Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush Aides Will Review Leak Notes (before turning over to DoJ)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:54 AM
Original message
Bush Aides Will Review Leak Notes (before turning over to DoJ)
Bush aides will review leak notes
White House's decision to give first look to its lawyers riles Democrats


08:23 AM CDT on Tuesday, October 7, 2003

By DAVID JACKSON / The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON White House lawyers will review phone logs and other records supplied by presidential aides before turning the documents over to the Justice Department officials conducting the investigation into who leaked a CIA undercover operative's identity, officials said Monday.

The disclosure inspired new Democratic calls for an independent inquiry.

"To allow the White House counsel to review records before the prosecutors would see them is just about unheard of in the way cases are always prosecuted," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaking on NBC's Today show. "And the possibility of mischief, or worse than mischief, is very, very large."

Administration officials said the White House counsel's office may need up to two weeks to organize documents that some 2,000 employees are required to submit by 5 p.m. Tuesday.

The documents must also be reviewed for national security or executive privilege concerns and to ensure the filings are responsive to Justice Department requests for information, White House aides said. The department is investigating whether Bush administration officials exposed a CIA operative's identity to reporters and a columnist, Robert Novak.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/washingt...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Brotherjohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Will someone tell these arrogant SOBs that they ARE NOT in charge of...
... this investigation!!

(Oh, yeah, it's Ashcroft. I guess they are in charge.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diplomats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. It's becoming patently obvious the DOJ has no business
handling this. We're looking at a whitewash here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whoa_Nelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
36. Sign Petition: Ashcroft Must Recuse Himself!
Go here to sign the petition:
http://moveon.org/intimigate/?id=1744-581686-Eqj3.jbvJl...

Sign the petition and

PASS IT ON!



From moveon.org:

Investigate The White House

According to the Washington Post, "two top White House officials" committed a high crime in the first weeks of July. They handed over the identity of an American secret agent to journalists. Republicans contend that an investigation by the Justice Department will reveal any wrongdoing. But Justice Department chief John Ashcroft -- who was appointed by President Bush and who employed key Bush advisor Karl Rove -- is hardly neutral. If we don't speak up now, the investigation could be left in John Ashcroft's hands, and the perpetrators and the crime could be swept under the rug.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patriot_Spear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Let 'em go through the stuff...
You don't think the CIA doesn't already have copies of the originals, do you?

You watch- no matter how hard they scrub, somehow the most damining documents will surface.

And those scumbag White House lawyers will be left wondering, "how'd we miss that in our little cover-up?"

Are White House laywer's considered accessories if they willfully try to conceal evidence?

Just wondering.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
38. God, I hope your right,
and the more I think about it, I believe you are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HitmanLV Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
43. I've worked on dozens of large document productions in law...
...and this isn't uncommon at all. We would often make an effort to weed out duplicate emails, for example, to make a neater package to send to whoever requested the documents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Well that explains it all
I was getting worried for a moment there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HitmanLV Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. It's true
It is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #43
53. Do you really believe they are just trying to "make a neater package"?
Ummm, the charge is treason. These folks have a long history of not taking any responsibility for anything that goes wrong.

Neater package?

Welcome to DU. Keep reading. Learn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #43
54. "neater package"?
DOJ doesn't even need a warrent or to bother to inform you if they wanna go through you things or mine! Yet they are allowing the WH to go through docs before turning them over?!?!

Neater package for whom?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joanski01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
4. This is just totally ridiculous and
off the wall. And on top of that, they need TWO weeks to review the documents. How long does it take to review a couple of phone logs and see who called Novak and the others. Just bullshit, horseshit, etc. I hate them all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brotherjohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Wasn't the Oct. 7th deadline mandated by DoJ?
In which case, they're supposed to HAND OVER all the documentation to DoJ by today?

