert agent is...contestable, and if nobody in the White House thought she was, why would it matter who brought her up first?
gj, what did Bush lie about here? Nothing in your link supports any such conclusion. In the link, USA Today even claims Scott McClellan said "whoever was responsible for the leak would be punished" then supports it with a quote that doesn't say any such thing.
"By contrast, if the White House wanted to release the information to the public (as they now describe Libby's action), they would have made it available publicly, to all reporters, on-the-record."
Why? What they did served the same purpose, has probably gotten their side of the case much wider dissemination from people who are rabidly hostile to the president, and demonstrated that hostility to the public pretty effectively.
Honestly, though, my eyes are glazing over trying to read this story and keep track of all the legal maneuverings.
I have "scandal and leak" fatigue.
Gaius Arbo: "Well, it didn't take gj long to prove your point, Ann. Already got two different things mixed."
Yeah, I was just going to say that, but you said it first.
Ann, what two stories am I confusing?
The President surreptitiously declassified the NIE and authorized Libby to leak it to at least one member of the press. Libby subsequently leaked Plame's name, her relationship to Wilson, etc.
The NIE contained Valerie Plame's name, and past analyses of the situation postulated that it was a likely source for the leaker. This new piece of news just the POTUS a new role of this single story. Instead of being the person who promises the American people that the leaker will be found, he is the source of the leak.
Is there some other story that you think I'm confusedly bringing in here? Did you think I was referring somewhere to the NSA warrantless wiretapping leak? Or is there some distinction in the recent disclosures about the POTUS, Libby, and the NIE that I'm missing?
gj,
You automatically assume that what was authorized was the release of the name. That is not necessarily true.
Bush has the authority to declassify whenever he wants. He is the President. Read the NYT - even they admit he had the power to do so. Period. They also point out that the information provided to Miller did not lead to an article, so that can't be the source of the information you are assuming it is.
gj,
The NIE is a comprehensive document containing the collective thoughts of ALL the US intelligence agencies on a particular subject. The chances of it containing the name of ANY individual intelligence analyst is extremely remote.
The part that amuses me to no end with regard to this whole thing is that one side is unintentionally arguing that they wanted to have Joe be able to continue to keep from the public this rather substantial detail that goes directly towards his credibility.
That and they don't think people are smart enough to realize it, nor notice that Joe's artificially inflated credibility was being put to good use in Democratic circles...
Knoxgirl wrote:
"The Bush-haters were all over it... they don't even begin to understand the "fine print.""
I'm glad you're satisfied with an administration that survives on the basis of "the fine print".
But then this administration has survived because it meets lowered expectations.
The more excited quxxo gets, the more relaxed I am about this amounting to anything. Can you imagine what the trial would be like? Joe Wilson on tv all day for weeks on end. Furthermore, Plame's decision to marry this guys would indicate she's not very capable or useful (plus there's the creepy old-man-hump thing).
However, I really think Bush handled this badly from the start. Cheney and his staff should be canned. This should have been handled with a news conference right after wilson's nyt's oped where the facts of the mission were revealed, nepotism charged, and the administration calling for an investigation into the cia.
So you really are arguing that the President should get busted for telling the public a truth. A truth that his political opponents would have rather stayed unknown.
I have a rather strong suspicion that, come November, we are going to have one of the more surprising election nights in a long time (at least as viewed from 7 months away; by September the difference from now may be obvious).
Hm. I thought the part he "leaked" (stipulating for the sake of this tangent, not accepted) was that Wilson was sent party by the influence of his wife.
I am a bit fuzzy on how this is "the part of the NIE that agreed with his views." Unless you are saying that a true fact agrees with his view. And that this concurrence should never have been seen by the public.
party=partly.
Lord, please give Google/Blogger the tools to allow commenters to edit their comments!
I think it's good that the comments are locked in (though you can delete and do over). Otherwise, some folks would go back and tamper with their posts. This way we have an accurate record of the comments.
Yes, I know. Perhaps there is some good in people seeing that sometimes writing a proper English sentence takes more than one iteration.
And perhaps they will overlook that I often hit submit just before that last needed iteration...
gj,
All of you who are so convinced Bush broke the law should volunteer for the prosecution team, because the rest of us are missing it. And I question your legal definition of leak: "A leak involves selective disclosure of non-public information."
I'm not a lawyer, but to me Bush, as president, owned the information and declassified it to rebut statements he felt were untrue. He could have posted the info on Ann's website if he wanted to!
Oh, so you are saying that this is completely irrelevant to the accusation that Bush acted so as to slime Wilson (by letting a truth be told).
Glad to have that cleared up, and on the record.
And now you are saying that he leaked, prior to the official release of the information a few days later, some information the administration had when making its decisions. And again are objecting to the President telling the public things that were and are facts.
