Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

July 12, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

NOVAK SPEAKS....SORT OF....Robert Novak has a column today in which he reveals two of his three sources for his original Valerie Plame column:

I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have revealed Harlow's name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection. My primary source has not come forward to identify himself.

So what is Novak's recollection of those two conversations? If he's going to tell us this much, shouldn't he tell us the rest?

UPDATE: Jeralyn Merritt also points out that Novak's assertion in today's column that he got the name "Valerie Plame" from Joe Wilson's Who's Who entry doesn't match his earlier statement that "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." Of course, the Who's Who story never made sense in the first place, did it? Perhaps Novak might like to revise and extend.

Kevin Drum 1:56 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (179)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Who cares what Novak remembers?

Posted by: Ron Byers on July 12, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Jonah Goldberg reads the latest from Novak and concludes there never was any wrongdoing in PlameGate (see the Corner or my Angrybear amazement at Jonah Goldberg's ability to read the mind of Patrick Fitzgerald).

Posted by: pgl on July 12, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Ron, it's been an interesting story. I am curious to see how he plans to spin it from this point forward.

Posted by: shortstop on July 12, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

my question is if Novak did tell Fitz that Rove was the one who leaked Plame name then why wasn't Rove charges 2 years ago?

I am confused seems like an open and shut case

Posted by: smartone on July 12, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Will the Bush supplicants in these comments now stop telling us that Rove is "innocent" just because he hasn't been indicted? The only thing Rove is innocent of is having a soul.

Posted by: craigie on July 12, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

I saw this earlier. I'd like to know just what the differences between his recollection and Rove's are.

But, what I'd like to know isn't that important.

It's if Patrick Fitzgerald wants to know more about these different recollections, if he doesn't already, that's important.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on July 12, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

What kind of hair does Novak have? Seems mighty suspicious to me. And Rove's pink little head doesn't even have any hair on it. That's got to be some kind of punishable offense, no?

Posted by: craigie on July 12, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Fitzgerald already knows all the answers to the questions being asked here. Indictments are still not forthcoming.

Fitzmas was over last year.

It was coal in the stocking.

Get over it already.

Posted by: bellwether on July 12, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

First of all, I think it is now fairly clear that Libby will be the end of the road as far as TraitorGate prosection goes. They got away with it, and they are quite self-satisfied.

Which leads directly to the next question. People I know from Illinois who have worked with Fitzgerald say he is what he appears to be: a straight shooter. But it is getting harder and harder to discount the possibility that he was sent in specifically to clean up after the parade. If that meant finding a single scapegoat, no problem: that is what pardons are for. But if the trail leads to Cheney? Erase it.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on July 12, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

We know the President was and has been LYING from day one about this story. That makes him a bald -faced liar. For those that didn't already know that, now you do.

Posted by: Mario on July 12, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

And Rove's pink little head doesn't even have any hair on it. That's got to be some kind of punishable offense, no?

Nah, baldness is normal and natural. Roveness, on the other hand, is a crime against the universe.

Posted by: shortstop on July 12, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

> Fitzmas was over last year.
>
> It was coal in the stocking.
>
> Get over it already.

Fitzgerald also knew the whole story prior to the 2004 election, but chose to wait until after the votes were counted to take any public action. Does that bother anyone else?

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on July 12, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, I don`t even see the fat lady on stage yet in this opera of type=soap

Means we have a ways to go...

"Everyday reality now is a complete fiction, manufactured by the media landscape and we operate inside it." - JG Ballard

Posted by: daCascadian on July 12, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

" But it is getting harder and harder to discount the possibility that he was sent in specifically to clean up after the parade."

Cranky, not to sound Bushovian, but that's sure what my 'gut' is telling me. Darn, Fitz sure seemed like an honest broker.

Posted by: nepeta on July 12, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't there supposed to be some sort of sealed indictment? What ever happned to that?

Posted by: Jose Padilla on July 12, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

I am still more interested in the implications of the comment deputy attorney Steven Bradbury made yesterday. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/12/deputy-attorney-general-t_n_24889.html

For those who haven't heard, he said, in response to a question that "the President is always right" on any issue involving the WOT.

Posted by: Ron Byers on July 12, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Zidane speaks sort of:

Zinedine Zidane has apologised for the headbutt on Italy's Marco Materazzi which earned him a red card in Sunday's World Cup final penalty shoot-out loss.

But the France legend did not reveal what Materazzi said, only confirming that it was "very personal" and concerned his mother and his sister.

In a French TV interview, Zidane, 34, said: "I want to ask for forgiveness from all the children who watched that.

Posted by: michele on July 12, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Please don't mention Jonah Goldberg, gag... cough, his creepy-Nixon-spy-mother is more qualified to pundify on most any subject.

I'd be amazed if Novak actually commits/breaks news today, I'm entirely expecting to be furhter sickened by Brit and Howard, and wearily disappointed by Juan and Moira. If Kristol is there prepare for mass hypnosis and urges to invade yet more countries.

Posted by: jerry on July 12, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin asked why Novak has not shared his recollections of the two conversations but the fact is Novak has already done so. For example, he has previously written and spoken about his different recollection from CIA spokesman Harlow's about how strongly the CIA urged him not to run Plame's name. And there have been similar stories about how exactly Rove confirmed the information as Novak's second source and how strongly the White House was pushing this story (to Novak and others).

This story will continue to be an excellent test case for seeing which Bush critics are able to recognize a fizzle when they see it and which critics are so blinded by their hate that they will cling to any conspiracy theory, no matter how ridiculous, rather than accept that maybe there wasn't that much to Plamegate after all.

Posted by: Hacksaw on July 12, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

yeah, whatever happened to those sealed Espionage Act indictments? cmdicely? Gregory? cranky?

as for the comments above...you might want to read the article. Rove wasn't Novak's source. Rove confirmed what Novak's source told him, as did the CIA spokesman (both of these according to Novak). further, Rove apparently didn't know Plame's name...

as for Novak's original source, I suppose that Armitage still seems to be the most likely.

Novak also writes that he has cooperated with Fitzgerald all along...

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

For those who haven't heard, he said, in response to a question that "the President is always right" on any issue involving the WOT.

So besides papal infallibility we know have presidential infallibility? Does this apply only to his statements ex cathedra on the War on Terror (TM), or just in general?

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

"...People I know from Illinois who have worked with Fitzgerald say he is what he appears to be: a straight shooter. But it is getting harder and harder to discount the possibility that he was sent in specifically to clean up after the parade. If that meant finding a single scapegoat, no problem: that is what pardons are for. But if the trail leads to Cheney? Erase it."

The next obvious step in the paranoid fantasy is the assumption that Fitzgerald was "in on the conspiracy." Not too many places rational discussion can go from that point.

Posted by: bellwether on July 12, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

For those who haven't heard, he said, in response to a question that "the President is always right" on any issue involving the WOT.

Fuehrer befehl, Ich gehorche!