(I could be wrong on this. Anyone? Link?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
short bus president Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
52. No - it was the White House Counsel's (Gonzales') deadline
DOJ is still very much hiding their thumbs on the issue. Surprise, surprise, surprise! </Gomer>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Thirty years ago
We called this "stonewalling."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trapper914 Donating Member (796 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
33. It only takes hours to review phone records...
...we found that out a few weeks ago when Karl Rove went through his phone records in an effort to discredit Wesley Clark for the Drudge Report.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kool Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #4
47. If they could get all these documents together in just a
few days, they don't need two weeks to go over them. Why, is Shrub going to read them all himself? If he is, then they might need two weeks. He's only up to volume two of the "Hooked on Phonics" series. This is bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
5. I'd call that an abuse of authority.
The White House counsel's office is not and should not assume a 'defense attorney' role in this. They have a public trust (and salary) and have no legitimate role (imho/ianal) acting as a filter or reviewer of such materials. It's one thing for one's personal attorney to review and catalog an individual's private records turned over in discovery; it's entirely another when it's public records and a counsel whose salary is paid by taxpayers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
27. You always seem to get to the heart of the issue immediately
I value your posts. They are very informed. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kainah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #27
41. Yup, bandit!
Thanks, TahitiNut!

It's always the cover-up that kills people & they are covering up now, committing more and more potentially illegal acts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobertSeattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
7. This is insane
The same White House that supposedly quickly discreditted the bogus story about "Clark calling the White House" 18 months prior somehow can't figure out who Novak met with back in July.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vikingking66 Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
8. Hah!
That's like letting a murder suspect examine the crime scene alone and then "give" the evidence to the police.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
9. Shades of Nixon!
Next they'll want to "edit" the information before turning it over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
11. Obstruction of justice
Pure and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
12. Well now, I for one am glad that
we have the Bus* administration in the WH to restore honest and integrity to the executive branch.

/sarcasm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peterh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
13. It boggles the mind that a felony case
can be handled by the honor system when we all know that there is no honor in this administration.or politics in general. <shaking head>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
14. That's ok....James Baker is handling things for shrubbie
as usual.

You KNOW he's got his face all over this whole thing....

The whole slime-ball crowd that surrounds the bushies aught to be drawn and quartered in the town square.

Impeachment is too good for this bunch.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
15. Yeah, and when they find Scooter Libby's fingerprints
all over it . . . well, maybe they can forge someone else's sig. to him memos.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tlcandie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I thought when someone was under suspicion .. i.e., this admin,
that INVESTIGATORS and OFFICERS came into the residence and CONFISCATED any and ALL things that THEY think might relate or pertain to the investigation? :shrug:

Since when does our justice system call someone up and say, we will be coming by your house next week at 9am and expect you to have everything relating to the murder of John Doe boxed and sitting by the door AFTER you have thoroughly reviewed it for its relevance to this issue.

Thank you very much for your cooperation and have a good day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kainah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #16
42. Or call them up and say "we're going to investigate tomorrow"
Don't forget that there was already about a 12 hour lapse between when the investigation became known (AM, Monday) & when it became criminal (PM, Monday) & when Gonzalez told the WH staffers not to destroy anything (AM, Tuesday). The DoJ gave the WH at least 24 hours to scrub the records.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Have you seen this???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. Is Libby's apparent denial really a non-denial denial?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I assume its a real denial.

I further assume that Libby was the presumed leaker because the drips led to the VP office, and it was assumed that the Big Enchilada (Cheney) would sub out the actual, traceable, criminal work to his lackey, Libby or lower. However, it increasingly appears that the Dick himself is in the wringer. And perhaps Robert Joseph at NSC is the co-indictable. (?)

I think Nofacts, with 46+ years of seniority and repuke 'ins', would have called Cheney to pursue info on Wilson's involvement. Start at the top when you can, and Nofacts could. Joseph could have been the confirmer, since he worked nuke prolif at NSC and had counterpart relations with CIA nuke prolif, Plame's area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
farmbo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
17. Memo to Ollie North Re: Operation of WH shredder
From: Karl Rove
To: Lt Colonel Oliver North
Re: Operation of Whitehouse shredder

I'm sure you're aware of the recent unplesantness being driven by the liberal media over our recent 'outing' of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. The Department of Justice has given us the luxury of "reviewing" phone logs and internal memoranda for several days prior to turning them over for their "investigation". Oooohhh...sounds scary doesn't it? :)

As someone with extensive experience in using the basemant West Wing shredder, kindly call Andrew Card (or better yet, stop over) and check us out on it. Feel free, if your busy schedule permits, to join us for a late night 'Shredding Party' afterwards with drinks (and...you-know-what) provided by Yours Truly.