The public will, I am sure, react appropriately to the arguments.
If you read my comments you'll see that I'm not saying Bush broke the law, and I'm not denying that he had the right to declassify that document. I'm only pointing out his dishonesty in speechifying about getting to the bottom of who leaked the information when it fact he was the one who initiated the leak.
As for Plame's name being in the NIE, that's pretty well document.
Don't forget that last December, at a luncheon in Raleigh, NC, none other than Bob Novak, who originally broke the whole story and had refused to discuss it for months, broke his silence and told the press to leave him and Woodward alone and ask the President.
If we on the left made a mistake, it was in not piecing together the clues that were left that pointed to GWB personally. We all assumed that the mastermind was Rove, or maybe Cheney. So yeah, we didn't give shrub enough credit. But now it is out there that he personally authorized this.
Leaking from the White House for political reasons, gee that never happens...
In a related story, it was revealed today that some senators vote for bills that will benefit their home states.
Also a study indicates guys asking girls on dates are more than likely interested in sex either that night or sometime within the forseeable future
I like to come here to see Bush supporters attempt rhetorical jujitsu by claiming, for example, that Bush was somehow getting "the facts" out to the public. Sadly, the only facts the administration wanted out were (1) innuendos about Wilson and Plame, and (2) already discredited false statements about Niger and Iraq. And the only purpose for releasing these false statements was to discredit Wilson. Why? Because the WH could not afford to have this controversy blow up any further in the months before the 2004 election.
Beyond the administration's arrant hypocrisy about leaking this act was offensive because the only reason to release this otherwise secret information was to smear a political opponent. More importantly, however, the point of the smear and leak was to draw attention away from the revelation of the falsehoods presented as a justification for the invasion of Iraq.
Those of you toeing the administration line might want to reconsider their stance. Politics is not a clean game, but this particular operation isn't even in the ballpark. It's one thing to distribute information to support your case. It's something else entirely to release classified and false information to smear someone who called you on a lie, especially when that lie was a justification for war. If this isn't Nixon-style tactics it's hard to say what would be.
Quxxo, You can argue (and you have and will) that declassifying information to smear someone is wrong, but please stop saying (or implying) it was wrong for the president to leak classified information.
However much I disagree with you about many things you're not stupid and you would have to be stupid not to understand that he can declassify information anytime he wants with very very few exceptions, none of which applies here.
"to smear someone"
with the truth, mind you, even in the most heinous of accusations.
Let's keep things straight, ok?
I think that we have no idea, who, if anyone, authorized Plame's name and job coming out. Nor do we know if there was any problem with her name coming out.
And that appears to be completely unrelated to whatever it is that Bush declassified. That sounds like he was unveiling, for the public, something on day X, and on day X-3 he let the press have it to get a three day story out of it. With the info being declassified being what was in the estimate to begin with.
I like to come here to see Bush supporters attempt rhetorical jujitsu
it is a silly little enclave of bush sycophants here, with althouse leading the charge, despite her bogus protests that she's a "moderate."
""despite her bogus protests that she's a "moderate.""
Ann, not only now are you a Republican, or a conservative, but now your are a conservative Republican extremist (that being the opposite of moderate).
Welcome to the club!
time and time again althouse's rhetorical strategy in her posts is to cast dispersions and question the character and motives and integrity of anybody who questions the bush administration. it's like a broken record.
no, althouse is not an extremist. she is simply--when push comes to shove--a bush apologist. the bush administration is long past the point where they can be given the benefit of the doubt on anything. too much bullshit has taken place. the fact that althouse and many people on this blog are still trying to defend the guy is mind boggling. Have you seen the freaking polls? Soon they will be in the 20% zone. Oh right, its the fault of the librul media. i forgot about your favorite bugaboo when you have a hard time dealing with reality.
Quzzo is troubled that the “declassifications were leaked to the press and not just given to the press in a press conference” and suspicious that the “document was later declassified again much later in the timeline”. But I believe that the Libby conversation with Miller was July 8, 2003 and Russert was on July 10, 2003. The declassified information from the October 2002 NIE was, in fact, released at a
White House background briefing on July 18, 2003. That would be eight days later. Further, quzzo writes that “the administration does not want to provide the press with the date of declassification that would normally be stamped on the document.” But this transcript shows that the information was, indeed, provided to the press at the briefing on July 18, 2003 and a transcript was publicly available.
Several others, particularly gj, seem convinced that the September 2002 NIE invloves Valerie Plame. GJ don’t be confused, Plame’s name being in the NIE is not “pretty well document(ed)”. Read the transcript. Even quzzo states “near as I can tell, Plame's name does not appear in the released NIE”. That would be because it doesn’t appear in the released NIE. Put me in the camp that the special prosecutor’s revelation is a “sidelight” to the charges against Libby and have “nothing to do with Wilson's wife."
