Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

MSNBC says CIAgate could "fizzle quickly" because media won't talk

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 » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
SodoffBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:12 PM
Original message
MSNBC says CIAgate could "fizzle quickly" because media won't talk
Edited on Mon Sep-29-03 03:13 PM by SodoffBush
MSNBC says, if the media talks, they'll never have any sources again. Cry me a river.

What does that say about the caliber of our media, and their ilk, like Novak, the one "reporter" who received information from the upper echelons of the WH because the Bushies had an ax to grind against Wilson and were willing to jeopardize the security of the US government in order to appease their own temper tantrum?

If the Bushies would exchange US security for a personal "get even" vendetta against somebody nobody in most of the US had ever heard of unless they were related to sports, doesn't it make sense that the Bushies would sell their very souls to get all that Iraqi oil?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MoonAndSun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. Who at MSNBC said this? Was it a rightwing pundit or one of their
news announcers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. If these questions are not asked - the Media will cover-up as always
From the ABCnote:

"Has President Bush made clear to the White House staff that only total cooperation with the investigation will be tolerated? If not, why not?

Has he insisted that every senior staff member sign a statement with legal authority that they are not the leaker and that they will identify to the White House legal counsel who is?

Has Bush required that all sign a letter relinquishing journalists from protecting those two sources? Has Bush said that those involved in this crime will be immediately fired? If not, why not?

Has Albert Gonzalez distributed a letter to White House employees telling them to preserve documents, logs, records? If not, why not?

Has Andy Card named someone on his staff to organize compliance? If not, why not?

White House officials who might have legal or political exposure on this are going to have to decide whether to hire lawyers or not, and the White House counsel's office is going to have to decide what legal help they can and should provide to officials if and when the DOJ wants to talk to them.

That means that the '90s practice of every Washington bureau of calling members of the bar to see who has hired whom is about to heat back up. The first one to report someone hiring a criminal lawyer wins a prize, as does the first person who develops that lawyer as a source on all this.

A reminder that students of recusal politics will have to consider the Rove-Ashcroft history"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
46. LOL ~ You mean to say you believe there is a difference?
News announcers ~ How precious. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. I agree ...
if the media is being used by the government or does the government's bidding, what good is it? Hear that fox news?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SodoffBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. The media (Novak) won't "out" its sources who are committing treason
against the US government because then the media will never have those "sources" available again to aid and abet in their continuing to commit treason.

Uh huh.

I look at this government, and I see the former Soviet Union.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
34. Good Call, SodOff
They don't want to lose the sources of a government actively committing crimes in the name of the people, of whom media types are members.

This is circular logic in the extreme. If they had an ounce of integrity, they'd out them, so the gov't would change to more open and honest people, and then sourcing stories would be easier. NOT HARDER, EASIER! Hear that, Novak?
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. MSNBC has sources?
I thought they just read the faxes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. oh, you mean the media will have to actually
WORK for their stories???

give me a friggin break! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. The media doesn't have to talk.
Edited on Mon Sep-29-03 03:20 PM by Brian Sweat
The CIA will have its pound of flesh. The Bush administration will either give up the traitor or the CIA will make it wish that it had. You don't fuck with the people who burried that bodies in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
section321 Donating Member (632 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
21. And this is isn't the first shit the Bushies have pulled on the CIA...
Remember the "16 words"

The Bush* admin said it was all the CIA's fault that they put the "16 words" about african uranium in the State of the Union Address.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SodoffBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
25. Six reporters were offered the same information as Novak
Novak, WH whore that he is, ran with the info even though he knew it meant putting our government's security at risk and lives in danger, but those other reporters know who in the WH was doling out the goods. It wasn't Condoleeezzza because she's in WH manic denial mode on air. If she were a leaker, that would put her on the morale scale of the TX "mom" who drowned her kids and blamed it on a black guy.

So that eliminates one of the WH villains, though Condoleeezzza makes for a terrific shill when the heat is on: "That issue should be referred to the Justice Department (it's really nothing, don't worry). Now let me tell you about all the progress we've made against terrorists in Iraq."

Does Condoleeezzza's performance prove that no woman is ever old enough to know better?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. Robert Nofacts could go to prison for this
My guess is that unless he's been assured of a pardon, and all the other journalists who were approached but had the good sense to turn the story down have all been assured of pardons, he/they will talk.

