These people are problem-solvers! I hope Conyers accepts WO's volunteer offer, but you don't think WO would fix facts around the preferred outcome, do you? I don't. WO reminds me of Mike Ruppert. Ed.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
The Bushies are going to fight the subpoena; they have to. There's no way in hell they can let those documents and emails see the light of day. Anyone who's been paying attention knows that the Bushies are done, deader than doornails, if they obey the subpeona(s).
So what will they do? Seems to me the WH only has two options:
1. Just ignore the subpoenas, which would mean finding the WH/DoJ in contempt. Does Congress go to the court then? Or send the Sargeant-at-Arms to enforce the subpeonas?
2. Comply in dribs and drabs. This seems a likelier scenario, since it avoids a legal showdown. Unless the Committees call them on it - but can they? They'd be working with an obvious but unprovable assertion that the response is dilatory. Can they issue a contempt order for foot-dragging?
Assuming either one, where does that leave Gonzales' appointment to testify on the 17th?
If the WH delays or ignores the supbpoenas, would Congress reschedule his testimony for after the showdown over the subpeonas? Or would the hearing go forward, and the subpoena fight continue at the same time?
Posted by: CaseyL | April 10, 2007 at 19:17
---------
Gonzales still testifies. Even if he resigns first, he still testifies. If he doesn't show, subpoena his ass.
I don't think he's going to show.
Posted by: tekel | April 10, 2007 at 20:05
---------
CaseyL--I don't see how they're going to fight this. If they miss the deadline, I think Conyers is just going to send the Sergeant-at-Arms over there to confiscate the computers. This has "last chance" written all over it.
Posted by: Frank Probst | April 10, 2007 at 20:07
---------
I'll agree with Casey, because there's so much there to hide. Part of the problem for the D's is that because they allowed W to pack the courts with ideologues, they may actually lose the rulings even though they have a strong objective case.
It's all about protecting W, Cheney,and Karl, at all costs.
Posted by: rugger9 | April 10, 2007 at 20:09
---------
TPM says the DoJ will fight the subpeonas as overly broad and intrusive.
A commenter there noted that neither the Senate nor the House has the authority to "civilly" enforce a subpoena, or a contempt order. I don't know if that means Congress does have authority to enforce a criminal order - and I don't know if Congress has the authority to even issue a criminal citation.
It'll have to go to the courts. That runs out the clock, if nothing else.
Posted by: CaseyL | April 10, 2007 at 20:48
---------
Conyers' people came across something big. They have Abu by the short hairs, and they showed just enough to let him know he's screwed no matter what, and big time. And so the subpoena is really just an invitation to get him a little bit off the hook. He's still going to be hooked. If this goes to the Supremes, and it surely will, the DOJ will lose. And though people still talk about running out the clock, remember, it's April 2007, and the clock will run to around September 2008. They've got lots of time, and lots of time to Impeach Bush in December 2008 to cut off the pardons.
Posted by: knut wicksell | April 10, 2007 at 20:49
---------
knut
We don't have that much time. At least in my state (one USA purged, the other seemingly bought off), the voter purge they've got planned will already be well under way.
They need to get Gonzales and Bush out by July 2008 at the latest if we really want to ensure the USA purge doesn't have its desired effect.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 10, 2007 at 20:52
---------
Oh man, I've been waiting for them to ask for this. I wonder if they'll release the files on their website. If not, I'll happily volunteer to help with the forensics.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 10, 2007 at 20:59
---------
Please do, WO, I haven't seen you this engaged since we considered how Rove's Hadley email could have escaped detection. I think we've got a pretty good idea of how that may have happened. But the technical fun, it seems, is just starting.
