Dr. Sanity

I read that article and the even more ridiculous statements on the Kos site that discuss it. How in the world do they get away with such BS? And another thing--all the speculation about who is going to get indicted is just that--speculation at this point. They have tried, convicted and would like to execute the Republicans before the report is even released. I dare them to consider the "treason" involved in Joe Wilsons duplicitous and disingenuous comments about his trip; as well as the underlying motivation for those comments --which were found to be lies by a bipartisan senate committee report. In a time of war, I suspect that Wilson's behavior would come quite abit closer to the T word.

Dr. S you are absolutely correct. This is projection pure and simple; and it is designed to make people look away from the very anti-American behavior, including deliberate attempts to sabotage the war in Iraq and ensure that America loses.
Jan | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 10:52 am | #

"It is not a crime in the United States for political partisans to join together in a plan to discredit their political adversaries"

But it is a crime to reveal the identity of a covert CIA operative. And to lie under oath. And to conspire to commit a crime.

=
jri | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 12:17 pm | #

Wow. Bushbots will say ANYTHING and believe it.

Rove, Libby, et. al. committed CRIMES and will go to prison for it. Watch and learn.
Anymouse | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 12:25 pm | #

Re: Plame's cover - I suggest you review this letter from former intelligence analysts to Congress, which makes it clear that having a desk job in Washington is not inconsistent with being a classified operative. And if Plame's status was so well-known, why would CIA ask for an investigation after she was outed?

While you are correct in stating that political hardball is not illegal, crimes committed *during* those hardball games need to be prosecuted as thoroughly as any other crimes - especially when those crimes threaten the national security of the United States.
Scott M | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 12:33 pm | #

Shall we see if any "crimes" have been committed before we convict? And possibly who committed them? Or shall we just hang whoever you happen to feel is guilty? Or, would that be too fair for you when dealing with Republicans?
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 12:39 pm | #

And that is fine if you are running an election. When the lives of US troops come into play, the truth is not something to be trifled with. You are just a traitorous scumbag carrying water for the discreditied.
matt | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 12:43 pm | #

Wow, I didn't realize that Valerie Wilson was an "enemy" of the republican party. Her husband, maybe. I know his being praised by George Senior shouldn't count for much. How was she already their legitimate political enemy prior to the Wilson op ed?
chancelucky | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 12:45 pm | #

Of course anyone who may have committed a crime will be subject to due process and a fair trial. Remember, though, that trial in the court of public opinion is also a long-running tactic in the game of political hardball - witness Tom DeLay's recent coming-out-of-shell to fight his own indictment. We're perfectly at liberty to speculate about who knew what, when, and the possible consequences, since none of *us* are actually responsible for determining the legal culpability of the individuals involved.
Scott M | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 12:47 pm | #

It is not a crime in the United States for political partisans to join together in a plan to discredit their political adversaries.

No, but to out a spy during war time has in the past been an offense worthy of summary execution, and you know it. It's sad that republicans have put themselves in the position where they need to champion the kind of behavior they would normally revile.

who made stunning public misrepresentations about how he came to be sent to Niger, what he found when he got there, and what happened when he got back

There were no misrepresentations about any of that. I challenge you to support that assertion.
Paul | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 12:53 pm | #

Read the link, Paul. McCarthy refers to in his next post at the Corner an investigative and comprehensive article by Stephen Hadley in the Weekly Standard. Here's the LINK. Valerie Plame has also lied--when she claimed she had nothing to do with her husband being selected for the Niger mission.
anonymous | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 1:00 pm | #

With respect, it is unlawful--a civil violation, not necessarily a crime--for government officials to take action to retaliate against a critic exercising his First Amendment rights. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. And before you exonerate those concerned from retaliation, I would point out that six seprate reporters were told that Plame was a CIA operative--a fact that in no way undermines Wilson's account of his findings. The Washington Post source stated that the intent was to retaliate against Wilson--a fact that was confirmed by Miller in her article on Sunday.

I'm not sure as to criminal liability--Miller seems to suggest obstruction on the part of Libby, but that isn't necessarily a lock. Still, the civil rights cause of action seems pretty solid-and I've been both defense and plaintiff's counsel in these cases.
John Wirenius | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 1:02 pm | #

Where is your sense of outrage? By blowing Plame's cover (which is exactly what was done), not only was every single individual who she ever met with thrown into potential mortal jeopardy, but anyone who ever met any agent from this cover organization. By blowing her cover, hundreds of contacts were potentially jepordized. Why, exactly, does this not leave you infuriated? How, exactly, is this not the loewst of treason? In war time to boot? Against someone who was working on the very issues that the war was ostensibly fought?

I am astonished people aren't discussing the death penalty: treason of this sort is treason of the highest order, period, and Republicans know it. Or, more accurately, they certainly would if it wasn't one of their inner circle.
Peter Swiderski | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 1:15 pm | #

Discredit AND punish. The administration, when dealing with people within the ranks of government who disagree with or in some way undermine its goals, has routinely done both. They were both discrediting Wilson AND (through his wife) setting an example to others in the same position of the career consequences of crossing them.

It is silly, or dishonest, to equate this sort of thing with routine attempts to discredit a political opponent -- that is, someone running against you in an election. Valerie Wilson wasn't a political opponent -- she was an employee of the government, and these administration officials weren't her, or her husband's, political opponents -- they were the people in charge of the government in which she served.

When they declared her "fair game" they weren't talking about "discrediting" her husband. They were talking about using their power to destroy her career.
esmense | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 1:16 pm | #

Read the link, Paul.

I just did, and what a tortured, nuanced article it was. I kept waiting for it to redefine the word "is."

Yes, there is a possibility, observed by some in the intelligence community while totally disregarded by others, that Iraq made a passing gesture in 1999 to procure uranium from Niger. That does not make Bush's ill-fated "16 words" any more true. That does not discount Wilson's claims that no such deal took place. Nor do they exonerate those in the Bush Admin who retaliated against those claims by outing Wilson's wife, a covert operative.

