So, what the Valerie Plame hearing today?

[BlessedMomOfTwo]

Actually, Armitage was one of several leakers. It wasn't just him. The list includes Armitage, Libby, Fleisher, and Rove.

I also hope that people will take the time to read the actual testimony. It is now clear she was covert. The CIA confirmed it for the record. The issue with being charged with outing her under the IIPA relates to whether or not the person who outed her knew she was covert at the time they outed her.

That is why Libby wasn't charged with outing her. Because Fitzgerald could not prove that he knew she was covert when he outed her. And that is why Libby was charged with obstructing justice - that his lies prevented Fitzgerald from ascertaining if in fact the crime of outing the CIA agent had occurred. That was why he made the reference to "throwing sand in the umpire's eyes" - that Libby's lies prevented a full, conclusive investigation.

It is sometimes reported that Libby wasn't guilty of outing her because he wasn't charged, but that really isn't an accurate statement. He wasn't charged with outing her is an accurate statement. Fitzgerald was clear that there remains a cloud of uncertainty as to his and the other leakers's guilt r/t to the outing crime.

I think one of the most important points that Plame made was related to the inpact this could have on the ability of our CIA agents around the world to develop contacts and sources. As she so eloquently stated, if our country couldn't protect one of our own covert agent's status, why would contacts elsewhere believe we could offer them protection for providing us with info. Given the need for us to have as much info as we can to fight the war on terrorism, that is an important point we should all be concerned about (aside from the politics of it).

Carol

 

[Charade]

Actually, Armitage was one of several leakers. It wasn't just him. The list includes Armitage, Libby, Fleisher, and Rove.

I also hope that people will take the time to read the actual testimony. It is now clear she was covert. The CIA confirmed it for the record. The issue with being charged with outing her under the IIPA relates to whether or not the person who outed her knew she was covert at the time they outed her.

That is why Libby wasn't charged with outing her. Because Fitzgerald could not prove that he knew she was covert when he outed her. And that is why Libby was charged with obstructing justice - that his lies prevented Fitzgerald from ascertaining if in fact the crime of outing the CIA agent had occurred. That was why he made the reference to "throwing sand in the umpire's eyes" - that Libby's lies prevented a full, conclusive investigation.

It is sometimes reported that Libby wasn't guilty of outing her because he wasn't charged, but that really isn't an accurate statement. He wasn't charged with outing her is an accurate statement. Fitzgerald was clear that there remains a cloud of uncertainty as to his and the other leakers's guilt r/t to the outing crime.

I think one of the most important points that Plame made was related to the inpact this could have on the ability of our CIA agents around the world to develop contacts and sources. As she so eloquently stated, if our country couldn't protect one of our own covert agent's status, why would contacts elsewhere believe we could offer them protection for providing us with info. Given the need for us to have as much info as we can to fight the war on terrorism, that is an important point we should all be concerned about (aside from the politics of it).

Carol

Well, Armitage as publically admitted it. Why hasn't he been charged?

 

[BlessedMomOfTwo]

Charade,

As to why Armitage hasn't been charged...

I don't know the exact answer. I am guessing that they were not able to prove he knew she was covert at the time he leaked. Either that or maybe he has some sort of immunity deal. I hope all the truth will come out at some point.

Carol

 

[Charade]

Charade,

As to why Armitage hasn't been charged...

I don't know the exact answer. I am guessing that they were not able to prove he knew she was covert at the time he leaked. Either that or maybe he has some sort of immunity deal. I hope all the truth will come out at some point.

Carol

Hmm... you stated in your last reply that he was a leaker. If you know this to be true, why can't a prosector figure this out?

And if the other 3 names you mentioned are leakers, surely a prosector can nail at least one of them.

 

[TCPluto]

Listen and read the testimony. There is no question that she was covet. Don't just listen to some clown on the radio, check out what actually was said in hearings.

Valerie's a political hack, Im not interested in anything she has to say. At one point she said she didn't know her status.

 

[LuvDuke]

Hmm... you stated in your last reply that he was a leaker. If you know this to be true, why can't a prosector figure this out?

And if the other 3 names you mentioned are leakers, surely a prosector can nail at least one of them.