I'd be curious, btw, if you put a comment up about the full letter to Hertling. I skimmed the interesting non-technical details, but I'm curious if you think Conyers hit all the possible high spots.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 10, 2007 at 21:14
---------
Casey,
The House has no civil contempt procedure. The Senate does, but it's not available as against executive branch actors. But either House may avail itself of criminal contempt, either statutory or inherent. Since statutory contempt is prosecuted at the discretion of the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, that's an unlikely route. Inherent contempt, however, is prosecuted and adjudicated by the aggrieved House itself.
That's the only real answer to this problem. Unfortunately, key members of the leadership still believe that going to court is a feasible option. If the "administration" simply flatly defies the subpoenas, I don't think the courts will find a justiciable question, at least in the first instance. I think they'll dismiss it as a political question, at least if the "administration" simply refuses to acknowledge the right of the legislative branch to compel action by the executive.
Posted by: Kagro X | April 10, 2007 at 21:44
---------
Thanks, Kagro; that's exactly the information I was looking for.
Assuming the Senate and House do issue contempt orders, is that when the Sgt at Arms has to go serve/enforce them?
Does he take law enforcement officers? Assistants? Dollies and a Mack truck?
Does he have the authority to enter the building, and offices, and take file cabinets, computers, Blackberries, etc.?
Posted by: CaseyL | April 10, 2007 at 22:09
---------
I agree with everyone here about the big picture. But I wonder about the "little people" involved.
It is one thing for Fielding to order dribs and drabs to be released, and for gwb to declare "never in hell" and string out the legal case in the courts. I agree with everyone that that is likely.
But what is the liability of the staff attorneys in the Office of Counsel who read and physically segregate documents. When the Dems take over in January 2009 will the loyal service of the staff attorneys look like obstruction of justice?
Are there safe areas, danger areas and gray areas? What can they do safely? What can they safely pretend to know or not know?
And, by the way, who are these people?
Posted by: jwp | April 10, 2007 at 22:10
---------
Seems to me that Conyers and his staff have been ahead of the blogs suggestions. Is it possible that we should consider how exactly the Sergeant At Arms would go about his/her business? How does that work.[?] Apparently they have the right to arrest and detain even the POTUS. If Conyers doesn't like dicking around, and we have emails proving the gumming to death strategy is in full force, why would he go to the courts?
Also, on the subpoena, at the end it said that the person delivering the documents (is that Alberto?) is "not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee." So maybe if Gonzo doesn't produce, they can just lock him away in the House.
Posted by: tomj | April 10, 2007 at 22:32
---------
I wonder if the WH tech people image the computers (that is, make a copy of all the stuff that's on them) in case they need to restore or rebuild it? Would that include any e-mail that's on it, in Outlook or whatever program they use? Who would have control of the images? Could the committees get hold of those?
(Just thinking off the top of my head. The company I work for does archive e-mails. Don't know for how long, but we're expected to keep the business stuff for legal reasons.)
Posted by: P J Evans | April 10, 2007 at 22:49
---------
It might be a good idea to run the Abramoff stuff through again, looking for USA and voting stuff. (I just did a quick pass through).
Susan Ralston was using addresses at rnchq.org in 2001-2002 and georgewbush.com in 2002-2004.
There's also an e-mail from Abramoff complaining about something getting into the WH e-mail system in 2003 (932_001 p 14 of 52, or p 16 of 52 - I was sticking it in a Notepad file and the system hung before I could save or post.)
Posted by: P J Evans | April 10, 2007 at 23:59
---------
bcc: data is very important, and I forgot about it. Conyers has good staff.
We still also haven't seen emails originating from RNC servers, only ones cited in .gov server replies. And native format plus metadata also means the revision history of Word documents, which provides dating evidence on docs that had been collaboratively edited.
I hope that Conyers can do a tag-team with Waxmanon this w/r/t security and archiving requirements. Because I'm pretty certain that a free-and-clear backchannel and a security clearance are mutually exclusive.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | April 11, 2007 at 00:46
---------
I realize we're a ways yet from the point where this is a concern, but might not the RNC have a slight problem of its own, you know, potentially, if e-mails discussing obstruction of justice schemes show up on servers it let people use? Especially since they seem to be holding the beneficial end of a lot of those schemes. At least, might they not have to explain some things in public about how they determine who uses their stuff and what kinds of business-like monitoring they do?
