Centerfield

Frenzy? Compared to the blue dress frenzy, the Cheney-Libby memo frenzy won't rate. I wouldn't be concerned about misplaced media priorities, Todd.

Certainly, frenzies are relative. And I never said that media coverage would be misplaced. I just anticipate a lot of chasing tails while we wait for the whole story to come out.

I'm stunned! The Vice President discussing classified information with his top aide? What's next? Bush discussing foriegn policy with Condi? Say it ain't so.

Heh. "Lawyers involved in the case said..."

Am I the only one noticing the irony here? The only people with any definitive knowledge of Fitzgerald's plans are those in his office. If any of them are actually leaking secret grand jury or prosecutorial proceedings to the media, I want a complete investigation! ;-)

Commentary on the trashing of Judith Miller by her own paper, from John Podheretz here. From the NY Sun here. From Howie Kurtz, here. My personal favorite absurdity so far is Maureen Dowd whining that NYT editors let Miller publish outlandish claims without proper supervision....

Commentary from Michael Barone here. (He predicts no indictments.) Commentary from the WSJ here.

I predicted (and took bets on) no indictments under either IIPA or the Espionage Act two full years ago, as there were no apparent violations of either. I have seen nothing to alter that conclusion. If anyone lied to or obstructed the grand jury, they're on their won. But without an underlying crime, a simple perjury or obstruction charge would have to be a very solid case for Fitzgerald to bother to indict. And without an underlying crime, it's just another damn partisan circus.

From the right, there are already positioning attempts to paint Fitzgerald as a closet leftie partisan, and similar attempts on the left to paint him as a tool of the Administration. These sniping attacks are utter political hackery. Fitzgerald is as straight & narrow a prosecutor as they come. Whether or not he indicts, what we will have purchased for our taxpayer dollars is as professional an investigation as a top-notch prosecutor with an open budget can manage.

If the only thing that comes out of the investigation is indictments for perjury or obstruction, or no indictments at all, then we have just been treated to front-row seats at one of Washington's favorite sports, Pin The Tail On The Opposition. It's not as much fun to watch as in the old Independent Prosecutor days, but it's still got some entertainemnt value.

I guess the ultimate irony to me is that here we have a case that is investigating a leak, and it's rife with leaks.

If I'm not mistaken the reason for Fitzgerald's involvement comes from the CIA (run by a republican) requesting an investigation into the leak of Plame's name and involvement in the CIA.
This did not come about because Democrats had any power to initiate such investigation because, to put it bluntly, they don't.

Tully's comments remind me of Kaye Baily Hutchinson complaining this weekend that there shouldn't be indictments for little things like perjury, referring to perjury as a "tchnicality"
hmmmm whatever happened to the GOP scream of "rule of law"? Oh, shoe's on the other foot. oh well, if the foo shits.......

Of course Hutchison contradicts totally the reasoning she gave for voting guilty at Clinton's impeachment trial. This is her conclusion...

"The edifice of American jurisprudence rests on the foundation of the due process of law. The mortar in that foundation is the oath. Those who seek to obstruct justice weaken that foundation, and those who violate the oath would tear the whole structure down.

Every day, thousands of citizens in thousands of courtrooms across America are sworn in as jurors, as grand jurors, as witnesses, as defendants. On those oaths rest the due process of law upon which all of our other rights are based.

The oath is how we defend ourselves against those who would subvert our system by breaking our laws. There are Americans in jail today because they violated that oath. Others have prevailed at the bar of justice because of that oath.

What would we be telling Americans -- and those worldwide who see in America what they can only hope for in their own countries -- if the Senate of the United States were to conclude: The President lied under oath as an element of a scheme to obstruct the due process of law, but we chose to look the other way?

I cannot make that choice. I cannot look away. I vote `Guilty' on Article I, Perjury. I vote `Guilty' on Article II, Obstruction of Justice."

Tully may have fun with watching "Pin The Tail On The Opposition" but I have fun pinning the tale on hypocrisy.

calcification, er, clarification - Hutchison's hypocrisy as well as that of her spinning cohorts.

Tully is quite right about Washington's fav sports although I think that even more favorite is "Watching Your Political Enemies Self-Destruct Under the Burden of Their Own Hubris".
That basically calls for sitting back and tossing back a few Anchor Steams while watching the fun unfold and the poll numbers plummet.

If I'm not mistaken the reason for Fitzgerald's involvement comes from the CIA (run by a republican) requesting an investigation into the leak of Plame's name and involvement in the CIA.

You're mistaken, Marcus. George Tenet, a hold-over Clinton appointee and a Democrat was in charge of the CIA at the time. The same CIA that developed all that WMD intel under Clinton. A CIA which was scrambling to lay off blame for the bad pre-war intel they were responsible for. A CIA that was hostile to the Bush admin from the start. A CIA that already knew that no crime had been committed, and the same Clinton-appointed Democrat George Tenet that assured the admin that the Iraq WMD case was a "slam-dunk."

Once again, if there was no underlying crime preceding the investigation (as I have said from the beginning) then it's all been straight political gotcha BS and intra-mural DC infighting. If anyone was stupid enough to try to lie to the grand jury or materially obstruct the investigation in order to cover up the (perfectly legal and appropriate) discrediting of Joe Wilson's lies, then that's their bad and their trouble, and my sympathy is that of the world's tiniest violin. When you are in front of the grand jury, either tell the truth, have a failure of recollection, shut up, or expect charges. Dancing with the prosecutor is always chancy, whether you've done anything criminal or not.

But for Wilson himself I have no sympathy at all. He made a bid to smear the Admin and buy space in a potential Dem admin, and was roundly discredited by all available info. You try to run with the big dogs, you can expect to get bit. There's no doubt at all that his coming forward in the press would have led to the revelation of his wife's employment regardless of who first made that info public.

Wilson "shopped" his story with journalists for months before the NYT bit, and gave him lead op/ed space. Nicholas Kristoff publicly reported in May 2003 that Wilson was pimping his (now discredited) tale to every journalist in sight, two months before the Wilson NYT op/ed appeared.

I think pulling Kay Bailey's comments out of their entire context isn't quite fair. Sen. Hutchinson was merely making the point that it would be a tragedy if the special prosecutor determined that no crime had been committed in regards to the leak--which just happens to be why the investigation was launched--but officials found themselves stumbling over trying to reconstruct events from several years before and gave testimony that "grew" as the case went along. Personally, I know I'd have a hard time remembering specifics of something that was most likely a routine interaction from several years before.

Of course, Kay Bailey also has some sympathy for people that she may view as victims of political retribution--she's quite familiar with that personally.

Just remember--even though Judge Susan Webber Wright (one of Clinton's former law students) found Clinton in contempt of court for subordinating perjury (Helping Monica construct a false affidavit) and lying under oath, not all of us believe that it was an impeachable offense. Personally, I think it was a shame.

That aside, I do have to point out that in this case, it's the Dems dragging Clinton in. Aren't they always the ones who complain of Republican's inability to move past the Billster? Guess you are only entitled to drag him in when it suits your purpose.

Dragging in Clinton to justify other political prosecutions is an open admission that they were political prosecutions in the first place. But we already knew that, didn't we?

Am I the only one noticing the irony here? The only people with any definitive knowledge of Fitzgerald's plans are those in his office. If any of them are actually leaking secret grand jury or prosecutorial proceedings to the media, I want a complete investigation! ;-)

It's my understanding that most of the leaking is coming from the defense attorneys, not from Fitzgerald or the grand jury people.

Commentary on the trashing of Judith Miller by her own paper, from John Podheretz here. From the NY Sun here. From Howie Kurtz, here. My personal favorite absurdity so far is Maureen Dowd whining that NYT editors let Miller publish outlandish claims without proper supervision....

The "trashing of Judith Miller"? This is a woman whose reporting on WMD in Iraq was completely and utterly wrong..and probably verbatim from the Administration. And then used BY the Administration in interviews with the press as evidence of WMD. Not to mention that there's evidence she lied to her editors about what she knew and when on the Plame thing.

I predicted (and took bets on) no indictments under either IIPA or the Espionage Act two full years ago, as there were no apparent violations of either. I have seen nothing to alter that conclusion. If anyone lied to or obstructed the grand jury, they're on their won. But without an underlying crime, a simple perjury or obstruction charge would have to be a very solid case for Fitzgerald to bother to indict. And without an underlying crime, it's just another damn partisan circus.

No, it really isn't. We have perjury and obstruction laws for a reason. There has to be power for a legal body to punish people who don't tell the truth and who try to obstruct an investigation. Clinton's offense over sex seems to be huge to the same people who think lying about national security issues is nothing. It's bizarre as hell.

From the right, there are already positioning attempts to paint Fitzgerald as a closet leftie partisan, and similar attempts on the left to paint him as a tool of the Administration. These sniping attacks are utter political hackery. Fitzgerald is as straight & narrow a prosecutor as they come. Whether or not he indicts, what we will have purchased for our taxpayer dollars is as professional an investigation as a top-notch prosecutor with an open budget can manage.

On this we agree. I think Fitzgerald is probably exactly as you describe. But having perused the major lefty blogs on this issue for the last month...I'm a little baffled at your characterization of Fitz by the left, in general. I've yet to see anything resembling what you're describing.

In terms of Fitzgerald's appointment...the attempt to characterize it as partisan is stupid, IMO. Tenet is hardly a Democratic loyalist. There was quite obviously smoke in terms of what went down with revealing Plame's identity. It most definitely merited an investigation.

Wilson isn't a pillar of virtue, to be sure. But as we've been discovering over the last few days..the Niger uranium claims were shopped to State and the CIA by Italy..and found to be bogus. The Italian in question apparently knew the info was bogus but got it to the White House anyway. (Talking Points Memo and Laura Rozen both have several pieces up on this) Wilson has hardly been discredited. In fact much of what he said has turned out to be correct.

Carla,

I had forgotten that Judith Miller was the first one to report such claims about WMD's. How on earth did I miss that?

Just in case you wondered, that comment was intended as sarcastically as possible. Perhaps you missed the article in yesterday's Washington Post. They took the time to do a little research to see if Judith Miller was the only one with her particular point of view. Apparently, both the New York Times and the Washington Post had very similar stories dating all the way back to 1998--and by the way, Judith Miller was only listed on ONE of those NYT stories.

This underlying implied accusation that Judith Miller was the first reporter to jump on the WMD bandwagon is just silly. And, to imply that she was doing it because Scooter was bedding her (as many of the far left have done) is just hilarious. Guess this White House--and the previous one--must have been pretty busy satisfying the sexual needs of all reporters who penned similar stories from 1998-2002.

A quick point about my view of how the NYT's is handling this...

They appear (I say appear) to be sticking Judy out there as a sacrificial lamb. Yes, it has been proven that her stories were not accurate, but all of the intelligence reports that she used at the time said they were. So, while it may appear to be easy to attack someone whose story has proven to be fault, it's kind of hard when most of the world's intelligence agencies had the same point of view at the time.

The NYT appears (once again) unwilling to take responsiblity for their part in this debacle and would just rather crucify Judy. What about all of the other reporters that wrote similar stories dating back to 1998? What happens to them?

Imagine that...picking on poor widdle Judy just because she lied to her employers about her meeting with Scooter Libby.

What kind of standard is that?

"dragging Clinton" I love that eupemism for "remind people of what the republicans were saying about Clinton" and falling over laughing at the weaseling when confronted with history. Take a look at every comment by those who voted to convict Clinton and you find the same things Hutchison said. Seems the right wants every one to have amnesia... forget what the GOP said, forget what they did, forget about the balanced budget, a competent FEMA, etc.
Live with it, what's good for the political goose is good for the political gander.

What was that drumbeat we kept hearing over and over on Fox, from the GOP , etc..?

oh yeah..
"rule of law"

oh solly,
must mean "lieu of law"

many pardons.....so to speak

LOL. And on cue, the conflation crew springs to action!

Judith Miller's account differs radically from that of her editors--and she has the notes and paperwork to back it up. Her reporting on WMD's? Came from sources in the CIA--the folks now trying to cover up and shift the blame for their massive fuckups accumulated over years of bad WMD intel.

Joseph Wilson has been found to be wrong in just about every particular he claimed in his NYT editorial--as determined by the unanimous bi-partisan report of the Senate Intel Committee. Wilson lied. Wilson lied a lot. Even the Kerry campaign dumped him when his lying became obvious. I realize that these facts contradict the dogma of the Church of the Evil Bush, but that doesn't change the facts. BTW, you might notice that the Italian intel didn't surface until eight months after Wilson's editorial. He never saw it. He didn't know about it until it hit the news. I realize this is also against the church dogma. It's also a fact--and something else Wilson blatantly lied about.

Remember, Carla, $10 to a charity of my choice if Fitz returns no indictments under IIPA. There's a few others out there with cash on the line on the same bet--get your checkbooks ready. (I am willing to waive all bets in return for positive proof of recent blood donations to non-profits.)

Popcorn, anyone? Yes, when there's no original crime and all resultant crimes spring from covering up things that are not illegal, I call it a political snipe hunt. Highly entertaining.

Just for clarification here, I am not defending the Bush Administration, I'm just merely pointing out what we know right now--nothing! We have a continuing flurry of press reports that are leaked by people "close to the investigation." If we were to believe what we are reading, the trial has already taken place and we are just awaiting the sentencing date.

We do not yet even know if a crime has taken place. That's why I find it absolutely amusing to watch the story change on a daily basis as individuals with an agenda (whether it be the press' desire to create an exciting story to cover, an attorney with a political vendetta, or a politician who can't resist the chance to jump on an opponnent while he is embattled) attempt to keep this in front of us continuously.

I profess no love for Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, and I won't shed tears if they go down, but I just think it's hilarious that the end of the story has already been written before the facts are even known.

It's all speculation, folks. Until an indictment is handed down such speculation merely shows one's true political colors.

I came across this from the RAGGED THOTS blog ( a black republican) who seems to be one of the few to get it right.

"So, the "rule of law" that so many Republicans staked their political lives on seven years ago is now just a "technicality." Conservatives who historically complained about suspects avoiding the law because of "technicalities" are now deriding grand juries and prosecutors for maximizing the law? Martha Stewart is, somehow, now the poster child for prosecutorial overkill?

The Clinton defenders decried a Kenneth Starr "perjury trap."

The Bush defenders bemoan a Patrick Fitzgerald "perjury technicality."

Oh, please.

If Fitzgerald brings charges and the subjects are not found guilty, great. Then, the indicted can claim vindication. But, do conservatives really want to undermine the entire justice system for political expediency?

Be most careful where you tread and what you wish for."

I'll get the popcorn.

Marcus,

You seem especially amused that some Republicans (who were among Bill Clinton's most vociferous critics) are adopting the views of Bill Clinton's most ardent defenders.

Now I admit that I haven't dug into this very deeply, but I can't refrain from speculating that perhaps some democrats who were once among Bill Clinton's most ardent defenders might now beadopting the views of Bill Clinton's most vociferous critics.

If that's true, then presumedly democrats are just as guilty as republicans of adopting arguments simply as a matter of convenience, right?

If that's true, then presumedly democrats are just as guilty as republicans of adopting arguments simply as a matter of convenience, right?

And isn't that an example of why we're all here?

bk - yup......
although I will point out that for now the Democrats are very very quiet so you can't really say that now about them. After all, the GOP is having fun beating on each other and shooting itself in the foot with a repeating rifle. Plus why make noise when the wheels of justice will make the obnoxious grinding noise for you? But just wait, I'm sure they won't disappoint.

What Abel said. I keep saying it myself because I enjoy watching the knee-jerkery show up every time the rubber hammer hits.

I will point out that for now the Democrats are very very quiet so you can't really say that now about them.

LMAO. I haven't noticed the Dems ever being quiet. Particularly not lately. Particularly not the large segment of Dems known as the MSM. They've been downright hysterically giddy.

After all, the GOP is having fun beating on each other and shooting itself in the foot with a repeating rifle.

Yep. And now Miers is out of it, which means we get a brand new act. Occasionally they lift that rifle and focus it elsewhere, and they're pretty good shots when they try.

No, I don't belong to the "Bush Is Evil" church, but neither do I belong to "Kiss St. Judy's Feet Because Everything Golden Word That Drops From Her Priceless Lips Is Pure Truth" Kool Aid Drinkers' congregation. It seems to me she could have easily forged her notebook and any other evidence she needed in order to keep her job.

As I recall, there's plenty of proofthat the NIger documents were forged before Joe Wilson ever said a word. So simply saying "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" isn't going to cut it.

Jean, you can point at leftie blogs all you like, and I will remain unimpressed and point at the Senate Select Committee's report, and Wilson's own (throughly discredited) words. He never saw the Italian intel, unless wifey Valerie was bringing her work home for his review--in which case there's another investigation in order. Nor did the CIA see it to debunk it until months later. And it wasn't the only intel out there, there were reports from other nation's agencies and other sources, and some fo them have been confirmed as Iraq seeking (but not getting) yellowcake from Niger. Wilson's own report was taken as confirmation of that by the CIA--in direct opposition to what he claimed in public.