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Hacksaw: what we do know about Plamegate is that it ended the career of an expert on weapons of mass destruction who was focused on Iran, and that it was done for political reasons. I would suggest that those who don't see at least that are blinded by loyalty, and that those who object to the admitted conduct of Administration officials on this issue (not what is alleged, but by what they have testified to) are only being rational.

The law as it exists enables presidents to abuse their classification power for partisan purposes, pretty much meaning that maybe the only crimes that can be found are the lies (perjury and the like). But we should hold our leaders to a higher standard than merely the avoidance of felonies.

Posted by: Joe Buck on July 12, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

I'll reiterate what I've said all along:

A. the leak of Plame's name never should have happened.

B. there is no evidence that anyone who leaked Plame's name realized that her identity was classified...and if Armitage was the original source, that would clear up a lot. obviously they still shouldn't have done it. and hopefully some people have been chastened by this.

C. Even though the Espionage Act could in theory apply even where the accused was unaware of the classification of the info...I said last year that it would never happen due to serious constitutional questions about such an application of the Act.

D. its hard to lionize Wilson considering that a. he hasn't been exactly careful with his wife's identity and b. the Senate wasn't amused to discover that he was in possession of classified info that he was most likely given illegally by his wife.

E. as for Libby, sigh, it's the cover-up stupid.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Buck says: "what we do know about Plamegate is that it ended the career of an expert on weapons of mass destruction who was focused on Iran"

er, no we don't. that info came from Wayne Madsen. nuff said.

actually, as a result of her marriage to Wilson and pregnancy, she had transitioned to a desk job
try this: http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/10/apparent_cia_front_didnt_offer_much_cover/

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

I don't really understand why he got so upset, I just commended him on his mother and sister's fellatio technique.

Posted by: Marco Materazzi on July 12, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

No Fitzmas, are you kidding me,Rove may not go to jail but hey this proves once again we where right. Bush lied,Cheney lied,Rove lied,this is what we told the trolls long ago.Being right is a good feeling.By the way I was browsing through archives and it seems we where spot on with Iraq also,no wmd, bogged down in city warfare, won't have any way out.One more thing, has anyone seen a poll on Bush or do they stop taking them when you hit the teens.

Posted by: Mann Coulter on July 12, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

> yeah, whatever happened to those sealed
> Espionage Act indictments? cmdicely?
> Gregory? cranky?

Nathan,
You appear to have confused me with someone else. The reality-based facts that I am aware of are (1) there was a Sealed vs. Sealed indictment issued in the district where Fitzgerald is working around the time the grand jury he presents to was meeting (2) such indictments are neither unknown nor common in that district (3) there is no public information that this was or was not linked to Fitzgerald's investigation (4) there is no public information of any type about this indictment.

That's all I know. Have you heard otherwise?

I do think it is quite possible that Bush issued a pardon to one or more members of his administration/staff and classified it to a level where no one can see it, but that is pure speculation on my part.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on July 12, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

cranky:

sigh. where have you been? still reading truthout?

there are several sealed indictments in that district currently. several. no evidence that any of them relate to the Plame matter.

do you know why a sealed indictment is issued? to hide the fact that someone has been indicted from them until they can be apprehended. indictments can be sealed briefly when someone is a flight risk. that's the purpose of a sealed indictment.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Well then maybe these people should not be trusted with Classified info.It just shows how big of idiots these jokers are. Or they knew what they where doing.

Posted by: Mann Coulter on July 12, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK
yeah, whatever happened to those sealed Espionage Act indictments? cmdicely?

Why ask me? I don't recall ever saying the story seemed likely.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan:

. . . as for Novak's original source, I suppose that Armitage still seems to be the most likely.

I doubt even Novak would be so bold as to claim that Armitage is "no political gunslinger". My bet is on Alan Greenspan, which is why Andrea Mitchell wanted to get out that LOTS of D.C. folk knew about Plame.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan would like us to believe it was all just a little mistake ok then why not bring all this out in the open years ago.Why send the President out to say when he finds out who leaked he will remove them from his adm. That was a lie right to the face of all Americans(remember Clinton I did not have sex with that woman) and he was Impeached.What is good for the goose is good for the gander?

Posted by: Mann Coulter on July 12, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

> cranky:
>
> sigh. where have you been? still reading
> truthout?
>
> there are several sealed indictments in that
> district currently. several. no evidence that
> any of them relate to the Plame matter.

Nathan,
Help me understand what your "sigh" is about, since that is exactly what I said.

There is also, however, no evidence that those indictments are NOT related to TraitorGate. Null means no evidence either way.

And based on what lawyers who practice in the DC Circuit have said, "US vs. Sealed" is fairly common. "Sealed vs. Sealed", while not unknown, is not common. Presumably these would be used for intelligence cases or those involving highly classified information.

Then again, unlike most DAs in that circuit Fitzgerald is only investigating one set of suspects. So any "Fitzgerald vs. Sealed" would be a major tipoff to the perps.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on July 12, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

cranky:

oh really? so who are the flight risks in the Plame matter that haven't been arrested yet? been awhile don't you think?

its just you and Leopold now on this one I think.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Well, it ain't over yet.. in 6 months, when Libby's trial is set, we'll get to see how loyal Libby really is to Bush..

Posted by: Andy on July 12, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

So why do folks assume Fitzmas is over? Because Novak and the National Review are spinning? Until Fitzgerald suspends the Grand Jury - this ain't over. Yep - no fat lady has sung yet.

Posted by: pgl on July 12, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Mann Coulter:

well, Armitage is no longer in the administration.

Doug M.: Armitage actually isn't considered a "partisan gunslinger" -- he was Colin Powell's boy. (Plame's leak might simply have been a State/Agency turf war)

cmdicely: I was conflating things for the sake of brevity. the Espionage Act reference was aimed at you. although in fairness, when we had that discussion you recognized that prosecutorial discretion might lean against the use of the Espionage Act after I argued taht...but you were rather gung ho for awhile.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

pgl:

the grand jury used in this case (if only one) isn't just hearing Plame related matters.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Andy:

You mean, 6 months, like AFTER Election Day?

Mann Coulter:

The President never said when he finds out who leaked he would remove them from his Administration -- that was MSM spin -- the President did say that person would "be taken care of." He certainly did not lie under oath (cf. Clinton).

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

This whole thread reminds me of the hysteria in certain circles over Vince Foster's death in, what, 1993? There was never any 'there' there. However, it's served admirably to keep people focused on trivia while more momentous events are relegated to the back pages.

Posted by: Shelby on July 12, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan:

Did Novak say "partisan" or "political" gunslinger? Regardless, Armitage is more of one than Greenspan. I just hope Novak doesn't keep us waiting for his source's identity as long as Woodward did.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

So besides papal infallibility we know have presidential infallibility? Does this apply only to his statements ex cathedra on the War on Terror (TM), or just in general?

By definition all of the president's statements are considered to be uttered ex cathedra until such a time as he denies having ever said them in the face of overwhelmingly contradictory evidence.