Republicans: The time has come for you to actually take a stand for something other than your hatred for liberals. This is about possible treason and the rule of law, things that one could normally count on republicans to stand behind. Your rallying around your president, whose legacy will surely cast him as the absolute worst president in US history, is really going to embarass you in the long run, and puts the country and the world at grave risk in the short run.
Paul | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 1:25 pm | #

Discredit AND punish. The administration, when dealing with people within the ranks of government who disagree with or in some way undermine its goals, has routinely done both.

Exactly right. And not to sidetrack the conversation too badly, you can see this strategy in action in the Miers nomination.
Paul | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 1:27 pm | #

My goodness, isn't it republicans who have been reminding the nation that "We're at war" as an excuse for everything from why documents about nominees cannot be released to why we need to torture people? Yet when it comes to their own outing an intelligence official during what they themselves proudly proclaim a "war on terror" it's merely political maneuvering. That is, I agree with the other commenters...political hardball is one thing, treason, conspiracy, and other crimes are crime. Hell, why not have your opponent killed if the fact that it is merely "political discrediting" is enough to get you off the hook?
ervington | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 1:31 pm | #

Yet when it comes to their own outing an intelligence official during what they themselves proudly proclaim a "war on terror" it's merely political maneuvering.

Correct. And in case it's not clear how the outing of Valerie Plame relates to the "war on terror" (or whatever it's called this week), recall that one central reason for the intelligence failures regarding Iraq's WMDs was due to our lack of human operatives in foreign countries. Now that it's been shown that the identity of such operatives can be compromised simply due to domestic US politics, how eager will potential operatatives be to risk their lives to help us out in the future?

Hell, why not have your opponent killed if the fact that it is merely "political discrediting" is enough to get you off the hook?

Please. Let's not give them any more ideas.
Paul | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 1:40 pm | #

There's no excuse for lying to the grand jury.
Nicole | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 2:01 pm | #

"No, but to out a spy during war time has in the past been an offense worthy of summary execution, and you know it."

What I know is that in the past leftists have published the names of numerous CIA operatives actually working overseas, and that some of them were killed. I also know that at the time liberal journalists defended the right of those leftists to publish the names.
pst314 | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 2:05 pm | #

"It is not a crime in the United States for political partisans to join together in a plan to discredit their political adversaries."

Sry, but this key element of McCarthy's column isn't true in the Plame case, making his whole argument worthless.

Actually, it is a crime in the United States for everybody to join together with the intent to conduct criminal activities, regardless if the plans have a political background or not. There isn't a special criminal law for politicians. And in political battles, not all means are allowed.

For example, commiting burglary in order to steal documents from the 'enemy' party is still a crime, even if most republicans seem to have forgotten watergate. And there is a good reason why 'outing' a covered CIA operative is a crime, and that's national security. It borders to treason ("adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort"). Imho, exposing a covered US agent, who is specialized in WMDs, and thus endangering all others connected to him/her, is aiding Al Quaida. And don't tell us you suddenly stopped believing that the terrorists are looking for WMDs!
Gray | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 2:08 pm | #

"The time has come for you to actually take a stand for something other than your hatred for liberals."

Oh, please. If you want to understand us, then please pay attention to what we actually say and write. Don't rely on liberal journalists to fairly report, and by no means pay attention to the ravings at radical loony sites like Kos and Atrios.

"whose legacy will surely cast him as the absolute worst president in US history"

Calm down. It's clearly time to take your meds.
pst314 | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 2:09 pm | #

I think the above discussion is rather hysterical.
1. It is not certain that ANY crime was committed.
2. If a crime was committed it may not have anything to do with "outing" Mrs. Wilson.
3. If a crime was committed we don't know WHO committed it.
4. If the grand jury indicts someone, that does NOT mean that person is automatically guilty. A trial will then ensue and guilt will still have to be proven. NO MATTER WHO IS INDICTED.

Having said that, it seems equally likely to me that other people are potential "targets" for inictment besides Rove or Libby. I am a republican, and I can say with absolute honesty that if a crime was committed and the person (whether it is Rove, Libby, Cheney or anyone else) is found guilty, then I have no problem with it. No one is above the law. However, you are getting far far ahead of yourselves, don't you think? You have tried and convicted some people just because they ARE republicans. You remind me yet again why I don't vote democratic very often since you constantly call anyone racist or evil who happens to disagree with you. Your "arguments" here are nothing more than speculation. We shall see what Fitzgerald comes up with.
Jan | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 2:11 pm | #

This whole issue is silly. The outing of Plame and the subsequent cover-up is a huge deal when viwed in its broader context. Bush has sent us to war on a foreign policy experiment and the outing of Plame was used to punish those that disagreed.

I don't care if Joe Wilson was a liar. I don't care if his wife had something to do with sending him to Africa. I do care that the White House sold us a war based on false premises and theories and we are stuck with it now. No we can't leave now, but we can make sure that something like this never happens again. Doesn't anybody care about the increasing power of the president? Has it been good for the country? Now that republicans seem to hate Bush can we please reconsider?

If the administration wan't to trash Wilson - why not do it with facts? Doeas a Times op-ed piece have that much weight?

It is sad that to investigate any aspect of this situation it happens through the judicial system. Where is the accountablility? What the hell is the house and senate up to? Why can't a party investigate its own?
Shocked | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 2:11 pm | #

PST314, your post currently wins the prize for the most vacuous on this page. See what this whole situation has forced you to resort to? You can't even address simple points anymore, but can only respond with strawmen. It's sad, I tell you.
Paul | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 2:11 pm | #

You remind me yet again why I don't vote democratic very often since you constantly call anyone racist or evil who happens to disagree with you.

And how did you feel about the Lewinsky affair, pray tell? What were your thoughts about Whitewater? Truthfully, now, and don't be afraid of appearing like a hypocrite. You've got plenty of company in the GOP.