I don't buy Miller's word without backup. But from long years of watching the NYT, I don't buy their word for anything at all without several independent outside sources as confirmation. In a "he said/she said" spitfight between Miller and her editors, I have absolutely no problem with figuring them both for liars, whereas you seem to have no problem at all with automatically picking one side as uttering Gospel. See the problem? You're rushing to judgement about accuracy based on your inclinations, not on any real evidence.

And yes, regardless of who's on point (or just playing the bumpers) what the NYT has been doing to their own reporter in public is described by every professional journalist I know (and I do know a few) as a "CYA trashing." And nothing is quite as ludicrous as Maureen Dowd putting on airs of superiority about accuracy in reporting.

Oh I get it. No "lefty" blog can possibly speak the truth, not even about this claim, Tully.

Of course, if St. Judy had decided to tell what she knew last year, instead of grandstanding for 85 days in jail, "we would be standing here in October 2004, instead of October 2005." Of course, that was just Patrick Fitzgerald talking. Another "lefty" whose word can be safely disregarded just by calling him a "lefty."

Oh, I forgot. If enough people, preferably conservatives (we would never insult them by calling them "righties" the way we call liberals "lefties") say the same thing,then that makes it true. So Joe Wilson is still a liar, even though the evidence shows he isn't.

My bad.

Throwing out unrelated items and setting up and shooting down arguments I have not made constitutes factual validation of conspiratorial wing chatter?* My, we have poked a dogmatic nerve! You disagree with the US Senate? With the CIA? With the government of Niger itself? Wilson lied. Repeatedly. It's on the record, the result of the official bi-partisan investigation of his claims. It's so copiously illustrated that it takes a major act of denial to believe the Wilsonian gospel. Not even John Kerry could stretch that far in the middle of a hot campaign--so he dumped Wilson like a venereally diseased prom date.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinions. But as that wonderful Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, you are NOT entitled to your own facts. And the fact is that Wilson lied and misdirected in his NYT op/ed that started the whole thing, that Miller and her editors disagree about what she did (and may both be making things up or framing them to best light), that the NYT has been CYA slamming their own reporter in print, repeatedly, to the point where she may have a decent libel suit, and that the NYT is no longer known for factual accuracy but is known for a determined and persistent leftist bias. ("World Ends: Women and Minorities Hardest Hit")

A million lefties proudly singing in unison will not make Wilson truthful, just as a million righties praying in unison won't make Nixon less of a crook, or Libby less indicted. Lemme refresh your memory. The "sixteen words" were that Iraq had sought to purchase yellowcake from Africa. That's been confirmed. Wilson himself confirmed it. Iraq approached Niger in 1998, and again in 1999. That's according to British Intelligence, the Senate report, the CIA, the Nigerian Prime Minister, the Nigerian mining minister--and Joe Wilson's CIA debriefing report.

The Italian forgeries that triggered further investigations claimed that Niger had agreed to sell yellowcake to Iraq in 2000. They were forgeries. But the original intel both foreign and domestic about the attempts to purchase pre-existed the Italian forgeries, and Wilson never saw the Italian forgeries. He said so himself in front of that Senate committee. The committee also revealed that when the forgeries were obtained for analysis, they were debunked in short order. They were the basis for the CIA sponsoring Wilson's trip (at Plame's instigation) but they were not the basis for the "sixteen words."

So there we have it. ""The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Sixteen words that are verifiably true in relation to Niger, that Joe Wilson called a lie in print in the New York Times. Note the difference between "sought" and "bought." If you can't tell the difference between attempting to purchase and actually purchasing, you must not have tried to buy much beer in high school.

You really should read the pertinent section of that Senate report. [pdf warning] It's an eye-opener. Among other things, one of the heavily redacted footnotes refers to reported Iraqi approaches to other African governments attempting to arrange uranium purchases. Too damn redacted to get much detail, but it highlights that Niger intel wasn't the only intel out there, and that there are other nations in Africa that produce yellowcake.

[*--Though I freely admit that given a choice between believing conspiratorial wing chatter or a bi-partisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee investigation, I will always opt for the latter.)