This consideration extends to all the officials of his administration who are in communion with him. Anathema upon those who express an opinion that is even slightly at odds with the president's.

Statements from officials at press conferences or on Fox News are considered to be issuing from the sacred magisterium, while information gleaned from People Magazine interviews or on Larry King is part of the teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

Posted by: Windhorse on July 12, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Windhorse:

What if the President appears on Larry King?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Joe and Valerie can get more specific information out of Bob when they subpoena him?

Posted by: clb72 on July 12, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

clb72:

Woodward refused to disclose Deep Throat's identity -- was THAT okay with you?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

That Nathan: the only time I agree with him in two years, and he fires off an unsuccessful hunting shot at me. Some partisan shotgunner, I mean gunslinger.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on July 12, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Windhorse, that was funny.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

yeah, whatever happened to those sealed Espionage Act indictments? cmdicely? Gregory? cranky?

Not to speak for Cranky or cmdicely, but I don't believe I've ever commented on any "sealed Espionage Act indictments."

I will comment, again, that it's far better to desire that malefactors in government be held accountable than to celebrate their escaping responsibility.

Posted by: Gregory on July 12, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

BTW: given his / her reported book deals worth MILLIONS (and I know William Goodfellow is involved in getting Joe Wilson paid speaking gigs), what exactly is the economic damage being claimed by the Wilsons against Novak?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

What if the President appears on Larry King?

The president appears on Larry King Live only to give comfort to his flock, the tender sheep which are his base.

Any statement he makes in response to a question or interruption by Larry is to be revered for its pastoral value in assuaging their fear and guilt, as well as give them confidence and direction in the confusing modern world with all its enticements to evaluate evidence critically or find common ground with foreign governments or those with different political views.

Posted by: Windhorse on July 12, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the info ; )

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Doug, it was certainly different, because Deep Throat was a whistleblower. You know what a whistleblower is, right? You realize your government is in the hands of selfish, corrupt idiots, so you put your lips together and blow.

In contrast, Novak's sources were weaselly Bush cronies who try to hurt their critics under the cover of a hack journalist.

You may remember that Deep Throat revealed abuses at the highest levels of power. Novak's sources outed a covert CIA agent in retaliation for her husband's pointing out that the Niger story was a scam.

Yes, sort of different.

Posted by: clb72 on July 12, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

So, other than answering a question I didn't ask about being "different", Woodward refusing to disclose Deep Throat's identity was okay with you?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

> Not to speak for Cranky or cmdicely

Go ahead; Nathan has already decided to create positions and arguments for me. They are so much easier to refute than the ones I create myself, so why not indeed? Heh.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on July 12, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Doug, you're wrong, that's exactly what you said. No need for me to comment further.

Posted by: clb72 on July 12, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Go ahead; Nathan has already decided to create positions and arguments for me.

Yeah, I noticed that after my post. Bizarre. But then, where would Republicans in general and Bush's apologists in particular be if not for straw men?

Posted by: Gregory on July 12, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't ask about anything being "different" since I asked (in full): "Woodward refused to disclose Deep Throat's identity -- was THAT okay with you?" Given what you've already said, I will assume you would answer THAT question: "Yes."

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Cranky:

uh, I didn't invent anything for you. you insisted on bringing Truthout up today.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

> uh, I didn't invent anything for you.
> you insisted on bringing Truthout up today.

Please link directly to the comment where I did that, so the reader can decide.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on July 12, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Actually the Who's Who story DOES make sense. In one Joe Wilson interview (on Countdown?) he stated that the Novak column was sort of strange, since his wife used the name "Valerie Wilson" in her work at the CIA.

If she was disclosed to Novak as "Wilson's wife" (and not as "Valerie Plame"), and Novak went to Who's Who to get her name, he'd find there, in Wilson's entry "married to Valerie Plame" as that's how Who's Who lists wives, by maiden name.

Posted by: Cal Gal on July 12, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Cranky:

the only people making much of the fact that there are sealed indictments (just like any other day) were the Truthout guys.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

"my question is if Novak did tell Fitz that Rove was the one who leaked Plame name then why wasn't Rove charges 2 years ago?

I am confused seems like an open and shut case."

My guess is cuz Cheney & Bush told Fitz that they had declassifed her name and position, albeit secretly. Thus no disclosure of classified information had taken place.

As to the outing of a covert agent, the people who actually leaked my not have known she was covert, or Fitz couldn't PROVE they knew she was covert, or perhaps even the legal question of her status as covert was not clear.

Bush and/or Cheney secretly declassifying info for political purposes is outrageous but perhaps not illegal.

Posted by: Cal Gal on July 12, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney & Bush "secretly" told Fitz and/or they "secretly" declassifed her name and position?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

> Cranky:
>
> the only people making much of the fact
> that there are sealed indictments (just
> like any other day) were the Truthout guys.

In other words, I did not mention Truthout in my posts, and you just made that up and attributed it to me based on what was most convenient for your polemic of the day. That is what I said you had done, and I was correct.

In the future, please label strawmen that you make up as being of your own devising and do not attribute them to me. Thanks.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on July 12, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone else:

Did Novak spill the beans to Brit Hume and/or Sean Hannity yet?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

But, Cranky, if you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck . . .

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

cranky:

bullshit. the only place you could have learned about that sealed indictment nonsense was from Truthout or someone linking to Truthout. that dog don't hunt. nice backpeddling.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

> if you walk like a duck, and
> quack like a duck

Naw, Nathan reminds me more of Whittington's face than a duck.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on July 12, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan,
You made up words that I did not write and attributed them to me. This is a single 70-post thread and you cannot point to the post where I used or even implied the words that you attributed to me. You lied, and when called out you accused the victim of your lies of "backpeddling".

Oh, wait: the Radical style of argumentation in a nutshell. I forgot.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on July 12, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Opps, as to my question about Hume / Hannity, I just read Kurtzs' story, reporting that Novak will NOT reveal the original source even now.

"I'm still constrained as a reporter," Novak said in an interview. "It was not on the record, and he has never revealed himself as being the source, and until he does I don't feel I should."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100903_pf.html

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan:

Of course he got it from Truthout, as opposed to his own personal BS: "I do think it is quite possible that Bush issued a pardon to one or more members of his administration/staff and classified it to a level where no one can see it, but that is pure speculation on my part."

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Cranky:

the only outlet to ever make anything out of the existence of sealed indictments in D.C. (just like in every other jurisdiction) was Truthout. you brought it up. pay the piper.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan, if you practice law the same way you "debate" here, may I ask if you eat Ramen noodles every night?

Posted by: shortstop on July 12, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan,
Please LINK directly to where I used or even implied the words you attributed to me.

If you can't (and you can't, because I did not), then please just admit that you made them up. You don't even have to say "lied"; just "I made them up" will be sufficient.

You Radicals really, really don't like being caught out in your blatent falsehoods, do you? Why don't you start a new thread about how "liberals don't understand what Honor is"? That seems to be a favorite of your ilk.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on July 12, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

At least he asked "please" . . .