I'm sure you could direct your questions to your president and his hack lawyer known as Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez who couldn't even be bothered conducting an investigation in the WH.

 

[LuvDuke]

This is long, but I think it deserves to be seen in full. For those who don't know, Editor & Publisher is the trade magazine of the journalism industry. It's amazing that I had to learn some things here that weren't reported in the mainstream media. For those who just want to skim, I've highlighted some of the more interesting passages.

By the way, halfway through the article, that's CIA chief General Michael Hayden confirming Plame's covert status. Many on the right, including some posters on this thread, desperately cling to the fallacy that she was not covert before being deliberately outed by the White House.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003559607

Media Reviews Plame's Wardrobe -- But Not White House Coverup
In their rush to cover the long-awaited testimony of Valerie Plame, few reporters apparently bothered to stick around the Capitol Hill hearing room yesterday to witness the just as shocking testimony of a much less heralded (and not so attractive) insider named James Knodell.

By Greg Mitchell

(March 17, 2007) -- In their rush to cover the long-awaited testimony of Valerie Plame, few reporters apparently bothered to stick around the Capitol Hill hearing room yesterday to witness the equally shocking testimony of a much less heralded (and not so attractive) insider named James Knodell. This left E&P, covering the hearing via the Web, to provide the only in-depth “mainstream” coverage of Knodell's testimony.

But now there’s a chance for others to join in, as Rep. Henry A. Waxman, who called the hearings, and the ranking Republican on the committee, Tom Davis, have sent a letter to the White House demanding answers for why, despite President Bush’s vows, no one there seems to have conducted any sort of in-house investigation into the outing of a valued covert CIA operative four years ago.
Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House -- whose appearance was opposed by the Bush team until Waxman threatened a subpoena -- revealed that his records showed absolutely no interest or questioning about the leak after the outing occurred in July 2003, and none since (he became chief in August 2004).
Barely a word about this appeared in the media yesterday. The Washington Post, however, found space for a full review of Plame’s fashion sense and a Dana Milbank column in the form of a movie script (tweaking the sale of her story to the movies).

We did learn from Mary Ann Akers’ fashion piece, titled “Hearing Room Chic, that Plame wore Armani (“a fetching jacket and pants”). Also: Katie Holmes should be a frontrunner to play her in the movie because she, too, favors Armani.

Yet Amy Goldstein’s front page story on the Plame hearing today doesn’t even mention Knodell. Neither did The New York Times article, although it found space to quote Republican critics several times and declare that Plame’s appearance “seemed less a platform for legislation than for Democrats, who now control the committee, to criticize the Bush administration.” It ended with a nice line about the former spy slipping out the door. Apparently the reporters did the same.

The Boston Globe at least gave Knodell one paragraph.
The AP did not, and headlined its story, "Plame Sheds Little Light on Leak Case."

You would think that, on the contrary, the revelations surrounding Plame’s testimony would have promoted much more interest on the evidence of the coverup that emerged just a few minutes later in the same room. In fact, Knodell's words should have provided a sickening feeling in the guts of most reporters – especially when he admitted that the only way he knew anyone was concerned about the leak was not from the White House but from the press.

For years, conservatives have charged that Plame was not “covert” and not a valuable member of the intelligence community, and therefore pooh-poohed the 2003 outing. Yesterday, not only did Plame state, under oath, that she was indeed covert -- not to mention “undercover” and “classified” -- but her boss, Gen. Hayden, confirmed this in no uncertain terms.
Then she testified about the extreme damage done to her colleagues and their missions due to her exposure. The few Republicans who bothered to show up for the hearing – knowing they no longer had any case – were reduced to claiming absurdly that it was all the CIA’s fault for not circulating a list of covert agents so the poor fellows in White House would only out those with unclassified jobs.
Yet the media found of no consequence that the president and his press spokesman both lied repeatedly in claiming that an in-house probe was conducted.

So, as a public service, in case anyone is interested, here are excerpts from the Waxman-Davis letter last night to Josh Bolten, the president’s chief of staff.

*
Today, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing to examine the disclosure by senior White House officials of the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. The hearing raised many new questions about the how the White House responded to an extraordinarily serious breach of national security. It also raised new concerns about whether the security practices being followed by the White House are sufficient to protect our nation's most sensitive secrets.

James Knodell, Director of the Office of Security at the White House, testified at the hearing about White House procedures for safeguarding classified information. During his testimony, Mr. Knodell made some remarkable statements about how his office handled the disclosure of Ms.'Wilson's covert status. Specifically, Mr. Knodell testified:

-- The Office of Security for the White House never conducted any investigation of the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity;

-- Under the applicable executive order and regulations, your senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and other senior White House officials were required to report what they knew about the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity, but they did not make any such report to the White House Office of Security; and

-- There has been no suspension of security clearances or any other administrative sanction for Mr. Rove and other White House officials involved in the disclosure….

The testimony of Mr. Knodell appears to describe White House decisions that were inconsistent with the directives of Executive Order 12958, which you signed in March 2003.
Under this executive order, the White House is required to "take appropriate and prompt corrective action" whenever there is a release of classified information. Yet Mr. Knodell could describe no such actions after the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity.
Taken as a whole, the testimony at today's hearing described breach after breach of national security requirements at the White House. The first breach was the disclosure of Ms. 'Wilson's identity. Other breaches included the failure of Mr. Rove and other officials to report their disclosures as required by law, the failure of the White House to initiate the prompt investigation required by the executive order, and the failure of the White House to suspend the security clearances of the implicated officials.

To assist the Committee in its investigation into these issues, I request that you provide the Committee with a complete account of the steps that the White House took following the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity (1) to investigate how the leak occurred; (2) to review the security clearances of the White House officials implicated in the leak; (3) to impose administrative or disciplinary sanctions on the officials involved in the leak; and (4) to review and revise existing White House security procedures to prevent future breaches of national security.

I look forward to your response and hope you will cooperate with the Committee's inquiry.

Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Chairman

Tom Davis
Ranking Minority Member

When the Watergate story was unfolding, it really wasn't front page news until it was well underway and was leading straight into the WH. At that point, people really started to pay attention.

Waxman is onto something and Knodell's testimony was a shocker.

And just as a reminder, none of this wouldv'e come to light if the American people hadn't tossed the Republicans out of Congress. Could anyone in their right mind see Hastert and Frist rushing to get to the truth?

 

[Mugg Mann]

When the Watergate story was unfolding, it really wasn't front page news until it was well underway and was leading straight into the WH. At that point, people really started to pay attention.

Waxman is onto something and Knodell's testimony was a shocker.

And just as a reminder, none of this wouldv'e come to light if the American people hadn't tossed the Republicans out of Congress. Could anyone in their right mind see Hastert and Frist rushing to get to the truth?

Keep those thoughts in mind, and knowing what we know now about Knodell's testimony; reread the beginning of Scott McClellan's press briefing from September 29, 2003. You have to be in complete and total denial in light of what we know now to think that this administration was sincere about what it told the public.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

Q Scott, has anyone -- has the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing. Secondly, there -- I've seen the anonymous media reports, and if I could find out who "anonymous" was, it would make my life a whole lot easier. But --

Q Does he think it didn't come from here?

MR. McCLELLAN: But we've made it very clear that anyone -- anyone -- who has information relating to this should report that information to the Department of Justice.

Q Does he doubt it came from the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Does he doubt?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's been no information that has been brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.

Q Will the President move aggressively to see if such a transgression has occurred in the White House? Will he ask top White House officials to sign statements saying that they did not give the information?

MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, if someone leaked classified information of this nature, the appropriate agency to look into it would be the Department of Justice. So the Department of Justice is the one that would look in matters like this.

Q You're saying the White House won't take a proactive role?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have any specific information to bring to my attention suggesting White House involvement?

Q If you would --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen any.

Q Would you not want to know whether someone had leaked information of this kind?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has been -- I spoke for him earlier today -- the President believes leaking classified information is a very serious matter. And it should be --

Q So why doesn't he want --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- pursued to the fullest extent --

Q Right, so why --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- by the appropriate agency. And the appropriate agency is the Department of Justice.

Q Why wouldn't he proactively do that, ask people on the staff to say that they had not leaked anything?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information to suggest White House involvement? I saw a media report that said "senior administration officials." That's an anonymous source that could include a lot of people. I've seen a lot of "senior administration officials" in media stories.

Q Would they know -- to the White House?

Q Scott, when you say that it should be pursued by the Justice Department -- Justice has not said whether it actually is conducting an investigation. Does the President want the Justice Department to investigate this matter?

MR. McCLELLAN: If someone leaked classified information of the nature that has been reported, absolutely, the President would want it to be looked into. And the Justice Department would be the appropriate agency to do so.

Q And do you know that they are doing this?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's a question you need to ask the Department of Justice. My understanding is that if something like this happened and it was referred to the Department of Justice, then the Department of Justice would look to see whether or not there is enough information to pursue it further. But those are questions you need to ask the Department of Justice.

 

[BlessedMomOfTwo]

Hmm... you stated in your last reply that he was a leaker. If you know this to be true, why can't a prosector figure this out?

And if the other 3 names you mentioned are leakers, surely a prosector can nail at least one of them.

Charade,

There are two issues here. I am sorry I was not clearer in my earlier posts.

The investigation into the leaking of Plames identity was twofold. First, did the leaks occur. And then, if so, were they a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (IIPA) which is a criminal violation.

The standards for the IIPA are clear that the person knew the individual was a covert employee and still leaked their info.

Here is what the act itself says....

SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States
undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and
sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
classified information that identifies covert agent

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any
information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert
agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that
the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such
activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of
the United States, discloses any information that identifies an
individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive
classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so
identifies such individual and that the United States is taking
affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified
intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more
than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Now, it has been proven that those I mentioned passed along the info on Plame (ie leaked it). I believe all have admitted this in sworn testimony. So, the first part was proven.

Now, the determination needed to be made if they knew she was covert status and leaked the info anyway. That is where criminal charges would enter into it.

At this point, the special prosecutor has not been able to prove they knew her status was covert. Proving what someone knew at a certain time isn't easy. As much as people want to make this all about politicis, I believe the Special Prosecutor was correct not to bring those criminal charges if he wasn't able to prove it for sure.

So, did they leak - yes.
Did they intentionally leak even though they knew her status was covert? Unknown at this point.

Here is my personal opinion at this point...

I don't believe they did leak the info knowing she was covert. I am no fan of this Administration, but I do not believe they would knowingly endanger our CIA operatives in such a way (at least I really hope not). However, Libby chose to lie during the investigation which got them into a bigger mess than they would have been in originally. That raised doubts that they must have known otherwise why the need to lie.

I believe these folks were angry at Wilson for writing his article and in a petulant response, they tried to discredit him. In doing so, they leaked the info. That wasn't by mistake. They planned to leak that info. However, they didn't think about whether or not she may have been classified before they did so. Now, that may not fit the criminal charges under IIPA, but it does demonstrate to me that there was a recklessness to their actions. That may not be illegal, but it sure is wrong in my opinion.

Carol

 

[Charade]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage acknowledged Thursday that he was the source who first revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak back in 2003, touching off a federal investigation.

Armitage told the CBS Evening News that he did so inadvertently.

"I feel terrible," Armitage said. "Every day, I think, I let down the president. I let down the secretary of state. I let down my department, my family, and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson."

In a column published on July 14, 2003, Novak, citing two senior administration officials, noted that Plame was a CIA operative. The column was primarily about Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, a former career diplomat and critic of the intelligence underlying the invasion of Iraq.

Novak has never revealed the original source of the information about Plame. However, he has confirmed that President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, confirmed the information and was the second source cited in the column.

Novak has said he would not reveal the identity of the original source unless the source came forward. However, he said Fitzgerald learned who the source was independently.

Last month, sources told CNN that Armitage had revealed Plame's role at the CIA in a casual conversation with Novak.

So there it is. Armitage admits he was the original leaker. But it was inadvertantly done in a casual converstation with Novak. Novak didn't reveal his original source, Fitzgerald found out on his own.

I really don't understand the page after page of this and that. I don't understand your point that if Fitzgerald could prove who the leaker was, he'd prosecute. The CNN article I quoted says he does.

 

[LuvDuke]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/index.html



So there it is. Armitage admits he was the original leaker. But it was inadvertantly done in a casual converstation with Novak. Novak didn't reveal his original source, Fitzgerald found out on his own.

I really don't understand the page after page of this and that. I don't understand your point that if Fitzgerald could prove who the leaker was, he'd prosecute. The CNN article I quoted says he does.

Knowing what we know now, it begs the question of why Libby felt the need to lie. Why? If Libby, and the rest of the WH group, was completely innocent, why the lies?

 

[LuvDuke]

Keep those thoughts in mind, and knowing what we know now about Knodell's testimony; reread the beginning of Scott McClellan's press briefing from September 29, 2003. You have to be in complete and total denial in light of what we know now to think that this administration was sincere about what it told the public.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

Q Scott, has anyone -- has the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing. Secondly, there -- I've seen the anonymous media reports, and if I could find out who "anonymous" was, it would make my life a whole lot easier. But --

Q Does he think it didn't come from here?

MR. McCLELLAN: But we've made it very clear that anyone -- anyone -- who has information relating to this should report that information to the Department of Justice.

Q Does he doubt it came from the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Does he doubt?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's been no information that has been brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.

Q Will the President move aggressively to see if such a transgression has occurred in the White House? Will he ask top White House officials to sign statements saying that they did not give the information?

MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, if someone leaked classified information of this nature, the appropriate agency to look into it would be the Department of Justice. So the Department of Justice is the one that would look in matters like this.

Q You're saying the White House won't take a proactive role?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have any specific information to bring to my attention suggesting White House involvement?

Q If you would --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen any.

Q Would you not want to know whether someone had leaked information of this kind?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has been -- I spoke for him earlier today -- the President believes leaking classified information is a very serious matter. And it should be --

Q So why doesn't he want --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- pursued to the fullest extent --

Q Right, so why --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- by the appropriate agency. And the appropriate agency is the Department of Justice.

Q Why wouldn't he proactively do that, ask people on the staff to say that they had not leaked anything?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information to suggest White House involvement? I saw a media report that said "senior administration officials." That's an anonymous source that could include a lot of people. I've seen a lot of "senior administration officials" in media stories.

Q Would they know -- to the White House?

Q Scott, when you say that it should be pursued by the Justice Department -- Justice has not said whether it actually is conducting an investigation. Does the President want the Justice Department to investigate this matter?

MR. McCLELLAN: If someone leaked classified information of the nature that has been reported, absolutely, the President would want it to be looked into. And the Justice Department would be the appropriate agency to do so.

Q And do you know that they are doing this?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's a question you need to ask the Department of Justice. My understanding is that if something like this happened and it was referred to the Department of Justice, then the Department of Justice would look to see whether or not there is enough information to pursue it further. But those are questions you need to ask the Department of Justice.

Are you implying Scotty McZieglar and his boss were lying?

It's getting to the point where you don't even need a scorecard for how many times they told the truth.

And I repeat, once again, none of this would've come to light if the American voter hadn't tossed the Republicans out on their rubberstamping ***** last November. In only 2 months, it's amazing what's come crawling out from under the WH rock.

Waxman is onto something and so is Leahy with the firings of the US attorneys.

 

[BlessedMomOfTwo]

Charade,

Yes, Armitage was a leaker. He was not the only leaker. Several other key administration officials also leaked the information BEFORE NOVAK RAN HIS COLUMN. Armitage became what you are defining as the "original leaker" due to dumb luck. Had any one of the other reporters to whom these people leaked the info printed it before Novak did, their source would have been the "original leaker". So, several people were leaking at the same time. The other reporters held the info. Novak released it first.

Now, if this all doesn't matter to you, then I understand why you don't understand the need for ongoing investigation or discussion. I have spent a lot of time reviewing the testimony, etc in this case rather than choosing to believe soundbites or party talking lines. And, as such, I find it frustrating when the untruths about the case continue to be passed along. I do realize that not everyone is as much of a geek as I am to spend time really looking at the facts to reach my own conclusion.

Honesty from our Administration matters to me, as does protecting our CIA agents, service personnel, etc.. So for me, it matters and is important. And if we want potential informants, etc to trust us with important information in the future, we as a country should be showing that we have better standards of protecting intelligence, those who provide it, and those entrusted with it.

FWIW, I believe Armitage more than the others. I don't believe he was one of those who was part of the group sent out to leak the info. I think he overheard it and was gossiping, which frankly doesn't speak well of him either. But I do believe that he didn't know she was covert. He was passing along what he had heard, etc.. Which exactly goes to the point of why it is so important that classified info is kept classified.

Carol

 

[BlessedMomOfTwo]

Charade,

I found the chart they were referencing in the hearings which shows who leaked to whom. You can find it here...

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070316173308-19288.pdf

Carol

 

[Charade]

Charade,

I found the chart they were referencing in the hearings which shows who leaked to whom. You can find it here...

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070316173308-19288.pdf

Carol

That's interesting and confusing at the same time. But a key point is missing. The timeline.

 

[LuvDuke]

That's interesting and confusing at the same time. But a key point is missing. The timeline.

Well, geez, it's only been 2 months since the Democrats took control of Congress and the administration's been stonewalling/lying for the last nearly 4 years over the leak. Considering, I'd say remarkable progress has been made. This is the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Charade]

Well, geez, it's only been 2 months since the Democrats took control of Congress and the administration's been stonewalling/lying for the last nearly 4 years over the leak. Considering, I'd say remarkable progress has been made. This is the tip of the iceberg.

Well, they know how her status was disseminated but they don't know when?

Wouldn't the person who first leaked her name to someone who wasn't allowed to know be the person they should be going after?

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Well, they know how her status was disseminated but they don't know when?

Wouldn't the person who first leaked her name to someone who wasn't allowed to know be the person they should be going after?

Yes. But the fact is there may be a bigger fish to fry. I look at it in the same light as you catch a 17 year old kid dealing drugs. You know he's not the supplier so you work with that kid in order to get the bigger and better fish. Going after one individual isn't all there is to the story - especially if that individual was instructed by someone higher in the Bush Admin to do the leak.

Happens all the time.

~Amanda

 

[LuvDuke]

Well, they know how her status was disseminated but they don't know when?

Wouldn't the person who first leaked her name to someone who wasn't allowed to know be the person they should be going after?

Frankly, I have no problem with going after Armitage. Whether what he did was criminal or not, "loose lips sink ships".

However, Armitage is irrelevant to the Libby case. Libby was not charged with revealing Plame's identity. He was charged, and convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. As was detailed in Libby's trial, there was a concerted effort to discredit Joe Wilson because he threw a monkey wrench into the WH propaganda. And for good measure, this WH went after Wilson's wife. Why Valerie Plame's name was mentioned at all is disturbing at best.

There are bigger fish to fry than someone who can't keep their mouth shut like Armitage. Libby lied for a reason and Waxman is determined to find out that reason. That's what's happening here.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Frankly, I have no problem with going after Armitage. Whether what he did was criminal or not, "loose lips sink ships".

However, Armitage is irrelevant to the Libby case. Libby was not charged with revealing Plame's identity. He was charged, and convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. As was detailed in Libby's trial, there was a concerted effort to discredit Joe Wilson because he threw a monkey wrench into the WH propaganda. And for good measure, this WH went after Wilson's wife. Why Valerie Plame's name was mentioned at all is disturbing at best.

There are bigger fish to fry than someone who can't keep their mouth shut like Armitage. Libby lied for a reason and Waxman is determined to find out that reason. That's what's happening here.

Actually, LuvDuke, while I can't really contradict what you've posted, I think the whole L'Affair du Plame is actually indicative of an even bigger picture. This administration has always engaged in using any tactic possible to discredit and retaliate against those who do not tow the "official" line.

Look at the body count. Richard Clarke. Joe Wilson. US Attorneys who did not do the bidding of the White House. Anyone who dared speak out publicly against the Iraq war. (Moore, Murtha, Sheehan, etc...) There's a few examples right there without even thinking about it. If we wanted to, we could come up with a ton more examples. (Miss ya, Doc...you'd be a big help here!)

Somebody needs to bookmark this moment in history for comparitive purposes. This administration looks squeaky clean at the moment compared to how it's going to look about two years from now. And yes, you can quote me.