As a fine patriot and a true American, I'm sure you'll be honored to answer your country's call in this time of need. And--wink wink-- mum's the word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
18. flirting with impeachment?
If the Bushies are too blatant, they could run the risk that republicans just can't keep going along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wabeewoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
19. I know there is no point
in saying this but WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE!!! Where is the media?? We should dig up old headlines from Clinton's presidency and throw them in their faces. This just makes me so angry that they think they are above the law and seem to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raenelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Give it time. Watergate took months.
The story would go on the backburner, seem to almost die, then drip, drip, drip.

Actually, giving them time to cover-up is almost like giving them time to dig the hole they are in deeper. Remember, the cover-up is always worse than the crime--well, not in this case. The crime was just a tad below murder, but the cover-up will make it worse. It will also whet the appetites of reporters.

This isn't going to go away. Not this time. It can't. There's a real criminal investigation, the CIA is pissed and keeps bringing it back up, the Bushies are about to claim "executive privilege," which is the scandal equivalent of waving a red flag before a bull. Obstruction of justice, stonewalling--Chimpy's unearned reputation for being a decent fellow is going to be in tatters before this is over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #21
35. Besides which, it seems obvious that many people know who the felons are
I don't think this is much of a secret. I think many people know and it will come out with WH cooperation or without it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maggrwaggr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
22. pardon my French but that is FUCKED UP!
How do we let these assholes get away with this shit?

Are we living in some third world banana republic?

What the FUCK?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radfringe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
23. I forsee lots of info
blacked out with magic markers, "redacted", or accidently "mis-placed"


place your bets - how many paragraphs, words, pages will be missing or withheld for reasons of "executive priviledge" or "national security"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I'm placing my bets...
that Tenet has his back covered. He would have the documentation and probably willing witnesses already at hand, before requesting an investigation. I liken him to a cat playing with an enfeebled mouse. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. "Enfeebled mouse"? Maybe more like a one-legged cockroach.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Have you ever seen a cat
bat a mouse around before going for the kill? It's vicious. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ByeDick Donating Member (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
51. Tenet Is A Turncoat - Don't EVER Rely On Tenet

When Tenet publicly took a fall for Bush's nuclear holocaust speech, he made it absolutely clear that he does not work for the American people.

The CIA is, without question, corrupt from the top down. There is no other way to interpret this.

DO NOT TRUST TENET.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. This is actually their attempt to steer the investigation
After all this grandstanding about wnating to know I wonder if we will hear from the FBI (certainly not from DoJ) that well actually WE will determine what WE need to see.

W told staffers to collect all "pertinent information" but investigations don't work that way or at least shouldn't. Cops don't ask murder suspect what they think the cops should look at, the investigators determine that.

If this does happen expect the punditriat to attempt labeling the FBI as over zealous and on a withchunt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #28
40. Will this bring the FBI & the CIA
together? I wish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
31. not only is the fox guarding the hen house, but gets to count the chickens
for the farmer :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
32. This Is How Bush & Rove Intimidate WH Staffers
Think of it.

Bush & Rove will "review" all submitted material to the DOJ BEFORE it leaves and are announcing this while the WH staffers are in the process of coughing up what they know about the intentional leak against Wilson to intimidate.

So their "announcement" is an intentional signal to intimidate WH staffers about coming forward with Bush and Rove's leak to intimidate CIA staffers.

Bush and Rove both are filled with the hubris of power and the complete confidence that Ashcroft will cover their asses.

Amazing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. And they might be right.
That is the scariest part of living in Imperial Amerika.

(for the moment, I have no doubt that a fresh load of horrors will exist for those living in the Empire in 2020, 2050, and 2100)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. I've been posting the same idea all day...
Absolutely correct. BTW: this is more than CIA vs. the White House. What we are seeing is an attempt by highly placed insiders in all branches of the administration fighting the Rove/NeoCon takeover. Expect Rove to fight back hard. I fully expect that one of the coup members will die in ambiguous circumstances so as to deliver a warning. Many here will say it's Rove, "sensible" posters will call that tinfoil, but the warning will be delivered.