It is possible that Libby may have commited perjury. But I also think that Libby (or the journalists he spoke with) may have honestly forgotten the details of their converations. That’s what the trial is for and it could prove to be as interesting as the Roberts and Alito confirmation hearings. Too bad it isn’t scheduled till next year.
As to the question of declassification of information, I prefer that the president declassify information rather than the New York Times.
FatWa?
Are you "casting dispersions" on me?
I'll leave you to your fever swamp.
After reading these comments, I would reccomend that anyone interested in getting detailed and accurate information on this story start reading Tom Maguire's blog, JustOneMinute.
Brando, why don't you have Sacheen Littlefeather come here to deliver your polemics for you- I'm sure she's a better speller.
Anyway, rather than casting any more aspersions (nothing like being asperged with spittle) perhaps you should simply disperse.
I haven't read all these comments. Quxxo posts such long things, and since I also mistrust him -- he knows why -- I'm not investing my time in reading him. Maybe if he took the trouble to write short, focused posts, he would be readable. Longer is not better. Brando is, presumably, a child -- tagging along with Quxxo for some reason.
"Casting dispersions" ... But what are "aspersions" anyway? We never talk about apersions except to speak of casting them. Do we ever keep aspersions close at hand? They are things used only for throwing...
Anyway, I just wanted to drop by to respond to Gerry's "Let's keep things straight, ok? I think that we have no idea, who, if anyone, authorized Plame's name and job coming out. Nor do we know if there was any problem with her name coming out. And that appears to be completely unrelated to whatever it is that Bush declassified. That sounds like he was unveiling, for the public, something on day X, and on day X-3 he let the press have it to get a three day story out of it. With the info being declassified being what was in the estimate to begin with."
I think "completely unrelated" goes too far (as I said in my original post). It appears, at least, that Bush and his people were very serious about countering the attack on their war policy that was made by Joe Wilson. I'm glad they cared about that. It was and is important for them to defend their policy and to notice when there is a serious attack on it. Too often they sat back and did not participate in the publc debate, thus allowing support for the war to slip away. If Wilson was also spreading misinformation, it was especially important to respond to him. The information about Plame's role in getting him him his trip was relevant as part of that.
We don't seem to know anything new about who originally decided to reveal facts about Plame, but we do have reason to perceive it as fitting into an overarching plan that the President was involved with.
I agree with all of that. But would add that we have reason to believe that it was a true fact that she was involved in him being sent to Niger, and that was something Wilson wanted to keep from the public.
But to the extent that the administration had decided to let the truth come out about Wilson's credibility, yes, it was related.
ann althouse: The information about Plame's role in getting him him his trip was relevant as part of that.
In what way does Valerie Plame's role in suggesting Joe Wilson as a candidate for intelligence gathering in Niger affect the credibility of the statements he gave to the CIA when he returned to the US?
Gerry: it was a true fact..
Heh. The opposite being an 'untrue fact'.
Gerry: ..that she was involved in him being sent to Niger, and that was something Wilson wanted to keep from the public.
Of course he wanted to...She did work in an intelligence-gathering capacity for the CIA, remember?
IMHO, this is one of the worse-r aspects about this whole mess: Not only does it appear to be a attempt to discredit Joe Wilson, but an attempt to punish him by lashing out at his wife.
Grape crusher writes "In what way does Valerie Plame's role in suggesting Joe Wilson as a candidate for intelligence gathering in Niger affect the credibility of the statements he gave to the CIA when he returned to the US?"
It makes him seem to be something less of an expert, less deserving of the role he was given. It has some probative value.
Let's remember one thing and only one thing. Libby is charged with perjury and nothing more. When he asks for discovery evidence that's when he will make his case if it is denied him. When he gets the MSM reporters on the stand under oath to question them, and they try to use the reason that they don't have to disclose their sources, again that is when his call for mistrial will have to be taken under consideration. If not at that trial, then on his appeal. Nobody is going to jail folks.
"Of course he wanted to...She did work in an intelligence-gathering capacity for the CIA, remember? "
So you are freely admitting that he wanted to keep from the public a fact that could undermine his credibility.
And that the only reason he was upset about this was that it may damaged her career. And ignore the fact that sending her husband was probably not the most ethical thing in the world for her to do.
Good to get that out in the open. I understand that you wanted Wilson to be able to count on keeping that appearance of impropriety buried.
Minor points:
1. It's important to keep sight of what exactly Libby disseminated. That information about "yellowcake" and Niger was known to be dubious at the time (and was later proved to be a fabrication). The point is that the administration leaked selective, misleading information that quite a number of people inside the administration knew was bogus to rebut an accurate charge. What exactly is the justification for that? That it's valid policy to rebut a fact with a leaked lie?
2. As to the argument that it's ok to out Plame because it's relevant: what exactly can the relevance be? The disclosure is not "probative" of anything UNLESS you are trying to discredit the idea that Cheney sent Wilson, which was floating around at the time. Disclosure floats the notion of bias through innuendo (political junket suggested by spouse). So at bottom this was a political judgment that it was ok to disclose the relationship between Wilson and Plame--not to rebut facts, but only for smear purposes. And at that point we're left with a political judgment about releasing information. It seems at the moment that it's not clear whether the administration knew Plame's identity was covert and didn't care, or didn't know and didn't care. (That's really giving the administration the benefit of the doubt since the info on Plame could only come from the CIA.) At best a bad mistake and at worst autocratic thuggery.
3. It's puzzling that people would attempt to defend this conduct. Smears and selective leaks are always with us, but that doesn't mean we have to approve of them.
Sparky: "As to the argument that it's ok to out Plame because it's relevant: what exactly can the relevance be?"
Are you attributing that argument to me. Because I never said that! I wrote about relevance and did not say the relevance justified outing a secret agent. I did write about the relevance and won't revisit that subject. You're just repeating this idea that it can only be to "smear" Wilson. Why "smear"? They were trying to discredit him because he was attacking their policy, holding himself out as an important expert. They needed to do that. What did they do that was illegitimate in that attempt to discredit him? If nothing, it's not a smear.
Libby will be defending himself against perjury. His defense will not rest on any conversations he had with the administration. Fitzgerald could have charged him with disclosing information that outted a covert agent, but he didn't. I would imagine that he didn't because there was no evidence that he did anything wrong, or Plame was not covert. Wait until Tim Russert, Andrea Mitchell and the rest get on the stand. Let the fun begin.
Quxxo: Your posts are too long to read, but to the extent that you think I've posted my son John's drawing on this blog, you are mistaken.
This editorial entitled "A Good Leak" in today's Washington Post provides an interesting contrast to the article in yesterday's Washington Post that Prof Althouse cited to get this post started. The editorial supports the declassification of parts of the 2002 Iraq NIE and states that the declassified material established "that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth". This story certainly has plenty of moving parts.
Ann--my responses below.
Are you attributing that argument to me. Because I never said that! I wrote about relevance and did not say the relevance justified outing a secret agent.
I agreee--you didn't say that it was ok to out Plame. I don't think your comment suggested that, either. Nor, (to continue this string of negatives), was I implying that you did. I think my problem with your statement was that the context (or lack of) suggested --at least to me--that this was a justificatory rationale for the release of the information. I was taking issue with that rationale, nothing more.
I did write about the relevance and won't revisit that subject. You're just repeating this idea that it can only be to "smear" Wilson. Why "smear"? They were trying to discredit him because he was attacking their policy, holding himself out as an important expert. They needed to do that. What did they do that was illegitimate in that attempt to discredit him? If nothing, it's not a smear.
I agree with you that the administration is entitled to rebut Wilson's claims. My point was that releasing the information about Wilson's wife had nothing to do with the accuracy of Wilson's statements but merely with floating the idea that the trip was a junket proposed by Wilson's spouse. And that is nothing but an attempt to throw dirt on the person without challenging the accuracy of the statement, the classic definition of a smear. Let's assume it's "ok" to "discredit" Wilson. Even if we accept that argument, there was no need to release information about Plame. For example, the administration could simply have said that it was the CIA's idea to send Wilson. The CIA could have fallen on its sword and said it was a mistake to send Wilson, and all the same arguments could be made without Plame's identity--save one. And that one is that somehow Wilson's report is flawed or biased because of the relationship between Plame and Wilson. So, because it's a character attack, it's a smear. What makes it illegitimate is (1) it was unnecessary and (2) the administration couldn't be bothered to take enough care to determine the effects of disclosing Plame's identity (again, not assuming a worse motive here).
Another way of putting it is that it's an illegitimate use of the power to disclose because the disclosure was unnecessary to the argument and destroyed Plame's job. The power to disclose gives enormous power to rebut. It is not license to retaliate.
quxxo - as I said, there certainly are many moving parts to this story. But when you quote an article that you link to, you may want to make it clear when you are quoting and when you are inserting your own words. Otherwise what you are doing might seem kind of, well, you know, deceptive.
Oops, quxxo you were quoting the article properly. My mistake.
Ann Althouse: It makes him seem to be something less of an expert, less deserving of the role he was given.
Even if you put aside Wilson's prior government work experience, you have to know he wasn't the first non-technical person that the CIA has given questions to for gathering intelligence from various contacts...Or is every CIA operative a subject matter expert in the area that they are collecting intelligence on?
I'm just not seeing how how Plame's introduction of her husband to her superiors in the CIA undermines her husband's credibility, was improper, or unethical.
Post a Comment
<< Home