Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

I love it too; it's a great yardstick for knowing whom has gone over the edge.

Nah - its very apropos.

well, what makes a definition of a crime family other than having more than one member of it be convicted of a crime?

use whatever republican apologist's description you want for a family whose members have a history of criminal behavior.

It pales in comparison to the Kennedy Crime Family. Talk about a clan that has royally screwed the American populace...

The Kennedy's are essential gone from the politican scene except for Edward and Ahnold. In other words, they're more history than current events.

The Bush Crime Family is the present administration that has gotten us into intractable problems that will last way beyond the term of this administration affecting our future.

Many of Bushco's associates are now being investigated for various crimes. It seems it's a matter of time before higher-ups in this administration will be facing some serious charges.

FYI, the Kennedy administration has been gone for over three decades. Your attempt at deflection is ridiculous.

The government in Washington, D.C. has been run by criminals pretty well since the 1870s, that decade to which Mark Twain gave the sobriquet of Gilded Age. (I'm using Kuvasz's definition of 'crime family' here.) Nothing really new about that. It's just that it used to be a lot more blatant. 'Machine politics' and Boss Tweed's Tamany Hall in New York and the James Michael Curley 'ward healers' in Boston and the Daley machine in Chicago -- these are all facts of American political life for the past -- oh -- 150 years or so. In the 20th Century we had the Teapot Dome scandal and FDR's blatant attempt to pack the Supreme Court and Watergate and Contragate and Koreagate and a dozen other 'gates.' Again, nothing really new there. FDR had the Oyster Bay gang and JFK was put on the throne by the Irish Mafia and the Bushes are backed by the Texas oil barons, as vicious a posse as the robber barons of the 1890s and early 1900s ever were. As c.i. says, that's all history. Nothing new here.

What amuses the hell out of me is that people like McGentrix and Morekat don't even try to deny or even excuse the behavior of the Bushes any more, but only keep pointing fingers at the past and saying, "See, see, Clinton was just as bad, maybe worse." Maybe so. So what? If I were to stipulate that they are right in their assessment of the situation of Clinton VS Bush (a stipulation I am not serious about), I would still point out that we need to rid the country of this plague. Keeping up this horsesweat about the sins of Bill Clinton (or JFK or FDR or any other Democrat) is just blowing smoke and trying to obfuscate the picture as it is today. Clinton isn't in office any more. Bush, alas, is.

Who Is Patrick Fitzgerald's 'Deep Throat' Source?
My pick would be Richard Armitage as the new "deep throat."---BBB

Who Is Patrick Fitzgerald's 'Deep Throat' Source?
By Steven C. Clemons
The Washington Note
Monday 21 November 2005

Is there a counter-leaker on Plame case working for the side of good?
Who is Patrick Fitzgerald's "Deep Throat" Source? Is there a Counter-Leaker on Plame Case Working for the Side of Good?

There is a high level official in the Bush administration who helped give the "inside scoop" on the earliest moves by the White House in the Valerie Plame investigation - but who is it?

On September 28, 2003, Washington Post writers Dana Priest and Mike Allen clearly note the existence of a source with knowledge about the outing campaign conducted as "a vendetta" against Joe Wilson by senior officials in the Bush White House.

This source clearly had concerns about the behavior of these officials, and to some degree, this Washington Post source appears to be a key "counter-leaker" in the Valerie Plame investigation, i.e. someone attempting to make sure that the real story about the Plame leak and reasons for it were told.

From the Washington Post story on September 28, 2003:

At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.

The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore from Africa for possible use in nuclear weapons. Bush later backed away from the claim.

The intentional disclosure of a covert operative's identity is a violation of federal law.

The officer's name was disclosed on July 14 in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak, who said his sources were two senior administration officials.

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson's credibility. They alleged that Wilson, who was not a CIA employee, was selected for the Niger mission partly because his wife had recommended him. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife."

A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson's wife as "fair game."