I wonder if the party has missed their chance to cut these guys loose—if that were possible.
Posted by: prostratedragon | April 11, 2007 at 03:06
---------
ew,
I'll say this. Conyers has a good technical staff. I especially like the bit requesting the DOJ to image the computers of folks in the White House and at the RNC. The only bit I'm unclear on is whether he actually requested the physical computers of the people who left the DOJ (Sampson, Goodling, Battle). If I were running this show, I would definitely want those.
It's obvious from the document dumps so far that several important pieces of the puzzle are being held back. For example, we clearly don't have the first version of Sampson's Word document (USA Replacement Plan.doc) because in the earliest version from the document dump, Iglesias has already been tacked on at the end (out of order).
By the way, I'm absolutely serious about volunteering. If Conyers wants help, I'll take the time off from my day job and go to D.C. Piecing this stuff together can be tedious, but it is more rewarding than finishing the Sunday NYT Crossword.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 11, 2007 at 09:00
---------
Keep in mind that the more detailed citations were from April 2, when Conyers was still operating under the assumption of cooperation. I think he was just saying, "we'll be wanting Monica's computer," at that point, which would be consistent with his request elsewhere in the letter that they hold onto things.
But then we've got another few layers of escalation before the Seargant at Arms goes and seizes Monica's computer. Luckily, computers don't have Fifth Amendment privileges.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 11, 2007 at 09:41
---------
It just dawned on me why Conyers is suspicious of bcc's. There are at least a few occasions where Kyle Sampson forwarded an email his own account. The only reason I've ever seen to do that is so you can bcc somebody else (although in more recent versions of Outlook you don't need to do that, you can bcc somebody without anyone in the to: field). Again, somebody working for Conyers has been around the block a time or two.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 11, 2007 at 10:30
---------
EW--Do we assume that Pat Fitzgerald knows about the RNC emails? He is too smart to have missed that trick unless he was lied to about that and told that the RNC emails contained no official White House business? The discovery requests included emails but did they specify emails only from the White House server when KR was doing 90% of his from his RNC account/s?
And one more thing, please WO, call Conyers office, even if their tech person picks your brain to make sure they've covered everything.
Posted by: Jane S. | April 11, 2007 at 11:17
---------
ew,
Take a look at OAG000000239 - 241 (pg. 54-56 of DOJDocsPt7-2070319.pdf). Michael Elston sends an email with the subject "Without Cause" [Quote marks in the original] to Sampson, Scolinos, Roehrkasse, Goodling, and Moschella. Elston sends the email at 10:07 pm on 01/17/2007. At 10:11pm, Sampson hits "Reply All" and responds "Got it." At 1012pm, Sampson forwards the email to his own account. The only reasonable explanation for that is so he could bcc somebody else. I'll make a wild guess that the account that was bcc'ed was kr@georgewbush.com.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 11, 2007 at 11:31
---------
WO
Or, at the very least, AGAG. After all, one or the other scenario is what happened with the other forwarded email we were talking about.
In other words, either ROve or AGAG were informed of every step of this process. But they don't want us to know taht.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 11, 2007 at 11:57
---------
Rove, obviously. They could never have counted on Alberto keeping things straight.
Posted by: Mimikatz | April 11, 2007 at 12:28
---------
ew,
I don't think AGAG uses email much. On a slightly related note, I think Conyers, et. al., might want to start a conversation with RIM (the Canadian firm that runs the Blackberry Service) to see what they may have in the way of responsive documents.