I accept that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I also understand that this administration has circumvented the rule of law many times so far, and may manage to do so again (although it looks unlikely). If a fair trial exonerates BushCo, I will accept that finding.
Paul | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 2:15 pm | #

Wow, must be en Vogue these days preaching from a position of guilty until proven innocent. So who let those clowns in the door, I was under the impression the civilized world got rid of such backward behavior?

The question begs, would those 16-words be "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa?" Just asking because Media MoDo Madness continues to report Niger, yellowcake and US no-Intelligent Wilson as the famous words spoken.

Where is Wilson anyway? And, what's her name? One would think that with such a treasonous act against them, the need to get to the truth, be great patriots, such an important guy and his important wife and all, one would think they would be far more vocal than their absloute silence.

Sheeple, get with the script already Wilson and what's her name were on the cover of Vogue.
susan | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 2:15 pm | #

So the bottom line is that the hard right, of which you are most certainly a member, reserves the right to subordinate national security to political expediency?

Some of us do love this country so much that it is hard not to transfer our hatred of this lying, warmongering administration to the personage of George Bush.

But as the facts come out, it's clear George Bush is just an empty suit who has been manipulated by the Cheneys, Rumsfelds and Roves.

I grew up Republican and understand conservative values quite well. It's too bad this blog subscribes to wingnut, and not actual conservative values, or you'd also see what's wrong with this administration.

You're obviously not a stupid person, but you've chosen to let your hatred of the Left blind you to this administration's crimes.

That's 1) sad, 2) unpatriotic, and 3) cutting off your nose to spite your face.
norwegianity | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 2:30 pm | #

"It is not certain that ANY crime was committed."

Hmm? "Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Valerie Plame was identified as a covert agent of the CIA. It was in the f***ing newspapers! It wasn't mentioned before that she's a member of the CIA, the reporters themselves didn't know it. Of course a crime was committed!
Gray | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 2:30 pm | #

I agree with atlasshrugged a commenter on LGF and a blogger in her own right:

In the same way that Democrats still call the shots on Capitol Hill, despite a Republican Senate majority, the Times and other liberal media forced the Bush administration to agree to their demands for an investigation in the CIA leak case. Fitzgerald was appointed by the Bush Justice Department and administration officials have been cooperating from the start. By contrast, the Times and Miller, who just recently left jail to testify before the grand jury in the case, had been obstructing the investigation. All Miller had to do to avoid jail was to tell the truth. She now has done so, and her account of what she told the grand jury under oath turns the media version of this bizarre case completely upside down.

Most of the coverage had created the impression that the administration was out to damage or destroy an administration opponent, Joseph Wilson, by illegally identifying the identity of his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame. Her name originally appeared in a Robert Novak column citing administration officials.

But Miller's account indicates that she was in contact with Libby after Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist at the paper, published a claim that Wilson had been sent to Niger to investigate an Iraq-uranium link "at the behest" of Vice President Dick Cheney's office. Libby knew that was false and wanted to get the truth out. But there was much more to it than that. Libby was upset about the CIA's role in sending Wilson on the trip.
Libby was frustrated and angry, Miller testified, about "selective leaking" by the CIA and other agencies to "distance themselves from what he recalled as their unequivocal prewar intelligence assessments." Miller says Libby believed the "selective leaks" from the CIA were an attempt to "shift blame to the White House" and were part of a "perverted war" over the war in Iraq.

This is the real story of the CIA leak case. We have one or more intelligence agencies planting false stories with the press in order to damage the Bush administration. They wanted to divert attention from the fact that the CIA had gotten the facts wrong about Iraq's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction

What's more, Miller says, "My notes indicate that Mr. Libby told me the report on the 1999 delegation had been attributed to Joe Wilson."

In other words, Wilson was denying something that he had actually confirmed. In fact, there had been an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Africa. No wonder Libby was upset with Wilson's article in the Times and the CIA's role in arranging his trip. Libby had every reason to believe there was a campaign underway to undermine the Bush administration and he must have been desperate to counter it. So desperate that he would talk to Judith Miller and other reporters. That was a big mistake.

In terms of more evidence of an Iraq-uranium link, Miller says that Libby "also cited a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced by American intelligence agencies in October 2002, which he said had firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium."

The situation was that the administration had evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, based on Wilson and other sources, and yet Wilson was using the Times and other outlets to deny it. Libby, Rove and other administration officials had every reason to conclude that Wilson was part of an effort by some in the CIA to deliberately undermine the Bush administration's Iraq policy

I think she's right on.
Anon2 | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 2:30 pm | #

"Libby was upset about the CIA's role in sending Wilson on the trip."
Understandably, if it's true. He is the g**d*** right hand of the VeePee of the US. He surely had other opportunities to kick the CIA instead of violating the law by washing this dirty laundry in the public.

As for your 'other sources', they have been debunked by all foreign services. So it looks as though all that is left is Libby's word standing against that of Joe Wilson, correct?
Gray | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 2:39 pm | #

It was more than 6 years from when she was covert. 5 years is the limit for any crime of "outing". Hold your horses, all you trolls. The grand jury--NOT YOU--will decide if a crime was committed.
Anon2 | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 2:39 pm | #

Anon2: As I said before, the fact that the grand jury will decide gives us the perfect right to speculate as much as we like. It's also the grand jury who will decide, based presumably on better information than we've been given, whether the statute of limitations had expired on Plame's covert status. One is tempted to assume, though, that if it was clear that Plame was no longer covered by the covert statute, the investigation would have ended long before this.

And with regard to that speculation, whether Libby's or anyone else's intent was to discredit Wilson, or to counter the CIA, or anything else is immaterial to the question of whether a crime was committed in the revelation of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative. The question is "Did he/they do it?" rather whan "Why?"
Scott M | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 3:40 pm | #

Anon2 (and others...)

Suppose Wilson did lie, as you suggest -- what does that have to do with it?

Plame's NOC status is uncontested. Whether that status was revealed by Administration sources, as Novak's article claims, is under investigation. If it was leaked by a senior member of the Administration, the leaker may well be guilty of one or more quite serious crimes -- regardless of what intent the leaker had in divulging Plame's identity.

All the rest is just a diversion from the central issue!
AndyS | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 3:50 pm | #

"It is not a crime in the United States for political partisans to join together in a plan to discredit their political adversaries. It is something that is done everyday."

For those of you who have not had the insane displeasure of trying to understand the forces behind a political propaganda machine let me try to impart some useful knowledge. The above argument is known as a strawman. It is the weapon of choice that the current lock step party employs in their war against a reality built on facts. The essential ingredient of a strawman is to make an argument winnable for your team by removing the parts of it that make it difficult to win. With the sharp edges removed the pliable remnants are then assembled into an argument that can be won. In other words these artisans of straw take an argument that is difficult to defeat and then restate it in their own terms so that it is easily torn apart.

Let's take the first part of the above strawman which goes as follows:

"It is not a crime in the United States for political partisans to join together in a plan to discredit their political adversaries."

Look at what these reality benders purposely leave out of the real discussion when they begin to assemble their strawman argument. They dispense with the legal, moral, and ethical arguments that work against their innocence as quickly as a drug runner jettisons his illegal cargo once the sirens go off. The long term reality that America fails Americans when these attributes are not part of all arguments no more concerns these partisan zombies then a drug runner is concerned with the lives that are ruined because of the false reality that his drugs takers feed upon.

Now let's get to the second part of their strawman, namely:

"It is something that is done everyday."

This pill is offered as a tranquilizer for the moderates in the their party. It would seem that the "anything for the team" moderates are beginning to get a little anxious. Anxious about the reality that their party leaders may have gone so far as to use American secrets to extract revenge against an opponent. With the above statement the herded moderates are suppose to accept (without question) that their generals are simply fighting their opponents with the same weapon that their opponents have used against them - of course this strawman leaves out any real facts that would make this statement more then just more straw.
Jim | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 3:51 pm | #

"It is not a crime in the United States for political partisans to join together in a plan to discredit their political adversaries. It is something that is done everyday."

For those of you who have not had the insane displeasure of trying to understand the forces behind a political propaganda machine let me try to impart some useful knowledge. The above argument is known as a strawman. It is the weapon of choice that the current lock step party employs in their war against a reality built on facts. The essential ingredient of a strawman is to make an argument winnable for your team by removing the parts of it that make it difficult to win. With the sharp edges removed the pliable remnants are then assembled into an argument that can be won. In other words the artisans of straw take an argument that is difficult to defeat and then restate it in their own terms so that it is easily torn apart.

Let's take the first part of the above strawman which goes as follows:

"It is not a crime in the United States for political partisans to join together in a plan to discredit their political adversaries."

Look at what these reality benders purposely leave out of the real discussion when they begin to assemble their strawman argument. They dispense with the legal, moral, and ethical arguments that work against their innocence as quickly as a drug runner jettisons his illegal cargo once the sirens go off. The long term reality that America fails Americans when these attributes are not part of all arguments no more concerns these partisan zombies then a drug runner is concerned with the lives that are ruined because of the false reality that his drugs takers feed upon.

Now let's get to the second part of their strawman, namely:

"It is something that is done everyday."

This pill is offered as a tranquilizer for the moderates in the their party. It would seem that the "anything for the team" moderates are beginning to get a little anxious. Anxious about the reality that their party leaders may have gone so far as to use American secrets to extract revenge against an opponent. With the above statement the herded moderates are suppose to accept (without question) that their generals are simply fighting their opponents with the same weapon that their opponents have used against them - of course this strawman leaves out any real facts that would make this statement more then just more straw.
Jim | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 3:52 pm | #

"As for your 'other sources', they have been debunked by all foreign services."

Can't be bothered with citations, can you? Because the British still stand behind their reports of Iraq seeking uranium in Africa.

*sigh*

How many of the "Lynch Libby" crowd think Bush served troops a plastic turkey? I'm guessing it's a majority.
Robert Crawford | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 3:56 pm | #

Please don't assume that all Republicans support these revenge tactics or Bush's tactics for promoting the Iraqi war. Or his spending habits, etc.
pete | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 4:00 pm | #

Easy rule here.
Just switch parties and names and see if you'd still say the same thing.

Examples:
1) If Clinton was President and a CIA agent's name was leaked to the press by someone from the WH Administration I would think that...

2) If Gore was President on September 11, 2001, I would absolutely think it was not the President's fault and would give him carte blanche to ignite a war with anyone even if they weren't connected to 911.

I call this the Instant bullsh** detector game.
BTW, it works on both sides of the aisle.

Unlike the Lefties attitude to GWB, NO righties were rabidly against Clinton when he was President.
(Rolling my eyes so much, my left one just fell out).
Robert | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 4:08 pm | #

This is crap about "Political revenge is not a crime" is straight out of the GOP talking points that were faxed out over the weekend. On numerous Sunday news shows, Republican surrogates, their talking points ready, issued variations of the following concerning White House chief of staff Karl Rove's outing of a covert CIA agent as part of a political vendetta:

* It's the criminalization of politics
* Is this 'minor' leak really worth all this?
* Political payback is common and should not be criminalized
* Mis-speaking or mis-remembering is not a crime

How gulliable can you true believers be to buy this crap?

It is interesting how the Republicans are now making light of an intentional effort to expose an undercover CIA agent, working on weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, no less, while we are at war in the Middle East on that very issue.

Dr "Sanity", the statute is very clear:

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." --Opening passage: Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.)"

No, of course it is not a crime to take political revenge - unless you break other laws in taking that revenge. The Right's pathetic attempts to defend treason are truly amazing, and are indicative of Rove's desperation over this.

If a senior White House staffer had intentionally outed an American spy during World War II, he'd have been shot. And as Bush keeps reminding us, we are at war.

Rove et al committed treason for petty political revenge, and Bush has gone back on his solemn promise to fire anyone who was found to have leaked classified information. Somehow, the Republicans are trying to convince everyone that this is just politics and really doesn't matter much - and yet, we impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job??? Something is wrong with this picture.
Aaron | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 4:31 pm | #

In addition to the Intelligence Identification Protectin Act of 1982, Fitzgerald is relying upon the Espionage Act of 1917, which forbids:

"conspiracy to communicate national defense information to people not entitled to receive it. (18 USC 793 (d), (e) and (g)) and communicating national defense information to people not entitled to receive it. (18 USC 793)."

The CIA says Valerie Plame was a covert oeprative. The CIA, a part of the Executive Branch of the US government, filed a criminal complaint with the Justice Department, a department of the Executive Branch of the US Government. Fitzgerald was appointed by the Attorney General to investigate the matter. Rove and Libby broke the law and will be indicted. Get over it.
bob lewis | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 5:01 pm | #

"Can't be bothered with citations, can you? Because the British still stand behind their reports of Iraq seeking uranium in Africa." Robert Crawford

It's not that I don't like to discuss, problem is that all my comments since 2:39 were deleted by the webmaster. If this one vanishes, you know what happened.

OK, the british say today that 'at the time' they had reason to believe there was a connection. The say they know now that the documents are forgeries.
http://www.archive2.official-doc...c/hc898/ 898.pdf

The US Senate Committee for Intelligence concludes "that the Iraq-Niger deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad"
http://intelligence.senate.gov/ i...iraqreport2.pdf page 72

So what? Enough citations?
Grrray | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 5:23 pm | #

Nothing ever changes, Republicans, Religious people, and Real Estate people are all the same without exception, hypocrites. The three R’s have always lied and lied and lied and when they get caught lying, well then they just try to change the subject...don’t you people ever get tired of being completely full of shit...
Rick | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 5:27 pm | #

Why even bother being a Republican when you can be a conservative Democrat and keep your personal intergrity?
Northern Observer | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 5:35 pm | #

N.O., you mean, like Zell Miller? Hrmph...
Grrray | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 5:37 pm | #

AMERICAblog put it best today, "If a senior White House staffer had intentionally outed an American spy during World War II, he'd have been shot."

Valerie Plame was working to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists. Her entire network of contacts was exposed by this leak.
Dave Johnson | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 5:37 pm | #

We should all wait for the facts to come out in court before we make pronouncements about breaking the law. The law aside, going after the man's wife is pretty damn sleazy. Back in the day Wilson would have just kicked Rove's pasty fat ass.

Libby met Miller for breakfast at a hotel? Given Miller's history I wouldn't be surprised if Libby was hittin' it.
John Gillnitz | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 5:54 pm | #

It is fascinating that the critics of the administration take as given is that the speculations offered by the president's enemies are in fact true. We do not know that a CIA agent was outed. We do not know that any member of the administration has lied about anything in this case. These are accusations. The only items that we have proof are lies are some of Wilson's statements.

I find the repeated argument "oh, you know it's true, just admit it" to be singularly unpersuasive.

Rather than be outraged that Republicans won't even be angry about TREASON, proving how morally bankrupt we must be, you might consider the possibility that no treason has been committed.

Except maybe by Sandy "Socks" Berger, whose admitted, observed, proved actions would have been grounds for execution in earlier eras.

You guys have got yourselves talked into this. Each accusation is taken as confirmation of the previous accusations, and when 6 months later the truth slowly comes out, the heinous crimes of your opponents turn out to be nonexistent, hoaxes, or molehills. Eventually you have to come up with actual solid proof of one accusation, not these overinterpreted paranoias. It's a house of cards, friends.
Assistant Village Idiot | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 6:45 pm | #

"It's not a crime for political partisans to join together to discredit their political adversaries"... But don't you think it's a crime to to mislead the American people with misinformation in order to make them support a war on foreign soil?
Chris Rehr | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 6:48 pm | #

Assistant Village Idiot:

We do not know that a CIA agent was outted? Please. Valerie Plame was an covert operative for CIA, and was undercover at the time her name was leaked. The CIA says as much, and it was the CIA (not the “liberal” media or the DNC) that asked the Dept of Justice to launch an investigation. The CIA wouldn’t do this if she were merely an analyst. Presumably, it’s doubtful anyone outside the CIA know precisely what Plame’s true work has been. Furthermore, the Justice Dept would not have decided to go from a preliminary to a full-blown formal investigation if Plame was a mere analyst and not a covert agent. The felony statute specifically states that it is the disclosure of a covert operative that is illegal.
Aaron | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 7:16 pm | #

"We do not know that a CIA agent was outed."
Well, A.V.I., you could gain some credibility if you would concede some facts that are difficult to deny. Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative. Her identity became known thru an article by Bob Novak. Novak stated that this information was based on two sources in the Bush administration. All this is undisputed. OK, you could argue that the law requires an intent to uncover the agent and that Libby and Rove were not aware of Plames' role at the agency. This wouldn't be very convincing, but it is a point to be investigated. But instead you go into complete denial mode, and, sry, this is really ridiculous.
Grrray | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 7:17 pm | #

I posted here earlier today that the OP's calling Wilson a "serial liar" makes the OP a liar in my opinion, and it's my opinion that Wilson has behaved honorably.

The post is gone when I look for it now. We'll see if this one stays up.

The OP did not prove his case whatsoever by proving Wilson's 'serial lies'. I don't need to prove a negative - that Wilson didn't lie. The OP needs to prove his claim.
Craig | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 8:23 pm | #

Um, Joe Wilson was right.

Leaving aside your 'criminalization of politics' nonsense talking point, you're pushing so hard that the goal was to discredit Joe Wilson on the Niger yellowcake.

But Joe Wilson was right.

The Bush Administration was wrong.

You, um, can't discredit the person when they've been proven right.
Marci Kiser | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 8:50 pm | #

So was Bill Clinton wrong when he approved The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998?
susan | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 9:20 pm | #

Washington -- President Clinton October 31 signed into law H.R. 4655,
the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/ 1998...110201_tpo.html

"This Act," the President said, "makes clear that it is the sense ofthe Congress that the United States should support those elements of
the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraqthan the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggressionthat the current regime in Baghdad now offers."

This is hardly not the same as unilateral, preemptive war and occupation.
Nicole | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 10:00 pm | #

As Former President George H.W. Bush put it:

I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.
Angie | Email | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 10:31 pm | #

Right on George H. W. Bush!

Dr. Sanity -- I and George H. W. and many of your readers, faced danger in our nation's armed forces. That makes us realize how much more dangerous it is to work as a covert agent. Why do you think it's ok to endanger our agents and their networks of foreign informants? Why do you hate America so?
Svejk | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 12:15 am | #

How covert was Plame when according to an affadavit filed by assorted media organizations she was outed to Cuba in the 90s?

http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tb...5%20(Final) .PDF

I'll wait to see what happens. I'm not convinced this whole 16 words, agent outed brouhahah is anyting but media smoke blowing.
Elaine | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 12:18 am | #

Perhaps the Cubans did out her. There's a difference between Cuba guessing that Plame might be an agent... and "senior government officials" saying it in Robert Novak's column in the NY Times. The CIA thought so, anyway. That's why they started the investigation.

"Senior government officials" who hate America need to do hard time.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/usco...26----000- .html

§ 426. Definitions

Release date: 2005-03-17

For the purposes of this subchapter:

(4) The term "covert agent" means--
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency--
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and--
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.
Svejk | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 12:34 am | #

And here's what a CIA agent has to say on the subject: " The fact that the US Government invests money in a front company and specifically assigns Valerie a job that has nothing to do with Government is a clear admission that the Government is taking active measures to conceal her relationship."
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/200...10/17/22134/ 358
go to comment 4
Svejk | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 12:50 am | #

"How covert was Plame when according to an affadavit filed by assorted media organizations she was outed to Cuba in the 90s?"

Right, and Cuba then put her name into the "bad guys weekly" newsletter.

You know, undercover cops do hundreds of cases among the criminal elements in the *same city* - often exposed when the arrest time comes - and yet they can keep working, somehow.

Were all the agents possibly exposed to Cuba taken off all assignments?

No. And they didn't need to be, and the Cuba thing is a misleading dodge.
Craig | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 3:03 am | #

> The assumption that has to be made to support the idea outing Plame would punish Wilson and shut him up assumes Bush and his administration are bumbling fools who can not argue a point and win but must apply force and threats. The entire basis of this theory points to the anti-Bush crowd projecting.

Doc, you miss one of the funnier, more absurd points of this whole thing --

Have you noticed how stupid and incompetent Republicans are supposed to be, except/b> when it comes to outsmarting Dems in their nefarious plots to rule the world?

Then, and only then, are they The Machiavellian Masters of the Universe.
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 5:26 am | #

Elaine, thx for the link, I read this amici curiae brief by Toensing (Miller really has interesting friends..). Imho it doesn't hold water, only some points to show that:

1. The sole sourse for the alleged 'cuban outing' is a WashingtonTimes story. The brief says that the author states that Plame's identity was uncovered by a russian spy and that this information was relayed to Cuba. OK, even if this could be confirmed this is in no way a public outing.

2. While the brief makes the argument that Plame didn't serve overseas for 5 years, thus loosing her 'covert agent' status, there is no evidence for this. If she had had an overseas mission, it could be secret and not publicly known. Only the CIA could give details.

3. Some parts of the brief deal with Wilson and the secrecy and details of his mission. This is unrelated to the legal case, the Plame outing, and leaves some serious doubts about Toensing's qualifikation.

4. For the citation 'shocked, shocked' on page 11, Toensing claims the source to be "Casablanca, Warner Bros. Studios, 1942". Yup, you're reading correctly, this is in a legal document from 'attorney' Victoria Toensing. This shows clearly what kind of legal document this brief is: A joke.
Grrray | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 5:41 am | #

> Oh, please. If you want to understand us, then please pay attention to what we actually say and write. Don't rely on liberal journalists to fairly report, and by no means pay attention to the ravings at radical loony sites like Kos and Atrios.

Oh, give me a BREAK. Those two sites are two of the most popular blogs on the net, and thus represent the zeitgist of a large chunk of the Left and the Dems. To attempt to disassociate yourself from them right now is like Muslims claiming the IF's are not with them...

OK? Rein in your moonbats before you try and claim they aren't the center and driving force of your group.
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 5:43 am | #

> It is sad that to investigate any aspect of this situation it happens through the judicial system. Where is the accountablility?

I think it went out the door with a certain former unnamed president who had troubles with the word "No".

Further, your rantings aside:
a) You, like all Lefties, can't seem to grasp the difference between "mistaken" and "lied".

Put simply:
Lying is what Clinton did on the stand.
Mistaken is what Bush was in the SotU address.
It's a question of knowledge and intent, and I have YET to hear ANYONE on the Left (excluding idiots quoting the discredited DSMemos) actually produce the least bit of evidence to support the notion that Bush somehow "knew" what everyone else (UK Intel, US Intel, Israeli Intel, Clinton, Kerry, Dem members of Congress, and Saddam's own actions) were telling him was true was, in fact, false.

When you actually demonstrate that, then you can call him a liar. Until then, your mindless blathering on a dead issue simply discredits yourself in any rational debate.
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 5:52 am | #

OBH, do you have something to say about that Plame case as well or is pointless brouhaha all you have to offer?
Herr, lass Hirn regnen | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 5:53 am | #

> It wasn't mentioned before that she's a member of the CIA, the reporters themselves didn't know it.

If they didn't know it, it was solely because their usual standards of background investigation were being staunchly and ardently upheld...

Go look at the facts, you nit, and stop wasting everyone's time pointing out to you that you can't "out" someone who's already been outed a decade before.

Just because the reporters, along with the public, forgot who the hell she was doesn't mean anyone who mattered "in the issue of outing" did.
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 5:58 am | #

> Anxious about the reality that their party leaders may have gone so far as to use American secrets to extract revenge against an opponent.

As opposed to what Hitlary did, which somehow the media didn't manage to turn into a circus with far, far more basis in fact than any of your baseless rants in this venue.

...And let's not get into Berger's pants -- because, after all, there's already a lot more in them than just Berger.
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 6:00 am | #

OBH, as far as I see it, we try to offer some rational points and evidence, while you're posting unsubstantuated opinions. So where is proof that Plame was outed 10 years before?
Grrray | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 6:01 am | #

and it would be really nice if you could stay on topic instead of spamming this thread with your opinion on life, the universe, and all the rest.
Grrray | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 6:03 am | #

> Suppose Wilson did lie, as you suggest -- what does that have to do with it?

Suppose he lied -- "it doesn't matter".
"It depends on what you mean by 'no'"

"Bush lied, people died!"

It's really amusing how lying only seems to matter to the Left when someone from the GOPis ACCUSED of it. Not proven to be doing it, not even alleged to have done it by evidence.

Just accused...
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 6:15 am | #

> So where is proof that Plame was outed 10 years before?

I could go and dig this up yet again but 48 hours from now you'd just be asking the same stupid-assed question as though you never got an answer. Get off the broken record.

The entire reason she was pulled from active duty was because she was outed in intelligence circles. Anyone in international intelligence who actually gave a damned knew she worked for the CIA. Any reporter who actually did any background investigation would have known it, too. You can't out someone who isn't a covert agent any more, and hasn't been for years.

Further, the people who WROTE the damned law have come out in the open and stated that the Plame example is specifically NOT what they wrote the law about in the very first place, another highly salient point which can't seem to penetrate your thick skulls for more than two days.
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 6:21 am | #

> and it would be really nice if you could stay on topic

And just HOW is the Left's highly "adaptable" outrage about lying not particularly O.T., little man?
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 6:23 am | #

I'm still looking for the sponsors of §426, big jerk...
Grrray | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 6:46 am | #

OK, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was sponsored by Senator John
Chafee. He would know if his act should protect Plame's identity. I'm a bit surprised that he did "come out in the open" though. Must have been quite a picture when he rose from his grave...
Grrray | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 7:21 am | #

Nicole
Did you read the whole thing (like #4 and the use of US military) or just the parts that conveniently fit your argument?

Further, are not the reasons Clinton stated in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 for why Saddam need to be removed exactly the same as what Bush stated in his 2003 State of the Union address? You know, Saddam was a threat to Iraq, his neighbors and the world, that he possessed destructive weapons etc.etc.etc.
susan | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 7:39 am | #

So Clinton said in 1998 that Saddam should be removed. Big Deal. He was not the only one who said this, I guess. And in 1998, Saddam may still have some WMDs left from the early 90s.

Did Clinton say it would be OK to start a war against Iraq, too? No, there's no evidence for this. The Iraq Liberation Act is only about supporting the opposition and UN Security Counsel resolutions, not about war preparations.

Now that this has been clarified, what is your opinion on the outing of CIA agents, Susan?
Grrray | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 7:58 am | #

You miss out on two important points: 1) what Wilson and his wife were saying turned out to be correct and it was the White House that was propigating lies 2) she was an undercover agent working for the CIA. This is not partisan politics. This is destroying the life of a CIA officers as revenge. This is discrediting the truth in order to send people off to die. Why aren't you outraged? How can you call yourself a Republican or even an American and support these acts of outright lies and treason. Are you so blinded by party affiliation that you can't see the most obvious and damning evidence. This is not a liberal thing or a conservative thing. This is about treason and being an American. This is about refusing to let people lie to you in order to start a war that kills thousands. Stop shilling party lines and get outraged.
Squire | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 8:08 am | #

What is it with Plame that the left gets so fired up? It can't be the treason angle or we would have heard them fired up about Sandy Burger. I think this little gem sums up the attitude we been getting here. "I don't care if Joe Wilson was a liar. I don't care if his wife had something to do with sending him to Africa. I do care that the White House sold us a war based on false premises and theories and we are stuck with it now" by shocked. It tells me that there are some that don't care if someone lies as long as they are doing it for on their side.

And we on the right don't hate the left, we just hate the way you act, like self indulgent children.
Wilky | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 10:10 am | #

"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."

George H.W. Bush, At the Dedication Ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence, 1999.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/ public_af...ech_042699.html

-But hey, no crime here......
DUDACKATTACK!!! | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 10:48 am | #

Discrediting = outing a covert operative?

Wilson = Serial Liar, but WMD Bush doesn't?

And you guys call yourselves the adults? Just keep your head in the sand, your next revolution is due in about 115 years.

Speaking with the dead,

Necromancer
Necromancer | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 11:02 am | #

Speaking of quoting Bush, how's this for his pledge to "Restore Honor and Dignity to the White House." Apparently he meant that treason would help white-wash the horror of a sitting (or standing) president getting a blowjob.

Still with the dead,

Necromancer
Necromancer | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 11:27 am | #

No - I don't have to wait until the end of the Fitzgerald investigation. More facts aren't really necessary at this point. We have enough of the story to understand what happened.

Cheney, Bush, a few other key staffers were incensed at Wilson's article in the Times and they retaliated. When they used Rove's office to leak Plame's status, they committed a crime.

Trying to defend these people is as sleazy and vile as their illegal activities.
The Raven | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 1:07 pm | #

Dearest "Doctor,"
The point that you need to remember is that the Bushies couldn't "discredit" Ambassador Wilson by debating the facts of his report or editorial. They could not dispute them, and so they used the only weapon they had at hand: character assasination. Whether or not the crime they committed in the process of painting Wilson as the beneficiary of nepotism was deliberate, they still can not dispute that the grounds on which their war began were tenuous at best, and fabricated at worst. Character assasination would not have been necessary had the administration had another leg to stand on.
Sara | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 1:52 pm | #

Not a crime, eh? OK, firing two employees of the Whitehouse Travel office was a horrible crime worthy of a $10 million investigation, a special prosecutor and it's own sensationalized gate name, but this is no crime. Having a 5-minute discussion with your secretary is "obstruction of justice" worthy of an article of impeachment but this is no crime. Do republicans remember the 90's? Sometimes I wonder.
Bill Batten | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 2:08 pm | #

this must be
the Hurricane Katrina thread.
gumshoe | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 2:19 pm | #

Do any of you know exactly what Valerie Plame's duties were or do you just think you know? A "non-official operative" in some ways, is one of the most dangerous jobs in the CIA. When she traveled abroad, under the cover of Brewster & Jennings, a front-company for the CIA, she enjoyed no official protection from the CIA or the US Government. Her front company was actually involved with tracking weapons of mass destruction. Taxpayers paid a minimum $250K for her training and it took years to establish her cover. Ruining her career is no trivial matter, no matter what your political hacks have to say about it.
Bill Batten | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 2:48 pm | #

Are you suggesting that outing a CIA agent is legal and that telling lies or defaming an individual is ethical? You conservatives read a different Bible and have questionable morals.
JCS | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 2:49 pm | #

Everyone seems to forget that Fitzgerald provided classified information to the Judge which convinced him that a serious crime had been committed. Which is why he gave Fitzgerald a free hand to jail non-cooperative witnesses. What would you like to bet that what he supplied the Judge was the CIA Damage Assessment on the destruction of the Brewster-Jennings cover operation? Maybe it started as politics-as-usual but the reckless use of classified information might have done substantial damage to United States interests. Don't be surprised if the charges are more serious than anticipated.
Ed | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 3:02 pm | #

Grray, given the number of media organizations who put their names to it, I don't think the brief is meant to be a joke. What I find interesting is the claim *from this source* (the MSM) that no crime has been committed for the reasons shown. The same MSM that's been boring (some of) us silly harping on this whole affair as a big deal.

There seems to be enough evidence that she wasn't terribly undercover that I question the whole scandal.
Elaine | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 3:44 pm | #

Elaine, I made several arguments why I think the brief doesn't hold water. I'm not a lawyer, but I've read all Perry Mason novels, so you should trust my experience :P
And, what a surprise, the United States Court of Appeal for the State of Columbia has already dismissed the petition:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2.../DC/ 043138B.pdf

Now why did I have to waste my time on this? If your name wouldn't remind me of Alfa Spiders and Simon and Garfunkel...
Gray | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 4:52 pm | #

"And we on the right don't hate the left, we just hate the way you act, like self indulgent children." -- Wilky

Who's projecting now?
Ron Bagatelle | Email | Homepage | 10.18.05 - 10:18 pm | #

Fitzgerald is not someone who would waste his time with neocons discrediting Wilson. He is someone who takes national security extremely seriously. The government cannot ethcially and legally out a CIA officer to retialiate against her spouse. The government is supposed to protect CIA agents. Cheney and Co are going to get what they deserve. What's really scary is Bush trying to be president by himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Pat...rick_Fitzgerald

He handled drug-trafficking cases and in 1993 helped prosecute John Gambino of the Gambino mafia family. In 1994, he became the prosecutor in the case against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 other individuals charged in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.[2]
In 1996, Fitzgerald became the National Security Coordinator for the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. There, he served on a team of prosecutors investigating Osama bin Laden.[3] He served as chief counsel in prosecutions related to the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa.[4]
Wendy | Email | Homepage | 10.19.05 - 12:17 am | #

> this must be the Hurricane Katrina thread.

Nah, gumshoe, this is Haloscan channelling DU.
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 10.19.05 - 2:58 am | #

> Who's projecting now?

Still you -- same old bagatelle...

"She was outed!!" ("We don't care if she was a publicly known CIA operative!")

"Crimes were committed" (unless you ask the people who actually wrote the law in question, who have openly said the Plame case certainly did not cover the scenario they wrote the law about)

"Bush Lied!!" (still can't grasp the difference between being incorrect by reason of being misinformed and being incorrect by intention to mislead)

"Horror of horrors, TREASON has been committed!" ("Let's ignore Berger's pants... pay more attention to whatsisname -- that gay White house reporter...!")

... and so on, and so on, and so on...

...ad nauseum.
Oh Blutige Hölle | Email | Homepage | 10.19.05 - 3:06 am | #

It's good to see that the dreaded MSM was reporting on how yesterday morning the Bush Operatives were out in force spreading this new "trope" (as bloggy types say) that "It's not treason, it's just POLITICS! AND YOU ALL KNOW THAT IF THERE'S NASTY POLITICS, IT's THE LIBERALS FAULT!" So, guess what, you conservatives all get the same faxes. Used to be at the receiving end of Delay's morning fax talking points myself, so I know how it is. Well, not the BELIEVING the talking points part.

Speaking with the Dead,

Necromancer
Necromancer | Email | Homepage | 10.19.05 - 9:17 am | #

OBH, I already answered on your arguments (except Bush lied - imho he's clever enough to avoid a outright lie). I'm still waiting for the proof that Plame was outed ten years ago. The Brewster-Jennings story suggests otherwise. Why should the CIA make all that fuzz about a fake company and stamp Plame's identity 'secret' if it was widely known? You think those CIA officials are all fools? Where is your evidence?
Gray | Email | Homepage | 10.19.05 - 9:38 am | #

How absurd this piece is and this whole "criminalization of politics" talking point you all repeat like robots. Politics is politics and crimes are crimes. The two realms can and do come together fairly often--Watergate for example, or illegal schemes to avoid , say, Texas campaign laws (I'm from Wisconsin and many Dems AND Reps were indicted for similar schemes). If someone does something criminally illegal in the name of politics then that is a crime. Period--no spin allowed. Whining about the criminalization of politics is morally repugnant and one more reason no one trusts conservatives anymore--they have lost their way and have become the party of irresponsibility, excuses, spin, bullying (what's really at work in CIA Treason Case), and BS.

FP
FP | Email | Homepage | 10.22.05 - 8:47 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan.com