|
 |
October 07, 2003 BUSH GETS SERIOUS....PART 2....George Bush briefs reporters on his ongoing efforts to find out who leaked Valerie Plame's name:
Noted without comment. It just takes your breath away, doesn't it? Posted by Kevin Drum at October 7, 2003 11:27 AM | TrackBackComments
How about the fact that today's "deadline" is simply when the info is given to White House counsel, who will then vet if for two weeks before giving it to Justice Department. Who will then supposedly do an independent review. This is why there needs to be an independent investigation. Anyone think key phone logs of "senior administration officials" showing contacts with reporters will ever surface? And so much for the "liberal media" who could presumably electrify this issue by disclosing the leaker, despite journalistic ethics to the contrary. Puts media in odd position of criticizing an investigation that is cumbersome precisely because media protects leakers' identity. Posted by: DMBeaster at October 7, 2003 11:33 AM | PERMALINKSurely he realizes, though, that his circle of Senior White House officials is noticeably smaller. Posted by: Kat at October 7, 2003 11:39 AM | PERMALINKClearly, the leaker is hanging out with Osama and Saddam. And the jobs created by the Bush tax cuts. Posted by: Jesse at October 7, 2003 11:45 AM | PERMALINKBragan: Condi will know when Rove tells her. (Ever notice that when Rove is drinking a glass of water, Bush can't speak?) Posted by: chris at October 7, 2003 11:49 AM | PERMALINKWow, security must really be bad at the Bush White House if there are that many people who have access to CIA agents' portfolios. So doesn't that mean they are even worse at national security? Posted by: Rob at October 7, 2003 11:50 AM | PERMALINKIt was a little startling to see that the universe of White House personnel asked to review their documents was 2,000. Where the hell do they all sit? Posted by: Linkmeister at October 7, 2003 11:53 AM | PERMALINKWe are all agreed that Bush W is pretty stupid; but it looks like he is smart enough to come out smellin like a rose again. Yes, my breath is absolutely "taken away!!!" Posted by: Gerald Nelson at October 7, 2003 11:53 AM | PERMALINKWhy does this take your breath away? Even the CIA acknowledges that it's very rare to prosecute any of the cases they forward on to the Justice Department. Why the hell is everything a goddamned conspiracy with you people? Posted by: Jay Caruso at October 7, 2003 11:54 AM | PERMALINKWhere are the felony-loving traitors to defend this bunch of crooks today? I guess they're all tuckered out from last-minute push to defend the Hitler-loving ass-muscle. Posted by: Ras_Nesta at October 7, 2003 11:56 AM | PERMALINKJay writes: "it's very rare to prosecute any of the cases they forward on to the Justice Department. " That's because leaking information isn't a felony, even if it's classified. We don't have an Official Secrets Act. How is Justice supposed to prosecute something that isn't illegal? Outing a CIA agent is a felony. It is rare, but it is illegal, and DOJ can prosecute. Posted by: Jon H at October 7, 2003 11:58 AM | PERMALINKIf the American public buys this bullshit, what WON'T they buy? Posted by: cal at October 7, 2003 11:58 AM | PERMALINKThat's because leaking information isn't a felony, even if it's classified. That isn't true. See (18 USC 793, 794, 798). Posted by: Jay Caruso at October 7, 2003 12:01 PM | PERMALINKWhy the hell is everything a goddamned conspiracy with you people? Why is nothing a goddamned conspiracy with you, Jay? Bush 'doesn't know' if the leaker -- i.e., the potentially felonious outer -- will be found? Isn't that so convenient? Posted by: nick sweeney at October 7, 2003 12:02 PM | PERMALINKBush 'doesn't know' if the leaker -- i.e., the potentially felonious outer -- will be found? just add it to the list of things Bush has never found (anthrax killer, OBL, Saddam, WMDs, a brain) Posted by: ChrisL at October 7, 2003 12:07 PM | PERMALINKWhy is nothing a goddamned conspiracy with you, Jay? Because I reside on planet earth. Bush said he "doesn't know." Please tell me why it's so shocking. If he had said, "We'll find out who did this", I'd see a thread of OJ jokes. Tell me I'm wrong. Sorry, but I am starting to think that there's a selection of pre-arranged outraged reactions at the ready for anything he says. Posted by: Jay Caruso at October 7, 2003 12:09 PM | PERMALINKWell Jay, if GWB didn't spout outrageous BS 95% of the time, we wouldn't respond with outrage. There's little this creep says or does that merits anything other than outrage. Posted by: bushbad at October 7, 2003 12:12 PM | PERMALINKJay: 1. We know the identity of Plame was leaked, Bush has called this a criminal act. 2. The Justice Department, headed by a Bush appointee (Who once said that Janet Reno was not sufficiently independent to investigate Al Gore's phone calls) has launched an investigation at the request of the CIA. 3. When the Justice Department told the White House to preserve all documents, the White House counsel got permission to wait until the next day to give staffers the order. 4. Now we learn that all relevant documents will be reviewed for two weeks by the White House counsel before being sent to the FBI to check for any violations of executive privilege. Now, look your monitor straight in the eye and tell me that if a Democrat were in the White House the Republicans and the right-wing media would not be screaming bloody murder, demanding an independent counsel, and accusing the administration of compromising national security? I also live on planet earth, and was here for the last 6 years, where were you? Posted by: David Perlman at October 7, 2003 12:17 PM | PERMALINKBut, Bush said, "This is a large administration and there's a lot of senior officials." No, there aren't. We're talking about no more than two dozen people inside the White House who were in positions to leak the story about Plame to Novak. If I was a part of Bush's base, I'd be angry he thought something that stupid would suffice to placate me. Posted by: David W. at October 7, 2003 12:18 PM | PERMALINKNahh, Jay's just ok with CIA agents getting outed if done by someone with an R next to their name. Posted by: Rob at October 7, 2003 12:18 PM | PERMALINKjust add it to the list of things Bush has never found (anthrax killer, OBL, Saddam, WMDs, a brain) LOL. Jay, there is a conspiracy. Why do you think McClellan is so, so careful in those press conferences? Why do you think he won't answer any questions about whether Rove called the media after the column ran? Why do you think, even though it was a senior administration official who leaked, the investigation was broadened to 2,000 WH employees as well as State and the Pentagon? Until you provide better explanations than we've seen here, I'm going to continue to apply Occam's razor. Posted by: praktike at October 7, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINKsorry, i forgot these: Q: Did you hear O.J. has refused to play on the prison football team? Q: Did you hear the Bills fired Marv Levy? Q: What was O.J.'s favorite play in the Bills' play book? Q: Why did O.J. kill Goldman? Q: Did you hear what the longest drive was during the U.S. Open? Q: Who's the most famous Los Angeles Dodger? Q: Why did O.J. go to Chicago after killing two people? Q: Did you hear that the police are now saying that O.J. moved the bodies after the murders? Q: Did you hear experts have already predicted the Super Bowl champion for next season? Q: What's the difference between O.J. Simpson and John Elway? Q: What's the difference between the Dallas Mavericks and O.J. Simpson? Q: What's OJ's favorite baseball team (besides the Dodgers)? Q: Remember what a great career O.J. had with the Buffalo Bills? Q: Did you hear about Hertz's new billboard? Q: What was Nicole Simpson's last words? Q: Did you hear that Hertz dropped O.J.? Q: Did you hear about the new O.J. Simpson movie? Q: Why did O.J. kill his wife the way he did? Q: Did you hear Nicole Simpson got her own endorsement offer? Q: Did you hear about the, "Simpson Special" from Hertz? Bush said he "doesn't know." Please tell me why it's so shocking. I don't know that it's "shocking", it's just ridiculous for him to say that, when he could have easily figured it out by himself at this point. It's like a "see no evil, hear no evil, ask of no evil" situation, which in this case is pretty disturbing. And if he's suggesting that a large number of people would have been privy to Plame's identity, then he's totally full of shit. It's not so much shocking as it is insulting to anyone with a brain. Posted by: Ringo at October 7, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINK"I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official," Bush said. "I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth." --- Let's parse that: Uh, like maybe you could ask them, dude? You meet with the whole group every morning (10:27 AM, to be exact, this morning). --- Bush now states that it is, indeed, a SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL that is being sought in this investigation. BUSH, THE PRESIDENT, says that one of his own SENIOR people is the object of this massive pursuit. So, why doesn't he just ask his people? They are all right there, right in the room with him, every day that he's not vacationing. Jay, you're the only one talking about conspiracies here. I'm not hypothesizing a conspiracy. This is just one man not living up to his responsibilities. No big mystery to me. He can't afford to know the truth. Actually, he can't afford to even ask the question. His political career trumps national security. It's that simple, nothing complicated and no conspiracy on his part. Posted by: Jeff Boatright at October 7, 2003 12:27 PM | PERMALINK"Why the hell is everything a goddamned conspiracy with you people?" Because we recognize that the whole Bush scheme is a conspiracy to ram some neo-con wet dream down the americans throats with no mandate to do it. By using lies, propaganda, and fear to implement policy that would never withstand actual public scrutiny the Bushies by their very nature are conspiritors. As they live and breath. Posted by: Shaun at October 7, 2003 12:36 PM | PERMALINK>>Why the hell is everything a goddamned conspiracy with you people? By definition isn't a conspiracy 2 or more people engaged in a plant to commit an illegal activity - isn't it already *one the record* that 2 senior White House Officials talked to at least 6 journalists about committing a felony by printing the name of a CIA undercover operative? Why don't you tell us why this ISN'T a conspiracy, Jay? Look! There's Arnold! Posted by: Andy X at October 7, 2003 12:40 PM | PERMALINKJay, I'll try to make this simple and use only small words. Bush has no doubt we will find Iraqi WMD which may not exist, no doubt that we will find Osama, Saddam, (and preumably Nicole Brown Simpson's killer). But BUSH doubts whether we will be able to do something which is entirely within his control. " "I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is," he said. If he really wants to find out, he could start by asking one of the approximately half-dozen chief suspects. But he hasn't. Clearly all 2000 WH employees do not have access to this information, nor do they speak to the press, nor could they be categorized as a "senior White House official". I was furious when Clinton and his lawyers parsed language like this, even when he was discussing questions that were none of our, or Ken Starr's business, and which had zero bearing on our nat'l security. There. I hope you were able to follow that. Posted by: sockeye at October 7, 2003 12:41 PM | PERMALINKJay: "That isn't true. See (18 USC 793, 794, 798)." Read them. They only cover a few specific kinds of information, not classified information in general. 793 covers defense information, like military facilities, vessels, aircraft, etc. 794 makes it illegal to identify an agent - if the agent was killed; it also covers weaponry, spacecraft, early warning systems, war plans, communications intelligence or crypto information, major weapons systems, or major elements of defense strategy. Also, military movements, troop numbers, fortifications, and plans of operations. 798 covers codes and ciphers, crypto systems, and communication intelligence (intercepted messages and the methods by which they're obtained). A law to criminalize the release of _all_ classified information was passed in 2000, but was vetoed. Posted by: Jon H at October 7, 2003 12:43 PM | PERMALINKOK, here's what we know. There are at least two traitors in the White House, at senior levels of the Administration. Although Bush could wrap this matter up in a couple of days if he would take action, he is satisfied with letting a slow dragnet investigation ramble on for months while the traitors go unfound, and continue to operate in the government and enjoy security clearences. This tells me Bush is one or more of the following: (1) knowingly covering up for traitors, (2) complicit in the treachery from the beginning, (3) wholly incompetent to be president. Posted by: grytpype at October 7, 2003 12:45 PM | PERMALINKThe only explanation that I have is that they have reviewed the phone logs and they don't show anything. If I was going to break federal law, I wouldn't use my office phone. They've asked the person to come forward and they haven't. Now that leaves it to someone in the CIA or a journalist to come forward. They are inclined not to I would imagine. How else is he supposed to get it? The only other real way is to call Novak in and make him talk. If he doesn't talk, then it's off to the pokey. If that happens, I'm satisfied. At the very least, people won't be going around giving away national secrets without thinking about it. But to do that, it's not conservatives that are going to resist. It's liberals. And your President needs you to get worked up enough over this issue that Justice can throw Novak in jail if he doesn't talk. As a Republican lean, that's my positive spin - that he's trying "to take your breath away". But whether that is what he is trying to do or not, as an American I hope you guys get worked up big time over this issue. Someone should go to jail. If all I can get is Robert Novak, then for the security of this country, that's better than nothing. Posted by: Chad Peterson at October 7, 2003 12:46 PM | PERMALINKDon't forget that the Novak article is about 3 months old. 3 months of silence and inaction. Don't forget that. Posted by: Karmakin at October 7, 2003 12:46 PM | PERMALINKIt's now been 79 days (since the original Novak article) that Bush has done nothing to catch the traitors in his own inner circle. Please note this on your own blogs and update it occasionally. Posted by: Mithras at October 7, 2003 12:49 PM | PERMALINKActually, though I think Shaun overstates it, in hindsight it appears that in fact the invasion of Iraq had little to do with any real threats, even perceived threats (as percieved by the administration and others in the know). Rather, it really was the opening gambit in the PNAC plan. Wolfowitz and others in the Pentagon are on record saying as much. So, the single largest and most controversial "policy" (and that's what war is) of this administration actually was a conspiracy, though one hidden in plain view. The PNAC policy was on the web and elsewhere in the public for all to read. So Jay, excuse me if I view with a jaundiced eye all that this administration proposes, states, or does. They have richly earned the level of respect I afford them. And though you paint all of "us" with a broad brush (what's with the "you people" malarky?), I think that there is a broad spectrum of discourse on the various policies of the administration, even on the handling of the Plame affair. But please, continue to apologize for Bush. This has been entertaining and enlightening. Posted by: Jeff Boatright at October 7, 2003 12:50 PM | PERMALINKChad wrote: "They've asked the person to come forward and they haven't. Now that leaves it to someone in the CIA or a journalist to come forward." So, Chad, your argument is one of complete ineptitude on the part of Bush. Do you really want to argue that the Bush has such little control over, in his own words, his "senior administration official[s]"? That at least two of them (btw, that's about 15% of the total) are traitorous felons who committed their acts of treachery on his watch, heck, in his house, and that he can't figure out who they are? Are you really saying things are THAT out of control in the White House? That's a pretty damning indictment of Bush's administration. You'd better hand in your Republican voter's registration card. They want it back. And who is "they" in your phrase "They've asked the person to come forward..."? There is no "they" here. There is only ONE person who has the responsibility here, the person who has just told us that someone on his senior staff is the object of the investigation. ONE person, Chad, and his name is George Bush. Like I said, keep it up, this is entertaining. Posted by: Jeff Boatright at October 7, 2003 01:02 PM | PERMALINKMailed to California Senators.... fwiw Since when in criminal investigations is the investigated party allowed to withhold and examine evidence for two weeks before turning it over to the investigators? Posted by: squiddy at October 7, 2003 01:05 PM | PERMALINKChad, This is our (that is, "you guys") responsibility only? As an American, I would think you might want to get worked up over this, too. By your own admission: "Someone should go to jail." Are you, because of your "lean," powerless in this situation? Are you, Posted by: doug m at October 7, 2003 01:12 PM | PERMALINKAnd so much for the "liberal media" who could presumably electrify this issue by disclosing the leaker, despite journalistic ethics to the contrary. Puts media in odd position of criticizing an investigation that is cumbersome precisely because media protects leakers' identity. Again: This is not a blog-world story any more. This is an Old Media story now, and it will unfold at an Old Media pace. The reporters who have the relevant information can goose the story along any time they need to, but they haven't needed to yet. It hasn't even been two weeks since the story broke big time-- in the Real World, that's nothing. Take a deep breath, back the mouse away from the "Reload" button, and relax. The information will come out eventually. If they spilled the beans right now, it would have to compete with the California recall mess, and that would be distrating. They'll let the investigation plod along for another week or so, then there'll be another round of revelations and splashy front-page stories. Posted by: Chad Orzel at October 7, 2003 01:13 PM | PERMALINKGee, the Prez sure has a hard time finding things: 1) OBL; 2) the anthrax mass murderer; 3) Saddam; 4) his arse with both hands (apologies to SNL). People can sort of ignore those things -- they really ARE hard to find. But I think that most people will find it laughable and revealing the Commander Clueless can't find a traitor on his own senior staff. I think this blatant "dazed & confused" approach will backfire. It creates jarring cognitive dissonance with the macho bully story line that had worked so well up till now. C'mon, smoke 'em out! Yer a rootin', tootin' gunslinger, ain't ya? A manly man could git them evil evil-doers in a New Yawk minute with one hand tied behind his back! Put some real, high-T mojo in that flightsuit, Boss! Heh. Posted by: jsaro at October 7, 2003 01:13 PM | PERMALINKWhat is all this junk about looking for contact with Novak in the phone logs? I thought it was revealed in a face to face interview. How hard is it to