The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists. The official said there was no indication that Bush knew about the calls.

It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility."

Stepping back for a moment, it seems that this source noted above would not be the source that Bob Woodward has suggested - not if Woodward is being truthful that the information about Plame was passed off as a side-bar in a larger, longer conversation. Clearly, the source for Dana Priest and Mike Allen knew that the information on Plame was secret - and was angry about its promulgation.

Thus, there is a political personality out there - who is on the side of good - who is part of this story. Who is it? And is this person a "Deep Throat" source for Patrick Fitzgerald? Is this source helping guide Fitzgerald through the terrain?

TWN contacted Dana Priest today to ascertain whether she was either interviewed by Patrick Fitzgerald or his legal team - or whether she testified before the Plame case grand jury - and she would not comment on this.

Through another source close to Fitzgerald's investigation, TWN was informed that Dana Priest and Mike Allen were not interviewed as far as the individual commenting to me knew. Specifically, he said, "I am unaware of any interviews with Dana Priest and Mike Allen of the Post, and I'm certain that they did not testify before the grand jury."

This is interesting because it would be unlikely given the tenaciousness that Patrick Fitzgerald has shown towards reporters with important knowledge of players involved in the Plame outing that he would have ignored the important article by Priest and Allen.

Deduction leads one to surmise that this source for Dana Priest and Mike Allen is already known to Fitzgerald - and thus their testimony about this source would be both disruptive and unimportant.

So, if someone is engaged in helping Fitzgerald, it would be useful to know who it was. This seems to be someone who was not compelled to cooperate like David Wurmser and John Hannah were forced to do - but rather someone who cooperated out of conscience.

Could this insider source be Stephen Hadley? Seems odd to me. To many, Hadley still ranks fairly high as Bob Woodward's source - and at least to my knowledge - Hadley has only "hinted" that he was not Woodward's source. Unlike Rumsfeld, Rice, and others, he has not "denied" he was Woodward's source.

If he was Woodward's source, I don't think he would have taken the moral tone that laces the commentary in the Dana Priest/Mike Allen story.

Might it have been John Bellinger, who was Senior Associate Legal Counsel to the President and Legal Adviser to the National Security Council? He is now Legal Adviser to the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Bellinger is a straight-shooter, fair, and not an ideologue. The activities of Libby and Rove would have offended his sensibilities.

Another potential person is Richard Armitage, who is as publicly loyal to the President as one can be - but who deploys brilliant knife-in-hand tactics against others inside the bureaucracy and administration whom he thinks are undermining the nation's interests.

Of course, Rich Armitage was Colin Powell's Deputy at State. It is unclear to me how much Armitage would have known about Libby's and Rove's campaign against Plame - but his sources throughout the Bush White House, in the national security and intelligence communities are legendary - and Armitage is one of the few people who would have had early warning about the Libby/Rove efforts. So, is Armitage secretly helping Fitzgerald?

Again, there are many reasons to doubt that these individuals are the sources for Dana Priest and Mike Allen - but they also might be.

The hunch I have now is that Fitzgerald knows the source and has squeezed a lot from him or her. What is important now is whether or not the Woodward revelations fill in pieces for Fitzgerald or disrupt the entire picture.

Merry Andrew:



It is amazing. What about it, McG and Mortkat?

Might it not be just be due diligence on Fitzgerald's part only?

There are several very egregious mistakes in Merry Andrew's post.

First of all, he says:

Clinton isn't in office anymore. Bush, alas, is

What Merry Andrew is saying is that the actions and policies of the previous president have NO effect on the actions and policies of the current one.

Even a child knows better than that.

Everybody knows that Clinton could have caught Osama. Would that have made a difference? Who knows for certain, but it may have.

People who have kept their eyes peeled know that Clinton put a group to work to explore the viability of changing Social Security so that some of the monies could be placed in separate stock market accounts.

Did that influence the present administration with regard to its possibilities? It didn't hurt.

Everyone knows Clinton signed the NAFTA bill. Did that clear the way for CAFTA? You bet.

The almost moronic view that the actions and policies of the president immediately before a new president has no effect on the new administration is ridiculous.



Now, let us explore the Kuvasc "Crime Family" label.


http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

RECORDS SET DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION

1. The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance.

2.Most number OF CABINET OFFICERS to come under criminal investigations.

3. Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify

4. First president sued for sexual harrassment

5. First president accused of rape

6. First president to establish a legal defense fund

' 7. FIRST PRESIDENT TO BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT

8. FIRST PRESIDENT DISBARRED FROM THE US SUPREME COURT AND A STATE COURT.

I'm still waiting for you to point out those "egregious errors." Blowing smoke by raving and ranting about the many sins of Bill Clinton isn't exctly a logical rebuttal.

Merry
He as all the Bush lemmings can not defend Bush's actions. Consequently they must attack Clinton.

Mortagato. Is it possible to justify the actions and policies of Bush on their own merit.

Of course it is ... particularly when all the leftists do is bitch, moan, and complain. That is what they are most capable to doing. Solving problems is left up to others. But I digress ...

It's hard to get past the "Bush lied, people died," mantra of the left, as that is their rallying cry and what they believe. Yet there is no evidence that happened. The Iraq War was justified, and a good thing. You disagree. That doesn't mean the actions and policies with regard to Iraq are not justified.

Are there any other policies of the Bush Administration you are referring to? The Plame non-story? What exactly?

The constant references to Clinton are very apropos, inasmuch as the pathetic concerns the left have with Bush are often eclipsed by the transgressions of the leftist's darling of the past. Clinton's lack of action with regard to Iraq, and his withdrawal from Somalia was the impetus emboldened al Qaeda. He simply was not capable to doing any heavy lifting ... IMO he was scared of having his actions viewed negatively at home. So he left the problems over for the next administration to deal with.

But leftists would like to forget all about Clinton, it appears. For every time they point at some minor concern with Bush, and it is clear that Clinton did something usually far worse, they don't want to hear about it. They squawk about and complain that Clinton's name is being used ... but they evidently are incapable of seeing the hypocrisy that is being pointed out to them.

Talk about revisionist history. You talk about leftists but the views here on Iraq are by and large mainstream. You are the one espousing extremist views of the loopy right.

In a 1998 interview, bin Laden said that when the US "rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace," it proved "the American soldier was just a paper tiger."

What history are you talking about?

wow, eat some bad turkey did we? you remarks are so objectively wrong, so factually refuted that i won't even waste my time illustrating the madness inherent in your screed.

you are so clueless about reality, you think the Left, whatever that is, liked Clinton.

in an encyclopedic list of stupid things you have said around here that is about the stupidest

but truth be told, I especially got a hearty laugh from how an attorney specializing in non-fault divorces and real estate maligns political opponents for leaving problem solving to others. if there is a more parasitic livihood on the planet, it has yet to be invented.

tico wrote:
The constant references to Clinton are very apropos,....

It is NOT apropos. With time, the world environment changes as does the intelligence used by our government. By going back to a previous administration, it leaves open the possibility to criticize all past administrations for their mistakes to equalize the current administration's mistakes.

Trying to rationalize the mistakes of current administrations by looking at the past does nothing to further the future progress of this country - nor any other. ..

The past is past; it can't be changed.

We are talking about Bushco and all the mistakes made by this administration on Iraq; failure to understand anything about the history of Iraq, and not planning for any exit strategy once involved.

Cheney said the Iraqis will welcome us as liberators. We have thus far killed almost 100,000 innocent Iraqis. Who did we liberate?

unbelievable, he takes one quote from OBL and extrapolates it to "prove" Clinton caused 9/11.

Really, his views are so out of touch with reality, they are not even worthy of refutation.