Moral: If youre going to fight Rove, it HAS to be quick and decisive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nottingham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
39. So Bottom line is leak Notes are there!
How the DOJ can handle this is such a freakin JOKE!

:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kool Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
46. Independent council needed NOW!!!
These people make Nixon and his men look like amateurs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
48. The fact that they are being
allowed to is really all that is needed to force a special prosecutor. They simply can NEVER be trusted. BTW, what has happened with this deadline? Interesting how it was scheduled during the recall frenzy, I've seen or heard NOTHING about this and bet they didn't make the deadline. I hope the CIA is ready to drop another bombshell cause its off the frontpage, all ahnold all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:08 AM
Response to Original message
49. Un FUCKING Believable... No... Actually It *IS* Believable ...
... what's un-believable is the fact that they are actually getting away with it and that NOBODY is complaining or publicizing it EXCEPT US. (And nobody listens to us, right.)

-- Allen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Notice that it is just them doing this
We haven't heard from the investigaors (FBI and DoJ ) yet. They are spinning this as being fully compiant but when the investigators determine what they need to see that is when the fur will fly. I hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
55. Here's the logic on why the VP's office was prob. 1st leak
.
The argument: Robert Novak, troubled as to "why a high-ranking official (Joseph C. Wilson) in
President Bill Clinton's National Security Council was given this (Niger)assignment" (link #5),
immediately went to who he believed (because of mistaken reports) send Wilson in the first place: The
Vice President's office. Therefore, the most obvious first place for him to receive the first leak was
from someone in that office. Simple as that.

Mistaken reports (June 6-14) that indicate or imply Wilson was sent directly at behest of Vice
President's office: Ray McGovern reflects this common misconception in a July 14 open memorandum
to Bush: "There is just too much evidence that Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of
Vice President Cheney's office, and that Wilson's findings were duly reported not only to that office but
to others as well." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4107.ht... . As does Will Pitt when
he writes on July 11: "Wilson was dispatched in February of 2002 at the behest of Dick Cheney to
investigate the veracity of the Niger evidence."
http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/20030711_pitt_bush_you... . Ian Macpherson writes,
similarly, "Now it appears that Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of none other than Vice President
Cheney's department" http://www.netnacs.com/downunder/archive/du-0026.htm . Steve Perry
continues the error even at the end of the month: "It was Wilson who traveled to Africa in 2002 at Dick
Cheney's behest" (PLEASE HELP BY PROVIDING MORE LINKS)
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/sperry/stories/stor... .


So . . . Novak would have called Cheney or, more likely, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Cheney's
Chief-of-Staff (or, perhaps a staff member directly below Scooter). To find out "why a high-ranking
official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council was given this assignment," Novak would
have gone to the presumptive "assigner."


It's important to realize the purpose of the leak ("his wife at CIA sent him") was to discredit Wilson as
a maverick-with-an-agenda, getting his wife to send him on a mission the results of which would
undercut Bush's designs on Iraq.

Paul Krugman, as he so often does, gets to the marrow: "both the columnist Robert Novak and Time
magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been
chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative."
( http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism@lists.panix.com/msg... ) The purpose, therefore,
was NOT revenge, NOR punishment, but to undercut Wilson's credibility. (To be fair, Krugman later,
inexplicability concludes: "So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson,
but also to send a message.") IN the July 22 Newsday item (see link in Timeline) Wilson also admits to
befuddlement: "They were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There
are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was
cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can't figure out what it could be."

Given the circumstance of the following summer (2003) when everyone was questioning the existence
of WMDs, considering that someone who had investigated one of the claims Bush made in his
State-of-the-Union Speech just undercut him in a July 6 NY Times op-ed piece, Scooter's plant was
artful and effective, despite Novak's dull-witted interpretation (nepotism). It was clever about crushing
anyone (Libby is more circumspect and pragmatic than Rove). The purpose was not primarily to inflict
revenge upon Wilson, nor was it necessarily a warning to others who might take similar public stands,
but to undercut an opponent who had momentarily risen in their midst. Bloodlessly, swiftly.

I know that if the purpose of the leak was revenge or a warning to others, the political damage to the
administration would be worse. Since no one is likely to go to jail since bar for conviction under the
operant law is rather high, all we can hope for is political damage. But mistaking the motive may well
lead us in the wrong direction and allow the entire story to gradually dissipate in the short-shelf life of
public attention. As it is, the administration will have to account for a coordinated attempt (2 leakers)
to discredit a man who has ably served five administrations and was even labeled "courageous" by
George Walker Bush. Perhaps those charged will tell investigators who else was in on the meetings
where the strategy to discredit Wilson was hatched. (It was certainly coordinated and continuous, as
attested to by the July 17 and 22 similar stories in Time and Newsweeksee timeline, below) Perhaps
not.




TIMELINE:

ca. 2001

Wilson: "I was invited out to meet with a group of people at the CIA who were interested in this
subject. None I knew more than casually. They asked me about my understanding of the uranium
business and my familiarity with the people in the Niger government at the time. And they asked,
'what would you do?' We gamed it out--what I would be looking for. Nothing was concluded at that
time. I told them if they wanted me to go to Niger I would clear my schedule. Then they got back to
me and said, 'yes, we want you to go'" (qtd. in link #2).

2002

February: Joseph C. Wilson is sent to Niger to investigate rumors of sales of yellow-cake uranium to
Iraq. His trip lasts eight days: "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current
government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium
business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever
taken place" (from NY Times, 6 July 2003, qtd. in http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/cia-gate.htm ).


2003

January 28: George W. Bush's State of the Union Address.

June 12: Walter Pincus reports in the _The Washington Post_ that an unnamed retired diplomat had
given the CIA a negative report concerning uranium sales from Niger to Iraq.

July 6: Joseph Wilson publishes his Op-Ed in _The New York Times_ and is quoted by _The Washington
Post_. Both items criticize the administration for allowing Bush to make the Niger-uranium claim in the
State of the Union Address. (Link #4 for the Op-Ed.)

July 13: Robert Novak publishes his column in _The Chicago Sun-Times_ in which Valerie Plame is
identified as a CIA agent. Novak writes: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame,
is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me his
wife suggested sending Wilson to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its
counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him" (qtd. in link #3).

July 17: Time magazine publishes the same basic story, also attributing it to "government officials."

July 22, Newsday also confirms "that Valerie Plame ... works at the agency on weapons of mass
destruction issues in an undercover capacity." Link:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/iraq/ny-uscia07...

Sept. 14: Dick Cheney on Meet the Press denies knowing Wilson and seemingly goes out of his way to
say "I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea wh hired him and it never
came..." Russert interposes: "The CIA did." And Cheney responds, "Who in the CIA, I don't know."
(Link #3) (Why is Cheney going out of his way to volunteer this information? Wilson seems similarly
perplexed; in an interview with Ann Goodman, also in link #3, after Goodman says "He (Cheney) also
said that he didn't know who had sent you, raising questions about the whole legitimacy of your
mission to Niger," Wilson says, "I heard that. I don't know what the Vice President was trying to get at
in that. )

Oct. 1: Robert Novak publishes his column in _The Chicago Sun-Times_ recounting the entire story
from his vantage. (Link #5)



* * * * * * Laws * * * * *

1917: Espionage Act (thrice amended since).

1982: The Intelligence Identities and Protection Act

Both are discussed by John Dean at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html




* * * * * * Links * * * * *


Link #1: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/155...
Link #2: http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3...
Link #3: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/155...
Link #4: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
or http://truthout.org/docs_03/100203B.shtml
Link #5: http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak01.ht...



* * * * * Bibliographies * * * * *

http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/cia-gate.htm (a bibliog. of articles criticizing the admin.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
56. But, but - the DOJ was the right venue for this, non? So right that W
wasn't even going to ask his staff any question. So, yesterday, W informed us Karl&the others are innocent and now they are pre-screening the DOJ documents? Whatever did they find?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC