8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
sumac
 
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2005 11:54 am
What's happening and why?

We needed a new discussion anyway.
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 07:13 am
Is this a "There's no evidence Plame was a covert agent" free zone?
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 07:25 am
Tis, it tis. Are we a party of two or are more expected to join us?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 07:39 am
BBB
This is a related thread I started 7/29: Are we in for a repeat of the Nixon-era "saturday night massacre?" - BBB

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56440&highlight=
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 07:48 am
Maybe if we say something anti-Bush, posters will come out of the woodwork?

Bush and all of his ilk are a disgrace and source of shame to this country!!!!!!

Bad, bad, people. And so are all other Republicans.

There, do you think that will do it?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 07:52 am
I'm just waiting for the others to show up to finish their on going conversation, but I think you are going to have to allow the plame/status debate to come in since that seems to be the sticking point.

What I don't understand is why they would have held an investigation into whether a crime was committed for so long, wouldn't it have been a simple matter for them know what Plame's status as a CIA employee was? Also wouldn't they have had to have at least good cause to believe a crime was committed in order to justify the grand jury investigation?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 07:59 am
Revel
revel wrote:
I'm just waiting for the others to show up to finish their on going conversation, but I think you are going to have to allow the plame/status debate to come in since that seems to be the sticking point.

What I don't understand is why they would have held an investigation into whether a crime was committed for so long, wouldn't it have been a simple matter for them know what Plame's status as a CIA employee was? Also wouldn't they have had to have at least good cause to believe a crime was committed in order to justify the grand jury investigation?


BINGO!
BBB
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 08:04 am
Well, HELLO?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 08:19 am
Judy Miller: How Deep Do Her Connections Run?
I agree with Huffington. Judy Miller is up to her eyeballs in the CIA leak scandal and the myth of WMD scandal leading to the Iraq war. I think she is a disgrace to professional journalism. ---BBB
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 08:33 am
CIA Confirms Rove Shared Classified Info
Rove Scandal: Questions for May; CIA Confirms Rove Shared Classified Info
Posted by David Corn at July 29, 2005

Yesterday I wrote about the collapse of one aspect of the cover story knitted by Bush allies in the Plame/CIA leak matter. (See item below.) I noted that Cliff May's early claim that Washington "insiders" knew Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer has not stood the test of time. But May's column--even if wrong--raises some questions relevant for the ongoing investigation.

May maintained that before Bob Novak on July 14, 2003, published a column identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative," a former government official "mentioned" to May the CIA identity of Joseph Wilson's wife "in an offhanded manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of."

Well, who said this? It seems to me that if a former government official came forward and said, in a convincing fashion, that Valerie Wilson's cover was essentially nonexistent and that her CIA identity was an open secret throughout the capital, then Fitzgerald would have less a case and Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and any other leakers would have less to worry about.

But no such source has come forward. And May has not identified his source. May works for the neoconnish Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a pro-Iraq war outfit that features as advisors such ex-government officials as R. James Woolsey (former CIA director), Newt Gingirch, Richard Perle and Bill Kristol. That is, May is surrounded by people with close ties to the White House and the intelligence community. Who can know which one of his comrades, if any of this crowd, shared the supposedly open-secret secret with May?

But if May's account is accurate, it ought to be important for special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigators to discover who told May this. This source might have received information on Valerie Wilson from a current government official (maybe even someone of special interest to Fitzgerald) or from classified sources when s/he worked within the government. This source, then, might possess information quite valuable for Fitzgerald's probe, and s/he might even be a target for Fitzgerald. Has Fitzgerald pursued May?

I recently asked May if he had been contacted by Fitzgerald or had appeared before the grand jury. He told me he had been interviewed by FBI agents. But, he added, he had been asked not to discuss what he had said to them. So he was interviewed by FBI agents but not summoned to the grand jury. Does that mean he did not tell the agents anything of vital importance?

May's acknowledgment of his FBI chat leads to an obvious question: did he reveal his source? If so, did this source tell Fitzgerald what May claims this source told him? If Fitzgerald had indeed learned from May's source that Valerie Wilson's CIA identity was known to "insiders" throughout Washington, would he still have pursued his inquiry so vigorously? But since Fitzgerald still is mounting a fierce investigation, would it be farfetched to assume this source said something different to him than s/he did to May? Or that Fitzgerald did not find the everybody-knew-about-Valerie-Wilson claim credible?

And if May did not reveal his source to the FBI agents, why did Fitzgerald not subpoena him? Could it be that Fitzgerald doesn't believe May's claim. Or does he simply not consider it significant?

So many questions. Yet no answers from Cliff May the insider. Does he stick to his claim that Washington "insiders" knew about Valerie Wilson? That really doesn't matter, for that claim has been undercut (see below). But what might be important is the identity of this ex-government official who was spreading the useful (though disingenuous) line that Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee was an open secret.

[Jim Lobe, writing for Alternet, explored the May matter nearly two years ago. Tip of the keyboard for him for first tugging on this very loose thread.]
******
By the way, on the question of whether Valerie Wilson was really undercover, blogger Brad Friedman directs my attention to a January 30, 2004 letter that Stanley Moskowitz, director of congressional affairs at the CIA, sent to Representative John Conyers in response to a letter Conyers had sent the CIA four months earlier about the Plame/CIA leak. In his reply to Conyers, Moskowitz noted that the CIA had requested a Justice Department "investigation into the disclosure...of the identity of an employee operating under cover." This would seem to be CIA confirmation that Valerie Wilson was working "under cover" at the CIA even though she was based at headquarters and not conducting James Bond-like black-bag jobs in the Balkans.

But this letter is significant for another reason. In it, Moskowitz told Conyers that the CIA on July 30, 2003--two weeks after the Plame/CIA leak first appeared in Bob Novak's column--"reported to the Criminal Division of DoJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." Once more, here is proof that Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA was classified information. (Under U.S. law, the CIA does get to say what is and is not classified.) Which means that when Karl Rove and Scooter Libby told at least two reporters (Novak and Time's Matt Cooper) that Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA they were disclosing classified information. Case closed. The Moskowitz letter also suggests that if a crime had been committed in this case it might not necessarily be a violation of the hard-to-violate Intelligence Identities Protection Act. There are other laws concerning the unauthorized release of classified information. Perhaps Fitzgerald is working those angles as well.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 09:11 am
Divided Front -Media Split Under Pressure In the Leak Probe
Divided Front - How Media Split Under Pressure In the Leak Probe
Ms. Miller of the Times Had A Separate Dispute With Special Prosecutor
Mr. Abrams Loses a Client
By LAURIE P. COHEN, JOE HAGAN and ANNE MARIE SQUEO
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 29, 2005; Page A1
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112259089033899249,00.html

In May, 500 members of the media elite rose to their feet to applaud a First Amendment award the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press gave to lawyer Floyd Abrams.

Jointly presenting the award at a gala dinner in Manhattan were Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of the New York Times. For a year, Mr. Abrams had worked to fend off a special prosecutor seeking testimony about the two reporters' confidential sources, as a federal grand jury probed who had leaked a Central Intelligence Agency operative's name.

But the appearance of unity among a lawyer and his media clients was illusory. More than a month before the dinner, Time Inc. had dismissed Mr. Abrams as its lead counsel in the leak probe, believing it needed a new strategy to face the U.S. Supreme Court.


Mr. Cooper had long before selected his own criminal attorney, concerned that Mr. Abrams couldn't adequately represent both Ms. Miller and him. In Mr. Cooper's view, there were too many differences in their circumstances. Ms. Miller had publicly criticized seeking waivers from government officials that would allow reporters to testify about confidential conversations. Mr. Cooper had obtained just such a waiver.

Mr. Cooper also worried about Ms. Miller being at odds with the same prosecutor in an entirely different investigation -- one he feared could taint him by association.

Earlier this month, Time decided to comply with a federal court order requiring it to turn over Mr. Cooper's notes. The Times endorsed Ms. Miller's refusal to reveal any confidential sources. As a result, she is now in jail in Alexandria, Va.

For the news business, this case presents the biggest test of confidential sources in decades. It has led to the worst split in memory between two media giants in an area where news organizations usually present a united front grounded in the First Amendment.

The controversy has done little good for the media's image. Some see arrogance in Ms. Miller's defiance, while others have criticized what they consider to be Time Inc.'s caving to authority.

Meanwhile, two years after the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame was leaked to the press, it remains to be seen whether prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald will conclude that anyone violated the federal law prohibiting the intentional disclosure of a covert agent's name or whether he will file perjury or obstruction of justice charges.

His investigation remains a potential source of political trouble for the Bush administration. Mr. Cooper has now written that top White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby talked with him about Ms. Plame, the wife of a former diplomat who is a critic of the administration, and her CIA affiliation. Neither referred to her by name or mentioned her covert status. Earlier, the White House said that it had no evidence that the officials were involved with the case. Mr. Rove is the president's top political strategist, and Mr. Libby is Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

The chain of events that led to the controversy began with President Bush's Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address. In the speech, he said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

A year before, in February 2002, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV went to Niger to investigate whether Iraq was buying uranium ore there. He had been asked to do so by officials at the CIA, where his wife was a covert operative. He concluded that there wasn't clear evidence of uranium purchases. On July 6, 2003, about three months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Mr. Wilson wrote an opinion article for the New York Times, alleging that the Bush administration had manipulated intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs "to justify an invasion of Iraq."

Five days later, on July 11, 2003, Mr. Cooper called Mr. Rove to ask about the ex-diplomat's claims. The 42-year-old reporter had been on the White House beat for only two weeks after a stint as deputy chief of Time's Washington bureau. An amateur stand-up comedian, Mr. Cooper is the husband of Mandy Grunwald, a prominent Democratic strategist and a daughter of the late Henry Grunwald, the former editor in chief of Time Inc.

According to a first-person account Mr. Cooper published in Time magazine last week, Mr. Rove warned him, "Don't get too far out on Wilson." Mr. Rove also said that the ex-ambassador's wife, whom he didn't refer to by name, worked at the CIA on efforts to curb weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Cooper wrote.

On July 14, 2003, conservative syndicated columnist Robert Novak identified Ms. Plame in his column, which runs in the Washington Post and other newspapers. He cited "senior administration officials" as his sources.

A few days later, Mr. Cooper wrote an online article for Time that also identified Ms. Plame. The Time reporter wrote in his recent first-person account that he couldn't recall whether he first learned her name by reading Mr. Novak's column or from doing research on the Google Web site.

The Justice Department opened an investigation of the leak. In a move that would prove awkward when its own reporter got caught up in the probe, the Times argued in an editorial on Oct. 2, 2003, that then-Attorney General John Ashcroft ought to bring in an outside prosecutor to pursue the probe vigorously. Journalists rely heavily on "the willingness of government officials to defy their bosses and give the public vital information," the editorial said, which is why the Times opposed leak investigations "in principle." However, the editorial added, "that does not mean there can never be a circumstance in which leaks are wrong."

By December, the White House had picked James Comey, then the Manhattan U.S. attorney, to be the No. 2 official at the Justice Department. Three weeks later, he turned to Mr. Fitzgerald, a close friend and career prosecutor, to be special counsel in charge of the leak investigation. The two men had worked together in the 1990s in the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan. The Times heralded the appointment, saying in a Dec. 31, 2003, editorial that Mr. Fitzgerald needed "true operational independence."

Mr. Fitzgerald focused heavily on seeking information from reporters. It isn't publicly known what interaction he had with Mr. Novak. But in the spring of 2004, he sought notes and testimony from Mr. Cooper. That prompted Time and Mr. Cooper in April to hire Mr. Abrams.

Mr. Abrams, 69, was an obvious choice for any news organization facing a legal challenge. In 1971, he helped persuade the Supreme Court that the federal government lacked sufficient justification to stop the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a classified history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Since then, Mr. Abrams, a partner with the New York-based firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel, had taken the lead in numerous legal fights over the First Amendment, including many cases involving the Times and Time Inc. publications.

Murky Connection

Mr. Fitzgerald also turned his attention to Ms. Miller. She had written for the Times about Iraqi efforts to obtain biological and other weapons. Some of these articles supported the Bush administration's claim that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. In an unusual move, the Times later acknowledged that some of Ms. Miller's reporting had been too credulous.

Ms. Miller, 57, never wrote about Ms. Plame. White House phone records and Mr. Fitzgerald's questioning of government officials may have piqued his interest in her.

Four months after Mr. Abrams agreed to represent Time Inc. and Mr. Cooper, the attorney was hired by the Times to represent Ms. Miller. Their common goal: bar Mr. Fitzgerald from gaining access to the reporters' notes and sources. Journalists sometimes promise confidentiality to protect sources who otherwise wouldn't provide newsworthy information. To maintain credibility, journalists consider it important to uphold confidentiality agreements, even under government pressure.

Mr. Cooper, however, quickly grew concerned that his interests might differ from Ms. Miller's, according to his criminal lawyer, Richard A. Sauber. In August 2004, Mr. Cooper gave a limited deposition to Mr. Fitzgerald about a conversation he had with Mr. Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. Mr. Cooper did so only after Mr. Libby had signed a document, drafted by Mr. Abrams, that waived Mr. Cooper's confidentiality pledge to the White House official.

Six weeks later, on Oct. 8, 2004, Ms. Miller went on NBC's "Today" show and strongly criticized such waivers as coercive. She argued that government officials who decline to sign them could risk losing their jobs, although there is no evidence that happened in this case. Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the chairman and publisher of the Times, joined Ms. Miller on the show and strongly backed her position.

The Times deferred to its reporter's choices, Mr. Abrams says. "The view at the Times is that the reporter has the right to decide," he explains. "From Judy's perspective, the first thing she wanted to know was what to do to protect her confidential sources, rather than what to do to stay out of jail."

But Ms. Miller's nationally publicized views "tended to undercut Matt's position," since he had sought a waiver from Mr. Libby, says Mr. Sauber, the Cooper lawyer. "He was concerned there would be other points where his interests" and Ms. Miller's "might diverge, and he wanted a lawyer whose only client would be him," Mr. Sauber adds.

When Mr. Cooper gave his limited testimony to Mr. Fitzgerald, he was following the same path as NBC's "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert and Washington Post reporters Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler. Mr. Libby had given those reporters permission to discuss with the prosecutor whether or not they had talked about Ms. Plame.

Mr. Fitzgerald apparently had enough evidence from those reporters to satisfy him because they were never threatened with jail. When Time Inc.'s editor in chief, Norman Pearlstine, saw the others receiving waivers to talk, he says he hoped Mr. Cooper's cooperation would do the same for him. "I looked at what Russert and Pincus did and said, 'How do we get one of those?' " Mr. Pearlstine says. But apparently unlike the others, Mr. Cooper had more information about another source, who turned out to be Mr. Rove.

Mr. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, has said his client "has done nothing wrong." Mr. Libby's attorney, Joseph Tate, hasn't returned phone calls seeking comment.

In addition to the clashing views on waivers, Mr. Cooper soon learned of something else that distinguished him from Ms. Miller: She was in Mr. Fitzgerald's cross hairs in an unrelated case.

In his capacity as U.S. attorney in Chicago, Mr. Fitzgerald had subpoenaed Ms. Miller in July of 2004, seeking several weeks of her phone records from the fall of 2001. He was trying to determine the identity of confidential sources she had used for an article about two Islamic charities under investigation for possible financing of terrorism.

Mr. Fitzgerald said in court papers that reporting by Ms. Miller and another Times staffer inadvertently tipped off the charities about planned federal raids, giving the targets a chance to destroy documents and records. The federal government has frozen the assets of both charities.

Mr. Abrams began representing Ms. Miller and the Times in connection with the Islamic charities matter in July 2004.

"I was concerned as to how" that second probe involving Ms. Miller "would affect Matt's position," says Mr. Sauber, a partner at Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, a New York-based firm. Mr. Sauber says Mr. Cooper learned of the Islamic charities probe only after the Times went to court to block the subpoena of Ms. Miller's phone records in October 2004.

Mr. Sauber says he and his client worried that Mr. Fitzgerald might feel particularly antagonistic toward Ms. Miller because of the compromising of the raids on the Islamic charities. Some of that animus might rub off on Mr. Cooper if the two journalists mounted a joint defense in the Plame investigation and used the same lawyer. There was also the danger that judges who reviewed the leak investigation might look at Ms. Miller and the Times more skeptically because of the separate charities case.

Some lawyers and legal-ethics experts say that Mr. Abrams's decision to represent both reporters, despite their different situations, wasn't unethical, but it may have been unwise. "Prudence dictated in this case that the reporters had different interests and would have been well served by having two different legal perspectives in their civil case," says Harvey Silverglate, a civil-liberties attorney in Boston who has taught at Harvard Law School.

Mr. Abrams disagrees. "I didn't think Judy's relationship with Fitzgerald would have anything to do with the prosecutor's relationship with Matt," he says. The overriding interest in responding to the leak probe was to present a unified position based on the First Amendment, he adds.

Time Inc. was aware of the Islamic-charities matter when Mr. Abrams agreed in August 2004 to represent Ms. Miller in the Plame case, the lawyer points out. "As a legal matter, I thought both parties benefited from single representation," he adds. "Though it is true that at the end of the affair, there were differences of approach by Time Inc. and the New York Times."

Mr. Abrams expected Mr. Cooper's limited deposition in August 2004 to be the only time the reporter would have to submit to questioning. "The agreement was Pat [Fitzgerald] could come back for more, but the understanding was he was unlikely to do so," Mr. Abrams says.

Second Subpoena

But the deposition, held in the Washington office of Mr. Abrams's law firm, only whetted Mr. Fitzgerald's appetite. "Matt's testimony about Libby led Pat Fitzgerald to decide he wanted more information about others," Mr. Abrams explains. Specifically, the prosecutor wanted Mr. Cooper to confirm that Mr. Rove was a source of information about Ms. Plame. Within weeks, Mr. Cooper had a second subpoena in hand.

Mr. Fitzgerald subpoenaed Ms. Miller as well, but she wasn't willing to cooperate. Mr. Fitzgerald "wanted things we were unprepared to give," Mr. Abrams says, declining to elaborate. "The fact that Fitzgerald served a new subpoena on Matt was something Judy took into account." Seeing what happened to Mr. Cooper, the Times reporter feared that if she agreed to talk once, that would only open the door to more demands from the prosecutor.

Mr. Abrams fought the subpoenas in the Plame probe up to the appellate federal court in Washington. His argument before a three-judge panel last December faltered when he seemed to have trouble explaining why the current case was different from Branzburg v. Hayes, a 1972 Supreme Court ruling in which the justices said that a reporter who had witnessed a crime had no right to keep his sources confidential.

Jim Kelly, Time magazine's managing editor was in the courtroom in December and briefed his boss, Mr. Pearlstine, the next day. Things went "very badly," Mr. Kelly recalls saying.

Until then, Mr. Pearlstine says he viewed the leak investigation as "a speck on the horizon, at best." Now he realized that "there were institutional issues that weren't being addressed," he says. Asked to elaborate, he would say only that he came to appreciate the legal differences between defending an individual and defending a corporation. Time Inc. technically owned an electronic file that contained Mr. Cooper's notes, he says. As a result, the parent company could potentially be held in contempt of court and forced to pay large fines if its magazine and reporter didn't cooperate.

Ms. Miller, by contrast, apparently kept personal possession of her notes, and the Times's view is that it never had them.

In February, the appeals court ruled 3-0 against Mr. Abrams in the Plame case. Based on Mr. Fitzgerald's secret representations to the court, the judges said that national security overrode any First Amendment concerns.

By the time the court ruled against Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, Time Inc. had lined up former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a well-connected Republican, to represent it and Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Abrams continued to represent Ms. Miller. In February, he scored a victory over Mr. Fitzgerald in the Islamic-charities case, when a federal judge in Manhattan invoked the First Amendment to block the prosecutor from obtaining Ms. Miller's 2001 phone records.

With Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper potentially facing civil-contempt findings and jail in the Plame investigation, Mr. Pearlstine spoke with Mr. Sulzberger, the chairman and publisher of the Times. Mr. Pearlstine says that Mr. Sulzberger suggested they offer buttons to employees of their organizations declaring, "Free Judy, Free Matt, Free Speech." Mr. Pearlstine demurred.

On June 29, the Supreme Court declined to step into the Plame case.

Mr. Cooper testified before the grand jury after Mr. Rove agreed to waive their confidentiality agreement. As a result, the Time reporter avoided jail. Ms. Miller now could remain in jail in northern Virginia until the Plame grand jury's term expires in October -- or possibly longer, if the grand jury is extended.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 10:37 am
I am here, i just hope this thread doesn't get hijacked by a discussion om whether or not Lame was covert. Common sense dictates that, at the very least, she probably was and I hope we can leave it at that.

As most of the discussion is speculative, much of what we discuss cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 11:32 am
it dawned on me that we haven't seen much of wh counselor to the president. , dan bartlett, on the tube the last couple of weeks. considering that you couldn't see an op show without him for years, he's kind of conspicuous by his absence.

could he be one of the sources ?

http://www.foxnews.com/images/168867/2_21_070505_bartlett.jpg

HAVE YOU SEEN ME ?
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 11:49 am
"Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the chairman and publisher of the Times, joined Ms. Miller on the show and strongly backed her position."

He is either getting too old, getting bad advice, or perhaps both.

