Redstate

This is what the GOP has accomplished. Was there not one person in the WH who had brains enough to just let this guy go. Joe Wilson should have been 'Cindyed'.

I wish the conduct of the CIA would get at least some attention from the MSM. Should we as citizens not be alarmed when the CIA works at cross purposes with the sitting administration? Sending someone with no intelligence gathering experience on an important intelligence gathering mission? In an agency crowded with experienced employees, this puffed-up egomaniac is the best they can do?

And they all seem too happy to forget that an Iraqi deligation did travel to Niger, a country whose only major export is uranium. Does anyone in the MSM care that Hussein was interested in uranium? Guess not.

And all this over sixteen lines that merely reference a British report that the Brits still stand by?

I don't know. Weighing the wrongdoing of Scooter Libby against the wrongdoing of CIA, it's hard to determine who the bad guy is. Libby sounds like a whistleblower to me.

I've been lurking here for a few months now and I've never before been compelled enough to actually respond.  I come here because I feel I can get more of the truth than from the news.  It has seemed that way, most times, anyway.

I've tried so hard to stay true to my conservative values and STILL be able to support my president and his administration, but this past month has pushed me to my limit.

I canNOT, in good conscience, support THIS president if he's to not take responsibility for what's clearly been a horrible call on the part of his aides.  

Reagan had the guts to admit he was wrong (although he still felt in his heart he was right), but at least he said THAT to us.  It seems none of you (or those who support Bush, STILL) can be that courageous.  No one wants to admit to the obvious extent of the damage that's been done as a result of this leak, it seems, and it simply makes me question this community's sensibilities.

I won't compromise my own conservative ideals for the sake of "politics."  I love my country, but I will NOT support those who are unethical in their dealings, nor will I support the president who keeps them in those positions of power where they will ultimately do harm to conservative goals.

Wake up and demand better from our leaders.  They work for US!  Do you really want Libby and Rove to represent how we get things done?  

If that's so, then that's just sad on our part.  

We deserve better.  AMERICA deserves better.

60 Minutes hasn't been around this long by getting thier facts wrong.  When THEY make a mistake, THEY admit it and move on.  I'm waiting and hoping Bush does the same otherwise it just looks like he's supporting liars.

Okay, enough said about that.  Otherwise, I'm grateful to what I've gotten out of this site for the past few months.  THIS week, however, in light of what's been revealed, has been the tipping point for me.

I don't think that was about a grievance against the Bush administration was it?

60 Minutes hasn't been around this long by getting thier facts wrong.  When THEY make a mistake, THEY admit it and move on.

A little hint for Democrat shills: they should always leave this part out, so as not to blow their cover on the very first post. Have a nice evening.

now I'm a democrat if I watch 60 Minutes?

Is that a rule?  

Wow, how closed-minded.

Someone presents a well-reasoned opposing viewpoint, doesn't even hint at supporting Democrats or liberal values, and you still play go on a witchhunt.

forgetting about Rathergate sort of exposes you.

No self respecting conservative, even one who watches 60 minutes would make the claim you did about 60 minutes admitting their mistakes.

When 60 Minutes gets caught using phony documents to try to bring down the President of the United States, they set up an erzatz commission to whitewash the whole affair and try to convince the public that there was no political intent to help the Democratic ticket win the 2004 election.

Just how stupid do you think we are here?

Maybe you should try one of the SCOTUS handicapping threads, instead. Perhaps you could convince us on the merits of Consuelo Callahan or AGAG.....

I feel like part of the reason hardly anyone's expressing this view is because we fear it could be used as fodder by one the liberal sites, as I've seen happen here (where someone summarizes posts from another site and pretty much uses it to ridicule extreme points of view).  

But when are we going to stop playing sides and simply demand real leadership regardless of what party we're affiliated with?  Are we the party of who by-any-means-necessary?  Or are we the party of ethical values?  Or maybe I'm just stupid and don't realize we don't live in a world where ethics are relevant when it comes to governing this great nation?

Let's be real and let's expect that of the other side, too.  Why not?  Dems can't take the high road on this, either.  Their leaders are just as screwed up!

I hate that we just go on and justify, stepping around all the crap other's have laid and have left for us to defend in the name of our own values and ideals.  

I hate that we're having to pick up the pieces.  I'm through with that.  That's all I'm saying and I wish others would stop lying to themselves, blaming those who maybe are just as morally corrupt but who are NOT the leaders we've chosen!

I think Jeffrey Weigand would find you amusing.

I honestly don't know too much about Rathergate, except that Rather apologized for using a bad source when doing a story about Bush's military background.  

So that's the litmus test for being a self-respecting Republican?  

Um.  Wow.  That's kind of shallow and sad.  

And a SELF-respecting Republican will support a president who won't listen to his own base?

Hmmm...maybe I DO have my priorities mixed up.  

Then again, maybe not.