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

For the record, however, Cranky's latest VRWC theory doesn't even show up anywhere else: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22classified+presidential+pardon%22

So, you gotta give him points for originality on that one.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK
cmdicely: I was conflating things for the sake of brevity. the Espionage Act reference was aimed at you. although in fairness, when we had that discussion you recognized that prosecutorial discretion might lean against the use of the Espionage Act after I argued taht...but you were rather gung ho for awhile.

"Conflating for the sake of brevity"? Surely, you mean "conflating for the sake of creating strawmen"?

Surely, my argument that, on its face, the leak seemed prosecutable under a wide array of federal statutes, including, but not limited, to the Espionage Act, and various comments, at a different time, about credibility and, assuming it was accurate, implications the Truthout story about a sealed indictment related to the Fitzgerald case cannot fairly be "conflated" for the sake of "brevity" into a suggestion that anyone here actually claimed the existence of a sealed Espionage Act indictment.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK


CMDICELY: assuming it was accurate, implications the Truthout story about a sealed indictment related to the Fitzgerald case cannot fairly be "conflated" for the sake of "brevity" into a suggestion that anyone here actually claimed the existence of a sealed Espionage Act indictment.

Nope. Don't think the biggest optimist on board ever had that much faith in Fitzgerald.


Posted by: jayarbee on July 12, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

And I'll pile on with Cranky and cmdicely.

Please link, Nathan, directly to where I used or even implied the words you attributed to me ("sealed Espionage Act indictments").

Or is this just another case of "everyone knows"?

Posted by: Gregory on July 12, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Cracky:

First of all, what good would a CLASSIFIED Pardon be to Libby? At the end of a Presidential Pardon, the standard language was "Therefore, be it known, that I, [insert name], President of the United States of America, in consideration of the premises, divers other goof and sufficient reasons me thereunto moving, do hereby grant unto [insert name] a full and unconditional pardon."

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

cranky:

do you deny posting the following above?

"The reality-based facts that I am aware of are (1) there was a Sealed vs. Sealed indictment issued in the district where Fitzgerald is working around the time the grand jury he presents to was meeting (2) such indictments are neither unknown nor common in that district (3) there is no public information that this was or was not linked to Fitzgerald's investigation (4) there is no public information of any type about this indictment."

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

bullshit. the only place you could have learned about that sealed indictment nonsense was from Truthout or someone linking to Truthout. that dog don't hunt. nice backpeddling.

Or of course he could have found out from reading Drum's posts on it in Washington Monthly, as most of us did. I knew about the sealed indictments issue, and didn't read it on Truthout -- I learned about in the comments section right here.

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

If she was disclosed to Novak as "Wilson's wife" (and not as "Valerie Plame"), and Novak went to Who's Who to get her name, he'd find there, in Wilson's entry "married to Valerie Plame" as that's how Who's Who lists wives, by maiden name.

Cal Gal,

And if you look up JFK, no doubt you will find "m. Jacqueline Lee Bouvier," but nobody in his right mind would ever refer to her that way. Most wives take their husbands' names, so it's odd that Novak, knowing her name was only listed that way out of convention, would have used it that way.

I mean, Who's Who also listed her middle name, but Novak didn't leave that in.

Posted by: Royko on July 12, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

" anyone here actually claimed the existence of a sealed Espionage Act indictment."

I never said anyone did.

do you see any quote marks around "sealed Espionage Act indictment" above?

I've always been careful to use quote marks when,well, actually quoting someone. you're welcome to verify this in the archives.

I perfectly well remember that cmdicely was skeptical on the sealed indictment stuff...he was much less skeptical on the Espionage Act.

cranky, on the other hand, appears to still be gullible.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, so you guys are just upset about the implications that it was an "Espionage Act" sealed indictment?! That's not what I was thinking about at all when Jose Padilla posted at 2:28 PM: "Isn't there supposed to be some sort of sealed indictment? What ever happned to that?"

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

do you deny posting the following above?

If you've established that Cranky mentioned "sealed" and "indictments," all you have to do is establish where he characterized them with the words "Espionage Act" and you're home free! Oh, wait...

I hope those ramen noodles taste good, Nathan.

Posted by: Gregory on July 12, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

Kevin's posts were links to Truthout and he expressly referenced Truthout.

and if you look above, I said that cranky either learned about it from Truthout or from someone linking to Truthout.

of course, Kevin was good enough to throw hot water on the sealed indictment stuff as soon as people with knowledge weighed in.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

The reality-based facts that I am aware of are (1) there was a Sealed vs. Sealed indictment issued in the district where Fitzgerald is working around the time the grand jury he presents to was meeting (2) such indictments are neither unknown nor common in that district (3) there is no public information that this was or was not linked to Fitzgerald's investigation (4) there is no public information of any type about this indictment.

I've read that a few times now and I can't find the word "Truthout" anywhere in there. Can someone point it out to me....?

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory:

I never claimed that cranky asserted that there were "sealed Espionage Act indictments"

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

I've always been careful to use quote marks when,well, actually quoting someone. you're welcome to verify this in the archives.

Sadly, as we're seeing, Nathan's veracity in paraphrasing leaves something to be desired...

Posted by: Gregory on July 12, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

the only source for that was Truthout or people (like Kevin) linking to Truthout.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory:

if you mean that my rhetorical statement was not intended to be exactly replicative of each of you individually, well, that's true. like I said, I didn't use quote marks.

but, that collectively the three people I referenced have all made arguments regarding sealed indictments or the Espionage Act is, of course, true.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK
I never said anyone did.

Nor did I say you said anyone did. I said you suggested that they did, which you did, by asking about the "sealed Espionage Act indictment", and making references to particular posters. Maybe you don't understand what "suggest" means?

do you see any quote marks around "sealed Espionage Act indictment" above?

No, but then since I didn't say you quoted someone as saying that, I don't see how that is material.

I've always been careful to use quote marks when,well, actually quoting someone.

Since the issue wasn't about you misquoting, but making dishonest and unreasonable suggestions by combining comments of different people on different topics into a suggestion that someone made a comment (not quoted, but whose substance was suggested) that no one made, I don't see why you think that is relevant.

I perfectly well remember that cmdicely was skeptical on the sealed indictment stuff...he was much less skeptical on the Espionage Act.

Again, how is it even remotely fair to conflate comments on the two separate topics by different people into a question, directed at specific posters (myself included) about a "sealed Espionage Act indictment"?

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Here is one WHOLE thread on sealed vs unsealed indictments: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=9002

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan,
So, you were unable to point to where I used the words you attributed to me, and also unwilling to say "I made them up". In my book that makes you a liar.

BTW for those who have been around here for a while, what nym was it that used to consistently attribute made-up statements to posters, then when challenged demand that the victim provide "evidence" before he would respond? It wasn't the Original Al, but someone else who was a regular at that time. It was a popular line of attack for the Radical counterbloggers then, because if they kept it up long enough they could then claim that the _victim_ of their lies was actually the party with a defective argument. Then in the next thread they would cite that made-up "defect" against the victim.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on July 12, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

but, that collectively the three people I referenced have all made arguments regarding sealed indictments or the Espionage Act is, of course, true.