The GOP has a long history of using women and them abandoning them after they are no longer of use. It remains to be seen how they will treat their pet journalists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dookus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Novak
will not go to jail, because he committed no crime.

Whoever leaked to him committed a crime.

Now, it is possible that a judge could try to coerce Novak to reveal his source, and if he refuses, could be jailed for contempt of court. But I don't see that happening.

There are too many other people (at least 5 other journalists) who received similar calls. Novak is not the ONLY person who knows who leaked this. I think, if there's an honest investigation (big if, I know), that they'll be able to find the identity of the leaker without having to lean on Novak too hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. Lots of people were told
...but Nofacts was the one who spread the leak to the mass media. He is liable, if he won't give up his source. He is legally liable even if he does, although any lawyer worth his paycheck will get him immunity in exchange for testimony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dookus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. except...
it's not against the law for a journalist to publish what he knows.

Nor should it be!

Believe me, such a law would stifle ALL investigative reporting and whistle-blowing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoKingGeorge Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. It is against the law to COMMIT a crime.
If you break a law ,you go to jail .No matter who told you the information that allowed you to break a law. Aiding and abetting the breaking of a Federal law is serious shit. Agents are put at the ultimate risk because nofacts wanted to lick some high ups ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dookus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. of course it's against the law to commit a crime...
by its very definition.

But Novak did NOT commit a crime.

Was it ethical? Probably not. Was it harmful? Definitely. Was it criminal? No.

Remember, Daniel Ellsberg is considered a hero for releasing the Pentagon Papers.

It is NOT the job of the free press to protect the government's secrets. It's the government's job. And somebody in the government broke the law by leaking to Novak. Novak did NOT break the law by publishing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to breach national security
If a reporter knowingly writes a story that exposes soldiers or covert agents to danger or that compromises national security, the first amendment will not protect them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dookus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. Sorry...
that simply isn't true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #35
50. "Novak did NOT break the law by publishing it."
True, he did not break the 'agent outing' sections of the law, which was wisely written to protect journalists.

However, he may have broken section(s) of the unPatriot Act, which was unwisly written and produced awesome governmental power to hie poor 'innocents' like Nofacts off to Gitmo, never to be seen again.

I would still be opposed to punishing journalists thus, even under the unPatriot Act, but hey, they wrote it at the behest of Nofacts' friends. Maybe a little bluff prosecution of flecky Bob would bring them to their senses and get that abomination extensively amended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
40. Wilson said would be a violation by the officials, not the columnist
CIA seeks probe of White House

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the womans husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bushs since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CB10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Rice 'Knew Nothing' About CIA Agent Leak

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday she knew "nothing of any" White House effort to leak the identity of an undercover CIA officer in July, a charge now under review at the Justice Department.

On the "Fox News Sunday" program, the top aide to President Bush said, "This has been referred to the Justice Department. I think that is the appropriate place for it."

Rice said the White House would cooperate should the Justice Department, headed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, decide to proceed with a criminal investigation of the matter, which centers on the alleged public disclosure of the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to investigate a report that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger, but returned to say it was highly doubtful.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

A White House smear

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national securityand break the lawin order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?

It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted.

The sources for Novaks assertion about Wilsons wife appear to be two senior administration officials. If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under whats known as nonofficial cover and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilsons wife is such a personand the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like herher career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames. If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.

This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. Journalists are protected from prosecution, unless they engage in a pattern of activities to name agents in order to impair US intelligence activities. So Novak need not worry.

Novak tells me that he was indeed tipped off by government officials about Wilsons wife and had no reluctance about naming her. I figured if they gave it to me, he says. Theyd give it to others....Im a reporter. Somebody gives me information and its accurate. I generally use it. And Wilson says Novak told him that his sources were administration officials.

http://thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid...
http://www.arbiteronline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/0...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. I didn't dig it out, it was given to me, he said. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.

Wilson and others said such a disclosure would be a violation of the law by the officials, not the columnist.

Novak reported that his two senior administration officials told him that it was Plame who suggested sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

A War on Wilson?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,465270,0...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

White House striking back?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/942095.asp?0cv=CA01

Schumer Urges FBI Probe Into Iraq Leaks
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030...

Probes Expected in ID of CIA Officer
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia...

The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic: The Deadly Serious Crime Of Naming CIA Operatives by John W. Dean
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Look at this old Novak/Rove connection
I would post this as a topic if I could, but since I'm new to DU, I can only reply. I found this link on FreeRepublic, of all places.

"Sources close to the former president say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted."

http://www.ronsuskind.com/writing/esquire/esq_rove_0103...

If this is true, Rove has leaked to Novak in the past, and clearly used poor judgement in doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Girlfriday Donating Member (570 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. I read that from an earlier post!
Great article, and very :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. Welcome to DU!
:hi: :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
44. Hi girl gone mad!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Girlfriday Donating Member (570 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. All I know is that i watched McClellan during...
...the WH briefing and that's ALL any of the correspondents wanted to question him about. He was noticeably irritated and finally said he had other issues to cover. The press smells blood, and I don't think they are going to let go of this story too easily. Not only that, but I do believe that Rove is universally hated and the press would like nothing better than to knock him down a peg or two!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I felt great satisfaction at the hard time they were giving him....
if that feeling is revenge...color me revengfull...I have never seen a group so in need of being taken downin my life. At least the mafia had a code of honor ...these guys are just thieves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. ding, ding, ding..........
Wow! your post really set the bells off!

Consider this:

If the press historically won't give up its sources, why are all the reporters in the press conference zeroing in on this issue? I mean if the story has "short legs" because the end game is that nobody will give up their sources, WHY is the WH press corps still hounding?

Something serious is happening......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMoog Donating Member (78 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
39. I see your ding! and raise you one more
My speculation on your question about why the WH press corp is jabbing the knife?

1. The Press Corps know who the other journalists are that were contacted. They also know who leaked. The Admin knows that they know - not just the six. Many more journalists know through "gossip", it's part of the job. Rumors been buzzing for weeks.

2. The Admin was *arrogantly* trying to call in a dirty "favor" on discrediting Wilson so their WMD "story" could hold. Problem: They called writer's, credible writers, they've shunned and spat on in the past. The Wilson story wouldn't "spin" in the right direction without a "credible" by-line.

3. Novak bit because he's done it before for Rove. Easy choice that backfired. See today's column by Novak - he went after Rove.

4. The press corps has known that the WMD "story" and consequently the "war" is a fraud.

5. They can bust it now - with bloody-fingerprinted-incontrovertible- many-sourced facts.

Just my $0.5 Bloody in the Beltway.

MiniMoog
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
12. Of course the "senior administration official" could go public
and save us from all the grief. I am sure that if that person simply presented him/herself to the select committee on intelligence they would listen, and put the ball in play.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
14. Really ? cause Buccannon(sp?) and Press think it's got legs
Edited on Mon Sep-29-03 03:32 PM by proud patriot
both said an independent investigation would be needed .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SodoffBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I got it from a videofile under Condoleeezzza's photo
Edited on Mon Sep-29-03 03:38 PM by SodoffBush
which was still retrieveable after I turned off my computer. It's been since replaced by her whimpering whine and never-ending terror-mongering drone.

I'd like nothing more than to see that simpering twit out of the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
18. Here's how it will play out
{Swami gratuitous goes into a trance, invoking the powers of the Infinite to bestow on him the ability to see into the Future. After some joker feeds "Reply hazy. Ask again later" messages to his subconscious, Swami gratuitous' eyes fly open}

I see . . . I see, I see headlines. Many headlines. I see George W. Bush scanning those headlines, his brow furrowed. He motions to National Security Advisor Condollleeeezzzzaaa (sp?) Rice, who looks over his shoulder and whispers that the "G" stands for "Grand."

I see Bush motioning for Attorney General John Ashcroft, who goosesteps over behind the presidemential desk, and informs George that the "O" stands for "Old." Finally, everyone in the Oval Office shouts that the "P" stands for "Party!" and one lone voice is heard to conclude "doofus." Lil George's brow clears.

Now, the picture is shifting, dissolving, changing. I see Robert Novak being asked who is source was, and declining to answer. I see Attorney General Ashcroft shrug and say, "Well, we tried." I see an email sent out to all White House staff. It is very short. The contents in their entirety read:

"Was it you? C'mon, tell us."

There are no responses. I see Crisco Johnny shrug his shoulders again, and then call a press conference. The $8,000 drapes have begun to sag, and the nipple on the breast o Lady Justice peeks out over the top of the drapes. Reporters mutter, "Well, at least Ashcroft won't be the only boob up there." Ashcroft says that he has conducted a thorough investigation, questioning everyone in the White House and has not been able to determine that there even was a leak, so it must not have happened after all.

