A Primer on Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and the Valarie Plame Mess
By thespis148 Posted in User Blogs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Let's talk about what we know in a quick sketch of underreported facts about the Rove/Libby/Plame fiasco. Several hard-hitting essentials stand out among all of the other dischordant voices singing in cacophonous rapture about the pending disaster at the White House.
While Chris Matthews devoted almost his entire Hardball program this week breathlessly exploiting his longing for the menacing atmosphere of the Watergate era in which he came of age, and The New York Times attempts on a daily basis to excoriate Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby, noteworthy, meticulous, and irrefutable evidence destroys the possibility that the leak case is a crime that can be made to stick. In an ironic twist of circumstances, assorted leaks to the New York Times from attorneys close to Peter Fitzgerald contradict Matthews' portrayal of the narrative. Today, News Max provides us with a unique analysis of a New York Times report which places the entire circumstance in context. There is so much more to the story than what the mainstream press wants us to know. A cursory glance at the television news every day, or merely watching the latest hysteric shouting his warped and creepy suggestion about Karl Rove on CNN or MSNBC will not provide anyone with the necessary background for understanding the multi-layered saga of which we are all now witnesses.
Let us start with news of today and work our way backwards. According to the News Max breakdown of the New York Times story, the entire investigation now seems to come down to a matter of contradictory statements, and possible charges of perjury.
"The New York Times said, conflicting accounts given by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been the focus of Mr. Fitzgerald's probe `almost from the start' - raising questions about whether the respected prosecutor continued his investigation after determining that no underlying crime had been committed. It's not clear whether Fitzgerald believes that Rove and/or Libby had indeed violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, but couldn't prove his case. Or whether he realized early on that the law didn't apply to Ms. Plame, who doesn't qualify as a covert agent because she hadn't served abroad within five years of her "outing."
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/21/94643.shtml
This latest account from News Max and the New York Times-as much as we might hate admitting it- appears to be grounded in reality. Nearly all of the hard news accounts (print versions of the case) lead to the conclusion that any indictment must be unrelated to an offense against the underlying law. The probability that anyone will be charged with "outing" Ms. Plame as a covert agent is not likely. Rush Limbaugh has continually kept this story on his front burner. Along with other conservative voices, he has articulated the strong case that implicates Valerie Plame in her own outing:
"So, here is what we have. Valerie Plame uses here married name, her cover name, working at the CIA front company called Brewster-Jennings & Associates, contributes $1,000 to the Gore campaign. The media spins this as a revelation resulting from the Novak article-and of course, Karl Rove. But, this is not what this shows. What this shows is that Valerie Plame blew her own cover right her because she contributed to the campaign of Gore under the same name that she used for her undercover, her married name, and the name of a CIA front company that she worker for. So, Valerie Plame violates who knows what other kinds of protocol using her undercover name, exposing the existence of a CIA front company and all of this is totally ignored because supposedly her name was leaked and that is how people noticed. Now, this is a clever, clever attempt to try to spin the as she didn't do anything wrong. Why is it perfectly normal for an American and CIA agent to contribute and want to contribute to the Gore campaign."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080105/content/rush_is_right.me
mber.html
There is little doubt that the mainstream press has oversimplified the entire manner in an attempt to get the pubic to buy into another government scandal. This adolescent attempt to obfuscate and obscure the facts of this complicated chaos has produced resulting doubts with some of the people paying attention, and is furthered almost daily by The New York Times, Chris Matthews and the so-called news programs on PBS. One important factor remains to this day regarding Mr. Wilson and his trip to Niger. It is sighted by the wonderful Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard.
"ON JULY 22, 2005, the New York Times published a lengthy, front-page article detailing the work of two senior Bush administration officials, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, on the Niger-uranium story. A seemingly exhaustive timeline ran alongside the piece. In 19 bullet points, the Times provided its readers in considerable detail with what it regarded as the highlights of the story. The timeline traces events from the initial request for more information on the alleged Iraqi inquiries in Africa to Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger; from the now-famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union to the details of White House telephone logs; from Bush administration claims that Karl Rove was not involved in the leak to the naming of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and on from there to the dates that White House officials testified before the grand jury.
As I say, seemingly exhaustive. But there is one curious omission: July 7, 2004. On that date, the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee released a 511-page report on the intelligence that served as the foundation for the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq. The Senate report includes a 48-page section on Wilson that demonstrates, in painstaking detail, that virtually everything Joseph Wilson said publicly about his trip, from its origins to his conclusions, was false."
You must read Mr. Hayes spectacular article in total. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/217wnmrb.
asp
For further indictments of Mr. Wilson you must read the following article at The American Thinker which details more of Mr. Wilson's failures that promulgated this current crisis. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4656
Andrew McCarthy has a brilliant essay from July still posted at the NRO. This is a comprehensive examination of all the things left our by the mainstream press to date. http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp
We can never leave out the brusque style or acerbic wit of Ann Coulter on display in her column of July 15, 2004. Her view of Wilson is right on the mark.
"On the basis of the answers he got, Wilson concluded that Saddam had not sought uranium ore from Niger. Since "Africa" means "Niger" and "British intelligence" means "Joseph Wilson," Wilson realized in horror that Bush's statement referred to Wilson's very own report! Out of love for his country and an insatiable desire to have someone notice his worthless existence, Wilson wrote an op-ed in The New York Times calling Bush a liar.
The whole story was already nutty enough to be believed by every columnist at The New York Times. But then journalist Robert Novak revealed that Clown Wilson had been sent as an unpaid intern to Niger by his wife, a chair-warmer at the CIA who apparently wanted to get him out of the house. This in turn provoked our own Walter Mitty to accuse Karl Rove of outing his wife as an undercover "spy" in retaliation for his attacks on the Bush administration. (And P. Diddy told me Britney Spears is out to get me! I'm a spy too!)"
http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2004/07/15/12359.html
As you listen to all the hot air emanating forth from the hysterical media, remember that you are more well read than they are, and you don't have a political agenda to accomplish with your thinly woven tapestry of misconstrued and deficient evidence.And a note to Karl Rove: anything that doesn't kill us will make us stronger.
Finally, if you haven't already seen it over at the political teen, you must see this montage of Chris Matthews demonstrating his obsession with Rove and Libby. I am glad that I watched some of his program this week-it made me angry enough to write this article and summarize my thoughts with the facts which have brought all of us to today.
The mainstream press is attempting to get the pubic to buy into another government scandal? Peter Fitzgerald?
Wow. Just wow.
Seriously. You really couldn't understand why you weren't taken seriously?
I have good news, though, Cindy Sheehan will be glad to have your support.
In commenting on the article, it is interesting to note that you chose not to refute any of the evidence in the case. Is this because you have no logical, factual points with which to rebut this overwhelming set of facts? Hysterical comments with no supporting arguements or documentation are the trademark of liberals.
"So, here is what we have. Valerie Plame uses here married name, her cover name, working at the CIA front company called Brewster-Jennings & Associates, contributes $1,000 to the Gore campaign.
Let's be clear here. Brewster-Jennings was a "public" company. Valerie Plame was a public name. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people could have known that Valerie Plame was married to Joe Wilson and worked for Brewster-Jennings, and no harm was being done.
However, once it was published that Valerie Plame = CIA, it was realised by other that Brewster-Jennings=CIA -> and that's when the harm was probably done, because while Plame was probably not a NOC any more, Brewster-Jennings was still being used as a cover for agents and had been used previously for other operations.
This is really about falsifying the casus belli of a disastrous war
Primate - WRONG. That's what liberals and the Bush-hating MSM so very desperately want this to be about, but it ain't.
Allow me to tell you what is about.
This is about a policy dispute. The president was given intelligence from multiple sources prior to the war in Iraq, and he chose to find the intelligence suggesting Saddam was reconstituting WMD programs credible. This decision upset many partisans, and it particularly upset the Wilsons. It upset YellowCake Joe so much that he wrote an Op-ED in the NYT calling Bush a liar. Rove and Libby took offense, played hardball, and THAT, primate, is what this is about. The Wilsons disagreed with the president's determinations. They whined about it. They cried about it. They stomped their feet. In the end, they tried to undermine the president during a time of war about it.
That's what this is about.
Try peddling your conspiracy theories on the DailyKos - they don't fly here.
SWS
Are you suggesting that I was trying to discredit the messenger rather than the message? Hmmm. Kinda sounds like Karl's M.O., huh?
Rove and Libby took offense, played hardball, and THAT, primate, is what this is about.
This is only about a policy dispute? Oh no, not the "criminalization of politics" argument! In any event, your president disagrees with you:
"And, you know, there's a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It's a town famous for it. And if this helps stop leaks of -- this investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked -- and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth."
President Bush - October, 2003
Hi troll. That was a warning flag. Keep that in mind.
Heck, even Jimmy Carter was our President, and his very occupation of the Oval Office should have been an impeachable offense.
This is only about a policy dispute? Oh no, not the "criminalization of politics" argument! In any event, your president disagrees with you:
Yes, it is about a policy dispute. The Wilson/Plame cabal didn't like the fact that President Bush was making decisions that didn't meet with their approval. Joe Wilson made the trip to Niger at the request of his wife, which was akin to O.J. sending A.C. Cowlings to find the "real" killers - particularly when Wilson made no written report and never bothered to complain about the White House's intelligence decisions until AFTER the Iraq war started.
Rove and Libby were being asked why they sent Wilson to Niger only to discount his report - they rightfully told the reporters that the White House didn't send Wilson on any trip - the CIA did, and they did it without approval from anyone in the Bush administration.
This is about a policy dispute, Plame and simple.
Let's be clear here. Brewster-Jennings was a "public" company. Valerie Plame was a public name. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people could have known that Valerie Plame was married to Joe Wilson and worked for Brewster-Jennings, and no harm was being done.
However, once it was published that Valerie Plame = CIA, it was realised by other that Brewster-Jennings=CIA -> and that's when the harm was probably done, because while Plame was probably not a NOC any more, Brewster-Jennings was still being used as a cover for agents and had been used previously for other operations.
The Boston Globe has done extensive reporting on the whole Brewster-Jennings thing, and yes, let's be clear, shall we?
Brewster-Jennings was NOT a "public" company. It as not a private company. It wasn't a company, period. Anyone Valerie Plame told about Brewster Jennings could have easily checked this out and realized she was lying. It makes NO sense whatsoever to suggest that a CIA agent under official cover as defined by IIPA would make such a rookie mistake - the building where Brewster Jennings supposedly did business was vacant. No employees present. No phones. Not even a lease. Vacant. Furthermore, any enterprising individual could have followed Plame to Langly, where she drove to work every day. Clearly and obviously, Plame was not under any kind of official cover.
And I won't mention the math problem that Plame has - the IIPA statute clearly states that "covert" is defined as having been assigned overseas within the last five years. Plame, according to Joe Wilson's own book, returned to the states in 1997. She wasn't (allegedly) "outed" until 2003. Math is not on her side.
I hope that you will allow this on RedState. The cowards at the Washington Times blog simply ignored me (although my comment was the first one), as they waited for softballs and yes-men. (I have proof that this happened here, and you can see I was entirely civil. Scroll up to the top of that page to see the screenshot of my post on their blog, pre-approval) But, here I go — try, try again:
First, orthographic issues.
Valerie
discordant, from cor, cordis — heart
"Concord" and "discord" are more about agreement than about sound. "Chord" is about sound, as is "tone" [Gk. tonos — the sound of a bowstring, from teino — stretch, related to "tension". "Chord" is Gk. chordos — the bowstring. It also, with different accents, means "sausage". The basic word is indeed the cognate of our word "gut", whence bowstrings are made.
Patrick Fitzgerald
===========================================================================
Next, substantive issues:
Huh?? Who's he talking to?
This whole thing is not really about outing a CIA undercover. I agree there — that's a side issue.
This is really about falsifying the casus belli of a disastrous war, forging (Michael Ledeen — mark my words) a document used to foment the war (later, at the State of the Union Address, supplanted by its "understudy", the even more vacuous "British source" when the former was known to be sick), overriding the assessment of the experts we employ for just such science, the Energy Department nuclear weapons producers, who said the aluminum tubes were not at all suitable for centrifuge construction (they were too thick, and the anodized coating would have to be milled off before they could be used anyway).
At this point I can't neglect to mention the "other" British document: The Downing Street Minutes, leaked to the London Times in May, that made it clear (if it hadn't been abundantly clear already) that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
This is really about, as Powell's long-time chief of staff, Colonel Wilkinson, has said, a cabal
Anybody that really wants to know who benefits from American Foreign Policy under Bush 43 should read the following document, produced by David Wurmser, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith et al.: A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
[Mr. Wurmser, by the way, just "flipped" when Mr. Fitzgerald announced his generous offer! Details arriving by the minute — stay tuned!]
This document was created as guidance and talking points for Bibi Netanyahu's early days as Prime Minister. Anyone wishing to understand this document in its reality should read this article in haAretz, 2-10-02, by Akiva Eldar, Perles of wisdom for the Feithful
Here's a quote:
I should think that would be enough to pique your interest. I'm tired of typing -- read it for your "erudite" selves <tee hee>.
By the way, just in case you are sharpening up your "Antisemite" sword, please remember that most Jews, US & elsewhere, are still Liberal, Cosmopolitan, Progressive thinkers, like, say, Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Sy Hersh, Dan Schorr, Allen Ginsburg, Lenny Bruce -- not to mention Al Franken, Marc Maron, and Sam Seder at AirAmerica, Dennis Bernstein and Nora Barrows Friedman at Pacifica -- these people are still on our side.