But who made the reference to the existence of the "sealed Espionage Act indictment" you asked about?

The fact that one person said something relating to "sealed indictments" and someone else said something relating in some way to "the Espionage Act" does not make it reasonable to ask, later, what about sealed Espionage Act indictments, directed to those people, as if either of them had claimed the existence of such indictments, and owed an explanation for their non-existence.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

I never claimed that cranky asserted that there were "sealed Espionage Act indictments"

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 5:17 PM

yeah, whatever happened to those sealed Espionage Act indictments? cmdicely? Gregory? cranky?

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 2:44 PM

You were called out by myself, cmdicely and Cranky for the groundless nature of your 2:44 PM post, Nathan, and you've so far totally failed to substantiate it.

As I noted, your "do you deny posting the following above" establishes nothing.

You may not have "claimed that cranky asserted that there were "sealed Espionage Act indictments"," -- talk about moving the goalposts! -- but I didn't claim you did (chalk up another dishonest paraphrase for Nathan), merely that you proved nothing with your citation.

You were challenged by each of us to provide some basis for your comment, and you've failed.

Hope you're enjoying the ramen, Nathan. It's been a while since I've said this, but Ford help your clients.

Posted by: Gregory on July 12, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

cranky:

the only words I have directly attributed to you were the ones with reference to the sealed indictment.

what part of that do you not understand?

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

if you mean that my rhetorical statement was not intended to be exactly replicative of each of you individually, well, that's true. like I said, I didn't use quote marks.

Still moving the goalposts, Nathan? If memory serves me right, you were challenged to demonstrate that your rhetorical statement was even remotely replicative of any of us individually. And, as has been pointed out to you many times, you've failed.

but, that collectively the three people I referenced have all made arguments regarding sealed indictments or the Espionage Act is, of course, true.

Then you should have no problem proving it in my case. Please do so.

Then we can address whether having "made arguments regarding sealed indictments or the Espionage Act" is an honest basis for your original rhetoric.

Posted by: Gregory on July 12, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, Gregory:

its good to see that you're not claiming that I directly attributed the words "sealed Espionage Act indictments" to you.

Cranky, on the other hand, really is claiming that.

as for the phrase itself, oh well..read it in context in the original post.
it was piece of rhetorical humor and as soon as cmdicely took it literally I immediately clarified. all of that can be found in the thread above.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

the only words I have directly attributed to you were the ones with reference to the sealed indictment.

But not "Espionage Act," as you implied.

what part of that do you not understand?

I understand very well that you have failed, and are still failing, to support your original rhetoric. It's no surprise that you hope to distract by splitting hairs over your other posts.

Posted by: Gregory on July 12, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

but, that collectively the three people I referenced have all made arguments regarding sealed indictments or the Espionage Act is, of course, true.

Yes, they've made arguments "regarding" those issues, but as you as as an attorney "regarding" is a rather slippery word. Your comment above("yeah, whatever happened to those sealed Espionage Act indictments? cmdicely? Gregory? cranky?") was meant to gloatingly imply that they had supported the claim of those sealed Espionage Act indicments, that they had championed those sealed indictments as fact.

When it was pointed out to you that they had not, you backpedalled to assert that they had merely "made arguments regarding" that issue -- which, of course, means nothing, as anyone who's discussed it has made an argument regarding.

For example, I've made arguments regarding WMD in Iraq-- does that mean that I believe that there were WMD in Iraq?

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

its good to see that you're not claiming that I directly attributed the words "sealed Espionage Act indictments" to you.

I don't need to. It's enough to point out that you indirectly attributed the words "sealed Espionage Act indictments" to me, and that you've failed to provide any basis for that attribution.

as for the phrase itself, oh well..read it in context in the original post.

I questioned the phrase in context in its original post, and you have failed to justify it.

it was piece of rhetorical humor and as soon as cmdicely took it literally I immediately clarified. all of that can be found in the thread above.

Leaving aside its alleged value as "rhetorical humor" -- again, it's far better to hope misconduct by government officials be held accountable than to celebrate, even with "rhetorical humor," them avoiding same -- you were challenged to provide a basis for your jibe, and you have failed. You have clarified nothing, but rather moved the goalposts and split hairs, while all the time the original question remains -- do you have a basis for attributing your so-called "rhetorical humor" to myself, cranky or cmdicely?

And your answer appears to be no.

Posted by: Gregory on July 12, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK
it was piece of rhetorical humor and as soon as cmdicely took it literally I immediately clarified.

No, you claimed you were "conflating things for the sake of brevity". The "humor" excuse is new, so if it is true, your claim that you "immediately clarified" is, necessarily, false. So which of your excuses was false, or is it both?

"Conflating things for the sake of dishonesty" still seems the most likely explanation, and the one most consistent with your shifting, feeble attempts at justification.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

ok, Gregory, cmdicely:

here's an amusing thread:
"http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_10/007421.php"

I told cmdicely that there was no way the Espionage Act would be applied and why. he differed.

I'll grant that Gregory only expressed hope that indictments were forthcoming...

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Much as I'm enjoying this, I'll have to absent myself for a while.

Enjoy that ramen, Nathan.

Or should I say, crow?

Posted by: Gregory on July 12, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, they've made arguments "regarding" those issues, but as you as as an attorney "regarding" is a rather slippery word.

Which should of course read 'Yes, they've made arguments "regarding" those issues, but you know as an attorney that "regarding" is a rather slippery word.'

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

...I'm glad I caught this first, though:

I told cmdicely that there was no way the Espionage Act would be applied and why. he differed.

And this justifies your suggestion of "sealed Espionage Act indictments" exactly how?

I'll grant that Gregory only expressed hope that indictments were forthcoming...

Of course. Better to hope that miscreants in government be held accountable than to celebrate when your team escapes the noose.

But this justifies your suggestion of "sealed Espionage Act indictments" exactly how?

Posted by: Gregory on July 12, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

cmdicely championed the Espionage Act.
cranky championed sealed indictments.

as soon as cmdicely questioned my reference to the sealed indictments, I clarified.

although, this thread evinces that cmdicely thought such EA indictments were possible:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_10/007421.php

its possible that I shouldn't have referenced Gregory....(and may have confused him with Jose Padilla above..)

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, whatever happened to those WMD in Iraq? Nathan?

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

of course it's a "slippery word"...that's why I used it. and why, once again, there were no quote marks, although cranky persists in seeing them (that was a figure of speech for the literally inclined)

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

its possible that I shouldn't have referenced Gregory

Not good enough, Nathan. Provide a quote -- an actual quote, please, not a vague reference to a thread -- that justifies your reference and your suggestion, or admit -- without qualifiers -- that you were wrong to have done so.

I'll be back later to enjoy your response. I'm sure I will either way.

Posted by: Gregory on July 12, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

We found some. We have not found the rest (yet).

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely championed the Espionage Act.

No, he didn't. He said that the the Espionage Act may have been applicable, which is not the same as championing. Either way, though that has nothing to do with sealed Espionage Act indictments. The fact that he thought the Espionage Act may have had a legal application to the present case is not at all the same thing as claiming that he said that specific sealed indictments were in existence.

It's the "sealed indictments" language you have to justify, not merely a general discussion about the Espionage Act.

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK
I told cmdicely that there was no way the Espionage Act would be applied and why. he differed.

While I suppose of some minor historical interest, I'm not sure how you think that thread justifies your question about "sealed Espionage Act indictments". Could you clarify, please?

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

To Nathan, Hacksaw, Bellwether, et al:

I quote from the Globe article about Brewster Jennings, linked above:

Vince Cannistraro, the CIA's former counterterrorism chief, said that when operating undercover outside the United States, Plame would have had a real job with a more legitimate company. The Boston company "is not an indicator of what she did overseas," he said.

Nice try. Go back to your holes.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on July 12, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

of course it's a "slippery word"...that's why I used it.

Exactly -- so you could pretend to make a point while knowing full well you couldn't back it up. So when you said the fact that "collectively the three people I referenced have all made arguments regarding sealed indictments or the Espionage Act is, of course, true" it would be more accurate if you replaced the last word "true" with "irrelevant and meaningless." The fact that they made arguments "regarding" says nothing about the question whether those arguments were pro, con, or neutral.

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

Could you clarify, please?

How much more clarity do you need? At 2:28 PM, Jose Padilla posted: "Isn't there supposed to be some sort of sealed indictment? What ever happned to that?"

That obviously prompted the recollection by Nathan, at 2:44 PM: "yeah, whatever happened to those sealed Espionage Act indictments? cmdicely? Gregory? cranky?"

Collectively, all three of you have indeed made arguments regarding sealed indictments or the Espionage Act (each already linked to above).

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

I don't think I've ever explicitly supported the Iraq invasion. (I was always ambivalent.)

I'm no card-carrying conservative...more conservative than liberal perhaps...but it depends on the issue.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

all three of them have made "pro" statements with reference to either of "sealed indictments" or the "Espionage Act."

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK
cmdicely championed the Espionage Act.

False; I claimed that, on the face of the available facts, it was not clearly inapplicable, as DBL had claimed in that thread. You claimed that First Amendment concerns indicated no prosecutor would ever use it in a case like this, I suggested that there have been some fairly extreme cases in which it has been used which suggested that you were overstated the impact of First Amendment concerns on prosecutorial behavior.

I did not "champion" the Espionage Act; particularly, I did not say it was particularly likely that a prosecutor would use it, only that it was available and that the available information suggested that it may have been violated.

as soon as cmdicely questioned my reference to the sealed indictments, I clarified.

No, you made the non-clarifying claim that you were "conflating" for "brevity". Which you later replaced with the alternative claim that you were making a bit of "rhetorical humor".


although, this thread evinces that cmdicely thought such EA indictments were possible:

I think lots of things are possible, but I specifically cast doubt on the truthout story of sealed indictments, generally, and while noting that the Espionage Act was available, never made any comment that its use was particularly likely, or, a fortiori, that it was even likely that sealed indictments under it existed.

My comments on the Espionage Act were, ultimately, in response to the claim that it was clear that no violation had occurred, and rejecting that conclusion. (And, later, pointing out a reason to not give too much weight to Nathan's argument that First Amendment concerns would prevent its use.)

None of this, of course, justifies your reference to "sealed Espionage Act indictments".


Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Socratic Gadfly:

you're late to the party.

there is no dispute that Plame was under a more robust cover (apparently non-official) earlier in her career when she was stationed overseas.

there is also no dispute that her overseas days were over once she married Joe and had kids.
her adoption of the B&J cover appears to have been a transitional nominal cover (and it's an interesting question as to whether such nominal cover is protected under the IIPA)

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

"No, you made the non-clarifying claim that you were "conflating" for "brevity". Which you later replaced with the alternative claim that you were making a bit of "rhetorical humor"."

both were true. it was obviously a jibe, as gregory noted. it was also conflated, which is an admission that the "sealed indictment" part did not apply to you.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

$5.15 cent paid troll,The right seems to be wobbling weak knee and ready to fall to the mat.

Posted by: Mann Coulter on July 12, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

I apologize to Gregory, a google search indicates that he rarely (er, almost never) actually makes any substantive arguments...

therefore, I shouldn't have adjoined his name.

it should have read: "Padilla, cranky, cmdicely"

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone watching Brit Hume?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Mann Coulter:

The President never said when he finds out who leaked he would remove them from his Administration -- that was MSM spin -- the President did say that person would "be taken care of." He certainly did not lie under oath (cf. Clinton), right?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think I've ever explicitly supported the Iraq invasion. (I was always ambivalent.)

Yes, but the fact that you have made arguments regarding the Iraq War is, of course, true.

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

"Yes, but the fact that you have made arguments regarding the Iraq War is, of course, true."

I have no recollection of ever making any.
It is, of course, possible that I have made an argument with reference to some aspect of the Iraq War that I do not recall at present.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

Cranky, cmdicely, Gregory:
insofar as my jibe up above has been taken literally, I apologize.
it was really an unenlightening argument (albeit more interesting than dealing with raving pyscho Michele on the other thread.)

Cranky: However, I never directly attributed any words to you. In addition, there is no doubt that your sealed indictment speculation (wrongful speculation) initiated with Truthout.

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

That's a given, but where did Cranky get his "classified" Presidential Pardon idea from?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

Novak is refusing to reveal the original source. He did tell Brit Hume he was "a senior administration official" who isn't easy to get to see, "in person, for an hour, no one else was present." Does that still sound like Armitage?

Brit: It was confirmed to you by Rove.

Bob: I called Rove. I called him for several reasons to talk about the column re mission to Niger. It wasn't a call for attirubtion. I asked him about Wilson's wife initiating the visit. As I remember he said: Karl said: "Oh, you know that too."

LOL, Now Novak is shooting down Wilson's lies all over the place . . .

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan:

Maybe Novak's original source was Colin Powell?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe we will never know. I still don't think Mark Felt was Woodward's original source. Many have believed "Deep Throat" was a compilation of numerous sources, and therefore couldnt be revealed as a single person. The main problem, of course, is that so many of the things Woodward attributes to "Deep Throat", Felt could not possibly have known, such as the infamous gap on one of the White House tapes. Only six people knew about the gap when Woodward reported it, and all of them worked at the White House. Felt not only didnt work at the White House, but when that part of the story broke, he also didnt even work at the FBI anymore.

Whenever Woodward was asked who "Deep Throat" was he always described him as a heavy smoker and drinker; neither of these were accurate descriptions of Felt -- did Woodward lie about that to throw us all off the trail? Adrian Havill's book Deep Truth: The Lives of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein revealed quite a few of these kind of discrepancies.

For instance, Woodward claimed he signaled "Deep Throat" by moving a red flag in a flowerpot to the back of his balcony and that "Deep Throat" signaled him by drawing the hands of a clock in Woodward's copy of The New York Times. Havill discovered that Woodward had lived in a sixth-floor interior apartment that could not be seen from the street at that time. Even from the back of the apartment complex, the balcony was too high for any flowerpot to be seen. Also, newspapers were not delivered door-to-door in Woodwards apartment building but were left in a stack in the lobby. "Deep Throat" could not have known which newspaper Woodward would pick up. But, of course, the MSM has no intention in poking holes in their Jesus saving them all from the evil Republicans. Oh well -- here's a good review of Havill's book:

http://archives.cjr.org/year/93/5/books-havill.asp

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan is up to his usual games, I see.

all three of them have made "pro" statements with reference to either of "sealed indictments" or the "Espionage Act."

Support this statement. Actual quotes, please.

it was obviously a jibe, as gregory noted.

Au contraire! It was you who characterized your remark as a jibe (or joke, or humor, or whatever); that I noted your characterization, in paraphrase or no, does not equate to my noting it was, indeed, a jibe. Indeed, I disputed its so-called humor.

it was also conflated, which is an admission that the "sealed indictment" part did not apply to you.

So, at last, Nathan admits that he made a false implication that he couldn't back up! Now, will he do the same for me, as I challenged?

Yes! One king-sized order of crow for Nathan's table!

therefore, I shouldn't have adjoined his name.

(Oh, and har dee har har, Nathan. Someone who spews the kind of fact-free implications, straw man arguments, goalpost moving and general bullshit that you do has no standing to sit in judgement on "substantive arguments.")

But wait! Nathan walks back his admission!

insofar as my jibe up above has been taken literally, I apologize.

You were not called on a "jibe" that anyone took literally or otherwise, Nathan. You were called out for atributing positions to three of us that you could not substantiate.

You apologize for wrongly making that suggestion, without qualification, or you apologize not at all.

it was really an unenlightening argument

While this stands as the truest statement you've made on this thread, Nathan, we're used to unenlightening argument from you.

Posted by: Gregory on July 12, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

You must have missed this DIRECT apology to you:

I apologize to Gregory, a google search indicates that he rarely (er, almost never) actually makes any substantive arguments...

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK
You must have missed this DIRECT apology to you

Or, perhaps, Gregory didn't just mean himself when he said "three of us", and maybe he meant "without qualification" when he said "without qualification".

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan and Doug M., a dumbshit meeting of the "minds".

Posted by: haha on July 12, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Nathan did apologize to ANYONE who took the jibe literally -- that DIRECT apology to Gregory contains no "qualification" -- it's more like a backhanded compliment. Gregory didn't italicize said DIRECT apology, though, but instead he demanded: "You apologize for wrongly making that suggestion, without qualification, or you apologize not at all." For the record, that's the entire basis for me thinking Gregory missed it.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

Nice to see you here too, haha.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

Here it is again, cmdicely, in case you missed it:

"Cranky, cmdicely, Gregory:
insofar as my jibe up above has been taken literally, I apologize."

Posted by: Nathan on July 12, 2006 at 6:24 PM

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

I enjoy watching a self-proclaimed legal expert, such as Nathan the Numbskull, have his ass pureed and served back to him.

Is he the same as that idiot Norman Rodgers who used to post here? Maybe they just share the same brain.

Posted by: haha on July 12, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Definitely the worst of Nathan's many humiliations. One to savor.

Posted by: shortstop on July 12, 2006 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK
Here it is again, cmdicely, in case you missed it:

I see no apology without qualification in the quote you offered.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Posted by: dd on July 12, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Oh my goodness.

This is what I get for jumping to the bottom of the thread.

Oh well ... Nathan's dustup with Michele on the Israel/Palestine thread will have to suffice for the moment.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 12, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

One to savor.

Trust me, I did. :)

Posted by: Gregory on July 12, 2006 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

I especially liked the fact that Fitzie allowed Novak and Rove to come up with a cover-story after initially lying their asses off. Rove should have been jailed, as he was all too obviously the source. This smells of Rove. Anytime you see a hideous two-headed GOP sideshow baby entertaining the audience with whimsy, Rove reanimated its rotting corpse and set it to dancing. Necromancy is his most acceptable hobby.
Does Nathan ever post here? He was like the straight Hannity.

Posted by: Sparko on July 12, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

Yee-hah! Just when things are gettin' good, let's throw Counselor Fitz overboard!

Patience, my precious....

Posted by: baked potato on July 13, 2006 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

Why aren't that traitor and Rove sharing a prison cell?

Posted by: merlallen on July 13, 2006 at 7:44 AM | PERMALINK

Actually the Who's Who story DOES make sense. In one Joe Wilson interview (on Countdown?) he stated that the Novak column was sort of strange, since his wife used the name "Valerie Wilson" in her work at the CIA.

Actually, no it doesn't make sense. What of the Who's Who entry connects someone by the name of either Valerie Plame or Valerie Wilson to the CIA? Nothing.

Posted by: raj on July 13, 2006 at 8:11 AM | PERMALINK

raj:

It rebuts Joe Wilson's interview that the Novak column was strange because his wife used the name "Valerie Wilson". The Who's Who entry clears that up.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 13, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

No more from Cranky or Mann Coulter?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 13, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

cmdicely had the last word:

> I see no apology without qualification
> in the quote you offered.

The two of you were caught in blatent Rovian fabrications. You were offered an opportunity to fess up like gentlemen. You refused, and Nathan then layered on another round of blame-the-victim disguised as a non-apology-apology. That pretty much sums up not only this thread but the last 6 years of Radical rule for me.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on July 13, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

It was better than Bill Clinton's apology for Monica. BTW: what do I have to apologize for?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 13, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

The president's first attempt at remorse -- his August 17 address to the nation when he first acknowledged the affair -- was widely panned as long on venom toward Independent Counsel Ken Starr and short on contrition.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/apology/

Posted by: Doug M. on July 13, 2006 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

The Senate's report on intelligence failures would appear to confirm that Valerie Plame did recommend her husband Joseph Wilson for the mission to Niger. In a memo written to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, she asserted that Wilson had "good relations with both the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Mines [of Niger], not to mention lots of French contacts." This makes a poor fit with Wilson's claim, in a recent book, that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." (It incidentally seems that she was able to recommend him for the trip because of the contacts he'd made on an earlier trip, for which she had also proposed him.)

Posted by: Fitz on July 13, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

The whole Fitzmass thing came up bunk.

Now you guys got nothing to do except watch Rove walk the macarana all over your heads in 2006

Posted by: Fitz on July 13, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Fitz:

I suspect that was Rove's master plan all along -- see above re: the Special Prosecutor being in on the whole conspiracy ; )

Cranky:

The only thing I said to you that was even a bit snarky was "Cranky, if you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck . . ." although I agreed you got the "sealed indictment" meme from Truthout (directly or indirectly). But, I also gave you points for originality on the "classified" Presidential Pardon, assuming you came up with that on your own. Although, now, I see you never answered my question about that: "First of all, what good would a CLASSIFIED Pardon be to Libby?"

Again, what of that do I need to apologize for?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 13, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK
It was better than Bill Clinton's apology for Monica.

So? Someone else, totally outside of the issue beign discussed, once did something arguably worse. What kind of moronic excuse is that?

Posted by: cmdicely on July 13, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Come clean libs.

The Wilson affair will remain known only a few more years and only due to the damage it did to the press and then to a lessor extent the sleezy quality of Joe Wilson. He will be used as exhibit A as an example of the quality of liberal icons. His serial lies are well documented.

The only time Plame will be referred to after 2010 will be when freedom of the press is an issue and the NYTs disasterous strategy is discussed and analyzed.

It may also be referred to in discussing the tragic all of the NYTs. Their financial losses due to this affair and other bad decisions has crushed their stock price and resulted in lower credit ratings. The current publisher, although well protected by the family ownership structure, may well lose his job.

The only possibility of a silver cloud for Libs is the Scooter Libby trial yet thats far more likely to be used as an opportunity to slime the liberal press. As Novak has testified, there was never anything here. Further, considering every person involved with Novak has a different recollection of conversations makes it near impossible to get any kind of perjury conviction. Scooter will walk a rich man.

Posted by: rdw on July 13, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Cranky raised the issue with his:

"The two of you were caught in blatent Rovian fabrications. You were offered an opportunity to fess up like gentlemen. You refused, and Nathan then layered on another round of blame-the-victim disguised as a non-apology-apology. That pretty much sums up not only this thread but the last 6 years of Radical rule for me."

Posted by: Doug M. on July 13, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

In case that is not "clear" enough for you, cmdicely, I am pointing out Cranky's double standard in demanding an apology from Nathan (let alone from me) when there was no similar demand to Clinton (also caught in blatent fabrication, who was offered an opportunity to fess up, refused, and then layered on another round of blame-the-victim disguised as a non-apology-apology). His gratuitous slam of "the last 6 years of Radical rule" is directly analogous to what I felt for Clinton's entire 2 terms.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 13, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

"In the late 1980s, the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy AgencyIraq's senior public envoy for nuclear matters, in effectwas a man named Wissam al-Zahawie. After the Kuwait war in 1991, when Rolf Ekeus arrived in Baghdad to begin the inspection and disarmament work of UNSCOM, he was greeted by Zahawie, who told him in a bitter manner that "now that you have come to take away our assets," the two men could no longer be friends. (They had known each other in earlier incarnations at the United Nations in New York.)

In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president's State of the Union address in January 2003.
If the above was all that was known, it would surely be universally agreed that no responsible American administration could have overlooked such an amazingly sinister pattern. Given the past Iraqi record of surreptitious dealing, cheating of inspectors, concealment of sites and caches, and declared ambition to equip the technicians referred to openly in the Baathist press as "nuclear mujahideen," one could scarcely operate on the presumption of innocence."


THE REAL SCANDAL

Posted by: Fitz on July 13, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

If Al Gore were President, continuing Clinton's stance against Saddam, and did EXACTLY what Bush did in Iraq, this crowd would not have a single complaint. See again, Double Standard.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 13, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Now, to be fair, my hypothetical would also include Joe Lieberman as Vice-President (and, presumably, the front-runner for 2008), so that throws another dimension into the pot that Cheney doesn't. Honestly, though, I might have second thoughts if the same 2,500 American troops died, after Gore lied. I will have to think about that for a while.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 13, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

you can tell plame was not undercover and widely known....by the way those involved..

started lying about their involvement

....immediately..

wonder why...if as rove said...she was fair game?

makes perfect sense....lol

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on July 13, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

wonder why...if as rove said...she was fair game?

She was fair game. All's well that ends well. Everyone did OK here except for the moonbats. Joe Wilson was exposed as a fraud but his goal here was to become famous and make a ton of money. He's a wealthy man. He and Val will be paid to speak to and be adored by moonbats for another few years.

Novak, already wealthy and well-known gets evem more of the same and his longest, most enjoyable starring role ever. With he experience he knew how ot make the most of it delighting in showing his contempt to critics. Bob called his own shots every step and publically abused his critics to their faces with a smile the entire time.

Rove's power is even greater. The moonbats think the engineered the entire thing. Ditto for Cheney

Libby has the roughest road but makes out best. Rove will be able to sells his talents for millions. Libby had real financial concerns and was already thinking about leaving early. Since then he's landed a think tank post making triple the money for 1/3 the hours and his defense fund is filled. Moreover it's his opportunity to strike back at the liberal media and he's holding all of the aces.

He got to laugh at the NYTs as it lost every round in the courts and still has more bills to fund as the case drags on and it's reporters are at risk. NYTs shareholds lost nearly 50% of their value after this 'scandal' started. Scooter is already guarranted a million dollar book deal, permanent think tank positions, and a lucrative speakers program.

On top of this the fitxmas present the moonbats were certain would come never come and never did and never will.

We just learned that network viewership has fallen to an all time low of 21M or over 20% in just 5 years. The MSM is just getting crushed. Keeping on making stars out of serial liars like Joe Wilson and they'll lose another 20% by 2010.

This entire episode has been a disaster for the moonbats.

Posted by: rdw on July 13, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

That's about my read on this episode too, rdw.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 13, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Thye hypothetical President Gore has been expanded, to include Iran, and continues on this thread: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=9169

Posted by: Doug M. on July 13, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

"Thye hypothetical President Gore" should read "The President Gore hypothetical". Gotta slow down typing.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 13, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

rdw
You forgot that the moonbats are all over the place now when it comes to leaking classified material and how vigorously it should be prosecuted.

Plus the benefit of all the articles not written by the MSM while they spilled ink over this dead end.

Posted by: Fitz on July 13, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Wow! Is Kevin really going to IGNORE the Wilsons' lawsuit?!

Posted by: Doug M. on July 14, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Doug,

The lawsuit is icing on the cake for Wilsons critics. Even Kevin understands this has nothing to do with the legal system and everything to do with extending their 15 minutes. It's clearly been filed with the intent of it being dismissed by a judge before any discovery can occur.

Joe Wilson is as shrewd a manager of the liberal media as he is sleezy.

Posted by: rdw on July 14, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

And then, when the Judge (appointed by Bush) tosses it out, they get to howl about the VRWC? I kinda wanted it to at least get to the discovery phase, to prove once and for all that Plame's status was no longer secret . . .

Posted by: Doug M. on July 14, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Byron York has the real story. Valerie lost her book deal after Rove was cleared. She needs to create publicity to generate interest to get another book deal. The Libby trail won't help much because that's really about the press and perjury.

They've been pretty good at this game but this time their timing is off due to events in Israel and to waning interest in their story. Even the moonbats realize this story is dying.

Posted by: rdw on July 14, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly