Oh, my, but I do love you and Jane and this site!!!! Happy, Happy Fitzmas 2~!
drunken hausfrau |
02.07.06 - 7:06 am | #
of course, I was wondering who the two Senior Administration Officials were that chitchatted with Dickerson...Ari, most likely...Dan Bartlett too?
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:09 am | #
Yehaa! I can't wait to see what Fitz does with this information.
Jeanne |
02.07.06 - 7:10 am | #
Hey ReddHedd!
I was going to congratulate you for providing what is clearly better analysis of the story than found in the traditional media...
Ooopppsss... And then I realized that THAT isn't so incredible an achievement.
The better path is to say thank you for providing MUST READ commentary on the story even if it's on some lowly and nasty blog.
Congratulations!
aspTrader |
02.07.06 - 7:11 am | #
i'm wondering why he didn't write about this for TIME.
lin |
02.07.06 - 7:15 am | #
I love the smell of Treasongate in the morning.
Pachacutec |
02.07.06 - 7:15 am | #
Good morning,
My thoughts are stuck with NSA wiretapping.
RH - what if the Administration never intends to use the warrantless wiretaps in US court? What if their intention is - anyone they snag is deemed an enemy combatant, shipped to Cuba, and dealt with via a military tribunal?
As an aside, it seems to me that once the people know you're listening, it's hard to get that cat back in the bag. So the "chilling effect" on international communications would be set.
Another point, in the Wapo article Sunday,
"Since early 2002, when the presiding judge of the federal intelligence court first learned of Bush's program, he agreed to a system in which prosecutors may apply for a domestic warrant after warrantless eavesdropping on the same person's overseas communications. The annual number of such applications, a source said, has been in the single digits."
Excuse me? Isn't this saying that less than 10 times the warrantless program information was used to get a FISA warrant for purely domestic calls? Fruit of poison tree anyone?
One comment in the article is - this "system" was not used very much. But what if you only intend to use the communications in military tribunals?
lin -- because he's the senior political editor for Slate now, and no longer works for Time. That would be my guess.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:17 am | #
we know neither Libby nor Rove were on the Africa trip but one SAO knew an awful lot about Wilson's report and its provenance. Who had briefed this SAO in such detail? Did all that info come from the State Dept memo that Ari was seen so assiduously studying on the plane? The secret memo that reported it was Mrs.Wilson that sent her hubby?
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:17 am | #
So nice to have the tectonic plates on the move again.
ralphbon |
02.07.06 - 7:17 am | #
Good work. That summarizes it nicely...
Steve |
02.07.06 - 7:18 am | #
It's the Pig-Man Statute!
jayt |
02.07.06 - 7:19 am | #
Apparently, Uncle Karl is pulling the strings of the Republicans on the Sentae Judiciary Committee pretty fiercely, making sure his dear majority doesn't get out of line. They know a break from the ranks would be serious jeopardy for the Shrub.
This administration is already well into its coup gameplan. They are brazenly unapologetic on matters as serious as violating the Geneva Conventions, the International Criminal Court and pissing all over FISA. I'm going to say right here and now that I DO NOT believe that Bush removes Rove from the White House if he's indicted. He's just too critical an asset for their Grand Plan. They can't afford for Rove not to be wielding the ugly stick that shamelessly beats our democracy with. He may be "reassigned" but as long as he's not behind bars, he'll be guiding the Bush admins agenda.
Jay |
02.07.06 - 7:20 am | #
Thought you'd be interested in that. Been thinking about it all morning and I have one question.
"What did the President know and when did he know it?"
Quite interesting that they decide to blame Tenet and then all of a sudden .... Wilson's wife get's named. Almost as if someone very high in the administration decided "F**k the CIA." Wonder who made that call?
narexbyrnes |
02.07.06 - 7:20 am | #
My oh my, what a fascinating article.
attaturk |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:21 am | #
I mean when he actually worked for TIME.
lin |
02.07.06 - 7:21 am | #
Really hope this gets some wider attention in the corporate gunslinger world of the media.
There must be SOME hard working journalists out there yet. Well, actually we know there are, but they rarely get published widely. Good for Dickerson.
I read on Clemmons blog yesterday that Dennis Ross has joined Libby's defense team, mostly as a fundraiser I think. They are still plastering the firewall between Libby and everybody else.
GrandmaJ |
02.07.06 - 7:23 am | #
Lin -- I dunno. I wonder if Time was trying to hold off on revealing any other potential source trails after everything they went through with Cooper -- and then Viveca Novak? You'd think they would have wanted to report on this -- but Dickerson's discussion of how they held off on even putting the Rove push-back disclosure on the website even after Bob Novak's article was eye-opening, wasn't it?
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:23 am | #
WOO HOO!!
Hope this makes reporters more alert to the fake intelligence and paid propaganda coming their way about Iran.
I have to say something that's been on my mind for a while, but now it seems even more likely
we see how the president defends illegal; action by saying he's allowed to do it and that makes it legal
what would stop the president from saying;
"I instructed Karl and Libby to leak Wilson's name for reasons of national security?
he is just so brazen, tell me one reason he won't do this...someone tell me he won't, cause I think he will
in point of fact, that DOES make it legal too...if Libby and rove were acting on his orders, then there they are exonerated.
and from what we have learned from Abu Gonzales,Bush is above the law no matter what when it comes to his decisions regarding national security
so someone tell me this isn't going to happen, and tell me what you would like to bet...I'm not laying odds, but I'll take even money
me to me |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:25 am | #
If subpoena'd to appear before the grand jury or court, though, will he testify? Admittedly just by publishing an article he has done more than 95% of the so-called "journalists" who are hip deep in TraitorGate, but do his journalistic ethics allow him to be forced to speak in court? Or will he clam up?
I was saying that I think I have maybe distilled the admin's legal argument as follows:
They take a statute (AUMF) which doesn't say they can wiretap, and slam it hard against a statute (FISA) which says that they can NOT wiretap, resulting in a finely-twisted hybrid statute which says "You want to wiretap? - No Problem!""
Negative times Negative = Positive
You see, it's not legal sophistry, it's mathematics.
That is the Pig-Man Statute.
jayt |
02.07.06 - 7:27 am | #
now we see why Fitzy so wanted to see the telephone logs of calls made to and from the airplane in Africa. Neither Libby, Cheney or Rove were on it yet reporters in Africa were being spun real hard about Wilson's trip. What sort of coordination was going on?
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:28 am | #
Wow, wow and wow!
OT - Truthout had an article about NOLA looking for foreign aid since there just doesn't seem to be enough from the US.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_200...6/
020706Z.shtml
Shortcomings in aid from the US government are making New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin look to other nations for help in rebuilding his hurricane-damaged city.
Delphyne |
02.07.06 - 7:28 am | #
Hopefully, Fitz can nail both Libby and Rove with something along the lines of Treason rather than perjury or obst. of justice -and do it before public interest begins to wane.
DUDACKATTACK!!! |
02.07.06 - 7:29 am | #
I am so extremely disillusioned this morning. I am beginning to think that no matter what any of these criminals and habitual liars do or say, the main stream press will not pick up on it, and/or most of the non-thinking public will not pay any attention. It will always be the fault of "those evil Democrats".
I find it a great comfort to be able to read the posts here at FDL and all the great comments. But I just can't help believing that none of this will ever come to anything, and Rove will never even see the inside of a courthouse.
zeppo |
02.07.06 - 7:29 am | #
I am for once happy that these FUCKS support the death penalty. As I remember from my Political Science 101 class at BYU, TREASON is the only constitutionally-guaranteed offence punishable by EXECUTION!!!
BRING IT ON!!!
So Bush, Cheney, Rove, Hadley, Rice, Libby, McClellan, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc.: Which do you choose: Guillotine or Firing Squad?
dead last |
02.07.06 - 7:30 am | #
JayT -- you keep saying pigman, and they are gonna send the Manimal Police Squad after you.
So that's what real reporting looks like. It hasn't been observed in the wild for so long I thought it was extinct.
Here's a minor observation but what struck me about Dickerson's story was his humility and sense of perspective. Summed up in a line like this:
"We pool reporters were hustled away from the dignitaries into a cramped holding room..."
Could anything be more different from the bloated egos of the "media personalities" who dominate the traditional media? Dickerson seems to say, "I'm a just schmuck, with nothing to lose, why not tell the truth?" But the big kids are so heavily invested in their privileged access to power and inflated views of their own self-importance, they never hesitate to lie if it keeps them in those high places.