Three CIA operatives are executed in Africa.

The press goes back to sleep, to dream of Clinton's penis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SodoffBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #18
30. Damn
you're good.

And right on the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
45. Heyyyyyy
This guys goooodddddd!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paulie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
20. Follow the Motto
That's all the CIA with the FBI's help needs to do:

"In God We Trust, All Others We Polygraph."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lanlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
23. it'll come out
Too many people know the identities. My guess is that it'll appear on the Internet within a few days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. how did things get SO screwed up in the country so quickly?
I feel as if it is 1969 again, but with no independent media filled with reporters anxious to get the "scoop" and with no angry public demanding to hear the true story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emboldened Chimp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
24. I just heard that Andrea Mitchell
is another reporter who was contacted about this. Heard this on Randi Rhodes just now. Anyone else know anything about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlashHarry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Brokaw said this. Said NBC decided not to run with it.
I'm not sure of her 'whore' status, but I've certainly seen her do unflattering stories on BushCo, so I'm guessing she's not as lock-step as Novak. Maybe she'll squeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SodoffBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. See? The media is trying to cover their fannies.
They can't NOT give up their sources and expect to retain an ounce of credibility in the public's eye.

We're talking about national security after 9-11. Nobody gives a shit about protecting sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
28. Ah, but
Ah, but a "top administration official" is talking. Expect more talk if nothing happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
33. Read the whole article
Novak's laid out the Niger story very well. He is basicly saying the WH lied about the reason to invade Iraq.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think maybe Novak did this on purpose to expose this misadministration. He certainly was trying to expose them on the Niger story. Novak has been around a long time, he did not write this story with fully understanding the firestorm that it would unleash.

Otherwise, why would he even say it was 2 senior WH officials who gave him the information. He could have just pretended that either it was common knowledge or that he just knew that info from being around DC. I'm sure in conservative social circles folks sort of know who is and who isn't from the agency.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SodoffBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Novak knew he was outing a CIA agent in a WH tit for tat
I think that is clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starpass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
37. This morning it was reported on CNN
from their CIA/Justice Dept. analyst that CIA makes about 20 of these requests a year. He then said that basically none of them ever go anywhere because of just what you cited above---the reporters won't reveal their sources because they will never get info again and thus their careers are over. He said this also will not go anywhere either. The WH can be overly cooperative and then claim victory when it is presented to the American public as though it was investigated and "they found nothing"----then they can say it was just dirty Dem tricks. No one is going to get the goods on anyone in this administration (you can bet the administration is adding their own little emphasis to reporters to shut their fucking mouths or the WASP Mafia will pay them or their family a visit). Unfortunately, unless the CIA/FBI can come up with wire tap info or something, this is going to bounce of the Bush just like everything else has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SodoffBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. Then, the media is free to out all the CIA agents it wants
It will only lead to "just another CIA request to investigate," nothing serious.

If this had been Clinton, the NRA would be marching with their loaded muskets to the WH door right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMoog Donating Member (78 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. Don't underestimate the Press' hatred
I agree with much of what you wrote.

But there is a blinding hatred of Rove whether he's implicated or not - they'll go after him. If nothing else, this Admin will grow a fairly thick coat of tar.

Some members of the press have lost the fear of them. The jeering is just beginning.

MiniMoog
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebellious Republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. Welcome mini moog, here is a thought for everyone...
Edited on Mon Sep-29-03 06:24 PM by Rebellious Republica
Why can't we use the Patriot Act to go after novaks computer, emails, notes, ect. This was an act of treason during wartime, hell they could use it on all the journalists for that matter. It would give the JO's an out. It would also be justice to use Bush's own creation against them, lets see how they like the Patriot Act now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. I thought about that too
It seems you could make a case for pursuing it under the Patriot Act, but then again, Ashcroft wouldn't want the embarrassment!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindsay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
48. CBS Evening News
also said the CIA is downplaying it as a routine investigation.

I don't buy it. I think that's a nice official line while they're working behind the scenes to tighten the screws.

This one isn't gonna go away because the CIA isn't gonna let it go away.

(She says, with every available appendage crossed.)
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 Thu Dec 18th 2014, 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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