Posted by: William Ockham | April 11, 2007 at 12:35
---------
Agree with both of you--it's most likely Rove. Just wanted to raise the possibility it's AGAG, bc it would explain why he's so damn flummoxed right now. Then again, so would Mimikatz' eplanation: he's flummoxed because he can't keep things straight.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 11, 2007 at 12:41
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
Secret Code -- Change The Subject!
Linked through from Crooks & Liars:
As Mark here points out, what does Plamegate have to do with Dr. Murphy's no-fly-list experiences and complaints? And what kind of 6th-grader mentality is the commenters' practice of insulting someone by de-capitalizing their name? Please. No wonder nothing can be taken seriously anymore.
I'm actually more surprised that they didn't jump all over Allen, below, for not believing Murphy's account. Ed.
-----------------------------------------------------------
How much is Bart DePalma being paid to divert our attention from the issue of the misuse of the terrorist watch list?
After all, none of the things he brings up have to do with the topic of the post, which is a clearly sourced story that illustrates how the Constitution is being dismantled by the Bush Administration.
Further, wasting the TSA's time harassing an "enemies list" is not the way to fight the real threat of terrorism. And why does "Brad" want us not to focus on this? Is Brad actually writing from Pakistan?
# posted by Mark : 8:10 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Everybody knows that Valerie Plame sent her lucky-ducky husband Joseph Wilson on a vacation junket to Niger. That trip was a completely government-funded boondoggle. Likely as not, Joseph Wilson spent his entire trip sipping cool juices on the verandas of colonial villas while being fanned by the lovely women of Niger. What's some "former ambassador" going to know about gather intelligence? Nothing, that's what. Hence the juices and gals.
Oh, and every right-thinking person knows that Richard Armitage unknowingly and without the slightest criminal intent let slip Valerie Plame's name a good, you know, 3-9 days before His Hoary Eminence Robert Novak ever heard about her from that innocent victim of a partisan witchhunt Scooter Libby.
# posted by Bart Depalma Jr. : 3:57 PM
----------
Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime
I'd have a bit more respect for the good professor if he was not repeating long disproven nonsense such as this. It makes me wonder about his concern for the facts in other cases, such as his encounter with the TSA.
# posted by flenser : 4:39 PM
----------
One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said.
That part of the story seems a little over the top to me. I just can't imagine anyone affiliated with the airlines or with security saying "we ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I don't think they would have a job for very long, and for that reason, I don't believe it was said. It makes the whole story somewhat unbelievable, IMHO. Not to say it didn't happen, but it is hard to believe.
# posted by Allen : 5:12 PM
----------
I'd have a bit more respect for the good professor if he was not repeating long disproven nonsense such as this. It makes me wonder about his concern for the facts in other cases, such as his encounter with the TSA.
I'm curious where and how you believe that "this" -- i.e., the outing of Plame in order to punish Wilson for his criticisms of the Administration -- was "disproven".
# posted by Mark Field : 5:49 PM
-----------
Mr. depalma
If you are so knowledgeable of the Plame case then perhaps you also know that Valerie Wilson DID NOT send her husband to Niger. She was asked to sound him out about going by other CIA officials.
Wilson had experience in Niger and it was thought he would be able to obtain any information about Iraq trying to buy yellow cake.
You must also know Valerie Wilson was pregnant at the time and would not want her husband gone if she could help it.
You would also be knowledgeable of how it came to be perceived that she sent her husband on the trip..a perception not investigated by either Rove or Cheney they just decided using this to discredit Wilson was more important than being truthful...something they excel at.
It appears you have selective studied the case and the facts.
# posted by Legerdmain : 6:22 PM
-----------
Mark Field said...
I'm curious where and how you believe that "this" -- i.e., the outing of Plame in order to punish Wilson for his criticisms of the Administration -- was "disproven".
Novak and his colleagues discovered the information about Plame weeks before Wilson lied in his NYT op-ed about finding no evidence in Niger that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium.
Novak and his colleges initiated the contacts with the Bush Administration, not the other way around.
Novak's initial source was a state department war critic who had no ax to grind with Wilson.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 7:13 PM
-----------
Legerdmain said...
Mr. depalma, If you are so knowledgeable of the Plame case then perhaps you also know that Valerie Wilson DID NOT send her husband to Niger. She was asked to sound him out about going by other CIA officials.
This is in dispute. The initial CIA source who claimed that Plame recommended her husband changed his story later on. Plame did not comment on her role for a long time and has recently testified to Congress under oath that she did not recommend Wilson.
In any case, what got the VP's office so ticked off was that Wilson lied about being sent by the VP's office to Niger. Why would Wilson make up this story if not to protect the person which did send him? If that person was a simple functionary at the CIA WMD office, the lie makes no sense. If it was a case of nepotism by his wife, the lie makes much more sense.
Wilson had experience in Niger and it was thought he would be able to obtain any information about Iraq trying to buy yellow cake.
Wilson was and is a political operative who had no background in WMD. The fact that Wilson was unqualified for the job and a Dem political operative was what caused Novak to wonder why the Bushies would have sent Wilson in the first place.
You must also know Valerie Wilson was pregnant at the time and would not want her husband gone if she could help it.
Right. And that is why she either recommended Wilson or at the very least helped recruit him.
You need to take what Wilson and Plame have with an enormous grain of salt.
Wilson is a political partisan with a long track record of self serving lies.
Plame has been assisting him in this smear campaign so her political motives are also suspect.
Plame and Wilson are parties to a lawsuit against members of the Bush Administration seeking money damages.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 7:32 PM
-----------
I'm curious where and how you believe that "this" -- i.e., the outing of Plame in order to punish Wilson for his criticisms of the Administration -- was "disproven".
# posted by Mark Field
Flenser has Stop The ACLU on his blogroll and reads The Anchoress.
Don't wear all black in D.C.
FBI Collected Intel on War Protesters in D.C., Lied About It
Where were all these skeptics back in 2003 before we invaded Iraq illegally based on lies?
El Cid's advice to us over at Glenn Greenwald's regarding Shooter 242, Bart's smarter brother:
Is this what people need to be filling up these pages with? Debating with someone who actually perceives a risk that the U.S. is in danger of 'surrendering' to an Islamic Caliphate and we risk in 50 years being forced to pray to Mecca 5 times a day?
If someone here raises a truly interesting point worthy of debate, then by all means, debate it.
But if someone declares in a snide aside that "What are you liberals going to do when the mole-men hatch from their lava eggs and start forcing the human women to bear their larval children?", do the readers of this blog really have to fill up 50 pages to respond to such mentally ill paranoia?
Heh.
# posted by JT Davis : 7:37 PM
-------------
bart, the dems will do you a big solid and investigate this along with all the other crime your "leaders" have engaged in, including stolen elections. Very few will escape without the moron-in-chief exercising pardon powers that won't extend to himself. You're in for a bad time, as supporters of criminals and torturers should be.
# posted by Ron : 7:38 PM
-------------
People should know that there is no purpose served in discussing these things with bart depalma. Clearly he suffers from a personality disorder that prevents him from noticing obvious things. He could probably be standing on a beach and insist that there was no ocean.
I don't quite understand why he thinks "hiring or firing" subordinates shouldn't be of interest to Congress, when the people who tasked to defend these decisions have repeatedly lied to Congress. Lying to Congress is a crime, after all.
It is interesting to see somebody so blithely uninterested in the idea that a US federal prosecutor could be fired because he refuses to engage in politically-motivated prosecutions during election season, or another prosecutor fired because she has been systematically indicting and convicting a Republican congressman and his cronies. But depalma is an intellectual lightweight. He problem thinks that the prosecutors were fired because of performance issues.
It's not an explanation that bears up under scrutiny, but scrutiny is not something that a person like mr. deplama does well.