Abrahms was unwise, as was Time Inc. Pearlstine was too slow to realize what was going on and must have been working in a vacuum.

What does Miller have? The support and backing of the prestigous NYT? That should not be sufficient to allow her behavior in country - a decidely unjournalistic stance.

Who does she have it over? Rumsfeld?

Who has she been so close to in the past that would facilitate all, or part, of the above?

Very, very curious.

Is she the token Rebublican in a newspaper perceived, by some, to have a more Democratic philosophy?

Opposition by permission? What?
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 10:43 am
There is speculation that Miller is in this up to her eyeballs but did not want to plead the fifth.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 10:58 am
...and I still want to be a covert agent.

Trying to withhold judgment on Miller, but methinks I smell a rat.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 11:01 am
Just a personal word about the New York Times: I have been reading it on and off for the past forty years and daily for the past ten. I have always admired it's grasp, not of an ideology, but of the news. The news, as we all know, is not history. It is the reporting of what appears to be true as of now. It is a difficult task, one which requires reporters to approach a new story with the same detachment as the homicide detectives down at Precinct 13 and to come away with information that can be printed as factual.

I am familiar with writing and with the writing of news. That is why, in the run-up to the war, I read with care the writing of the news in the New York Times. When the first rumblings about Saddam began to come out of Washington, I opened the pages of the New York Times to see what the facts were, about Iraq, about the weapons, about Chalabi, about Saddam, about the inspections, about the UN's roles, about what our allies were saying.

The articles in the New York Times changed my mind. I went from strongly opposing the invasion to a, admittedly grudging, agreement that the invasion was necessary to protect the safety of the US and it's allies.
Judith Miller led me on. She cheerleadered better, if that is possible, than all of the administration officials with the exception of Don Rumsfeld. No one beat the drum louder than Don.

I was grateful to the paper when they made the choice to review their own reporting and found it lacking. That's a big thing for any company to do, more so for a company which only product is factual information. I'm happy that the paper has stuck by their reporter's and her right to shield her sources.

But I'm really glad she's in jail. I hope they don't allow her to take notes for a book, but I won't it buy it when it comes out unless the title is
"I was a Cheerleader for Chalabi and WMD. What the hell was I thinking?"



Joe
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 11:28 am
This whole thing just keeps getting "curiouser and curiouser." David Broder today called for Fitzgerald to let us in on what is going onFitzgerald told the appeals court judges that his investigation is nearly complete. I wonder how vital Miller's tesimony is? We shall see if he nails a Criminal Contempt charge on her.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 01:34 pm
Good point, Joe Nation. And I concur. Grew up just north of NYC and it has been my life-long link. Have expanded that in recent years, what with the web, RSS feeds, etc. But I did always trust the NYT, amongst a host of other good US newspapers.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 06:12 pm
Posted this on the "other" thread as well.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001000732

Quote:
Sources Tell 'Time' Bush Officials Learned Plame CIA Link Early--and Not from Media

By E&P Staff

Published: July 31, 2005 11:55 AM ET

NEW YORK Time magazine is reporting today on its Web site that according to its sources "some" White House officials may have learned that CIA officer Valerie Plame was married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson "weeks before his July 6, 2003, Op-Ed piece criticizing the Administration. That prospect increases the chances that White House official Karl Rove and others learned about Plame from within the Administration rather than from media contacts. Rove has told investigators he believes he learned of her directly or indirectly from reporters, according to his lawyer."

The Time account reveals that in the first week of June 2003 the CIA's public-affairs office received an inquiry about Wilson's trip to Africa from veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus. "That office then contacted Plame's unit, which had sent Wilson to Niger, but stopped short of drafting an internal report," according to the magazine. "The same week, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman asked for and received a memo on the Wilson trip from Carl Ford, head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research." Sources familiar with the memo "say Secretary of State Colin Powell read it in mid-June." Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage may have received a copy too.

After Pincus' article ran on June 12, a former intelligence officer told Time, "there was general discussion with the National Security Council and the White House and State Department and others" about Wilson's trip and its origins.

The article concludes: "A source familiar with the memo says neither Powell nor Armitage spoke to the White House about it until after July 6. John McLaughlin, then deputy head of the CIA, confirms that the White House asked about the Wilson trip, but can't remember exactly when. One thing he's sure of, says McLaughlin, who has been interviewed by prosecutors, is that 'we looked into it and found the facts of it, and passed it on.'"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/23/2019 at 07:24:03