He's like a breath of fresh air.
Sadie B. |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:31 am | #
Pigman, the other, OTHER white meat.
Pachacutec |
02.07.06 - 7:32 am | #
first I NEED to point out that this IS NOT about rove and lgibby
ya, it will feel really really good if rove is indcited.
but big friggin deal...the puppeteers are still pulling the strings, the firewalls would have done their job
news flash;
we need this to culminate...we need it to boil over to the operating system, getting the firewall helps only our pride, it does nothing for our country
it will be an empty victory, we will all say "there is justice after all", yet we would have all been duped
the pupeteers, not the pupets...that's who we need
me to me |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:33 am | #
The hidden story:
"We expected more of the same fancy footwork ... We didn't get it. Condi blamed the CIA. This was new. The Bush administration didn't usually point fingers that openly. "
"[Bush] knew that he would be asked about the faulty info and had a line prepared. ... the ultimate blow in the bureaucratic battle between the CIA and his White House."
"We talked about ... the fight with the CIA, the political implications for the president, and the administration's shoddy damage control."
"Discrediting your opposition is a standard tactic in Washington, but the Bush team usually played the game differently. At that stage in the first term, Bush aides usually blew off their critics. Or, they continued to assert their set of facts in the hope of overcoming criticism by force of repetition."
"That Friday night in Washington, CIA Director George Tenet fell on his sword ...That big news eclipsed the storyline about an effort by White House officials to discredit Wilson."
This is stunningly process-oriented: fancy footwork, finger-pointing, bureaucratic battles, shoddy damage control, standard tactics, overcoming criticism by force of repetition, the storyline; about discrediting Wilson.
Such a wholehearted embrace of tactics as news. No context, no grounding, no -war-. Bubble-journalism. The story -still- isn't the outing of Valerie Plame. The story is the outing of Valerie Plame BECAUSE THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION OF THE WAR WAS A LIE.
I'm sure Dickerson is great, but how did we get a press so relentlessly focused on the trees, so completely lost in the forest?
gussie |
02.07.06 - 7:35 am | #
Four days into the trip, on an early morning flight to Uganda, Condi Rice visited the small press...
Condi blamed the CIA.... (We later learned that Dr. Rice had called Tenet that morning to let him know she was going to ruin his day.)
it's about time tenet showed whether or not he is a patriot to this country or a puppet who's strings are being pulled
someone MUST contact him and pressure his patriotism, he MUST testify to all that he knows regarding this information and what he told the president regarding the case for war
he must
and someone needs to contact colon powel and put his patriotism under pressure also
will he show us he is loyal to this country or loyal to his president.
that is his choice and he must choose, and someone must force him to choose
me to me |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:37 am | #
Ok, would one of the fine FDL legal scholars explain this to me:
The official Republican line appears to be:
If the President does it, it's not illegal.
Therefore, it is not possible for the President do do anything illegal. If Presidents are divinely incapable of illegality, why the f&*k did they impeach Clinton? Didn't Clinton get the Presidential Cloak of Post-Terrorist Divinity after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center?
I don't want to hear any "can't impeach cuz of the War on Terra" BS from the Republicans. They impeached the last guy who had a terrorist attack on the WTC early in his first term. Why can't they impeach this one too?
cleter |
02.07.06 - 7:38 am | #
Gussie -- I think his pointing out the Administration's process is a huge step -- because normally that gets swallowed wholesale as fact-based discussion. To point out the man behind the curtain is a huge step -- and one that we ought to see more of from the media. In pointing out the conduct and tactics, the lies become all the more obvious -- at least in my mind's eye.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:38 am | #
Does anyone know the status of the Wilson-Plame civil suit against Bush & Co? Are they still planning this or what?
Danton |
02.07.06 - 7:39 am | #
Well, well, well...doesn't Mr. Dickerson have an interesting little story to tell? I refuse to get my hopes up too high, but oh my goodness, these people are just chin-deep in the shit, aren't they?
bella |
02.07.06 - 7:40 am | #
Rhedd, one minor technical correction: each member of the conspiracy does not have to take a step in furtherance of it---generally in non-drug cases there has to be at least 2 overt acts in furtherance, but each member does not have to do any act at all one member could do both acts as long as there was a tacit agreement between them to do an illegal act; the overt acts do not in and of themselves have to be illegal acts, they simply have to further the conspiracy----which means a whole lot easier for each member of the conspiracy to get tagged.
loubarr |
02.07.06 - 7:40 am | #
Cleter -- the President does not get to break the law without consequences. But impeachment is a political process -- which is difficult to begin when you have a Congress and the Executive branch controlled by the same party. And thus, the importance of the 2006 mid-term elections becomes more obvious.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:40 am | #
It seems as though Dickerson is the first reporter to say he thinks they all knew she was a NOC. Am I right? Did any of the other reporters even suggest that they may have known Plame was undercover?
The Rejectionist |
02.07.06 - 7:40 am | #
Thank you thank you thank you.
Dickerson's article reveals the truth behind so many of the lies and half-assed justifications.
Didn't know Plame was undercover? Two of the sources sure were coy about "who sent Wilson."
Plame wasn't undercover? See above.
Libby is just a forgetful, busy guy. Uh, does three sources in one day pushing the same line kinda belie that theory?
What we can do to get the word "conspiracy" at the top of everyone's mind?
Lame Man |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:40 am | #
. Why can't they impeach this one too?
this begs the very question...sad to say, there is nothing that will be done against their own, it is "the party" before the country to the likes of these men
and I just learned 3 out of 4 votes will be cast electronically
so winning back a majority does not seem possible at all
me to me |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:40 am | #
Danton -- as far as I know, the Wilson's are still working with a civil attorney on this -- so it is still something out there as a possibility.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:41 am | #
me to me | Homepage | 02.07.06 - 7:25 am | #
Nuremberg, following orders does not always work!
Harry |
02.07.06 - 7:42 am | #
Cleter -- the President does not get to break the law without consequences.
sorry to dissagree with you redd, but it seems the president can't break the law, he is the president after all
me to me |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:42 am | #
loubarr - -thanks. That's what I get for trying to shorthand complex legal concepts into a shorthand version. ;-) You are absolutely correct. It's tough to boil "conspiracy" into a nutshell.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:42 am | #
Nuremberg, following orders does not always work!
Harry
it works when your pals are the judges doesn't it
me to me |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:43 am | #
Hey ReddHedd,
Great job, great stuff, keep up the good work, I'm counting on you. And now I have hope for a big, big, bigger Fitzmas Day in the not too distant future. Thanks again!
freefall |
02.07.06 - 7:44 am | #
Me to me -- not correct. the President is sworn, via his oath of office and the Constitution, to uphold the laws. No matter how much this Administration may try to dodge and weave on that fact -- they are incorrect. And it is a violation of the President's oath of office to say anything to the contrary. And violation of that oath of office is an impeachable offense.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:45 am | #
I wish Fitz would nail Rove before he convinces all the Republicans on the Judiciary committee to sell their souls.
The Rejectionist |
02.07.06 - 7:46 am | #
First ever presidential impeachment was a Republican controlled Congress impeaching a Republican President (Andrew Johnson).
Of course, that was when Republicans had sort of a moral compass.
It just seems weird that lying trumped terror-fighting in 1998, but it doesn't any more.
cleter |
02.07.06 - 7:46 am | #
Jay | 02.07.06 - 7:20 am
I agree.
John Casper |
02.07.06 - 7:48 am | #
RH--try explaining [federal] conspiracy law to a non-lawyer client.
loubarr |
02.07.06 - 7:48 am | #
Me to me -- not correct. the President is sworn, via his oath of office and the Constitution, to uphold the laws. No matter how much this Administration may try to dodge and weave on that fact -- they are incorrect. And it is a violation of the President's oath of office to say anything to the contrary. And violation of that oath of office is an impeachable offense
redd, I was tongue and cheek...I of course know your point.. but so what, he's not supposed to be above the law...again, so what...it seems he is anyway
the republican branches will use this executive claim as their excuse
me to me |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:48 am | #
I feel so much safer these days knowing the preznit can do any damn thing he wants to do AND may have his own personal armed federal police force with freedom to work the country. So much safer.
Gwen |
02.07.06 - 7:49 am | #
This two-part article comes so late into the game that it gives me pause. It's like the Woodward bit, emerging so late and only after some other event triggered it, the event not being clearly seen by on-lookers like us.
Every one of the reporters was hand-picked, too; the OVP and White House didn't broadcast this stuff, they went to specific contacts for a reason. Not all of them turned out as expected (a la Pumpkinhead) and some of them were a bit overmuch (a la Novak). Which brings me to the question: why Dickerson?
Even these bits in Slate contain a part of the memetic viral load; are we being spun years later? Was delivery slow only because the carrier knew they were "infected"?
In other words, is this article cover for something worse? Really, what could be worse than blowing the cover of an NOC for political payback...blowing the cover of an entire operation for political expediency, perhaps?
Agh. I hate how skeptical and cynical I've become over the last five years -- but I can't imagine being naive about the Machiavellian maliciousness of the OVP and White House.
Rayne |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:50 am | #
If we could persuade the TM to educate the public about Bush's law breaking, the polls would reflect it and then so would both Rethug controlled houses wrt impeachment.
John Casper |
02.07.06 - 7:51 am | #
Barlett and Fleicsher
Then, on a long Bush trip to Africa, Fleischer and Bartlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip. How did the spin doctors know to cast that lure? Newsweek 7/17/05
ReddHedd
I would change one thing in your entry. You have that Rove contacted Cooper on 7/11/03 and actually Cooper called Rove.
During that same time period, Rove contacted Matt Cooper and planted the same seeds
loubarr -- I have sooooo been there. Especially with the last man standing in a multi-defendant drug case. That's always a fun conversation, isn't it?
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 7:51 am | #
As a result of that swift blow to the piņata, a handful of candy comes out. It looks like there is still a whole lot left in there, though.
MarkC |
02.07.06 - 7:51 am | #
Looks like to me that if Dickerson really wanted to get a call from Fitz, he may just get his wish.
Sounds like he is more than willing to talk, too.
zeppo |
02.07.06 - 7:52 am | #
Is there a reason Dickerson couldn't have gone to Fitz sometime over the last 2 years, or do you need to be called to testify?
Jeanne |
02.07.06 - 7:52 am | #
Hi Redd,
Work has turned me into mostly a lurker, but wanted to say thank you for the constant cut-to-the-heart-of-the-matter posts. This one was especially spirit-bolstering. I follow fdl closely and surely represent others who don't comment regularly, but greatly appreciate the time and intelligence you and Jane put into your posts.
percy |
02.07.06 - 7:53 am | #
I second Percy! (I hope you don't mind but in the toddler world, you are a little green train!)
The Rejectionist |
02.07.06 - 7:55 am | #
Redd:
I used to think I was pretty good at thinking strategically and tactically (and deviously too). But this entire situation requires a master!
Dickerson's point about Fitz getting the timeline slightly wrong in his letter: after reading both your piece and Dickerson's article, I'm thinking this is another Fitz trap... I'm also guessing he "saved" Dickerson as a supeona target for later, as part of his brilliant ability to be patient, patient, patient.
Martha |
02.07.06 - 7:56 am | #
What will Fitzgerald think about what Dickerson has written? You ask that?
It's almost a sure thing that Dickerson had already told Fitzgerald all of this some time ago. Dickerson is not going to be charged with obstruction of justice.
Whether Dickerson had Fitzgerald's official or unofficial go-ahead to print the story, you can be assured Fitzgerald had this information long before the publication of the two articles.
And Fitzgerald is not procrastinating on the BushCo items because, as some have speculated, "He is too busy with other things." Fitzgerald is not procrastinating whatsoever. He is putting together an airtight case relating to the Bush administration. Notice Russert and the other buttboys have stopped calling Fitzgerald schoolyard derisive names. One does not toy with Fitzgerald without consequences.
karen allen |
02.07.06 - 7:57 am | #
ReddHedd --
Kudos on keeping this reader in the loop.
Damn good lawyerin' here.
Jackintosh |
02.07.06 - 8:00 am | #
Couldn't get in last night to put up this thought:
Specter, Graham and the other thinking GOoPers on the committee may have been thinking they were part of the ruling class, and the warrantless wiretapping (without letting them know about it) was a shock to their egos. Hence the more pointed questioning this time around.
P J Evans |
02.07.06 - 8:01 am | #
THIS IS SO TYPICAL OF ROVE, HE HAS SHOWN ON THE PAST HE WILL RUIN ANYBODY FOR HIS MAN(CHIMP)......HOPEFULLY FITZ WILL NAIL HIM AND GIVE HIM WHAT HE DESERVES.....GO FITZ GO!!!!!!!!!!1
SPACE COWBOY |
02.07.06 - 8:02 am | #
good work reddheadd! wickedd goodd workk!
ebw |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 8:02 am | #
If Fitzgerald hasn't spoken with Dickerson yet, he will soon.
Has Fitzgerald spoken with Powell and Tenet under oath? He should.
I think that enough information about the Plame plot is popping out all over the place that Powell and Tenet would now be more inclined to give Fitzgerald the goods.
anon |
02.07.06 - 8:03 am | #
opps sorry for the caps
SPACE COWBOY |
02.07.06 - 8:03 am | #
he [Tenet] is a patriot to this country or a puppet who's strings are being pulled
Tenet's got a lot to be careful about.
Davis X. Machina |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 8:04 am | #
GOoPers on the committee may have been thinking they were part of the ruling class, and the warrantless wiretapping (without letting them know about it) was a shock to their egos. .
it is survival now, if they don't stick by their party they will be un elected.
now they have to survive, and all it will take is a twist of the knife to get them back on board
me to me |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 8:04 am | #
The two SAOs whose names Dickerson won't reveal are already known -- they were Ari Fleischer and Dan Bartlett (Newsweek, last July):
"... on a long Bush trip to Africa, Fleischer and Bartlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip."
In fact, Dickerson is trying to paper over his own previous admission that Fleischer spoke to him (Slate, after Fitzmas):
"... we learn from the Fitzgerald indictment that Ari Fleischer knew about Plame and didn't tell anyone at all. He walked reporters, including me, up to the fact, suggesting they look into who sent Wilson, but never used her name or talked about her position.
As I wrote here and here during that post-Fitzmas week, the trail of events seems pretty clear -- as Dickerson says, the firestorm over Niger kept building all week during the Africa trip.
So, as the Bushites got more desperate, first they blamed the CIA in general, and then they started hinting about who sent Wilson, and finally they started leaking about his wife ... and not just to friendly partisans like Novak and Judy Miller.
Rove kicked it off (perhaps on impulse) by telling Matt Cooper, and when Cooper called Libby for confirmation, Scooter met with Big Dick, leading to a decision to "go wide" with the leak (as described in the posts linked above). Libby referred reporters to Ari, and Fleischer/Bartlett called them back with the leak (and Colin Powell, I think, heard them and blew the whistle).
Swopa |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 8:05 am | #
nothing is going to happen unless we win some seats back and that doesn't seem likely now that 3 out of 4 votes will be cast electronically
me to me |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 8:05 am | #
"As a leading War Democrat and pro-Union southerner, Johnson was attractive to the Republicans in 1864 as they tried to enlarge their base to include War Democrats. He was elected Vice President of the United States on the National Union ticket headed by Republican Abraham Lincoln in 1864 and was inaugurated March 4, 1865. A rather embarassing incident occurred on this day. Johnson had been suffering from typhoid fever and drank whiskey before the ceremony. He gave a rambling, incoherent speech and had to be led away. Lincoln forgave him for this transgression. He became President of the United States on April 15, 1865, upon the death of Lincoln. He was the first Vice President to succeed to the U.S. Presidency upon the assassination of a President and the third to succeed upon the death of a President.
Johnson had an ambiguous party status. The National Union party vanished after the 1864 election but he did not identify with either party while president--though he did try for the Democratic nomination in 1868. Asked why he did not become a Democrat in July 1868 he said "It is true I am asked why don't I join the Democratic party. Why don't they join me?" [Trefouse p 339]"
Stephen Parrish, CPA |
02.07.06 - 8:06 am | #
But if the Republicans let this administration off the hook, they are in sense, admitting they are powerless, that the executive branch trumps the legislative branch...
The Rejectionist |
02.07.06 - 8:06 am | #
Thanks Redd-another great piece.
Sheds a bit more light on what happened..
Looks as if many in the White House knew that Wilson's wife was in the CIA and had all gotten the same marching orders about "Wilson's wife sent him to Niger" to take the heat off of Cheney. We don't know who they all are- but they are likely all of the members of the committee that Fitz has been looking at..