# posted by whispers : 8:07 PM
-------------
depalma
Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate yellowcake sales not WMDs, ust yellowcake. He is and was familiar with Niger since all his diplomatic postings were in Africa.
I am also curious as to why a career CIA officer whose current job at the time of your nepotism accusation was about WMDs would send her husband on a boondoggle to Africa? I know, even though she had been covert for many years she was secretly plotting the destruction of the Bush administration.
Do you know why Cheney and Rove jumped on the boondoggle angle? Because someone from another agency wrote a memo about the Joe wilson debriefing meeting at the CIA. This guy came in late and asked who had chaired the meeting and was told Wilson's wife introduced him...which it turned out is all she did as she left and went back to her job.
You have nothing credible to substantiate your allegations but like so many others it isn't a dispassionate analysis of facts you are interested in, just dogma and agenda.
# posted by Legerdmain : 8:09 PM
-------------
Holy crap Bartman, where'd you find these people.
Stop dredging them up from the musty backrooms of CPUSA.
And I used to think Arne was bad . . .
# posted by Someone : 8:16 PM
-------------
If true, and unfortunately I find it all too unlikely, then it is precisely of a part with the firing of US Attorneys. "Bart Depalma"--Can you not see this such as abuse flows from the politicizing of government? Government should be used to reward loyal Bushies and punish those who dare to disagree with King George?
How low have we sunk as a democracy that "someone" can write such drivel with a smug sense of righteousness: "I think we all agree that someone shouldn't be on a terrorist watch list even if they participated in a peace march." Yes, even if.
"But .... some individuals associated with the sponsors of the so-called "peace marches" are affilitiated with less than reputable organization that might warrant scrutiny."
A selective police state. Marvelous.
Why oh why do you hate us for our freedoms?
# posted by Tara : 9:27 PM
------------
I've seen a lot of comments about a lot of different issues but Mr. DePalma's deranged drivel about The Plame Affair may take the prize.
Not one assertion true.
A sense of pathetic outrage that 'folks' won't 'believe' the way the Fascist Scum Cheney and Bush want them to.
The man must be scared witless.
# posted by A. Citizen : 9:34 PM
As Mark here points out, what does Plamegate have to do with Dr. Murphy's no-fly-list experiences and complaints? And what kind of 6th-grader mentality is the commenters' practice of insulting someone by de-capitalizing their name? Please. No wonder nothing can be taken seriously anymore.
I'm actually more surprised that they didn't jump all over Allen, below, for not believing Murphy's account. Ed.
-----------------------------------------------------------
How much is Bart DePalma being paid to divert our attention from the issue of the misuse of the terrorist watch list?
After all, none of the things he brings up have to do with the topic of the post, which is a clearly sourced story that illustrates how the Constitution is being dismantled by the Bush Administration.
Further, wasting the TSA's time harassing an "enemies list" is not the way to fight the real threat of terrorism. And why does "Brad" want us not to focus on this? Is Brad actually writing from Pakistan?
# posted by Mark : 8:10 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Everybody knows that Valerie Plame sent her lucky-ducky husband Joseph Wilson on a vacation junket to Niger. That trip was a completely government-funded boondoggle. Likely as not, Joseph Wilson spent his entire trip sipping cool juices on the verandas of colonial villas while being fanned by the lovely women of Niger. What's some "former ambassador" going to know about gather intelligence? Nothing, that's what. Hence the juices and gals.
Oh, and every right-thinking person knows that Richard Armitage unknowingly and without the slightest criminal intent let slip Valerie Plame's name a good, you know, 3-9 days before His Hoary Eminence Robert Novak ever heard about her from that innocent victim of a partisan witchhunt Scooter Libby.
# posted by Bart Depalma Jr. : 3:57 PM
----------
Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime
I'd have a bit more respect for the good professor if he was not repeating long disproven nonsense such as this. It makes me wonder about his concern for the facts in other cases, such as his encounter with the TSA.
# posted by flenser : 4:39 PM
----------
One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said.
