An interesting analysis of the Iran - Syria equation is in this thread:Makkonnen said:
<font size="3">Syria, Iran and the Power Plays over Iraq </font size>
http://64.255.174.200/board/showthread.php?t=67596
QueEx
Karl Rove to be named as a source in the outing of CIA agent
- Thread starter Dolemite
- Start date
<font size="3">Syria, Iran and the Power Plays over Iraq </font size>
http://64.255.174.200/board/showthread.php?t=67596
QueEx
Dolemite said:
Judith Miller has sone nerve making those quotes about the press and the public's knowledge of government if sources fail to come forward. If I'm not mistaken, in the buildup to the war on Iraq, Miller just took the government line verbatim -- no reporting, no analyzing Bush's statements. As did most journalists. We, the public, don't know about anything that goes on in our government b/c of "journalists" like her. She's a part of the problem, and is just exacerbating the situation by doing stupid ish like this.
exactly - she's a fucking partisan hack/ shill the bitch was pinning medals on people and chilling with ahmed chalabi in iraq - she needs a scarlet O on her fuckin forehead for objectivityYourAceBoonCoon said:
thanks for the link que im gonna read that one
It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
By Robert Kagan
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Page A21
The Judith Miller-Valerie Plame-Scooter Libby imbroglio is being reduced to a simple narrative about the origins of the Iraq war. Miller, the story goes, was an anti-Saddam Hussein, weapons-of-mass-destruction-hunting zealot and was either an eager participant or an unwitting dupe in a campaign by Bush administration officials and Iraqi exiles to justify the invasion. The New York Times now characterizes the affair as "just one skirmish in the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq." Miller may be "best known for her role in a series of Times articles in 2002 and 2003 that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein already had or was acquiring an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." According to the Times's critique, she credulously reported information passed on by "a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on 'regime change' in Iraq," which was then "eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq." Many critics outside the Times suggest that Miller's eagerness to publish the Bush administration's line was the primary reason Americans went to war. The Times itself is edging closer to this version of events.
There is a big problem with this simple narrative. It is that the Times, along with The Post and other news organizations, ran many alarming stories about Iraq's weapons programs before the election of George W. Bush. A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000). (A somewhat shorter list can be compiled from The Post's archives, including a September 1998 headline: "Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported.") The Times stories were written by Barbara Crossette, Tim Weiner and Steven Lee Myers; Miller shared a byline on one.
Many such stories appeared before and after the Clinton administration bombed Iraq for four days in late 1998 in what it insisted was an effort to degrade Iraqi weapons programs. Philip Shenon reported official concerns that Iraq would be "capable within months -- and possibly just weeks or days -- of threatening its neighbors with an arsenal of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons." He reported that Iraq was thought to be "still hiding tons of nerve gas" and was "seeking to obtain uranium from a rogue nation or terrorist groups to complete as many as four nuclear warheads." Tim Weiner and Steven Erlanger reported that Hussein was closer than ever "to what he wants most: keeping a secret cache of biological and chemical weapons." "To maintain his chemical and biological weapons -- and the ability to build more," they reported, Hussein had sacrificed over $120 billion in oil revenue and "devoted his intelligence service to an endless game of cat and mouse to hide his suspected weapons caches from United Nations inspections."
In 1999 Weiner reported that "Iraq's chances of rebuilding a secret arsenal look good." Hussein was "scouring the world for tools to build new weapons." He might "be as close to building a nuclear weapon -- perhaps closer -- than he was in 1991." In 2000 Myers reported that Iraq had rebuilt 12 "missile factories or industrial sites" thought to be "involved in Iraq's efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction" and had "continued its pursuit of biological and chemical weapons."
The Times's sources were "administration officials," "intelligence officials," "U.N. weapons inspectors" and "international analysts." The "administration officials" were, of course, Clinton officials. A number of stories were based not on off-the-record conversations but on public statements and documentation by U.N. inspectors.
From 1998 through 2000, the Times editorial page warned that "without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year" and that "future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again." Otherwise, Iraq could "restore its ability to deliver biological and chemical weapons against potential targets in the Middle East." "The world," it said, "cannot leave Mr. Hussein free to manufacture horrific germs and nerve gases and use them to terrorize neighboring countries."
Times editorials insisted the danger from Iraq was imminent. When the Clinton administration attempted to negotiate, they warned against letting "diplomacy drift into dangerous delay. Even a few more weeks free of inspections might allow Mr. Hussein to revive construction of a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon." They also argued that it was "hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as his country's salvation." "As Washington contemplates an extended war against terrorism," a Times editorial insisted, "it cannot give in to a man who specializes in the unthinkable."
Another Times editorial warned that containment of Hussein was eroding. "The Security Council is wobbly, with Russia and France eager to ease inspections and sanctions." Any approach "that depends on Security Council unity is destined to be weak." "Mr. [Kofi] Annan's resolve seems in doubt." When Hans Blix was appointed to head the U.N. inspectors, the editors criticized him for "a decade-long failure to detect Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program before the gulf war" and for a "tendency to credit official assurances from rulers like Mr. Hussein." His selection was "a disturbing sign that the international community lacks the determination to rebuild an effective arms inspection system." The "further the world gets from the gulf war, the more it seems willing to let Mr. Hussein revive his deadly weapons projects." Even "[m]any Americans question the need to maintain pressure on Baghdad and would oppose the use of force. But the threat is too great to give ground to Mr. Hussein. The cost to the world and to the United States of dealing with a belligerent Iraq armed with biological weapons would be far greater than the cost of preventing Baghdad from rearming."
The Times was not alone, of course. On Jan. 29, 2001, The Post editorialized that "of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous -- or more urgent -- than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons."
This was the consensus before Bush took office, before Scooter Libby assumed his post and before Judith Miller did most of the reporting for which she is now, uniquely, criticized. It was based on reporting by a large of number of journalists who in turn based their stories on the judgments of international intelligence analysts, Clinton officials and weapons inspectors. As we wage what the Times now calls "the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq," we will have to grapple with the stubborn fact that the underlying rationale for the war was already in place when this administration arrived.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401405.html
in the end who cares about the truth. we know who we dont like and thats that. WMDs were made up out of thin air on january 20, 2001. nothing more nothing less.Makkonnen said:
It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
By Robert Kagan
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Page A21
The Judith Miller-Valerie Plame-Scooter Libby imbroglio is being reduced to a simple narrative about the origins of the Iraq war. Miller, the story goes, was an anti-Saddam Hussein, weapons-of-mass-destruction-hunting zealot and was either an eager participant or an unwitting dupe in a campaign by Bush administration officials and Iraqi exiles to justify the invasion. The New York Times now characterizes the affair as "just one skirmish in the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq." Miller may be "best known for her role in a series of Times articles in 2002 and 2003 that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein already had or was acquiring an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." According to the Times's critique, she credulously reported information passed on by "a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on 'regime change' in Iraq," which was then "eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq." Many critics outside the Times suggest that Miller's eagerness to publish the Bush administration's line was the primary reason Americans went to war. The Times itself is edging closer to this version of events.
There is a big problem with this simple narrative. It is that the Times, along with The Post and other news organizations, ran many alarming stories about Iraq's weapons programs before the election of George W. Bush. A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000). (A somewhat shorter list can be compiled from The Post's archives, including a September 1998 headline: "Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported.") The Times stories were written by Barbara Crossette, Tim Weiner and Steven Lee Myers; Miller shared a byline on one.
Many such stories appeared before and after the Clinton administration bombed Iraq for four days in late 1998 in what it insisted was an effort to degrade Iraqi weapons programs. Philip Shenon reported official concerns that Iraq would be "capable within months -- and possibly just weeks or days -- of threatening its neighbors with an arsenal of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons." He reported that Iraq was thought to be "still hiding tons of nerve gas" and was "seeking to obtain uranium from a rogue nation or terrorist groups to complete as many as four nuclear warheads." Tim Weiner and Steven Erlanger reported that Hussein was closer than ever "to what he wants most: keeping a secret cache of biological and chemical weapons." "To maintain his chemical and biological weapons -- and the ability to build more," they reported, Hussein had sacrificed over $120 billion in oil revenue and "devoted his intelligence service to an endless game of cat and mouse to hide his suspected weapons caches from United Nations inspections."
In 1999 Weiner reported that "Iraq's chances of rebuilding a secret arsenal look good." Hussein was "scouring the world for tools to build new weapons." He might "be as close to building a nuclear weapon -- perhaps closer -- than he was in 1991." In 2000 Myers reported that Iraq had rebuilt 12 "missile factories or industrial sites" thought to be "involved in Iraq's efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction" and had "continued its pursuit of biological and chemical weapons."
The Times's sources were "administration officials," "intelligence officials," "U.N. weapons inspectors" and "international analysts." The "administration officials" were, of course, Clinton officials. A number of stories were based not on off-the-record conversations but on public statements and documentation by U.N. inspectors.
From 1998 through 2000, the Times editorial page warned that "without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year" and that "future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again." Otherwise, Iraq could "restore its ability to deliver biological and chemical weapons against potential targets in the Middle East." "The world," it said, "cannot leave Mr. Hussein free to manufacture horrific germs and nerve gases and use them to terrorize neighboring countries."
Times editorials insisted the danger from Iraq was imminent. When the Clinton administration attempted to negotiate, they warned against letting "diplomacy drift into dangerous delay. Even a few more weeks free of inspections might allow Mr. Hussein to revive construction of a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon." They also argued that it was "hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as his country's salvation." "As Washington contemplates an extended war against terrorism," a Times editorial insisted, "it cannot give in to a man who specializes in the unthinkable."
Another Times editorial warned that containment of Hussein was eroding. "The Security Council is wobbly, with Russia and France eager to ease inspections and sanctions." Any approach "that depends on Security Council unity is destined to be weak." "Mr. [Kofi] Annan's resolve seems in doubt." When Hans Blix was appointed to head the U.N. inspectors, the editors criticized him for "a decade-long failure to detect Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program before the gulf war" and for a "tendency to credit official assurances from rulers like Mr. Hussein." His selection was "a disturbing sign that the international community lacks the determination to rebuild an effective arms inspection system." The "further the world gets from the gulf war, the more it seems willing to let Mr. Hussein revive his deadly weapons projects." Even "[m]any Americans question the need to maintain pressure on Baghdad and would oppose the use of force. But the threat is too great to give ground to Mr. Hussein. The cost to the world and to the United States of dealing with a belligerent Iraq armed with biological weapons would be far greater than the cost of preventing Baghdad from rearming."
The Times was not alone, of course. On Jan. 29, 2001, The Post editorialized that "of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous -- or more urgent -- than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons."
This was the consensus before Bush took office, before Scooter Libby assumed his post and before Judith Miller did most of the reporting for which she is now, uniquely, criticized. It was based on reporting by a large of number of journalists who in turn based their stories on the judgments of international intelligence analysts, Clinton officials and weapons inspectors. As we wage what the Times now calls "the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq," we will have to grapple with the stubborn fact that the underlying rationale for the war was already in place when this administration arrived.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401405.html
Re: It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
at least I can respect that position for its honesty - the marketing of shit to dimwits in the American public so that they will go along with the notion that "France has alien armies ready to attack!" or whatever the flavor of the day is annoys me
I think that article was included in the judy miller democracy now link i posted or something to the same effect about how the nytimes, washington post etc were as bad or worse than her pumping up the same agenda.
just read this
Greed said:
at least I can respect that position for its honesty - the marketing of shit to dimwits in the American public so that they will go along with the notion that "France has alien armies ready to attack!" or whatever the flavor of the day is annoys me
I think that article was included in the judy miller democracy now link i posted or something to the same effect about how the nytimes, washington post etc were as bad or worse than her pumping up the same agenda.
just read this
Re: It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
i was being sarcastic for people like you that think my statement IS the truth.
the point of the article was WMDs didnt originate with miller or bush or cheney or republicans or in the 21st century.
and i should have known you gave me bad info before. typical.
i was being sarcastic for people like you that think my statement IS the truth.
the point of the article was WMDs didnt originate with miller or bush or cheney or republicans or in the 21st century.
and i should have known you gave me bad info before. typical.
Re: It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2143.shtml
here you go, unfortunately thats the most helpful article i could find that isnt months old. obviously the media isnt keeping up with this since it could benefit africa and its a bush initiative.
of course you like that selective journalism because you dont like bush.
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2143.shtml
here you go, unfortunately thats the most helpful article i could find that isnt months old. obviously the media isnt keeping up with this since it could benefit africa and its a bush initiative.
of course you like that selective journalism because you dont like bush.
Re: It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
I posted about the g8 africa debt thing which was an unrelated matter but you can draw that into this too if you like if you really think that is Bush helping Africa with that.
td jakes writing for the final call wow now the Messiah can come down and make everything all right
any evidence to support your statement that I like selective journalism because I don't like Bush truth lover? Or more lies from the mouth of greed?
they seem to not talk about the condi shit at all lol so you say the media isn't keeping up with what? The article you posted doesn't even mention the Bush-Condi shit from before and TD Jakes wrote it lmaoGreed said:
I posted about the g8 africa debt thing which was an unrelated matter but you can draw that into this too if you like if you really think that is Bush helping Africa with that.
td jakes writing for the final call wow now the Messiah can come down and make everything all right
any evidence to support your statement that I like selective journalism because I don't like Bush truth lover? Or more lies from the mouth of greed?
Re: It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
I hear TD Jakes plans on buying a Rolls Royce for every african hiv orphan and when he has enough he will ship them out. So far he is a little short, so he is keeping them in good condition until he has enough money to buy some more.
I hear TD Jakes plans on buying a Rolls Royce for every african hiv orphan and when he has enough he will ship them out. So far he is a little short, so he is keeping them in good condition until he has enough money to buy some more.
Re: It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
Please show me where it discusses that Condi organized thing or some reference to the white house calling on him or something that I can tie in to the the shit - i admit i skimmed the article for fear I might get the urge to gain 200lbs and buy a Mansion , so feel free to quote the article's important parts truth lover
u love bullshit propaganda and lies more than the truth son
truth lover - did i say nothing to do with the thread or nothing to do with the Bush-Condi-Preacher Plan that you praised that happened to occur at the same time and date as another black organized political event?Greed said:
Please show me where it discusses that Condi organized thing or some reference to the white house calling on him or something that I can tie in to the the shit - i admit i skimmed the article for fear I might get the urge to gain 200lbs and buy a Mansion , so feel free to quote the article's important parts truth lover
u love bullshit propaganda and lies more than the truth son
Re: It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
since this thread is full of instances of "liberal" media pushing the Bush agenda on the public I wonder why they aren't keeping up with all the great stuff Condi and TD are doing for Africa
Could it possibly be because there is nothing to report? Naahhh not that, impossible
since this thread is full of instances of "liberal" media pushing the Bush agenda on the public I wonder why they aren't keeping up with all the great stuff Condi and TD are doing for Africa
Could it possibly be because there is nothing to report? Naahhh not that, impossible
Re: It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
does that mean nothingg is happenng in africa in general....how many articles encompass the african nation as a whole.
the fact that they arent reporting stories is no measure on whether or not something newsworthy is happening. poor dolemite.
the media doesnt report what they dont give a fuck about.
and if you take note(of course you wont), the media didnt question WMDs when it came from clinton.
but who cares right? the economy was good when clinton was president.
does that mean nothingg is happenng in africa in general....how many articles encompass the african nation as a whole.
the fact that they arent reporting stories is no measure on whether or not something newsworthy is happening. poor dolemite.
the media doesnt report what they dont give a fuck about.
and if you take note(of course you wont), the media didnt question WMDs when it came from clinton.
but who cares right? the economy was good when clinton was president.
Re: It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
does what mean nothing is happening in africa in general? or are you asking
does the absence of any reporting by anyone known to you or I regarding Condi's bullshit project involving TD Snakes or whoever the fuck was involved and its present activity mean nothing is happening in africa in general? Cmon dipshit you can do better than that
how many articles encompass the earth as a whole? lmao
the fact you can't find shit shows Bush and crew dont give a fuck about it enough to make it newsworthy. poor greed
The media doesnt report what the president and staff are not doing. Just like I didn't see any articles about Bush going to Jupiter. Guess what Einstein? If Bush or Condi was talking about it people would be......................writing about it. lmao
the media didnt question wmd's for Bush either
fuck clinton - youre an idiot for thinking I give a shit about clinton, he is just as big a fuckin violator as GW
the economy was good for who under clinton? not for poor people - he oversaw the destruction of many social services and paved the way for a one party system - The Haves is America's' single political party
lmaoGreed said:
does what mean nothing is happening in africa in general? or are you asking
does the absence of any reporting by anyone known to you or I regarding Condi's bullshit project involving TD Snakes or whoever the fuck was involved and its present activity mean nothing is happening in africa in general? Cmon dipshit you can do better than that
how many articles encompass the earth as a whole? lmao
the fact you can't find shit shows Bush and crew dont give a fuck about it enough to make it newsworthy. poor greed
The media doesnt report what the president and staff are not doing. Just like I didn't see any articles about Bush going to Jupiter. Guess what Einstein? If Bush or Condi was talking about it people would be......................writing about it. lmao
the media didnt question wmd's for Bush either
fuck clinton - youre an idiot for thinking I give a shit about clinton, he is just as big a fuckin violator as GW
the economy was good for who under clinton? not for poor people - he oversaw the destruction of many social services and paved the way for a one party system - The Haves is America's' single political party
Re: It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
<body>
<p>October 30, 2005
<h1>
<!--mstheme--><font color="#D90000">
<span class="style1">Libby’s Indictment: <br>The Start Of A Counterrevolution? </span>
<!--mstheme--></font></h1>
<font face="trebuchet ms, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<p><strong>By Paul Craig Roberts</strong>
<img src="http://antiwar.com/roberts/roberts.jpg">
<font face="arial" size="2" color="#0000FF"><b> Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.</b></font>
<p><br>Lewis <a href="http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/neocons.htm"><strong>"Scooter"</strong> Libby,</a> chief of staff to vice president Richard B. Cheney and assistant to the president, has been indicted for a cover up.
<br>As US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald made clear at the October 28 press conference announcing Libby’s indictment, he believes Libby <strong>"went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on."</strong>
<br>By obstructing Fitzgerald’s investigation, Libby has prevented Fitzgerald and the grand jury from finding out who leaked the name of the covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame, and why.
<br>Libby did not lie, commit perjury, and obstruct justice for no reason. As Fitzgerald made clear, these are serious crimes. For a high government official to commit such crimes, the crime being covered up must be very serious indeed.
<br>Those who have been following Bush’s invasion of Iraq know what that crime is. They also know who are the guilty parties.
<br>The crime is the falsification of intelligence in order to deceive Congress and the American people. The Bush administration could not have invaded Iraq unless Congress and the American people believed the US was in dire danger from Saddam Hussein. Forged documents purporting to show uranium sales to Iraq and false intelligence reports from Iraqi exiles allied with <a href="http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=neoconservatism&sp-a=sp0a298a00&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-d=custom&sp-date-range=-1&sp-start-month=0&sp-start-day=0&sp-start-year=&sp-end-month=0&sp-end-day=0&sp-end-year=&sp-x=any&sp-c=25&sp-">neoconservative</a> officials in the Bush administration served as the basis for the false claims about weapons of mass destruction and <strong>"<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/">mushroom clouds</a>"</strong> made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and National Security Advisor Condi Rice.
<br>The Bush administration neoconservatives who assembled the <strong>"intelligence"</strong> knew that it was false. The neoconservatives had their own agenda. They used the terrorist attacks of September 11 to turn the Bush administration to their agenda. As the leaked top secret British government <a href="http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/">Downing Street memo</a> made clear, the <a href="http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050516_reputation.htm">agenda was to invade Iraq</a>, and <strong>"the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."</strong>
<br>There was a conspiracy among neoconservatives holding high positions in the Pentagon, the State Department, the Vice President’s office and the National Security Council. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005, described the conspirators as <strong>"a secretive, little-known cabal . . . made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."</strong> [<em><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wilkerson25oct25,0,7455395.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions">The White House cabal,</a></em> <em>LA Times,</em> October 25, 2005] Wilkerson says that the secret workings of this furtive cabal took foreign policy and decisions about war out of the normal government channels.
<br>By creating false documents and false threats, the neoconservatives pushed the US into an invasion of Iraq as the opening step in their plan for a wider war that would remake the Middle East.
<br>Libby lied to the grand jury in order to protect this conspiracy.
<br>Fitzgerald has stated that his investigations are not over. There are indications that Fitzgerald is aware that more is involved than the blown cover of Valerie Plame’s CIA counter-proliferation operation. Fitzgerald is on the trail of the conspirators who have committed high treason by taking America to war on false pretenses.
<br>Facing 30 years in prison, will Libby talk in exchange for a lighter sentence? Will members of the cabal come forward to save themselves before other members of the conspiracy seize the opportunity to turn state’s witness?
<br>Now that there is blood in the water, media executives will not be able to continue to muzzle reporters. Democrats might find some backbone. Republicans might realize that they are facing a far worse crisis than Watergate.
<br>Will the unindicted co-conspirators at Fox News, the <em>Weekly Standard, National Review, Wall Street Journal </em>editorial page, <em>New York Post,</em> and <em>Washington Times</em> learn the Judith Miller lesson, or will they continue to serve the conspiracy that hijacked US foreign policy and deceived the country and, perhaps, President Bush himself?
<br>Will neoconservative strongholds such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Heritage Foundation continue to back the agenda of a cabal that deceived our country into a disastrous war of aggression?
<br>Unless America has lost its soul, Libby’s indictment is the first step in the unravelling of a criminal conspiracy of high treason. Fitzgerald’s continuing investigation could serve as the counter-revolution that overthrows the <a href="http://www.vdare.com/roberts/neojacobins_push.htm">neo-Jacobin</a> coup engineered by the neoconsevative cabal.
<br>President George W. Bush seems determined to take himself down with his sinking administration, declaring in the face of strong public opposition to the ill-conceived Iraqi war that he will accept nothing but <strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/administration/bushtext_100605.html">"complete victory"</a> </strong>in what he characterized as the first great war of the 21st century.
<br>Despite his failure as president, Bush might survive the housecleaning with a deal that leaves <a href="http://www.vdare.com/roberts/wisdom_folly.htm">his father</a> and Brent Scowcroft in de facto control of the White House.
<span class="style2">The elderly members of the old Republican establishment are all that remain of the GOP’s credibility. </span> </font>
</body>
<body>
<p>October 30, 2005
<h1>
<!--mstheme--><font color="#D90000">
<span class="style1">Libby’s Indictment: <br>The Start Of A Counterrevolution? </span>
<!--mstheme--></font></h1>
<font face="trebuchet ms, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<p><strong>By Paul Craig Roberts</strong>
<img src="http://antiwar.com/roberts/roberts.jpg">
<font face="arial" size="2" color="#0000FF"><b> Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.</b></font>
<p><br>Lewis <a href="http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/neocons.htm"><strong>"Scooter"</strong> Libby,</a> chief of staff to vice president Richard B. Cheney and assistant to the president, has been indicted for a cover up.
<br>As US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald made clear at the October 28 press conference announcing Libby’s indictment, he believes Libby <strong>"went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on."</strong>
<br>By obstructing Fitzgerald’s investigation, Libby has prevented Fitzgerald and the grand jury from finding out who leaked the name of the covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame, and why.
<br>Libby did not lie, commit perjury, and obstruct justice for no reason. As Fitzgerald made clear, these are serious crimes. For a high government official to commit such crimes, the crime being covered up must be very serious indeed.
<br>Those who have been following Bush’s invasion of Iraq know what that crime is. They also know who are the guilty parties.
<br>The crime is the falsification of intelligence in order to deceive Congress and the American people. The Bush administration could not have invaded Iraq unless Congress and the American people believed the US was in dire danger from Saddam Hussein. Forged documents purporting to show uranium sales to Iraq and false intelligence reports from Iraqi exiles allied with <a href="http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=neoconservatism&sp-a=sp0a298a00&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-d=custom&sp-date-range=-1&sp-start-month=0&sp-start-day=0&sp-start-year=&sp-end-month=0&sp-end-day=0&sp-end-year=&sp-x=any&sp-c=25&sp-">neoconservative</a> officials in the Bush administration served as the basis for the false claims about weapons of mass destruction and <strong>"<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/">mushroom clouds</a>"</strong> made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and National Security Advisor Condi Rice.
<br>The Bush administration neoconservatives who assembled the <strong>"intelligence"</strong> knew that it was false. The neoconservatives had their own agenda. They used the terrorist attacks of September 11 to turn the Bush administration to their agenda. As the leaked top secret British government <a href="http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/">Downing Street memo</a> made clear, the <a href="http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050516_reputation.htm">agenda was to invade Iraq</a>, and <strong>"the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."</strong>
<br>There was a conspiracy among neoconservatives holding high positions in the Pentagon, the State Department, the Vice President’s office and the National Security Council. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005, described the conspirators as <strong>"a secretive, little-known cabal . . . made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."</strong> [<em><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wilkerson25oct25,0,7455395.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions">The White House cabal,</a></em> <em>LA Times,</em> October 25, 2005] Wilkerson says that the secret workings of this furtive cabal took foreign policy and decisions about war out of the normal government channels.
<br>By creating false documents and false threats, the neoconservatives pushed the US into an invasion of Iraq as the opening step in their plan for a wider war that would remake the Middle East.
<br>Libby lied to the grand jury in order to protect this conspiracy.
<br>Fitzgerald has stated that his investigations are not over. There are indications that Fitzgerald is aware that more is involved than the blown cover of Valerie Plame’s CIA counter-proliferation operation. Fitzgerald is on the trail of the conspirators who have committed high treason by taking America to war on false pretenses.
<br>Facing 30 years in prison, will Libby talk in exchange for a lighter sentence? Will members of the cabal come forward to save themselves before other members of the conspiracy seize the opportunity to turn state’s witness?
<br>Now that there is blood in the water, media executives will not be able to continue to muzzle reporters. Democrats might find some backbone. Republicans might realize that they are facing a far worse crisis than Watergate.
<br>Will the unindicted co-conspirators at Fox News, the <em>Weekly Standard, National Review, Wall Street Journal </em>editorial page, <em>New York Post,</em> and <em>Washington Times</em> learn the Judith Miller lesson, or will they continue to serve the conspiracy that hijacked US foreign policy and deceived the country and, perhaps, President Bush himself?
<br>Will neoconservative strongholds such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Heritage Foundation continue to back the agenda of a cabal that deceived our country into a disastrous war of aggression?
<br>Unless America has lost its soul, Libby’s indictment is the first step in the unravelling of a criminal conspiracy of high treason. Fitzgerald’s continuing investigation could serve as the counter-revolution that overthrows the <a href="http://www.vdare.com/roberts/neojacobins_push.htm">neo-Jacobin</a> coup engineered by the neoconsevative cabal.
<br>President George W. Bush seems determined to take himself down with his sinking administration, declaring in the face of strong public opposition to the ill-conceived Iraqi war that he will accept nothing but <strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/administration/bushtext_100605.html">"complete victory"</a> </strong>in what he characterized as the first great war of the 21st century.
<br>Despite his failure as president, Bush might survive the housecleaning with a deal that leaves <a href="http://www.vdare.com/roberts/wisdom_folly.htm">his father</a> and Brent Scowcroft in de facto control of the White House.
<span class="style2">The elderly members of the old Republican establishment are all that remain of the GOP’s credibility. </span> </font>
</body>
Re: It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#333333">
November 21, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative</font>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#D90000">
Forging the Case for War</font>
<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#0000ff">
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?</font>
<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>by Philip Giraldi</b></font>
<font face="verdana" size="4">
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html
</font>
<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="12"></hr>
<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#333333">
November 21, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative</font>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#D90000">
Forging the Case for War</font>
<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#0000ff">
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?</font>
<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>by Philip Giraldi</b></font>
<font face="verdana" size="4">
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html
</font>
<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="12"></hr>
Re: It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
<font size="5"><center>Libby May Have Tried to Mask Cheney's Role</font size></center>
By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 13, 2005; Page A06
In the opening days of the CIA leak investigation in early October 2003, FBI agents working the case already had in their possession a wealth of valuable evidence. There were White House phone and visitor logs, which clearly documented the administration's contacts with reporters.
And they had something that law enforcement officials would later describe as their "guidebook" for the opening phase of the investigation: the daily, diary-like notes compiled by I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, that chronicled crucial events inside the White House in the weeks before the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame was publicly disclosed.
The investigators had much of this information before they sat down with Libby on Oct. 14, 2003, and first heard from him what prosecutors now allege was a demonstrably false version of what happened. Libby said that, when he told other reporters about the CIA operative and her marriage to Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, he believed he had first learned the information from Tim Russert of NBC News and was merely passing along journalistic hearsay. This was an explanation made dubious by Libby's own notes, which showed that he previously had learned about Plame from his boss, Cheney.
In the aftermath of Libby's recent five-count indictment, this curious sequence raises a question of motives that hangs over the investigation: Why would an experienced lawyer and government official such as Libby leave himself so exposed to prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald?
Libby, according to Fitzgerald's indictment, gave a false story to agents and, later, to a grand jury, even though he knew investigators had his notes, and presumably knew that several of his White House colleagues had already provided testimony and documentary evidence that would undercut his own story. And his interviews with the FBI in October and two appearances before the grand jury in March 2004 came at a time when there were increasingly clear signs that some of the reporters with whom Libby discussed Plame could soon be freed to testify -- and provide starkly different and damning accounts to the prosecutor.
To critics, the timing suggests an attempt to obscure Cheney's role, and possibly his legal culpability. The vice president is shown by the indictment to be aware of and interested in Plame and her CIA status long before her cover was blown. Even some White House aides privately wonder whether Libby was seeking to protect Cheney from political embarrassment. One of them noted with resignation, "Obviously, the indictment speaks for itself."
In addition, Cheney also advised Libby on a media strategy to counter Plame's husband, former ambassador Wilson, according to a person familiar with the case.
"This story doesn't end with Scooter Libby's indictment," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), giving voice to widespread Democratic hopes about the outcome of Fitzgerald's case. "A lot more questions need to be answered by the White House about the actions of [Cheney] and his staff."
But to Libby's defenders, the timing of Libby's alleged lies supports his claims of innocence. They say it would be supremely illogical for an intelligent and highly experienced lawyer to mislead the FBI or grand jury if he knew the jurors had evidence that would expose his falsehoods. Libby, they say, is guilty of nothing more than a foggy memory and recollections that differ, however dramatically, from those of several witnesses in the nearly two-year-old investigation.
"People have different memories," said lawyer Victoria Toensing, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. She said the fact that Fitzgerald did not indict on the crime he set out to investigate -- illegal disclosure of classified evidence -- supports the conclusion that no such crime took place. Fitzgerald has said he could not make such a determination because his inquiry was obstructed by Libby's deceptions.
Even if Fitzgerald shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby's version of events is wrong, he also must prove the former Cheney aide lied on purpose. But many lawyers and several White House aides said the case against Libby appears strong -- and has the potential to embarrass other administration officials if it goes to trial.
The case was prompted by Plame's name being publicized by columnist Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003. Eight days earlier, Wilson had publicly criticized the Bush administration for allegedly twisting intelligence to justify the Iraq war. Wilson and his allies claimed Bush officials publicly identified Plame as payback for his dissent.
Libby is the only White House official charged in the case. Karl Rove, the president's deputy chief of staff and top political adviser, remains under investigation for providing misleading statements about his role in the leaking of Plame's identity, and people close to the case said he could still be charged. A final decision is expected soon on Rove's fate.
William Jeffress Jr., one of Libby's lawyers, declined to comment on the case. So did Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn.
But the emerging case against Libby is bringing more about Fitzgerald's investigation into public view. In October 2003, agents interviewed several administration officials, who described conversations they had with Libby about Plame in June and early July of 2003. Cumulatively during Fitzgerald's probe, four officials said they mentioned Plame to Libby, investigators found; three others said Libby mentioned her to them.
This testimony makes the story Libby offered during his first FBI interview look suspicious. He said he believed that he first learned about Plame on July 10 or July 11, 2003, in a conversation with Russert. Libby said he was surprised to learn of Plame's connection to Wilson. To Fitzgerald's team, Libby did not seek to deny that he had learned about the Plame link from Cheney -- as revealed by Libby's own notes -- but simply said it had slipped his mind that the vice president was an earlier source of the information than Russert, lawyers familiar with the case said.
Even early in the investigation, two key people were publicly known at the time to have been interviewed by the FBI: Ari Fleischer, then-White House press secretary, and Catherine Martin, a Cheney press aide. Martin had learned about Plame's employment at the CIA from another senior government official, the indictment says, and told Libby sometime in late June or the first week of July. Fleischer reportedly told investigators that, at a lunch on Monday, July 7, Libby told him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and confided that the information was not widely known.
Fitzgerald, in announcing the indictment two weeks ago, called attention to this conversation with Fleischer to show how improbable he regarded Libby's account: "What's important about that is that Mr. Libby . . . was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday."
Libby's defense must also reckon with his own notes. Lawyers familiar with the case said in general his notes do not recount the details of conversations and do not specifically contradict his account to investigators. Usually the notes explain with whom he met each day. One remarkable exception was when he chronicled a meeting with his boss on or about June 12, in which Libby wrote that Cheney told him that he learned from the CIA that Wilson's wife worked at the agency.
But when Libby was called to answer Fitzgerald's questions under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and again on March 24, 2004, he stuck to the story he had given in October. He repeated that he believed he had learned the information from a reporter and had forgotten Cheney had told him about Plame. He explained that he had not thought the material was classified because reporters knew it. But Fitzgerald pressed Libby -- and not so subtly raised the specter of a coverup. "And let me ask you this directly," Fitzgerald said. "Did the fact that you knew that the law could . . . turn on where you learned the information from affect your account for the FBI -- when you told them that you were telling reporters Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather than the vice president?" Libby denied it: "No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters."
After lengthy court battles over journalists' duty to testify in the case -- including several contempt citations by a trial court judge, appeals to the Supreme Court and one reporter's jailing -- Fitzgerald got all the reporters' testimony that he had sought. Russert, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller of the New York Times all testified about their conversations with Libby. All contradicted Libby.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5111201085.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
<font size="5"><center>Libby May Have Tried to Mask Cheney's Role</font size></center>
By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 13, 2005; Page A06
In the opening days of the CIA leak investigation in early October 2003, FBI agents working the case already had in their possession a wealth of valuable evidence. There were White House phone and visitor logs, which clearly documented the administration's contacts with reporters.
And they had something that law enforcement officials would later describe as their "guidebook" for the opening phase of the investigation: the daily, diary-like notes compiled by I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, that chronicled crucial events inside the White House in the weeks before the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame was publicly disclosed.
The investigators had much of this information before they sat down with Libby on Oct. 14, 2003, and first heard from him what prosecutors now allege was a demonstrably false version of what happened. Libby said that, when he told other reporters about the CIA operative and her marriage to Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, he believed he had first learned the information from Tim Russert of NBC News and was merely passing along journalistic hearsay. This was an explanation made dubious by Libby's own notes, which showed that he previously had learned about Plame from his boss, Cheney.
In the aftermath of Libby's recent five-count indictment, this curious sequence raises a question of motives that hangs over the investigation: Why would an experienced lawyer and government official such as Libby leave himself so exposed to prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald?
Libby, according to Fitzgerald's indictment, gave a false story to agents and, later, to a grand jury, even though he knew investigators had his notes, and presumably knew that several of his White House colleagues had already provided testimony and documentary evidence that would undercut his own story. And his interviews with the FBI in October and two appearances before the grand jury in March 2004 came at a time when there were increasingly clear signs that some of the reporters with whom Libby discussed Plame could soon be freed to testify -- and provide starkly different and damning accounts to the prosecutor.
To critics, the timing suggests an attempt to obscure Cheney's role, and possibly his legal culpability. The vice president is shown by the indictment to be aware of and interested in Plame and her CIA status long before her cover was blown. Even some White House aides privately wonder whether Libby was seeking to protect Cheney from political embarrassment. One of them noted with resignation, "Obviously, the indictment speaks for itself."
In addition, Cheney also advised Libby on a media strategy to counter Plame's husband, former ambassador Wilson, according to a person familiar with the case.
"This story doesn't end with Scooter Libby's indictment," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), giving voice to widespread Democratic hopes about the outcome of Fitzgerald's case. "A lot more questions need to be answered by the White House about the actions of [Cheney] and his staff."
But to Libby's defenders, the timing of Libby's alleged lies supports his claims of innocence. They say it would be supremely illogical for an intelligent and highly experienced lawyer to mislead the FBI or grand jury if he knew the jurors had evidence that would expose his falsehoods. Libby, they say, is guilty of nothing more than a foggy memory and recollections that differ, however dramatically, from those of several witnesses in the nearly two-year-old investigation.
"People have different memories," said lawyer Victoria Toensing, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. She said the fact that Fitzgerald did not indict on the crime he set out to investigate -- illegal disclosure of classified evidence -- supports the conclusion that no such crime took place. Fitzgerald has said he could not make such a determination because his inquiry was obstructed by Libby's deceptions.
Even if Fitzgerald shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby's version of events is wrong, he also must prove the former Cheney aide lied on purpose. But many lawyers and several White House aides said the case against Libby appears strong -- and has the potential to embarrass other administration officials if it goes to trial.
The case was prompted by Plame's name being publicized by columnist Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003. Eight days earlier, Wilson had publicly criticized the Bush administration for allegedly twisting intelligence to justify the Iraq war. Wilson and his allies claimed Bush officials publicly identified Plame as payback for his dissent.
Libby is the only White House official charged in the case. Karl Rove, the president's deputy chief of staff and top political adviser, remains under investigation for providing misleading statements about his role in the leaking of Plame's identity, and people close to the case said he could still be charged. A final decision is expected soon on Rove's fate.
William Jeffress Jr., one of Libby's lawyers, declined to comment on the case. So did Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn.
But the emerging case against Libby is bringing more about Fitzgerald's investigation into public view. In October 2003, agents interviewed several administration officials, who described conversations they had with Libby about Plame in June and early July of 2003. Cumulatively during Fitzgerald's probe, four officials said they mentioned Plame to Libby, investigators found; three others said Libby mentioned her to them.
This testimony makes the story Libby offered during his first FBI interview look suspicious. He said he believed that he first learned about Plame on July 10 or July 11, 2003, in a conversation with Russert. Libby said he was surprised to learn of Plame's connection to Wilson. To Fitzgerald's team, Libby did not seek to deny that he had learned about the Plame link from Cheney -- as revealed by Libby's own notes -- but simply said it had slipped his mind that the vice president was an earlier source of the information than Russert, lawyers familiar with the case said.
Even early in the investigation, two key people were publicly known at the time to have been interviewed by the FBI: Ari Fleischer, then-White House press secretary, and Catherine Martin, a Cheney press aide. Martin had learned about Plame's employment at the CIA from another senior government official, the indictment says, and told Libby sometime in late June or the first week of July. Fleischer reportedly told investigators that, at a lunch on Monday, July 7, Libby told him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and confided that the information was not widely known.
Fitzgerald, in announcing the indictment two weeks ago, called attention to this conversation with Fleischer to show how improbable he regarded Libby's account: "What's important about that is that Mr. Libby . . . was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday."
Libby's defense must also reckon with his own notes. Lawyers familiar with the case said in general his notes do not recount the details of conversations and do not specifically contradict his account to investigators. Usually the notes explain with whom he met each day. One remarkable exception was when he chronicled a meeting with his boss on or about June 12, in which Libby wrote that Cheney told him that he learned from the CIA that Wilson's wife worked at the agency.
But when Libby was called to answer Fitzgerald's questions under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and again on March 24, 2004, he stuck to the story he had given in October. He repeated that he believed he had learned the information from a reporter and had forgotten Cheney had told him about Plame. He explained that he had not thought the material was classified because reporters knew it. But Fitzgerald pressed Libby -- and not so subtly raised the specter of a coverup. "And let me ask you this directly," Fitzgerald said. "Did the fact that you knew that the law could . . . turn on where you learned the information from affect your account for the FBI -- when you told them that you were telling reporters Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather than the vice president?" Libby denied it: "No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters."
After lengthy court battles over journalists' duty to testify in the case -- including several contempt citations by a trial court judge, appeals to the Supreme Court and one reporter's jailing -- Fitzgerald got all the reporters' testimony that he had sought. Russert, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller of the New York Times all testified about their conversations with Libby. All contradicted Libby.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5111201085.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
Bob Novak: Preswident Knows Leak Source
<font size="5"><center>Bob Novak:</font size>
<font size="6">President Knows Leak Source</font size></center>
Dec 14, 10:57 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By PETE YOST
WASHINGTON (AP) - Columnist Bob Novak, who first published the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, says he is confident that President Bush knows who leaked Plame's name.
Novak said that "I'd be amazed" if the president didn't know the source's identity and that the public should "bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is."
Novak's remarks, reported in the Raleigh, N.C., News & Observer, came during a question and answer session Tuesday after a speech sponsored by the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank.
Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer urged Bush to identify Novak's source or to say that he does not know who it is.
In 2003, Novak exposed Plame's identity eight days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of manipulating prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. In the column disclosing Plame's CIA status, Novak said the sources for his column were two administration officials.
The identity of Novak's sources has been one of the secrets in the CIA leak investigation.
Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, is one of Novak's sources, according to people close to the investigation, but his other source is not publicly known.
Novak apparently is cooperating with the criminal investigation of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, though the journalist has never said so.
The prosecutor has aggressively pursued contempt of court orders against reporters who have refused to cooperate and Novak is not among those who have become embroiled in court battles in the probe.
Schumer, D-N.Y., urged Bush to share the identity of Novak's sources if the president knows.
"You are in a position to clear this matter up quickly," Schumer said in a letter to the president on Wednesday.
"Unlike Mr. Novak, who can claim an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of his sources, there is no similar privilege arguably preventing you from sharing this information," Schumer wrote.
"You have repeatedly suggested that you would like to get to the bottom of this affair," Schumer reminded Bush. "At one point, in 2004, you suggested that anyone who was involved in leaking the name of the covert CIA operative would be fired."
---
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20051215/D8EGEJ6G2.html?PG=home&SEC=news
<font size="5"><center>Bob Novak:</font size>
<font size="6">President Knows Leak Source</font size></center>
Dec 14, 10:57 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By PETE YOST
WASHINGTON (AP) - Columnist Bob Novak, who first published the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, says he is confident that President Bush knows who leaked Plame's name.
Novak said that "I'd be amazed" if the president didn't know the source's identity and that the public should "bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is."
Novak's remarks, reported in the Raleigh, N.C., News & Observer, came during a question and answer session Tuesday after a speech sponsored by the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank.
Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer urged Bush to identify Novak's source or to say that he does not know who it is.
In 2003, Novak exposed Plame's identity eight days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of manipulating prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. In the column disclosing Plame's CIA status, Novak said the sources for his column were two administration officials.
The identity of Novak's sources has been one of the secrets in the CIA leak investigation.
Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, is one of Novak's sources, according to people close to the investigation, but his other source is not publicly known.
Novak apparently is cooperating with the criminal investigation of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, though the journalist has never said so.
The prosecutor has aggressively pursued contempt of court orders against reporters who have refused to cooperate and Novak is not among those who have become embroiled in court battles in the probe.
Schumer, D-N.Y., urged Bush to share the identity of Novak's sources if the president knows.
"You are in a position to clear this matter up quickly," Schumer said in a letter to the president on Wednesday.
"Unlike Mr. Novak, who can claim an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of his sources, there is no similar privilege arguably preventing you from sharing this information," Schumer wrote.
"You have repeatedly suggested that you would like to get to the bottom of this affair," Schumer reminded Bush. "At one point, in 2004, you suggested that anyone who was involved in leaking the name of the covert CIA operative would be fired."
---
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20051215/D8EGEJ6G2.html?PG=home&SEC=news
Re: Bob Novak: Preswident Knows Leak Source
<font size="5"><center>Rove Testifies 5th Time On Leak</font size>
<font size="4">Bush Aide Is Said To Be Unsure if He Will Be Indicted</font size></center>
Washington Post
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 27, 2006; Page A01
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove sought to convince a federal grand jury yesterday that he did not provide false statements in the CIA leak case, testifying for more than three hours before leaving a federal courthouse unsure whether he would be indicted, according to a source close to the presidential aide.
In his fifth appearance before the grand jury, Rove spent considerable time arguing that it would have been foolish for him to knowingly mislead investigators about his role in the disclosure of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media, the source said. His grand jury appearance, which was kept secret even from Rove's closest White House colleagues until shortly before he went to court yesterday, suggests that prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald remains keenly interested in Rove's role in the case.
Rove for the first time partly waived his attorney-client privilege to detail conversations he had with his attorney, Robert Luskin, about the leak and his knowledge of it, the source said.
Rove's testimony focused almost exclusively on his conversation about Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in 2003 and whether the top aide later tried to conceal it, the source said. Rove testified, in essence, that "it would have been a suicide mission" to "deliberately lie" about his conversation with Cooper because he knew beforehand that it eventually would be revealed, the source said. Lawyers involved in the case said yesterday that they expect a decision on Rove's fate soon.
The source's account could not be corroborated by the prosecutor's office, which has declined to discuss the case.
Luskin said in a statement that the top Bush strategist testified "voluntarily and unconditionally" at Fitzgerald's behest.
"In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation," Luskin said in a statement. "Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges." Regarding Rove's testimony, Luskin said that it centered on information that has surfaced since he last testified, in October 2005. A spokesman for Fitzgerald declined to comment on the case.
The leak investigation, which led to the indictment last year of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, began after administration officials were accused of disclosing Plame's identity as part of a broader White House effort to discredit critics of the administration's justification for the Iraq war.
Specifically, Fitzgerald began investigating in late 2003 whether administration officials illegally disclosed Plame's post at the CIA to discredit allegations made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. In the summer of 2003, Wilson publicly charged that President Bush had twisted intelligence about Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons material to justify the invasion.
The disclosure of Plame's name was used to argue that because she had helped set up a trip Wilson took to Niger to investigate Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear material, that mission was little more than a boondoggle.
Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with the original crime. But in October 2005, a grand jury indicted Libby on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstructing justice in the course of the investigation. Libby's trial is scheduled to begin early next year. He has denied the charges, and his lawyers say that he is guilty of nothing more than a faulty memory and that he is the victim of an overzealous prosecutor.
The Libby case has served as a constant distraction for the White House and comes at a politically turbulent time for the president. A court filing by Fitzgerald earlier this month, for instance, provided the new and politically damaging revelation that Bush had authorized Libby to disclose previously classified information about Iraq's weapons programs. The president did not authorize Libby to leak information about Plame, however, according to Libby's legal team.
Rove, who recently gave up his role in White House policy as part of a staff shake-up, testified only hours after Bush named Tony Snow as his new press secretary. Snow replaces Scott McClellan, who has come under fire for initially telling the media that Rove was not involved in the Plame leak.
In grand jury appearances and other conversations with federal investigators, Rove has testified that he discussed Wilson's wife briefly with columnist Robert D. Novak and Cooper before she was publicly unmasked in July 2003, according to lawyers in the case. Fitzgerald zeroed in on Rove's contact with Cooper yesterday, according to the source who provided Rove's version of events.
The source said Rove testified in February 2004 that he did not recall discussing Plame with Cooper. Rove told the prosecutor that at the time he had no recollection of that short conversation with one of the scores of reporters he talks to in his job.
Cooper later testified and then a wrote a first-person account that Rove told him that Wilson's wife was in the CIA and had authorized her husband's CIA mission.
Rove would later tell the grand jury that he had forgotten that conversation and remembered it only after his legal team unearthed a crucial e-mail. The e-mail -- written by Rove to then-deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley shortly after the Cooper conversation -- shows Rove saying he waved the Time reporter off Wilson's claim. Luskin found the e-mail as part of a document search he conducted before Rove testified a second time in October 2004, telling the grand jury that the conversation must have taken place.
All the while, Fitzgerald suspected that Rove was acknowledging what had happened only because new evidence was surfacing, according to lawyers in the case. But Rove and his lawyer have presented an alternative explanation: that Rove genuinely did not remember his conversation with Cooper, and testified to that effect even though he was aware of rumors that he was one of Cooper's sources.
The new information Luskin cited in his statement yesterday relates to this part of the saga. After agreeing to a partial waiver of attorney-client privilege, Rove testified yesterday about a conversation Luskin had with former Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak, the source said. (Viveca Novak is not related to Robert Novak, the columnist who first revealed Plame's identity in 2003.) Luskin had informed Fitzgerald about that conversation last October, a few days before Libby was indicted, in a last-ditch effort to save Rove from the same fate.
Luskin told the prosecutor that Viveca Novak had informed him that she had heard from other Time reporters that Rove was Cooper's source for a July 2003 story on Plame. Luskin shared this information with Rove -- before Rove testified that he did not recall his conversation with Cooper.
Yesterday, Rove told the grand jury that it would make no sense for him to lie in February, knowing that all of this would soon be public, the source said.
But the timing of that Luskin-Novak conversation is in dispute. Novak has said she testified that the conversation took place between January and May of 2004 -- which could place it either before or after Rove's initial grand jury testimony. Moreover, Rove did not know at that point that Cooper would later be forced to testify and reveal him as a source, according to lawyers who follow the case.
Rove also testified that he was aware that several aides had been subpoenaed in the case before that first grand jury appearance and that they would be forced to turn over documents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6042600849.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
<font size="5"><center>Rove Testifies 5th Time On Leak</font size>
<font size="4">Bush Aide Is Said To Be Unsure if He Will Be Indicted</font size></center>
Washington Post
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 27, 2006; Page A01
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove sought to convince a federal grand jury yesterday that he did not provide false statements in the CIA leak case, testifying for more than three hours before leaving a federal courthouse unsure whether he would be indicted, according to a source close to the presidential aide.
In his fifth appearance before the grand jury, Rove spent considerable time arguing that it would have been foolish for him to knowingly mislead investigators about his role in the disclosure of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media, the source said. His grand jury appearance, which was kept secret even from Rove's closest White House colleagues until shortly before he went to court yesterday, suggests that prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald remains keenly interested in Rove's role in the case.
Rove for the first time partly waived his attorney-client privilege to detail conversations he had with his attorney, Robert Luskin, about the leak and his knowledge of it, the source said.
Rove's testimony focused almost exclusively on his conversation about Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in 2003 and whether the top aide later tried to conceal it, the source said. Rove testified, in essence, that "it would have been a suicide mission" to "deliberately lie" about his conversation with Cooper because he knew beforehand that it eventually would be revealed, the source said. Lawyers involved in the case said yesterday that they expect a decision on Rove's fate soon.
The source's account could not be corroborated by the prosecutor's office, which has declined to discuss the case.
Luskin said in a statement that the top Bush strategist testified "voluntarily and unconditionally" at Fitzgerald's behest.
"In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation," Luskin said in a statement. "Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges." Regarding Rove's testimony, Luskin said that it centered on information that has surfaced since he last testified, in October 2005. A spokesman for Fitzgerald declined to comment on the case.
The leak investigation, which led to the indictment last year of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, began after administration officials were accused of disclosing Plame's identity as part of a broader White House effort to discredit critics of the administration's justification for the Iraq war.
Specifically, Fitzgerald began investigating in late 2003 whether administration officials illegally disclosed Plame's post at the CIA to discredit allegations made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. In the summer of 2003, Wilson publicly charged that President Bush had twisted intelligence about Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons material to justify the invasion.
The disclosure of Plame's name was used to argue that because she had helped set up a trip Wilson took to Niger to investigate Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear material, that mission was little more than a boondoggle.
Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with the original crime. But in October 2005, a grand jury indicted Libby on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstructing justice in the course of the investigation. Libby's trial is scheduled to begin early next year. He has denied the charges, and his lawyers say that he is guilty of nothing more than a faulty memory and that he is the victim of an overzealous prosecutor.
The Libby case has served as a constant distraction for the White House and comes at a politically turbulent time for the president. A court filing by Fitzgerald earlier this month, for instance, provided the new and politically damaging revelation that Bush had authorized Libby to disclose previously classified information about Iraq's weapons programs. The president did not authorize Libby to leak information about Plame, however, according to Libby's legal team.
Rove, who recently gave up his role in White House policy as part of a staff shake-up, testified only hours after Bush named Tony Snow as his new press secretary. Snow replaces Scott McClellan, who has come under fire for initially telling the media that Rove was not involved in the Plame leak.
In grand jury appearances and other conversations with federal investigators, Rove has testified that he discussed Wilson's wife briefly with columnist Robert D. Novak and Cooper before she was publicly unmasked in July 2003, according to lawyers in the case. Fitzgerald zeroed in on Rove's contact with Cooper yesterday, according to the source who provided Rove's version of events.
The source said Rove testified in February 2004 that he did not recall discussing Plame with Cooper. Rove told the prosecutor that at the time he had no recollection of that short conversation with one of the scores of reporters he talks to in his job.
Cooper later testified and then a wrote a first-person account that Rove told him that Wilson's wife was in the CIA and had authorized her husband's CIA mission.
Rove would later tell the grand jury that he had forgotten that conversation and remembered it only after his legal team unearthed a crucial e-mail. The e-mail -- written by Rove to then-deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley shortly after the Cooper conversation -- shows Rove saying he waved the Time reporter off Wilson's claim. Luskin found the e-mail as part of a document search he conducted before Rove testified a second time in October 2004, telling the grand jury that the conversation must have taken place.
All the while, Fitzgerald suspected that Rove was acknowledging what had happened only because new evidence was surfacing, according to lawyers in the case. But Rove and his lawyer have presented an alternative explanation: that Rove genuinely did not remember his conversation with Cooper, and testified to that effect even though he was aware of rumors that he was one of Cooper's sources.
The new information Luskin cited in his statement yesterday relates to this part of the saga. After agreeing to a partial waiver of attorney-client privilege, Rove testified yesterday about a conversation Luskin had with former Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak, the source said. (Viveca Novak is not related to Robert Novak, the columnist who first revealed Plame's identity in 2003.) Luskin had informed Fitzgerald about that conversation last October, a few days before Libby was indicted, in a last-ditch effort to save Rove from the same fate.
Luskin told the prosecutor that Viveca Novak had informed him that she had heard from other Time reporters that Rove was Cooper's source for a July 2003 story on Plame. Luskin shared this information with Rove -- before Rove testified that he did not recall his conversation with Cooper.
Yesterday, Rove told the grand jury that it would make no sense for him to lie in February, knowing that all of this would soon be public, the source said.
But the timing of that Luskin-Novak conversation is in dispute. Novak has said she testified that the conversation took place between January and May of 2004 -- which could place it either before or after Rove's initial grand jury testimony. Moreover, Rove did not know at that point that Cooper would later be forced to testify and reveal him as a source, according to lawyers who follow the case.
Rove also testified that he was aware that several aides had been subpoenaed in the case before that first grand jury appearance and that they would be forced to turn over documents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6042600849.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
<table border="8" width="700" id="table1" cellspacing="5" cellpadding="5" bordercolorlight="#008000" bordercolordark="#008000" bgcolor="#C4FFC4">
<tr>
<td>
<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#000000">
Rove Informs White House
He Will Be Indicted</font>
<font face="trebuchet ms, arial unicode ms, microsoft sans serif, verdana, tahoma" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml
Friday 12th May 2006 7:00PM EDT</b>
Within the last week, Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.
Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources confirmed Rove's indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, did not return a call for comment Friday.
Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.
A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.
That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.
The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.
But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.
Late Thursday afternoon and early Friday morning, several White House officials were bracing for the possibility that Fitzgerald would call a news conference and announce a Rove indictment today following the prosecutor's meeting with the grand jury this morning. However, sources close to the probe said that is unlikely to happen, despite the fact that Fitzgerald has already presented the grand jury with a list of charges against Rove. If an indictment is returned by the grand jury, it will be filed under seal.
Rove is said to have told Bolten that he will be charged with perjury regarding when he was asked how and when he discovered that covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the agency, and whether he discussed her job with reporters.
Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.
However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.
The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony.
Sources close to the case said there is a strong chance Rove will also face an additional charge of obstruction of justice, adding that Fitzgerald has been working meticulously over the past few months to build an obstruction case against Rove because it "carries more weight" in a jury trial and is considered a more serious crime.
Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.
"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."
</font></td>
</tr>
</table
<tr>
<td>
<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#000000">
Rove Informs White House
He Will Be Indicted</font>
<font face="trebuchet ms, arial unicode ms, microsoft sans serif, verdana, tahoma" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml
Friday 12th May 2006 7:00PM EDT</b>
Within the last week, Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.
Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources confirmed Rove's indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, did not return a call for comment Friday.
Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.
A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.
That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.
The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.
But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.
Late Thursday afternoon and early Friday morning, several White House officials were bracing for the possibility that Fitzgerald would call a news conference and announce a Rove indictment today following the prosecutor's meeting with the grand jury this morning. However, sources close to the probe said that is unlikely to happen, despite the fact that Fitzgerald has already presented the grand jury with a list of charges against Rove. If an indictment is returned by the grand jury, it will be filed under seal.
Rove is said to have told Bolten that he will be charged with perjury regarding when he was asked how and when he discovered that covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the agency, and whether he discussed her job with reporters.
Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.
However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.
The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony.
Sources close to the case said there is a strong chance Rove will also face an additional charge of obstruction of justice, adding that Fitzgerald has been working meticulously over the past few months to build an obstruction case against Rove because it "carries more weight" in a jury trial and is considered a more serious crime.
Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.
"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."
</font></td>
</tr>
</table
Last edited:
<table border="8" width="700" id="table1" cellspacing="5" cellpadding="5" bordercolorlight="#008000" bordercolordark="#008000" bgcolor="#C4FFC4">
<tr>
<td>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#000000">
Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of
Perjury, Lying to Investigators</font>
<font face="trebuchet ms, arial unicode ms, microsoft sans serif, verdana, tahoma" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml
Saturday 13th May 2006 7:00PM EDT</b>
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.
During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.
It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.
An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the special prosecutor was unavailable for comment. In the past, Samborn said he could not comment on the case.
The grand jury hearing evidence in the Plame Wilson case met Friday on other matters while Fitzgerald spent the entire day at Luskin's office. The meeting was a closely guarded secret and seems to have taken place without the knowledge of the media.
As TruthOut reported Friday evening, Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.
Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House, where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.
Speaking on condition of anonymity Friday night, sources confirmed Rove's indictment was imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."
Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.
A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.
That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.
The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.
But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.
Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.
However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.
The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony and resulted in the indictment.
Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and that the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.
"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."
</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v237/BrklynLiberal/RoveasCrook.jpg">
<tr>
<td>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#000000">
Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of
Perjury, Lying to Investigators</font>
<font face="trebuchet ms, arial unicode ms, microsoft sans serif, verdana, tahoma" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml
Saturday 13th May 2006 7:00PM EDT</b>
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.
During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.
It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.
An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the special prosecutor was unavailable for comment. In the past, Samborn said he could not comment on the case.
The grand jury hearing evidence in the Plame Wilson case met Friday on other matters while Fitzgerald spent the entire day at Luskin's office. The meeting was a closely guarded secret and seems to have taken place without the knowledge of the media.
As TruthOut reported Friday evening, Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.
Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House, where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.
Speaking on condition of anonymity Friday night, sources confirmed Rove's indictment was imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors."
Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation.
A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said.
That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff.
The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment.
But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues.
Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters.
However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column.
The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony and resulted in the indictment.
Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and that the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues.
"We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward."
</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v237/BrklynLiberal/RoveasCrook.jpg">
The teflon administration. Not suprised at all.
[FRAME]http://www.oilempire.us/karlrove.html[/FRAME]
Re: It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
<font size="5"><center>Bush Acknowledges Leak in Libby Case</font size></center>
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has "run its course."
"And now we're going to move on," Bush said in a White House news conference.
The president had initially said he would fire anyone in his administration found to have publicly disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and a CIA operative. Ten days ago, Bush commuted the 30-month sentence given to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby by a federal judge in connection with the case.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, had been convicted of lying and obstruction of justice in the CIA-leak case.
Bush would not directly answer a question about whether he is disappointed in the White House officials who leaked Plame's name.
"I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person," Bush said. "I've often thought about what would have happened if that person had come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter? But, so, it's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House. It's run its course and now we're going to move on."
He also defended the decision to commute Libby's sentence. "The Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision," Bush said.
Meanwhile, the judge who is overseeing Libby's case on Thursday issued an order requiring him to begin his two-year supervised release. He must appear at the courthouse no later than Friday.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289100,00.html
<font size="5"><center>Bush Acknowledges Leak in Libby Case</font size></center>
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has "run its course."
"And now we're going to move on," Bush said in a White House news conference.
The president had initially said he would fire anyone in his administration found to have publicly disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and a CIA operative. Ten days ago, Bush commuted the 30-month sentence given to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby by a federal judge in connection with the case.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, had been convicted of lying and obstruction of justice in the CIA-leak case.
Bush would not directly answer a question about whether he is disappointed in the White House officials who leaked Plame's name.
"I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person," Bush said. "I've often thought about what would have happened if that person had come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter? But, so, it's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House. It's run its course and now we're going to move on."
He also defended the decision to commute Libby's sentence. "The Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision," Bush said.
Meanwhile, the judge who is overseeing Libby's case on Thursday issued an order requiring him to begin his two-year supervised release. He must appear at the courthouse no later than Friday.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289100,00.html