No one wants to admit to the obvious extent of the damage that's been done as a result of this leak, it seems, and it simply makes me question this community's sensibilities.

What on EARTH are you talking about?

What "damage" has been done by this leak?

Well, I can think of a lot of damage that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have done to the image of the CIA. And to their own credibility--that is, outside of MoveOn.org meetings.  

If you mean to say that this incident has forever cowed publicity hounds within our intelligence community who were considering their own showboating episodes for the press, you may have a point.

And, I'll bet the reputations of Nick Kristof and Walter Pincus, two well-known reporters who are now widely regarded as having been taken to the cleaners by this anti-James Bond and his Ms. Moneypenny, didn't fare well, either.

So, I take it back.  There HAS been some damage resulting from this.  To Democrats and their shills.

Is THAT really why you're so upset?

Crime requires intent. No intent, then no crime for someone like Rove, and maybe others who didn't know that Plame was an "undercover" type of desk jockey as opposed to a "regular" type of desk jockey. And so, no indictments for "outing" Plame after two years of investigation.

Libby's crime was just the arrogance of thinking that he could make this farce go away, by lying, and expecting the reporters involved to keep their secrets. If Bill Clinton couldn't get away with lying to the grand jury (even though he sort of did get away with it,) Scooter Libby sure as heck isn't going to get away with it. I imagine he'll take a plea, lose his career as a lawyer, and then spend a couple of years in the slammer. Then, like John Dean, he'll write a book about it.

of CAPS in your COMMENT is another INDICATOR, and such use may lead one to BELIEVE you've spent CONSIDERABLE time on some of the more LIBERAL sites.

...not touching the 60 Minutes thing (don't know, don't care), but I think the author of the top post is tossing morals out the window with the "this wouldn't have happened if.." line. As if the internal squabbles of the CIA and the administration can justify a leak.

And I also believe it was a leak, plain and simple. It's called situational knowledge. Guys at the top of government like Libby didn't get there by being dumb. Libby leaked, and he knew he leaked. He did it in a tough-to-prove way, and he knew that too. And that's why he's indicted on perjury rather than the leak. Who else leaked? I don't know, we'll see.

Thanks so much for the warm welcome, all.

You're obviously so much "righter" than I am.

If someone's got a different view, they're just discounted here, is that it?  

I guess I've seen it before so I shouldn't really be surprised.  

Well, since I've so obviously been "outed," I'll just be on my merry way and you can live there inside your own little heads where everything you believe is correct and everyone else is just simply a leftie, eh?

Thanks so much for setting me straight.  Really.  Thanks.

Holy cow!

WHERE is this rule book I'm supposed to be following?  

I am not a blog-meister, as some of you may be.  I'm fairly new to all of this and currently, I'm not finding it very satisfying, as you may understand why.

My use of caps, the shows I watch...Heck, maybe I'm a flaming liberal and I didn't even know it.

I eat sushi, too.  Will that pretty much cinch it?

Are you all REALLY that paranoid?  My god.  

How about addressing the message?  Am I wrong?  Why?  NO ONE ELSE feels this way?

Geesh, there are those pesky liberal caps again.  It must be in my blood.  Maybe Grandma was closeted leftie.

I don't have the context to understand half of this.

I'm a teacher (rest easy- I don't teach civics...), and so I'm humble about what I know and what I don't know.  

Is this too long of a story for you to tell me what you mean by Wilson and Plame making the CIA look bad.  What did they do?  How did they take those reporters to the cleaners?  

The reader's digest condensed version, please?

(I'm hoping Reader's Digest isn't on the liberal list)

Thanks

specifically calling you a liberal, and I appologize if my comment came off that way.

Excessive CAPS use is just one of many liberal trade marks.  It seems that level of capitalization increases proportionally to the amount of rage they are trying to convey.

What "damage" has been done by this leak?

It's fair to assume that some of Valerie Wilson's contacts have been compromised, although I have no idea how many or to what effect.  (I understand that Wilson was likely compromised to the Russians by Aimes, but that doesn't mean that she was compromised to everyone.)  Was her idenity a state secret?  Probably not.  Was her outing the worst thing ever to occur to the CIA that month?  Also, probably not.  But outing Plame was not costless, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.  

..."RatherGate" involved an overzealous reporting staff and a decently faked memo. In these days of 24-hour news programs, I can't blame them too much for wanting to break the report to the public quickly, even if they should have verified it more.

..."Yellowcake Documents" involved years of buildup for a war. The documents were incredibly easy to discredit, the source of the information ("Curveball") was notoriously unwiley, and to this day the White House has not denounced this decision to the public.

I don't see the relevant comparison between CBS and the White House. On all levels, the Yellowcake Documents are a much, much greater deal, but you're suggesting that CBS deserved to be demonized for their meaningless actions (they HELPED Republicans) while the White House shouldn't be demonized for rushing out false information that built a case for war?

I can't stand behind that opinion.

Please disregard everything that followed your original claim. I was struck by your use of 60 minutes as a standard for corretive acknowledgment. Without offering any comment on that yet, and probably not afterwards, I will honestly and openly ask a question which acts as a source date for some folks. It's fairly simple, and is essentially your reaction to one word. Here is the word:

Alar.

Any reaction?

Please disregard everything that followed your original claim. I was struck by your use of 60 minutes as a standard for corretive acknowledgment. Without offering any comment on that yet, and probably not afterwards, I will honestly and openly ask a question which acts as a source date for some folks. It's fairly simple, and is essentially your reaction to one word. Here is the word:

Alar.

Any reaction?

Thanks.

could someone suggest some places to go, publications and such, that are considered respectable and balanced?  

I want the truth- views from across the political spectrum so that I can be sure I'm getting all sides to the story, but fact-based.  

Another teacher suggested RedState a few months ago and I've been visiting daily, just reading the diaries that make a little sense to me.  I have very little time, but I wanted to be informed enough to be able to talk to others about government (not so much politics).  

In the past, I've read the New York Times (I know that's viewed as having a liberal slant) but I honestly don't know where else to go for more information about current and world events.

Personally, I think there are more conservatives like ME than there are of you (who know a lot more and who watch the game of politics as closely as you do).  There are lots of us who WANT to know more but don't know who to trust to get the FACTS.

I know, I know, I'm still using caps, but I don't know html enough to use italics.  Sorry.

Thanks in advance

Did Iraq under Saddam seek to import uranium ore/yellowcake/nuclear materials/whatever from Niger or not?

If yes, did Iraq succeed in importing such materials?

This is exactly what I was referring to.

but I do not think your a troll...cause after all, what would be the point in him pretending to be conservative if he is not?

For starters, go to Realclearpolitics.com and read the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post editorials on the affair. You should also check out Instapundit.

And, if you are a troll, I recommend you go to the Enlisted Soldiers' Club on Hunter Army Airfield or Fort Benning, and tell them how much you agreed with Ted Rall's memorial to Pat Tillman.

60 Minutes did a story in 1989 about how it was a cancer agent.

The hit titles suggested the report was wrong.  

I'm going to walk my talk.  I'm going to say "I was wrong."  Okay?

60 Minutes has been wrong.  I thought, in my heart, that I was right about 60 Minutes, but I was wrong.  

Ah, that felt good.  

Now, if only we could hear something like that from the President, who we so heartily have supported and defended all these years as someone who has honorably represented us (until now).

RS has a perfectly useful blog roll - front page, right hand column, scroll down and you'll find it.

Surf away - but be sure to come back!

Also, don't be deterred by the commentary - it waxes and wanes, and the "profanity is not tolerated" policy keeps the heat civil, bearable, and fairly coherent.

All that said, it may take some effort, but you really need to branch out from relying on the NYT for much of anything beyond excellent crossword puzzles.

Cheers!

he's a her.

even liberals agree that the news section of the wall street journal is better than the news section of the NY times.

that, regardless of whether Plame had an active network that was compromised, simply the idea that classified information about CIA operatives (and whether or not Plame was covert, the indictment leaves absolutely no doubt that her employment status with the CIA was classified) may be bandied about as a political football will have a chilling effect on intelligence operations.

In a sense, by discussing the fact that he feels that the Espionage Act is difficult to use as a charging instrument and philosophically flawed, I think Fitzgerald may be contributing to the damage.  A swift charge under the Espionage Act might help restore the sense that classified information is sacrosanct from the political world.  Failure to use it must have people in the intelligence community wondering what good a classified status is.

I think most of the folks here doubt that there's much of a match between the credibility records of CBS and W. Is he stubborn? Absolutely. Wrong? Occassionally. Head bangingly stuck in a policy rut for the past 35-40 years? Not really.

Didn't you read the rules!?!?!?

This is starting to get weird.*  At what point does Lawrence Fishburn offer me a blue pill and Elrond start chasing me in a black suit with a skinny tie?  

*I have no idea whether Edunut is bein' straight with us or not.  But I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt at least once.  (Admittedly, I don't always succeed.)

But, let's keep this in some perspective.

I believe the poster needs to rethink this perspective.  

Any front company Plame worked for overseas is now potentially exposed and other agents who were or still are undercover may be exposed as well.  We'll never know, but it's possible one or more covert agents have been killed as a result of Plame's outing.  I don't think that risking the exposure and lives of agents who had nothing to do with Plame's and Wilson's political views is an at all appropriate way of handling this allegedly CIA-provoked war with the Bush Administration.

Are all the blogs on the blog roll conservative?

I did go to the DailyKos blog (mentioned here often as the "other side") but I'm looking more for centrist views, conservative and Democrat.  It seems RedState is not so far right as the DailyKos is far left.  

What is the ONE place where there's a good mix. Or a Democratic blog that's more to the middle in terms of foreign and domestic policy?

Sorry if I'm going off-topic with these requests. This will be my last.

Thanks, again, in advance.

I wanna play too!

Did Iraq after 1991 succeed in importing such materials? (Our relationship with Iraq was somewhat different in the 1980s, as you no doubt are aware.)

Did Iraq under Saddam after 1991 already possess known significant quantities of yellowcake?

What was the status of the mines suggested as the source of the yellowcake?

Did Iraq have the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade quality?

"Excessive CAPS use is just one of many liberal trade marks."

That has to be one of the most shallow, petty, downright batty things I have read in 8 years of surfing the net. I mean, go back and read what you just wrote. You are labeling the use of CAPS as a liberal trademark!?  Do you ever worry that you give liberals a little bit too much thought?

Here's one for your file: Liberals like ice-cream.

all the democratic blogs will be pretty liberal.

Huffington post sort of claims to be moderate...but i dont think it really is???

what do you teach?

Surrounds Tim Russert's testimony in all this.  He never appeared before the Grand Jury; he made his statements to the GJ in the form of a deposition back in 2004.  Since the buzz this afternoon is that Fitzgerald wants Cheney to testify in open court, and Libby's defense team is looking at trying to defeat the perjury charges, what's the probability that Russert will be called himself as a witness, and if he is a potential witness, why is he discussing the case with anyone on Meet The Press?

sorry :)

by Stephen Hayes in 'The Weekly Standard' will help get you started.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=6281&
amp;R=C756347A2

those talking points.  By CBS' own admission, Mary Mapes had been working on the Bush-TANG story approximately 5 years.  Also, "decently faked memo"?  Please!  I guess that's why web meisters (I believe it was LGF) were able to question it's authenticity in about an hour using MS Word -- some forgery!

I agree with you and applaud you for being very civil in your comments.

For a left of center blog.  Otherwise, most on the left are pretty far left.  The center right includes instapundit and us among others.  The farther right has Free Republic and others.

There are centrist sites such as the Centrist Coalition if you look for them.  But most activists are not "centrist" because it's not really a governing philosophy.

you're exposed.  By saying 60 minutes and in essence CBS admits mistakes and moves on shows a terrrible lack of knowledge or bias.  How many times do they have to lie about conservatives and/or Republicans before you Libs realize you make northeast moderates like me think you're all liars?  We can start with Dan Rather attending and speaking at a Dem fundraiser in TX (very unbiased in your opinion I'm sure), to the tons and tons of weapons unaccounted for a few days before '04 elections (which never happened and were promptly forgotten the day after), to Rathergate (which Rather says is still true), not reporting the successes in Iraq (oops, I forgot- there are none) ad infinitum.  

Perhaps Scooter Libby lied, perhaps he didn't.  Those would be HIS mistakes, not the Pres.  And if he did, I leave it to you to determine whether he should get more time or less than Sandy "hide em in your underpants" Berger did.  I know he's not Osama Bin Laden (who Howard Dean says deserves a fair trial- I agree, then hang him) but even a Republican deserves his day in court still.

when you say move on, didn't you forget your org?

Do an inquiry and produce a report concerning the impact of the "outing" of Valerie Plame and conclude that the effect was minimal?  I heard Tucker Carlson say that in reference to commentary by Andrea Mitchell two days ago.  It seems that some kind of internal invesigation was done by the CIA to determine what, if any, damage to the agency's operations resulted from Plame's identity becoming fodder for the global newscasts, but that report and its findings haven't been mentioned very much.  The only oblique reference I can find to it today, in fact, is in this Washington Post article -- and it doesn't discuss the responses to the "11-question form."

Out of view of the public, the CIA took the first steps towards a formal investigation. On July 30, it reported to the Justice Department a possible offense "concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." In August the agency completed an 11-question form detailing the potential damage done. In September, Tenet followed up with a memo raising questions about whether the leakers had violated federal law.

I'm not debating the seriousness of the charges against Libby, but I keep hearing this argument that grievous damage was done to national security, and it all seems to be coming from one direction, and this front company gets mentioned repeatedly -- by everyone except the principles in the case.

Language Arts and Literature for gifted students at the middle level

I referred to the "excessive" use of capitalization.

hilarious, but in all fairness the lady did admit the error of her ways in her selection of 60 Minutes as a model of journalistic integrity (see below).

Save your powder for the true lefties!

No one with any amount of fairness in them can think anymore that CBS is an unbiased journalistic outfit.  It takes intellectual contortions that this fellow with an MS in Physics from Stony Brook can't do.  I guess I'm just not smart enough.  I'll apologize now becuase that is very important to you.

(I like to brag about Stony Brook Physics cuz 2 Nobel Prize winners were my teachers- not that I'm close)

There is something really crazy about all this deal with Libby. Fitz in one of the indictment counts stated that Libby told he learn Plame ID from Russert. But Russert stated he never heard Plame's name before Novak's peace. How stupid Libby with all his degrees from Columbia and law from Yell commit straight forward perjury.

Presumably who hasn't visited either of these blogs before; I take that as a compliment, by the way.  I would have to agree with Adam C:  if you want to start someplace in the blogosphere that's left-of-center but that has more than its share of smart commentators who know how to write well and not just and parrot talking points and follow the herd or spew profanity, TPMCafe is (eponymous irony notwithstanding) probably the best place to start.

Despite the best efforts of some to insinuate that no crime took place, the reality is quite different. When Robert Novak took information from a White House source and printed the name of a CIA operative (for whatever motivation) he also printed the name of a CIA front company, Brewster-Jennings. It had taken a great deal of time and money for our government to create this fake firm. When Novak printed this name in his column, embassies and government (and probably terrorist organizations) invariably started the process of rolling up anyone associated with this firm. The investigation into the damage from this leak has not been published, but anybody with any experience or imagination should probably be able to figure out what happened. We are in a state of war; a war that myself and most of the people on  this blog supported. We are trying to fight a war against an enemy, terrorism, that can only be won if we win the intelligence battle. And our leaders knowingly and willingly exposed people who risked their lives to provide us information in this war! Can any of the rest of you put aside your partisan blinders long enough to see this for what it really is? In a word, my fellow patriots, it's called treason. Back in the day it would have been punished by execution. Today, I am hearing it exonerated as no crime at all. Dwight Eisenhower would be ashamed of y'all.

Actually, more like delighted.  

Stony Brook rocks!

I lived not too far from there- in Patchogue. Used to go sleigh riding on campus whenever it snowed.  

I went to Oswego State, though for my undergrad work and even though I didn't know too much about Dan Rather's missteps, I, too, have a Master's (in Education).  

Speaking of the characters from Act I.  Down what memory hole did Novak go?  He was Faust (or the other guy) in the opening scene.  I haven't seen him on this since they flashed the lights for the second Act.

Valerie Plame did have an active network: a company called Brewster-Jennings (do a google search and you can find out quite a bit more). The CIA "blowback" report about the impact of the printing of the name of the company by Novak is still classified. Larry Johnson, a Republican and a former CIA agent, has all but come out and admitted that people were killed as a result of the leak (his words: "post mortem would be appropriate").

specifying a misdeed by the CIA that wasn't reported by the MSM?

I wish the conduct of the CIA would get at least some attention from the MSM.

I'm certain that CIA conduct has gotten "some attention from the MSM."

Larry Johnson, a former CIA operative with Republican ties, has stongly hinted that people were killed as a result of Novak publishing the name of the company, Brewster-Jennings.

to conclusions, perhaps as a result of an over-active "imagination."  How, exactly, did you determine that "our leaders knowingly and willingly exposed people who risked their lives to provide us information in this war!"  Perhaps you should put a call into the Office of the Special Prosecutor, given that after 22 months of investigation Mr Fitzgerald has been unable to even allege any such thing.

Speaking, on the other hand, from experience, let me offer you my less-exciting, though I believe quite rational, interpretation of what occurred.  The Bush administration, and particularly the VP's office, was frustrated by the degree to which the MSM were providing a microphone and a level of legitimacy for Mr Wilson's allegations.  In attempting to refute Wilson's meme, they not only exposed his talking points but they (Libby) publicly called into question his expertise, by pointing out that he wouldn't have even been chosen for the trip if his wife didn't work for the CIA.  In so doing, Libby inadvertently, and perhaps unknowingly, revealed classified information.  When confronted with this revelation, Libby attempted to mitigate his error (but, in fact, compounded it) by sourcing the information to other reporters in his GJ testimony.

Not as sexy as the MSM version, but I think (hope?) you will agree that it is certainly plausible.  Furthermore, it squares with the existing indictments, which is the extent to which I'm prepared to even speculate on the criminality of anyone, inside or outside the Bush administration.

And they say that liberals are the angry one.

One sniff of something you disagree with and your fuse is lit.

I agree. I think there's too much pointing to the other party (from both sides) and saying, "but they do it too!" The fact is, corruption in both parties is far too common. Politicians are servants of U.S. citizens, whose salaries we pay. They all should be held to a high standard, regardless of party affiliation.

Just because liberals bash Bush doesn't mean that he can do no wrong. Is the idea to just defend your guys no matter what? Should Bush never admit making mistakes, ever? I'm not a fan of the Dems, by the way, and I think they should all be taken to task when they do wrong. Same goes for the GOP, of course.

Should lying under oath be made legal? Is it OK for officials of any administration to commit perjury and obstruction of justice? Or should we hold all politicians accountable, Dems and Repbulicans?

Talking points?

How is calling a document that led to war a bigger deal than one that led to a reporter going down in flames a talking point?

You must love America so much that it hurts. :-*

He testified to the Grand Jury.  It was easy to miss that, though, because unlike a certain New York Times reporter, he chose not to obstruct the investigation.

share some responsibility? Was it OK that he published Plame's name and that she was an agent?

Fitzgerald hasn't indicted anybody for 'outing' Plame.

There was no crime.

of numerous "powder-seeking" posters around these parts lately.

LibbyLiar is a patriot

By the way, the documents were acquired by CBS in 2004. Nobody was working on this story for five years (what a ridiculously long amount of time anyway).

And Jackal4444, I disagree with hypocrisy on either side; the left or the right. It doesn't help anyone's cause to be partisan, and hypocrisy is a quite common symptom of partisanship both here and on liberal blogs.

Libby inadvertantly identified her? Right. Why then, did they also publicly identify the company for whom she worked? And did Libby do this on his own, or in concert with Rove and with the full knowledge and cooperation of Cheney. To attempt to discredit Wilson is one theory, but why would they expose an entire CIA front to do so? Can you at least accept the premise that all individuals who had ever associated with Brewster-Jennings were put in danger by this leak? If so, what do you call it when people working for our government in the field of covert operations and national security are exposed in a leak, as were all those people who ever worked for or associated with Brewster-Jennings. Sounds treasonous to me, but that might be my patriotism and respect for people of service getting in the way.

led to a war?

I realize that you guys have repeated the mantra of "It was all about WMD" so often that you've come to believe it, but that don't make it so.  Whatever happened to liberals, anyway?  There was a time when you would champion the liberation (note the similarity of these two words: liberal and liberation) of 50 million oppressed persons as a good in and of itself.  Apparently those days no longer exist -- not as long as a Republican occupies the White House.

As for my love of country?  Not so much that it hurts, but rather enough that I don't seek to hurt it.

If the names, faces and party affiliations were different, we would not see a story in the MSM about this CIA that did not include the words "renegade", "paramilitary", "clandestine", "shadow government", etc., etc.


The way our system is set up, the CIA is accountable to the president, and . . . well, that's about it. Congressional oversight? C'mon.


I'll turn your question around:  President Eisenhower warned us of the buildup of the "military-industrial complex". How do you think he might have reacted to a CIA clearly perceived to be "at war" with the Chief Executive?

patently stupid generalization.  I doubt very much that excessive use of caps "outs" someone as a liberal

So it's OK to print the name of covert operatives and the company for whom they work in the paper during a time of war? Why not print troop movements too! Just because the powers that be have so far managed to thwart the investigation through lying and deceit, don't link that to exoneration of guilt. Someone DID leak the name of a covert agent - that IS a crime.

As for the bashing, people should understand that that comes along with the game of politics.

I spent the '90's bashing Clinton.  Some people take it seriously.  Personally, it always seemed similar to how fans of rival football teams rag each other.  People should watch more coverage of British Parliament - there just might not be anything funnier or more enjoyable on tv.

But I couldn't agree with earthling more - both parties need to be held accountable to their actions.

Fitzgerald did not say there was no crime committed.  He only discussed what was within "the four corners" of the indictment.  But he did stress that the revelation of Valerie Plame's classified status with the CIA harmed our national security.

And he made it very clear that he was unable to determine if there had been a crime committed because Libby "kicked sand" in his face.

Please re-read the transcript of his press conference.

Libby committed crimes, according to Fitzgerald's indictment. Fitzgerald accused Libby of throwing sand in the umpire's eyes; in other words, he may not get to the truth because Libby and possibly others have not been forthright about how Plame was revealed.

Also, even if outing Plame was technically not against the law, or at least can't be proven, is it not highly unethical and potentially harmful? Fitzgerald said so.

for "people of service" -- I happen to be one of them.  I believe that, at least in your eyes, will answer any outstanding quetions regarding my patriotism.

And I'll re-state my position.  I'm more than willing to engage in speculation regarding the allegations (as presented in the indictments) against Libby, though I would caution deference, implicit in any speculation, that he is "innocent until proven guilty."  On the other hand, I personally draw the line there, and refuse to speculate the criminality of persons whom a professional prosecutor after 22 months of investigation and the full authority and resources of the DoJ at this disposal has been unable to even allege.  To me, that doesn't seem like too high a bar to set, but apparently others will disagree.  So be it.  But please, do not presume facts not in evidence.  And there is NO evidence that "our leaders" (amongst whom I do not include Mr Libby, a staff appointee) countenanced any criminal actions.  With that, I will take offense.

WMDs were the major selling point for people on the Iraq War, both from the Bush administration and as represented by polling from them and now.

The illegitimate documents in question were used as justification for the war and justification for the WMDs. Frankly, I'd like to believe what an administration tells me about why we should go to war, but apparently I can't, and apparently it's no big deal that I can't.

I'm a moderate, leaning to the left on social issues and the right on economic, but I'm fed up with the conduct of the Bush administration; quite frankly, if the world was told that we were invading Iraq to liberate, and not lied to as we all were, I don't believe so many people would be as vitriolically anti-Iraq as they are now. I don't have faith in the administration when they change their rationale for going to war, if only because that's not what our country was sold on, and ample proof is now out that the administration's post-war planning was very lacking. Does everything that's happened add up to the Bush administration suddenly deciding to liberate this country?

And the source had a story that defied belief.

"Lucy Ramirez" and a document that looked EXACTLY like the default settings of Microsoft Word, including proportional fonts, purporting to be from the typewriter of a now dead Commanding officer in Bush's ANG unit in the early seventies. Not to mention Bill Burkett's long rep as a crank, and Rather's conflict of interest (his daughter is a Texas Democratic Party Staffer).

Rather STILL stands by the story, and so does CBS and Sixty Minutes.

Fitz could not charge a crime in "outing" Valerie Plame and refused point blank to identify the leaker but says he knows who it was. Which means likely the leaker is either Wilson or Plame.

I think you took a few extra logical steps here. It was argued that Libby may have inadvertantly revealed classified info. He clearly identified her - either by name, position, relation or whatever. Just a quibble, but a mighty important one for prosecution purposes, which is how Fitzgerald described it.

That, and your also getting into troubling territory with the treason allegations. There are several people on this site who could make similarly strong arguments against any number of pieces published or aired by well known news organizations. The treason accusation works any number of ways, but again, the legal hurdle is fairly high, and considering that John Walker Lindh didn't meet it, I doubt anyone involved in this case will come remotely close.

FWIW.

giving this post top billing. it has seemed to me in the month or so I've been reading this blog that posts printed on the front page have some stamp of merit from the folks that run the site. this post seems low on facts and news and high on partisan content, which I don't like or expect to see on the front page.

sorry to heckle from the peanut gallery, but perhaps I'm not the only one wondering about this.

on the TANG angle for almost five years (this same line of attack preceeded the 2000 election).  The fraudulent documents were introduced into the mix just before the 2004 election.  CBS was confident that this scandal would finally derail President Bush's reelection chances and help elect John Kerry.  The only real difference between CBS's actions in 2000, and then again in 2004, were the fradulent documents.  Both efforts by CBS to manufacture a scandal failed miserably.

Rather STILL stands by the story, and so does CBS and Sixty Minutes.

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret." - CBS News

"...if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question." - Dan Rather

Supposedly, after years of investigation, only Libby lied to investigators and the Grand Jury. Which will go to trial and good luck with that one.

I doubt Libby will be convicted, given the dubious nature of the witnesses against him and the defense that Plame/Wilson bragged/leaked to the reporters and Libby was right when he asserted he was told about Plame from them.

The Whitehouse did not obstruct, conduct a public relations campaign against Fitz, or raise a legal defense fund. The White House mandated co-operation and full disclosure with Fitzgerald, and everyone from the President on down co-operated. Contrast that to Clinton's ongoing eternal investigation involving almost EVERY member of his cabinet and the First LAdy.

Just means:  "Most recent story."  Call it an op-ed. piece, a hypo., or a thought experiment, call it what you want.  I think raises some good questions, and people have been interested enough to respond, and just because it's high on "partisan content" isn't an inherent flaw.  Editor's prerogative.

I was replying to the 60 minutes comment, and Alar was a fairly notorious episode from quite a while ago. Ask any apple producer. Heck, to go farther back, Silent Spring is undergoing reconsideration, and the use of DDT is being reconsidered in many areas.

My point being that CBS's credibility has been in the tank for quite a while. For me it started with Watergate and the lesson that it is wise to be careful of what you wish for.

I've read conflicting reports as to whether or not the CIA has, in fact, conducted an official damage assessment.  If they have, it has not been made public as of yet.

Bob Woodward claimed to have inside information of that report, but I think that's highly dubious.

But I think it's naive to think that some damage was not caused by this.  At the worst, people's lives were unnecessarily and wrongly endangered or harmed;  at the least, the work being conducted by Plame and the agents of Brewster-Jennings has been compromised.

It's not a good thing.  Common sense can tell you that.  And I'm a little troubled by the number of Republicans who would like to simply dismiss this matter.

I voted for Bush 41, and though he's no favorite of conservatives, I have always held a deep admiration for him and his years of service to our country.  In his opinion, this is one of the most treasonous things that can be done.

I also expect the CIA to keep any specifics of the damage assessment close to the vest.  Their not about to broadcast to the world how they were damaged.

Why does it matter that Larry Johnson is "a Republican"?

I think Fitzgerald would be being irresponsible if he made a case he did not think he could prove.  As he said, charge something or keep quiet.

Having said that, I do not feel we have reached the end of this affair or seen the last of indictments I'm afraid.

Well Eisenhower certainly had a different CIA to work with, I'll grant you that. Having two brothers (Allen and John Foster Dulles)head the Department of State and the CIA certainly smoothed the lines of communication for him. That was back in the good old days when the CIA could effectively orchstrate coups (both Iran and Guatemala saw democratically elected governments toppled) and then effectively lie to the world (see UN Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge's speeches) about the actions. But would Eisenhower, with his warning of the dangers of the industrial-military complex not have seen through the naked ambitions of this war? Eight billion dollars in cash went missing in Iraq and nobody so much as investigated where it went? No-bid contracts in the billions of dollars to companies aligned with White House insiders and connected lobbyists? Record profits for oil companies? And our exalted military hero, Colin Powell, marching in front of the United Nations with a presentation of facts for justification of war that the rest of the world saw as a charade? Eisenhower would've resorted to war on this evidence, and tolerated such blatant incompetence and corruption since then? I beg to differ.  

RedState isn't just a blog:  RedState is a political committee as well as a 527 organization.  Partisan content is perfectly in keeping with that part of RedState's identity.  

That he did what Libby did all the time; knock down stories he felt were inaccurate and portrayed President Clinton in an unfavorable light. Begala and Carville have said essentially the same thing.

The fallout from this is that NO Republican official will say ANYTHING to the Press at all. The Press will look (at trial) like a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic National Comittee. The CIA will look like a DNC think-tank. Dems will look like they have no plan for National Security other than legalistic "global tests" etc while Iran drifts towards a "final solution" for Israel (making good on their threats) and probably us as well. At worst they'll look like Copperheads.

isn't he a high-ranking member of the White House?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

There's a lot in there about WMD's, but not everything. Also, much of it is stated in ways that reflect the past more so than current conditions.

It just might help to refocus on the source documents.

I think the phrase "White House" in this sense is collective - not limited to a single staffer, regardless of rank.

Well thanks for responding without calling me a liberal or a quack, at least. :-)

with facts not in evidence, or perhaps just sloppy terminology based on MSM reporting.  One might speculate that Ms Plame was a "covert agent" at the time of the Novak report, but no evidence in the public record supports such a conclusion.  If you must, it would be closer to the existing evidence to speculate that someone (presumably Mr Libby) "revealed classified information" -- that, too, would be a stretch, but one requiring less elasticity.

There's a whole lot there to gnaw on.

Here is Fitzgerald's website: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

Here's the single indictment issued out of Fitzgerald's entire investigation:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

Here's the Press Release:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_pr_28102005.pdf

If you read them, you'll notice that Fitzgerald did not indict anyone, including Scooter, for "outing" Valerie Wilson.  While disclosing the name of a "covert agent," as that term is defined in 50 USC Section 426(4), can be a crime under 50 USC Section 421, or, possibly, under the Espionage Act, Fitzgerald did not issue any such indictments under the facts in this situation.

Besides, Mrs. Wilson had already been outed by the Russians and by the CIA (don't have the cite handy, but those incidents are discussed in further detail in the Amicus Brief filed on behalf of the media in the Judy Miller/Matt Cooper subpoenae).   She was possibly also outed by Aldrich Ames.

Tom Maguire (justoneminute.typepad.com) has been great on PlameGate.  Unfortunately, I don't think he's yet put together a Plame Primer.  You'll have to read a number of his posts (don't forget the comments) to figure out just what's going on there.

He's right about Powell, at least. Even Colin has come out strongly against his speech and calls it the darkest moment of his career.

you might have penetrated the shell, something I've been unable to do in 5+ hours of posting.

You're right that Libby was indicted for crimes that should be taken serously, but that's not what I was talking about.  The poster I was replying to was implying that Novak committed a crime.  I was denying that.

As for the rest, I really don't care what Fitzgerald's opinions are of what is ethical.  His personal opinions aren't interesting or relevant.  All that matters are what opinions he has that are backed up with enough facts that he can convince a Grand Jury that those opinions might be true.

If Fitzgerald had anything else on anyone else, he would have issued indictments.  He doesn't have a grand jury empaneled anymore.  It doesn't appear that there will be any more indictments issued in this matter.

I don't remember (seriously, I'm not being facetious here)--did someone in the White House obstruct an investigation of Clinton? And if so, is it OK when Libby obstructs, but not OK when Clinton's Admin. does it?

But you will find that the "excessive" use of caps is a very good indicator of left-leaning ideology.

Looking over your comment history, I'm inclined to believe your ideology lies left-of-center.  That particular determination is made without consideration of additional indicators.

Sorry, try again.

Neither quote denys the accuracy of the story.  It's that dodge (believing the story while disbelieving the docs) where the line "fake but accurate" came from.

And what was the result of this "planted" evidence? The sound machine went to work spinning away about evil Dan Rather, and what else went away? The actual story about Bush's guard service, or lack thereof. This would pave the way for one of most impressives coups in recent memory: supporters of a president and vice-president who evaded service smearing the service of someone who actually did serve? Did anybody bother to ask the important question: Who was behind the forged and planted document and what was their motivation? Sounds like standard operating procedure for "turd-blossom" - absolutely brilliant! Disinformation at it's finest - Orwell must be smirking indeed.