find out which administration officials met with Novak in the weeks before the now infamous Novak column was published? That would be in the appointment books rather than the phone logs. Posted by: exgop at October 7, 2003 01:13 PM | PERMALINKThey is George Bush and his staff that are looking at who did this. I'm not laughing and I don't find it entertaining. Maybe others find the security of this nation as a joke to be amused by, but I'm not one of them. At this point, a noc CIA agent has apparently been outed and at least one CIA front corporation. How is George Bush supposed to out this person if they don't willing accept to do the 5 or 10 years of time? Just starting torturing administration officials until someone decides it's easier to fall on the sword. Seriously, what hasn't he done to extort a confession? Posted by: Chad Peterson at October 7, 2003 01:15 PM | PERMALINKChad, you would have a good point, but Bush is acting like he had no way of knowing who the traitor is until the DoJ tells him. That is absurd. Has he personally asked them? Not Scotty boy, President George W. Bush. If he has, and they denied it to his face, and he truthfully reported that, I would be more sympathetic to your argument. As it is, he's just playing a sickening spin game over a matter of grave national secutiry. Posted by: jsaro at October 7, 2003 01:19 PM | PERMALINKWait, Jay is the only objectively pro-traitor commenter in this thread? Can't a guy get some support around here? Posted by: John Isbell at October 7, 2003 01:20 PM | PERMALINKIf Bush wanted to find the "real leakers", he could call his senior staff into his office and give them the "I'm the president, tell me who did it" and fire them on the spot. And he would look like a freakin' hero when he did. The fact that he hasn't yet shows that he knows who they are, and tacitly approves of the leak. dave Posted by: DaveInSeattle at October 7, 2003 01:20 PM | PERMALINKdoug m, it's a lot easier to get worked up when it's not your guy. Sort of like when a sitting President doesn't feel that he has to tell the truth to a grand jury. A lot of people will defend their guy to their death bed. And I do feel that I'm appropriately worked up over the matter. I'd like to think other Republicans will be as well, and then we'll get results. Condoning criminal acts is not the answer. If it was a face to face meeting with Novak or a call from a pay phone, the only way to get the information is to make Novak talk. Are any of you disagreeing with that assessment? I'm also assuming everyone is feels that that's what we need to do, because in my opinion that's where we are headed or should be headed. Posted by: Chad Peterson at October 7, 2003 01:23 PM | PERMALINKAw... I hate it when people are getting picked on and all alone. I'll be objectively pro-traitor too! ALL YOU PPL JUS SHUT UP G W BUSH IS MY HERO IF IT WERENT FOR HIMYOUD ALL B EATING LAMBGUTS WITH OSAMA OK I'm back. That's all the companionship traitors need. Now off with their heads. Posted by: squiddy at October 7, 2003 01:25 PM | PERMALINKChad, the President could order the responsible parties (they WORK FOR HIM!) to come forward, or waive their confidentiality agreements with the reporters they leaked to. He hasn't done that. He won't do that. Try to guess why. Posted by: grytpype at October 7, 2003 01:26 PM | PERMALINKBush: I'm the president, tell me who did it? Administration official: Sir, it was I. I'm the traitorous criminal and I will do the honorable thing and take my 5 years in the pen. Thank you, sir, may I have another? Posted by: Chad Peterson at October 7, 2003 01:26 PM | PERMALINKChad, no one here would disgree the we "should be headed" towards getting Novak to talk. The problem is that without a real criminal investigation, including the use of the subpoena power, there is not a chance AT ALL that Novak will talk. He is under no legal compusion to do so unless he is subpoenaed. Then he would be required to testify. If he refused, he could be jailed indefinitly for contempt of Congress or comtempt of court, depending on how the investigation is being conducted. Most of us here do not believe that Ashcroft's DoJ will conduct a real criminal investigation. For good reason, we do not trust this Administration to be honest about something so explosively negative. I grant you that a Democratic White house would react in precisely the same way, it's what White House's do. That's why we need a special prosecutor. A crime has CLEARLY been committed. But an administration cannot be expected to impartially investigate itself in a criminal context. Posted by: jsaro at October 7, 2003 01:32 PM | PERMALINKChad, Again, there is no "they". There is one top executive and his small group of top management. There is no "they", it is 100% wholely his responsibility to sit each of them down and have a come-to-Jesus talk. I may have missed this in the news cycle, but Scott McClellan is still saying that the top exec has NOT directly questioned his personal staff of top managers. As I've previously written, it's not entertaining at all that it appears the president's politics trump national security. And I take back what I said about watching you guys writhe in apologist spasms being entertaining and enlightening; it's not that entertaining. You guys need to come up with the next new thing to apologize for your boy. The current set of refuted talking points are getting boring. Posted by: Jeff Boatright at October 7, 2003 01:34 PM | PERMALINKSuggestion to Bush("I'd like to. I want to know" snively whine inserted)/Ashcroft, etc. to determine who dun it: 2,000 polygraphs Posted by: homas at October 7, 2003 01:36 PM | PERMALINKSo far the perps get to decide who investigates them & what the evidence will be! Ain't justice grand? Posted by: homas at October 7, 2003 01:37 PM | PERMALINKBush could threaten to send all of his senior staff to Gitmo. Whoever did this is obviously trying to harm the security apparatus of the USA, so there's no reason they couldn't be considered an "enemy combatant"... right? Well, OK, the legal basis is a little shakey, but we're at war, and this is no time to be taking chances with legal niceties. There's a potential traitor in our midst. Posted by: ChrisL at October 7, 2003 01:39 PM | PERMALINKBush could also order everyone to spill what they know, in case someone who wasn't a leaker happens to know. He could also just fire everyone. They serve at his pleasure, after all. If they're covering for a traitor who betrayed national security, they shouldn't be at the White House. Posted by: Jon H at October 7, 2003 01:41 PM | PERMALINKChad wrote: "Bush: I'm the president, tell me who did it? Administration official: Sir, it was I. I'm the traitorous criminal and I will do the honorable thing and take my 5 years in the pen. Thank you, sir, may I have another?" --- OK, you're right and we're in agreement. Bush's administration is completely out of control. He has created a team that commits heinous national security crimes _and they cover for one another_ (remember, there's more than one). AND, there is no way he can figure out who it is. Yep, I agree, Bush has lost control of his administration. Oh wait, I guess I still can't agree totally with you. Yes, I agree with you that Bush objectively has no control over his own senior administration, but, but, but what about those 79 days...hmmmmm... I'll have to think about this some more. Posted by: Jeff Boatright at October 7, 2003 01:42 PM | PERMALINKJust my $0.02, but Bush could easily agree that whoever burned Plame would be fired, but not imprisoned. As I think Tenet has suggested, it would be enough to see this person disgraced and removed from their position. Not the perfect solution, but at least acceptable. Problem is (1) that person might be Rove, and (2) the opposition would scream bloody murder. Posted by: Joe at October 7, 2003 01:45 PM | PERMALINKIn one of the other "comments" sections on this blog someone noted a number of correspondences between GWB & reagan. Here's another: the facts in this matter, as the facts in Iran-contra, lead us to two possible conclusions. Either the president is incompetent and chronically misinformed about the goings on of his own senior staff, or the President is dishonest and fully willing to deceive the American people in order to further an extremist political agenda. Neither of these options is comforting, and the possibility that they could both be true is damn scary. Posted by: Eric at October 7, 2003 01:45 PM | PERMALINKPresident Bush does the country he serves a grave disservice by lowering expectations for the investigation that is now taking place into the Plame matter. I'm not surprised to see no Bush defenders here, because what he's saying is indefensible. Posted by: David W. at October 7, 2003 01:45 PM | PERMALINKIf the President really wants to find the source of the leaks, he should have John Poindexter set up an online futures-trading exchange in which people wager actual cash on their predictions of who the leakers are. Actually, this is a pretty darned good idea. Hmm. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or lawyers to set such a thing up. Anyone? Posted by: sockeye at October 7, 2003 01:46 PM | PERMALINKWhat President Bush is arrange a private meeting with Bob Novak. Then say to him: "Bob I've got a big problem you can help me and America with. I have two traitors in my administration. I need you to tell me, strictly off the record of course, who you talked to about Plame". Journalistic ethics aside I have a hard time believing that any journalist would refuse a personal appeal from their president. Posted by: Chris Stefan at October 7, 2003 01:51 PM | PERMALINKFrom the transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031007-2.html President Bush - "That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out." So he has instructed them to disclose everything that they know will get found out? Now that is one hell of a freudian slip. Posted by: Duane at October 7, 2003 01:51 PM | PERMALINKI think we are better off with the guy that has been working at Justice for 30 years versus some appointed Special Prosecutor(not Ind. Council). I think you guys can come up with better talking points, but if this is the best righteous indignation you can come up with, then it will have to do. I don't want politics, I want to catch traitors and make examples out of them. But in the process you are going to weaken this link that journalist have with government leakers. The question is do you guys really believe this is worth it. If she was a noc(and I'm still not completely sold, but 90% at this point) then it's worth it IMO. It may not be in yours, however. None of you guys have been willing to say that, preferring instead to just try to bash Bush with it. That's fine, but I vote for people who actually care about national security. Posted by: Chad Peterson at October 7, 2003 01:54 PM | PERMALINKIf the American public buys this bullshit, what WON'T they buy? Segways. Posted by: apostropher at October 7, 2003 01:54 PM | PERMALINKCurious: How does Bush know that the Plame leak was a "criminal action". Even I did'nt know that. I strongly suspected it and thought that Bush's footdragging and lack of interest appeared in themselves to be near felonious. How does Bush go overnight from appearing to know less than anybody else to appearing to know more than anybody else? Hmmm. Posted by: Gabriel Gonzalez at October 7, 2003 01:55 PM | PERMALINKLet the stonewalling begin: Privilege Claim Is Possible in Leak Probe - (Los Angeles Times) The Bush White House apparently plans to review the documents before releasing them. The 'outed' CIA agent is considering a lawsuit. WASHINGTON ? The White House said Monday that it might take up to two weeks to turn over all the documents requested by the Justice Department in connection with its probe of who leaked the name of a CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak. The drawn-out timetable, which suggests that officials may be considering invoking claims of executive privilege in connection with some of the materials being sought, comes as scores of White House staffers are scrambling to assemble electronic, phone and computer records related to the investigation. ... Posted by: David W. at October 7, 2003 02:00 PM | PERMALINKchad writes: Chad, what makes you think anyone here gives a crap what you think? Posted by: sockeye at October 7, 2003 02:04 PM | PERMALINKChad, Yes, it sure is hard to get worked up when it's your guy. But I would think that the party that has the corner on moral clarity would step up to the plate. Apparently you have done all that you think you should do. Okay, fine. What are your rebublican leaders (the spokespersons for your "lean") doing? ZIP. Oh know, that's not true. We have gotten a "well Ashcroft might want to consider an independent counsel" response from one (perhaps several) ruling republicans. I think there were several Democrats who voted in favor of impeachment, but I'm old, so maybe I have my facts wrong. But, you go ahead and do what you can. Posted by: doug m at October 7, 2003 02:05 PM | PERMALINKExcuse me, but I'm confused. Chad says he accepts the exposure of CIA deep-cover agebt Valerie Plame if that's the cost of 'catching traitors.' Ignore for a moment that exposure of Ms. Plame put her life in jeopardy, not to mention her network of informants. Forget that the outing of a spy may have possibly harmed U.S. intelligence interests. How does exposure of Valerie Plame relate to catching traitors? Posted by: Dave at October 7, 2003 02:16 PM | PERMALINKChad: How about someone who has worked in Justice for years, but is not currently under Ashcroft's thunb? Special prosecutors typically (with the notable exception of Starr, who was picked for his politics and knew nothing about criminal law)are people with strong criminal justice backgrounds and ample proscution experience -- they just don't have the baggage of being controlled by the target. Also, how can you still entertain doubts of Plame's status as NOC. There would not be a criminal investigation unless she had that status. It would not be a violation to out her unless she was NOC. There is no violation for outing one's status as a CIA employee, only for outing someone that is undercover CIA. Read the statue. Posted by: DMBeaster at October 7, 2003 02:22 PM | PERMALINKIt's like "Beat up on Chad day", but he just...keeps...saying...this...stuff: "None of you guys have been willing to say that, preferring instead to just try to bash Bush with it. That's fine, but I vote for people who actually care about national security." Chad, trying to tear into the press is what you want to argue. I don't agree, though plenty of liberals and conservatives here and at Tacitus do. But it's not an either/or circumstance. Whether Novak is hung by his thumbs does NOT release George Bush from his PERSONAL responsibility to this nation. He's had (now) 80 days to act on this. Again, according to his statements and those of McClellan, he has not acted to fulfill his direct duties. So, we may have found another topic to agree on. Neither of us will be voting for Bush in 2004 because we both "vote for people who actually care about national security." Cool! Posted by: Jeff Boatright at October 7, 2003 02:24 PM | PERMALINKChad claims: If it was a face to face meeting with Novak or a call from a pay phone, the only way to get the information is to make Novak talk. Are any of you disagreeing with that assessment? Yes, Chad. There are two ways to get the information. One is to make Novak talk. The other is to get whichever senior members of the administration who committed this crime to talk. If Bush had been interested in tracking down the traitors on his staff, he could have started 11 weeks ago. He didn't. Posted by: Jesurgislac at October 7, 2003 02:28 PM | PERMALINKChad: "That's fine, but I vote for people who actually care about national security." Well all those statements Bush,Inc. made about how the investigation was in the hands of the Justice Department and that's where it should be are now inoperative. For the next two weeks (at least) the "investigation" of the White House is in the hands of the White House. Posted by: homas at October 7, 2003 02:34 PM | PERMALINKI forgot to mention: we also don't smuggle 21 members of the Bin Laden family out of the country uninterviewed in the week after 9/11. No, that must be some other guys. That could be the abusive daddy party. I love my abusive daddy. Posted by: John Isbell at October 7, 2003 02:35 PM | PERMALINKI really don't get Bush. This is the worst damage control imaginable (having an ongoing criminal investigation of your WH). Far better to nip it in the bud by getting a resignation on the desk and looking like the take-charge guy his handlers have made him out to be in the public mind. So why does Bush undermind his image like that? This is standard scandal control - get a resignation and shut everyone up on the matter. Dragging it out is only making it worse for him and his (presumably demoralized) staff. Posted by: Scott in Montreal at October 7, 2003 02:35 PM | PERMALINKThe possibility of a civil suit by the Wilsons is intriguing. The GOP has already established the precedent that a sitting president can be called to testify under oath before a civil trial, and that giving misleading testimony under oath is an impeachable offense. One of the things I've grown very, very tired about hearing from Bush apoligists -- not in this thread, but elsewhere -- is the concept that, if he *did* lie about this or that, it isn't as bad as Clinton, who lied under oath, yadda yadda yadda. Now, one might suppose that violation of the Presidential Oath of Office is at least as bad as fibbing about one's sexual conduct, but I say: Fine. Then make 'em testify under oath, either before a grand jury or a civil trial. I'm sure the Republicans should have no problem with this prospect, because of *course* the President and his minions would do nothing but tell the truth, right? Posted by: Gregory at October 7, 2003 02:38 PM | PERMALINKChad Peterson writes at 1:54: I think we are better off with the guy that has been working at Justice for 30 years versus some appointed Special Prosecutor(not Ind. Council). The guy at justice for 30 years obtains evidence and wants to subpoena Karl Rove to appear in front of a Grand Jury. He must get approval from his superiors (including the Attorney General). The AG quashes the subpoena. The guy at justice must remain silent or he breaks the law. The Special Prosecutor obtains evidence and wants to subpoena Karl Rove to appear in front of a Grand Jury. He must get approval from his superiors (including the Attorney General). The AG quashes the subpoena. The Special Prosecutor must report the refusal to Congress. See the difference? Posted by: wolf at October 7, 2003 02:38 PM | PERMALINKChad writes: " If she was a noc(and I'm still not completely sold, but 90% at this point)" If she wasn't a NOC, then why did she put a company other than the CIA as her employer when she contributed to Gore? That's exceedingly strong evidence that she was under non-official cover. Posted by: Jon H at October 7, 2003 02:46 PM | PERMALINKWOAH WOAH WOAH hold on a sec Serious, this is important. Look what Bush said: "I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official," Bush said. "I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth." Look at Kevin's September 27 post which quotes the Washington Post: A senior administration official said two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. That motherfucker Bush isn't looking for the people who leaked Plame's name to Novak. He's looking for the other "leaker", the whistleblower who confirmed the story to the WaPo! That is who "senior administration official" refers to in this scandal. --Kynn Posted by: Kynn at October 7, 2003 03:04 PM | PERMALINK"Chad claims: If it was a face to face meeting with Novak or a call from a pay phone, the only way to get the information is to make Novak talk. Are any of you disagreeing with that assessment? Yes, Chad. There are two ways to get the information. One is to make Novak talk. The other is to get whichever senior members of the administration who committed this crime to talk. If Bush had been interested in tracking down the traitors on his staff, he could have started 11 I'm saying that 2 leakers haven't talked. Get something in writing before going after them so you can throw perjury on top of treason. I don't think that requires a grand jury. It requires them signing statements. That seems to be where we are at right now. Then make Novak talk. Novak can do that the easy way or the hard way. I'm advocating we can do either, but if he wants to play hard ball, fine. I'm willing to play hard. I've posed the hard ball question and no one seems to want address it, but we're getting close to that being where we are at. Dave, I don't accept the outing of CIA agent. That's what this whole discussion is about. I'm not a time traveling and can't go back and stop her outing. I can advocate the punishing of those that committed crimes. John, Howard Dean is moving up my list. He's conservative. He tends
to end up being right on issues in hindsight. Those are good qualities
in my mind. I'm done. Posted by: Chad Peterson at October 7, 2003 03:04 PM | PERMALINKDubya said: "These insidious traitors? Damaging our WMD intelligence network. We'll smoke 'em out of their holes? Dead or alive. Make no mistake: We'll bring 'em to justice." ... then I awoke. Posted by: squiddy at October 7, 2003 03:08 PM | PERMALINKPS: Don't believe me? Here's a google search for: "senior administration official" plame Bush is looking for the leak, but he's looking to expose the person who betrayed him not the people who betrayed Valerie Plame. --Kynn Posted by: Kynn at October 7, 2003 03:09 PM | PERMALINKif this is the best righteous indignation you can come up with, then it will have to do. We're trying to keep our indignation measured and proportionate to the offense. Blowing the cover of a CIA agent, while serious, is trivial in comparison with starting a war under false presenses. Posted by: Roger Bigod at October 7, 2003 03:10 PM | PERMALINK"I really don't get Bush. This is the worst damage control imaginable (having an ongoing criminal investigation of your WH). Far better to nip it in the bud by getting a resignation on the desk and looking like the take-charge guy his handlers have made him out to be in the public mind." My point exactly. We're flushing them out, baby. You think it was hard getting a leak out the Bush White House before, wait until Bush is finished with this Plame thing. He'll have that ship battened down tight!!! This is absolutely my last post on this issue. That comment humored me a little, although I take no enjoyment in this whole episode. Posted by: Chad Peterson at October 7, 2003 03:10 PM | PERMALINKAs one who worked in the Defense Dept. for three years and did a lot Posted by: Donald Sensing at October 7, 2003 03:13 PM | PERMALINKChad, Bush did NOTHING for 11 weeks. Two senior members of his administration leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative, and Bush's reaction was to hunker down for nearly 3 months and hope that it wouldn't be a big story in the media. To me, at the very kindest interpretation, that's incompetence. How do you interpret it? Posted by: Jesurgislac at October 7, 2003 03:15 PM | PERMALINKI'm on my way to the polls, so haven't ran the posts. If I repeat someone, that's why. Simply, it's no coincidence that Bush chose election day to drop this latest excercise in COVER UP on THE PEOPLE. Long time sucking". ('THE PEOPLE vs. G.W. BUSH'...sort of has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?). Posted by: Sovereign Eye at October 7, 2003 03:24 PM | PERMALINKNews Flash: President Bush has just announced: "I hope we can get this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible. This is a large administration and there's a lot of senior officials. Therefore, I am announcing that the first administration official to report to me who the leakers and any of their accomplices are shall receive a presidential pardon. The others will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I expect to know within the next 15 minutes." Posted by: Gabriel Gonzalez at October 7, 2003 03:25 PM | PERMALINKChad is clearly in denial. He changes the subject each time an unanswerable question is asked. Let him be. It can't be easy for him (and for others who "lean" the way he does). But to change the subject ourselves (just a little), imagine what it's like in the WH these days, where many innocent and some guilty people aren't sure any more who betrayed whom, and, more important, who's going to betray whom next. Think about being in such an environment. Posted by: Cervantes at October 7, 2003 03:28 PM | PERMALINKKynn - this must be right. He has accidentally given away that he is looking for the *leaker* (singular) not the *felons* (plural). Will I ever blog about something before someone in Calpundit comments actually gets to it first? Posted by: Nasi Lemak at October 7, 2003 03:34 PM | PERMALINKBy the way, Novak's citing of Plame's "cover" employer, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, means that he has become a "repeat" offender under Section C of the law in question and is now fair game for prosecution. Chew on that. Posted by: Ras_Nesta at October 7, 2003 03:35 PM | PERMALINKRas Nesta writes: "By the way, Novak's citing of Plame's "cover" employer, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, means that he has become a "repeat" offender under Section C of the law in question and is now fair game for prosecution." I don't think so. That information was publicly available, and wasn't classified. Posted by: Jon H at October 7, 2003 03:39 PM | PERMALINKYeah. "Criminal." What a putz. The only "justice" while Bush is president is POETIC JUSTICE. It's in God's hands. And, I'm not so sure his prayer circles will influence the real outcomes. Garnered over time. It's like when he drove drunk. And, Karen Hughes had to hold a press conference to answer the charges; which were true. He was arrested. So, she said, "Bush got pulled over for driving too slow." Yeah. That's it. Bad news countered with "Yeah, but he was driving too slow." Seems to be the man's intellectual approach, if you ask me. Posted by: Carol in California at October 7, 2003 03:39 PM | PERMALINKNo Jon, Novak's intent was to further "out" the agent in question. I'm paraphrasing Amb. Wilson himself this morning on "The Diane Rehm Show". Posted by: Ras_Nesta at October 7, 2003 04:00 PM | PERMALINKHi folks, I see about 100 comments already in this thread, so I guess my words will be lost. Still, this strikes me as an important point. As a poster above noted, Bush COULD "release" the various journalists -- including Novak -- from their promise of confidentiality. He could do that in a heartbeat. It may not work, depending on how the two leakers presented themselves ... but until Bush tries doing it, we'll not know if it would work. Let me explain in a little more detail. The two top White House officials who leaked Plame's association with the CIA may have presented themselves to the journalists they called as doing this on their own, "Hey, just a little inside info from me to you, my old buddy at [name of media outlet]. Of course, you can't reveal my identity. I'd lose my job." If that is, more or less, what the agreement was, then Bush will have no effect when he publicly "releases" the journalists involved from further honoring their promise of confidentiality because, after all, their promises were made to individuals, not to the Administration. But if the two leakers approached the media in ANY way which suggested they were acting in their official capacity -- that is, acting as agents of the Bush Administration -- then the promise of confidentiality is with the Administration corporately, not with the individuals specifically. I know that when I worked with columnist Jack Anderson half a lifetime ago, that was exactly how we'd have looked at it. Either way, if Bush GENUINELY wants to get to the bottom of this, then there is no cost involved in making a public announcement to this effect. At worst, it makes him look better for obviously trying to rout out the leakers. At best, by doing this he'd SUCCEED in routing out the leakers. Why doesn't he do this? It is a fair question. Since I really hate this Administration, I think I know the answer ... but conservatives ought to be asking it, too, quite frankly. One other thought: note that TWO White House senior staff approached the reporters. Just in itself, that suggests unified and planned action ... it implies that the leakers were not playing their own angle, but WERE acting (with or without permission) as agents of the Administration. Remember, it doesn't matter whether they were trying to serve the boss by going off half-cocked with their leak, or whether they were acting on orders or after clearing it with others. If they implied that they were acting as White House agents, or that fact could be reasonably inferred by the reporters based on the totality of their statements, that's all it would require. Oh, another thought: if it was someone VERY high -- say, Rove -- then I'm not sure he could EVER claim to have been leaking on his own. Once you reach a certain level of seniority, you are ALWAYS acting as an agent of the White House. (Reminds me of the old Watergate joke: "Did you hear that Nixon offered the Special Council a deal? Said that in exchange for immunity he'd name the higher ups.") -- Roger Posted by: Marsman at October 7, 2003 04:04 PM | PERMALINKRas Nesta: "No Jon, Novak's intent was to further "out" the agent in question. I'm paraphrasing Amb. Wilson himself this morning on "The Diane Rehm Show" I'm sure his intention wasn't honorable, but that doesn't make it criminal. He'd have to leak another piece of classified information, like some place that she went overseas. I don't put that past him. He'd somehow try to explain that she couldn't possibly be a CIA agent, because she was working for an energy firm during a visit to Brussels in 1998. Posted by: Jon H at October 7, 2003 04:13 PM | PERMALINKChad: I'm glad to hear you're considering a Democrat! I'm deadly serious in my opinion about national security. Posted by: John Isbell at October 7, 2003 04:13 PM | PERMALINKHoly cow, Gabriel, are you serious? Do you have a link? And I think Kynn has a point...not that it's at all assuring. There's no question, after all, that Bush doesn't want the press to get any information that isn't 100% party spin. They might as well copy and paste from his "blog," it'd suit him fine. Posted by: Gregory at October 7, 2003 04:14 PM | PERMALINKkynn, i think you're right that bush is looking for 1 senior administration
official aka deep throat pt2. someone postulated that it might be
powell. maybe it was just me but it looked like bush was nodding subtely
towards powell while he spoke about it. Michael Kelly once wrote in a column (I can't find it right now), right before Bush's SOTU, that he was interviewing a "'senior administration official,' as the White House nomenclature dictates.'" Is there an official nomenclature about who gets called what, and if so, what is it? Maybe we could narrow this down. Posted by: Alex at October 7, 2003 05:10 PM | PERMALINKNews Flash (developing story): (Guantanamo, Cuba) - In and unexpected development in the Plame affair designed to "show the American people that we will not tolerate leaks", John Ashcroft has announced that ex-CIA Director George Tenet has been fingered as the source of White House leaks "seriously jeopordizing national security interests". Mr. Tenet has been declared as an "enemy combatant" and is presently being held in Guantanamo, Cuba. Mr. Tenet, allegedly detained holding a copy of the Koran while urinating on a photo of Karl Rove in the ladies restroom in the Westwing of the Whitehouse, was not allowed to make a statement. When questioned, President Bush said, "We're serious about leaks. And we certainly don't want that kind of activity going on in the ladies bathroom." Posted by: Gabriel Gonzalez at October 7, 2003 05:48 PM | PERMALINKHmm.... I found other article about this theme... But I did'n remember URL, sorry... Try to search google.... Posted by: generic viagra at April 16, 2004 11:47 AM | PERMALINKonline casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 09:01 AM | PERMALINKDark Damsels - EU Amateurs - Group Thrills - Hidden Eyes - Latina Kiss - Big N Plump - Blowing Loads - Sexy GangBangs - Cum Slurping Whores - Real Time Videos - Maximum Cock - Papa Hymen - Goth Fuck - Vegas Palms Casino - Fortune Room Casino Posted by: inthevip at June 30, 2004 10:09 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