That part of the story seems a little over the top to me. I just can't imagine anyone affiliated with the airlines or with security saying "we ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I don't think they would have a job for very long, and for that reason, I don't believe it was said. It makes the whole story somewhat unbelievable, IMHO. Not to say it didn't happen, but it is hard to believe.
# posted by Allen : 5:12 PM
----------
I'd have a bit more respect for the good professor if he was not repeating long disproven nonsense such as this. It makes me wonder about his concern for the facts in other cases, such as his encounter with the TSA.
I'm curious where and how you believe that "this" -- i.e., the outing of Plame in order to punish Wilson for his criticisms of the Administration -- was "disproven".
# posted by Mark Field : 5:49 PM
-----------
Mr. depalma
If you are so knowledgeable of the Plame case then perhaps you also know that Valerie Wilson DID NOT send her husband to Niger. She was asked to sound him out about going by other CIA officials.
Wilson had experience in Niger and it was thought he would be able to obtain any information about Iraq trying to buy yellow cake.
You must also know Valerie Wilson was pregnant at the time and would not want her husband gone if she could help it.
You would also be knowledgeable of how it came to be perceived that she sent her husband on the trip..a perception not investigated by either Rove or Cheney they just decided using this to discredit Wilson was more important than being truthful...something they excel at.
It appears you have selective studied the case and the facts.
# posted by Legerdmain : 6:22 PM
-----------
Mark Field said...
I'm curious where and how you believe that "this" -- i.e., the outing of Plame in order to punish Wilson for his criticisms of the Administration -- was "disproven".
Novak and his colleagues discovered the information about Plame weeks before Wilson lied in his NYT op-ed about finding no evidence in Niger that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium.
Novak and his colleges initiated the contacts with the Bush Administration, not the other way around.
Novak's initial source was a state department war critic who had no ax to grind with Wilson.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 7:13 PM
-----------
Legerdmain said...
Mr. depalma, If you are so knowledgeable of the Plame case then perhaps you also know that Valerie Wilson DID NOT send her husband to Niger. She was asked to sound him out about going by other CIA officials.
This is in dispute. The initial CIA source who claimed that Plame recommended her husband changed his story later on. Plame did not comment on her role for a long time and has recently testified to Congress under oath that she did not recommend Wilson.
In any case, what got the VP's office so ticked off was that Wilson lied about being sent by the VP's office to Niger. Why would Wilson make up this story if not to protect the person which did send him? If that person was a simple functionary at the CIA WMD office, the lie makes no sense. If it was a case of nepotism by his wife, the lie makes much more sense.
Wilson had experience in Niger and it was thought he would be able to obtain any information about Iraq trying to buy yellow cake.
Wilson was and is a political operative who had no background in WMD. The fact that Wilson was unqualified for the job and a Dem political operative was what caused Novak to wonder why the Bushies would have sent Wilson in the first place.
You must also know Valerie Wilson was pregnant at the time and would not want her husband gone if she could help it.
Right. And that is why she either recommended Wilson or at the very least helped recruit him.
You need to take what Wilson and Plame have with an enormous grain of salt.
Wilson is a political partisan with a long track record of self serving lies.
Plame has been assisting him in this smear campaign so her political motives are also suspect.
Plame and Wilson are parties to a lawsuit against members of the Bush Administration seeking money damages.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 7:32 PM
-----------
I'm curious where and how you believe that "this" -- i.e., the outing of Plame in order to punish Wilson for his criticisms of the Administration -- was "disproven".
# posted by Mark Field
Flenser has Stop The ACLU on his blogroll and reads The Anchoress.
Don't wear all black in D.C.
FBI Collected Intel on War Protesters in D.C., Lied About It
Where were all these skeptics back in 2003 before we invaded Iraq illegally based on lies?