They all did their part in discussions with the press. some of em said- "go find out who sent him" to create an appetite for the main story which was "his wife sent him"..Fitz has a damned good case- but apparently he has to show not only that Valerie WAS a protected agent- but that the co-conspirators KNEW that she was a protected agent..and according to other reports- we he can't prove that yet- or at least he hasn't tried to prove that yet..
That is the missing piece of the puzzle apparently. They knew that she was at the CIA- they knew that she could be described as having some involvement in the decision to send Wilson- but Fitz hasn't discovered the communication that proves that they knew of her covert status- so they can claim that they thought she was just an analyst or some such- is that about it?
rwcole |
02.07.06 - 8:07 am | #
me to
Dems will win some seats back..
They will likely win two to three additional senate seats and as many as eight house seats- cutting the Gooper margin in half in both houses..they are unlikely to win control back of either house however- so Clusterfuck will continue to rule the roost for the balance of his term of office- unless we get further implosion- which is hardly impossible.
rwcole |
02.07.06 - 8:10 am | #
Redd:
There's process, politics, and Everything Else. Journalists love process. They eat, drink, and live process. But they don't report it.
So this is a step in the right direction, from living in an environment of process to actually -reporting- on process. And in that way I agree with you. Usually, they just report on Officially Sanctioned Politics: 'bureaucratic battles,' 'partisan attacks,' 'how will this play in the red states,' 'values voters,' 'Gonzales claims this -is- Bush's constitutionally legal right' etc. Politics is the object of process. So when they take a step back, and report process, well, good for them.
But what's still missing is Everything Else. Not a storyline, not footwork, not polling or tactics. Objective truth. That Dickerson article is good, because this scandal is partially -about- process and tactics, how the White House undermines national security by attacking political opponents. My objection is to the media culture it reveals.
From whom is he getting news? Rice, Bush, and 'senior administration officials.' What does he expect? Footwork and spin. What was his major story? Tenet falls on sword. There's an almost complete disconnect with the sort of reporting that actually digs deep and reveals truths that matter. There's no -there-, there.
gussie |
02.07.06 - 8:15 am | #
Rayne,
I agree. Rove et al got two birds with one stone. The idea that Wilson was smeared by his wife's outing (or the lame suggestion that he was pussy-whipped 'cos she sent him on the trip) doesn't make as much sense as annihilating an entire brass-plate counter-proliferation entity so that the big lie for war is not exposed.
Tommy Yum |
02.07.06 - 8:15 am | #
Please give some thought to a new name for this scandal. "Traitor-gate" helps reinforce 2 GOP memes: 1) Watergate was nothing special, look, everything else is a "gate", too. and 2) Just another "gate", nothing to see here. Thanks, love your blog. Keep up the good work.
David |
02.07.06 - 8:17 am | #
Redd- have you somewhere explored the "defense" that the conspirators KNEW that Plame worked at the CIA but didn't know her covert status? Do all of the statutes involved REQUIRE that the disclosure of identity be "knowing" in order to be prosecutable?
Suppose that the facts are that these creeps knew that she worked for the CIA and that the source of the information was classified- can they be prosecuted for releasing classified information and outing her- EVEN IF- they didn't know her covert status for certain?
That seems to be at the heart of things right now.
rwcole |
02.07.06 - 8:20 am | #
This story certainly adds a ton of context to Jane's "Libby Firewall" post from a couple of days ago.
I hope Fitz is well-resourced, because this one's turning into a batallion-sized engagement instead of going after one or two baddies. Scale matters.
al-Scooter |
02.07.06 - 8:21 am | #
Maybe I should have saved my NSA spying comments for the next NSA spying thread?
I thought this graph from WAPO was a bombshell:
"he agreed to a system in which prosecutors may apply for a domestic warrant after warrantless eavesdropping on the same person's overseas communications."
FISA judge agreed to a system where prosecutors can apply for a domestic warrant after warrantless eavesdropping? That's CONFIRMATION of less than 10 cases of fruit from the poison tree, is it not?
anotherpawn |
02.07.06 - 8:22 am | #
I think this has some potential to get traction, as Dickerson is a second-generation member of the Club, and belongs to the Chris-Matthews-Liberal wing of the Establishment Media. Also Slate, led by Saletan and Weisberg, is very Lieberman-McCain-DLC in its outlook. Not so easy for the Tweeties to dismiss. But as always, my optimism is tempered by experience. I await Punkinhed Russert's solemn intonation that all presidents, of both parties, regularly out CIA agents, and the gravely eyebrow furrowed nod of consent from one of the storied political scientist-historians of the Today Show.
DemByDefault |
02.07.06 - 8:22 am | #
I appreciate Dickerson finally telling the tale unvarnished--but I also stand with those who wonder what took him so long.
He seems to imply that he only came forward because the new filing in the case revealed that Fitz knew his role. Not sure this makes him a hero but interested in others' take:
"But it turns out the special counsel was on to me all along. Last week, Scooter Libby filed a motion requesting materials from Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. The filing included a Jan. 23, 2006, letter from Fitzgerald to Libby's legal team (marked Exhibit C) that contained this paragraph:
We also advise you that we understand that reporter John Dickerson of Time magazine discussed the trip by Mr. Wilson with government officials at some time on July 11 or after, subsequent to Mr. Cooper learning about Mr. Wilson's wife. Any conversations involving Mr. Dickerson likely took place in Africa and occurred after July 11....
*snip*
....Though Fitzgerald threw out the tidbit about me (thanks, Pat), he turned down Libby's request to pick through his investigative material. Now it's up to the judge to decide whether Libby gets to take a look. While the wheels of justice grind, here's my story, for whatever it's worth:"
Why won't Dickerson tell us who spilled the beans? Still protecting sources?
Hardly a gutsy disclosure.
rwcole |
02.07.06 - 8:26 am | #
Please do not ipugn the character of all journalists out there because of a few bad eggs.
I am shocked and appalled that more FDL'ers do not appreciate the journalistic integrity of Rita Cosby. She has almost single-handedly broken every important detail about the most important story of our time...CRUISESHIPGATE!!!
(yes, this is sarcasm hehe)
Kurt |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 8:27 am | #
In fairness to Dickerson, he knew Fitz knew about him. Cooper told him that he mentioned him in his testimony. Dickerson assumed that he might be called but never was.
I think Fitz didn't go after the "outing of a NOC" charge b/c strategically it would be hard to prosecute.
The Rejectionist |
02.07.06 - 8:27 am | #
Ok,do we know ALL the people who were on this Africa trip?There's some obvious people involved in this,but looking at this whole thing,it's looking more like everyone on that trip seems to have had a role in this sick dance.
An Angry Old Broad |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 8:28 am | #
It's a cold cold 'civil' war a goin' on here. Churches are a burin' in Georgia. False Flag anyone? So very sorry to see this happening on this day Mrs. King.
wilbo |
02.07.06 - 8:31 am | #
As for Dickerson/Traitorgate?
Can y'all say Firing Squad?
No! Okay, watch my lips....T R E A S O N (and the pile of corpses in Iraq and the permanent DU contamination, and, and, and,.......ad nauseum)
Good work Redd
Good reads: http://
www.informationclearingho...rticle11802.htm
(don't come more mainstream than Roberts)
"In fact, Dickerson is trying to paper over his own previous admission that Fleischer spoke to him (Slate, after Fitzmas):"
Swopa | Homepage | 02.07.06 - 8:05 am |
Swopa, thanks as always for commenting. If you have the time or the inclination, I was not aware of what you called Dickerson's "trying to paper over his own previous admission that Fleischer spoke to him." I am also thrilled when anyone as close to the traditional media as SLATE chooses to publish something this unvarnished (from Rove's perspective). If you could provide any greater context on Dickerson's motives I would be grateful.
Great piece as always ReddHedd.
OT: took me awhile to get your play on ReddHedd's name, ebw, thanks.
John Casper |
02.07.06 - 8:31 am | #
She has almost single-handedly broken every important detail about the most important story of our time...CRUISESHIPGATE!!!
Is that the one where the mobbed-up business associate of Jack Abramov who sold Jack his cruise ships wound up dead -- murdered?
That cruiseshipgate?
Davis X. Machina |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 8:32 am | #
I never understood until now why the administration and especially Dick Cheney reacted with such vitriol to Wilson going to Africa. Apparently the WH and CIA were in an all out war and the fact that the CIA sent someone without asking the WH really pissed them off. And then they had the audacity to say Cheney sent him. I still can't believe they got away with blaming the CIA-I thought the CIA would fight back a little better.
PacificCoaster |
02.07.06 - 8:32 am | #
...and William Sullivan's hunting accident, although he was FBI. And the accident appears to have been legit, AFAIK.
al-Scooter |
02.07.06 - 8:33 am | #
I'm curious to see if this story has the legs it should have, so I started chronicling its passage through the blogosphere and traditional media over on Wampum (heck, the Trust Fund case has no legs, so I might as well document something that does - I hope :-D).
So far, Technorati only shows 1 hit for "John Dickerson", though it hasn't obviously yet crawled FDL, as it's not Redd's piece. Google news only shows Dickerson's piece in Slate.
So, where, if anywhere, will this bombshell go? It will be interesting to see.
BTW, good work, FDL. I've always loved the Plame coverage here.
MBW |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 8:33 am | #
His timing could have been better, but the important thing is, he did spill the beans.
Something tells me Fitz knows what to do with them, too. :)
TheOtherWA |
02.07.06 - 8:33 am | #
brilliant work. what a read.
sedrunsic |
02.07.06 - 8:34 am | #
Tom Edsall has ironic snark about the Pool Boy in today's online chat (emphasis added):
Boston, Mass.: Hi Tom, we all know you are the best of The Post's political chatters. Who do you think is second? Milbank gets all The Post's promotional backing, and folks think VandeHei is some kind of brainiac. I'd have to go with Murray. She's funnier than Milbank, and smarter than VandeHei.
Tom Edsall: I suspect this was written by one of my colleagues. I would only say that Dana Milbank impressed me deeply during his last chat. In a discussion that in theory is about politics and public issues, he successfully redirected that content to a discussion of himself. In fact, a quarter of his chatter was about his favorite subject. Murray is, I believe, our only female contributor and she is by far the smartest and funniest. VandeHei is itching for more fights with liberal bloggers, although most of all he would like to write a column about Wisconsin supper clubs, a subject on which he is quite the expert.
Edsall is having fun with his colleague here. Shorter Edsall: we have seriously gotten under the Pool Boy's skin.
hmmmm, since nothing in this case is as it appears on the surface, what it the purpose of dickerson's story? why is he waving a "subpoena me" flag for fitz to see? and why hasn't fitz talked to him directly? his article does offer up lots of tasty morsels, but just like chinese food only makes me hungry for more info.
i do like the idea that dickerson is being "saved" as a witness. given that fitz has his emials he already knows that dickerson was on the receiving end of the "who sent wilson" push. it makes me wonder if fitz isn't going to use the "everybody knew" defense against libby to show that all the reporters were being told the same info at the same time. it looks like rove may have been a little ham-handed in his tactics this time. in order to make the "idle gossip" senario work the info has to spread out gradually (um, judy, wasn't that your job). seems the word wasn't spreading fast enough to discredit wilson so they went for the full court press. trouble is that starts to make it look a lot more like the well-coordinated effort it truely was. i could just see fitz rebuting libby's defense by calling in all these reporters only to have them all tell the same story of being fed the info almost simultaneously.
e.c. |
02.07.06 - 8:39 am | #
The reason the White House reacted so violently to the Wilson memo was because at the time it was being reported that Cheney had asked the CIA to send someone to look into the Yellowcake matter- and they sent Wilson..
If that story were allowed to stand- then they were faced with defending a Cheney who had asked for more information- receieved it- and still went around repeating the lie that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake- that would have been devastating..
Their answer was- "Cheney had nothing to do with sending Wilson- it was his wife who did it- and they are both democrats"
This gets Cheney off the hook- he could no longer be expected to know the results of the Wilson trip- or to agree with them if he did know. The whole thing was about protecting Cheney from a VERY dangerous situation- and Cheney was directing his own defense..
The fact that Plame was damaged was incidental- it was about Cheney.
rwcole |
02.07.06 - 8:40 am | #
The only good news in all this scandal-o-rame stuff is that the Republicans aren't getting much done legislatively.
cosmo |
02.07.06 - 8:41 am | #
I guess that I am slow and stating the obvious but as I see it, Rove's sorry ass has been saved. And Libby will not be thrown to the wolves; he WILL be pardoned just in the nick of time.
Fitzgerald's investigation is always just off (only Libby is indicted?) and his timing is always just late or never started (like that lasagne story of Fitzgerald and the stove). Libby won't go to trial until after the midterm elections.
I don't see where people get their faith in Fitzgerald. He's just another bought off DOJ official just like the Abramhoff prosecutor. He's got a judgeship in the future and stalling tactics for now. And the U.S constitution is defied and defiled by the present Gov. B*st*rds. Hmph.
rukus |
02.07.06 - 8:46 am | #
The Catch-22 of Breaking the TM's Narratives:
From Edsall in today's online chat:
New York: Any chance at all that Congress will amend the 2001 law authorizing use of force to exclude domestic spying? I still don't see anything in that law or in the Constitution that authorizes this.
Tom Edsall: My own sense of this is that Congress does not have the stomach to enact a restrictive law, and the public appears to be giving the administration a lot of leeway on this issue.
Let's stipulate that his reading of the polls is correct, and that the public is meaningfully divided on the issue of wiretaps without a court order.
His answer shows that the press feel accountable to the public in the sense that it will play its coverage in favor of the status quo unless overwhelming opinion is against the status quo.
There is no calculus among the denizens of the politcal press that asks the question, "Is this illegal, and does the public need to know this?"
This is shameful, and scandalous in ways we have documented ad nauseam, but it is reality.
The lesson is the traditional media will not alter the default pro-establishment narrative unles the Dems make significant, even surpising gains in the midterms.
Pachacutec |
02.07.06 - 8:47 am | #
Wilbo, that church burning stuff rankles the hell out of me? Who is doing it?
Are they going to blame the Muslims? Or as Chris Matthews has already done, the gays?
It is just strange and I don't know who or why it is being done, but nothing appears to be what it is anymore.
We have entered the Bush/Rove Dystopia and it is pretty shitty all around.
-GSD
Granite State Destroyer |
02.07.06 - 8:51 am | #
Hope you're wrong rukus. There's another thing we can do - create a firestorm in defense of the Constitution by making sure that we are solidly against the administration in this to the point of meaningful protest. (Not just marches - I'm talking about something that affects the economy such as a general strike or something.) This is what we should be talking about and planning.
sola mia |
02.07.06 - 8:51 am | #
I don't really get what the bombshells are here. We already knew (from Dickerson's previous articles, as well as those of other reporters) that there was a coordinated effort by the White House to entice reporters to find out who in the CIA sent Joe Wilson to Niger.
The only new and surprising thing to me in his article is that Fitz got the timeline wrong. I find that a little disturbing, even if it is a small detail. It makes me wonder if he's gotten other stuff wrong, or has missed other details. (In addition to the Woodward bombshell of November '05.) I don't buy that Fitz got the timeline wrong on purpose to trap anybody. As he said in his October press conference, they didn't try to bluff anyone. It just strains credulity that he would intentionally put something that he knew was factually incorrect, on the record.
Lobstergirl |
02.07.06 - 8:57 am | #
Fitz gets more praise than his performance to date deserves- and sometimes more blame than is justified by the facts..
The fact is- we have no friggin idea whether he's dragging his feet due to timidity in the face of presidential power- or if he's hot on the scent of something that will bring the Clusterfuck down- and just dottin I's and crossin T's..
I remain agnostic on the guy.. if he hasn't done anything by the midterms- I'd say he's ducking political pressure.
rwcole |
02.07.06 - 8:58 am | #
Two questions for the prosecuters here at this great blog;
What is the method of execution for treason? Is the perp given a choice? I seem to remember that McVeigh may have had a choice between lethal injection or firing squad. Is hanging still on the books?
Now for the big question:
In most arrests,when an office or home is "raided", all computers are seized as are any and all documents. Everything is analyzed. Now would not the lists of political opponents that are being spyed upon be found right in Rove's office? When Rove is arrested, everything that we need is right in that office! I hope Fitz does the right thing and does not allow Rove to "turn himself in". The spy list, the enemies list, the no-fly list, the list of extorted congressmen and senators(and what is being held over their heads), it's all in that office! Or there will be info there on where else to look.
Hardleft |
02.07.06 - 9:00 am | #
Pachacutec | 02.07.06 - 8:47 am
Bullseye.
We're fighting the Rethugs and the TM at the same time (a two-front war). As bad as it is, the odds against our winning aren't nearly as long as General Washington's were at Valley Forge.
John Casper |
02.07.06 - 9:04 am | #
Excellent synopsis with commentary. I think I've got it now. Thanks.
Slothrop |
02.07.06 - 9:07 am | #
The image of that measly ill-spoken expert on the Soviet Union, who also has an oil tanker named after her, slinking back to the AF1 press cabin to slur the CIA, after she spent her post-piano career sucking up to powerful men and "tutoring" W about the world outside the USA, makes me ill.
-
How ever did we let this amateur, no-account, feeble-minded cabal take over our great land?
-
TeddySanFran |
02.07.06 - 9:07 am | #
new thread
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 9:08 am | #
new thread: political blackmail
John Casper |
02.07.06 - 9:08 am | #
Is it just me, but the Dickerson comment, "but he's got the timing wrong" might very well be code to Fitz saying "you don't know the half of it and I can help you prove conspiracy?"
I cannot imagine that Fitz wouldn't at least chat with Dickerson, if not outright have the GJ hear his testimony. I really think that it's quite significant as ReddHedd pointed out vis-a-vis conspiracy. Now, all we need to see is that Fitz's got proof that Rove knew Plame was covert, and he can charge the whole lot of 'em with conspiracy to out an agent or to pass classified information. And probably a subset of them with conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Now, I know that section 422 of title 15 says conspiracy is generally off the table for IIPA, but it has two important exceptions: those who engage in a pattern of outing agents and those who have authorized access to classified information. I think the members of WHIG very nicely fit the second exception.
Oh my, this Rove indictment could be a doozy. Which is exactly what Fitz wants. If he's ever going to get the King and his preznit, he needs Rove to flip. And the only way to do that is to hammer Rove with so many charges that he's facing significant jail time no matter what.
viget |
02.07.06 - 9:13 am | #
OT
" Wilbo, that church burning stuff rankles the hell out of me? Who is doing it?
Are they going to blame the Muslims? Or as Chris Matthews has already done, the gays?
His carefully constructed facade is crumbling, revealing the manimal inside.
freefall |
02.07.06 - 9:15 am | #
GDS-Yep, quite suspicious indeed. WTF! sola mia-Yep, disinvest in the death & fear cult. Redd & Jane-your rockin' & keep on pumpin' up the volume!
wilbo |
02.07.06 - 9:15 am | #
I am not agnostic on Fitz. I think he's the Second Coming. And I definitely don't think he's dragging his feet on anything, or in any way shape or form is timid in the face of any kind of political pressure. At all. I do not think political considerations enter his mind at all. I think he's brilliant. I think his mind is like a steel trap. He's the best of the best. Still, he's 0.00001% human, and thus capable of making eensy mistakes. If things are moving at a glacial pace, it's because he's being thorough or because people are resisting. (See Judy Miller.)
Lobstergirl |
02.07.06 - 9:15 am | #
Karl's facade, that is.
freefall |
02.07.06 - 9:16 am | #
Redd
I've been meaning to post this for a while and finally got around to it. We need to remember that there's a big push by commercial organisations against internet users. There needs to be a balance between the copyright owners and internet users and there's no doubt that commerial firms have on occasion been guilty of abuse of process for fishing expeditions. There are other concerns too such as anonymous speech and defamation.
I've blogged about two resources that all of us need to know about here it here:here. I tried to post a whole heap of links but have fallen foul of haloscan's link limit so please excuse the "blog whoring"
Reading Dickerson's Slate article makes me think of Ledeen and where those forged documents originated. If they were that nervous........and normally unflappable, then......methinks it's a much larger conspiracy than Wilson/Plame. Where did those documents originate? Outing Plame is bad enough. Planting false documents as an aid to push for war? Hey, haven't there been stories lately about reporter payola for party line "reporting"? You don't think that....? Hello, Fitzy?
UnMask911 |
02.07.06 - 9:29 am | #
I think the reason Fitz didn't go after Dickerson is that he didn't want to go after any more reporters than he felt he had to. He didn't want any First Amendment battles, despite what the reporters who fought all the way to SCOTUS said.
If he had enough statements from Rove, Libby, etc. that the other reporters' testimony could directly prove was false (while also providing all that backfill at the same time) why go after Dickerson? He would still need the contradictory evidence provided by people like Judy.
Dover Bitch |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 9:43 am | #
Re: Planting false documents as an aid to push for war:
History will not be kind to the Republicans who rolled over under pressure from Karl Rove. Nor will it be kind to the MSM who buckled under threats of no access and an angry mob of letters and calls from a gullible right wing cabal. If there is one thing most senators of any stature probably have in common, it is a concern for their legacy, their place in history and how it is recorded. Even Bush, apparently. It seems to me that now would be a good time for leading Democrats to start talking about that legacy and how history will treat decent men who sold their principles under threat by a mob enforcer like Rove. And make no mistake, this will come out. Our leaders can make a moving and articulate narrative of the downfall of the Republican Party, and this country's reduced status in the world by talking about this. Sometimes, I don't know if it's ignorance by our leaders or just reticence to discuss the ugly truth of how Bush has brought this country to this pass, and his consigliere Rove's role in strong-arming the party into conformity and the media into wimpiness.
txdemfem |
02.07.06 - 10:07 am | #
" and willing to toss out the name of a covert CIA operative without a thought to the consequences (Rove, Libby, anyone?)...and shut up critics in the CIA who weren't comfortable taking the blame for the President's and other Administration officials' false public statements. "
When you say "without a thought to the consequences," I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps you're saying without having thought through all the potential legal consequences, which, in some sense, is true, or at least seems with 20/20 hindsight true given the way the case has played out.
But what's really amazing is Dickerson's close, and you rightly draw that out, because it demonstrates how much thought they had given to this and how pre-meditated and deliberate, as well as concerted and coordinated this effort was. They clearly had thought about the legal consequences. Libby and Rove, at least, were simply persuaded that the government would not get to the reporter's sources. They clearly knew something about her NOC status. We now have the memos to prove it, but even without that Dickerson discerns this just based on their conduct.
The bottom line is that they ALL KNEW EXACTLY what they were doing. They were putting a political hit on a CIA agent, and thereby sending a message to the rest of the CIA that this administration was happy to ruin careers to get the CIA to do as it was told. Theis is the smoking gun of sleazebagdom for every one involved. They're all just as bad as Rove and Libby.
MSB |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 10:10 am | #
Folks
I've got a suggestion for the timing and content of Dickerson's story.
He's basically saying, "Fitzgerald, you need to go back and question Bartlett."
We know (per pollyusa and Swopa) who Dickerson's two SAOs were, Ari and then Bartlett. And we know precisely the extent of Ari's involvement with this, simply that Libby told him on July 7 and he pushed it forward by the end of the week (sorry Swopa, your 1 X 2 X 6 story still doesn't work).
But it appears likely that Bartlett got the marching orders to push this leak from someone. There are likely places he may have gotten those marching orders, such as at the end of the June 11 or 12 meeting at the WH where Grossman reported on Plame's alleged role. Yet it's not clear Bartlett has testified as much.
Dickerson is basically doing what he'd do in testimony, filling in holes he thinks Fitz might have. If Bartlett hasn't explain how he learned this and who directed him to spread this, then he's likely guilty of obstruction. Now, it's possible he's the missing (Woodward, Pincus) source, who has presumably testified fully. But if not, I can imagine he might be making another trip to the GJ.
emptywheel |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 10:11 am | #
Redd
Is it your assessment that Fitz will avoid charging any of these players for the original outing of Plame? It would seem to me if he could stick to conspiracy to obstruct justice, perjury etc. he would not then fall into the trap of being asked to reveal classified material and risk a possible dismissal?
Punishment for these crimes would be eqivolent ?
Kathi |
02.07.06 - 10:20 am | #
Not to quibble, nor to steal your well-deserved kudos, but in the interest in giving credit where credit is due, did you not allude to the fact one "reader angel" S.D. is the one who gave the letter and the court docs to you in the first place?
mardou |
02.07.06 - 10:22 am | #
You note: "... because he references conversations with them about e-mails he had exchanged on the subject and their testimony, along with Coopers."
Now, let's say that Mr. Fitzgerald has any of those emails, then he'd potentially have what he needs to determine which emails were selectively deleted from PCs in the Office of the VP and Executive Office.
Just saying ...
UL
understandinglife |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 10:25 am | #
Has everybody read this? Case for Condi being the one. It's old, and a tad long, but worth reading
and more relevant all the time.
Go to Roger Morris article.
Kate |
02.07.06 - 10:25 am | #
About the Bombshell(s)- Could this be it?
In Dickerson's article, he states that two "senior administration officials" , at two different times during the Africa trip, attempted to steer Dickerson toward the "real story"- find out who sent Wilson, and you will know.
Later on in Dickerson's article he states
"All administrations discredit their critics through whispers to reporter, but we had not seen high-level Bush people do anything like this in the past. It suggested desperation and unsteadiness in a ***NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM***that had often been heralded for it's smooth competency.
I understand from Swopa's comments upthread that Bartlett and Fleischer steered clusters of reporters, but does this necessarily imply that those are the two administration officials Dickerson spoke with? Could another team of players (on the National Security Team- like Rice) have steered Dickerson, the Times reporter????
The fact that Dickerson specifically mentions "National Security Team" has me wondering .
cici |
02.07.06 - 10:27 am | #
Addendum to above- Ari and Bartlett steered Newsweek, but was another two senior administration officials steering Time?
cici |
02.07.06 - 10:29 am | #
Reading Dickerson's Slate article makes me think of Ledeen and where those forged documents originated
UnMask911
Some time ago I saw a reference to Hadley meeting with the head of Italian Intell in wash. a week before those docs surfaced. Hadley's office did not record the meeting, claim it was only 15 minutes long and can't remember what it was about. Anyone remember that story? Times, I think. I never saw another mention of this anywhere.
Kate |
02.07.06 - 10:31 am | #
It would seem to me if he could stick to conspiracy to obstruct justice, perjury etc. he would not then fall into the trap of being asked to reveal classified material and risk a possible dismissal?
Kathi
Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Of course, they're trying to do the same thing with their kitchen sink discovery demands.
Kate |
02.07.06 - 10:37 am | #
maybe i am a dumbass...
but if Rove told Cooper that Plame sent Wilson to Niger...
isn't that divulging classified info right there?
i thought Cooper's email was the nail in Rove's coffin...
But it appears likely that Bartlett got the marching orders to push this leak from someone. There are likely places he may have gotten those marching orders, such as at the end of the June 11 or 12 meeting at the WH where Grossman reported on Plame's alleged role.
How about from Ari, who was right there with him on Air Force One?
I think the odds are about zero that Bartlett hasn't testified already, in great detail. But I presume that his defense, like Fleischer's, is that they were just following orders from Rove and/or Libby.
Swopa |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 10:49 am | #
This made me feel that perhaps Fitz is not an empty promise. It would be satisfying that the much vaunted message "discipline" ( saying the exact same thing at the same minute same hour same day)would be the thing to bring them down. Some admire it, but some of us consider for what it is: robotons.
k |
02.07.06 - 11:16 am | #
Kate,
Stay far away from anything Roger Morris writes. See here for details.
Some excerpts:
... I've long considered Condi Rice to be a dishonest, incompetent partisan hack, just like any other sensible American. But Roger Morris took a triple-somersault dive into the mire during the Clinton-hating frenzy with a book called Partners in Power, and there's no reason to think he's regained either his scruples or his marbles since then.
... the Morris article about Rice and Valerie Wilson contains several assertions that have are either provably false or have never been made elsewhere, including the following: [list snipped, see link]
... as far as I can tell, is the basic M.O. used by Morris throughout his purported timeline [is to] start with what's been reported in the media, then sprinkle in "with Rice's approval" or "Rice was briefed on this" wherever possible.
Given the author's previous history with dubious scandal-mongering, there's no reason to believe a single word Morris writes that goes beyond already-established facts. The overwhelming likelihood is that he's trying to scrape together a buck or two by telling Bush-hating progressives what they want to hear, just as he pandered to Clinton-hating conservatives with Partners in Power.
Swopa |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 11:18 am | #
The more I think about it, the more I wonder about Team Libby's release of that letter -- and who might have been the intended recipient of some pretty heavy smoke signals.
All the inactivity caused me to forget about Rule #1 of the Plameologist's Handbook ... "Think about who leaked it and why." I hadn't even stopped to think about how and why I was being allowed to read that Fitz letter until I read this post.
Do we know for sure that the Fitz letter bombshell was leaked by Team Libby?
obsessed |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 11:18 am | #
Kate,
Morris is untrustworthy in general and has many inaccuracies in that article. While I don't rule out Condi being involved, that's not the case for it.
emptywheel |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 11:27 am | #
If Fitz was trying to flush something out of the underbrush with his letter to Libby's lawyers, he's gotten a whole brace of fat pigeons with this missive.
Is there a reason Fitzgerald has not subpoenaed Dickerson in the last two years? Seems easier than the somewhat convoluted strategy of hiding a letter in a .pdf file to be found (or not) later.
Bonus Point - with raw Stroy last week, and again in this sotry, Dickerson has denied being contacted *after* Fitzgerald took over.
But still no comment from him on whether he chatted with the FBI in the fall of 2003.
And why was Fitzgerald *not* interested in confirming the version told by Ari (we bet) and the other Senior Admin official?
Tom Maguire |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 11:28 am | #
Well, I've been saying for months that I think Condi is in the middle of all this. Consider the following:
She's the one who blamed the CIA in that press gaggle, shortly before telling all the reporters collectively that they "should ask the Agency at what level [Wilson's trip] was known in the Agency."
Rice, in that press gaggle, also claimed the first she heard about Wilson's trip was on a the set of a TV show, presumably This Week with George Stephanopoulos. We now know that details of Wilson's trip were in the PDB's that Rice handed to the president. Wilson also claimed to have been turned away by Rice's "intermediaries" when he tried to talk to her about his trip.
She's the freaking National Security Advisor and the president's most trusted associate. Everything went through her. Everything.
Hadley is her deputy. Everything that was going on with him... his meeting with SISMI chief Nicolo Pollari about the Niger forgeries, the decision to put the 16 words back in... all of that had to be going on in plain view of Condi.
The Washington Post reported that Cheney's "allies" in the NSC were tasked with digging up dirt on Wilson. How is it possible for more than one member of the NSC to go on a fact-finding mission in conjunction with the CIA, without Condi, in charge of the NSC agenda, knowing about it?
Condi was a member of both the NSC and WHIG, which puts her in every key meeting in which the smear campaign might have been discussed.
After Rove told Cooper about Plame, he emailed Hadley to tell him about the conversation. Hadley relayed the info to Condi. Soon after, other SAO's were talking with reporters about Plame.
Dover Bitch |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 11:29 am | #
Tom -- my hunch is that he has hard copies of the e-mails between Dickerson and the officials that match up with whatever testimony both have given. Good catch on the "since Fitz took over" -- one wonders about the pre-Fitz interviews that may have taken place under Ashcroft's helm.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 11:39 am | #
Obsessed -- well, it was attached as an exhibit to the Libby Motions, and as far as I know that has been the only source for the letter. It wasn't out there until it hit the federal pacer system.
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 11:40 am | #
Don't be seduced by a kind mention in print, Redd. While Dickerson is humble, both personally and on behalf of the profession, that's really only appropriate.
Keep in mind the fact that beginning with that July 2003 trip, the press corps had very good reason to believe that the Administration had committed a serious crime for political reasons. As a group, with few exceptions, they have covered for the Administration. Even now, Byron York is spinning the ridiculous fable that Plame was not covered... but until a few months ago, many reporters were also ignoring the fact that the CIA had made the referral and that the DoJ had, after granting the criminals time to destroy e-mail, agreed.
Since Judy Miller spoke up to say she was discussing Plame with Libby on June 25th, everyone knows that the attempt to discredit Wilson *preceded* the publication of his OpEd on July 6th. So, the July trip was really pretty deep into the game.
Dickerson says that Cooper learned about Wilson's wife on July 11th. Novak's column was on the 14th. Since he had to make some phone calls, he presumably began it a few days earlier. So, Time mag was presumably part of the same dump as Novak.
I think journalists, including John Dickerson, have a lot to be humble about. Furthermore, I don't see that the basic story has truly been advanced.
Libby's trial has been put off. The appeals line in the courts guarantees that the case can be bottled up and screwed up. The only counter to that is political pressure, and what generates political pressure is news.
What we need from a free press is on-record statements by "senior Administration officials" about what happened and why it is wrong.
Charles |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 11:41 am | #
Yikes, thanks swopa, emptywheel. I had never heard of him.
To quote Lily Tomlin: I thought I was cynical, but they keep catching up with me.
Kate |
02.07.06 - 11:44 am | #
Let me elaborate a little further on this Condi thing... EVERYBODY IN THE WHIG IS INVOLVED IN THIS!
It seems likely to me that these guys all thought that they could plant this "go find out" seed and then, as soon as the reporters identified Plame, they could go on record all over the place discrediting Wilson/Plame. When Cooper started looking for confirmation on what he knew, they all thought it was "fair game" time.
They already believed that the CIA was working against them. They threw down the gauntlet when Rice blamed them for the 16 words. It would have gone without question to Rove, Condi and Co. that someone in the CIA would leak Plame to the reporters with a little prodding. In their minds, the CIA was already talking too much -- Wilson (and by association, Plame) as the prime example. Also, in their world, using the media to destroy other people is business as usual (see: lamenting the "criminalization of politics").
But, Plame's identity came from one of their own -- Rove -- so instead of being a smear campaign designed to react to the news, it was a smear campaign supporting its own leak.
Had a reporter gotten the information from some other source, like within the CIA, then it might have been a dastardly and unpatriotic example of a group of people pushing the line as far as it can possibly be pushed. But when you play with this kind of fire, even the smallest mistake changes the situation from dastardly to criminal. Rove as the source changes the equation from leading the reporters to the brink of outing Plame (which a lawyer like Redd might say is still illegal) to conspiring to blatantly out her -- definitely criminal conspiracy.
Dover Bitch |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 11:47 am | #
I just realized that my last post here is basically contained already in one well-written paragraph of Redd's post. So, I should've just left well enough alone. But my point is simply that I think they're all guilty.
Dover Bitch |
Homepage |
02.07.06 - 11:51 am | #
Everyone,
Fitz knows everything! Remember he has a snitch who was in the Administration telling everything. The person whoever it is was part of destroying Ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie. I don't remember where I read it, but the person is very sorry for what they did. They are telling Fitz everything to clear their conscience.
Everyone, again, Fitz knows everything! Everyone, pray that the truth comes out!!!!!!
Bwall |
02.07.06 - 12:20 pm | #
Legal actions can really stretch out over time. Perhaps, even to the end of 2008.
Can you spell PRESIDENTAL PARDONS??
yipster |
02.07.06 - 12:32 pm | #
Perhaps Fitz is waiting for February 2009 to drop his biggest bombs?
We may not experience the nirvana of seeing BushCo humiliated with indictments, impeachments, and/or resignations before the term is up, but we will still get the collective satisfaction of Bush not being able to pardon anyone.
avenging angel |
02.07.06 - 12:42 pm | #
The public don't care really so Bush and his cronies just keep on doing illegal acts.
Until there is public outcry or someone dies because of Rove's action, then maybe Americans will care. I compare it to car manufacturers you know. Car manufacturers don't ever recall defective cars unless bodies litter our streets.
I saw a poll yesterday I think that 57%, yes 57% favor bombing Iran. WTF !
jess |
02.07.06 - 12:52 pm | #
Guaranteed that Fitzgerald is going to have a chat with the intrepid Time reporter after his article!
Guess he just might be asked to name the senior administration officials, and to capture in front of the grand jury or the FBI or prosecutor's team, the essence of those discussions ...
Amazing how the story is coming together, isn't it? And how a grand jury will see it, once all strands from so many different sources, are gathered together by a professional fact-gatherer like Fitzgerald.
CuriosityKilledTheCat |
02.07.06 - 1:07 pm | #
Great article Mr. D. Loved every bit of it. Very very interesting.
noshrub |
02.07.06 - 1:32 pm | #
Pardons will be forthcoming after the mid-term elections...Bush and Cheney will resign and the Supremes will get to decide if Nancy Pelosi will become the first female POTUS or it will be Denny Hastert. It will be riveting!
Rich |
02.07.06 - 2:20 pm | #
Sorry if this has already been mentioned as I didn't have time to read all the comments, but Media Matters notes that Dickerson was one of three reporters (along w/Cooper and Duffy) who participated in publishing a Time article, in 2003, that implied Rove was not involved in outing Plame--at a time when all three, not just Cooper, knew that Rove was, in fact, Cooper's source. Great journalistic ethics, there.
Leslie in CA |
02.07.06 - 2:32 pm | #
Kate, re: Hadley meeting w/the Italians--Josh over at TPM had something on this. He said that Hadley was spotted meeting w/the Italians a week before the forged Niger documents surfaced in D.C. (the phony intelligence from the documents had been circulating through multiple channels for some time before that, but the documents themselves had not been physically produced). This was around October 2002.
Leslie in CA |
02.07.06 - 2:35 pm | #
The only account I have of Barlett's testimony is from this 7/27/05 WaPo by Pincus.
Barlett told investigators that he didn't know about Plame.
Dan Bartlett, the most senior communications strategist in the White House, has also told investigators that he did not know who Ms. Wilson was, according to a person who has been briefed on the case.
Few if any reporters who traveled with Mr. Fleischer, Mr. Bartlett and the White House entourage that week have been called to testify before the grand jury. A background briefing during the trip in which Mr. Bartlett spoke with reporters and urged them to look into the C.I.A.'s role in sending Mr. Wilson to Niger has not drawn substantial interest from prosecutors recently.
One source familiar with the case said Mr. Fitzgerald knew about the briefing but was apparently not pursuing it as a significant lead.
A different person, who has been briefed on the investigation, said, "If Bartlett spoke to the issue, it was to suggest to reporters to inquire at the C.I.A. because it was the C.I.A. that had control of the issue."
That individual added that Mr. Bartlett did not see the classified State Department memorandum.
"Discrediting your opposition is a standard tactic in Washington, but the Bush team usually played the game differently. -- Dickerson
He must be a shill for the Bushies.
He repeated this a couple of times and the worst was near the end of part II.
MarkH |
02.07.06 - 6:05 pm | #
"...but Fitz hasn't discovered the communication that proves that they knew of her covert status- so they can claim that they thought she was just an analyst or some such- is that about it?" -- rwcole 02.07.06
Oh, I think that's known. I seem to recall reading that someone had tasked Libby with learning about Wilson and he had found the information from CIA and when he informed Cheney he found Cheney had also learned it from another CIA source. Sorry, I can't provide a cite. It's been a while since I read that.
MarkH |
02.07.06 - 6:27 pm | #
"I saw a poll yesterday I think that 57%, yes 57% favor bombing Iran. WTF !" -- jess 02.07.06
But, there's a poll which says 63% favor bombing Norway and a full 86% still favor bombing the Soviet Union. :-)
MarkH |
02.07.06 - 6:49 pm | #
I believe that the WHIG wanted to out Valerie Plame for a far more important reason than getting back at Joe Wilson. Given the nature of her responsibilities, she and other covert operatives that she worked with were keeping tabs on nuclear proliferation and WMDs. That means that they likely were looking into the forged Niger documents because that subject matter was within their area of interest. They would have wanted to know if the alleged purchase of uranium yellowcake was true and, if not, who planted the forgeries and why did they do it? Given the WHIG's desperation to out Plame, which effectively outed the rest of her group, can there be any doubt that the true motive was to prevent them from discovering the truth about the forgeries? If I'm right, we need look no farther than the WHIG to find the culprits.
Hmn . . . Let me think, forgeries = dirty tricks = Karl Rove.
The only remaining question is what did King George know about this and when did he know it?
Mason |
02.07.06 - 9:56 pm | #
I'm not usually into redheads but, you, I like!
Great article.
Thanks so much.
Z New Fan |
02.07.06 - 11:27 pm | #
I'm not usually into redheads but, you, I like!
Great article.
Thanks so much.
Z New Fan |
02.07.06 - 11:41 pm | #
That tells me his ass needs to be fried, all of em are ripe for conspiracy charges!!!
They've been busy alright...next dickerson gets subpoenaed, to confirm the conspiracy. Grand Jury can vote conspiracy charges. This snafu is going to be stringing up boys by their finelines...
Scott Mcllellan |
Homepage |
02.08.06 - 12:23 am | #
This makes some pieces fall into place. The "senior administration officials" who were on the plane to Africa were careful not to name Plame, just to urge the reporters to find who sent Wilson, presumably knowing that the answer would be embarassing. It is well-established that the State Dept investigation memo was on the plane said that Plame was involved in sending Wilson, BUT THAT PARAGRAPH WAS MARKED AS SECRET. So people who were involved mostly through reading the memo on the plane would know to be discrete. But Rove in Washington may not have seen the physical memo with the physical SECRET marking, only heard the contents verbally without the disclaimer, so he got careless and confirmed Wilson's wife's involvement instead of just urging reporters to find out.
Anonymous Coward |
02.08.06 - 4:30 pm | #