El Cid's advice to us over at Glenn Greenwald's regarding Shooter 242, Bart's smarter brother:
Is this what people need to be filling up these pages with? Debating with someone who actually perceives a risk that the U.S. is in danger of 'surrendering' to an Islamic Caliphate and we risk in 50 years being forced to pray to Mecca 5 times a day?
If someone here raises a truly interesting point worthy of debate, then by all means, debate it.
But if someone declares in a snide aside that "What are you liberals going to do when the mole-men hatch from their lava eggs and start forcing the human women to bear their larval children?", do the readers of this blog really have to fill up 50 pages to respond to such mentally ill paranoia?
Heh.
# posted by JT Davis : 7:37 PM
-------------
bart, the dems will do you a big solid and investigate this along with all the other crime your "leaders" have engaged in, including stolen elections. Very few will escape without the moron-in-chief exercising pardon powers that won't extend to himself. You're in for a bad time, as supporters of criminals and torturers should be.
# posted by Ron : 7:38 PM
-------------
People should know that there is no purpose served in discussing these things with bart depalma. Clearly he suffers from a personality disorder that prevents him from noticing obvious things. He could probably be standing on a beach and insist that there was no ocean.
I don't quite understand why he thinks "hiring or firing" subordinates shouldn't be of interest to Congress, when the people who tasked to defend these decisions have repeatedly lied to Congress. Lying to Congress is a crime, after all.
It is interesting to see somebody so blithely uninterested in the idea that a US federal prosecutor could be fired because he refuses to engage in politically-motivated prosecutions during election season, or another prosecutor fired because she has been systematically indicting and convicting a Republican congressman and his cronies. But depalma is an intellectual lightweight. He problem thinks that the prosecutors were fired because of performance issues.
It's not an explanation that bears up under scrutiny, but scrutiny is not something that a person like mr. deplama does well.
# posted by whispers : 8:07 PM
-------------
depalma
Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate yellowcake sales not WMDs, ust yellowcake. He is and was familiar with Niger since all his diplomatic postings were in Africa.
I am also curious as to why a career CIA officer whose current job at the time of your nepotism accusation was about WMDs would send her husband on a boondoggle to Africa? I know, even though she had been covert for many years she was secretly plotting the destruction of the Bush administration.
Do you know why Cheney and Rove jumped on the boondoggle angle? Because someone from another agency wrote a memo about the Joe wilson debriefing meeting at the CIA. This guy came in late and asked who had chaired the meeting and was told Wilson's wife introduced him...which it turned out is all she did as she left and went back to her job.
You have nothing credible to substantiate your allegations but like so many others it isn't a dispassionate analysis of facts you are interested in, just dogma and agenda.
# posted by Legerdmain : 8:09 PM
-------------
Holy crap Bartman, where'd you find these people.
Stop dredging them up from the musty backrooms of CPUSA.
And I used to think Arne was bad . . .
# posted by Someone : 8:16 PM
-------------
If true, and unfortunately I find it all too unlikely, then it is precisely of a part with the firing of US Attorneys. "Bart Depalma"--Can you not see this such as abuse flows from the politicizing of government? Government should be used to reward loyal Bushies and punish those who dare to disagree with King George?
How low have we sunk as a democracy that "someone" can write such drivel with a smug sense of righteousness: "I think we all agree that someone shouldn't be on a terrorist watch list even if they participated in a peace march." Yes, even if.
"But .... some individuals associated with the sponsors of the so-called "peace marches" are affilitiated with less than reputable organization that might warrant scrutiny."
A selective police state. Marvelous.
Why oh why do you hate us for our freedoms?
# posted by Tara : 9:27 PM
------------
I've seen a lot of comments about a lot of different issues but Mr. DePalma's deranged drivel about The Plame Affair may take the prize.
Not one assertion true.
A sense of pathetic outrage that 'folks' won't 'believe' the way the Fascist Scum Cheney and Bush want them to.
The man must be scared witless.
# posted by A. Citizen : 9:34 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)